Evolution Theory is a banal and unlogic mistake!
Well, I heared some ideas
telling me: „Why do you not see the real from the near, that
all the computers from the same production have as well „equal
genes“ , older pc then have similar „genes“? But they
are descended from the same ancestral line!"
Yes, of cause, this is the
natural at the equal or the similar genes standing at an
ancestral line. This was their commen origin. This just is the
single base of the evolution theorists and their geneticists.
Simplified it means:
The more similar genes are the closer is the
relationship of living beeings.
This principle but cannot
be correct because it is the only one. After the laws of
logics you may not set a conclusion from one single premise.
This is scientifically forbidden, because some further
possibilities are not taken into account. So, this principle
just stands here like the faith as an inviolable block. Really
another reality is missed just given here by my premise B:
The more similar genes are the longer living beeings
have lived under the same or under similar conditions next to
Only both premises give a
real sense! As long premise B cannot be excluded, you may not
take premise A as an absolutum. Really this is the dilemma of
the evolutionists. Therefore I clearly showed at this problem,
because we are not descended from the domestic pig and just
not from the monkeys living today. We also aren't descended
from a common ancestor of ape and pig. After my basic theory
of universe each living being has its own installation line.
It had his own ancestor, who never was the same ancestor of
By the way, after the
decryption of the human genom in the year 2010 came a new
genetics, the epigenetics which in the meantime found proofs
of my kind of evolution theory like I published it after many
years of private research inside of my Unified Theory of
Fields. Following my ideas, genes get changed by the influence
of all the conditions (actions, interactions) during the life
of living beings. These changes are partially heritable. So
this kind of controlled evolution by the environmental
conditions hase to be primary instead of the accidental
mutations, offered to the selection. Mutations most are
mistakes of nature. But infallible are these switching points
at which the genes are changed. Changes then do not run slowly
and accidentally but fast and purposefully. Insofar the small
amount of genes, about 300,000 in relations to the genom with
3.27 billion basepairs, which decide one man of the other man,
is running through an absolutely different evolution, if they
are parted over long periods.
Since the year 2000 one
knows more about the influence of the living time period onto
the genes and of the possibility of the enheritance of theses
changes. This facts ground the confirmation of my these B in
the meantime since I found it in 1987. Following it must be
seriously noticed researching genetic past, descent, evolution
and installation resp. adaption.
There is another these
from my theory. The number three:
The more similar the genes are the more similar were
those protocosms which created the life with their internal
At all events the
protocosms have created the installation lines of living
beings which is the base that I am able to assert such a kind
has the 200th birthday. This is the opportunity of the
evolutionists to report about their theory. (cf. bdw 1/2009)
natural selection would be without any direction, because
there was no higher instance or force. Everything would run
accidentally into the future. The
universe is finite. The information has programed it. It is
programed therefore in quantum form. This strength provides
every way of broader possibilities of development strictly.
Only the effects of insignificant accidents are open. In an
isolated system there aren't actually any accidents of
themselves. Only a system installed there can produce
accidents internally. These are the living beings but not only
would arise from the choice of the most attractive and
strongest partner. Examples: Gigantic feather trimming and
enormously big antlers. Such
a selection doesn't mean the change of the manner yet, but at
first only the racial development.
Genetic analogies and similarities
molecular genetic information would be pedigrees and show the
relationship with common ancestor.
is the main fault of the theory of evolution!
similarities don't arise from common ancestors but from the common
way through the history, going together!
it is a banal misunderstanding of the theorists of the
evolution to conclude from the molecular genetic information
– from the notes in the genes – to a putative
molecular genetic "pedigree" (“phylogenetic tree).
like Darwin has built such a conclusion has simply been
mistaken at the simple view on the things. Then so as they
look, they aren't so simple!
like to use both following examples with pleasure:
domestic pig is genetically next to the man. But nobody will
externally think that the man would be descended from the pig.
They alike so strongly genetically, because they have stridden
the history together through a large part of the last time
periods!! This is the nature of the analogies and similarities
in accordance with my premise in the genes, but not the common
descent or common ancestors!
technical example I take a pair of computers of different
manufacturers. It is ensured that both aren't descended from
one computer but they have gone out from different
technological sources. We put both PCs A and B to a common
office. They work there 5 years next to each other. Their
history will be one.
put the PCs AA and AB of ONE manufacturer respectively into
both different offices. We look after 5 years now.
PCs of the names A and B alike considerably in their stored
information that is on their hard disk or on their genes or
their molecular genetic reflection of the history.
Evolutionists would think, they descend from each other. But I
showed: However, they aren't descended from each other. They
wrote their common history!
PCs with the names AA and AB has worked in different offices.
They recorded a history of alive which proves that they aren't
alike. But what a problem? Evolutionists would think, they are
different species, that they nevertheless descended from each
other. The reality is, they are from one manufacturer, so they
have really one ancestor!
harddisk of living beings are their genes. They do not draw
their relationship or their origins, but they draw their
living histories. The common history leads to communities at
the recording of the history.
is the crucial point! Evolutionists followed the ideas of
Darwin and went into the trap quite naively till now.
partners would be in metabolism scales. One partner would form
the effort of his metabolism partner of scales on the other
hand. The calcium would for example be offset by the calcium
of the enormous antlers of the bone structure of the young
male fawns. This
fact of most, but not all living beings, doesn't explain the
transition of species, it only is a parallel to the currently
accepted laws of the creation orders in the form of pairs.
Species change within long time periods
pre-living being would has developed himself over long time
periods to the present living being. One common ancestor of
all the organic living beings would have existed well. Is
this original horse looked from the presence unite other
manner as the present steppe horse? So seen, certainly yes.
But it doesn't live any more today! All racial changes of the
past are dead. Well, it has no real species change given but
only a change of the pre-living being into the present living
being. Nobody can deny such changes. Whether the dinosaur
analogous pre-horse was descended from a unique dinosaur from
which all other living beings would be also descended. And I
deny such a line to one origin because of the quantization of
the matter by my theory's solutions: All the living beings
have followed from their own lines. There was not any original
Small living beings in most numerous ways
theorists don't know why just beetle and insects have
developed in so many manners. Beetles have installed most
manners. The theorists only see the circumstance: Living
beings which are smaller have formed more manners. We
see the programming of the universe confirmed just here. The
great animals are like the great protocosms. They die out. At
this, they release smaller protocosms. Well, smaller but many
living beings arise at the number here. The smallest
protocosms are the objects happening the most variety in the
cosmos. Well, their development lines show the beetle or the
insects in the direction. It comes actually still worse,
because the bacteria and viruses should have formed an almost
confused variety of the manners, but not by accident, but in
the consequence of the quantization law of the creation!
in each center of a cosm analogy is an equal quantization, I
called: Mass-block. Such a way, each being in this world
comming from the cosm-programming has the same inner
quantization and so the same inner genes. Just a small
difference decides it from the others! This is the reality!