Deaths of two Gods

Section 1: There WERE three Gods

First, the Christian God (the CG) who created this universe with his saying:

{And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. … And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it divide the waters from the waters. … And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. … And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. …And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for sign, and for seasons, and for days, and years: … And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. … And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. … And God said, Let us (plural) make man (singular) in our (plural) image, after our (plural) likeness: and let them (plural) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. }, Genesis 1:3 to Genesis 1:26

{In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. … All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.}, John 1:1 to John 1:4

So, the Christian God created this universe with the Word of his saying, and the above sayings are declared as the ‘Supreme Intelligence’.

What is the detailed mechanism for this {saying/word} intelligence?

Wow, any question on or about this Almighty is sinful, destined going down to Hell.

Second, the God of Dishonesty (the G0d), the Darwinianism which governs this universe with Darwinian-evolution: {nature selection pressure (blind, non-intelligent) acts on the phenotype of ‘individual’ of a population gradually and leads to ‘speciation’}.

Of course, the claim that the ‘nature selection’ acts on phenotype and leads to speciation is not true. Darwin was simply ignorant about the inheritance-mechanism.

But some pioneers in the field of population genetics (such as J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, and Ronald Fisher) ‘claimed’ that mutation on the gene is mainly caused by the natural selection pressure, and thus ‘nature selection’ is still the only cause for adaptation. This ‘claim’ became the ‘modern evolutionary synthesis’ (the MES).

But, the MES was formulated at the time that ‘molecular biology’ was not known at all. In molecular biology, the gene-mutations are mostly caused by the gene-dynamics, not by ‘nature-selection-pressure’. Then, the mutation has a very little effect on species with very high bio-evolution- inertia. That is, the complexity is not driven by mutation. The nature-selection-pressure of Darwin-mechanism has a very little effect on any highly developed species.

With all these new knowledge, the Darwinianism {especially the MES (modern evolutionary synthesis)} should be abandoned as a science. But, in order to fight against the {saying/word} intelligent God, MES must elevate the Blindness of the natural selection to the status of God too.

God is defined by at least two very special attributes.

One, it is omnipotent: any question on or about it is sinful, destined going down to Hell. So, any fact which is in contradiction with the Almighty is at best a partial fact and must be synthesized into the Almighty.

So, the genotype must be synthesized in Darwinian phenotype.

The co-evolution is obviously not a behavior of ‘individual’, but so what!

The social insects which account a significant portion of the total biomass can obviously not evolve with ‘individual’, but so what!

The horizontal gene transfer is obvious not a mechanism of a blind process or a result of a blind process, but so what!

The genetic drift (with Founder effect) is simply based on math, absolutely nothing to do with the ‘blind G0d (the nature selection), but so what!

The genetic assimilation is an adaptation, nothing to do with the ‘blind G0d’, but so what!

The mass-extinction (normally caused by external disasters, such as weather changes, etc.) is the LARGEST evolution force which reshuffles the evolution players completely, and this is absolutely not the Darwinian type of natural selection, but so what!

The single cell To multi-cells (not differentiated) To multi-cells (differentiated) evolution is totally based on the laws of physics or topology, but so what!

The cell types (the domains) evolution: from archaean/eubacterium To eukaryotes has nothing to do with any selection, but so what!

The fact of punctuated equilibrium shows that the evolution is not ‘gradual or continuous’, but so what!

The reproduction process evolution: from binary fission (tearing self-apart) To asexual (mitosis) To sexual reproduction (meiosis) are simple number games. The sexual process is

INTENTIONally to gain ‘variable numbers’ by paying a huge price, giving up the right of surviving (reproduction) of ‘individual’, a group strategy: totally contradicting with the G0d doctrine, but so what!

The most important evolution historical events:

  1. Biologization: converting the inorganic compounds into biological substances, mainly done by bacteria or archaeans.
  2. Global oxygenation: this started with oxygen-producing bacteria and was accelerated with oxygenic photosynthesis.
  3. The fungi rescue of wood crisis: restoring the greenhouse gas (stabilizing the globe temperature) and provided space and food for land animals.

None of these has anything to with the G0d nonsense (the nature selection), but so what!

The mechanisms of {mitosis, meiosis, Hox genes and DNA repairing mechanism, etc.} are so complicated, and they will take longer than the lifetime of this universe for trillions of Boltzmann monkeys to produce them, but so what!

The macro evolutionary (by Stephen Jay Gould) is definitely not {nature selection acts on the ‘individual’}, but so what?

That is, no amount of facts or evidence can DAMN this G0d nonsense (the natural selection). All those facts are just lower truths and must be swept under the synthesis carpet.

This G0d nonsense (the natural selection, totally blind) has officially passed the first Godly test, being omnipotent.

Two, God must be omnipresent: see,

Universal Darwinism ( ): Everything is the result of natural selection.

Cosmic natural selection { }, even the laws of nature are selected by a totally Blind-G0d.

Meme (evolution of society, culture and everything else),

Being both omnipotent and omnipresent, Darwinism or it grandson (the MES, modern evolutionary synthesis) is official a God, the G0d.

Being totally BLIND while is still able to rule the entire universe, this G0d is of course much more powerful than CG.

Third, the God of the gaps (the GG):

Although this omnipotent G0d (the nature selection nonsense) is totally BLIND and is still unable to ignore a simple question: {why is there something rather than nothing?} After all, this totally blind G0d is itself a something. Thus, this G0d admits that there is a ‘God of the gaps (the GG)’ who rules over all the current open questions.

In physics, there are some open questions, such as {dark energy, dark mass, hierarchy problems, fine-tuning, etc.}. Except for the fine-tuning issue, physicists believe that all other issues will be understood eventually. For the fine-tuning issue, many physicists have given it to the GG, who rules over the ‘multiverse’. Of course, this GG is by definition beyond the scientific epistemology.

So, we now have three Gods, {CG, G0d, and GG}. And they are the ‘only game’ in their own town.

This ‘only game in town’ epistemology can almost be elevated into a 4th God if we cannot show that there is a true game in town.

Fortunately, there is a true game in town.

Section 2: Selection vs adaptation

If you are not a scientist, we can discuss this G0d in terms of its semantic meaning.

‘Selection’ is to mean selecting something from an existing pool. So, for an existing pool, something is selected ‘IN’ while something else is selected ‘OUT’.

What is the meaning of ‘selected-OUT’? Extinction? If this is the case, many species are selected-OUT by the mass-extinction (normally caused by major disasters), but ‘mass-extinction’ is not the Darwinian type of ‘natural selection’ which acts on the phenotype of ‘individual’ of a population gradually and leads to ‘speciation’.

The hallmark example of Darwinian evolution is the peppered moth: the dark phenotype of moth became dominant during the industrial pollution period. But, after the pollution was cleared, the light phenotype of moth bounced back. That is, in this case, the light moth was not truly ‘selected-OUT’. And, the dark moth was not a new species via Darwinian speciation.

Another hallmark example of Darwinian evolution is the ‘superbug’ which gains the resistance to many antibiotics. Even in this case, the old-bugs are not ‘selected-OUT’. In fact, this new superbug is much weaker in the low antibiotic environment which accounts for 99% of the population. By all means, the superbug is not an evolution achievement, and it is just an ecophenotypic variation.

The modern evolutionary synthesis (MES) defines evolution as the change over time in genetic variation. The frequency of one particular allele will become more or less prevalent relative to other forms of that gene. Variation disappears when a new allele reaches the point of fixation — when it either disappears from the population or replaces the ancestral allele entirely.

In MES, “Nature” refers to an ecosystem, that is, a system in which organisms interact with every other element, physical as well as biological, in their local environment. “Nature selection” most generally makes nature the measure against which individuals and individual traits, are more or less likely to produce offspring.

Thus, the ecotype speciation plays no role in the historical current of evolution, as it does not make major changes in the genetic variation, and it, in general, does not select-out any old population.

The light moth was not selected out by the dark moth.

The old bugs were not selected out by the superbug.

The finches were not selected out by one another.


The plant Hieracium umbellatum of broad leaves and expanded inflorescences (found around rocky, sea-side cliffs) is not selected out by narrow leaves (with compact inflorescences, among sand dunes) variety.

Thus, those hallmarks of Darwinianism examples are at the best the examples of epigenetics.

In fact, in the entire taxonomic hierarchy, not a single taxonomic branching has been verified to be the result of the Darwinian mechanism (natural selection acts on …).


The best example is the rising of the eukaryote, which is not selected-IN from neither bacteria nor archaea. Eukaryote arose from the ‘interaction (not selection)’ between bacteria and archaea.

The bottom-line is that ‘selection (of any kind)’ can only be selecting-In or selected-OUT from existing pool, and no ‘selection’ can select from ‘future’ (not yet existing). “Selection” is not a creation process.

Selection is a process from ‘without’, an external process. ‘Adaptation’ is a process from ‘within’, an internal process.

In science, every term must be clearly defined. The semantic meaning of {selection and adaptation} must be clearly distinguished.

If a species survives the external pressure with its existing ‘tool box (the variation of the gene pool, etc.)’, it has been ‘selected’, not adapted.

Thus, adaptation must not be the result of selection. The ‘adaptation’ must be defined as ‘acquiring’ a (or some) new tool in some ways.

So, the semantic definitions are:

One, ‘selection’ cannot produce anything truly ‘new’, selecting something beyond the existing pool.

Two, ‘adaptation’ cannot be the result of selection but must be acquiring something ‘NEW’.

The eukaryote is obviously not a result of selection, as it is something new. So, eukaryote-rising-mechanism (ERM) is one kind of ‘adaptation’. However, there are two more adaptation-mechanisms.

First, adaptation in accordance with physics laws and topology.

Example one, the rising of body shape: when a single cell replicates with ‘binary-fission’, it produces a grape-bunch like mass in a nutrient soup. Of course, the internal cells of the mass are deprived of the nutrient. So, a tube-like structure will be the way to get nutrient for all cells. So, the adaptation of a tube-like body shape for a multi-cells organism is simply following the laws of physics and topology.

Example two, the rising of differentiation: it simply follows the topology, see (What is Topological command? At ).

Example three, the rising of the first DNA: the stability of any ‘structure’ is 100% depending on the physics laws. That is, all forms of stable ‘structure’ are predetermined by the physics laws. Yet, the easiest stable structure is a symmetrical structure. And, the double helix structure is a physics predetermined structure. As soon as there are suitable Lego pieces for that structure, it will form automatically.

In Conway’s game of life, when some stones are randomly dropped on the life-board, some patterns will quickly appear in accordance with the rules of the game. While most of the patterns will become sterile, some will become lively, and the ‘glide’ is such a lively pattern. Although the initial ‘seeds’ are randomly dropped, this is absolutely not a ‘random’ process, as it is governed by the ‘rules of the game’.

It is already a fact that amino acid can be produced from a non-organic soup. Then, those amino acids can combine again in accordance with the physics laws. While most of the combinations are not suitable for fitting in into some stable structures, some of the combinations will become suitable Lego pieces for some stable structures.


The double helix is a very simple stable structure, needs much fewer lego types than the high heel above and only needs one super glue (the hydrogen bond). Again, this is not a ‘random’ process (no Boltzmann monkeys are needed), as it is governed by the laws of physics. So, the first piece of the double helix (with A, C, T, G) can appear in a very short time period (in terms of the life evolution time-scale).


Then, the DNA replication process (via RNA) and the using protein as the language for metabolism are both the result of ‘in accordance to laws’ and a new adaptation mechanism (the intelligence).

Second, the adaptation with ‘intelligence’: the biggest (biggest, biggest, …, biggest,…) evolution force is the ‘mass-extinction (normally caused by major disasters)’ which reshuffles the evolution players completely.

In general, the ecosystem is ruled by the physical strength (such as in the Mesozoic Era). Thus the weaker must be innovational with some defensive measures. Any kind of innovation is the result of ‘intelligence’.  And, those defensive measures were more effective to fend off the major disasters.

Thus, after repeated ‘mass-extinctions’, the ‘intelligence’ becomes the dominant evolution force.

This is about the macro-intelligence. The micro-intelligence which invented ‘protein language’ requires more detailed discussions. But, it will become clear after we address the issue {where is the source of intelligence?}

What is intelligence?

Where is the source of intelligence?

How intelligence is manifested (expressed or implemented)?

One, what is intelligence? See, for details.

Intelligence and consciousness are defined as below.

For intelligence:

The necessary condition: having a counting device (counting straw, abacus or Turing computer).

The sufficient condition: having the ability to distinguish ‘self’ from others.

For consciousness:

The necessary condition: having the ability to distinguish ‘self’ from others.

The sufficient condition: having a counting device (counting straw, abacus or Turing computer).

Two, where is the source for intelligence? That is, where is the counting device?

Yes, the counting device is embedded in the laws of physics, see

Where is the source for the ability to distinguish ‘self’ from others?

Yes, the ability to distinguish ‘self’ from others is also embedded in the laws of physics, as the fermions can be described with 7 colors, see  .

Three, how intelligence is manifested or implemented?

The ‘high’ intelligence is implemented with sex-mechanism, see .

I have basically provided a model for both ‘creation of life (the first DNA)’ and ‘evolution of life: three adaptation mechanisms’. But, the most fundamental issue {why is there something rather than nothing?}, the issue of creation is still not discussed.

For {why is there something rather than nothing?}

“Nothingness’ is defined as {timelessness and immutability}.

In order to create something from nothing, nothing must remain as nothing. And, it is done with the Real/Ghost 4-time-dimensions (that is, at every t, it is in fact timeless).


See and

And, the immutability is manifested as the rising of {dark energy, dark mass and 48 fermions}, see .

For dark energy/dark mass issues, see

For fine-tuning issue and the multiverse nonsense, see and

Then, the ‘arrow of time’ must move as Archimedes’ spiral (see page 39, Super Unified Theory, ISBN 0916713016, 9780916713010)


or see ‘III: Creation of time’, ): this ‘arrow of time’ actually encompasses eleven (11) dimensions, see graph below.



With these, all ‘gaps’ are filled. That is, the GG (God of the Gaps) is now dead.


In fact, this ‘nothing to something creation’ process has many expressions (manifestations).

Physics expression: the Real/Ghost symmetry (see ‘Super Unified Theory’)

Math expression: zero/infinities symmetry

Life expression: intelligence/consciousness

Linguistics expression: large complex system theorem

In fact, all these manifestations (expressions) are isomorphic to one another. There are two points to this fact.

One, when one manifestation is fully understood, all other manifestations will be understood too.

Two, although the expression of each manifestation is completely different from others’ superficially, they must be identical in their essences.

So, in physics expression, the ‘nothingness’ is expressed as {timelessness and immutability}, and thus this {timelessness and immutability} must be the essence for all other expressions.

In physics, the ‘timelessness’ is expressed as the rising of ‘arrow of time’ via the {real/ghost 4-time dimensions}. The ‘immutability’ is expressed as the {planned attack by the Ghost rascal}.

Thus, in life, the timelessness (eternality) is achieved by both {the species immortality} and {the timeless stable structure in accordance with the laws of physics}. The immutability is maintained with both {DNA stability and its repairing mechanism} and evolution (the Ghost rascal in the life-realm).

So, the {timeless stable structure} created the first DNA.

Then, the immutability of life-realm is expressed as evolution, which consists of two forces.

One, ‘selection’: the most powerful selection is the ‘mass-extinction’ which is of course not {Darwin’s nature selection}. Selection is an external force, often ‘blind’. ‘Selection’ cannot produce NEW by definition.

Two, ‘adaptation’: overcoming the external force by acquiring some new tools. Thus, surviving in ‘selection’ is not an adaptation. ‘Adaptation’ must acquire something NEW.

There are three ways of adaptation.

One, the eukaryote-rising-mechanism (ERM): the interaction (not selection) among the old, and something NEW is produced.

Two, arising out in accordance with the rules of the game (such as, the rules of life-game of glider or the laws of physics, etc.). That the lego pieces (A, C, T, G) fall into the predetermined stable structure (double helix, etc.)  is one example. Another example will be the rise of ‘human-like-brain’, see .

Three, advancing with ‘intelligence’: the species intelligence, see . “Intelligence” is the most powerful evolution force for the very complex life-systems.

So, life is constrained and confined by the laws of physics and theorems of topology. While being the rulers of constraining and confinement for life, the laws of physics and theorems of topology are also providing zillions (unbounded many) options; that is, the ‘nature options’. Then, life has intelligence and can choose the best option from a set of ‘nature options’. There is no ‘nature selection’ which is not only wrong but is a total bullcrap.

Finally, the ‘arrow of evolution’ is isomorphic to the ‘arrow of time’, see:


Now, I have shown a ‘true game in town’ (answering the issue of {why is there something rather than nothing?}), and thus the G0d and GG are now dead.More details, see

Although CG is ignorant about the modern science, it is about the knowledge of the spiritual world, and it comforts zillions of human beings.

On the other hand, Darwin’s original work is a mediocre scientific work (being mostly wrong). Although the most later works (such as, genetics, horizontal gene transfer, genetic drift, genetic assimilation, punctuated equilibrium, molecular biology, etc.) are scientifically correct, they are all in conflict with or in contradiction to the Darwinianism. But, they are synthesized into MES (by swept those contradictions under the synthesizing carpet) for the reason of trying to elevate Darwinianism (especially the nature selection) to the status of G0d in order to fight against the Christian God. And, this is the worst shamelessness in human history. Worshiping the G0d by ignoring all scientific facts, it is the most shameful thing in this universe. See, for more details.

After all, the ‘Creation of Life’ is now totally understood, see

Physics expression: the Real/Ghost symmetry (see ‘Super Unified Theory’)


Linguistics expression: large complex system theorem, see


Also see, Final TOE (theory of everything),

Note (added on August 29, 2016):

The current (2016) mainstream physics status is this: #PostCheckmateTTF (Post Checkmate temper tantrum fit).


 Copyright © April 2016 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong


4 thoughts on “Deaths of two Gods

  1. Pingback: Intelligent Evolution | The Great Vindications
  2. Pingback: Creation of Life | The Great Vindications
  3. Pingback: The final TOE (Theory of Everything) | The Great Vindications
  4. Pingback: The Final Total TOE (theory of everything) | The Great Vindications

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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