Artist · Writer David Branstetter

    .com

    • My Projects
      • Dim-Light Graphics
      • Straw Man
      • Deviant Art
  • Music
  • My Projects
  • Writings
    • Essays
    • Reviews
    • Uncategorized
  • About Me
  • Oct
    17th
    The Proximity Problem: A Case Study in Evolution

    When discussing Evolutionary Theory, we must take into account the proximity of mating between two pairings of two sub-humans at the moment that both sub-humans pass on their identical genetic mutation.

    For Evolutionary theory to work, we must first assume that human life originated from both a male and a female sub-human. As we understand reproduction today, it takes both a male and female to create offspring. Let us assume that the male chromosome is actually a damaged female chromosome and a mutation. If the first human was female, then she would have to reproduce asexually until the male mutation appeared so that her offspring could mate to perpetrate the species. While some cases have shown in nature that females can spontaneously reproduce (i.e. frogs and sharks), it is a rare event. The rarity of the event would not take place in one lifetime and so therefore it would be impossible for a female to reproduce asexually. In addition to that, she would have to reproduce often and create the vital male chromosome through an extremely unlikely mutation. Therefore we must eliminate this possibility of evolution from our theory.

    This is important because we must establish that male and female pairings had to spawn the first human. The proximity problem comes into play because every mutation that is passed down from each successful pairing must be able to be physically passed down from one generation to the next. Yes we can assume that accidental changes in DNA can happen and often do. These changes are often non-beneficial to human life as we know it. Occasionally it may lead to an individual having superior calculation skills but at the expense of being able to socialize, or possibility mating. We can observe that mutation in DNA can be passed down from generation to generation (i.e. Hemophilia) and that it is possible for humans to live and reproduce while expressing DNA mutations. However, in the case of Hemophilia, we can assume that if modern medicine did not have the capability of preventing loss of life that eventually [“life, that” and omit eventually here –you have it in the sentence later] those that carry this gene would eventually die out, because under normal circumstances this genetic mutation leads to death.

    The interesting thing about genetic expression is that it can express three different gene types. Dominant and dominant, recessive and dominant, and recessive and recessive. Evolutionary theory assumes that we create higher forms of life depending on the successful succession of mutated recessive gene types. In order for an organism to pass on its DNA, it must mate with another of its kind to produce offspring. That is to say, if a subhuman tried to mate with a different subhuman and it was not able to produce a viable offspring, then that line of genetic mutation is cut off and can longer be used as the stepping stone towards the evolved human. Not only does this mating need to create a viable offspring, that offspring must mate with its brother or sister to ensure that its new mutation is passed down to its offspring. Even then, the likely hood [likelihood] that the recessive gene type will be passed on is slim. You have a 75% chance that the offspring would express the dominate trait and that those offspring would more than likely mate with a different family of subhumans. Thus the precious recessive trait would be buried in a mountain of dominate types, eventually killing off the genetic mutationthrough natural selection.

    We know that we exist because we are here. We know that humans came from other humans. What we do not know is how those humans came to be. While the theory of Evolution tries to account for this, itdoes not make sense from a mathematical or statistical point of view. Humans are sophisticated creatures. When a tiny thing goes wrong with our bodies, it can lead to death. Look at cancer. It’s a little mutation that tells your cells to keep producing no matter what, even to the point of death. This is a microscopic change in the way our cell functions. Just imagine how many wrong turns it took to get to the animal we call human.

    It is bad science to run to one explanation of our existence over another explanation without due process. The Theory of Evolution does not hold up to the basic scientific method! Sure we can “Ask a Question” where did we come from [“Where did we come from?”] , and we can “Do Background Research” by observing the natural processes that are around us. Evolutionists have “Constructed a Hypothesis” that states that through small genetic changes over a course of time humans evolved from a lower form of animal. The observation is, “Hey I look like a monkey; I wonder if I evolved from a monkey? I am a creature of higher intelligence and must therefore be better than a monkey. So if I am better than a monkey , some changes must of occurred over a span of time to turn me into the human I am today.” The next step would be then to “Test the Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment”. How can we test such a thing? Evidence has been produced claiming that fossil records prove that humans were in transitional states between a monkey and a human. It would be one thing to postulate that humans evolved without any proof , but it is another to have actual fossil records showing the changes. When an individual actually examines the evidence for himself, he will find that over the decades since the Theory of Evolution was formulated several fossils have been produced that claim to be the missing link; however, they have actually been proven to be fake, elaborate hoaxes, or misclassified bones. Sometimes reconstructions have assembled both human and monkey bones and were later dis-proven (i.e. Lucy). The last two steps of the scientific method are to “Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion” and to “Communicate Your Results”. The scientific community has been communicating its “results” for years but has not followed the method perfectly. Those same scientists have drawn the conclusion before analyzing the data. To those of you who say “Wait! We have plenty of evidence!” there are at least 5 examples on Wikipedia of missing links! Uh hu. How often do we see despairingly different variations of our own kind? Short people, tall people, black people, white people… Still people…..still human and still able to mate and produce viable offspring. In fact there is no evidence of a change of kind in the entire fossil record. That is the main thrust of Evolutionary Theory and yet the evidence is just not there. If it were true, we would simply see more evidence. Lucy’s bones are supposedly 3.2 million years old. If one set of bones can survive 3.2 million years, than surely we would be able to find a plethora of evidence to support the theory of evolution. Sadly enough it is just not there.

    I love this quote from Arthur Conan Doyle “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Clearly the Theory of Evolution has holes in it. While believing in something like Creationism is uncomfortable, a good scientist will not eliminate something because of the way it makes him feel. We see evidences in our life; we see order in a swirl of chaos, and we intuitively understand the unquantifiable. The natural progression of the universe is to destroy itself, yet Man is a product of biological perfection. How can such a fragile creature thrive in such desperate conditions? How could it be that those little mutations managed to survive and thrive? Was it the guiding hand of evolution or was it the guiding hand of God?

    The very idea of crediting a supernatural force for an event goes against the very fabric of science. I agree that we should use science to observe the world around us and not give in to superstition. We can recall from our textbooks the discovery of the life-cycle of flies. Many believed that flies were magical beings that came from nowhere or a supernatural source. However, science was able to prove that these flies actually came from the worms in the meat which were maggots that developed from fly eggs. Only by doing the research and applying the scientific method were they able to make that discovery. I love science because it is able to describe the complexity of the world in ways of which I could never dream. When science turns from observation and into speculation it is almost always incorrect.

    What are some of the ways we can test the Theory of Evolution? Why not try to combine the DNA of monkeys and a human to see if they are even compatible? Why not test that result by breeding that offspring together to see if they even can reproduce? I speculate that in the same way a horse and donkey offspring (A Mule) cannot create its own offspring, human and monkeys are genetically incompatible. If such a test was conducted, we could possibly end some of the speculation surrounding the evolution debate. My question to you is, why have you taken the word of others over your own thoughts and observations? Why leave such a huge question up to the experts without examining it for yourself? Amongst many reasons I believe the Theory of Evolution is not the answer to why humans exists, and we certainly do exist.

    Post Categories: Essays
  • ‹ Daft Punk : Random Access MemoriesDoctor Who: Prisoners of Time ›
  • Comments

    1. Lincoln Luman says:
      June 5, 2014 at 12:19 am

      Hey Dave,

      I find your essay to be very interesting and it is clear to me that we are more alike than I initially thought. It has taken me a few days to get online again, but I wanted to learn more about Strawman and that lead me here via dimlight.

      I also believe the Darwinian theory is flawed, because if we use logic and do the research we find holes in the “Science” and parts of the theory contradict. I almost went to school to be a doctor or a biologist, so I find it interesting that you are as big of a geek as I am.

      I enjoyed Strawman and I have some questions/ideas for you that have been floating through my head since reading it. I enjoyed talking to you at IndyPopCon and I will be emailing you soon.

      -Lincoln

      Reply
    2. Lotta says:
      July 8, 2014 at 5:16 pm

      There are more than three types of “genetic expression”. I´d call it genotypic interaction: Allel relations can be recessive and dominant to each other, but there is also semi-dominant and incomplete dominance. Any dominant allel can be recessive to yet another. Then there is the concept of multipe alles, where the numer of “active” gene define the phenotype (since you discuss genetics I asume you have a basic education in science and I don´t think i need to explain words), for example curls or coloring. Recessive and dominant can occur in autosomal and x- or y-cromosomal genes, where the mechanisms work differently for males and females. And then there is the every interesting field of epigenetics…..
      Recessive allels coding for a deadly diseases are more “successfull”, because they can hide in heterozygote carriers (e.g. the most common desease with an autosomal dominant mechanism: cystic fibrosis). Dominant diseases that cause death at an early age are not really “sucessfull” from a evolutionary perpective, since the carriers dies before reproducing. Those that survive evolution are those that express themselves at a later stage in life (e.g. Huntington´s disease). Your example, haemophilia, is a x-cromosomal recessive type, which has been with humans for a long time, much longer than science has found a way to treat it. It won´t die out because you can´t spot a female homozygotic carrier, the allel does not make her sick in any way (even though she might have just a little less of some bood factors, but that will only be tested, if she has positive familie history for it), but she will pass it on to half of her sons (statictically).
      And one thing: evolution is not the same as saying humans derive from monkeys. No scientis has said that and I find it the use of this catchphrase manipulative. And your suggestions to do genetic experiments combining humans and monkey is just unethical.

      Reply
      • david says:
        July 10, 2014 at 4:04 pm

        Yes I understand there are three types of expression. The problem is that those expressions have to link up with the same expression to pass on that genetic information. The DNA has to be locked in by both the mother and father before it becomes a permanent addition to the final human form.

        I’ve also heard scientists say that monkeys are not direct ancestors of humans. Yet the whole premise of evolution is based on the observation that certain animals are logically related to one another and that you can trace their linage to once source, that being primordial soup. The best adapted animals are the “survivors”. Science postulates that there’s an unknown common ancestor between humans and apes. Yet there’s no physical evidence to such a thing. So called evidence that’s been collected to prove their existence is sketchy. You can find plenty of evidence in the fossil record of both humans and chimpanzees, but you won’t find the same evidence for this unknown creature. Obviously both humans and chimpanzees are highly successful creatures. It would then follow that their common ancestor would have to be successful as well. Therefore such a creature does not exist.

        As far as the ethical nature of combining humans and monkeys, I agree. It sounds unethical on the surface. Let’s look at this logically though. If this creature lives and is able to function without suffering it would be up to us to treat it humanly. It’s humanity is not dependent on how we treat it. Likewise if it has a soul it’s not up to us decide, since we cant measure that scientifically. I think the experimentations in breeding could answer questions that we can not otherwise answer. If it’s able to generate human offspring then we can validate the theory of evolution. If the theory of evolution has no ability to prove itself, then we must stop presenting the theory as truth. As an atheist you would agree with me that spreading superstitious information to millions of people can be harmful. I feel that the greater ethical battle can put an end to many delusions.

        Reply
  • Leave a Reply Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    *

    *

  • Links

    • Deviant Art
    • Straw Man Comics

    Categories

    • Essays
    • Music
    • My Projects
    • Reviews
    • Uncategorized
    • Writings

    Recent Posts

    • Broken
    • Lest We Forget
    • Pokemon Go
    • Portable DVD player fix
    • Nes Collection
  • Recent Comments

    • david on About Me
    • IanShires on About Me
    • david on The Proximity Problem: A Case Study in Evolution
    • Lotta on The Proximity Problem: A Case Study in Evolution
    • Lincoln Luman on The Proximity Problem: A Case Study in Evolution

    Archives

    • November 2016
    • August 2016
    • July 2016
    • September 2015
    • May 2015
    • January 2014
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
    • June 2013
    • April 2013
    • December 2012

Good Old Fashioned Hand Written Code by Eric J. Schwarz and Good Old Fashioned editing by David Branstetter