Evolution Darwinism was proven wrong long time ago. One specie cannot "evolve" into another specie, since the definition of species is to be able to reproduce, as different species cannot mix to make an offspring. The genetic variation within the species is possible but has its limits, Alfred Russel Wallace has suspected it, so the same type of bird, for example, can develop different survival strategies on different islands and even look very different from its counterparts however the underlining genome is very much similar making them of the same species if able to reproduce. If the genetic difference becomes too much then the offspring of such union will become infertile unable to reproduce, such as a mule, or the genome will revert back to the original form. "A female horse and a male donkey have a mule. But hinnies and mules can't have babies of their own. They are sterile because they can't make sperm or eggs. They have trouble making sperm or eggs because their chromosomes don't match up well." AQUAGENESIS & The Criticism of MS and Darwin's Theory of Evolution These evolutionary "scientists" failed to explain how an ant can evolve into an elephant, how come the humans have 46 chromosomes while all other primates have 48, not only that, the two chromosomes are fused, making us the only species on the planet with such an anomaly, not only that, there are no natural processes that would explain it, nor the inherent genetic diseases, nor the fact that if we have recently "evolved" from the primates then how come our biggest organ -- the skin -- has a layer of fat, which only the marine animals have while it is completely absent in the primates, nor the fact that our hair pattern is shaped by the water while primates have hair growth random, and humans have more hair on the chest and less on the back while the primates have the other way around, as well the fact that our hair and nails keep on growing while all the primates do not, theirs grows only to a certain length and then stops. All this and then some is neither mentioned nor explained by any of these "evolutionary" scientists. Obviously the species have boundaries to what extent they can reproduce and adopt to their environment without going sterile or reverting back to the original genome of their species. "In 1960, Sir Alister Hardy, a venerable British marine biologist, published an article in the British magazine New Scientist entitled "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?" In this article, he asked whether ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, turtles, water-snakes, whales, dolphins, dugongs, manatees, seals, sea lions, polar bears, otters, shrews, and the platypus "were forced back into the water to make a living," why could not the same thing have happened to the primate now known as Homo sapiens? He wrote, "A branch of the primitive ape-stock was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores, and to hunt for food, shellfish, sea-urchins, etc., in the shallow waters off the coast." In this hypothetical scenario, he suggested that these semi-aquatic creatures were soon wading into the deeper water, and eventually begun to swim and dive for food at even greater depths. His hypothesis is based on certain observations: humans, he says, are excellent swimmers, which "indicates to my mind that there must have been a long period of natural selection improving Man's qualities for such feats." Our enjoyment of the seaside is another factor in Hardy's ruminations -- and "does not the vogue of the aqua-lung indicate a latent urge in Man to swim below the surface?" Then there is the business of hairlessness. Since humans have lost almost all of their hair except that on the top of the head, perhaps they need hair only to protect their heads from the sun's rays while swimming. Hardy also commented on the graceful streamlined shape of humans "compared with the clumsy form of the ape," and concluded that "all the curves of the human body have the beauty of a well-designed boat." In the "tentacle-like fingers" of the human hand, Hardy sees great possibilities for exploring the sea bed and capturing crabs and other crustaceans, and for "turning over stones to find worms and other creatures sheltering underneath." And to him, the fat beneath the skin so resembles the blubber layers of whales, seals, and penguins that he could not but think that "perhaps Man had been aquatic too."*1 It is possible, therefore, that the human folk stories about the mermaids are remnants of the distant aquatic memories. Modern Synthesis "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts. ~ Richard Feynman Charles Darwin didn't discover evolution -- his grandfather Erasmus told him about it. (also Darwing used research of his Welsh friend Alfred Russel Wallace, without giving him a credit for it.) In 1635, Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus developed a natural classification system. His graphic system of taxonomy offered visual evidence of relatedness. And if things are related, then that is evolution. Darwin contributed astounding evidence from the Beagle voyage and the almighty mechanism of natural selection (NS) to form new species. NS is helped by sexual selection and genetic drift. August Weismann, in the 1890s, elevated natural selection to the solitary role it has occupied for so long. What is thought of as evolution in the popular parlance is closer to the Weismann theory. He thought the germ-line (egg and sperm) were generationally stable. The only road to change was altering the germ-line. At the time his ideas were deemed overly restrictive. People favored keeping Lamarckian (acquired-transmissible) traits from Darwin's original theory. (That's right -- Darwin was not a neo-Darwinist). In 1900, Hugo Devries introduced mutation, setting the stage. Thomas Hunt Morgan put genes front and center. Combined with the monk Gregor Mendel's work, the Modern Synthesis (MS) emerged. Here, genes are definitively in the cell nucleus. No hereditary action comes from the cytoplasm -- the cell medium. In 1911, Wilhelm Johannsen codified it: "Heredity may then be defined as the presence of identical genes in ancestors and descendants."* (*Jablonka & Lamb op. cit., p.28) By the MS, germ-lines transmit heredity, and their individual molecular structures in the nucleus chromosomes are called genes. Sexual reproduction creates alleles -- slight differences in genes. When these accumulate, more significant phenotype (physical) changes happen. In 1937, evolution was defined as a change in the genetic composition of populations.* (*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and origin of species (Columbia University Press, 1937), cited in Jablonka & Lamb op. cit., p.29) At the time, European biologists claimed the cytoplasm could carry heredity, but were ignored. Neo-Darwinism is presented as a fait accompli, but most people accept or reject it with no knowledge of the full evidence: the fossil record, homologous (similar) structures, embryonic similarities, geographical distribution, and genetic make-up. Combine this with discoveries like plasticity, gene networks, and horizontal gene transfer and there's abundant evidence to create various theories of life's processes -- for example rapid evolution or direct mutation. The Modern Synthesis brought together genetics with natural selection. It theorizes evolution through genes, characteristics, and populations. Darwin focused on organisms and speciation. The thought style shift is significant. It is a different theory. According to the MS, an organism undergoes random mutation. Mutations that create survival advantages will propagate. Survival of the fittest is a misnomer. The opaque phrase 'differential reproductive advantage' is more accurate. When a mutation allows more offspring, the gene gains dominance. This genetic heritage drives the animals. Evolution doesn't properly explain the mechanism. DNA reproduces RNA which makes proteins. These build the animal and sustain it, but the process is shrouded in a hundred layers of fog. No understanding of DNA to organism construction exists, only that amino acids link into protein chains. This chemical monologue might be a dialogue. Sexual selection already demonstrates this in a gross, external manner. Females choose males based on traits. Often these are non-adaptive, like the disadvantageous peacock's tail. The species is evolving itself. Supposedly, it's unidirectional -- the gene has a profound, almost total, effect on the animal, pushing it down the highway of life, but the genetic changes are random -- either acausal or causal without directed focus. The animal has no effect on the DNA. Any directed force to cause mutations is labeled 'supernatural.' This is untrue. If a force can guide these changes, then it is by definition natural. But materialist dogma blocks all such research. The reverse direction -- organism affecting DNA -- has never been investigated. Recent mavericks have actually found evidence of it, but still we are assured, "there is no will involved, no conscious striving."* (*Coyne op. cit., Introduction) None has been found because it is forbidden to look. To combat such ideas, evolutionists say there would be an obviously directed force -- a goal. The critique is confused -- a force can move in a general direction with no precise goal. The animal drives are the direction -- survival, reproduction, and so forth. In other words, a species could subconsciously evolve itself. All we need is a bi-directionality to genetic mechanism. The idea is no more mystical than acausal mutation. At the University of Rochester, Berry Hall eliminated a gene that created enzymes to digest sugars in e. coli. Within a generation, the species modified another gene to the purpose. A survival instinct should be investigated as a directed adaptional focus to get food. It makes as much sense as the consistent 'lucky break.' Interestingly, when Hall deleted the new gene, the bacteria were unable to evolve a second time even for thousands of generations. One explanation is limited evolutionary capacity, which is really a tautology. [...] The MS (Modern evolutionary Synthesis) has a number of problems. For example, the definition of species is among the most problematic and debated issues in evolution. The working definition is population reproductively isolated. The definition is neither precise nor firmly stated. Does reproductive isolation occur geographically? Fish splitting at an estuary would be immediately different species. Biologically, it is when animals have no preference for mating with each other. Of course, the male sage grouse happily mates with cow manure. Bacteria, and many larger organisms, asexually reproduce -- rendering the definition senseless. Evolution is said to be directionless, but there is a consistent move from simplicity to complexity. [...] Darwin originally believed in acquired transmissible traits. In other words, an organism could gain an ability or characteristic after birth and pass it on to its progeny. Other theorists took the postulate out using Occam's razor. They acted in haste. The razor is not an absolute. William of Ockam, a monk, proposed that of the two hypotheses. the one with fewer assumptions is probably correct. [...] Though an excellent principle, the tool is not infallible. Complex realities are forced into simplified explanations. It also has an unfortunate tendency to cut away parallel causes. In this case, the razor cuts away anything beyond random mutation filtered through natural selection by mistakenly assuming that simplicity is the whole truth. Evolution does occur through other means, such as sexual selection. There is no reason to assume that we now have in place all valid avenues of evolution. Life is extraordinarily adaptable and complex -- it way have evolve other methods of evolution. Experiments strongly suggest so, but the old guard dismisses it, clinging to a preconceived. streamlined agenda. The human genome is only 1.5 times that of fruit flies, and only 6 times that of E. coli. The additional variation did not come strictly from our genes.* (*Altenberg Conference, 2008) The idea that genes completely determine us and we will be able to manipulate them to set children's traits is called genetic astrology. The original predictions called for genes to directly affect traits. Though most biologists know this is wrong, it has entered the popular imagination so forcefully that it's entrenched. [...] Still, biology is catching up to the reality of different inheritance systems. Despite the loud claims of genes for particular traits, there is only a mild correspondence. Most traits appear without a gene and vice versa. In only a small percentage of diseases (e.g. sickle cell anemia) is there a direct genetic relation. In one experiment, scientists knocked out a plant gene proven responsible for a particular trait. Nothing changed in the phenotype -- the organism possessed a mechanism of compensating for the missing gene. In many cases, exact genes lead to different phenotypes and different genes produce identical phenotypes. Genes simply do not equal traits. John Ioannidis analyzed 432 claims of genetic disease correspondence. Only one had any validity. [...] Junk DNA was once a popular idea -- obsolete genes that just stayed around because natural selection quit using them but didn't throw them away. It's looking like that idea was wide of the mark. The DNA does something, but no one knows what. Most DNA functions are still unknown. So far, all they know is that it transcribes mRNA which in turn makes the multitude of proteins constructing the body. [2] Likewise, the MS encounters a number of real-world contradictions. There is no record of a 'spontaneous inheritable genetic mutation' that caused a different physical trait. To be clear, there have been numerous cases where plants and animals are specifically bred to enhance specific traits. All mutations (as opposed to genetic variations) observed thus far have been negative, mostly fatal. Animal breeding is incapable of creating a new species. It either exhausts variety or hits a sterile offspring. A necessary component to 'prove' evolution, a genetic mutation resulting in a new species, has never been verified. Morris Goodman at Michigan University found that the DNA of a crocodile was much closer to a chicken than to a snake. This is counter to the evolutionary 'fact' that species in a class (reptiles) are genetically closer than to species in a different class (birds). There are greater variations between species of frogs than between a bat and a blue whale. Another problem in the theory: the complexity of the animal should be mirrored by genetic complexity. But a garden snailhas more chromosomes than a human. So does a goldfish.* (* Richard Milton, 'Darwinism -- The forbidden subject,' Alternative Science website, 1996) The plain plant adder's tongue has 1440 chromosomes -- over 7 times the second place and more than 10 times almost any other species on the planet. These facts refute some of the most basic evolutionary tenets. Pointing this out does not make someone a creationist -- it makes them a scientist. Physical structures make the problem worse. Homology is among the best evidence for evolution, but it has significant problems. Homology is the idea that the similarities between species must have underlying genetic correspondences stemming from common descent. Why are there similarities between a hand, a claw, and a paw? Oddly, common features are correlated to different genes in those animals. To say that genes are the source of transmission of common traits requires that the similar traits map to a common genome. But they frequently don't. Even worse, identical genes create different structures.* (* Jablonka & Lamb op. cit., p.62) Phenotype change can be rapid -- blue-headed wrasse, for example, can change gender. If the male dies, the largest female becomes male. Their gender is not genetically pre-determined. The MS fails to account for such rapid changes of form, origins of structural novelty, and the establishment of homologous character complexes called body plans. And there is still no understanding of aging -- all 20th Century theories are overturned. (Telomeres, or gene terminators, hold the most promise currently.) Researchers are starting over with complexity assumed rather than simplicity. Likewise, there is no plausible theory to explain sexual reproduction -- the Modern Synthesis predicts asexual reproduction overwhelmingly -- it's more efficient. Again, the theories were overly simplistic. Sex does not provide a single function in current theory -- it provides many. (such as the procreation and the recreation) [...] Neo-Darwinism is a 'random generator and filter theory.' In 1979, Gould and Lewontin challenged it with the notorious free-rider problem. [...] "The critical point -- when two traits are co-extensive, always occurring together, natural selection theory cannot prove which trait was selected for. It can only speculate. For example, were polar bears selected for being white or matching their environment? The two different traits are co-extensive in the far north. At first blush the difference seems minor, but natural selection is a conceptual theory. If the concepts cannot be properly parsed, then the theory lacks the precision necessary to claim the truth. [...] A worse consequence -- one of the two traits is selected for, but what does the selecting? All theorists rely on the metaphor of artificial selection, or breeding. Though they try to remove the 'mind' they fail. And natural selection has no mental process. Thus the analogy is false. Natural selection cannot make choices."*2 __________________________________________________ 1 - AQUAGENESIS, The Origin and Evolution of Life in the Sea, Everybody Back Into The Water, p. 245. by Richard Ellis. 2 - A Spiritual Autopsy of Science and Religion, p.125-131 by Kelly Mitchell. __________________________________________________ "Elaine Morgan: I believe we evolved from aquatic apes. Elaine Morgan was a tenacious proponent of a theory that is not widely accepted. The aquatic ape hypothesis lays out the idea that humans evolved from primate ancestors who dwelt in watery habitats. Hear her spirited defense of the idea — and her theory on why science doesn't take it seriously. Elaine Morgan, armed with an arsenal of television writing credits and feminist credentials, spent her life on a mission to prove humans evolved in water. Why you should listen Television writer and scientific theorist Elaine Morgan may have been known for penning the popular British TV series Dr. Finlay's Casebook, but for decades the Welsh feminist writer championed human evolutionary theories using aquatic species. She wrote six books about the aquatic ape theory, derived from ancient Greek philosophies about human evolution. Taking a less male-centric approach to evolutionary theory, Morgan's adventure was chronicled in the 1998 BBC documentary The Aquatic Ape. She was an award-winning television writer (she won two BAFTAs and Writers' Guild honors) for Campion, How Green Was My Valley and Testament of Youth. Morgan died in July 2013 at age 92. What others say “For my money, she is more scientific than Genesis, more up-to-date than Darwin, more fun than Ardrey, and she writes better than Desmond Morris.” — John Rowan Wilson, Sunday Telegraph" https://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes . . . Also to consider that all apes are Rh negative blood type, which is the same blood type of the royals, aka the "blue blood," and that different blood types produce different enzymes that specialize in processing different proteins. "When the mother is Rh-negative and the father is Rh-positive, the fetus can inherit the Rh factor from the father." If the child is Rh negative, they try to sometime change the blood, but it does not always work. There are many different blood types, again, separated on the particular enzymes dealing with the particular proteins, the Rh negative and positive parents can produce an offspring, however they are usually sterile and unable to reproduce. The main difference is that the Rh negative blood is Copper based while Rh positive is Iron based. Most people are Rh positive. The most common blood type is O+, which means it can deal with all the proteins. "When an Rh negative mother is pregnant with an Rh positive child, the mother's immune system can attack the baby's blood. This can cause the baby to get very sick or even die. This is called hemolytic disease of the newborn or HDN. HDN makes it look like the mother is rejecting the child. As if the mother and child are from different species."*1 The scientific definition of a species is to be able to reproduce. i am still not sure about the monkey business, since there are much propaganda, however you can start your own research. "It has been proven that the majority of mankind (85%) has a blood factor common with the rhesus monkey. This is called rhesus positive blood. Usually shortened to Rh positive. This factor is completely independent from the A, B, 0 blood types. "Therefore, if man and ape evolved from a common ancestor, their blood would have evolved the same way. Blood factors are transmitted with much more exactitude than any other characteristic. It would seem that modern man and rhesus monkey may have had a common ancestor sometime in the ancient past." "It would seem that modern man and rhesus monkey may have had a common ancestor sometime in the ancient past. All other earthly primates also have this Rh factor. But this leaves out the people who are Rh negative. If all mankind evolved from the same ancestor their blood would be compatible. Where did the Rh negatives come from? If they are not the descendants of prehistoric man, could they be the descendants of the ancient astronauts? All animals and other living creatures known to man can breed with any other of their species. Relative size and color makes no difference. Why does infant's haemolytic disease occur in humans if all humans are the same species? "*2 "Being Rh-negative means you don't have a certain protein ("D antigen" or the Rh factor) on the surface of your red blood cells. If you do have it, you're Rh-positive. So the terms "Rh-negative" and "Rh-positive" are really just terms that further define what type of blood a person has, beyond the general blood type categories of A, B, AB, and O."*3 "The study of (human) blood is called hematology. Equally as interesting as chromosomes is an examination of blood types, the so-called ABO alleles and the MN alleles. Most of us, for example, know our blood type in the ABO system, i.e. A-positive, A-negative, B-positive, B-negative, O-positive, O-negative, AB-positive, AB-negative. (The positive or negative refer to the so-called Rhesus factor). Persons with blood type O are so-called universal donors, since they can give blood to anyone having any of the blood types A, B, O or AB. Persons with blood type AB on the other hand, can give blood only to persons with AB blood type. A person with blood type A can not give blood to a person with blood type B and vice versa. This means that a Kenyan with blood type A can give blood to a Norwegian with blood type A, but a Norwegian close relative with blood type B can not. ABO Origins Given the above facts, blood types AB and O seem to be some form of combination of A+A, A+B or B+B (AB as exclusive and O as inclusive) - whereas A and B themselves appear to be separate original groups. Only if the father and mother are A and B or B and A blood type can the child have any of the human blood groups A, B, AB or O. This negates current theory that O is the original blood type, especially since the man-apes have little or no O blood type and no AB blood type. A and B are very likely the originals." "People with RH-negative blood group have certain characteristics that seem to be common among the majority. Here is a brief list of the most common. ¨ Extra vertebra. ¨ Higher than average IQ ¨ More sensitive vision and other senses. ¨ Lower body temperature ¨ Higher blood pressure ¨ Increased occurrence of psychic/intuitive abilities ¨ Predominantly blue, green, or Hazel eyes ¨ Red or reddish hair ¨ Has increased sensitivity to heat and sunlight ¨ Cannot be cloned ¨ Alien Abduction and other unexplained phenomenon"*5 According to some conspiracies, the Rh-negative blood type belongs to "The Alpha Draconians, a reptilian race."*6 *1 - http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask381 *2 - http://humansarefree.com/2014/07/does-rh-negative-blood-type-equal-alien.html *3 - http://www.rhogam.com/what-does-it-mean *4 - http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_life24.htm *5 - http://beforeitsnews.com/power-elite/2014/05/the-mystery-of-rh-negative-blood-genetic-origin-unknown-2445596.html *6 - http://www.greatdreams.com/reptlan/rhneg.htm