In the name of Allah
The evolution hypothesis; the forbidden region!!! -3
evolution; belief, hypothesis, theory or reality?!
in the first two parts of the series of articles, the evolution hypothesis; the forbidden region !!! the origins of organizational and cultural issues related to the genesis of “the evolution hypothesis” were reviewed and the suspicious roots of this hypothesis were examined in secret and masonic entities, before entering the scientific discussions, to inform the esteemed audiences of the history without censorship “the theory of evolution” and the problems behind it, because in every scientific discussion, the first pages of that topic are devoted to “history of science” and the audience in every scientific discussion is familiar with how to form hypotheses and scientific theories and their historical course over time. for this reason, in the previous sections of the present article, the history without censorship ” hypothesis of evolution ” and its suspicious historical roots and behind the scenes of this topic was presented so that the esteemed audiences should look at this hypothesis with a wider view.
After presenting the above discussion, from this section, we proceed to the scientific discussion of the “evolutionary hypothesis” and discuss the ambiguities, faults and numerous and unanswered questions about this hypothesis.
At the beginning of the discussion, we reiterate that there is enough evidence in the direction of scientific criticism of the “hypothesis of evolution” and the multiplicity of these arguments is to some extent, probably to the end of the next 3 years, several sections of the articles of the “promise of sadeq” will belong to it; therefore, for some venerable critics who made haste to challenge and accused the author of illiteracy and lack of adequate evidence in the rejection of “theory of evolution” we ask for patience, and after we have formally announced the end of this series of papers, they also deal with the scientific method.
It should also be noted that the author, with excuse and claims such as the study of human migration and Mitochondrial DNA, horse sequence, chromosome similarity of human and chimpanzee, molecular study of hemoglobin in different species and citing to some fossils etc., as cited by the lovers of the “hypothesis of evolution”, is well known and will criticize them in the future parts of the article, and in the next sections of the article, they will be scrutinized, but the author asks for a venerable audience to pursue these discussions with patience, respectively; to establish the principles of the whole series to benefit both the general and the general, god willing.
Believe, hypothesis, theory, reality, or law?
The first step in the scientific examination of the “hypothesis of evolution” is to see what scientific proposition we are dealing with. Is the evolution a ‘reality’? is a “theory”? is a “Hypothesis” or just a “belief”?
For idioms such as “Fact”, “Hypothesis”, “Law”, “Theory” and “Belief”, various scientific books and publications have used different idioms that differ in detail in spite of the similarity in general, and the same idioms cannot be found in different scientific books about the idioms mentioned.
But, in this section of the paper, the simplest and most appropriate expressions describe the above terminology and are used in the “Space Mathematics: Mathematics in Space Science 2” of the prestigious institute (NASA) are presented to the esteemed audience.
“Fact”: is a basic expression that has been proved by observation or experimentation. all the facts are correct under certain circumstances. some facts, when tested with better instruments and tools, may be wrong. (2)
“Law”: is a logical relationship between two or more things that are based on the proven assumptions and different “facts”. A law is often a mathematical expression that indicates two or more quantities that relates together. (3)
“Theory”: is an explanation to illustrate why there are certain rules and facts that can be tested and evaluated to determine its accuracy. (4)
“Hypothesis”: a tentative expression (temporary), such as “If A occurs, B is also to be performed” that can be evaluated by observation or direct testing. An approved hypothesis can be expressed as a “law” or “theory”. an unconfirmed hypothesis can sometimes be tested again in parallel with the development of the computational tool. (5)
“Belief”: a phrase that is not proveable through scientific method such as “facts”, “laws”, “hypothesis” and “theories “. Belief rejected by science can remain to be true. (6)
Of course, if we look at the other dimensions of the above terminology, we can recognize them two ends of a spectrum that the weakest is the “belief” and the strongest is the “law”. This spectrum from the weakest to the strongest proposition is: “belief”→ “hypothesis”→ “theory”→”fact”→”law”.
Basically, the main “theories”, “facts” and “laws” come from a certain path. In the field of empirical science, the main scientific laws and theories follow the below direction:
First, observations of a scientist from the events around him lead him to a specific “belief”. In line with this belief, he will make his observations more seriously and by “searching the system” and logical connections of the events around him, he proposes a “hypothesis” to interpret the system found in its surrounding events and to anticipate other similar events. He then tries to design a scientific experiment to prove the truth of his “scientific hypothesis”; if his experiments and other scientists can prove the correctness of his “hypothesis”, repeatedly, and that his hypothesis can be repeated in other experiments, the scientist ‘s hypothesis becomes “theory”. If this “theory” reaches a certain limit of the frequency of the verifying documents, it can be considered as a “reality” and if the theory can be expressed in the form of specified and codified rules and in mathematical language, it becomes “law”.
The above path is a path that is used in all sciences, the empirical sciences, and the theories, facts, and laws of science pass through the above path. Of course, there may be little differences between the paths passed in different sciences and different theories, but the essence and principle of the path traversed in different sciences are similar and some like the mentioned path.
But what does the situation look like about our discussion of “evolution”? Is evolution a “fact”, a “theory”, a “hypothesis” or a “belief”?
if asked of “evolution” slash breast, they will certainly say, “evolution is a” theory” or “fact”! These ardent proponents say the integrity of the “hypothesis of evolution” has been proven over and over by several experiments, and from these, they refer to cases such as “stanley miller”, (7) “fossils”, “demographic studies on the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA, “study on the genetic and Proteomic structure of various proteins, and to plot phylogenetic trees for them, “citing the problem of antibiotic resistance of bacteria etc. But is it really proven, as the proponents of “evolution” say?
In a word, we must say no! “The hypothesis of evolution”is not substantiated, and in the most pessimistic mode is only one”belief”and in the best case only a”hypothesis”.
Of course, it may be too cumbersome to accept in the first instance, but by continuing to discuss further explanations, it may become clearer, god willing:
Let’s assume that a “scientific hypothesis” consists of the following components:
As is customary in scientific research and logic rules, we can only say that “A through B and C and … and Q and … W and X lead to X” that all the steps of the above hypothesis, including A → B، B → C، C → D و … و H → Q، Q → R، R → S و … و W → X و X → Y in valid and frequent tests, were proved.
It is evident that, if only A → B, or A → B → C → D, or R → S → T and X → Y are confirmed in multiple and valid tests, this does not imply the full approval of hypothesis A → B → C →… → W → X → Y and no scientist and no other common sense approve this statement and to prove the hypothesis of “A through B and C and … and Q and … W and X lead to X”, the total sequence A → B → C → … → W → X → Y and all of its subsets must be proved by valid and multiple tests and the proof of one part of that is not sufficient.
Mentioning an objective example in a simple language can be useful:
The human heart is one of the most important organs of the body that beat incessantly from the first weeks of embryonic development until the moment of death. Our vital part, tasked with maintaining circulation of blood throughout the body and should provide a unique pumping power to transmit blood cells and plasma to the most distant vessels of the body (even microscopic capillaries), is in dire need of energy, oxygen and nutrition to produce the heart energy. These oxygen and nutrients and energy sources of the heart are supplied by arteries with the name of coronary arteries, and the existence of these arteries is necessary to maintain heart function and stay healthy and survive. (9)
Coronary arteries of the heart that are responsible for the hemoperfusion to the heart.
Until the arteries of the body are healthy and open, the oxygen and nutrient generating energy that reach the heart are excess of the heart’s needs and there is no specific problem:
But when with any reason (such as the shortage of oxygen, the heart of coronary arteries and …) the heart energy supply process will be impaired and doesn’t meet the needs and activities of the heart, Heart pain, ischemic heart disease, and even infarct (Myocardial infarction) occur: (10)
The occurrence of cardiac pain and ischemic heart disease, when reducing the oxygen and stenosis of heart arteries, reduces hemoperfusion and oxygen delivery to the heart.
There is, however, more pressure on the heart due to stress and pain, and the release of certain hormones such as adrenaline and … and heart disease has become worse and worse.
In contrast, medical staff also use available knowledge and rely their treatments on the same strategies. So that to eliminate ischemic heart disease, stroke and pain resulting from it, choose two major strategies.
1 – By relaxing the patient and her heart and eliminating pain, stress and pressure in her, the demand to oxygen and nutrition for her heart reduces. (12)
2- With actions like the prescribing of oxygen, give drugs to prevent coagulate (such as Heparin), giving clot soluble drugs (like Streptokinase), opening the vasoconstricted or blocked blood vessel with the angioplasty balloon and the embedding of the springs (stent), and the use of heart vasodilator drugs, supply the blood, nutrients, and oxygen entering the heart. (13)
Many medications that are used in treating the ischemic attack on the heart and maintenance treatment after that, increases cardiac needs and blood supply to the heart, or, by relaxing the heart, they reduce the requirement and demand of the heart.
On the same basis, medicine from various families like nitrates, Betablockers, and … are used to provide the above objectives. (14)
In the case of these medicines, it is expected to reduce the patient’s pain by relaxing the heart and reducing the need for oxygen and nutrients from one hand and increasing nutrients, oxygen and hemoperfusion to the heart, thereby reducing the probability of occurrence of adverse events such as arrhythmia (disorder in the rhythm and electrical activity of the heart).
In the same vein, and with the knowledge that the Nitrates (such as Nitroglycerin, Nitrocanthine and…) cause the relative relaxation of the heart muscles, and by doing so, they reduce the need of hemoperfusion to the heart. On the other hand, with increasing the coronary heart perfusion, the heart blood flow increases. (15) So, it would be logical, if we consider this hypothesis:
The use of nitrates (Nitroglycerin and Nitrocanthine) in the attack phase of the heart disease and the continuation of treatment with nitrates in the chronic phase → resting the heart and increasing the blood flow of patient → reduce the patient’s heart pain → increase the patient’s active ability → reduce the probability of death → increase patient survival.
So far, several studies have been conducted to show the correctness of this prediction, but several studies have demonstrated only the basic part of the hypothesis: (16)
The use of nitrates (Nitroglycerin and Nitrocanthine) in the attack phase of the heart disease and continuing treatment with edible nitrates in the chronic phase → relaxing the heart and increasing the blood flow of the patient’s heart → reducing the patient’s heart pain → increasing the power of the patient’s activity??
However, despite all the efforts done on this reasonable hypothesis and despite several, validated and controlled studies, it is shown that nitrate have no significant effect on reducing mortality of heart patients and will not increase survival of these patients!!! (17)
The following are some important and credible sources :
The lack of nitrate effects in survival and mortality of heart patients.
Thus, although nitrates make up an important part of the medical treatment of cardiac patients and improve the quality of life and reduce ischemic heart pain, but, they do not have a significant role in reducing mortality and increasing the survival of ischemic heart patients, according to numerous and valid field studies. (19)
considering this fact, despite the fact that the above hypothesis is a logical hypothesis and the first few parts of it have been proved by multiple studies, the total hypothesis (the effect of nitrates in the significant reduction of mortality and the lifetime of cardiac patients) has not proved!!! (20)
This example clearly shows that in hypotheses with large and complex dimensions, by proving a small portion of them the whole hypothesis is not substantiated and to prove the main hypothesis, all its components must be proved in several and valid studies (as in the case of nitrates we considered this prob).
It is based on the fact that today’s survival and mortality studies are an important part of the studies related to drugs in biological and medicine sciences, as it has frequently been observed that many drugs, despite the initial impact of disease, do not follow the hypothesis of their formative scientists, for a number of reasons, whether temporary effects or significant drug defects! And they don’t increase survival.
Of course, this was only a small example of this case. to other examples can be referred to “Siramesine”. This drug is from the activedrug family of the cell surface sigma receptor that the mentioned receptor, is present on the surface of mammalian and human neurons. (21)
According to the hypothesis of the scientists of medical sciences, due to the important role of sigma’s receptor in the neural cells of mammals and humans, the stimulation and activation of this receptor should cause the loss of anxiety and depression in these creatures and human beings , and the “Siramesine” or “Lu 28-179” drug which activates these receptors should be a good candidate for anxiolytic and antidepressant. (22)
Molecular structure of the “Siramesine” or “Lu 28-179” drug.
According to this primary important information, many scientists in different parts of the world studied this important drug and hopefully pursued the results of different research in this regard. At first, things went well, and it seemed that “Siramesine” could be used as a new and effective drug in treating anxiety and psychiatric Depression, because this drug, both in laboratory and animal studies (rats and rodents), had shown itself as an effective and potent antidepressant and antianxiety drug (23) and there was a lot of hope that, according to similarities between human and rodents sigma receptors, this drug could have very good effects in humans.
Soon, this hope became a disappointment, and human studies showed that the drug had no effect on treating anxiety and depression disease!! (24) For this reason (24) , since 2002, the study on the antianxiety and antidepression effects of the drug was stopped and the project failed. (25)
Of course, nowadays ‘Siramesine’ has entered again the research not as an “antianxiety” and “antidepression” drug and not because of the impact on the Sigma receptor, Rather, as a potential anticancer drug, considering its other potential properties. It is currently studied in the experimental studies phases (in vitro)and animal models (26) , and then, in frustration with it as an antidepression and antianxiety drug, it is now being studied as an anti-cancer drug, which in the case of its anticancer effect, it is currently in the animal study phase.
Therefore, the lesson from the study on “Siramesine” is that, in the existence of similar structures in humans and animals, it cannot be concluded that an effective remedy on animals should definitely and completely affect humans as well as “Siramesine” is completely effective on the depression and anxiety of “rats” and other rodents, but this drug has no antianxiety effects on humans!!!
For this reason and several other reasons, any other drug must pass the following steps before entering the market: (27)
- Design and selection of effective pharmaceutical molecules. (Drug Design)
- Studies on cell culture media and experimental conditions. (In vitro study)
- studies on animals. (animal study)
- Phase I clinical trial which examines the appropriate safety and dosage of medicine in healthy humans.
- Phase II clinical trial which examines the effectiveness and safety of the drug in a limited number of patients.
- Phase III clinical trial which examines the effectiveness and safety of the drug in many patients.
- After drug delivery to the pharmaceutical market, the drug is checked periodically in terms of its effect and side effects and in case several complications are reported, the drug has collected from the pharmaceutical market (Similar to the Rofecoxib antipain drug, which, despite being safe and effective in laboratory, animal and clinical studies and obtaining permission to enter the market, was collected from the pharmaceutical market due to serious cardiovascular and brain effects such as stroke and apoplexy.). (28)
There are some interesting statistics about this: (29)
Approximately 5,000 to 10,000 chemical compounds are nominated for examination of each disease’s treatment. Of these, around 250 compounds provide the necessary conditions for entering the laboratory research and animal studies. From this, only about 10 compounds earn the necessary features to enter the human clinical study!!! Interestingly, only 21/5 % of the medications that enter the human clinical studies of phase III will ultimately follow the necessary and enough conditions in other studies and eventually enter the market!!! This means that from every 5000 to 10,000 drug compounds that can be the cure for a disease in theory and in accordance with the rigorous and accurate hypotheses of scientists, only 2 drug compounds can become an effective and safe medication!!! And this means that the exact hypotheses of the “medical sciences” scientists are likely to have a chance of success in the range of 0/02 to 0/04 to become theory, fact and law!!! (30)
It shows that in the case of a strong hypothesis in one context as well as success in the early stages of a research, until the integrity of the whole hypothesis is not approved in all fields, the hypothesis remains a hypothesis, and that hypothesis will not become a “theory”, “fact” or “law”!
Of course, there are a thousand other examples in this regard, which we refrain from mentioning, in order to avoid discourse prolongation.
Given the above examples, it is obvious that a “scientific hypothesis”, even if it looks quite logical and rational, will not become “theory”, “fact” and “law” until all of the components of the hypothesis, in the form of full and perfection, are not proven. This is a wellknown and established scientific principle, and no scientist in this field has any doubts or objections and scientific discoveries and inventions will follow the mechanism to gain credit.
According to this, today, if a scientist claims that his hypothesis is correct, he must demonstrate all his hypotheses in various valid studies to his “hypothesis” is accepted and transformed into a “theory”, “Fact” and “Law”:
For example, if a scientist claims that his medication causes the destruction of the stomach cancer, even if the scientist states a very strong hypothesis about its own innovative medicine and its mechanism of effect, the scientist must prove the truth of his hypothesis the strong effect of innovation drug, and its safe availability to the world in several stages, including studies conducted by computer simulators (sSimulator), experimental studies (in vitro), study on lab animals, and numerous studies on human beings.
Another example is that if a researcher suggests that bacteria A is the cause of B disease in humans, simply by showing that bacteria A in the lab environment kills mammalian cells, he cannot claim that his hypothesis is proved!!! Even if he showed that bacteria A is the cause of disease B in mice, rabbits, etc., he can not also claim that his hypothesis applies to humans too. Interestingly, even if he shows that bacteria A in humans infected with disease B are higher than healthy individuals, he can’t still prove the truth of his hypothesis, because most of a bacteria in the patient’s body is not necessarily the presence of cause-and-effect relationship between the bacteria and the disease! If he wants to prove the correctness of his hypothesis (bacteria A cause B disease in humans), scientist must prove precisely the cause and effect relationship between bacteria A and disease B in valid and multiple research, to prove his claim and hypothesis to become a “theory”.
Of course, it is also important that in the realm of experimental sciences (including biology and medicine), even if the scientist owns the hypothesis stated that he has tested all the steps of his innovation hypothesis, if his claim is acceptable and universal, that other scientists (other than himself) if they want to study his hypothesis, have similar results in the same context. That is if in the same conditions with the first researcher, most researchers cannot achieve the results achieved by the first researcher and the results of their research with this researcher have a large difference and several researchers face this problem, again the claim of the hypothesis’s owner is questionable.
One important example in this context is “aspirin (ASA)” (31) that its explorers claim anti-platelet effects and prevent clot formation in this drug. Today, the vast majority of researchers and physicians agree about aspirin efficacy in this regard because of antiplatelet effects of aspirin, both in laboratory and animal studies, has been proved by many and controlled studies and by the various scientists throughout the world, and esteemed physicians of our country face these positive effects every day! Therefore, the world has adopted the hypothesis of the effectiveness of aspirin in preventing the accumulation of platelet and the formation of a clot, since all the stages and components of this hypothesis are substantiated by different individuals around the world and are repeatedly confirmed in daily practice, over and over. However, it can be understood that scientific mechanisms are very precise and complex and the scientific “hypothesis” to prove themselves and become ” theory”, “fact” and “law”, must prove what that claim, precisely, not even the same claim to prove it!
however, despite the high accuracy of ‘biological’ and ‘medical’ scientists in dealing with scientific hypothesis and rational crackdown in accepting hypothesis, unfortunately, in dealing with the “hypothesis of evolution”, the scientific community has become an incredible credulity and a ” Scientific lumpenism!” and Regardless of the rational rules and regulations that governing the science, and the logical procedure of the hypothesis in the process of moving towards theory, has forgotten all logical laws and has presented this full of figures and questions “hypothesis” as a “theory” or “fact” to the scientific community!!!
Yes, darlings! Regrettably, due to the domination of the scientific mafia, dependent on global Freemasonry, on the scientific organs of the world and by applying the power of this evil institution from one hand and the lack of selfconfidence of critics of this hypothesisthe, scientific configures of the world community has been acknowledged to confirm the hypothesis that it has not been proved!
Despite the pompous claims of the lovers and devotees of the evolutionary hypothesis, this hypothesis is not substantiated, and the lovers claim that this hypothesis has been proven, is not true and more than anything will question the scientific competence of claimants!!!
Contrary to the claimants who say the “hypothesis of evolution” is a “theory” or “reality”, it is not so! Until now, the hypothesis that ” all living things have split up from common ancestors, and the closer species have been in common ancestor at times more closely related to each other that their children have been distinguished to several different species and this trend, which has been accelerated and consolidated by processes such as the natural selection and the more survival of most compatible creatures in different environments, is not proved. (32)
The summary of evolution hypothesis
The proponents of “the theory of evolution” maybe outraged by these sentences and give us the examples such as “the emergence of resistant species of bacteria against antibiotics”, “similarities between human and chimpanzee chromosome 2”, “the Similarities between Gorilla and Human Hemoglobin”, “population studies on mitochondrial DNA genes (mtDNA) and Y chromosome”, “mammalian homologous organs”, “vestigial organs”, etc. and say that, these numerous evidence prove “the theory of evolution”!
But the same claims will reveal exactly what we are saying about the existence of “Scientific lumpenism” in the evolutionary hypothesis, and shows how far the scientific community works Passive and blindfolded against ‘evolutionary hypothesis’ and treats with that as “Taft separately woven”!
In principle, examples that fans of the “evolutionary theory” express to confirm their claim, even if we believe in the authenticity of all the claimed evidence (of course, this evidence also faces important drawbacks and we ‘ll point out to them in the future sections of the series papers!) Again, it will cover only a small part of the big claim of the fan of evolution, not the whole hypothesis! For example, proponents of the “evolutionary hypothesis” claim that the experiment of “Stanley Miller” indicates the possibility of developing organic compounds such as amino acids from mineral compounds (33), and they continue to say these mineral compounds could be found in a lipid membrane and became the first living cell and the great ancestor of all present organisms and the birth of this common ancestor has caused the branching and create the new species that human and chimpanzee breeds are one of the last branches.
Interestingly, the experiment of “Stanley Miller” and similar experiments, at best state, only showed the formation of organic compounds of mineral compounds, and in the meantime, not even a protein, or a nucleic acid (gene transcription factor), and … one cell has not emerged!!! (Although Stanley Miller’s experiment and his followers are experiencing difficulties and warnings and drawbacks, that will be mentioned in future articles!) Interestingly, biosciences have been paying much attention and sensitivity to most of their studies, for each component of the hypothesis, they demand a variety of reasons, and even by proving a part of the hypothesis, they do not generalize to other parts of the hypothesis (because they are not allowed scientifically), but they simply make an exception to the ‘hypothesis of evolution’ and make up a mountain of straw!
Also, some concluding remarks are not quite logical; for example, some similarities between chimpanzee and humans cannot be concluded that these two species have originated from a common ancestor! (however, this similarity in the future parts of the study series will be challenged!!) As, from the similarity of the stature and the face of the two humans, one cannot necessarily understand the fact that these two people have a common ancestor. There are so many different people in two countries and two different breeds that have many similarities, and sometimes the similarities have caused abuse as the political exchange, but the two mentioned people have no common ancestor!
The similarity of our country’s actor “Fathali Oveisi” with European performer!
The strange resemblance of Mikhail Ramadan (right) with Saddam Hussein (left) caused him to play Saddam’s role in the Iraqi political arena
On the other hand, the existence of similarities in different species of fauna is not necessarily their relationship, but mainly because of the same needs and conditions of the environment. For example, “dolphins” from the “mammals” group, “sharks” from the group of ” cartilaginous fish” and “the swordfish” from the “Osteichthyes” group, although they are all classified in different animal groups, they all have fins because of the presence of water and the need to adapt to the environment. (34)
“dolphins” from the “mammals” group (bottom image), “sharks” from the group of ” cartilaginous fish” (Top left image) and “the swordfish” from the “Osteichthyes” group (Top right image), despite the presence in different groups, they have common features such as ballet and tail due to their presence in the same conditions.
Of course, some of the proponents of evolutionary hypothesis may point to the “phylogenetic tree”, “physiological similarities”, “genomic and proteomic structure” and so on, so that they can move their word forward, but to these people, it should be noted that in the future sections of this series of articles, proteomic and genomic evidence violating the claims of evolution will also be discussed!
According to the above-mentioned literature, it can be argued that the existence of some similarities between some species cannot be claimed that the mentioned species are derived from a common ancestor, and it cannot be concluded that such a process takes place over time; for a smart creator, if he wants to create all sorts of creatures suddenly and at a time, will again create every creature fit to his location and specific conditions; the bird with wings, mammal bat with wings, gorilla and chimpanzee with finer hands and stiffer legs, the whale, dolphin, shark and, fish by tail and ballet!
There are also the same conditions for human-made equipment. intelligent people who live in different tribes, continents and remote areas created and will build similar devices. for example, humans from different parts of the world have built similar instruments and tools for their needs. To stay safe from the sun and for their homes, the ceiling has been built, and for hunting, sharp instruments, such as spears and knives, have made use of their available materials (stone, wood or metal), and they have learned many of these inventions and discoveries without learning from each other, and these similarities, even in the most distant tribes and primitive nomads and the most isolated in folks are observed! of course, certain instruments have been obtained by learning and using experiences of other ethnic groups and prototypes (such as gunpowder that originally developed in china and then other parts of the world such as west and other countries, by learning to build the prototype, developed it and developed advanced warfare instruments). But the important point is that many devices have been created without learning from each other and according to the needs, and the common needs have created common instruments.
Nevertheless, any intelligent creator, if willing to create organisms of the universe, certainly, he creates the same environmental conditions organisms as more similarities and the different condition organisms, with more differences.
Therefore, mentioning some similarities in the two species and citing these similarities to extend the claim that the same species have come from a common ancestor, is not true and does not prove the hypothesis! (Although the claims made around humans and chimpanzees and … are not so accurate, there are conflicting and sometimes contradictory spots that will be included in the future sections of the article!).
To prove that for example, a human and chimpanzee has been made up of a common ancestor, it has to go back at least a few million years ago to demonstrate the existence of human species and chimpanzees, and then prove that the chimpanzees and humans have evolved from the changes of a common ancestor. Considering that such a process is not feasible, it must be argued that, in principle, the “hypothesis of evolution” cannot prove by testing and at the best mode, it will remain only a “hypothesis” and does not become the “theory” and “fact” and “law”.
In the discussion of the divergence of chimpanzees and humans from the common ancestor, there is an important factor in the name of time, which cannot be manipulated. While there is no experiment, which, following it, can be proved repeatedly that there is a living creature whose various generations have become different species. Considering that no testing has ever been arranged in which organisms are monitored, and the split of the few species of one species can be proved over time, so the claimed “hypothesis” of evolution lovers would remain the hypothesis.
Nevertheless, it does not true to find fossils in a few million years ago and claim that fossils have been common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees; Because it has to be accurately demonstrated in many experiments that first, that fossilized creature has been a different species (humans or chimpanzees were not sick or mutant), secondly, it can survive, and thirdly, it has certainly been capable of reproduction, fourthly, it has been split into several species during the time and fifthly, those branching species are humans and chimpanzees!
Considering that there is no possibility of proving the majority of the mentioned items, therefore, it cannot be proven that humans and chimpanzees have branched off from such ancestral species over the last few million years, by finding a few fossils like a chimpanzee in a few million years ago (the claim is far greater than the discovered fossil!!!).
Of course, it is possible to measure value for the “hypothesis of evolution” by arranging experiments in the present age and seeing changes in the birth of some of the present species such as dogs, lions, tigers, cats, pigs, and … for the next few thousand and million years, developing new species of the present species and the survival of these new species and their abundant proliferation and reaching a significant limit, but again, these experiments are only generalizable to the same species and must also be studied over time to generalize to other species (including humans)!!
For example, the esteemed audience remembers the “Siramesine” drug that were discussed above, considering that the “Siramesine” drug is effective on the sigma receptors of neurons and human and rodent sigmas are very similar to one another, and scientists who have observed in numerous experiments that the drug has a very strong antianxiety and antidepressants in mice and rodents, hoping to see the same useful effect on humans, however, several and valid studies on humans showed that the result of accomplished studies on animals in the case of “Siramesine” drug is not generalizable to humans despite many similarities between human and rodents sigma receptor. (35)
It is exactly about the “theory of evolution”. Even if, after several thousand years and a few million years of future studies, it has been observed that for example, the “T. truncatus” (36) species is split into two new species, it can only be proved that the “T. truncatus” is split into two new species over time and it cannot be extended to humans or tigers!
It becomes more interesting to know that today, even in human studies, there are important differences between different human races, and any study that takes place on a particular human race is not necessarily generalizable to other races, and for this reason, there is a science called “Pharmacogenomics” that deals with the discussion of the dispute between different human races in response to “drugs”. (37). But it is so strange that the “evolution” fans generalize the result of a few minor studies (with all the ambiguities and weaknesses) to the whole species!
Of course, proponents of evolutionary theory may argue that since it is time consuming and essentially impossible to perform evolutionary studies over several thousand or millions of years, they are referred only to issues such as “finding the resistant species of bacteria against antibiotics”, “similarities between human and chimpanzee chromosome 2”, “similarities between Gorilla and Human Hemoglobin”, “population studies on mitochondrial DNA genes (mtDNA) and Y chromosome”, ” mammalian homologous organs”, “vestigial organs”, etc. !!!
Our response to them is that it is a strong document against them and condemns the claims of the proponents of evolution! In such a condition that there is no possibility of “hypothesis” testing, the “hypothesis” will remain as “hypothesis” and cannot be transformed into “theory”!!!
Of course, there is a serious question over the claims of the proponents of evolutionary hypothesis, and that question is that the main proponents of the “evolutionary theory” that believe that in some billions of years ago, from mineral compounds, organic compounds such as amino acids and nucleic acids have been emerged, and then, by constructing the membrane around some of them , cell-like environments and years later the cell emerged, and from the community of these cells, multicellular organisms, etc. have emerged and all of these events could be created using chance and probability, why don’t they do a full experiment and don’t make an unicellular organism using minerals compounds under controlled laboratory conditions?!!
If, according to the claim of the proponents of evolution, this could have happened completely by chance over billions of years ago, why these smart scientists did not react the same mineral compounds together with their full intelligence so that organic compounds could make a whole cell! Certainly, if with the rule of probabilities and accidents, over billions of years such an event has been happened, under controlled laboratory conditions, these scientists can design a cell in a very clever combination (not random), of the mineral compounds and then organic compounds resulting from them in a much less time interval!
The following example can help to better understand the above point:
Sure, friends are familiar with “dice”, which are used in the luda game! given that “the dice” is made as a cube with “6 equal square face”, if we run the dice, the probability that the number 6 is reached is 1/6, and if we run two dice at the same time, the probability that the number has been reached is 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36!! that is, from the statistical point of view, we expect from every 36 running of two dice, we will see the 6 only once, and this is quite known in “probability” science.
But if an intelligent designer develops a “trapezoid shape dice”, that the opposite surface of the number 6, is much bigger than the other surfaces, the probability of once being born of 6 is not 1/6! Rather, this probability is less and it’s about 1/2 or 1/3, and the probability of once being born of 6 is about 1/4 to 1/9.
The “normal dice” on the left side of the image and the “trapezoidal dice” on the right side of the image; the probability of 6 result in the “trapezoidal dice” is far greater than the “normal dice”!
According to the example, “trapezoidal dice”, that in accordance with the claims of many fans of the “evolutionary hypothesis”, events caused to the formation of “organisms”, have been accured over billions of years and by accident, intelligent bioscientists must be able to combine minerals and eventually build a cell without considering probabilities and accidents. Certainly, given that this incident is not based on accidents and contingencies, but according to scheme and plan, these scientists should be able to build a cell for thousands of times less than a few billion years. However, it’s interesting that the fervent advocates of evolution have refused to do so. They carried out “Alexander Oparin” (38) and “Stanley Miller” (39) tests only at very primitive and early levels, and according to their own claim, they have only advanced on the production levels of some amino acid and some very basic organic matter, and they refused to continue to build at least one living cell!!! (Though there are many uncertainties and problems with “Miller” and “Oparin” tests, we will pay them in the upcoming literature!
In this way, the lack of design and research to build a living cell from mineral compounds, itself is a strong dam against the fans of the evolutionary hypothesis and caused that they have no documents of their claims. And they lose one of the most important (not perfect proof!) evidence to help prove their hypothesis!
Another important thing to mention is that all organisms in the universe are not yet discovered and yet human information about many organisms is about “zero”! On the other hand, “science”, “knowledge” and “research” are based on information, and in general, until there is not enough information on a subject, “hypothesis” or “theorizing” in that regard is absurd. For instance, if human did not know this scientific information that the cause of “heart pain” is a disruption in the hemoperfusion to the heart, there was no appropriate scientific hypothesis or theory about the re-opening of “coronary arteries” of heart to reduce heart pain. But with lapse and take information about this issue, new hypothesis and theories were formed and led to the achievements of today modern medicine in the treatment of heart disease.
But in the case of “evolution”, the same “scientific lumpenism”, which mentioned before, shows itself again, and while many of the “organisms of the universe” have not been discovered and understood, the proponents of this “hypothesis” claim that the “theory of evolution” that speaks about all organisms, has been proven!! (How interesting, despite being ignorant of many organisms, they speak about a theory that covers all organisms!) By the way! How do you know that there is no evidence against the “evolutionary hypothesis” in the rest of the undiscovered organisms in the universe? How did you know that these unknown species did not have important things against the “evolutionary hypothesis” in their hearts?!
the author of this article offers a proposal to the ardent proponents of the “hypothesis of evolution”! If admirers and advocates of evolution believe that only by mentioning some evidence ranging from “finding the resistant species of bacteria against antibiotics”, “similarities between human and chimpanzee chromosome 2”, “similarities between Gorilla and Human Hemoglobin”, “population studies on mitochondrial DNA genes (mtDNA) and Y chromosome”, ” mammalian homologous organs”, “vestigial organs”, etc., we can prove the correctness of a ” hypothesis ” with a wide spread spectrum such as ” hypothesis of evolution ” that comment about all organism around the world, i offer these individuals to test at least 10 new drugs that were designed according to rigorous scientific hypothesis and advanced molecular algorithms and and were successful and safe in the experimental phase(in vitro) and animal studies on “rats” , these esteemed people try de drugs before the enter of these drugs to human studies phase!!! Because, if the proponents of the “hypothesis of evolution” claim that by proving that only a small part of the ” hypothesis” can prove the correctness of the whole hypothesis (the “whole”, that has not yet been fully understood and discovered , and many organisms remain unknown!) Therefore, these individuals should adhere to this precedure in the case of other hypothesis and, accordingly, and accept frontally the drug that is designed according to careful biological assumptions and Molecular Modelling technologies and computer’s simulators and has passed through laboratory studies and a study of animal models successfully and accept that safety and effectiveness, before studying on human populations.
If any of the proponents of the “evolutionary hypothesis” agreed that to tried 10 medicines researching on animals and effective on these creatures on himself, before entering the human studies phase, when could accept the claim of the proponents of evolution that claim that “only by proving a few components from the evolutionary hypothesis, the whole hypothesis is substantiated.”
Certainly, no common sense and no scientist, tried the drug that has been effective and safe only in laboratory and animal studies on himself, before doing enough and controlled human studies on it. How is it, that the proponents of evolution, with citing some limited studies that prove only a very small part of the “evolutionary hypothesis”, in their own words, are insisting that the whole “theory” has the right to be true and named that as a “heory” or “fact” of the evolution??!
Of course, all of these are in the case where we accept the claim of the proponents of “evolution” on issues such as “fossil studies”,“finding the resistant species of bacteria against antibiotics”, “similarities between human and chimpanzee chromosome 2”, “similarities between Gorilla and Human Hemoglobin”, “population studies on mitochondrial DNA genes (mtDNA) and Y chromosome”, ” mammalian homologous organs”, “vestigial organs”, etc. Now that, there are many mistakes, uncertainties and questions in front of the case of the claim of the evolution’s proponents that will be discussed in detail in the coming sections of this series of articles! Perhaps, at the end of the criticisms toward these claims, the “evolution” may even decline from the status of a “hypothesis” and remain only within a “belief”?!
at the end of this section of the article, we note that in contrast to the claims of the fans of the “hypothesis of evolution”, it has not been accepted as the “hypothesis “ and the term ” theory” or “fact” is not scientifically valid. No scientific experiment that strictly proves that “all organisms have split up from common ancestors, and closer species to each other in terms of evoloution have common ancestor at more close times, that its children have distinguished in a number of nearby species, and this process has been accomplished through processes such as natural selection and greater survival of more compatible animals in different environments”, so far has been done and no systematic study that covers all the dimensions of this” hypothesis ” has not been designed to date! (not all the living creatures in the world have ever been discovered, the theory that tells about all organisms, to be tested!!!)
Studies also cited by the proponents of evolution cover only a small part of the ` claimed “hypothesis” and the most important part of the ” hypothesis ” is without a single study or seconder research and as scientific,it is not the “theory” or “fact”.
Of course, in the future sections of the article series, we will point to the weak points and drawbacks of many of the evidence that the proponents of evolution claim; perhaps by identifying these weaknesses, the status of this “hypothesis ” is reduced to a “belief “. Also, the steemed audiences of the website, continue this series of articles, will find the cause and why of the study of these papers in the” Mahdavi” and “knowing the enemy” website, god willing.
In the coming week, Inshallah, the next section of the series of articles entitled “excuse called fossils” will appeal to the dear audiences of the website.
In the hope of the day when the innocence of science stays away from invasion and robbery of aliens.
End of Part Three