Aramaic Peshitta
Buy Lamsa Bible:
Aramaic Peshitta Bible Repository
9. The End Of The Biocosmic Drama
9.THE FINAL ACT OF THE BIOCOSMIC DRAMA
Master-Crook Mutation is subpoenaed
9. THE FINAL ACT OF THE BIOCOSMIC DRAMA
9.1 The end of the evolution theory
The following charges are made against Master-Crook Mutation
1. Every action in a cell is arranged and regulated by genes and proteins, except for mutations, which are caused by radiation or harmful substances. There are even quite a lot of proteins that attempt to prevent Master-Crook Mutation’s work. This indicates the illegal nature of his activities.
2. He broke into the House of Variation and is posing as the rightful owner. However, in reality the House of Variation is owned by the mechanisms of natural variation, run by proteins. He claims to be the source of variation, whereas he is only a vessel that draws from an already-existing source of possibilities.
3. Master-Crook Mutation is not capable of lengthening proteins in a controllable way.
4. It is certain that 99% of Master-Crook Mutation’s activities are destructive, harmful and deadly, not only for the proteins, but in over half of the cases also for the organism in which they reside.
5. At least two-thirds of the genes in each species do not vary. A large part of those genes must therefore be so specialized that they do not permit even one single alteration or those genes never had the chance to mutate, because life doesn't exist that long at all. Master-Crook Mutation has lied to us by pretending he was responsible for the origins of these genes.
6. Master-Crook Mutation is capable of minor functional alterations in some cases, in some genes and to a limited degree. He claims to be able to cause adoption, structural functional alteration, in all genes. This claim is untrue, because the structure of proteins is so complex, dedicated, and specialized that the function is lost, if not immediately, then within a few alterations, long before any mention can be made of new functionality.
7. Master-Crook Mutation claims that he, in cahoots with his family, can bring about macro-evolution. He is just a charlatan, an impostor.
Which competent judge is going to pass definitive judgement on him?[1]
One conclusion can be made, at any rate: we have been toyed with by Master-Crook Mutation. I suggest that we at least cease to place trust in him. I propose a vote of distrust. I recommend that we dismiss him from the position he now fills, that of director of the Evolution Company. I advise that we make him director of the waste processing plant Degeneration, where the rest of his family can be placed in a social, as far as I am concerned even subsidized, work program...
9.1 The end of the evolution theory
If we were now to make a small historical overview of the evolution of the evolution theory, it would look something like this:
Darwin: There is infinite, spontaneous variation and a common ancestry for all life through natural selection. 1859
Mendel: Variation arises according to standard patterns (and is therefore finite). early 20th cent.(acceptance)
neo-Darwinists: Um, infinite variation arises through mutation. 1930’s, 1940’s
Eldredge and Gould: Evolution happens in a punctuated progression rather than a gradual one. 1970’s
neoneo-Darwinists: Um, no it didn’t. 1980’s
geneticists: Um, there are jumping genes and other such radical changes.
Scheele: There is no structural gene growth and adoption; mutation is a form of degeneration. Biological change goes downhill. nearly 2000
?: um..
And with that, we need to conclude the chapter on The-Origin-Of-The-Species-By-Natural-Selection! Natural selection does not seem to be capable of causing new genes to originate. Darwin cannot be held responsible for that. He could not know that his insight into the origins of varieties was right, but that it would turn out to be a genetic impossibility for the origins of types. That means the end of the evolution theory.
~ The End ~
If Darwin were still alive today, I would write him the following letter.
Dear Charles Darwin,Thank you for your book The Origin of Species. You have been able to name the mechanism that brings about variation in the living nature that surrounds us. This was a great windfall for science, especially considering the concept of the immutability of species that was predominant in your time. However, the present molecular knowledge of DNA, genes, and proteins, which now appears to be the basis of heredity, has shown us that your ideas about the origins of non-related species – namely that these would be descended from common ancestors – appear not to be right. The principle of natural selection which you discovered is active on the levels of individuals and population, but not on the molecular level of the single proteins. It appears that a large section of the genes which are essential for the viability of an organism do not evolve at all! In essence, in the basic structure, species or types are therefore also the same. The structure of the proteins furthermore appears to be so complex and specialized – to a degree you cannot even imagine – that it is impossible that even one single protein could come into existence by a coincidental arrangement of proteins within the long period of development you proposed. The variation that can be observed in populations and in fossils, and the possibility that a species has for adapting, are apparently brought about by an internal built-in mechanism, which we call recombination. This mechanism, which I have called natural variation analogous to your ‘natural selection’, only draws from the existing internal genetic variation and information that is already present in a species. The concept of mutation, which became known later, mainly brings about new variation by eliminating or damaging existing non-essential genes, but is, partly as a result of that, also the cause of a great deal of genetic impoverishment and hereditary diseases.Our conclusion must therefore be that there is a much better case for typological variation or differentiation which cannot extend beyond its own borders, but which does have a myriad of possibilities within those borders. This is, by the way, something you already knew from experience from the breeders you knew: there is an end to the variability of a race on which selection takes place.But whatever the case may be, both mutation and typological variation are in the end a form of genetic impoverishment and/or degeneration from the primitive type from which the variation arose. You understand that this is the complete opposite of what you proposed, namely that evolution from low to high complexity had taken place.Should you be perturbed by this to any degree and wish therefore to subject some aspects thereof to further research, you may have a copy of my book free of charge; it has recently been published and covers this material. It has the not completely unexpected title ofDegeneration: the end of the evolution theory.You can find it on the internet on www.evolution-is-degeneration.comBy the way, please do not take the title as a personal insult. You cannot be blamed for not knowing anything about what was not common knowledge in your time.Sincerely and with the highest regard, Peter Scheele
[1] I would like to be allowed to do so, but I am afraid that people will not give me the authority for that.