Another book you might want to look into is "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. He is a scientist who has studied the Darwinian model of evolution and says that the model cannot be valid.
He claims that certain functions of the human body could not have come about via natural selection, and he gives several examples.
He never states it overtly, but one could draw a conclusion that "intelligent design" was at work in the creation of humans.
There's more to this than Darwin's theory, the basis of which was influenced by the Book of Genesis. Even Darwin's work is twisted and misrepresented for Evil Doers.
Although, Charles Robert Darwin contributions borrowed heavily from Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and others, perhaps it was the new era that gave breath to his views. Darwin's views radically changed the debate about the species of animals. In Darwin's time, there was a great scientific debate between monogensism and polygenesism. Darwin originally sided with polygenesists, but changed his tune when criticism from the Church became rather serious. Polygenesists were persecuted by the Church.
Have you noticed even to this day the hostility toward anything promoting polygenesism though? I wonder why? Maybe Darwin himself can answer this. There is no sustainable genetic drift. It's contrary to Nature's Laws. It's contrary to the Eternal Laws. My definition of Eternal Law is different than Thomas Aquinas'. Rather, it involves the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci's spiral. This is demonstrated remarkably through Viktor Schauberger's work, and others and is repeated everywhere throughout the universe.
You mentioned certain functions of the body that come from Natural Selection because all too many human characteristics don't fit at all with the ecology of this world. Here are some:
Humans are the only mammal incapable of producing its own vitamin C.
Most mammals produce Galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose (α-gal) (Alpha-gal) sugars. Humans do not have naturally occurring alpha-gal coating their cell membranes like most other mammals do. Galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose (α-gal) is a sugar structure found in glycoproteins and glycolipids from all mammals except old world primates, including humans. In ancestral Old World monkeys and apes, the gene for the enzyme α-1,3-galactosyltransferase that is essential for the synthesis of α-Gal was inactivated [3]. Therefore, humans and recent Old World primates do not express α-Gal and this structure is highly immunogenic for them.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6344609/
Astronauts stationed in space experience their circadian clock changing to the circadian clock of Mars. To me, that is really weird and perhaps telling.
Compared to animals humans exhibit complete lack of robustness. We have widespread back problems, hip problems, knee problems though out our lifespan that animals lack. As we age, only the adult human brain shrinks.
Are we similar to primates like the apes? Not at all.
Despite the propaganda and lies, we are not even close to being related to apes. Did you know primates can breathe while they drink? How odd. Humans are incapable of this. Did you know apes have more chromosomes than humans? That's right, they have 48 pairs and we have only 46 pairs of chromosomes.
I mentioned earlier robustness that's consistent throughout Nature without exception. Yet, humans are not robust and are frail and weak compared to Nature's creatures. Compared to apes or monkeys our bones are much thinner and lighter. Our muscles are 5 to 10 times weaker. Our skin and adipose tissue are handicaps in this world. Our body hair is missing and the pattern is reversed compared to apes. Our heads and nails must also be trimmed. The human skull is fragile and our brain is not at all similar. Our locomotion is the most obvious difference. Human speech relies on throats that are unlike any other creature on planet Earth and in comparison are completely redesigned. Even our sex is radically different, in that there's no signs of typical oestrus cycles as in animals. Humans have over 4000 genetic disorders, which is not seen in any significant numbers for any species. Compared to animals, even our feet are not designed for walking. It is even thought that our bodies may have been designed for less gravity than this Earth and perhaps for an entirely different world having less gravity.
And another thought: Knowing what we do about the human genome being radically different from other species on Earth, I can see why clinical trials of new medicines and drugs that seem to work (or not) in animal trials so often fail to work in human trials.
I further wonder to what degree the current mRNA "vaccines" (I don't accept the revised definition of "vaccine" to include these gene-modifying products) will have on the human race 3 to 4 generations from now? Has this human trial with millions (perhaps billions) of participants irreversibly damaged our genetic destiny?
I don't expect to know the answer to that in my lifetime, but I do think it's possible that future generations will curse the clumsy, ham fisted "researchers" that are now being revealed as Public Enemy #1.
All excellent points. Yes, Pye also pointed out the difference between the primates (48 chromosomes / 24 pairs) and humans (46 chromosomes / 23 pairs). As he said, "A species does not lose one entire chromosome pair and turn out BETTER." I'm also aware of the many (too many) genetic deficiencies that humans we have, suggesting that we are not a natural species adapted to Earth.
Operating purely from memory here (my copy of "Darwin's Black Box" is on loan right now), two of the complicated systems of the human body used as examples by Michael Behe are the clotting factor and the bacterium flagellum in the human gut. Behe used the term "Irreducible complexity" to describe these functions, in that "certain biological systems with multiple interacting parts would not function if one of the parts was removed, so supposedly could not have evolved by successive small modifications from earlier less complex systems through natural selection, which would need all intermediate precursor systems to have been fully functional."
It's an interesting point you bring up about circadian cycles and Mars, but while I understand it, it's a rabbit hole I won't go down at this time. Suffice it to say that there is more about human origins and human history than could be written about in this limited venue. There is strong circumstantial and a bit of direct evidence that the human genome has been "tweaked" over the past few millennia, including the side insertion of 223 so-called "alien genes" (https://newslog.cyberjournal.org/human-origins-223-mystery-genes/) at some point in our recent history; i.e., within the last 100,000 years.
I'm not sure that we will know the complete picture of human origins in my lifetime, but I remain hopeful that more revelations will be made in coming years.
Another book you might want to look into is "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. He is a scientist who has studied the Darwinian model of evolution and says that the model cannot be valid.
He claims that certain functions of the human body could not have come about via natural selection, and he gives several examples.
He never states it overtly, but one could draw a conclusion that "intelligent design" was at work in the creation of humans.
I highly recommend it to thinking people.
There's more to this than Darwin's theory, the basis of which was influenced by the Book of Genesis. Even Darwin's work is twisted and misrepresented for Evil Doers.
Although, Charles Robert Darwin contributions borrowed heavily from Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and others, perhaps it was the new era that gave breath to his views. Darwin's views radically changed the debate about the species of animals. In Darwin's time, there was a great scientific debate between monogensism and polygenesism. Darwin originally sided with polygenesists, but changed his tune when criticism from the Church became rather serious. Polygenesists were persecuted by the Church.
Have you noticed even to this day the hostility toward anything promoting polygenesism though? I wonder why? Maybe Darwin himself can answer this. There is no sustainable genetic drift. It's contrary to Nature's Laws. It's contrary to the Eternal Laws. My definition of Eternal Law is different than Thomas Aquinas'. Rather, it involves the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci's spiral. This is demonstrated remarkably through Viktor Schauberger's work, and others and is repeated everywhere throughout the universe.
You mentioned certain functions of the body that come from Natural Selection because all too many human characteristics don't fit at all with the ecology of this world. Here are some:
Humans are the only mammal incapable of producing its own vitamin C.
Most mammals produce Galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose (α-gal) (Alpha-gal) sugars. Humans do not have naturally occurring alpha-gal coating their cell membranes like most other mammals do. Galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose (α-gal) is a sugar structure found in glycoproteins and glycolipids from all mammals except old world primates, including humans. In ancestral Old World monkeys and apes, the gene for the enzyme α-1,3-galactosyltransferase that is essential for the synthesis of α-Gal was inactivated [3]. Therefore, humans and recent Old World primates do not express α-Gal and this structure is highly immunogenic for them. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6344609/
Astronauts stationed in space experience their circadian clock changing to the circadian clock of Mars. To me, that is really weird and perhaps telling.
Compared to animals humans exhibit complete lack of robustness. We have widespread back problems, hip problems, knee problems though out our lifespan that animals lack. As we age, only the adult human brain shrinks.
Are we similar to primates like the apes? Not at all.
Despite the propaganda and lies, we are not even close to being related to apes. Did you know primates can breathe while they drink? How odd. Humans are incapable of this. Did you know apes have more chromosomes than humans? That's right, they have 48 pairs and we have only 46 pairs of chromosomes.
I mentioned earlier robustness that's consistent throughout Nature without exception. Yet, humans are not robust and are frail and weak compared to Nature's creatures. Compared to apes or monkeys our bones are much thinner and lighter. Our muscles are 5 to 10 times weaker. Our skin and adipose tissue are handicaps in this world. Our body hair is missing and the pattern is reversed compared to apes. Our heads and nails must also be trimmed. The human skull is fragile and our brain is not at all similar. Our locomotion is the most obvious difference. Human speech relies on throats that are unlike any other creature on planet Earth and in comparison are completely redesigned. Even our sex is radically different, in that there's no signs of typical oestrus cycles as in animals. Humans have over 4000 genetic disorders, which is not seen in any significant numbers for any species. Compared to animals, even our feet are not designed for walking. It is even thought that our bodies may have been designed for less gravity than this Earth and perhaps for an entirely different world having less gravity.
And another thought: Knowing what we do about the human genome being radically different from other species on Earth, I can see why clinical trials of new medicines and drugs that seem to work (or not) in animal trials so often fail to work in human trials.
I further wonder to what degree the current mRNA "vaccines" (I don't accept the revised definition of "vaccine" to include these gene-modifying products) will have on the human race 3 to 4 generations from now? Has this human trial with millions (perhaps billions) of participants irreversibly damaged our genetic destiny?
I don't expect to know the answer to that in my lifetime, but I do think it's possible that future generations will curse the clumsy, ham fisted "researchers" that are now being revealed as Public Enemy #1.
All excellent points. Yes, Pye also pointed out the difference between the primates (48 chromosomes / 24 pairs) and humans (46 chromosomes / 23 pairs). As he said, "A species does not lose one entire chromosome pair and turn out BETTER." I'm also aware of the many (too many) genetic deficiencies that humans we have, suggesting that we are not a natural species adapted to Earth.
Operating purely from memory here (my copy of "Darwin's Black Box" is on loan right now), two of the complicated systems of the human body used as examples by Michael Behe are the clotting factor and the bacterium flagellum in the human gut. Behe used the term "Irreducible complexity" to describe these functions, in that "certain biological systems with multiple interacting parts would not function if one of the parts was removed, so supposedly could not have evolved by successive small modifications from earlier less complex systems through natural selection, which would need all intermediate precursor systems to have been fully functional."
It's an interesting point you bring up about circadian cycles and Mars, but while I understand it, it's a rabbit hole I won't go down at this time. Suffice it to say that there is more about human origins and human history than could be written about in this limited venue. There is strong circumstantial and a bit of direct evidence that the human genome has been "tweaked" over the past few millennia, including the side insertion of 223 so-called "alien genes" (https://newslog.cyberjournal.org/human-origins-223-mystery-genes/) at some point in our recent history; i.e., within the last 100,000 years.
I'm not sure that we will know the complete picture of human origins in my lifetime, but I remain hopeful that more revelations will be made in coming years.
My head doesn't need trimming, thanks. But, seriously, I understand and agree with your points on the human anatomy. We aren't earthlings.
Thanks. I believe that should have been -'head of hair'.