The end of the book about the end of the evolution theory
I have said my say. (Macro-)Evolution has turned out to be a genetic impossibility. But there is an alternative: the degeneration theory.
It was a very fascinating project for me. It was a pleasure to pry into the thick biology books and read about what we as humanity have discovered about life. I hope that the reader has at least found it worthwhile to read some of my discoveries. I am certainly convinced that life will continue to surprise us, as new discoveries are made. Then we will have to readjust the ideas we had about it. Darwin definitely discovered something and was able to put it into words: natural selection on the level of the origins of new variation. Except Darwin went too far. He had to be pulled back now that we have learned more about DNA, genes and heredity. I think that I too have discovered something and been able to put it into words: degeneration exists. But I am undoubtedly wrong on some parts. However, I am open to correction. He who wishes to improve on my theory can pull me back.
I hope that two things about my writings stay with the reader. In the first place, that the evolution theory is not all that scientific (any more). By definition, it cannot even be proven. Structural biological change only appears over periods of at least ten thousand to a million years, which absolutely cannot be tested by experimentation. In fact, it is more likely that evolution is the philosophy of life held by many scientists, which you get for free with their science.
In the second place, I hope to have shown that a reasonable, scientific, supported alternative is possible, which in many respects does reality more justice than the philosophic idea of the common, single origin of all life.
We are not alone
One important conclusion that is connected to the degeneration theory is this: we are not alone. There is ‘life’ beyond life on Earth, although it is not organic life. That ‘life’ made our life, programmed our DNA. It is an intriguing thought. We are wanted. We are intended. Someone put us here. Why? It is an exciting thought. Why? What is behind it? When you look up at the starry sky at night, you could call out, “Hey, hello. Why?” Someone is ‘there’. Does he see us? Does he know what is going on? Is he still involved in it? Can we find out?
It gives a totally different perspective on the world!
Maybe it is also a scary thought for some people. If someone put us here with a purpose, if someone is ‘watching’ what we do, are we doing it well? Are we doing the right things? Do we dare accept that responsibility? Don’t we just end up with some religious system? An unscientific system? Isn’t it better to hang on to what we have, because everyone is? Do we want this? Do we want to be a ‘creation’? Don’t we lose our freedom?
In other words, the idea that someone, a CreatorÒ, created life, can be both a hopeful, freeing thought as a frightening, oppressing one. Yet I am convinced, for other reasons than the ones discussed in this book, that fear of the Creator® is only necessary for someone with a guilty conscience, and that it is then even better to change your life or the way you think, than to stubbornly continue towards a dead end.
And this issue, the existence of a Creator®, will turn out to be the biggest obstacle to my theory!
I have tried as clearly as possible to show the impossibility of the origin of new (groups of co-operating) genes, and thus the impossibility of a single spontaneous origin of life.
I have tried to remove the argument ‘There is no reasonable scientific alternative’ by introducing the degeneration theory and the concept of typological differentiation.
I have, to the best of my abilities, tried to make predictions (some of which improbable) to test my theory, and so give a scientific model.
But my last prediction is this:
The biggest objections to the ideas of this book will not be of a scientific nature, but of a (hidden) religious nature, because people will be tripped up by the concept of the existence of a Creator®. And ridicule will be the most important argument for those who have no good (scientific) arguments.