Well, I heared about some ideas as follows. "Why do you not see the reality from the proximity that all the computers of the same production have as well "equal genes“. Have older PC then similar "genes“? But they are descended from the same ancestral line!"

Yes, of cause, this is the natural at the equal or the similar genes standing at an ancestral line. That was their commen origin. Just it is the single base of the evolution theorists and their geneticists. Simplified it means as follows:

A)    The more comparable genes there are, the closer is the relationship of living beeings.

This principle but cannot be correct, because it is the only one. After the laws of logics, you may not set a conclusion from one single premise. This is scientifically forbidden, because some further possibilities are not taken into account. So, this principle just stands here like the faith as an inviolable block. Really, another reality is missed just given here by my premise B:

B)     The more comparable genes there are, the longer living beeings have lived under the same or under similar conditions next to each other.

Only both premises give a real sense! As long premise B cannot be excluded, you may not take premise A as an absolutum. Really this is the dilemma of the evolutionists. Therefore, I clearly draw your attention to this problem, because we are not descended from the domestic pig and just not from the monkeys living today. We also aren't descended from a common ancestor of ape and pig. According to my basic theory of universe, each living being has its own installation line. It had his own ancestor, who never was the same ancestor of the others. 

By the way, after the decryption of the human genom in the year 2010,a new genetics was born, the epigenetics, which in the meantime found proofs of my kind of evolution theory like I published it after many years of private research inside of my Unified Theory of Fields. Following my ideas, genes become changed by the influence of all the conditions (actions, interactions) during the life of living beings. These changes are partially heritable. So this kind of controlled evolution by the environmental conditions has to be primary instead of the accidental mutations offered to the selection. Mutations most are mistakes of nature. But infallible are these switching points at which the genes are changed. Changes then do not run slowly and accidentally but fast and purposefully. In this respect, the small amount of genes, about 300,000 in relations to the genom with 3.27 billion basepairs, which decide one man of the other man, is running through an absolutely different evolution, if they are parted over long periods.

Since the year 2000, one knows more about the influence of the living time period onto the genes and of the possibility of the enheritance of these changes. This facts ground the confirmation of my these B in the meantime since I found it in 1987. Consequently, it must be seriously noticed researching genetic past, descent, evolution and installation resp. adaption.

There is another thesis from my theory. The number three:

    C)   The more comparable genes there are, the more those protocosms were similar, which created the life with their internal programs.

At all events, the protocosms have created the installation lines of living beings, which is the base that I am able to assert such a kind of theses.

Darwin has the 200th birthday. This is the opportunity of the evolutionists to report about their theory. (cf. bdw 1/2009)

They remark:

I remark:

1.     Natural Selection

The natural selection would be without any direction, because there was no higher instance or force. Everything would run accidentally into the future. The universe is finite. Information has programed it. Therefore, it is programed by quanta. This strength provides every way of broader possibilities of development strictly. Only the effects of insignificant accidents are open. In an isolated system, there aren't actually any accidents of themselves. Only a system installed there can produce accidents internally. These are the living beings but not only the organic!

2.     Sexual Selection

It would arise from the choice of the most attractive and strongest partner. Examples: Gigantic feather trimming and enormously big antlers. Such a selection doesn't mean the change of the manner yet, but at first only the racial development.

3.     Genetic Analogies and Similarities

The molecular genetic information would be pedigrees and show the relationship with common ancestor. 

This is the Main Fault of the Theory of Evolution! 

The similarities don't arise from common ancestors but from the common way through the history, going together!

Well, it is a banal misunderstanding of the theorists of the evolution to conclude from the molecular genetic information  – from the notes in the genes – to a putative molecular genetic "pedigree" (“phylogenetic tree).

Who, as Darwin, has drawn such a conclusion, has simply been mistaken at the simple view on the things. Because, the things aren't as simple as the look like!

I like to use both following examples with pleasure.

The domestic pig is genetically close to humans. But nobody will externally think that the human would be descended from the pig. They alike so strongly genetically, because they have stridden the history together through a large part of the last time periods! This is the nature of the analogies and similarities in accordance with my premise in the genes, but not the common descent or common ancestors!

As technical example, I take a pair of computers of different manufacturers. It is ensured that both aren't descended from one computer, but they have gone out from different technological sources. We put both PCs A and B to a common office. They work there 5 years next to each other. Their history will be one. 

We put the PCs AA and AB of ONE manufacturer respectively into 2 different offices. We look after 5 years. 

Both PCs of the names A and B alike considerably in their stored information that is on their hard disk or on their genes or their molecular genetic reflection of the history. Evolutionists would think, they descend from each other. But I showed: However, they aren't descended from each other. They wrote their common history!

The PCs with the names AA and AB has worked in different offices. They recorded a history of alive, which proves that they aren't alike. But what a problem? Evolutionists would think, they are different species that they nevertheless descended from each other. The reality is, they are from one manufacturer, so they have really one ancestor!

The harddisk of living beings are their genes. They do not draw their relationship or their origins, but they draw their living histories. The common history leads to communities at the recording of the history.

This is the crucial point! Evolutionists followed the ideas of Darwin and went into the trap quite naively until now. The time has come, I ask you: Why are the Bushman and the chimpanzee very similar in their genes? I would answer: Because they were together in the bush since million years!

4.     Metabolism Scales

Sex partners would be in metabolism scales. One partner would form the effort of his metabolism partner of scales on the other hand. The calcium would for example be offset by the calcium of the enormous antlers of the bone structure of the young male fawns. This fact of most, but not of all living beings, doesn't explain the transition of species. It just is a parallel to the currently accepted laws of the creation orders in the form of pairs.

5.     Species Change within Long Time Periods

A pre-living being would has developed himself over long time periods to the present living being. One common ancestor of all the organic living beings would have existed well. Let's  observe the primeval horse from the presence. Is it then a different species from the present steppe horse? So seen, certainly yes. But it doesn't live any more today! All racial changes of the past are dead. Well, there was no real species change given but only a change of the pre-living being into the present living being! Nobody can deny such changes. In no case did the pre-horse descend from a unique dinosaur from which all other living beings would descend, too. And I deny such a line to one origin, because of the quantization of the matter according to my theory's solutions: all the living beings have followed from their own lines. There was not any single original ancestor.

6.     Small Living Beings in Most Numerous Ways

The theorists don't know why just beetle and insects have developed in so many manners. Beetles have installed most manners. The theorists only see the circumstance: living beings, which are smaller, have formed more manners. We see the programming of the universe confirmed just here. The great animals are like the great protocosms. They die out creating the smaller ones. At this, they release smaller protocosms. Well, smaller but much more living beings arise from them. The smallest protocosms are those objects, which generate the most variety in the cosmos. Well, their development lines show the beetle or the insects in that direction. It comes actually still worse, because the bacteria and viruses should have formed an almost confused variety of the species, but not by accident, rather in the consequence of the quantization law of the Creation!

In each center of a cosm analogy, there is an equal quantization, I called a "Mass Block". Such a way, each being in this world coming from the cosm-programming has the same inner quantization. And so it has the same inner genes! Just a small difference on the surface of the mass block decides it from the others! This is the reality of all!