2017-01-18T10:01:00-08:00
A friend wrote a comment on my post saying, “What is your specialty and what is your evidence that the Genome Project is the biggest scam?”
I will try to answer his question in this article, but before I get into the scientific aspects, I must talk about some points as an introduction that I consider important and that I must mention.
1- Many do not feel that science has an authority over consciousness, close to the authority of religion. Rather, science has become the strongest doctrine that can be the basis for humans in understanding the world, and here lies the problem when something non-scientific is promoted in the name of science and imposed as an absolute, non-negotiable truth. This is the same problem as promoting something in the name of religion. When establishing a new science, the most dangerous thing is the founding process, because the wrong establishment will be a doctrine that humans will not be able to get out of. It has been deliberately established in the consciousness as true foundations… until a wave of scientific reform comes that re-criticizes the foundations and creates new foundations.
2- We have a problem, which is that we are still consumers of science, and we are convinced that we are committed to any science and we have no choice in criticizing or developing it. We only consume and use, and this is because our mind is broken and unable to create and innovate.
3- We have an idea that no one has the right to criticize science, except a Western person, because science is specific to them, and whoever tries to criticize science from a non-Western world becomes subject to ridicule or is unconvincing. The West has become a superpower that prevents the mind from thinking.
4- We have a faulty logic that abundance is a sure sign of honesty, and whoever tries to criticize becomes unconvincing and his words are wrong, because it is impossible for everyone to be stupid and for one person to be right. This is the same logic as religious societies. When a person tries to criticize some religious concepts, he becomes the subject of ridicule, ridicule, or everyone’s anger under the pretext: Is it possible that everyone is wrong and only one person knows?
5- We have a problem with language. We still believe that language is an external product and not a human product, and that language vocabulary expresses the essence of external things and that language calls for independent things that exist outside of ourselves.. Why do I say that and what is the relationship? Because there is no independent genomic science, we are the ones who created this science and wrote its terminology and concepts. This means that we are the ones who developed the terms and vocabulary of this science, and there are no terms and concepts that exist in reality and we only discovered them, and we have the right to rewrite the vocabulary and terminology. Science with a scientific method.
Now let’s get to the heart of the matter. I am not a specialist in genetics. I mean, I do not understand the details of science, and I do not have a specialized laboratory in which I can verify the research and reveal whether there are really scientific foundations, whether there are scientific errors, or whether the researchers’ classifications actually have scientific foundations, or whether the research is falsified. But I major in science, and I will speak about the scientific method in studies only based on the validity of the foundations of science.
First, we have to understand some of the basics of science. The genome project is based on the idea that men have a Y chromosome that women do not have, and through this chromosome it is possible to trace human migrations and their branches, because the Y chromosome is passed on by men to their children, meaning that it is inherited and sons pass it on to their sons and so on. Thus, lineages can be understood and traced. Humans through it, if we find changes in it, because they will be passed on to successive generations. Therefore, we have to look for mutations in peoples, and we will find similar mutations in societies.
In genetics, there are traits that have genes. For example, there is an independent external trait, which is the length of the nose, which has a gene that causes it. There is an external trait, which is curly hair, which has a gene that causes it, and there is an external trait, which is hazel eyes, which has a gene, but there is no external trait. An independent gene called Arabs has a gene that causes it, meaning there is no gene called Arabs or a gene called Persians or an independent gene called African. All humans have the same DNA, but differ in the presence or absence of traits. This is not what I say, but rather the scholars themselves agree on it.
The idea is that we are looking for mutations in the Y chromosome in similar populations and not for a unique independent gene, and we call this similarity in changes with an independent symbol Bb12 and so on.
Its name is a mutation, not a gene
1- They call mutation as being specific to the Al-Yahoud, which is very funny. The Al-Yahoud are a religion and not a people or a race, and it is as if we are facing a new doctrine that is trying to impose itself just as the Torah imposed the doctrine of Allah’s chosen people. There is no such thing as a Jewish people because it is basically only a Zionist idea. The Al-Yahoud are only a religion, so how can you build a scientific basis on a group of people who believe in a religion, knowing that the Al-Yahoud attribute a woman to be a Jew? Does this mean that we must name a chromosome mutation as a Muslim, Christian, or Hindu mutation? There are Al-Yahoud in China, Yemeni Al-Yahoud, and Ethiopian Al-Yahoud. I mean, peoples who believed in a religion, so on what scientific basis did they classify a mutation as belonging to the Al-Yahoud? Is it based on the presence of this mutation in abundance among the Al-Yahoud? This is a mistake because considering its abundance as evidence is a scientific error. This error undermines the consideration of these studies as scientific at all.
2- They call a certain mutation in the chromosomes the Arab mutation. Of course, they classified it as Arabic considering its widespread presence in the Arabian Peninsula. According to this study, they found 54 percent of this mutation present in Iran… a very large percentage… The scientific question that imposes itself: What if We started working according to this approach from Iran, and we discovered that this mutation was present in Iran in abundance at a rate of 54 percent, and we considered it the Persian mutation. Then we conducted a study in the Arabian Peninsula and found it in abundance. We will say that the Persian mutation is abundant in the peninsula, and this is evidence of the Persian origins of the Arabs. Do you know where the game is?
The method is wrong and contains manipulation and preconceived ideology, so how can I adopt it as a scientific method?!
Where is the problem?
The problem is that adopting a wrong approach and adopting wrong names will lead to errors in scientific studies in other fields, and the greatest evidence of the ideology from which these studies began is the assertion that the Al-Yahoud are a people, and imposing it as a scientific matter that cannot be criticized and the truth is different. You are establishing the truth that Zionism is trying to impose that the Al-Yahoud are an independent people, but this time in the name of science and not in the name of the Torah. Also, you will play with history with this knowledge to confirm historical events or migrations of peoples in order to confirm them, despite the presence of mutations in a specific chromosome that we cannot attribute to a people, even throughout history, because we must reveal the mutations of ancient times as well… Arabs may have been named in ancient times. On a human group that has mutations that are completely different from the current ones, and therefore you are playing the role of falsifying and sabotaging the truth in the name of science. Not only that, we may find that that human group called Arabs in the past, after examining it, contains within it many mutations and not all of them are similar…meaning that they are not Completely pure…and by purity I mean complete similarity in all its individuals through mutation. You exclude centuries, and the thousand years are full of events, migrations, transitions, and cross-fertilization. Then you come today and impose ancient labels to be adopted as truth. This means that this will be a reference for other studies that also establishes wrong ideas.