Milton clearly stated that he did not support religious fanatics who attacked Darwin's theory of evolution.

"As a scientific journalist and writer who loved geology and paleontology all my life, I was in a very special position when observing and reporting on the situation of Darwin's evolutionary theory in the 1990s."

Milton said in person, "The result is doubtful. Evolution theory no longer works."

According to Milton himself, he was a determined evolutionist. When he began to examine the theory, he regularly visited the prestigious museums in Great Britain. He collected the best examples of Darwin's theory of evolution and carefully looked at it with enthusiasm

But they broke his fantasy one by one, and he realized that many scientists in the world had reached the same conclusion that the emperor in costume was obviously naked.

But what about most people? How many people are still superstitious about the evolutionary theory taught in classrooms? Is this what they have said about the lecture notes for 100 years? Is this a subjective imagination or a fabricated lie?

So why isn't an expert criticizing this theory in public publications?

The reason is simple. These scientists or public figures usually make a living in college or civil servant positions. They are well-trained and qualified.

If they do this, they are breaking their own jobs and will be despised by everyone. It is never a popular practice to make trouble. The hounds of zhèngfu are still alive, and with the addition of Darwinists, their control over the academic circle is unbreakable.

These Darwinists are dogmaticizing their beliefs little by little. Just as their rivals did, the creationists. Compared to the statement that humans and all living things were created by some higher species, Darwin's theory of evolution was in line with political needs.

That is, they choose to distinguish things, if they belong to the people, and they can blame them no matter how they accuse them, but as long as they have background, most of them are silent about this kind of knowledge and cognition.

Many scientists still try to quietly suggest the issue of evolution. In a university speech in 1967, the world-renowned anthropologist Louis Licky mentioned the "missing link". He briefly stated: "There is no missing link here at all, but a missing number link."

This archaeologist and anthropologist, his narrative and analysis of the East African skull 1.75 million years ago discovered by his wife Mary Lich in Tanzania, influenced human evolution theory.

Louis was born in Kenya and his parents were Christian missionaries in the UK. He lived with Kikuyu since childhood, and was later admitted to Cambridge University to study anthropology.

Gould of Harvard eventually wrote a paper suggesting that a theory should be established specifically to explain the absence of intermediate species and the sudden appearance of species. He called this theory "intermittent equilibrium."

People are not usually told that there are scientific problems with Darwin's theory of evolution. And when ordinary people realize that there is a war between creationism and evolution, they obviously regard it as an act of defense, an ancient war between science and belief.

This war was reconciled at the Scopus trial a generation ago. Of course, at the same time, the "missing link" between monkeys and people did make some people uneasy.

The staunch believers of evolution have been confused for a long time about the lack of fossils of intermediate species. They believe that the reason for this lack is that they have not found a place for fossils of intermediate species.

But the biggest question is, how can they think so surely that the truth is like this?

It’s just that Darwin’s theory of evolution requires this. So the search continues. But before finally admitting that there are no transitional species fossils, how much time does it take for us humans to conduct, how many expeditions, and how long does it take to explore?

And what if this is wrong? There is no intermediate stage at all?

Darwin knew that if there were no fossils of transitional species, his theory would become the target of public criticism, that is, lies. What is the difference between this geocentric theory? What is the lie you have learned for 100 years? How ridiculous? So what kind of historical reputation will Darwin and his followers face?

Geneticists have learned a long time ago that a large number of genetic mutations are beneficial or even harmful.

In other words, gene mutations are usually a mistake, a mistake in DNA in the process of accurately copying information. This obviously shows that mutations are not a reliable means necessary for evolution, because natural selection obviously does not provide such motivation that can lead to what evolutionists call evolution.

It should be said that natural selection operates like a control mechanism, a feedback system, which clears away those that are not adapted and selects those that have been successfully adapted.

Moreover, if gene mutations are taken as the root of evolution, there will be many problems.

As Bach pointed out in his work, the life of cells is so complex that it is simply impossible to be the product of random xing gene mutations. Darwin did not have the laboratory technology that biologists have today.

Today, we humans understand the history of female xingdna for about 130,000 years. Darwin studied species, not cellular structures, mitochondria and DNA.

However, mutation theory also does not work in the field of species, and its level of understanding of things is different, so it is said that evolution theory has explained many things.

Let’s go back to the question of flowering plants, flowers have a very high system. Most flowers are specially designed for bees and other pollinating insects. So, are there bees or flowers first?

We can immediately find that the first question is: Why did the primitive flowering plants that rely on xing for generations suddenly grow tissues that need to reproduce?

According to evolution, all this happens when gymnosperms mutate, and over time, gymnosperms become flowering plants. However, is all this possible?

Let us think about the following facts: In flowering plants, before the seed plants can reproduce, pollen must be able to spread from male anthers to female stigmas, and this variation starts with a plant at a certain time and place.

But at this time there are no insects or animals suitable for spreading pollen, because there were no flowers before this. That is to say, once the pollen method spreads, reproduction is just an empty talk.

It is here that the union between variation, natural selection and gradualism is broken.

How does xing reproduction become xing reproduction? When explaining this question, evolutionists said that this is because evolution progresses too slowly, so the relationship between evolution is very small and difficult to observe.

But this is obviously an illogical inference. If evolution is really slow, then we should find a lot of fossils that can prove that the "missing link" does exist.

Natural selection does not choose to make a gymnosperm or a goat-tooth plant suddenly mutate into a tissue, because this requires a lot of energy consumed in meaning.

In other words, flowers and plants will not slowly grow flower tissue part by part, so it will take tens of millions of years to grow into flowers with complete functions. This is obviously contrary to the theory of Dahl's natural choice of cultural relics and survival of the fittest.

The more you examine the logical reasoning of evolution theory, the more confused you are. Since there are no flowers of the same species next to you, how should an evolutionary flower reproduce?

Why do archaeologists find a large amount of evidence of gymnosperms and angiosperms in fossils, but cannot find any intermediate species to explain how plants mutate into flowers? There is a problem with the scientific logic analysis of evolution theory, and the logic cannot be continued here.

But how many people are still superstitious about the speculative theories of the intellectual community in the Enlightenment Age?

If evolution theory cannot explain the causes of species formation and how life on Earth evolved, then who can? Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of the DNA double helix structure, proposed the concept of "embryo seed theory".

This theory believes that life was brought to the earth by alien higher civilizations. Obviously, Crick did not buy Darwin's account. In addition, Bach also proposed the "intelligent design theory" in "Darwin's Black Box".

Regarding the origin of life, people have become accustomed to thinking that life originated from the earth itself. Today, there is another saying, that is, the theory of cosmic embryo.

This theory believes that the original organisms on Earth come from "embryo species" from other planets or universes, and they can reach the earth through light pressure or meteorites.

This view was quite popular in the 19th century, and there are still a few scientists who insisted it. For example, British molecular scientist Crick and others, based on the fact that the earth's organisms have a unified genetic code and the rare element molybdenum has a special and important role in the enzyme system, speculated that all organisms on the earth developed from the embryo of a molybdenum-rich civilized planet billions of years ago.

For example, based on the fact that certain bacteria can survive under conditions such as high temperature, dryness or strong radiation, British astronomer Hoyle also firmly believes that "cosmic embryo species" can reach the earth through various harsh environments, and believes that some carbonaceous chondrites actually contain coking bacteria and spores.

The "cosmic embryo seed theory" currently lacks convincing evidence. If this theory can be valid, it will not solve the problem of how the earliest "embryo seed" life originated.

In other words, this hypothesis believes that the earliest life or organic matter that constitutes life on Earth comes from other cosmic planets or interstellar dust.

Scholars who hold this hypothesis believe that certain microbial spores can attach to interstellar dust particles and fall into the earth, thus giving the earth an initial life.

But we know that physical conditions in the universe, such as ultraviolet rays and other high-energy shè lines and temperatures, are fatal to life. Moreover, even if these lives are present, they will be killed due to the high temperature when they pass through the atmosphere and reach the earth as meteorites pass through the atmosphere.

Therefore, life forms at the level of microbial spores seem unlikely to fly from the sky. However, some scholars believe that some organic matter that constitutes life is completely possible from the universe.

.duyidu.

Read it

On September 28, 1969, scientists discovered that a carbon meteorite falling in the town of Maiqisun, Australia contained 18 amino acids, 6 of which were necessary for protein molecules that constitute organisms.

Scientific research shows that some organic molecules such as amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, etc. can be produced on the surface of interstellar dust. These organic molecules may be brought to the earth by comets or their meteorites and evolved into primitive life on the earth.

Other biologists, such as Lynn Margulis, think that evolution theory emphasizes too much about the view that the main driving force behind survival is competition.

She pointed out that cooperation is equally easy to observe. It is also important and important. There are many examples of symbiosis in nature: flowers need bees, and conversely, bees need flowers.

Another example is mycorrhizal fungi and forests. The bacteria on mycorrhizal fungi can produce nitrogen for plants. There are many such examples. Isn’t the human body also composed of different cells? Viruses have also worked together to create complex tissues.

The old models have begun to give way to ideas and patterns, such as intelligent design theory and alien interventionism. Freud was a pioneer in the 19th century, and his discoveries illuminated the path of knowledge.

The same pioneers were Newton, whose model created the prospects that solved the old problems. Nevertheless, they still had limitations, and their theories were based on mechanism and materialism.

With the emergence of various theories in the electrical age, Newtonian theory began to eclipse. The patterns of physics laws conform to reality. They answered many questions and played a great role.

Who can know, in biology, who will be the next Darwin?

Unless there is a theory that can effectively explain the origin and evolution of species, one can say what Milton said: "Darwinism is completely useless."

And when we look back on history, we will find that many years ago, Darwin's theory was also questioned and considered to be a madman and a madman.

In Europe at that time, the Bible Genesis told everyone that God created the world in six days and created the first man Adam with the soil on the earth.

Many Christians believe that God created humanity in the Garden of Eden six thousand years ago. Scientists and religious scholars call this theory "creation theory."

It was not until 1859 that Darwin made another point: he believed that the emergence of human beings could only be explained through evolution and natural selection.

That is to say, the fittest survive. According to Darwin's theory, man evolved from monkeys, which is indeed a strange idea compared to the explanations of the Bible.

Richard Thompson and Michael Cramer co-wrote the "Archaeology Forbidden Zone". In the book, they collected a batch of evidence to prove that modern people did not appear in South Africa as speculated, hundreds of thousands of years ago, but appeared millions of years ago.

Later, NBC filmed a documentary called "The Mystery of the Origin of Humanity", where Thompson and Kramer came here with evidence and other experts.

The evidence they brought showed that humans neither evolved from monkeys nor were they created by God in the soil 4,000 years before the birth of Christ. Their theory has far-reaching influence and may force everyone to reconsider the issue of the origin of the entire human race.

In this documentary, Charlton Hurston shows a lot of evidence that scientific institutions ignore.

In this way, "The Mystery of the Origin of Humanity" brings the Bible and the Debate of Evolution to the World. Many people gather together to discuss the human footprints found in Texas, which are just printed next to the footprints of dinosaurs.

We discuss whether stone tools are going back 55 million years ago, discussing the secret map of unknown era, and discussing the evidence of prehistoric higher civilizations together.

There are also the exquisite tools we gave earlier, etc. Do you think primitive humans can design them without any purpose or intelligence? Many theories are not without reason.

At the turning point of the 19th century, Darwin's theory of evolution began to become the mainstream theory in the scientific community. Based on comprehensive research on this period and later archaeological discoveries, "The Mystery of the Origin of Humanity" revealed a certain "knowledge filtering" phenomenon in scientific institutions.

A prejudice that is willing to accept dogma and turn a blind eye to certain evidence simply because it does not support traditional doctrines.

Unfortunately, for a century, fossil evidence points out that humans appeared much earlier than traditional theories believed, and that humans did not evolve from monkeys, and of course they were not made of earth.

NBC's documentary reveals that this view was banned because it had violated a solid belief system. Further, scientists who challenged dogma eventually found that they were not only excluded from the debate but also had the potential to lose their jobs.

Scientific observer Richard Milton and other experts pursued the so-called "specified leap" of evolution. They believe that the so-called common ancestors of humans and monkeys have never been found, and it was only fabricated by scientists who are too keen to find the "missing link" of human evolution.

Talking about the 120-year effort to prove evolution, Milton believes that "there seems to be nothing missing."

Why not take a look at the so-called Javanese erectus example: In 1891, anthropologist Eugene Dibois discovered a human femur and an ape skull in Indonesia, only 40 feet apart. So he had an idea and pieced together the two bones to create the famous Javanese erectus.

However, many experts believe that this femur has nothing to do with the skull. Not long before Dibois died, he himself said that the skull actually belonged to a big monkey, and that femur belonged to a human being.

To this day, Javanese apes are still used as evidence of monkey evolution and appear as a symbol of evolution in the New York Museum.
Chapter completed!