Darwin Was Wrong

The traditional Darwinian doctrine may turn out to be untenable. The whole history of life on Earth threatens to be turned upside down: instead of evolution (development) for millions of years on our Earth, there was involution (degradation).

It is this course of events that the Moscow paleoanthropologist Alexander Belov proves in his studies. And he gives the following arguments.

“I believe that at a certain stage of existence, the human body could be transformed into the body of a vertebrate animal. A convincing proof of this is a fact that Darwin and his followers for some reason ignored, but in which even a schoolboy can easily convince himself.

Although we are accustomed to the tern “four-legged”, there are actually no four-legged animals in nature: the structure of the fore and hind limbs is different. A gopher, a dog, a hippopotamus – each of them has two “legs” and two “hands” that are not alike anatomically and functionally. The most obvious external difference: the “leg” in the knee joint bends back, and the “arm” in the elbow – forward. Just like a human.

For homo sapiens this construction is quite understandable. The hand turns just so that something can be picked up, brought up to the face, to the mouth. And legs bend in the opposite direction to push off from the ground and take steps. But in vertebrate animals, the anatomy as a whole is human, but the functions are inhuman. It turns out that the animals somehow adjusted their “armed’ and “legged” body to move on four limbs. The same gorillas, traditionally said to be our “closest relatives”, use their “human” hands mainly as an additional support for walking. And they do not really know how to move on two hind limbs, same as other monkeys.

The structure of the wrist with the thumb, opposed to the other four, allows a person to manipulate even small objects. But if you look closely at the skeletons of animals, it is easy to find a similar structure of the forelimbs in a monkey, bat, crocodile … even in a whale with its front fins and Permian stegocephalus that lived more than 300 million years ago.

The question is: why did all these animals stand on all fours and turned their hands into legs? Why do vertebrates need an anatomical construction, similar to the human hand, if it is used only as a primitive support? It is much more logical to have in front and behind a pair of “normal” legs.

And that is not all. The same monkeys adapted their hind limbs to perform their grasping functions, changing the anatomy of the human foot “to fit themselves” (in fact – disfiguring it). The thumb on the legs of the monkey is bent to the side and has a greater degree of mobility. It is convenient to pick fruits with such paws, to cling to branches, but for normal movement “on their own two” they are of little use. What kind of evolution is there …”

“Hands like legs” – is your most important argument?

“There are other very killer facts. In recent years, scientists have made amazing discoveries. For example, in 2000, in Kenya excavated the remains of an “ancient human”, who lived 6 million years ago. The analysis of the detected bone fragments showed that this creature was most likely erect – moved on two “human” legs. But meanwhile, 6 million years is exactly the point when, according to evolutionary scientists, there was a final divergence of the line of development of anthropoid apes and humans (before this period there are no fossil remains of the ancestors of today’s great apes with their characteristic “grasping” thumbs on feet).

The oldest anthropomorphic creatures suddenly reveal signs of a very close relationship to the type of modern man. In 2002, the skull of a fossil creature was discovered in the African Republic of Chad, which was called the “sahelanthropus”. Researchers found that the prehistoric aborigine walked on two legs and had many other signs of a human, but the cranium was similar to the skull of a chimpanzee. The age of this hominid is 7 million years.

It turns out that he lived before the anthropoid apes and before the australopithecines, previously considered a transitional form from monkey to man. Try to explain such a “trick” from the standpoint of Darwin’s theory.”

Does your hypothesis eliminate such inconsistencies?

“Of course. The monkey is not the ancestor of man. It is his descendant. Of course, we are not talking about our contemporaries, but maybe the anthropoid ape is, for example, a descendant of those same psychotherapists.

I will make the following reservation at once: I do not know where the human came from, and I just accept it as a given. It can be assumed (this version is supported by many modern scholars) that our current homo sapiens community is by no means the first. In different geological periods, different types of people appeared independently on the Earth. However, these Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic existed for a relatively short time, and therefore left no trace in the now known to us paleontological chronicle of the Earth.

The existence of the socium in each of the previous cases was cyclical: the communities of our predecessors “humans” passed through the phase of development and the phase of the so-called final transformation, after which the stage of the return of reasonable inhabitants of the Earth to the source that gave birth to them begins. But those who go there, to that Rubicon, are not all. Some part, not wanting a return to the intangible world, remains on Earth. These are “Mowgli”, who, without having the opportunity to fully exist as a human being, begin to degrade, caring only about the fulfillment of primitive individual goals: to survive, adapt to the environment.

Such “fragments of human society”, after losing their humanity, turned into those whom we now call vertebrates. The human body was only a kind of matrix.

Are further their transformations, in your opinion, possible?

“Each species of animals occupies its ecological niche. The attempt to transform, to come out of it, means an imminent collision with those beings that occupy neighboring niches. So our smaller brothers, having adapted well to certain conditions of existence, seem to be locked in them, “canned” for thousands, millions of years … “

Where did the huge variety of vertebrate species that now surround us come from?

“I have already said that communities of intelligent beings appeared on our Earth repeatedly and also have disappeared several times. From each such civilization degraded living beings were preserved, transformed as a result of the process of involution in various animals. Some of the involutionary branches led to the appearance, for example, of horses, some gave dolphins, the third – bats … “

But what about flies, spiders, mollusks?

“In the more remote, Precambrian period on Earth, there could well have existed, replacing each other, inhuman civilizations. So, as a result of the degradation of those intelligent beings unknown to us (their remains were not preserved, presumably because of the time limitation) insects, crustaceans and arthropods appeared on our Earth.”

According to your theory, the great-grandparents of the neighbor’s domestic cat were representatives of some kind of humanoid civilization, maybe even more developed than the current one? But why did they, so advanced, need to get on all fours and adjust to grab food by mouth, if it is convenient to walk on two legs and use hands?

“The main thing here is the loss of mind. And as proof of my assumptions I can give a real example from the present. Leafing through one of the scientific journals, I read that in a remote region of Iran a small settlement has been discovered, all of whose inhabitants – the father, the mother, their children – move only on all fours, doing this very promptly. But they wear clothes, use traditional tools of work and life … Researchers have encountered a similar phenomenon in another corner of our Earth, in the Dominican Republic.”

It is hard to imagine that the loss of the mind can be a voluntary act …

“According to Freud’s theory, two principles are constantly struggling within a man – an animal with inherent passions, and human, coupled with rational behavior. Reason often inhibits the manifestation of feelings, becomes an internal censor, suppresses the very thought of free manifestation of their “base” desires. There is an interpersonal conflict that can result in protest behavior against the dogmas and foundations of society. The further split of the personality is fraught with the manifestation of two mutually exclusive ways of thinking: the sensible and the rational. Someone from the homo sapiens eventually abandons the rational perception of reality, frees his soul from the accepted norms and decencies in society and immerses himself entirely in the element of feelings and emotions. In our time, we already come across such manifestations: drug addicts, drunkards, those “psychos”who “for no particular reason” arrange bloody mass shootings in schools, shops, on the streets of cities … “

Are these the first bells of the coming brutality? And, are there times ahead, when people will begin running around on all fours and will grow claws and tails?

“In the process of involution, there are no standards. Everyone degrades as he can. But according to my opinion, without emotions and desires there will be no accidental physiological accumulation. The design of the human body is very plastic. It must correspond to the internal needs of its owner, and therefore the body can change in one direction or another: for example, for the convenience of movement and food, you can gradually turn your hands into wings, or you can transform them into fins; you can give up teeth and turn your jaw into a beak, as it happened in birds … The transformation of the human body is limitless. The living beings, endowed with freedom of behavior, rework their bodies themselves, as they want. In the process of involution, they acquire adaptations that are convenient for living in a particular environment, in a specific ecological niche. And they become hostages of this habitat.”

In your correspondence duel with Darwin, do you have like-minded people?

“Evolutionists have been criticized almost since the emergence of this doctrine. Even the founding father himself in his book “The Origin of Man … ” mentions a certain count, who claimed that the monkey is not an ancestor, but a descendant of a man. A well-known American paleoanthropologist, Osborne, expressed the idea that the hominid (“man of the dawn”) appeared on the Earth immediately, without intermediate evolutionary stages, and anthropoid apes have already emerged from him … “

It is difficult to reconcile with the thought that such a sad fate is waiting for our future generations – turning into animals.

“I do not want to predict the inevitable fall into the abyss of involution to now existing human community on Earth. It is still too early to talk about the causes of degradation. It is necessary to comprehend this problem from all sides. Let us believe, that with the help of the powerful intellectual potential of modern science, we can finally find the key to this process.”


Lev Filonov, Professor, Academician of the Academy of Medical Sciences, Head of the Psychological Anthropology Section of the Russian Psychological Society:

“The opinion has already taken root that often any theory, firmly entrenched in everyday life, delays the further development of science. And another point: the theory exists exactly as long as there are no data that it can not explain.

From this point of view, Darwin’s classical teaching now looks obsolete. There is no evidence for evolutionary theory. And until now, the transitional link from monkey to human has not been found. And in one of the American museums, for example, there has already been gathered a collection of exhibits, the origin of which does not fit into the Darwinian theory. The theory of Alexander Belov is valuable primarily in its contrast, contrasting the classical version of the evolution of life on Earth. I became interested in the method of logical reasoning that the author uses brilliantly and which allows him to make non-trivial, far-reaching conclusions.

Belov draws attention to this topic, shaking the establishment since the time of Darwin’s presentation. However, organic, unconditional proofs confirming a new involution theory are very few for the time being.”

Alexander Dobrovolskiy

Published in the newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets No. 25299 dated March 12, 2010

Translated by: Dmitriy Kushnir

Writing is hard work and takes a lot of energy, so if you found this article useful, buy me a coffee or an energy bar.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s