Confer above, p280. Origin of Species, 1859.

No. You are trying too hard to fit your beliefs in this. Cherry-picking things that corroborate your religion is not the way science works. You can believe in the bible, but the facts say otherwise.

Dear Gomes de Lima

Couldn't it be said -you- are trying too hard to fit your atheist beliefs? By Darwin's own words, the fossil record doesn't corroborate his conjecture.

Gary, you showed a media article that you didn't even read. In the same article shows that your point is just nonsense from creationists. The article, and the paper cited, just reinforce the idea of bottlenecks that occurred during human evolution. If that is hard for you to understand, then you should not post such things. Also, we are far from seeing fossil records that do not corroborate with the current knowledge. Please, stay away from this social media. This is a space for people with true knowledge about science. You are a creationist making things up and trying to coopt science in to your nonsense.

“Degenerating via mutations”? Does not sound like anything a comparative geneticist would say. Sounds like someone using entropy as an anti evolutionary argument.

Cover, New Scientist, 24th January, 2009

My former supervisor, John D. Taylor (HRI-Wellesbourne, UK) once told me that writing an article for a biology journal is often more challenging than writing for a physics or mathematics journal. This is because you can never be completely sure of the outcome of your research. It's important to demonstrate how confident you are in your findings. A lot of this depends on the initial assumptions made in the experiment. The cited paper of Fu, W. et al. (2012) came before the work of Batini, et al. (Large-scale recent expansion of European patrilineages shown by population resequencing". Nat Commun 6, 7152 (2015) that described "an abrupt population bottleneck specific to human males has been inferred across several Old World (Africa, Europe, Asia) populations 5000–7000 BP." I am sure that very soon we learn something new about human evolution.

gary, you are a creationist. Move on, you are just embarrassing yourself.

Gary, Darwin said, in 1859, that if fossil collecting did not uncover intermediate forms that this would be a serious problem for his theory. Since then systematic collecting has shown intermediate forms in many lineages includin humans horses,whales, elephants, and so on.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text-books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches ; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

--Stephen J. Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University) Evolution’s Erratic Pace - Natural History, May, 1977.

Still, this take is 50 years old, and that doesn’t prove at all your point. You started talking about human evolution and now you are trying to disprove fossil records? Come on, gary. Just say that you don’t understand science, it’s a more honest position. Genetics, paleontology, zoology and several other subjects of biology has proven evolution as a scientific fact. You can try as hard as you want, the earth is not fla.

No, I wholly approve of the fossil record. As Darwin said, and Professor Stephen J. Gould later reiterated, some 118 years later, the fossil record disproves evolutionary theory.

Simply put, in 2009, by New Scientist, "Darwin was wrong".

He has several books supporting evolution And fossil records. what you are saying is dishonest. I don’t expect anything from a creationist. Please, go way, you are not welcomed.

This very detailed analysis of the bone record, points to the "evolutionary tree" being not a tree at all, but parallel lines, moving up vertically. So we have apes remaining apes. Chimpanzees remaining chimpanzees. Fish remaining fish. Whales remaining whales. And Mankind remaining Mankind.

Cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkOyKwy8IHo

Gary , your next step is claiming that the earth is flat

How many people know Darwin thought his own theory was disproved by the fossil record? How many people know it remains disproved by the fossil record?

How many people understand we have no idea where life comes from, how it was created, fully intact, out of nothing, and suddenly.

Gary, the earth is not flat. Move on.

The spell cast by Darwin is a long one. Those that are under it, are in a state of mesmerism. It appears to be a plausible idea, at the outset, but upon closer inspection, falls at the first hurdle-- the fossil record. It also appears now to be falsified by the genetic record.

Since the alternative is "unthinkable"-- some academicians simply bury their head in the sand.

Gary, move on. You are just delusional

Very interesting point. In a scientific discussion it is not acceptable to say "you are just delusional" or "move on the earth is not flat". I am just reading the Nature paper and it looks rigorous. I am not interested if one is creationist or not because this is not science. I am interested in the scientific truth proved by robust scientific arguments and not by ideological positions.

Concerning the general scientific discussion , results show that there is biological evolution but it is much more complicated than Darwin's description. This is because Darwin's did not have DNA sequencing technologies. Another point is the quality of DNA in fossils and the lack of all necessary fossils to make a precise analysis. So this question is very challenging and requires prudence in formulating of rigorous scientific theories.

Alfredo, if you want to spend your time with dishonest people claiming things based on anti scientific (creationist) journals, go ahead. He is not here for a discussion, you will only waste your time. But go ahead, make yourself comfortable. Alfredo Ferro

Leonardo, why should be creationism be necessarily anti scientific? Creationism is a philosophical position which should be treated with philosophical arguments. In philosophy you make arguments (scientific, historical, etc..) in favour of one position . The object of Science is explaining reality and the methodologies are formal and based on mathematical theories and experimental activities. So creation does not belong to the scientific area . On the other hand one should not forget that reality is always more than formal constructive reasoning as Goedel Incompleteness Theorems and its consequences. So one can construct scientific theories (mechanics, relativity, quantum physics etc..) explaining part of reality and able to make correct predictions. However no scientific theory can formalize the whole reality and in particular can either prove or disprove creation. So every person makes this philosophical choice on the base of his own intelligence and experiences and nobody else can criticize this free choice.

Happy New Year!

Alfredo, if you don’t understand why creationism is anti scientific then you should rethink working with sciencE. I am wondering how creationism could be scientifiC. Do you mind explaining how it works, philosophically. ? It seems to me that you are stuck in another age

Alfredo Ferro, freedom of thinking is not a good argument to say that creationism is not antiscientific, especially if that philosophical approach undermines your methodology, results and theories. One can believe that god created life on earth, that doesn’t mean the person is scientifically correct. I imagine that you support vaccines, right? Some people think otherwise, but only one can be correct.

Leonardo are youn trying to state that Galileo, Euler,Pascal,Leibniz etc..up to Enrico Fermi are not good scientists ?

There can not any purely scientific formal proof of truth of creationism or not creationism . Peolple have presented arguments in favour or against such philosophical position . I respect freedom of both choices including yours.

If your knowledge of science is restricted to XVIII science then I must tell you some bad news, philosophy of science has changeD. And yes, from a philosophical standpoint, they were wrong, although they achieved great things. Is this hard to understand?

Enrico Fermi is not XVIII science. He was born in 1901 and died in 1954!

Alfredo, and the others? You are cherry-picking things. I am now worried about how you do your science.

It's a bit of a coincidence, isn't it, that the above age of mankind's known existence upon the Earth matches the genetic record.

Why isn't mankind's imprint 20,000 years old? 40,000 years old?

Is it because, genetically speaking-- it was impossible for man to have existed before 5000-10,000 years ago?

Civilization and mankind are two very different things. I am starting to think you are a troll.

Gary carbon-dating seems to indicate human DNA 100K years . Recently the same technique is stated 300K years. However the same DNA does not imply the same function or civilization. The point is that the language of Bible is differnt from the scientific one. Bible tries to communicate God message to humans through the history of Israel. This message focuses on the centrality of love without conditions and totally donated (similar to that of a mother of a young criminal). What I do not appreciate in this discussion is opinion polarization on philosophical questions: "If you do not have my philosophical opinion then you are a bad scientist, a troll etc..". The lack of respect towards other opinion is called fundamentalism and is the source of most of the violence we read on the newspaper. Happy new year!

Confer above. Also exemplified by your own figures-- if it gave 100K, and then 300K, it could just have well have given +200K next time around--years old in the future. ie. the sample could have dated to the future. I believe in some cases this has actually happened.

That is the laughable state of "carbon dating". It "sounds" scientific, when in actual fact, due to the myriad assumptions-- in reality the items are dated according to what date the investigators are looking for.

Far more accurate, and in direct contradiction to your 300K figure are the ones given in the Nature and Science papers based on the degeneration via mutations of the Genome. Their estimates were between 5000 and 10,000 years old. This is also in alignment with the age of mankind's imprint upon the earth, referenced above.

Confer also.

I think there should be far more rigorous questioning of assumed facts. It's easy to slip into a kind of trance-- as has been evidenced by some of the posts and recommendations above.

Yes that's right. The evidence now all points against Darwin's conjecture (as it did at its inception.) That's the problem for the atheists. They backed the wrong horse.

And Happy New Year.

Alfredo, The lack of respect towards dishonest people is not fundamentalism, it is knowledGe. If gary thinks that vaccines are bad, why should anyone respect that? You are just trying to leave the door open for your own beliefs, Alfredo. Read the room, he is denying science in front of you and you are enjoying because you somehow think similar (regarding only the creationism)

Hi Gary,

Happy New Year! I apologize for those who have scoffed at you in this forum. I think that it is due to the amount of anti-science skepticism in the world today that we often find ourselves having to deal with. So sometimes we forget that one of our most important obligations is to share our knowledge with others. So rather than argue with you I will try if I may, to educate you about some things that I think you do not properly understand.

First of all, the Nature article you cite does not say that the human genome is between 5,000 to 10,000 years old. It does remark on a large number of variants that appear to have originated during that period. While I am not an anthropologist I believe that the oldest fossils that have been identified as Homo sapiens, the species to which we belong, have been dated to around 200,000 years ago. So modern humans have been around for at least that long. And I would not be surprised if someone discovers more fossils which push the date even further back. Now with every generation new mutations occur and some become a part of our genomes. The general thinking is that most mutations lead to changes that are harmful and individual who have these mutations typically die young before they can pass them on. The next most common types of mutations are neutral. These are found in areas of the genome that do not seem to serve any purpose because they do not code for a protein that we are aware of. So, while they don’t do any harm, they don’t provide any benefit either. Rarest of all are beneficial mutations. These change the protein the gene codes for in subtle ways that improve its function. If this improvement helps individuals with the mutation to live longer and have more offspring, it will quickly increase in frequency. But again, this happens very rarely.

I am also familiar with Darwin’s remarks about the fossil record. If you read his book, he is discussing the objections that can be raised against his theory. And as you point out one of them is the incompleteness of the fossil record. If you go to the right places, fossils are very common. But the odds of any individual organism becoming a fossil are very small. First you have to die in the right place. Then you have to become buried in sediment. Then the sediment has to solidify for an extremely long period of time. Finally someone has to find you. The percentage of extinct organisms we have identified is very small compared to the number of extinct species that existed. This is because no individuals were preserved. But new discoveries are being made all the time and there are many examples of intermediate forms (sometimes called transition fossils). Maybe the best known example is Archeopteryx.

Lastly, I’m sorry but creationism is not a scientific explanation because it cannot be tested experimentally. Scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable, which just means that it is possible to design an experiment that can prove them wrong. This by the way does not mean that they are correct (or, if you prefer, right.) It only means that we have not yet eliminated them. Scientists never “prove” anything. We can only disprove things. So, there should be a preface added to every law, or principle, or theory we generally accept to be true. It should say, “To the best of our knowledge…” Science is by its very nature self correcting. So when new data is collected and brought to bear on a question, it can change our understanding and overturn previous thinking. The belief that the universe was created by a deity is certainly possible. And all of the universe is so wonderful, and things work so perfectly it can seem reasonable to think that there was a conscious intelligence behind it. But since we cannot test that belief in an experimental fashion all we can say is that it is possible but since we can’t test it we cannot accept it as a scientific explanation. Scientists are constrained by this so we cannot invoke supernatural causes as explanations. This does not mean that they don’t exist. But since we can’t disprove them we cannot invoke them. Darwinian evolution has been verified experimentally countless times which is why we accept it as the best explanation for the origin and diversity of life. Since Darwin we have learned a great deal more about how it works and it is much more complex than Darin imagined. But so far no one has disproven his theory. All we have done is add to it and expand it.

Confer above.

I got a letter from Fred Hoyle. (I attended a lecture of his at Cambridge). Great man. But in my view he was mistaken in his panspermia theory.

So the one "transition" fossil he quotes--- is likely a forgery.

He doesn't quote any others--- there aren't any others. (The forgery was the most convincing).

He complains the fossil record is not complete--- he thinks Darwin's hypothesis will be proved--- "in the future".

New Scientist didn't get the memo. . .

Hi Gary,

One of the reasons that people are reacting so negativly to your posts is that you are’t going your homework. In other words you really should read the articles before you post them. The 2009 article you posted discusses a rather complex problem when we try to reconstruct evolutionary history called horizontal transfer which occurs when bacterial cell exchange genetic material. In fact back in 2023 they published an article titled Darwin was right. You should read it. Here is a link

https://whyevolutionistrue.com

The problem with the somewhat patronising tone of the above, is that no compelling evidence for Darwinian evolution is presented (---or any evidence at all.) The long speil is full of excuses. When pointed out the "transition fossil" was likely a fraud-- there is no comment. It's not just the New Scientist article. Confer below.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text-books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches ; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

--Stephen J. Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University) Evolution’s Erratic Pace - Natural History, May, 1977.

Gary, you are a dishonest person, please, stop posting.

I had expected to be presented with some incontrovertible evidence for Darwin evolution by those who should know-- they are in the field.

Instead, quite amusingly, I was presented with "Archaeopteryx"

together with a long list of excuses on why there wasn't a galaxy of evidences in the fossil record. Er, why there wasn't any evidence at all in the fossil record.

But "new discoveries are being made all the time"...

That sounds hopeful.

What's interesting about the below description is that it is of a Genome that is "running down."

It's not a description of a Genome that is "evolving", even though the author is trying his best to make it sound like something to do with evolution.

>

An amateur group. Period. They were amateurs and didn't know what they were doing. Move on, evolution is a scientific fact.

"founding father of paleontology" ---> "no evidence for evolution"

Niles Eldredge ( h-index = 43) :

"As a PhD candidate, I set out to collect trilobite fossils from all over the Midwest. And I started to realize that the fossils I was collecting — whatever point in time I was in — all looked the same. I found no evidence of change. At first I put that down to my inexperience… " I'm not good enough to see the obvious changes that are here. "

I wonder why no one under this head ever "recommends" :

1. Darwin's own admission --above. 2. Professor Gould's (Harvard) admission, above. 2. Cuvier the "founding father of paleontology" statement, above. 3. Niles Eldredge ( h-index = 43) -- observation, above.

Hi James, I do agree with most of your arguments and I believe that Science has precise rules that we must follow. However as I mentioned before this falsification process that Popper emphasized can never totally include the whole reality as a consequence of Goedel Incompleteness Theorem. On the other hand most of real relevant questions about our life depend on philosophical choices that should take into account all our knowledge including the scientific one. You mentioned an example of the precision of all phiycs constants regulating most of the phenomena. For example I take antibiotics since I know the science behind them but I choose a particular one omn the basis of trust in my personal phisician

The problem is one's viewpoint colours what one takes to be facts.

As I have pointed out (above) very many biologists or paleontologists have come to the view that the fossil record refutes Darwin evolution.

Their view is essentially that each specie remains each specie forever. They see this in the fossil record.

Now because of the celebrity of Darwin, and what they read at school-- indoctrinated from a young age, they take it that Darwin must be right.

Even after many years in the field, they are still labouring under the mistaken idea that Darwin evolution is right, and you find that list of excuses rattled-out above, with the even more tell-tale line "but discoveries are being made all the time".

Meaning the evidence is not actually in existence.

James,

in studying evolution it is important not only to look at genes and proteins but often epigenetics seems to play a key role! The complexity of organism is not given by the genes (mouse ones are very close to human) but their regulation has several level of complexity. It is like in programmiong languages, the elementary instructions of two C programs can be the same but the complexity can be very different because the logic may be more complex. So for example a single base mutation in a microRNA may cause a dramatic change in regulation. In particular brain functions require real-time regulation and show a very compkex epigenetics. For the questions we are discussing knowledge about brain biology and functions are too primitive to give us enough information about psycological or "spiritual" activity.

So we know something about hardware(DNA) evolution but we need more software (RNA ,epigenetics etc..) evolution

That sounds like a load of of hot-air. There is no evolution. The fossil record proves this--- show me an intermediate species, that is not a forgery.

There is degeneration of the genome via mutations. The genome is running down.

Alfredo, you should quit science. A professor saying those things is not acceptable. you should be embarrassed of yourself

Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.

The Fake Archaeopteryx and Other Great Hoaxes Of History | Our History -- A . C. Clarke :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9dHhFjOBpA

Leonardo, which things do you refer to?

Darwin's bear-whale "theory".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mfn2upw-O8

Man was never a "beast" for millions of years. We have only been around, according to latest the genetic degeneration estimates, for between 5000 and 10,000 years.

Another "missing link" that wasn't.

You misinterpret the paper, perhaps in an attempt to resolve the Sapient paradox. But the solution lies in separating low population tech, from dense population tech. We have always been complex. Re-dating our speciation is false logic.

Dear Professor Furter,

Thanks for your interesting post, and bringing up the "sapient paradox"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapient_paradox

There has always been problems with dating-- (not just my opinion-- it's the consensus now)-- confer above posts from google on carbon-dating.

Essentially what happens is that the dating is subject to "confirmation bias"-- they think a substance or item is this old, and so they input the parameters to make it "this old".

So it's not a question of logic. Logic doesn't come into it. It's the difficult question of determining the age of an item or substance.

Darwin's evolution, is a powerful delusion.

The truth is life was created out of nothing, all of a sudden, by God, and each specie has remained each specie until now. The is borne out in the fossil record, and now corroborated by the genetic record.

So, in reality, the "sapient paradox"--- is no paradox at all. It simply means Mankind has only been around, for a relatively short period, circa 5000 to 10,000 years, and this is backed up by the fossil record, and now corroborated by the genetic record.

Dear James Bonacum (see here, January 2, 2025),

Dear All,

James Bonacum writes:

“Scientists never prove anything.”

never (?), anything (?)

“We can only disprove things.”

But what about mass extinctions and the emergence of numerous entirely new species?

Meanwhile,

Darwin’s “theory” is a theory (?) with no foundation, because the roadmap of origination of the first living entity isn’t described and even isn’t hypothesized and the possibility of reproduction of the second (daughter) entity isn’t shown. Darwin’s “theory” is the 160-year-old house of cards.

By the way, Life Origination Hydrate Theory (LOH-Theory) is generalized in the review paper: Е.A. Kadyshevich, V.E. Ostrovskii, “From minerals to simplest living matter: Life Origination Hydrate Theory”, Acta Biotheoretica, 2023, 71, article 13 (pp. 1–67) (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-023-09463-9) and was originally developed in 16 full-scale papers and about 30 short publications. The review paper was downloaded by more than 3 200 inquisitive researchers.

And then they find out the title is a "fib" and the rest is a load of hypotheticals.

Dear Gary Stephens,

I see that you didn’t enter our paper and didn’t even approach the site where it is available, but you know in advance its content. OK, such your behavior characterizes you as a clairvoyant. My congratulations.

Title of the paper :

"From Minerals to Simplest Living Matter: Life Origination . . . "

In the Abstract we find :

"The LOH-Theory covers the period up to origination of the genetic code."

So... without... the genetic code.

Confer above--- from a simple google search:

"genetic material is found in all living things"

So, the title is contradicted, unsurprisingly, by the Abstract. ie. the title is a " fib ".

Dear Gary Stephens,

You are mistaken in your post of 31.01.2025.

In our paper: Kadyshevich Е.A. and Ostrovskii V.E., “From minerals to simplest living matter: Life Origination Hydrate Theory”, Acta Biotheoretica, 2023, 71, article 13 (pp. 1–67); https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-023-09463-9 , the title actually matches its abstract.

In the paper under consideration, we described the ways of natural and artificial synthesis of the simplest living entities, up to formation of the genetic code (inclusive). This should be clear, since both the title and the abstract use the term “living,” which means the presence of a genetic code, and it is, apparently, unnecessary to explain this to readers familiar with biology.

When formulating the Theory, we use the results of experiments, observations and calculations and do not use either models or equations with selected values ​​of constants. We observe what Nature shows, listen to Nature and draw conclusions from what we see and hear. We write the word Nature with a capital letter and give everyone the opportunity to put into this word the content of their choice.

Read our paper attentively and be the first to synthesize artificial protein!

Such an event will be the greatest event in the century.

The antidote against the menacing forecast formulated by T.R. Malthus, scientist and cleric, will be discovered!

Perform the work to satisfaction!

Best wishes.

To be the first to ? --- you mean you haven't done that? You have also not made DNA. It reveals the title to be a deception.

The above admission proves it to be "fib" hidden in a load of pseudo-scientific clap trap . . . (Quite an easy thing to do)

In a word, no one takes your "discovery" seriously, because, everyone who reads your paper, realises it is simply a load of pap. They were duped into reading it by the title.

Info on "T.R. Malthus, scientist and cleric" mentioned above, by Ostrovskii.

Gary Stephens,

Dear All,

The paper Kadyshevich E.A., Ostrovskii V.E., “From minerals to simplest living matter: Life Origination Hydrate Theory”, Acta Biotheoretica, 2023, 71, article 13 (pp. 1–67); https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-023-09463-9 represents generalization of our 15 full-length papers published in chemical, physical, biological, physicochemical, and geological scientific peer-reviewed journals and of approximately 30 short publications that represent the content of our scientific lectures, oral presentations and discussions at international scientific conferences of different subject-matters.

Each paper published in any scientific journal was before publication peer-reviewed by experts in the relevant field of science, and each lecture and each oral presentation at a scientific conference was before conference approved by a program committee composed of recognized experts in the subject-matters of the corresponding conference.

Before writing the generalizing paper “From minerals to simplest living matter: Life Origination Hydrate Theory”, the content of each its prospective chapters was published in pure-reviewed scientific journals of the suitable subject-matter, was presented to scientific conferences, as a rule to several ones, and was discussed by using every possibility.

Work on the scientific material presented in the generalizing paper continued and the material of the paper was improved for twenty-five years. The preliminary microcalorimetric and adsorption-desorption instrument-making, methodological, and experimental studies in laboratory and studies of different literary sources of scientific information continued before the work on this scientific material for more than ten years.

The original experimental instruments and techniques created by me and my assistants and used to carry out the work discussed in the generalizing paper are described in relevant engineering and methodological journals.

The preparatory and experimental works were carried out by me together with a group of engineers, researchers, and students. Over the past twenty-five years, the systematization and generalization of the results and the theoretical works has been carried out by me together with Dr. E.A. Kadyshevich. At the final stage, we performed jointly with Dr. A.V. Dzyabchenko works on three-dimensional computer modeling of key stages of the process of nucleic acid synthesis.

The generalized paper can be downloaded for free from the journal site. Almost 3,300 researchers have already downloaded it. We have received very positive feedback from its readers.

We believe that we have been able to identify the road map that Nature has allowed us to identify to indicate the path to follow for the synthesis of the simplest living matter from minerals. Our article also provides a principal description of the apparatus that can be used to implement this path in the laboratory.

In our opinion, the most important fundamental scientific results obtained in our work are the conclusions that nucleic acids, amino acids, and proteins were synthesized by Nature on the basis of a triad of minerals widespread on Earth and that these syntheses were carried out as a result of chemical reactions proceeding with a decrease in free energy.

Nature followed the path from minerals to living matter and reduced step by step the free energy of the reacting system.

When we write the word “Nature”, we mean all phenomena and processes that occur without human participation, regardless of what forces initiate them.

Gary Stephens, I looked at your personal page on the RG website. You present yourself on your website page as an expert in a scientific field that does not relate to the problem of the origin of life, and your work related to this field of knowledge cannot be found in the literature.

There are no published scientific works of yours on the RG website, only preprints.

Your preprints are not of interest to site visitors. On the RG website as of today, 11.08.2025, not a single researcher has expressed an opinion about your preprints, not a single one has supported them and not a single one has cited them in their scientific papers.

You position yourself as an independent researcher. What are you researching? Who is interested in your research? What practical purpose do your researches pursue? What are you independent from? From science? Then why did you come to ResearchGate, a site where researchers share their research results and their opinions on scientific issues?

You are denigrating many years of scientific work carried out by experienced certified researchers on the basis of modern experimental and theoretical methods, based on the study of numerous literary sources, and verified by many dozens of highly qualified reviewers for compliance with the requirements for scientific research.

But you didn’t read the article you are criticizing, which describes the theoretical foundations and results of our work, and you didn’t even understand, as your post on 04.02.2025 shows, that this article presents the theory and methodology of the synthesis of the simplest living entities, and not the results of such a synthesis. You undertake to judge the quality of chemical-physical-biological research without demonstrating your knowledge in these areas of science by publishing peer-reviewed scientific papers in either the field of chemistry, physics, or biology.

What specific reasons do you have for this?

"This is an illustration of a bigger problem, is that a lot of crap papers get published. And there are now so many crap papers being published that scientists have given up trying to combat this."

Confer : A New Theory of Everything Just Dropped! --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk_NjIPaZk4

(1,270,706 views)

Gary Stephens, I have given you far more time than I think you deserve. Enough! You can continue to exercise your ignorance.

Victor Ostrovskii

Ostrovskii says

Let us compare two papers published within a month of each other in 2024. (Vide above). One from Ostrovskii, one from me.

See, in particular, the statistics below my preprint : "This items Research Interest Score in higher than 98% of research items published in 2024"

Victor Ostrovskii

Ostrovskii says :

Confer, above, one of my questions on ResearchGate. --->7,357 Reads.

Interesting discussion : Brian Josephson - Evolution and God?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xtDR3zAy4Y

--- Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, (1981.)

Fred Hoyle

• The Big Bang in Astronomy, New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280 (November 19, 1981), p. 527

Article Why Do So Many Biologists Believe in Evolution