Things alike are not things inter-changeable. There has to be a basic mechanism allowing and enabling such interchange to occur. Otherwise, they would forever remain different however small their differences may be! This is the precise case with the diverse species on earth. While they often look alike, there is this fundamental lack of essential biologic mechanisms allowing them to convert one into the other. Thus, despite the similarities between a chimpanzee and a human being, they since the beginning of time have been separate species. As shown in the above, since chimpanzee's genetic and man's genetic constitution differ from each other and there exists no mechanism for their interconversion, there could not have been any inter-breeding between these two species: because had there been evolution of man from the chimps, there could not have been man before the chimps had evolved into man. It would be entirely necessary for the chimps to have had their fetuses suddenly "mutate" into human fetuses to ensure the genesis of humans from the chimps. But as just summarized and proven, fetal development from zygote is so individual- and race- specific that to suppose the chimp fetuses could have suddenly mutated into human fetuses would have meant that an Oriental fetus of pure Chinese Han ancestry could suddenly mutate into a blue-eyed blond without difficulty! How nice, the Chinese are ancestors to the Europeans! But we don't see that. Do we?

Quite to the contrary, if an Oriental couple suddenly comes out with a blue-eyed blond baby, you can be sure that this woman visited some blond man sometime ago. This is the scientific conclusion we have been drawing all this time. Otherwise, we could never have accused such a woman of cheating. But we are almost always certainly to accuse her of cheating in such a case. Why? Because we have never at the medical/ scientific level accepted Darwin's suppositions. Otherwise, we could not make such an entirely scientific medical conclusion at all. We would have denied the truth of such a modern knowledge of medical genetics. In other words, Darwinian thinking as an outdated quasi-scientific hypothesis, runs contrary to proven modern principles of inheritance. Insofar as genetic engineering has progressed to the stage of sheep cloning, and soon human cloning, it would be regressive and ignorant for Darwin to deny the truth and magic of these modern insights into and technology on the stability of the gene populations in various individuals and species. Such a stability denies Darwin's hypothesis the degree of scientific value needed for its acceptance as a scientific doctrine.(Italics added 8/1/1998)

Only if we let Darwin overthrow modern genetics could we consider possible for spontaneous inter-racial mutations to readily occur. If so, a blond woman giving birth to a Chinese baby cannot be supposed to have had anything to do with a Chinese man. But, scientifically, the only supportable[by knowledge of modern genetics] conclusion that can be or must be drawn on this point is this: that a blond woman giving birth to a black baby must have had something to do with some black male, not that her blond fetus underwent spontaneous mutation to come out as a black baby! This latter impossible scenario , as shown above, is exactly what would occur in the world of Darwinian evolution, or has to prevail in order for Darwinian evolution to occur.

But, when modern science is so certain of this law of inheritance, it has become obviously wrong or simply unthinkable for an educated person to jump to the other extreme to promote the evolutionary misconception that chimps must be able to spontaneously mutate their fetuses to give rise to man. For us to do so amounts to accepting the birds as our ancestors and denying that we are our parents' children! This is one of the major fallacies of Darwinian thinking.

Hence, it can be safely concluded that since human fetuses cannot be altered in any way after fertilization to become carriers of other individuals' or races' genes and that any change into other individuals or races could occur ONLY before and at the time of fertilization, namely by introducing for union other individuals' or races' gametes than those already united into zygote; this immutability of the fetal genetic constitution which specifies, restricts and dictates fetal and future post-natal developments to be like the parents and not just like anyone else makes it impossible for fetuses of one species to "evolve" or mutate into fetuses of another species. Chimp fetuses therefore could never turn into human fetuses. Thus, chimps could never have given rise to humans through any prenatally operating mechanisms. Then, as a developed chimp could never in genetic or/& phenotypal traits suddenly"mutate" or "adapt" to become a man, evolution from chimps or monkeys into man is entirely impossible, and has been only a [false] belief held purely on basis of the untenable hypothesis that evolution must have occurred due to the morphological similarities between chimps and man. That is to say, the Darwinian belief was based on something never having been proven possible, and was thus merely a hypothesis based on an impossibility: the lack of a biologic mechanism and path allowing for the conversion of one species' fetus into that of another has made evolution of the chimps into man impossible.

Furthermore, since it was proven in the above that one couple's zygote cannot at all "mutate" into a zygote for developing into another couple's or/& another race's baby. it has been even more exclusively proven that the zygote of a pair of chimps could never mutate or "evolve" into the zygote of a human being. This is also consistent with actual observations. There has never been a case of a chimp giving birth to a human baby.

Once the genetic constitution of a human or animal zygote is so individual-specific and race-specific, it would be impossible for a human or animal offspring to be not individual-specific in both morphology and genotype. A person's or an animal's morphology is entirely dictated in the essential and fundamental features by his/her(its) genes already present in the zygote. Hence, a person's morphology cannot free itself from its genetic constraints. No matter how I dye my hair blond, it can remain only dark or red brown: because hair colour is dictated by the responsible genes. As a result of this genetic specification of morphology, no organism can possess an appearance and anatomy other than dictated by those necessary underlying genes to ensure its expression(formation) plastic surgery excepted. Consequently, the Darwinian morphological evolution by adaptation or by competition for survival is entirely untenable: because no environmental factor or competition can at all alter an organism's genetic constitution to ensure evolution: Some changes could occur through environmental manipulation, but not altered enough to achieve evolution. No factor, not even chemicals introduced into a developing zygote(as seen above) can alter its genetic constitution from that of its parents into that of another couple, or of another race, or of another species. When the responsible underlying directing[directing growth and development] or "master" genes cannot be altered into those of another species, no offspring could ever develop into a member of another species: because morphology is predominantly determined by its underlying genetic constitution. Therefore, when a chimp embryo has only chimp genes, no matter what one does to it it will not evolve into another species, thus not into a man. It can develop into ONLY A CHIMP.

Evidently, when even injecting chemicals into a developing fetus cannot alter its genetic constitution and therefore cannot make it evolve into another species, how could it be possible for anything injected into or acting upon a developed being, at all transmute it(him, her) into a member of another species?

Experiments in embryology have proven to and convinced me that differentiation into a set morphology occurs before birth. Once an organ has been fully developed, it can no longer develop into another organ. That is why whereas certain drugs when used during pregnancy could cause fetal malformation (such as thalidomide), when used on adults, they cannot do such harm. This is why thalidomide causes no such deformities in the pregnant woman themselves, but did cause monstrous fetal malformations. So, an organism is almost immune to post-natal effects or attempts to alter its(or his/her) morphology other than nutritionally altering one's size, weight, or mutilating oneself by wounding or by plastic surgery. No organism, hence, is susceptible to post-natal environmental effects to the extent of turning it into another species. However hard we work, we would not turn into horses! An organism or a person can adapt or change with environment only within the bounds set by one's genetic constitution. No matter how severely the environment acts upon a person, he cannot change his morphology(other than by artificial means such as plastic surgery) into a permanent and heritable form of another race or another species.

"Heritable" is the key word here. If any species is to evolve into another species, whatever evolution it has undergone as a result of environmental effects upon it, must be heritable to make evolution possible. Otherwise, it would be a mere single-generation or once-only individual morphologic change not transmittable, through "accumulation of such generation-to-generation non-genetic variations" which is essential if evolution is to occur but which never occurs, for it to evolve into another species. For instance, even if a horse's or chimp's limbs may acquire some human form after overwork, that would be only for that animal alone. For any gradual evolution to occur, this new trait must be transmitted into the next chimp generation which must then change a little more, and transmit all the cumulated evolutionary changes to the next, then the next generation until finally man emerges. Yet, this is impossible. When a chimp's hands turn into human hands, that would be just a morphologic change without underlying related or responsible genetic alterations: because this change, if at all could occur, has occurred not by first altering the underlying genes, but by the Darwinian adaptation purely at the morphologic(phenotypal) level. Without this necessary underlying and corresponding, or, more precisely, responsible genetic evolution, naturally this morphologic evolution cannot be transmitted to this chimp's offsprings. Hence, even if this sort of impossible morphologic evolution through adaptation had occurred, it would not have been preserved to the next generations. If not, this evolution would have been only an isolated instance. A chimp from overwork turned partly into a man, but it died, and never could cumulatively through many generations progressively evolve into a man in its offsprings. We must be well aware of this fact of the mortality of all organisms. They cannot live forever to evolve into man, but must if at all evolve, transmit their evolved traits to their offsprings, then more traits of evolution to the next generations, etc. until finally man emerges from this continued evolution of one species into another. It would be highly impossible for one chimp to suddenly altogether mutate into a man. If at all evolution is possible, this chimp would have had to gradually trait-by-trait evolve into man through generations of chimps, not just one generation. But since these morphologic changes, if at all possible by environmental effects upon a grown organism, could not have been transmitted to and retained by its immediate offsprings, much less possible for this transmission of "evolved" traits to have occurred through many, many generations in a cumulative manner. Therefore, when an environment-induced morphologic change cannot be transmitted to the immediate next generation, how could it be possible for it to be preserved by and transmitted to a generation that is 1,000,000 generations from now when that may be the number of future generations required to accumulate more and more evolutionary traits to "evolve" a chimp into a man?

19/6/86:

Evolution at this point would be already absolutely impossible.

However, if we were to be less accepting of the above and insist that environment-induced morphologic changes could be genetically transmitted, which statement as shown is a total fallacy, then still the chances of a chimp undergoing some changes in generation 1, transmitting them to its offsprings which then undergo some more changes in the direction of becoming man, transmitting cumulatively all the changes undergone by itself and its ancestors to become man, and so on, until a chimp finally via this cumulative heredity process turns itself into a man in its remote future offsprings, are non-existent. After all, it is almost impossible for any animal to adapt to the environment to that great extent and in such a consistent manner toward only a so-called wholer (i.e., more wholesome) being, the human organism. There is no environmental forces making the chimps better fitted to survive by evolving towards Homo sapiens. The chimps are now still chimps. They have not needed evolution into man to preserve themselves. And, for that matter, tigers, lions, crocodiles, elephants have all remained what they were, and could have survived better without ever letting themselves evolve into man who now can hunt them. In other words, the forces of evolution as Darwin saw them simply are not there to demand that the lower organisms such as lions, chimps, evolve into someone less(?) ferocious, the man who is really less adapted to survival than lions in the wild. When the lions could have been the king of the universe without man to hunt them,where and what was the need for them to evolve into higher beings? Man had been less fit for survival than the lions prior to man's invention of weapons. Hence, to evolve into man or towards man was for the lions and the chimps to become less fit for survival all the more so when eventually man would turn around to hunt them.

Moreover, since man without his/her better brains [than the beasts] would not have had the slightest advantage over the beasts in terms of survival,and would have to, therefore, according to Darwinian reasoning, evolve towards becoming lions; could we also suppose that man without his higher intelligence built up over the centuries, would have evolved in that reverse direction? Maybe we are to become cobras' or alligators' ancestors now! That is precisely the type of ludicrous presumptions we must make if we are to accept Darwin's fallacious thinking.

9/1/1998:

Actually, his hypothesis was merely one of convenience, trying to explain, with an overly simplistic, plausible and yet erroneous reasoning, the distinct anatomical and functional (survival ability) differences among the enormously large number of species in nature. Naturally, when the various species were created in nature by random combinations of their basic life-building blocks, namely the biomolecules, the DNAs and the genes; there could be, and indeed as it has occurred in nature there have been, simpler and more complex species in co-existence right from the beginning of all life forms on earth. The mathematics of combinatorics and permutation dictates that there could be almost an infinite number of different species sharing in common their basic life-building blocks. The success of these random combinations resulted in different life forms which Darwin arranged from the simplest to the most complex and presumably, the most intelligent. While their differences were purely a product of natural random combinations of their basic units, having nothing to do with "simpler ones evolving into the more complex ones," Darwin misinterpreted them as evidence of evolving from the simpler ones into the more complex ones. The truth is quite different. There is no available biomechanisms to evolve from the simpler ones into the more complex. Neither is there such a need or reality. After all, the simplest life forms still often flourish much better than the most complex of all living forms, i.e. more viruses and bacteria than the whole human population. Where was the need or actual occurrence of the simpler ones evolving into the more complex ones? These simpler life forms often adapt to the environment much better than man. Why would they and how could they have ever "evolved," by way of adaptation to the environment, to survive better?

13/1/1998:

Neither is there a force in nature able to direct genetic mutations or purely "groundless"1 morphological and structural changes in such a way as to 2 ensure genetic and structural variations to favour better survival in nature. It is not like "God created man to be fit for survival, to master over all living things." Darwin while saying that everything came from evolution, was only making conclusions of convenience to suit what he imagined to have been the responsible mechanisms of diversity of organisms into countless numbers of different species. As stated, in reality there were simply an enormous number of different species. They were simply different, having not undergone any interspecific transmutations at all.

To bring this process to its elementary level, let us see how the mathematics of combination and permutation operates for 4 numbers [in nature, 4 purine and pyrimidine bases of the DNA: adenine(A), guanine(G), thymine(T) and cytosine(C) ] to randomly give rise to, when arranged differently, a huge number of different DNA molecules. In sequence, one strand of these bases could be ACTG, ACTT, ACTC, ACTA, CATG, CATT, CATC, CATA, . . .. That is only four bases rearranging themselves within one unit itself( i.e. one A, one C, one T, and one G in one single unit of a DNA strand). So, when a DNA strand can be much longer, having these four bases arranged into any sequence of very long strands, e.g. ACTGAATCG. . . , the numbers of such different strands of DNA would reach infinity.

The significance of this arises from the now well-known DNA mechanism of genetic inheritance. The genetic message of inheritance in a chromosome is represented and encoded by the purine and pyrimidine bases in the [chromosomal ] double-helix nucleotide chains. By so varying and directing the order in which amino acids are lined up in the proteins so synthesized in the cell according to these nucleotide genetic codes, the latter dictates enzyme and other protein synthesis3

and therefore, in the end, cell metabolism to the extent of specifying an organism's phenotypal expression( e.g., number of cells, shape of a nose, colour of an eye, etc.) as can be tolerated by other chemicals of the body (1)under enzymatic regulation or (2) interacting with the genes or other chemicals of the body.4

That is to say, genetic expressions as indicated above, are subject to teratologic and other poisonous distortions, but only within intraspecific boundaries, e.g., a thalidomide baby being still a human baby, not mutated into an ape baby. (14/1/98)

15/1/98:

Since almost an infinite number of different types of genes can be created by the mere random combination of the four bases, and through varying (1)the numbers of the genes and (2)the order of arrangement of the genes in the same chromosomal DNA strand there arises another further dimension of combinatorics and permutations; the potential number of different chromosome types which could randomly be generated in nature from a vast pre-biotic or biotic molecular sea is more than infinite. Furthermore, one step further, when different species could be so created through varying both the numbers and types of chromosomes in the cells of any given species, clearly the potential number of species able to arise from this biotic ocean exceeds infinity. However, though such a potential existed, at the time of creation almost an infinite number of them had to die as well: not all such randomly generated "organisms" could survive more than a few minutes, and fewer still could survive to reproduce.5

16/1/98:

This could be viewed as another, more ancient, form of extinction. The only difference is that those species subsequently having gone extinct did have a chance to survive or even successfully reproduce at least once. Then, they went extinct.

On basis of factors mentioned herein and earlier,6

therefore, the diverse species were there right at the outset of life creation. Some survived. Others, biologically less fit to live, or less able to adapt or were in harsher environments than others, perished. Only to that extent and in that context, "the fittest survived." Not the fittest evolved, but the fittest of the simultaneously created species survived, reproduced, and left their offsprings to populate the earth, or the universe. Others simply died within minutes of formation, or even never had a life as individual organisms, the same as the imperfectly developed dead fetuses having never had a life of their own.(15/1/1998) In another perspective, "the fittest survives" is the rule of an uncivilized or animal society where the strong preys on instead of helping the weak. It is a manifestation of how diverse species and individuals could adapt to, not a cause of "evolving into the fittest species to survive in," their environment. The genes were never subject to environmental modification just to favour an organism's survival. For example, though man has the fittest intelligence to survive natural disasters, tornadoes still can kill all. Man simply cannot "adapt" and "evolve" into "God" to overpower these forces of nature. Even when man can now go into the space, he/she has not changed into flying "superman." Only technology , not basic genetic or structural "evolution" has taken them there. Where is "evolution" when the need for survival demands it? If in the distant future our galaxy is to perish, would we or our descendants have timely "evolved" into flying beings to escape [from this death trap] to some distant viable stars??

No! (13/1/1998)

Since there is neither natural forces compelling the evolution of lions into man, nor the necessary underlying genetic mechanisms permitting the continued transmission, in a generation-to-generation cumulative progressive and heritable manner, of evolving traits to turn "lower" organisms such as chimps through environmental modification of their morphology, into man; Darwin's hypothesis of evolution by adaptation can neither make it reasonable (or necessary) for animals to evolve into man, nor find any biological particularly genetic mechanisms for adaptation to cumulatively and heritably result in evolving from one species into the next, which though arbitrarily being more complex or more intelligent, is not necessarily a "higher form" than the former.

When evolution can occur neither through manipulations of the zygotes or fetuses, nor through any type of adaptation to environmental stresses and demands, of course evolution cannot occur at all.

Darwin's conclusion that there is competition for survival and there are heritable individual variations, used by Darwin to justify his mechanism of natural selection causing evolution of the less fit into the higher organisms7

in view of what I have proven has become a wishful thinking hoping for evolution to occur "because it appears that there is competition, there is individual variation, and hence the fittest survives to culminate in evolution."

When there is no underlying genetic and biologic mechanisms to allow this evolution to occur in a heritable manner, and when this heritable individual variation cannot exceed the limit set by species-specificity(i.e. individuals can vary all they like, but their racial traits would still make them look of the same race or species; two monkeys don't look the same, but they still can be readily recognized as both being monkeys. Their individual variations and variability are not great enough to make them look being of different species or make them evolve into another species), evolution however easily occurring from the standpoint of morphologic similarities among the diverse species could never occur.

Besides, Darwin's recognition of the heritable individual variations in a population could be equally indicative of the exact opposite of what Darwin concluded, that is, as I earlier alluded to, such heritable individual variations mean this strict law of inheritance would ensure offsprings even individual-specific and not allow easy mutation of one offspring to become the offspring of another individual. Hence, all the more impossible for a chimp to give birth to a human being.

This goes to show the basic fallacy, a wishful thinking,of the Darwinian view that adaptation to environmental demands can contribute to the evolution of lower into higher organisms, or even man into God. Evolution does not occur by such mere demands of survival.

Besides, The Theory of Evolution has been overthrown not just from these perspectives, the perspectives used by Darwin. Rather, even anthropological arguments for evolution have been untenable not just from the viewpoint of the possibility of evolution alone. Instead, these anthropological hypotheses are in themselves defective even if evolution could occur.

Based on fossil records, it has been suggested that since apemen's fossils antedated those of man, the latter must have evolved from them, and in turn, the apemen evolved from the apes. This sounds very convincing. However, unfortunately, these scientists have been willing to and can make such a time-sequence conclusion only when such evidence favours evolution, and have totally ignored and discounted evidence calling for for anti-evolutionary conclusions. Obviously, their views have not been based on an objective and comprehensive assessment of all relevant provable or concrete facts, but only those favouring

Continue