Quantum entanglement in living organisms? The complexity of simple definitions.



Researchers managed to generate and study quantum entanglement in living organisms.

In the study, scientists used green fluorescent proteins, which are responsible for bioluminescence and commonly used in biomedical research. The research team attempted to entangle the photons generated from the fluorescing molecules within the algae’s barrel-shaped protein structure by exposing them to spontaneous four-wave mixing, a process in which multiple wavelengths interact with one another to produce new wavelengths.

Through a series of these experiments, researchers successfully demonstrated a type of entanglement, called polarization entanglement, between photon pairs. (polarization is the orientation of oscillations in light waves. A wave can oscillate vertically, horizontally, or at different angles) In the entangled pairs, the photons’ polarizations are entangled, meaning that the oscillation directions of light waves are linked. Scientists also noticed that the barrel-shaped structure surrounding the fluorescing molecules protected the entanglement from being disrupted.

“When I measured the vertical polarization of one particle, we knew it would be the same in the other”, a researcher said. “If we measured the horizontal polarization of one particle, we could predict the horizontal polarization in the other particle. We created an entangled state that correlated in all possibilities simultaneously”. (1)

Sounds fascinating. But what did we do here? We created entanglement not for something living but for atoms (photons) related to a specific organism. So? Why is that important? Are the atoms related to a living organism less “atomic” than the other atoms related to non-living organisms?

Our definitions are so simplistic. The razor of Occam has cut down everything to a point that there is no way to add the necessary complexity to study the real world without destroying the whole foundations of science altogether. We tend to find the simplest solution (everything is matter) and yet the reality is much more complex (the cosmos is matter and immaterial spirit, with the later actually creating and giving essence to the former).

The foundations of science are illusionary.

And that is why it reaches to illusionary (extraordinary) results.

Look at religion. Its foundations are the humans themselves.

And that is why it will never see entanglement.

Not because it cannot. But because entanglement is not there.

And what is most important: It does not matter.

Stop building upon shadows.

Touch yourself. Start clapping.

And the world will make sense again.

From Galileo to Hubble: Copernican principle as a philosophical dogma defining modern astronomy



For centuries the case of Galileo Galilei has been the cornerstone of every major argument against the church and its supposedly unscientific dogmatism. The church seems to have condemned Galileo for his heresies, just because it couldn’t and wouldn’t handle the truth. Galileo was a hero of science wrongfully accused and now – at last – everyone knows that. But is that true? This paper tries to examine the case from the point of modern physics and the conclusions drawn are startling. It seems that contemporary church was too haste into condemning itself. The evidence provided by Galileo to support the heliocentric system do not even pass simple scrutiny, while modern physics has ruled for a long time now against both heliocentric and geocentric models as depictions of the “truth”. As Einstein eloquently said, the debate about which system is chosen is void of any meaning from a physics’ point of view. At the end, the selection of the center is more a matter of choice rather than a matter of ‘truth’ of any kind. And this choice is driven by specific philosophical axioms penetrating astronomy for hundreds of years now. From Galileo to Hubble, the Copernican principle has been slowly transformed to a dogma followed by all mainstream astronomers. It is time to challenge our dogmatic adherence to the anti-humanism idea that we are insignificant in the cosmos and start making true honest science again, as Copernicus once postulated.

Doi: 10.26520/ijtps.2018.2.3.13-37
Publication Date: November2018
Publication Name: International Journal of Theology, Philosophy and Science

Find the paper online:

Or alternatively find the paper here.

Resurrection? Difficult to believe? But it happens all the time. And science is the first to acknowledge it!


Life on Earth originated in an intimate partnership between the nucleic acids (genetic instructions for all organisms) and small proteins called peptides, according to two new papers from biochemists and biologists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Auckland. Their “peptide-RNA” hypothesis contradicts the widely-held “RNA-world” hypothesis, which states that life originated from nucleic acids and only later evolved to include proteins.

The papers – one in Molecular Biology and Evolution, the other in Biosystems – showed how recent experimental studies of two enzyme super-families surmount the tough theoretical questions about how complex life emerged on Earth more than four billion years ago.

“Until now, it has been thought to be impossible to conduct experiments to penetrate the origins of genetics,” said co-author Charles Carter, PhD, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the UNC School of Medicine. “But we have now shown that experimental results mesh beautifully with the ‘peptide-RNA’ theory, and so these experiments provide quite compelling answers to what happened at the beginning of life on Earth”.

The special attributes of the ancestral versions of these enzyme super-families, and the self-reinforcing feedback system they would have formed with the first genes and proteins, would have kick-started early biology and driven the first life forms toward greater diversity and complexity, the researchers said. (1)

Whenever we talk about resurrection we tend to say difficult it is for someone to believe it. It is something extraordinary after all, is it not? And yet… it seems that resurrection is not something so rare but rather something common! All it takes is to see the phenomenon from a different point of view.

Resurrection happens all the time!

In front of our very eyes!

And science is the first to acknowledge it!

We are created by simple dead matter and yet, we are now alive. We are made of soulless soil and yet, we grow up to the sky. We are thrown into a cold dark cosmos and yet, all we see is the light. We are living in a meaningless universe and yet, we constantly strive to discover a meaning which we somehow know it is there…

We are dead men. Lifeless sets of matter.

Who were born out of nothing.

Who got the breath of life and came to be.

Ask science. It will tell you that you are not supposed to even exist – let alone ponder on your own existence and on the meaning of your life. There is the proof you need. Inside every lab. Inside every scientific paper. Raw matter resurrected. Every passing second…

Divorce. Separation. Matter. Soul.


Children of divorced parents are more likely to get divorced when compared to those who grew up in two-parent families – and genetic factors are the primary explanation, according to a study by researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University and Lund University in Sweden.

The study’s findings are notable because they diverge from the predominant narrative in divorce literature, which suggests that the offspring of divorced parents are more likely to get divorced themselves because they see their parents struggling to manage conflict or lacking the necessary commitment, and they grow up to internalize that behavior and replicate it in their own relationships. (1)

We tend to believe matter is to be blamed for everything.

And we are absolutely right.

Yes, it is your genes to blame. But not because they do anything. Not because they affect anything or because they interact with anything. But simply because they exist. Matter is what makes the cosmos be. And the same matter is what keeps things (and people) apart.

It takes a soul to see the unity of all things.

Happy kids. Sad kids.

Look at their eyes.

Only there can you see the cosmos glowing…

Empty. And yet full.

True frogs… Ageing… False theories…


New research shows, in contrast to expectations, ‘the rapid global range expansion of true frogs was not associated with increased net-diversification.’ (1)

And the examples of problems in the current evolution theory (Theory of Evolution – ToE) do not end here. As Charles Darwin explained, natural selection results in the fittest individuals for a given environment surviving to breed and pass on their genes to the next generation. The more fruitful a trait is at promoting reproductive success, the stronger the selection for that trait will be. In theory, this should give rise to individuals with traits which prevent ageing as their genes could be passed on nearly continuously. Thus, despite the obvious facts to the contrary, from the point of evolution ageing should never have happened. This evolutionary contradiction has been debated and theorized on since the 1800s. And no theory up to now has been able to explain why we age. (from an evolutionary perspective).

The hypothesis of antagonistic pleiotropy (AP) of George C. Williams tried to give us a rational explanation for how ageing can arise in a population through evolution. Williams proposed that natural selection enriches genes promoting reproductive success but consequently ignores their negative effects on longevity. And he postulated that this is only true when those negative effects occur after the onset of reproduction. Essentially, if a gene mutation results in more offspring but shortens life that’s fine. This is because there can be more descendants carrying on the parent’s genes in a shorter time to compensate. Accordingly, over time, these pro-fitness, pro-ageing mutations are actively selected for and the ageing process becomes hard-wired into our DNA. The process of autophagy seems to be such a process which offers some benefits while at the same time promoting the… death of the organism. (2)

It is said that one counter-example is enough to change a theory. And the true frogs question basic, fundamental parts of current theory of evolution. The existence of genes promoting our death also questions fundamental axioms of the renowned biology theory. The question why are those age-provoking mutations selected if they promote death is left unanswered – no matter how much the scientists dealing with the theme want us to believe the contrary. Just describing a mechanism (how these mutations promote aging while also offering some benefits) does not mean that we have explained the why these mutations fit in the greater picture of ToE. And it is fairly exciting to see a man thinking through everything except the things which oppose his beliefs in such a blatant way…

The proponents of ToE do forget one basic characteristic of every scientific theory: That they are made and designed by humans. And it seems that the evolution theory is not made to evolve…

Counter examples do not flourish. Or bare offsprings.

Because they die before reaching adulthood.

The environment of the ToE is not suitable for them.

So no matter what the evidence are…

No matter how many counter-examples we discover…

Still, the theory stays as is.

Dinosaurs still exist.

Just look around.

No, not outside the window.

But inside the book which say they don’t.

At the end, not everything can die.

But only those which had once upon a time been alive.