Humans could not evolve from the apes by natural selection.

  1. Home
  2. Humans could not evolve from the apes by natural selection.

All possible genetic scenarios for mutations that allow humans to evolve from apes are statistically unlikely. (These have never been tested.)

Human ape.

Note Mentioning religions comes from a scientific angle and does not take any position. The writer respects the believers of all faiths.

Darwinian evolution is so entrenched, with correct principles, of natural selection that science has not noticed that it is being dragged with theory to the wrong places! The findings of fossils seem to prove the entire evolution theory, but paradoxically, they are misleading. Although there is evidence today that contradicts the original conception of the origin of human beings, no scientist would dare openly oppose the theory.


Introduction to Darwinian evolution.

Link: Evolution (Wikipedia)

The theory of evolution (which Charles Darwin presented in his book The Origin of the Species, published in 1859) is widely accepted among scientists, thanks to genetic analysis and preserved fossils that show gradual development through natural selection. Religious circles did not like the subject from the beginning, primarily because evolution provided a scientific explanation for something perceived as the act of creation. I must emphasize that my point of view is not religious but scientific.

  • Genesis 1:27: "And God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him male and female created he them." (translation from the text in the Hebrew language)

There are many interpretations of this verse, but a growing school of thought sees this verse as proof of extraterrestrial intervention in the human race. In the Bible, "Helohim" is equivalent to God, but many interpret the word "Ehlohim" as extraterrestrial beings. Given the findings, I am forced to consider this possibility seriously.


A simple simulation of the first human ancestors—apes with 46 chromosomes illustrates it is unlikely.

I present a simple methodological simulation of the first apes that underwent the mutation that reduced their chromosome number to 46 as humans have. 

  1. Mutations caused the first-ever ape to fuse chromosomes, which were born with 46 chromosomes like humans. Instead of 48. (In most cases, such changes result in a sick animal with low survival)
  2. Suppose the (first) ancestor was healthy and survived; it could not have produced fertile offspring with another great ape. Such hybridization would have created an ape with 47 chromosomes (similar to humans with Down's syndrome), and most likely, that hybrid child would be infertile. (Similar to a mule, which is a cross between a horse and a donkey)
  3. Another possibility (even less likely) is that two identical mutations were created within a short time interval among opposite sexes that allow sexual reproduction.
    1. Since evolution requires inheritance, if such a pair was formed, those two individuals had to mate among all the other individuals.
  4. Monkeys, including great apes, avoid incest, so this is unlikely. The first was created with 46 chromosomes because it required the nuclear family's mating.

The conclusion that humans descend from apes seemed self-evident at the time, but on closer inspection, it does not stand the test of logic! Although ancient humans resembled monkeys, the conclusion that they are a direct result of evolution from apes, which is entirely random and spontaneous, will not stand up to a much more accurate simulation.


Statistics indicate that the accelerated development of the human brain is not random!

  • The gap between the DNA of apes and humans, a total of 4%, may seem minor to us. Still, the 15 million discrepancies are in precisely the correct sequence! Neuroscientists pay attention to the improbable statistics of the accelerated development of the human brain; the vague explanations, based on the laws of thermodynamics, are incorrect.

Darwinian evolution is so entrenched, with correct principles, of natural selection that science has not noticed that it is being dragged with theory to the wrong places! The findings of fossils seem to prove the entire evolution theory, but paradoxically, they are misleading.

  • Darwinian evolution was established in the 19th century when the science of genetics did not yet exist. The Darwinist theory is so entrenched and unquestionably accepted that scientists have not even bothered to test its plausibility, especially since all the apparent findings validate it. The principle of natural selection is valid, but as for everything else, a closer look casts excellent doubt.
  • The human brain is three times larger than a monkey's, and cognitive abilities vary accordingly. The step-by-step simulation of the first humanoid apes (human ancestors) with 46 chromosomes from apes with 48 chromosomes illustrates that it is unlikely.

A 10% efficiency of the human brain is astounding because it indicates a waste of resources!

  • A phenomenon that does not exist in nature under any circumstances. The principle of natural selection in Darwinian evolution is based on a relatively competitive survival advantage of random genetic changes.

A considerable excess of resources, without any competitive advantage, contradicts the principle of natural selection and points to a deliberate hand in human genetics.


There are two main problems in the theory of evolution—Which are not about the question of natural selection. 

Link: Evolution (Wikipedia)

The two main problems with the classical theory of evolution are that there is no plausible explanation for creating life from chemical compounds (Abiogenesis) and that second-order evolution, in which species change regularly while changing the number of chromosomes, is not supported by a mathematical simulation, even a fairly simplistic one.

The DNA molecule is a marvel of highly complex binary code that is unlikely to have been created spontaneously. (Abiogenesis)

Abiogenesis is completely unlikely to happen randomly.

  • Some convincing scientific theories try to explain the formation of life on Earth (Abiogenesis). However, if you add up all the variables, you will get impossible coincidences!
  • A constant energy source had to be found for life to exist on Earth. (Apart from lightning) life began after the creation of single cells plankton) that were able to carry out photosynthesis. The chlorophyll that enables photosynthesis is a pretty complex molecule, DNA, by chance! Succeeded in producing the most efficient photovoltaic cell formula in nature. By analogy, it's like asking a newborn baby to write the operating system for all the computing in the world. 

Second-order evolution, with a change in the number of chromosomes, is theoretically possible but not a plausible scenario.

  • The addition of chromosomes, doubling, tripling, or multiples of one and a half times the number of chromosomes is the possible result of complex mutations, which often lead to the death of the offspring or cause severe disability. Theoretically, gradually, any combination of chromosomes is possible. Still, to produce fertile offspring, it is necessary to have a healthy, non-infertile adult and a partner of the opposite sex with the same number of chromosomes in the window of time that allows fertilization. This is a very statistically improbable scenario.

The thought that everything is conducted randomly is a thought we would like to believe in - but it does not correspond to reality.


How could extraterrestrials upgrade the human genome?

  • The simplest and most effective way to rapidly change the human genome in large populations is by genetically engineering viruses, which penetrate host cells and modify them in a way passed on to offspring. Link: Aliens created viruses to upgrade humans genetically.

The fact that the human genome contains between 8% and 10% of viruses only underscores the enormous extent of the genetic upgrade that the human race has undergone. (The genetic gap between humans and apes is only about 4%.)


There is no escape but to choose one of two alternatives for the formation of life on Earth:

  1. God created everything and is omnipotent. (Religions do not require explanations.)
  2. Extraterrestrial beings intervened and planted life on the Earth; later, they intervened in the human genome and perhaps all life forms!

The problem is that none of these concepts can be proven or disproved. They will remain unsolved. The reason for this is logical and related to Kurt Godel's theorem of mathematical incompleteness. To illustrate, take the sentence "Never say Never." The sentence is built with self-contradiction, and so is the issue of the formation of life on Earth!

  • The science of computational genetics is approaching the point where quantum super-computers can simulate genetic evolution by reverse engineering from modern Homo sapiens to our ancestors. (Of which we have remnants of DNA) I believe the simulation will reveal that the scenario of random evolution is statistically improbable.

The statistical conclusion would indicate that human heredity has undergone continuous enhancement, much more than once!


Continue reading: Human Evolution Must Have Been Accelerated By Extraterrestrials.

Frequently asked questions and answers:
Is the principle of natural selection controversial?
The principle of natural selection is not controversial; it has many supports in fossils and observations of the living world.
Did the science of genetics exist in Charles Darwin's time?
Charles Darwin died in 1882. In his time, modern genetics did not yet exist. DNA was only discovered in 1953 by James Watson and Francis Crick.
Why is it important to start the simulation of chromosomal evolution from the first animals that underwent the mutation?
A simulation of chromosomal evolution in mammals demonstrates the difficulty. Mammals reproduce by sexual reproduction only. Mammals usually do not reproduce by incest. Changes in the number of chromosomes often produce diseases, a short lifespan, and infertility!
How did no geneticist notice that chromosomal evolution is not plausible?
The fossil findings and the genetic analysis support the approach of chromosomal evolution. Geneticists accepted Darwinian evolution as an axiom without questioning it or performing mathematical-statistical simulations.
Did the theory of evolution deal with the origin of life on earth? (Abiogenesis)
The theory of evolution did not deal with the origin of life on earth. Although there are scientific explanations for spontaneous creation, well-known scientists claim that the statistically random creation of a binary code (like a computer language) of DNA is improbable.
Don't the genetic and fossil findings provide conclusive proof of evolution?
I have no dispute about the findings, only about the interpretation. Second-order evolution (chromosomal evolution) cannot be random! The meaning is clear.
Can Genesis 1:26-28 be attributed to extraterrestrial intervention?
A school of thought claims that the statement that we were created in God's image implies an extraterrestrial genetic load in humans.
Is there a way to check if humans have genetics from an extraterrestrial source?
Since there is no detailed documentation of extraterrestrials and DNA samples of extraterrestrials, there is nothing to compare. Therefore it is not possible to reach an unequivocal conclusion.
A computer simulation of breeding the first apes with 46 chromosomes (instead of 48 in apes) may shed light on the origin of humans.
A computer simulation of the DNA of the first generations (on quantum supercomputers) of the great apes who received the mutation that merged chromosome 2 and created 46 chromosomes (like humans) may provide science with the possibility to confirm or deny the claims that man derives from the ape.
Challenge Yourself, Your Knowledge and Intuition:
Test your self
A simulation of the first human ancestors, apes with 46 chromosomes, casts doubt on the origin of humans.
1. How does the fact that the human brain uses only 10% of its capabilities reconcile with the theory of natural selection?
The fact that the brain exerts only 10% of its capabilities has long been known, but science has hardly asked the obvious question. Is it consistent with the principle of natural selection?
See my suggested, most suitable answer »
A more detailed explanation:
1. The most suitable answer is answer number 2.
The principle of natural selection is an inherited principle that improves traits over time, enhancing survival chances. Brain functions with no survival expression are inconsistent with the principles of natural selection, and therefore, the conclusion is that they result from a different process!
Reading the article was Interesting/Beneficial?
May interest you:
Add New Comment
We use cookies to improve the user experience on the site. Learn moreI Agree