Visual Fakery Is a Pillar of Darwinist Propaganda

 Misleading and deceptive imagery has long been a staple of Darwinist propaganda. In my Google science news feed on the day that I am writing this post auto-scheduled for later publication, I see a prominent example. We have a story in the Google science news feed, with a headline of "Ancient fossil discovery in Ethiopia rewrites human origins." When we click on the story, we get a press release that looks like this at the top:

Wow, looks like an impressive fossil find, does it not? But what is going on here is fakery. No one discovered any such fossil as the fossil shown. When we scroll down, we read in the fine print that all that was discovered were some teeth. 

So where did the image come from? Not one in five readers will realize the answer to that question.  The image came from a site called Shutterstock, which is a commercial site that sells stock images. The images at Shutterstock are a combination of real photos and artwork. Using the reverse image search at www.tineye.com, I was able to find how the image originated. As you can see using the link here, it is an image uploaded to Shutterstock in 2010 by Derek R. Audette. Derek is an artist, and he has uploaded 600+ images to the the stock image site Shutterstock. The images seem to be his own artistic creations. The Shutterstock site lists Derek as a ""Photographer, Illustrator / Vector Artist." Using 3D modeling programs like the one depicted below, a vector artist can create realistic-looking images of things that never actually existed.

Derek committed no fakery or fraud by uploading his artistic depiction of a fossil in 2010, having no idea how it would be used. But the people at ScienceDaily.com are guilty of deceit and visual fakery by adorning their press release with an image that looks like an actual fossil but is not an actual fossil, being purely an artistic creation. 

Scrolling down further in the Science Daily press release, we get the truth. Nothing like a fossil skull was discovered. All that was discovered were some teeth. A look at the visuals in the corresponding scientific paper show the meager results, nothing better than what is shown below:

The paper's attempts to suggest that such teeth shed any light on human evolution is laughable. A few teeth don't tell us anything about human origins.  You cannot reliably identify some pre-human species from remains that are mere teeth. And for reasons I will discuss later in this post, the paper's attempts to date the teeth are not even reliable.

We have various degrees of misleading language and/or misrepresentation occurring here:

(1) A scientific paper has in its abstract referred to a discovery of "fossils" rather than stating that all that were discovered were teeth, as if it was trying to create the impression something much larger than mere teeth was discovered. 

(2) An Arizona State University press release has an extremely misleading title "ASU scientists uncover new fossils — and a new species of ancient human ancestor." All that is mentioned is the discovery of a few teeth, something that certainly does not entitle anyone to claim the discovery of "a new species of ancient human ancestor."  And it is misleading to be referring to mere teeth as "fossils" rather than using the term "teeth." An honest title for the press release would have been "ASU scientists uncover some old teeth, and speculate they are from a new species of ancient human ancestor."

(3) A Science Daily press release has repeated word-for-word the Arizona State University press release, but has gone further down the path of deceit by including a single image with the press release, an image that is an old artistic depiction from 2010, an image looking like a real skull, one that will give 90% of the casual readers of the press release the false idea that a full skull was discovered. This is visual fakery. All that was discovered were a few teeth. No one ever discovered a skull like the skull that is depicted in the Science Daily press release image. 

Fake images of fossils are easy to create using 3D modeling software. First you create or upload what is called a wireframe model, which consists of a connected set of points in three-dimensional space, each with its own X, Y and Z coordinate. The interface of the software may allow you to drag and drop particular three-dimensional points that are part of the model. You can then apply what are called textures to particular surfaces on the model, which gives them a color or look. You can then choose to perform what is called rendering, to produce a realistic looking image like the one shown below. Creating an image of a fossil that never existed is even easier than creating an image of a type of car that never existed. 

Nowadays it is even easier to create fake images of fossils, by using AI image generators such as the ImageFX product of Google. Just type in a text prompt such as "fossil of pre-human skull" and you will get output in seconds. 

At the page here we have another example of a "science news" story using visual fakery. We have a story about some fossil find, and the story has an impressive-looking visual that shows something that looks maybe like something halfway between a man and an ape. It looks like a photograph of a complete skull. But the image does not correspond to anything ever discovered. A reverse image search shows that the image is another example of photorealistic artwork uploaded to Shutterstock, some artwork created by user Busker909. The user's profile picture is a picture of a cat. It seems that nowadays stories about human evolution are often using not actual photos of fossils ever discovered, but mere photorealistic artwork got from the Shutterstock site, or maybe artwork created by AI image generators. 

At the page here, we have another example of a "science news" story using visual fakery. It is a story that includes a large image identified as "the most complete skull of an Homo heidelbergensis ever found."  There is a watermark in the image identifying the source as WH_Pics. A reverse image search shows that the image is the one here, an image from the Shutterstock site. The image was uploaded by the anonymous source WH_Pics.  This anonymous source gave the image a tag claiming that it is "the most complete skull of an Homo heidelbergensis ever found."  But since this anonymous source has no credibility, we should very much doubt that the image is a photograph of any such thing. In all likelihood it a photorealistic piece of artwork, which has been give a tag designed to increase royalties from its use.  A Smithsonian Institute page on fossils of Homo heidelbergensis shows no fossil matching this Shutterstock image. 

Certain physically impressive buildings such as natural history museums seem like cathedrals of Darwinism. One of the shameful practices long going on at natural history museums has been to display  misleading fossil exhibits that are largely or entirely fake.  An article tells us about some of the fakery going on in natural history museums:

" 'Back in the day —  and when I say that, I mean as far back as the 1800s — museums originally used plaster of paris,' Storrs says. 'It was about 40 years ago that resins came into wider use.'  For smaller bones and casts for exhibits within the museum —  plants or fish, for example —  museum staff use urethane foams to cast and sculpt the replicas themselves, says Dave Might, exhibits coordinator/artist at the Cincinnati Museum Center...Alternatively, some entire skeletons can be purchased 'off-the-shelf' from RCI. 'For example, take Tyrannosaurus rexes,' Fair says. 'There are only about 29 or so skeletons in the world, and that’s not nearly enough for all of the museums and theme parks that want one. So we produce 100% composite T. rexes.' ”

Here the "100% composite" means "100% fake." We read in the same article about "a fiberglass/polyester Allosaurus on display at the American Museum of Natural History in Washington D.C." That's a fake. On a page of the American Museum of Natural History we read "Eighty-five percent of specimens are actual fossils, as opposed to casts or reproductions." That means at least 15% of the fossils displayed are fake. We can reasonably suspect that much more than 15% of the fossils can be called fake or semi-fake.  The semi-fake fossils would be those consisting of mixtures of bones and artificial material such as plaster of Paris, fiberglass, resin or a mixture of baking soda and superglue. A page of the American Museum of Natural History tells us its displayed T. Rex fossil "is about 45 percent real fossils."  The page makes this confession hard to discover. To get to this confession, you have to click on all of the little + icons next to a picture of the T. Rex.  I would imagine that 99% of the visitors to the museum never learn that most of its T. Rex exhibit is fake.  

It is very rare for scientists to discover a complete fossil skeleton or skull. What they most often find are fragments. Then, very frequently, bone fragments are mixed with artificial filler material that might be made by mixing superglue and baking soda. The results are passed off as a single fossil, although this can be extremely misleading.  We don't know whether an organism ever actually had bone material corresponding to the filler material. And very often we also don't know whether the fragments came from a single organism, or were fragments from multiple organisms living in different times, possibly organisms from different species. We often don't know whether the resulting fossil display corresponds to the skeleton or skull of some organism that ever lived. This kind of funny business is a very big deal whenever the concocted "composite" displays are used to try to back up claims of evolutionary progressions that have never been well-established. Fakes and partial fakes should not be part of the evidence cited or displayed to back up such claims. 

A long recent article at www.undark.org ("Fossils Are Shaped by People. Does That Matter?" by Asher Elbein) is a great piece of "pull back the Wizard's curtain" journalism, a shocking expose of the shenanigans going on with the fossil exhibits of natural history museums. The subtitle tells us "Preparing a fossil is often more of an art than a science." We read about some of the fraud and fakery that is going on, although the language is generously chosen so that such words are not directly used. We read this about what started to go on in the late nineteenth century:

"The culture of scientific achievement soon merged with one of showmanship and display — goals that coexisted uneasily. The solution, Rieppel said, was to mount genuine bones liberally (but increasingly quietly) reconstructed with plaster, creating 'awe inspiring, eye-catching sculptures that pretended not to be sculptures at all.' "

That makes it sounds like plaster was secretly being used, to fool people into thinking full fossils from a single organism had been discovered.  Later we read about all the guesswork and gluing that is going on when someone called a "fossil preparator" gets some bones-in-a-rock or box of bones, and hopes to produce a compelling fossil exhibit:

"Fossils sometimes arrive in a broken or jumbled state, often with hidden facets waiting to be discovered. Uncovering them requires painstakingly isolating fossil from stone, using fine tools such as dental picks and pneumatic chisels, and alternating applications of solvent and adhesives. At every step, preparators must make choices. Some are basic: How much rock should be removed? Others are trickier: If the preparator decides one piece of bone belongs with another, do they attach it, and if so, with what glue? Should incomplete bones be rebuilt with a best guess?"

We are told that most of these fossil exhibit preparators are not scientists, and that a "wide range of people do this work, including volunteers, professional freelancers, institutional employees, and commercial contractors." No doubt, a large fraction of the fossil exhibits involve wild guesses by people who are not scientists, but were mainly hoping to make a compelling exhibit.  Did such people usually follow a rule of "do not glue bones together unless you think  they probably came from the same species, or the same organism?" Very probably not.  We are told, "By the early 20th century, for example, preparators — often under the direction of a principal investigator — physically manipulated bone surfaces and added speculative plaster to fill out the suspected shapes of incomplete limbs and skulls, which influenced interpretations of dinosaurs like Dilophosaurus." 

We are told, "Very occasionally, independent commercial preparators have intentionally created fake or exaggerated remains to sell."  Actually, the faking of fossils seems to be a kind of cottage industry in certain foreign lands, so that "very occasionally" might reasonably be replaced with "quite often." A Scientific American article in entitled "How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology." The subtitle is "A nebulous trade in forged and illegal fossils is an ever-growing headache for paleontologists." We hear about poor people in distant lands who first heard that you can get lots of cash by finding a good fossil, and who then started to make fake fossils in hopes of getting lots of money

We can imagine here what typically goes on. Bone fragments may be dug up from various spots at a location, perhaps with some fragments gathered from 30 meters or 50 meters away from others. The fragments are then boxed up and sent to a fossil preparator, along with a drawing of the desired output. The problem is that the fragments may be from different organisms, so the end result fossil exhibit may profoundly mislead us, creating a skeleton or skull unlike any that ever existed. The famous "Lucy" image (of bones arranged as if they belonged to one organism) is one of paleontology's most famous images.  There is a large chance the bones consist of bones from multiple species, for reasons discussed here. 

We read this about fossil exhibits:

"Many of these are prepared by commercial contractors like Triebold Paleontology. They’re often casts that contain no real bone. They represent a specific interpretation of incomplete fossils, available for a price: Triebold has provided reconstructed casts of Appalachiosaurus montgomeriensis— an east-coast relative of Tyrannosaurus rex — to two separate southeastern museums, with arms of varying sizes based on different scientists’ interpretation of the original limited material."

It seems natural history museums are paying huge sums for these shady exhibits, and turning a blind eye to all the fakery and guesswork. We read this:

"Such prices are largely based on the notion that the lucky winner is receiving a mostly real skeleton, Brown noted, and although that’s sometimes true, other times they’re really receiving something akin to a reproduction of the Mona Lisa with a few scraps of the original painting stitched in. A person might think they’re buying a dinosaur for millions, he said, 'but mostly what you bought is plastic.' ” 

We are told that these fossil preparators that make the fossil exhibits for museums "tend to have broader backgrounds, with no standard license, training, or methods." So why are we putting their gluing plaster-in-the-gaps guesswork inside buildings called science museums?

US taxpayer funds are still being used to support the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, one guilty of displaying fossil exhibits produced by the unreliable practices describes above.  The David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins in that museum is filled with speculative artistic representations of previous species, containing heads and shoulders looking like wax museum creations. A kind of "glorious path to whiteness" is depicted. We do not know that any of the organisms displayed by such artwork actually looked how they are depicted. These artworks were created by artist John Gurche, who is not a scientist. A web page on the site of the  Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History has a page calling these "Reconstructions of Early Humans." The art works depict organisms that are mostly not humans. The hallmark characteristic of humans is the use of speech and the use of symbols.  The word "human" should never be used to describe some species that has never been shown to have used speech or symbols.  The use of "human" or "early human" to refer to species that probably did not use speech or symbols (and were therefore not actually human) is one of the most misleading tactics of Darwinist propaganda. Web pages of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History contain other examples of the most misleading claims of Darwinist propaganda, but I will have to leave a discussion of that for a separate post. 

Then there is the practice of creating misleading "replicas" of fossils, recreations that are not exactly the same as the original. The claimed "replica" may have features that are exaggerated to help sell some evolutionary story. I will give an example. At left of the photo pair below we see a photo of what is called the Kabwe 1 fossil, also called the Broken Hill fossil, because it was found at a Broken Hill mine in Northern Rhodesia. It is one of the earliest photos of the fossil, from the front page of the November 19, 1921 edition of the London Illustrated News, an edition you can read here.  At right of the photo pair below is a visual that is found at the wikipedia.org article on this fossil. It is a claimed "replica" of the fossil shown at left, a "replica" found at a German natural history museum. But as you can see, it is not a very close match. Certain features have been exaggerated, such as the eyebrow ridges, which look much bigger in the claimed "replica." And also the forehead in the claimed "replica" looks much more sloped than in the original fossil. 

This is fakery. Creating something you call a "replica" which looks very different from the original is deception.

In the Reuters story here, we have a photo of a professor holding something that is identified in the caption as the Broken Hill skull. But what we see looks to me more like the distorted "replica" seen above at right, not like what we see in the original 1921 photo at left, marked "original fossil" in the photo above.. The same Reuters story tells us that although scientists long asserted the skull was 500,000 years old, scientists have changed their estimate to be about 300,000 years old, and that "this indicates the species represented by the skull was unlikely to have been a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens as some had thought."

Visual fakery occurs not just in natural history museums, but abundantly in the books, web pages and magazines advancing Darwinist propaganda. This can occur in hundreds of different ways. An example involves the famous so-called skeleton of Lucy. Bone fragments were gathered up over a rather large area not specified in the scientific paper reporting the find. The bone fragments of the so-called Lucy skeleton have been arranged as if they were part of a single skeleton. But the fragments were not found in an area the size of a single skeleton. The paper fails to specify how large the gathering area was. A Google AI search says that one source says the gathering area was about 160 square feet, but that claim is not made in the paper, and I would imagine it is a severe underestimation of the gathering area. We do not know whether the fragments were all found at the same depth. A book describing the find says the fragments were the gathering of three weeks by a team of people (pages 17-18), which implies that they were scattered across a rather wide area, at different depths. 

Below is the image from the paper:

The image above in the scientific paper is a very misleading one, because the fragments were not gathered from any positions corresponding to the positions shown in the visual. The only honest and scientific way to visually present information on these fragments is to have a photo of a gathering area, and to have indications of which fragments were found in which parts of such an area, and at what depths the fragments were found. It is deceptive to gather up fragments found over an area of 160 square feet or larger, at different soil depths, and to place such fragments in a flat area of only 3 square feet, suggesting they were all found closely together. We do not know whether the fragments shown above all belonged to the same individual. They may be fragments from different individuals and different species. 

In reference to the press release discussed at the top of this post, I may note that the Arizona State University press release describes a chain of reasoning that is extremely dubious. We read this:

"How do scientists know these fossil teeth are millions of years old?

Volcanoes.

The Afar region is still an active rifting environment. There were a lot of volcanoes and tectonic activity, and when these volcanoes erupted ash, the ash contained crystals called feldspars that allow the scientists to date them, explained Christopher Campisano, a geologist at ASU. 

'We can date the eruptions that were happening on the landscape when they're deposited,'  said Campisano, a research scientist at the Institute of Human Origins and associate professor at the School of Human Evolution and Social Change.

“And we know that these fossils are interbed between those eruptions, so we can date units above and below the fossils. We are dating the volcanic ash of the eruptions that were happening while they were on the landscape."

The chain of reasoning here is extremely dubious. No reliable method is discussed. Trying to estimate when volcanic ash was deposited is guesswork. The technique described is an example of what is called biostratigraphy, which is much less reliable as a dating method than radiometric dating. "The volcanoes told us" is not a very reliable sounding answer to the question "How do you know how old these teeth are."  And if you were to reliably date some old teeth, that would not allow you to infer that you had discovered some new species. 

It is interesting that Darwinism is based on an idea that undermines the credibility of most attempts to infer the ancestry of species from fossils. Darwinism is based on the idea that there occur dramatic random variations in some member of a species, in some members of the population of a species. So, for example, under Darwinist accounts member # 233,023 of a population of 500,000 members of a species might be born looking much different from the average member of that species. But let us imagine you find something like a tooth that looks a little different from known teeth, or a skull forehead that looks a little different from the foreheads of known species. Under the Darwinist assumption that there can occur dramatic random variations in some members of the population of a species, it seems that you would  never be entitled to assume that some oddball fossil was evidence of a transitional species.  Instead, under Darwinist assumptions such a fossil might be merely evidence of a dramatic random variation in some member of the population of a species.  

You can't have it both ways. Either:

(1) The members of a species all look almost exactly the same, as if they all arose following some blueprint for that species, or 

(2) There can be born in some species oddball members looking much different from the average appearance of members of such species. 

Idea (2) is useful for the person trying to explain the idea of so-called natural selection. But if idea (2) is true, then a fossil that looks like a fossil of Species X but significantly different can never be cited as evidence of a transition from Species X to some other species. For under Idea (2) a simpler explanation would simply be a random variation of a member of Species X, an oddball outlier in Species X.  So, for example, if you had a fossil with a sloping forehead halfway between the slope of an ape's forehead and the slope of a man's forehead, that would be best explained as an oddball outlier in the population of an ape or an oddball outlier in the population of humans, not as some transitional species between an ape and a human species. 

A neglected issue is the issue of pressure distortions of fossils. Fossils are often found at deep depths where the bones may have been subjected to great physical pressure over many thousands of years. We have no idea of what distortions in bones such physical pressure may produce over a span of many thousands of years. But such a factor is typically ignored, and an assumption is typically made that some species existed with a skull matching the appearance of the found fragments. Something looking like a fragment of a sloped forehead may be a clue that  some species with a sloped forehead existed. Or maybe that species had no such sloped forehead, and the slope appearance in the bone came from the thousands of years of pressure distortion. 

The photo below (from the scientific paper here) shows an example of the type of highly speculative business that paleontologists often engage in. We see some image that looks like a skull. The authors have done a "reconstruction" which is mostly speculative. Particular bone fragments have been fitted to a rather arbitrarily chosen skull shape (plastic or computer-generated), to try and suggest they are fragments of a skull with the shown shape.  But we can have little confidence that such fragments ever belonged to a skull with such a shape. The fragments could be from  different skeletons of different species. We have no idea whether the bone fragments belonged to any species with a forehead like the forehead shown or eyes like the eyes shown. 

I can state some principles you should follow when analyzing claims about fossils:

• Treat with suspicion all objects described as "replicas" of some other fossil, as such objects may not match the original, and may be distorted to help serve some narrative end or ideological purpose. 
• Treat with great suspicion all objects or visuals described as "reconstructions," as such objects or visuals may be mostly speculative guesswork, such as the "reconstruction" in the photo directly above. 
• Recognize that most "looking like a fossil" objects identified as coming from stock photo sources such as Shutterstock are probably 3D vector artwork not actually matching any fossil ever found.
• Disregard any "looking like a fossil" image that fails to list a source and fails to correspond to a reputable-sounding account of how such a fossil was found. 
• Do not trust the authenticity of an object merely because some natural history museum is listed as it source, given how much fakery and misleading "reconstruction" work (involving plaster, fiberglass, putty and superglue) has been going on at such museums. 
• If a reputable-sounding account of how such a fossil seems to be found, do not yet trust the account unless it is or can be traced back to an original and credible account given by the fossil discoverer, explaining exactly how the fossil was found. 
• Treat with great suspicion all accounts in which fragments are gathered up from an area larger than the claimed original organism, with your suspicion being proportional to the size of the gathering area (because in such cases we do not know the fragments are all from the same individual or even the same species). 
• Do not assume that some claimed skull corresponds to a typical skull shape of some species that existed long ago, because the skull could have been greatly distorted by thousands of years of geological pressure, and because the individual might have been one of those random variations that Darwinists so often appeal to, rather than a typical member of his own species. 
• Treat with great suspicion all estimates involving the age of some fossil, as such estimates are often guesswork as unreliable as the volcano reasoning discussed above, and estimates that may be overthrown by later analysis (as in the case of Broken Hill fossil discussed above, where the dating changed from 500,000 years old to about 300,000 years old). 
• Realize that very many of the objects displayed in natural history museums are purely artificial constructions made by someone guessing about some what a fossil of some imagined species would have looked like. 
• Recognize that advances in photorealistic 3D modeling and artificial intelligence image generation tools (such as Photoshop and ImageFX) make it particularly easy these days to create fake images of fossils, and that many press releases and "science news" articles are using such fake images (often bought from stock image houses such as Shutterstock). 
• Recognize that the faking of fossils is a lucrative "cottage industry" in some parts of the world, which casts doubt on the credibility of accounts of fossil finds in distant lands given by persons of unknown trustworthiness. 
• Realize that paleontologists are not objective unbiased scientists, but are members of a belief community passionately devoted to pushing particular narratives about the origin of species, rather like some person who analyzes crime scene bones while having an intense interest in proving some particular narrative, such as a claim of murder. 
• Realize also that paleontologists are often motivated by career advancement interests and desire for fame and self-glorification, factors that can severely affect their objectivity when analyzing hard-to-interpret and hard-to-age bone fragments, leading them to favor the most interesting-sounding claims and speculations about such bone fragments rather than the most well-justified claims. 

They Said They Saw a Parent's Apparition

Reports of seeing an apparition of a deceased parent are very common. Let us look at some examples I found in old newspapers. 

In the account below a scientist says he saw an apparition of his mother, not just once, but a dozen times. 

You can read the full account below. It includes an account of the professor seeing an apparition of a friend who recently died, with the apparition suddenly vanishing. 

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn96027111/1902-07-11/ed-1/seq-3/

Below we have a very dramatic account of an apparition witnessed by a very sick child's father and the child's stepmother. The apparition reportedly had an appearance matching that of the child's deceased mother. 

You can read the account here:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn91064011/1910-04-14/ed-1/seq-9/

Below is an account of someone swearing in court that she saw the apparition of her mother:

You can read the account here:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82016014/1913-01-03/ed-1/seq-14/

Below is another account of someone saying that she saw the apparition of her mother:

You can read the account below:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82015679/1885-05-08/ed-1/seq-2/

Below is an account of a daughter seeing both an apparition of her father who died 15 years, and also (it seems) the apparition of her mother who she did not know was dead. There is a remarkable aspect of confirmation in which a  Mr. Lee (apparently the mother's second husband) goes to check on the mother, and finds that she has died when the daughter saw the apparition of her. 

You can read the account here:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/2016270503/1900-03-20/ed-1/seq-4/

The same account (with a few additional details) is told in the account below:

You can read the account below:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84020358/1900-03-20/ed-1/seq-1/

Below we have a named witness testifying in court that she saw a father's apparition, who spoke with her, telling her that a visitor to her home had stolen a ring:

You can read the account here:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn89053964/1913-09-05/ed-1/seq-6/

Talaat Pasha was the Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire during the notorious Armenian genocide around 1915. Pasha was the leader more responsible for that genocide than any other. In 1921 Pasha was assassinated by Soghomon Tehlirian.  Tehlirian had lost his mother and brother in the genocide. As the newspaper article below tells us, Soghomon Tehlirian said that he saw an apparition of his mother, saying, "You know Talaat is here, but you remain indifferent. You cannot be, my son." Tehlirian said this inspired him to kill Talaat Pasha. Tehlirian was found not guilty.

You can read the account here:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1921-06-03/ed-1/seq-18/

Below is another account of someone seeing a parent's apparition:

You can read the account below:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82015679/1899-08-05/ed-1/seq-3/

On page 105 of the April 1934 edition of The International Psychic Gazette, which you can read here, Gladys Osborne Leonard states this about seeing the apparition of her mother before she had learned through normal means that her mother was dead.

"About that time I went to stay at a town twenty to thirty

miles away. In the early morning of woke up, and I saw my

mother distinctly. Next day I received a telegram

saying she had passed on between 9.30 the previous

night and 2.30 that morning. She had been unconscious from 9.30 and the doctor said she was dead at 2.30. I saw her with my eyes open. Something— I don’t know what— awakened me, and I saw her with her hands folded across her breast, as if she were suspended over my bed and looking down at me.

She looked as if she were ten years younger than

when I bad last seen her. She looked at me very

kindly. When I went to see her body her bauds

were folded across her breast, and her expression was

just the same as I had seen in the night."

If the topic of this post interested you, check out my free 292-page book "Eeriest Events," now available on www.archive.org using the link here. The book discusses phenomena such as near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences, apparition sightings, deathbed visions and precognitive visions.  Using the native www.archive.org file viewer in single-page mode,  you can conveniently read the whole book by finger swiping. Scholars who are interested in following the links may prefer to download the book as a PDF file, which will allow opening links by right-clicking on a link. 

Your Origin Is Light-Years Beyond Any Genetic, Mechanistic or Neural Explanation

 Every adult human being is two different miracles: a miracle of physical organization and a miracle of mental abilities.  Neither an adult human body nor an adult human mind can be explained by mechanistic science, genetics or neuroscience.

Upon hearing such a statement, the average adult might say, "I can explain how I came to be." If asked to supply explicit details, a person might say something like, "I originated because my mother and father had sex, and my mother's egg was fertilized by my father's sperm." But if you state such an account, you are not explaining how you originated. You are merely explaining how your mother got pregnant.  You should not confuse understanding how your mother got pregnant with understanding how you originated. Explaining how you originated is a task enormously harder than merely explaining how your mother got pregnant. 

There are two things we would need to explain before we can say that we understand the origin of an adult human being. The first thing we would need to explain is the origination of an adult human body,  a state of enormous hierarchical physical organization and also gigantically dynamic functionality. The second thing we would need to explain is the arrival of the mind of an adult human being. The second task should not be reduced to some mere "problem of consciousness," as if all that we need to explain is some mere awareness of any type.  The second task is the task of explaining all of the mental faculties and types of mental experiences of an adult human being. Such faculties include awareness, self-hood, thinking, memory creation, instant memory retrieval, and the preservation of memories for many years.  Scientists have no credible explanation for either the arrival of an adult human body or the arrival of an adult human mind.  Let's look at why existing explanations don't get the job done. 

If someone defines a fertilized human egg as a human being, a definition that is very debatable, you might be able to say, "I understand the physical origin of a human being," and merely refer to a sperm uniting with an egg cell as such an origin.  But the question we are concerned with is whether anyone understands the physical origin of an adult human being. The physical structure of an adult human being is a state of organization millions of times more complex than a mere fertilized speck-sized egg cell.  (A human egg cell is about a tenth of a millimeter in length, but a human body occupies a volume of about 75 million cubic millimeters.) So you don't explain the physical origin of an adult human being by merely referring to the fertilization of an egg cell during or after sexual intercourse. 

We cannot explain the origin of an adult human body by merely using words such as "development" or "growth." Trying to explain the origin of an adult human body by merely mentioning a starting cell and mentioning "growth" or "development" is as vacuous as trying to explain the mysterious appearance of a building by saying that it appeared through "origination" or "construction."  If we were to find some mysterious huge building on Mars, we would hardly be explaining it by merely saying that it arose from "origination" or by saying that it appeared through "construction." When a person tries to explain the origin of a human body by merely mentioning "growth" or "development" or "morphogenesis," he is giving as empty an explanation as someone who tells you he knows how World War II started, because he knows that it was caused by "historical events."

There is a more specific account often told to try to explain the origin of an adult human body. The account goes something like this:

"Every cell contains a DNA molecule that is a blueprint for constructing a human, all the information that is needed. So what happens is that inside the body of a mother, this DNA plan for a human body is read, and the body of a baby is gradually constructed. It's kind of like a construction crew working from a blueprint to make a building."

The problem with this account is that while it has been told very many times, the story is just plain false. There is no such blueprint for a human being in human DNA. We know exactly what is in human DNA. It is merely low-level chemical information such as the sequence of amino acids that make up polypeptide chains that are the starting points of protein molecules. DNA does not specify anatomy. DNA is not a blueprint for making a human. DNA is not a recipe for making a human. DNA is not a program or algorithm for making a human. Not only does DNA not specify how to make a human, DNA does not even specify how to make any organ or appendage or cell of a human. There are about 200 types of cells in human beings, each an incredibly organized thing (cells are so complex they are sometimes compared to factories or cities).  DNA does not specify how to make any of these 200 types of cells. Cells are built from smaller structural units called organelles. DNA does not even specify how to make such low-level organelles. 

Here are a few relevant quotes by authorities:

• On page 26 of the recent book The Developing Genome, Professor David S. Moore states, "The common belief that there are things inside of us that constitute a set of instructions for building bodies and minds -- things that are analogous to 'blueprints' or 'recipes' -- is undoubtedly false."
• Biologist Rupert Sheldrake says this "DNA only codes for the materials from which the body is constructed: the enzymes, the structural proteins, and so forth," and "There is no evidence that it also codes for the plan, the form, the morphology of the body."
• Describing conclusions of biologist Brian Goodwin, the New York Times says, "While genes may help produce the proteins that make the skeleton or the glue, they do not determine the shape and form of an embryo or an organism." 
• Professor Massimo Pigliucci (mainstream author of numerous scientific papers on evolution) has stated  that "old-fashioned metaphors like genetic blueprint and genetic programme are not only woefully inadequate but positively misleading."
• Neuroscientist Romain Brette states, "The genome does not encode much except for amino acids."
• In a 2016 scientific paper, three scientists state the following: "It is now clear that the genome does not directly program the organism; the computer program metaphor has misled us...The genome does not function as a master plan or computer program for controlling the organism; the genome is the organism's servant, not its master.
• In the book Mind in Life by Evan Thompson (published by the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press) we read the following on page 180: "The plain truth is that DNA is not a program for building organisms, as several authors have shown in detail (Keller 2000, Lewontin 1993, Moss 2003)."
• Developmental biologist C/H. Waddington stated, "The DNA is not a program or sequentially accessed control over the behavior of the cell."
•  Scientists Walker and Davies state this in a scientific paper: "DNA is not a blueprint for an organism; no information is actively processed by DNA alone...DNA is a passive repository for transcription of stored data into RNA, some (but by no means all) of which goes on to be translated into proteins."
• Geneticist Adam Rutherford states that "DNA is not a blueprint," a statement also made by biochemistry professor Keith Fox.
• "The genome is not a blueprint," says Kevin Mitchell, a geneticist and neuroscientist at Trinity College Dublin, noting "it doesn't encode some specific outcome."
• "DNA cannot be seen as the 'blueprint' for life," says Antony Jose, associate professor of cell biology and molecular genetics at the University of Maryland, who says, "It is at best an overlapping and potentially scrambled list of ingredients that is used differently by different cells at different times."  
• Sergio Pistoi (a science writer with a PhD in molecular biology) tells us, "DNA is not a blueprint," and tells us, "We do not inherit specific instructions on how to build a cell or an organ." 
• Michael Levin (director of a large biology research lab) states that "genomes are not a blueprint for anatomy," and after referring to a "deep puzzle" of how biological forms arise, he gives this example: "Scientists really don’t know what determines the intricate shape and structure of the flatworm’s head."
• Ian Stevenson M.D. stated "Genes alone - which provide instructions for the production of amino acids and proteins -- cannot explain how the proteins produced by their instructions come to have the shape they develop and, ultimately, determine the form of the organisms where they are," and noted that "biologists who have drawn attention to this important gap in our knowledge of form have not been a grouping of mediocrities (Denton, 1986; Goldschmidt, 1952; B. C. Goodwin, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1994; Gottlieb, 1992; Grasse, 1973; E. S. Russell...Sheldrake, 1981; Tauber and Sarkar, 1992; Thompson, 1917/1942)."
• Biologist B.C. Goodwin stated this in 1989: "Since genes make molecules, genetics...does not tell us how the molecules are organized into the dynamic, organized process that is the living organism."
• An article in the journal Nature states this: "The manner in which bodies and tissues take form remains 'one of the most important, and still poorly understood, questions of our time', says developmental biologist Amy Shyer, who studies morphogenesis at the Rockefeller University in New York City."
• Timothy Saunders, a developmental biologist at the National University of Singapore, says, "Fundamentally, we have a poor understanding of how any internal organ forms.” 
• In an essay pointing out the vast complexities and interlocking dependencies of even simpler aspects of biology such as angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels),  Jonathan Bard of Oxford University states, "It is pushing the boundaries of belief too far to believe that it is helpful to see the genome as holding a program." 
• A paper by Stuart A. Newman (a professor of cell biology and anatomy) discussing at length the work of scientists trying to evoke "self-organization" as an explanation for morphogenesis states that "public lectures by principals of the field contain confidently asserted, but similarly oversimplified or misleading treatments," and says that "these analogies...give the false impression that there has been more progress in understanding embryonic development than there truly has been." Referring to scientists moving from one bunk explanation of morphogenesis to another bunk explanation for it, the paper concludes by stating, "It would be unfortunate if we find ourselves having emerged from a period of misconceived genetic program metaphors only to land in a brave new world captivated by equally misguided ones about self-organization."
• Physics PhD Eric Heden states, "The molecular coding within DNA, rich and vast as it is, falls impossibly short of being able to supply the informational guidance needed to supervise the development and moment-by-moment cellular activities of living organisms."
• Referring to claims there is a program for building organisms in DNA, biochemist F. M. Harold stated "reflection on the findings with morphologically aberrant mutants suggests that the metaphor of a genetic program is misleading." Referring to  self-organization (a vague phrase sometimes used to try to explain morphogenesis), he says, "self-organization remains nearly as mysterious as it was a century ago, a subject in search of a paradigm." 
• Physician James Le Fanu states the following:

  
  

  "The genome projects were predicated on the reasonable assumption that spelling out the full sequence of genes would reveal the distinctive genetic instructions that determine the diverse forms of life. Biologists were thus understandably disconcerted to discover that precisely the reverse is the case. Contrary to all expectations, there is a near equivalence of 20,000 genes across the vast spectrum of organismic complexity, from a millimetre-long worm to ourselves. It was no less disconcerting to learn that the human genome is virtually interchangeable with that of both the mouse and our primate cousins...There is in short nothing in the genomes of fly and man to explain why the fly has six legs, a pair of wings and a dot-sized brain and that we should have two arms, two legs and a mind capable of comprehending the history of our universe."

The lack of any specification for building a human in DNA is only one of two major reasons why a reading from DNA cannot explain the physical origin of a newborn baby or an adult. The second major reason is that there is nothing in the human body that would be capable of reading a DNA specification for making a human, if such a thing happened to exist.  Consider what goes on when a house is built. Dumping some building materials and a blueprint will never cause a house to be built. The house can only get built if there are intelligent blueprint readers smart enough to read and understand the complex blueprints, and carry out their instructions. With about 200 types of cells, each so complex they are often compared to factories, a human body is something a million times harder to build than a mere house. If there were some instructions for building a human in DNA, such instructions would be so complex that they would require something extremely intelligent to interpret such instructions and carry them out. But we know of no such intelligence existing in a human womb where a baby grows. 

The "DNA as blueprint" idea is further discredited by the C-value paradox under which many relatively simple organisms have genomes much larger than more complex organisms. For example, a certain flower from Japan has a genome 50 times longer than the human genome, and quite a few amphibians have genomes 10 times bigger than the human genome. 

There is no blueprint or recipe or program for making a human in human DNA, and there is nothing intelligent enough in a human womb to read and execute such immensely complicated instructions if they happened to exist. So the physical origin of each full-sized human body is a miracle far beyond our understanding.  

We lack any understanding of how the supremely hierarchical organization of an adult human body arises. Consider all the different levels of organization. Subatomic particles are organized into atoms, which are organized into amino acids, which are organized into protein molecules, which are organized into protein complexes, which are organized into organelles, which are organized into cells, which are organized into tissues, which are organized into organs, which are organized into organ systems, which are organized into the human body.  There is nothing in a speck-sized human egg that explains how most of those different levels of organization could arise. 

We take for granted the miracle of a speck-sized egg growing into a human body a million times more organized than such a cell. Why is that? Mainly because it is something that happens most of the time. It seems that we will not be astonished by any transformation, no matter how inexplicable it may seem, as long as it happens most of the time.  Imagine if you lived on a planet in which you could plant acorns in the ground, and they would grow into three-story houses complete with electricity and running water. You would not think such a thing was very marvelous if it happened most of the times that acorns were planted in the ground, and if such a thing had been happening for as long as your species could remember.  The arising of a full-sized human body from a speck-sized fertilized egg millions of times less complex and organized is a marvel a million times more impressive than a three-story house with electricity and running water arising from an acorn planted in the ground.  We do not at all understand how this marvel happens. We do not understand the physical origin of any adult human body. In a section entitled  "Developmental Biology," a paper by a University of Oxford biologist confesses, "We...rarely understand what is going on in any detailed way."

The diagram below illustrates some of the things that must occur for there to exist an adult human body. Each of the  pillars is something that must go on for there to ever exist an adult human body. Each of these pillars is a wonder that scientists cannot mechanistically or genetically explain. 

Let us look at some of the pillars in the visual above.

Protein Folding

For an adult to live, there must constantly occur protein folding, under which linear chains of amino acids form into the complex three-dimensional shapes needed for protein molecule function. But the protein folding problem remains unsolved. We don't understand how three-dimensional protein molecules are constantly arising from one-dimensional polypeptide chains (mere chains of amino acids) that do not specify any three-dimensional shape. 

There has been some progress in protein structure prediction, the art of predicting the 3D shape of a folded protein molecule from its linear amino acid sequence. Although such progress is often mistakenly depicted as progress in solving the protein folding problem, it is no such thing.  The "protein structure prediction problem" (predicting the 3D shape of a protein from its amino acid sequence) is a different problem from the protein folding problem (the problem of how protein molecules get their 3D shapes within human bodies), and the two problems should not be confused or conflated (although some careless writers do that). Using deep-learning AI  "frequentist inference" (involving massive electronic databases created through analysis of countless thousands of proteins and their shapes), very fancy computer programs  such as AlphaFold2 can now predict fairly well 3D protein shapes from their amino acid sequence. But that does nothing to explain how linear sequences of amino acids are able to organize into folded 3D shapes needed for protein molecule function, in a body that does not have any such AI deep-learning software and the huge electronic database it requires. 

Genes specify which amino acids make up a protein. But genes do not specify the three-dimensional shapes of proteins needed for them to be functional. 

Here are two relevant quotes by scientists:

• "In real time how the chaperones fold the newly synthesized polypeptide sequences into a particular three-dimensional shape within a fraction of second is still a mystery for biologists as well as mathematicians."   -- Arun Upadhyay, "Structure of proteins: Evolution with unsolved mysteries," 2019.
• "The problem of protein folding is one of the most important problems of molecular biology. A central problem (the so called Levinthal's paradox) is that the protein is first synthesized as a linear molecule that must reach its native conformation in a short time (on the order of seconds or less). The protein can only perform its functions in this (often single) conformation. The problem, however, is that the number of possible conformational states is exponentially large for a long protein molecule. Despite almost 30 years of attempts to resolve this paradox, a solution has not yet been found." -- Two scientists, "On a generalized Levinthal's paradox," 2018. 

Protein Complex Origination

Humans have more than 20,000 types of protein molecules, partially specified by about 20,000 genes, each of which lists the amino acid sequence used by a protein. Each protein uses a different sequence of amino acids. Different types of proteins combine to form teams of proteins called protein complexes.  Individual proteins might be called building blocks of protein complexes, although such a term might mislead you, because a building block such as a brick is very simple, while a protein typically consists of hundreds of well-arranged parts and thousands of well-arranged atoms.  So it's much better to call proteins "building components" of protein complexes. 

Although scientists have identified most of the proteins that exist in the human body, the task of identifying all the protein complexes and which proteins they are made up is a task that is very largely unfinished. The latest version of the CORUM database of protein complexes (version 4.0)  lists 5204 protein complexes, but that number is only a small fraction of the total number of protein complexes that exist.

Scientists do not understand how proteins are able to continually form very quickly into highly functional protein complexes. DNA does not specify any protein complexes. Nowhere in DNA is there anything like some specification saying that such-and-such a protein complex is made from Protein X, Protein Y and Protein Z.  Below are some quotes by scientists:

• "The majority of cellular proteins function as subunits in larger protein complexes. However, very little is known about how protein complexes form in vivo." Duncan and Mata, "Widespread Cotranslational Formation of Protein Complexes," 2011.
• "While the occurrence of multiprotein assemblies is ubiquitous, the understanding of pathways that dictate the formation of quaternary structure remains enigmatic." -- Two scientists (link). 
• "A general theoretical framework to understand protein complex formation and usage is still lacking." -- Two scientists, 2019 (link). 
• "Most proteins associate into multimeric complexes with specific architectures, which often have functional properties like cooperative ligand binding or allosteric regulation. No detailed knowledge is available about how any multimer and its functions arose during historical evolution." -- Ten scientists, 2020 (link). 
• "Protein assemblies are at the basis of numerous biological machines by performing actions that none of the individual proteins would be able to do. There are thousands, perhaps millions of different types and states of proteins in a living organism, and the number of possible interactions between them is enormous...The strong synergy within the protein complex makes it irreducible to an incremental process. They are rather to be acknowledged as fine-tuned initial conditions of the constituting protein sequences. These structures are biological examples of nano-engineering that surpass anything human engineers have created. Such systems pose a serious challenge to a Darwinian account of evolution, since irreducibly complex systems have no direct series of selectable intermediates, and in addition, as we saw in Section 4.1, each module (protein) is of low probability by itself." -- Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjerm, "Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems,"  Journal of Theoretical Biology.

This week there was a press release about a protein complex, one saying, "Inside nearly every cell of your body, the tiny F₁ motor works non-stop to create adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the universal energy source that powers almost every action you take—from breathing to running."  We had some details describing how the microscopic motor spins "with maximum efficiency," but no explanation of how the protein complex ever arises. At least we have a good diagram showing how the "y-shaft" spins round and round like a motor. There's a link to a paper describing what it calls "nanomachines," which are examples of the most astonishing engineering effects existing on a microscopic level within your cells. 

From the press release here

Organelle Origination

In order for any human cell to ever form or to reproduce, there must occur very much origination of organelles, the building components of cells. Explaining the origination of organelles is made much harder by the facts that there are many greatly different types of organelles, and that some of these types exist in very great numbers in most human cell types.  Your idea about the number of organelles in a cell is probably shaped by those extremely misleading "Diagram of a cell" visuals, that show maybe fifteen organelles of about 7 types in a cell. The truth is that the average human cells has thousands of different organelles.  

Specifically:

• A cell diagram will typically depict a cell as having only one or a few mitochondria, but human cells typically have many thousands of mitochondria, as many as a million.
• A cell diagram will typically depict a cell as having only only one or a few lysosomes, but human cells typically have hundreds of lysosomes.
• A cell diagram will typically depict a cell as having only a few ribosomes, but a human cell may have up to 10 million ribosomes.
• A cell diagram will typically depict one or a few stacks of a Golgi apparatus, each with only a few cisternae. But a cell will typically have between 10 and 20 stacks, each having as many as 60 cisternae.
• A cell diagram will rarely even depict a microtubule, although according to the paper here "cells can contain from just a few to many hundreds of microtubules (Aikawa, 1971; Osborn & Weber, 1976)." 
• The membranes of cells are extremely complicated structures, consisting of four layers, with each layer being populated by many types of proteins each consisting of hundreds of well-arranged parts.  Some of this complexity could easily be shown by a "closeup circle" in a cell diagram, showing a closeup of part of the membrane.  But we rarely see any such depiction of the complexity of the cell membrane,  and cell diagrams almost always have cell membranes depicted as featureless things looking as simple as the surface of a balloon. 
• The cytosol of a cell is typically depicted as if it were a simple fluid like water. But the cytosol is actually loaded with many types of complex protein molecules needed for cell function. 

How do organelles originate? Scientists don't understand that. DNA does not specify how to make any organelles. The chart below illustrates what is not specified by DNA.  None of the seven higher levels of organization in the human body is specified by DNA, which contains only low-level chemical information. DNA contains no information on human anatomy and no information on cellular structure.  

Of the organelles in the human body, only the mitochondria have any DNA.  The DNA in mitochondria specifies only a small fraction of the protein molecules used by mitochondria. 

On page 2 of the document here we read this:

"Organelle biogenesis is the process by which new organelles are made. In a few cases, notably mitochondria and chloroplasts, some organelle proteins are encoded by the organelle’s own genome. However, the amount of DNA in such organelles can encode only a very small number of the many proteins required."  

The same document says this on page 10:  "Organelle biogenesis is not simply a question of delivering newly synthesized proteins and lipids to a specific intracellular site but may also require the establishment of a complex architecture."

The same document on page 63 tells of the structural complexity of one type of organelle, the endoplasmic reticulum:

"The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) adopts a number of structural forms that correlate with distinct functions. The differentiation, maintenance, and proliferation of these forms are only beginning to be understood....The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is arguably the most dynamic and morphologically variable of all membranous organelles. The ER utilizes a cytoskeleton scaffold, associated motor proteins, and less well characterized mechanisms to undergo constant rearrangement while maintaining the characteristic forms of a continuous network of interconnected tubules, cisternae, and highly organized lamellar sheets. "

By "motor proteins" the quote is referring to protein complexes that look like tiny motors.  On page 69 the document says, "In living cells, a number of studies find clear evidence for a role of microtubules and the motor protein kinesin in formation and breakdown of branching ER tubule polygon networks." The wikipedia.org article on kinesin shows an animation of a kinesin protein complex "walking" down a microtubule, like some kind of microscopic robot. 

On the same page, the document offers an attempted explanation for how the very complex structure of the endoplasmic reticulum arises. It is the vacuous non-explanation of "self organization." The emptiness of the concept is clear from a quote on page 13, where we read, "Self-organization is an interesting concept, but how organelles self-organize is unclear." The last resort of a scientist lacking an explanation for some very high state of organization is to make a vacuous appeal to "self-organization." 

Cell Formation, Cell Reproduction

After studying the section above, you may get some idea about the very high amount of organization in human cells. Human cells are so complex they are sometimes compared to cities or factories. We do not understand how cells are able to form and reproduce. The answer is not that the body reads instructions in DNA or its genes telling how to build a cell. DNA and its genes do not have instructions on how to build any cell.  DNA and its genes do not even have instructions for how to build any of the organelles that are the building components of cells. A 2022 paper in the journal Science (one authored by more than ten scientists) says this: "Although the genome is often called the blueprint of an organism, it is perhaps more accurate to describe it as a parts list composed of the various genes that may or may not be used in the different cell types of a multicellular organism....The genome in and of itself does not provide an understanding of the molecular complexity of the various cell types of that organism."

On a web page entitled "The Mystery of Cell Division," a scientist confesses that scientists don't understand how cells -- with a complexity of "airplanes" -- could self-reproduce. 

"Scientists have been trying to understand how cells are built since the 1800s. This does not surprise us and, as scientists ourselves, we have always been puzzled at how cells, such complex structures, are able to reproduce over and over again. Even more astonishing is that, despite the frequency of cell division, mistakes are relatively rare and almost always corrected. According to Professor David Morgan from University of California, the complexity that we observe in cells can be compared to that of airplanes."

If you do a Google search for “why do cells divide,” you will get various answers referring to high-level causes. A web site may state that cells divide to replace old, dead or damaged cells, or that cells divide so that an organism can grow, or that cells divide so that an organism can reproduce. But these are all “grand purpose” reasons, and none of them is a low-level reason. What we do not understand is: what cell-level reason is it that cells divide into two? Considering only the cell itself, and not some higher purpose, what would cause a cell to reproduce by splitting into two?

Scientists do not understand such a thing. They have identified particular stages in the most common type of cell reproduction (called mitosis): stages such as prophase, metaphase, anaphase and telophase. But without referring to higher-level “grand purpose” reasons, scientists do not understand why (on the individual cell level) a cell would pass through such phases and reproduce. A university press release confesses, "there are many remaining mysteries about how cells perform this remarkable feat." The answer is not at all "the cells follow the instructions in DNA." DNA does not contain any instructions for making cells or any specification or blueprint of a cell. 

An M. Pitkanen (who has a PhD in theoretical physics) has written the following about cell division:

"Replication is one of the deepest mysteries of biology. It is really something totally counterintuitive if cell is seen as a sack of water plus some chemicals. We have a lot [of] facts about what happens in the replication at DNA level but how this miracle happens is a mystery. At cell level the situation gets even more complex."

A university press release discusses scientific ignorance about the basis question of cell division. It states the following:

"When a rapidly-growing cell divides into two smaller cells, what triggers the split? Is it the size the growing cell eventually reaches? Or is the real trigger the time period over which the cell keeps growing ever larger?...'How cells control their size and maintain stable size distributions is one of the most fundamental, unsolved problems in biology,' said Suckjoon Jun, an assistant professor of physics and molecular biology at UC San Diego...'Even for the bacterium E. coli, arguably the most extensively studied organism to date, no one has been able to answer this question.' ”

Another aspect of cells that scientists are unable to explain is how cells ever end up in the correct positions. There are about 200 types of cells in the human body. Every type of cell needs to end up in the right position to serve its function. But there is no mechanistic explanation as to how any cell could ever find the right position to go to. Besides lacking any specification of how to build a cell, DNA has no information on where cells should go to. 

One of the many myths sometimes suggested in scientific literature is the myth that cells go to the right positions because they receive (by means of something called a morphogen gradient) a signal about which direction to move to. This myth does not hold up to scrutiny, for reasons I discuss in my long post here. People sometimes try to insinuate that Lewis Wolpert did something to help explain how cells find the right positions. But Wolpert has made confessions contrary to such a boast. For example, he confessed, "There is no good evidence for the quantitative aspects of any of the proposed gradients and details how they are set up." He also confessed, "It is terrible, but we still don’t have a molecular basis for it."

To help show how crucial it is that the right types of cells get to the right types of places in the human body, I present the table below. In the left column, we see the main types of anatomical structures in the human body. In the right column we see only some of the cell types that are needed for such structures. Almost every type of anatomical structure listed requires at least one cell type used only by that structure. Most of the cell types that are listed are used by only one of the anatomical structures. My source for the information below is mainly the wikipedia.org article on human cell types, which you can read here.  The listing here is by no means comprehensive, and I'm sure a complete list would list many additional cell types in the "cell types required" column. 

Anatomical structure	Cell Types Required
Duodenum	Brunner's gland cell
Respiratory Tract	Insulated goblet cell, "ciliated, non-ciliated secretory cells, and basal cells" (link).
Digestive Tract	Insulated goblet cell, enterocytes, chief cells, enteric glial cells
Stomach	Foveolar cell, chief cell, parietal cell, Enterochromaffin cell, Enterochromaffin-like cell
Pancreas	Pancreatic acinar cell, Centroacinar cell, Pancreatic stellate cell, alpha cell, beta cell, delta cell, epislon cell
Small intestine	Paneth cell, tuft cells
Lungs	Type II pneumocyte, Club cell, Type I pneumocyte,  Kultschitzky's cells
Gall bladder	Gall bladder epithelial cell
Tongue	Von Ebner's gland cell, surface epithelial cell, taste receptor cells
Ear	Ceruminous gland cell, Planum semilunar epithelial cell, Organ of Corti interdental epithelial cell, Elastic cartilage chondrocyte, Inner pillar cells of organ of Corti, Outer pillar cells of the organ of Corti, Inner phalangeal cells of organ of Corti, Outer hair cells of vestibular system of ear, Inner hair cells of vestibular system of ear, Outer phalangeal cells of organ of Corti, Border cells of organ of Corti, Hensen's cells of organ of Corti
Nose	Bowman's gland cell,Olfactory epithelium supporting cells, Olfactory ensheathing cells
Cornea (eye)	Surface epithelial cell, Corneal fibroblasts
Iris (eye)	Smooth muscle cell, iris pigment epithelium, stroma
Retina (eye)	Retina horizontal cells, cone cells, rod cells, bipolar cells, ganglion cells, horizontal cells, amacrine cells
Adrenal gland	Chromaffin cells
Mouth	Surface epithelial cell, stromal cells, endothelial cells
Nasal cavity	Surface epithelial cell, squamous cells
Salivary glands	Striated duct cell, acinar cells, ductal cells, myoepithelial cells
Mammary glands, breasts	Lactiferous duct cell, myoepithetial cell
Central nervous system	Many types of neurons, stellate cell, microglial cell
Heart	White fat cell, cardiac muscle cell, SA node cell, Purkinje fiber cell
Ovary	Theca Interna cell, Corpus luteum cell, Granulosa lutein cells, Theca lutein cells
Male reproductive system (e.g. testes)	Leydig cell, seminal vessicle cell,Bulbourethral gland cell, duct cell, efferent duct cells, Epididymal principal cell, Epididymal basal cell, Spermatid, Spermatocyte,  Spermatogonium cell, Spermatozoon, Sertoli cell
Prostate gland	Prostate gland cell, duct cell
Female reproductive system	Oogonium/oocyte, granulosa cell,
Vagina	Bartholin's gland cell, basal cells, parabasal cells, superficial squamous flat cells
Uterus	Uterus endometrium cell
Urethra	Gland of Littré cell
Kidney	Macula densa cell, Peripolar cell, Principal cell, Mesangial cell, Kidney distal tubal cell, Intercalated cell, Interstitial kidney cells
Urinary system	Parietal epithelial cell,Podocyte, Proximal tubule brush border cell, Loop of Henle thin segment cell
Bladder	Transitional epithelium, urothelial cells,
Circulatory system	Endothelial cells, vascular smooth muscle cells, lymphatic endothelial cells
Tendons	Tendon fibroblasts,
Bones (including bone marrow)	Erythrocyte, monocyte,Bone marrow reticular tissue fibroblasts.Osteoblast/osteocyte, Osteoprogenitor cell, Megakaryocyte, osteoclast
Liver	Hepatic stellate cell, liver lipocyte, Kupffer cells, Cholangiocytes, progenitor cells, NK cells
Intevertebral disc	Nucleus pulposus cell
Adipose organ (fat system)	White fat cell, brown fat cell
Muscles	Red skeletal muscle cell (slow twitch), White skeletal muscle cell (fast twitch), Intermediate skeletal muscle cell,Nuclear bag cell, Nuclear chain cell
Endocrine glands	Myoepithelial cell
Immune system	Macrophages, dendritic cell, Epidermal Langerhans cell, Neutrophil granulocyte, Basophil granulocyte, Mast cell, Helper T cell, Regulatory T cell, Cytotoxic T cell, Natural killer T cell, B cell(/lymphocyte), Plasma cell, Natural killer cell
Skin and hair	Epidermal Langerhans cell, Keratinocyte, Epidermal basal cell, Melanocyte, Trichocyte, Medullary hair shaft cell, Cortical hair shaft cell, Cuticular hair shaft cell, Huxley's layer hair root sheath cell, Henle's layer hair root sheath cell, Outer root sheath hair cell
Thymus	Epithelial reticular cell,
Thryoid/Parathyroid	Thyroid epithelial cell, Parafollicular cell, Parathyroid chief cell
Peripheral nervous system	Schwann cells, Satellite glial cells,
Interneurons	Basket cells, Cartwheel cells, Stellate cells, Golgi cells, Granule cells, Lugaro cells, Unipolar brush cells, Martinotti cells. Chandelier cells, Cajal–Retzius cells, Double-bouquet cells, Neurogliaform cells
Pituitary gland	Corticotropes, Gonadotropes, Lactotropes, Melanotropes, Somatotropes, Thyrotropes

Pardon the imperfect formatting above, which is hard to avoid when doing so much copying from an external source which has this information in a table using a different format.

After studying the table above and studying the lack of any specification in DNA or its genes of where particular cell types should go to in the body, you may appreciate more strongly that there is an enormous explanatory problem involving not just how cells arise but how cells get to the right places in human bodies. Mechanistic science has no credible explanation for these wonders. Nor can mechanistic science or evolutionary biology explain how there ever appeared organs in the body which have so many dependencies on many different types of accidentally unachievable cells that the organs would be useless in their preliminary or incipient stages.

Organ System Formation

Below are the "major organ systems" in the human body, as listed on a page in the consumer edition of the famous Merck Manual. In some cases you have to make a rather arbitrary choice when listing such systems, because of a lack of a clear distinction. For example, you can distinguish between a respiratory system and a cardiovascular system; but the respiratory system is so dependent upon the cardiovascular system (and vice versa) that it might be better to refer to a cardiovascular-respiratory system. 

Cardiovascular system: heart, blood vessels (arteries, capillaries, veins).

Respiratory system: nose, mouth, pharynx, larynx, trachea, bronchi, lungs. 

Nervous system: brain, spinal cord, nerves

Integumentary system: skin, hair, nails.

Musculoskeletal system: muscles, tendons and ligaments,

bones, joints.

Digestive system:  mouth, esophagus, stomach,

small intestine, large intestine, rectum, anus, liver,

gallbladder, pancreas (the part that produces enzymes),

appendix.

Urinary system: kidneys, ureters, bladder,

urethra.

Male reproductive system:  penis,  prostate gland,

seminal vesicles, vasa deferentia, testes.

Female reproductive system:  vagina, cervix,

uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries.

It seems that if we are listing the organ systems in the human body we should also be listing these systems not included on the Merck Manual page. Listing some of these systems requires that we discard the principle that every bodily system consists only of unique parts shared by no other system. 

Endocrine system: thyroid, parathyroid, pituitary, pineal, and adrenal glands.

Immune system: spleen, thymus, bone marrow, lymph nodes, antibodies.

Vision system: eyes, optic nerves, visual cortex. 

Auditory system: ears, auditory nerve, auditory cortex.

How do all of these wonderful systems arise? Scientists do not know. DNA and its genes do not specify how to make any of them. DNA does not even specify how to make any organ, any cell, or any of the organelles that are the building components of cells. A Duke University biologist and a Cornell University biologist have confessed this: " No information about the overall architecture of these body parts is present in the cells and tissues of the parts themselves, or in each organism’s genes."

Part of the reason why the explanation job is so impossible from a mechanistic standpoint is the interdependence of different organ systems. Such interdependence is shown in the diagram below. 

Because of such interdependence, there is typically no way to explain the appearance of two organs through any narrative in which first one organ appears and then much later another organ appears. 

Homeostasis Via Molecular Machinery

The Oxford Dictionary defines homeostasis as "the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes." Another way to define homeostasis is: all of the incredibly complex processes that dynamically occur within a human body simply so that the body can maintain a stable state.  Homeostasis involves much more than just maintaining stable temperatures and stable blood sugar levels. Homeostasis involves the extremely complex chores involved in breaking down cells and reusing their chemicals. Such a process is necessary because most types of cells in the human body last less than a year. 

There are many specialized protein complexes that help achieve homeostasis. An example is the extremely complex apoptosome protein complex shown below:

(Image credit:  Wikipedia Commons, derived from Yuan et al. 2010, Structure of an apoptosome-procaspase-9 CARD complex)

Shown above is the apoptosome protein complex involved in programmed cell death. Note the references in the chart to propellers, which remind  us how much the complex resembles a product of engineering. Humans have more than 20,000 types of protein molecules, and the average protein molecule is a very special arrangement of more than 400 different amino acid parts. The arrangement of amino acids in each protein is as hard-to-achieve by chance as 400 accidentally typed characters making a paragraph of grammatical and functional prose. Extremely complex engineering arises in the form of protein complexes, in which different proteins (often useless by themselves) work together as team members to achieve some dramatic functional result. We see that in the visual above, where multiple instances of several different types of protein molecules come together to form an extremely complex structure consisting of thousands of well-arranged amino acid parts, and consisting of a total of tens of thousands of well-arranged atoms. A page describes the action of these individually useless proteins coming together to form a functional protein complex:

"The process of programmed cell death, also known as apoptosis, is highly regulated, and the decision to die is made through the coordinated action of many molecules. The apoptosome plays the role of gatekeeper in one of the major processes, termed the intrinsic pathway. It lies between the molecules that sense a problem and the molecules that disassemble the cell once the choice is made. Normally, the many subunits of the apoptosome are separated and inactive, circulating harmlessly through the cell. When trouble occurs, they assemble into a star-shaped complex, which activates protein-cutting caspases that get apoptosis started."

Another site that includes a 3D rotating animation of the structure shown above says this:

"The apoptosome is revealed as a wheel-like complex with seven spokes. On top of the wheel is a spiral-shaped disk that allows for docking and subsequent activation of proteases, which then target cellular components. When active, the apoptosome is revealed to be a dynamic machine with three to five protease molecules tethered to the wheel at any given time."

The "Apaf 1" part of this complex (APAF_HUMAN ) involves 1248 amino acids.   

The apoptosome protein complex is only one of many protein complexes in the body involved in homeostasis. Many of these protein complexes are so complex and machine-like they are called "molecular machines." Does this mean there is some mechanistic explanation for such wonders of microscopic engineering? Not at all. 

The fact is that scientists have no explanation for how protein complexes are able to form. That is shown by the quotes  I gave in the section above entitled "Protein complex origination."  The fact that parts mysteriously form into a machine-like functionally effective well-engineered arrangement of parts does not at all mean that there is a mechanistic explanation.  Similarly, if a tornado were to blow some scattered branches so that they formed into a functional cart of wood with four working wheels and two axles, such a mechanistic output would have no mechanistic explanation. 

Every day throughout your body a great army of very many types of molecular machines are mysteriously forming, having just the right arrangements to perform maintenance feats necessary for the preservation of your body.  The configuration of such fine-tuned protein complexes is not specified by DNA. We know of no explanation for these marvels of fine-tuned formation that are constantly occurring in your body to preserve your life. 

Below are three examples of hierarchical organization: the Harry Potter book series, New York City, and the human body. I very roughly calculate an "organization index" by multiplying together some of the numbers in each column. The "organization index" gives a very rough idea of the amount of organization and special arrangement of parts to achieve the organized thing (a book series, a city or the human body). It seems that the construction of every human body requires far more organization and special arrangement of parts than are required to make New York City, and many times more organization and special arrangement of parts than is required to write a long book series such as the Harry Potter series. 

EXAMPLES OF HIERARCHICAL ORGANIZATION
A book series is made of books (for example, the Harry Potter series has 7 different books)	New York City is made of 5 boroughs (for example, Manhattan and Queens)	A human body is made mainly of a sketetal system and organ systems (about 10)
Books are made of chapters (about 30)	Boroughs are each made of about 20 neighborhoods (for example, Astoria and Corona)	Organ systems are made mainly of organs
Chapters are made of paragraphs (about 50)	Neighborhoods are made of about 100 city blocks	Organs are made of tissues
Paragraphs are made of sentences (about 5)	City blocks are made of about 50 buildings	Tissues are made of about 200 types of cells (about 100,000,000,000 per organ)
Sentences are made of words (about 10)	Buildings are made of about 5 floors	Cells are made of organelles of at least 10 types (about 100,000 per human cell)
Words are made of about 5 characters (letters)	Floors are made of  about 5 rooms	Organelles are made of proteins and protein complexes, more than 1000 per organelle
Characters are made of pixels, about 50	Rooms are made of construction components such as bricks, pipes, two-by-four boards and floorboards (about 300)	Human protein complexes are made of protein molecules (about 10 per protein complex)
		Protein molecules are made of amino acids (20 types), between about 200 and 2000 amino acids per protein molecule
Organization index = 7*30*50*6*12*5*50=131,250,000	Organization index = 5*20*100*50*5*5*300= 3,750,000,000	Organization index =10*100,000,000,000*100,000*1000*10*200= 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Minds and Memory Are Just as Mechanistically Inexplicable as Bodies

The paragraphs above help explain why your adult body is a miracle of fine-tuned organization beyond any genetic or mechanistic explanation.  In the sense that you have a body that is beyond any mechanistic or genetic explanation,  you may truly say that in one sense you are a miracle. But there is a whole other sense in which you are a miracle, which is that neither your mind nor your memory have any mechanistic or genetic or neural explanation. 

There is a belief community of neuroscientist dogmatists who claim otherwise.  They keep claiming that your mind and your memory are explained by your brain. But neuroscientists cannot credibly answer any of these questions:

• How is a human able to ever instantly learn all of the many different things that humans can learn?
• How is a human ever able to retain memories for decades, something that should be impossible from units such as synapses, which are built from proteins which have average lifetimes of only a few weeks or less?
• How could a brain ever store a memory when nothing in a brain seems to bear any resemblance to some component capable of writing information?
• How could a brain ever read a memory when nothing in a brain seems to bear any resemblance to some component capable of reading memory information?
• How could there possibly be memories stored in brains, when there has been the most careful microscopic examination of so many thousands of brains of very recently deceased people, and the most careful microscopic examination of so many thousands of chunks of brain tissue from living people, without any trace of learned memory ever being discovered from such examination? 
• How could there possibly be memories stored in brains, when no one has ever discussed any encoding system whereby episodic memories or learned knowledge could be converted to neuron states or synapse states? 
• How could a human ever instantly remember lots of relevant facts about a person, place or event as soon as he hears the name of such a person, place or event?

The claims of neuroscientists that brains can explain human memory abilities is unfounded, because of reasons such as these:

• As shown in the many examples given here, here, here, here and here, contrary to the predictions of "brains make minds" and "brains store memories" thinkers, human minds can operate very well despite tremendous damage to the brain, caused by injury, disease or surgery. For example, removing half of a person's brain in the operation known as hemispherectomy produces little change in memory or cognitive abilities. There have been quite a few cases of people (such as Lorber's patients) who were able to think and speak very well despite having lost more than 60% of their brain due to disease. Such cases argue powerfully that the human mind is not actually a product of the brain or an aspect of the brain, and is not a storage place of human memories. 

• Although it is claimed that memories are stored in the brain (specifically in synapses), there is no place in the brain that is a plausible storage site for human memories that can last for 50 years or longer. The proteins that make up both synapses and dendritic spines are quite short-lived, being subject to very high molecular turnover which gives them an average lifetime of only a few weeks or less. The 2018 study here precisely measured the lifetimes of more than 3000 brain proteins from all over the brain, and found not a single one with a lifetime of more than 75 days (figure 2 shows the average protein lifetime was only 11 days).  Both synapses and dendritic spines are a “shifting sands” substrate absolutely unsuitable for storing memories that last reliably for decades. Synapses are connected to dendritic spines, which have short lifetimes. A 2018 paper has a graph showing a 5-day "survival fraction" of only about 30% for dendritic spines in the cortex.  A 2014 paper found that only 3% of new spines in the cortex persist for more than 22 days. Speaking of dendritic spines, a 2007 paper says, "Most spines that appear in adult animals are transient, and the addition of stable spines and synapses is rare." A 2016 paper found a dendritic spine turnover rate in the neocortex of 4% every 2 days. A 2018 paper found only about 30% of new and existing dendritic spines in the cortex remaining after 16 days (Figure 4 in the paper). 

• It is claimed that memories are stored in brains, but humans are able to instantly recall accurately very obscure items of knowledge and memories learned or experienced decades ago; and the brain seems to have none of the characteristics that would allow such a thing. The recall of an obscure memory from a brain would require some ability to access the exact location in the brain where such a memory was stored (such as the neurons near neuron# 8,124,412,242). But given the lack of any neuron coordinate system or any neuron position notation system or anything like an indexing system or addressing system in the brain, it would seem impossible for a brain to perform anything like such an instantaneous lookup of stored information from some exact spot in the brain.

• If humans were storing their memories in brains, there would have to be a fantastically complex translation system (almost infinitely more complicated than the ASCII code or the genetic code) by which mental concepts, words and images are translated into neural states. But no trace of any such system has ever been found, no one has given a credible detailed theory of how it could work, and if it existed it would be a “miracle of design” that would be naturally inexplicable.

• If human brains actually stored conceptual and experiential memories, the human brain would have to have both a write mechanism by which exact information can be precisely written, and a read mechanism by which exact information can be precisely read. The brain seems to have neither of these things. There is nothing in the brain similar to the “read-write” heads found in computers.

• We know from our experience with computers the type of things that an information storage and retrieval system uses and requires. The human brain seems to have nothing like any of these things. 

• As discussed here, humans can form new memories instantly, at a speed much faster than would be possible if we were using our brains to store such memories. It is typically claimed that memories are stored by “synapse strengthening” and protein synthesis, but such things do not work fast enough to explain the formation of memories that can occur instantly.

• Contrary to the idea that human memories are stored in synapses, the density of synapses sharply decreases between childhood and early adulthood. We see no neural effect matching the growth of learned memories in human.

• There are many humans with either exceptional memory abilities (such as those with hyperthymesia or HSAM who can recall every day of their adulthood) or exceptional thinking abilities (such as savants with incredible calculation abilities). But such cases do not involve larger brains, very often involve completely ordinary brains, and quite often involve damaged brains, quite to the contrary of what we would expect from the “brains make minds” assumption.

• For decades microscopes have been powerful enough to detect memories in brains, if memories existed in brains. Very much brain tissue has been studied by the most powerful microscopes: both brain tissue extracting from living patients, and brain tissue extracted from someone very soon after he died. Very many thousands of brains have been examined soon after death.  Microscopes now allow us to see very clearly what is in the tiniest brain structures such as dendritic spines and synapse heads. But microscopic examination of brain tissue has failed to reveal any trace whatsoever of learned information in a brain.  No one has found a single letter of the alphabet stored in a brain; no has found a single number stored in a brain; and no one has ever found even a single pixel of something someone saw a day or more before.  If memories were stored in human brains, microscopes would have revealed decisive evidence of such a thing decades ago.  But no such evidence has appeared. 

• There is nothing in the brain that looks like learned information stored according to some systematic format that humans understand or do not understand. Even when scientists cannot figure out a code used to store information, they often can detect hallmarks of encoded information. For example, long before Europeans were able to decipher how hieroglyphics worked, they were able to see a repetition of symbolic tokens that persuaded them that some type of coding system was being used. Nothing like that can be seen in the brain. We see zero signs that synapses or dendritic spines are any such things as encoded information. 
• Many humans can remember with perfect accuracy very long bodies of text, such as hundreds of pages; but synapses in the brain do not reliably transmit information. An individual chemical synapse transmits an action potential with a reliability of only 50% or less, as little as 10%. A recall of long bodies of text would require a traversal of very many chemical synapses. A scientific paper says, "In the cortex, individual synapses seem to be extremely unreliable: the probability of transmitter release in response to a single action potential can be as low as 0.1 or lower." Moreover, the brain lacks any physical structure consistent with an ability to store very long sequences of information, as I discuss here.
• Humans often form vivid new memories while humans are having near-death experiences taking place during cardiac arrest, when the brain has shut down, showing only flatlines of electrical activity. That brain state is called asystole, and it occurs within about 10 to 20 seconds after the heart stops.  If memories are created by the brain, the formation of new memories should be impossible while the brain is electrically inactive. But we know that very vivid and detailed memories can form during such states of brain electrical inactivity. That would not be possible if memory formation is a brain activity. Moreover, during near-death experiences occurring asystole, people do not find themselves as minds without memories. They find themselves as the same selves with the same memories. There are endless accounts along the lines of this: "Suddenly I was floating outside of my body, and could see it beneath me. Later I saw my deceased mother." No such experiences would occur if a soul lacking memory powers were to persist after the heart stopped and brain waves stopped.  In that case there would be no memory recall, and no memory formation. 

Scientists cannot credibly explain either the origin of an adult body or the powers of an adult mind. There are no credible genetic or mechanistic or neural explanations for either the origination of your adult body or the origination of your mind and memory.  You are two different miracles: a miracle of physical organization and purposeful dynamism, and a miracle of mind and memory power beyond any mechanistic or genetic or neural explanation. To move towards credible ideas about the source of such wonders, we need to move towards ideas such as the idea of transcendent causation and the idea of the Global Organizing Activity of a Life-Force (GOAL), an idea discussed here. 

Any miracle beyond our explanation will always be "taken for granted," and thought of as nothing very wonderful, as long as humans keep seeing it happening throughout human existence. Imagine if we lived on a planet where you could always get your dinner by just going outside and clapping your hands twice, with each pair of claps being followed by the instant materialization of a floating silver platter in front of you, one containing a delicious four-course meal. If we had observed that all our lives, we would think there is nothing wonderful or miraculous about such a thing. We might call it "the Law of Convenient Dinner Deliveries" and think that such a law was nothing very special. Each time an enormously organized human body originates over nine months from a speck-sized zygote containing no specification of how to build a human body with such gigantic hierarchical organization and fine-tuned internal dynamism, it is something a million times more stupendous than the  "Law of Convenient Dinner Deliveries" I just imagined. And each time an adult human mind originates from a body that has nothing that can explain the main powers of such a mind, it is another miracle of origination incomparably more stupendous than water turning into wine or a person walking on water across a lake or sea. The return to physical life of a man like Lazarus (dead four days) would be "chicken feed" compared to the double miracle of your origination.