The Continuity of Human Existence

We are the sum of every man and woman who came before us. Our DNA, our molecular composition, and our neural structures are not isolated creations; they are the woven legacies of countless generations. Each decision made by those before us echoes in the choices we make today. Choices carry consequences—inescapable and enduring. Some individuals accept their consequences with resolve, rising each morning to greet a new day informed by the lessons of yesterday. These people develop a historical perspective that anchors them, much like the philosophy of Stoicism, which I have championed for decades.

For me, Stoicism can be distilled into one guiding truth: If you go to bed, you have had a good day. If you wake up, you have had a good night. Anything else is not good. Life is inherently simple, yet paradoxically complex. Our responsibility is to make it as simple as possible without stripping away its essential depth. This lens allows us to understand where we are, where we are headed, and why the journey matters.

Evidence of a Deeper Design

Today humanity confronts an immense power unprecedented in our history. I contend that there is a high probability of a divine intervention occurring roughly one million years ago. This assertion is grounded in genetics, physics, and observable phenomena. The unraveling of the human genome was one step toward understanding this intervention. The experiments at CERN’s Hadron Collider—exploring matter and antimatter—are another. The geometric anomalies on Mars and the Moon, such as right-angled structures inconsistent with natural processes, also suggest evidence of an intentional design.

The very capacity to experience emotions, to think abstractly, and to communicate in ways inconceivable to other primates—despite sharing 98% of our DNA—underscores the existence of a higher code. There is always a code. From the moment of conception, our purpose is to understand and harness that code to the maximum extent of our abilities. Yet, when we alter neural networks—our living code—the changes are irreversible.

The Transformation of Humanity

We are now in the midst of redefining what it means to be human. The real struggle is no longer solely survival but identity and autonomy in the face of rapid technological change. In the past century, society has been saturated with prescriptive advice on becoming the “best version” of oneself. Much of it is hollow. We now face technologies capable of altering life itself, rendering many people powerless, restricting their ability to influence others, and narrowing their freedom of association and choice.

Advanced intelligence-gathering capabilities have been awe-inspiring. They have enhanced national security and deterred global conflict. Yet they have also shattered privacy, limited self-expression, and eroded freedom. Artificial intelligence—today’s most celebrated buzzword—represents only the latest stage in this irreversible evolution. We must understand that certain changes cannot be undone.

Irreversible Code and the Redefinition of Words

Words matter. Even the definitions of “virus” and “vaccine” have been altered in recent years. The term “vaccine,” in particular, has been reframed to describe genetic modifiers distributed worldwide under the pretext of gain-of-function research. This event functioned as both a precursor and an excuse for irreversible modification of neural networks—an intrusion into the very code that defines humanity.

Through life-altering technologies, we have been indoctrinated into new understandings of what it means to be human. These same technologies have restricted freedom of choice, dismantled privacy, and impaired the essence of true human identity. We are witnessing, beyond any reasonable doubt, a permanent change to the human condition.

I anticipate elaboration, here, my website, or other publication forms, as the sun continues to rise.

Thinking About It

Right Angles in Stone – Unlikely geometric patterns in nature raise questions about probability, erosion, and whether randomness fully explains their persistence.
Chromosome 2 Fusion – A rare fusion created human chromosome 2, leaving telomere remnants in the middle, aligned with the emergence of modern humans.
Chromosome 7 and Speech – Subtle changes in a gene cluster allowed for complex language and song, occurring in the same time window as chromosome 2 fusion.
Darwin’s Limits – Evolution is real, but Darwin’s 19th-century model does not fit comfortably with modern genomic evidence, leaving gaps and broken lines in hominin ancestry.
Science at a Crossroads – Scientists either force new discoveries into old frameworks or allow evidence to shape a new understanding, one that brushes against questions of intelligent intervention.
The Contemporary Definition of Divinity – Divinity today refers not only to God in monotheistic faiths, but also to transcendent forces in other spiritual systems, the sacred attributes within beings, the metaphorical sense of ultimate significance, and the academic study of theology.
The Interpretation Gap – Do improbabilities point to randomness across deep time, or to divinity in action—whether as deity, transcendent force, or emergent order woven into the universe?

I am an analytical expressive, an ENTJ personality type, hardwired to ask who, what, where, when, why, how, and which. This questioning runs through everything I examine, whether it is geology, genetics, or cosmology. And when I look closely at the evidence, improbable events and patterns emerge that cannot be dismissed easily as chance.

Let us begin with stone. On Earth, right angles do exist in nature. Cubic crystals such as halite and galena grow with sharp 90-degree edges. Basalt flows fracture into columns with hexagonal or rectangular forms. Erosion sometimes sharpens those lines, sometimes erases them. Yet when I examine photographs from Mars or the Moon, I see blocks with angles so clean they appear cut by design. Without Earth’s weathering, edges remain sharper, which makes natural explanations more plausible—but what are the odds of so many consistent angles forming through random fracture? The mind is drawn to ask whether this is simple geology or whether it hints at something greater.

Then there is the case of human genetics. Humans have 46 chromosomes; our closest relatives among the great apes have 48. The difference is human chromosome 2—a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. This is not speculative; it is observable in every human cell. The fused chromosome contains telomere sequences in the middle, where they should not exist, and a vestigial centromere. Fusions are possible in nature, but for such an event to occur, stabilize, and then define our species at precisely the moment anatomically modern humans appeared—about 200,000 years ago—strains the framework of chance.

Layered onto that improbability is chromosome 7, where subtle genetic changes altered the coordination between brain, tongue, and jaw. That change gave rise to complex speech and song, something no other primate possesses. We share 98 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees, yet no chimpanzee will ever write poetry, sing harmony, or deliver Shakespeare. The timing again converges: both chromosome 2 fusion and the linguistic leap of chromosome 7 occurred in the same evolutionary window. What are the odds?

For me, this is where science meets a wall. Darwin’s 19th-century model was brilliant for its day, and the fossil record shows evolution is real. But Darwin’s tree, with neat lines from one hominin to another, now shows mostly broken lines—“inferred” or “speculative.” DNA analysis reveals that we did not descend directly from Neanderthals; we shared the earth with them. We carry some of their DNA, but they were not our ancestors. The same is true of many other supposed branches. The picture is not a tidy tree but a fractured web.

Here lies the crossroads. Do we continue to force discoveries into old frameworks, or do we allow the evidence to reshape our understanding? The DNA evidence does not erase evolution but pushes it into territory Darwin never anticipated. It suggests leaps, convergences, and interventions that feel guided rather than purely random. And this is where the conversation touches something larger.

To move further, we must bring in the contemporary definition of divinity. Today, “divinity” encompasses more than a single creed or image. In monotheistic faiths, it points to God. In other traditions, it means a transcendent force, a sacred power that permeates existence. Philosophically, divinity can describe anything of ultimate or elevated significance, something that transcends the ordinary. Academically, divinity refers to the study of these matters—what we call theology. This expanded definition gives us room to ask deeper questions without falling into dogma.

So when I look at right-angled stones, chromosome fusions, and sudden leaps in cognition and language, I ask: are these coincidences across deep time, or are they signs of divinity? If divinity is understood as ultimate significance or transcendent force, then improbable convergences may not be accidents at all. They may be woven into the fabric of a living, responsive universe.

My ENTJ mind insists on asking the hard questions. Who or what set these improbable processes in motion? Where else in the universe might similar convergences occur? When did chance give way to order? Why is consciousness, empathy, and love embedded in our DNA? How do chromosomes fuse at precisely the point where human awareness blooms? And which interpretation—blind chance or intelligent intervention—best fits the evidence we have?

I am not offering preaching or platitudes. I am offering analysis. Stones fracture, chromosomes fuse, genes mutate. All of these are possible in nature. But when they converge at pivotal moments—200,000 years ago for our species, or in planetary landscapes that defy erosion—the improbabilities stack up. And when improbabilities converge, what emerges is not randomness but pattern, not accident but intention.

Whether we call that divinity, design, intelligence, or a conscious universe, the conclusion is the same: we are not the byproduct of a dead, inert cosmos. We are participants in a living order that reflects ultimate significance. The question that remains is not whether divinity exists, but whether we will recognize it, engage with it, and allow it to guide us toward deeper awareness.

NASA

Mars - Accepted Explanations - Science - Hogwash

Further Thinking

Darwin’s Gradualism – Darwin argued for slow, incremental change, summarized in natura non facit saltus (“nature does not make leaps”).
Punctuated Equilibrium – Modern paleontology shows long stasis interrupted by rapid change, contradicting strict gradualism.
Cultural and Cognitive Leaps – Symbolic thought, language, and advanced tools appear suddenly in the archeological record, suggesting something more than gradual biological evolution.
Social Instincts and Cooperation – Darwin struggled with altruism; modern theory recognizes group and kin selection but still leaves questions about the origins of empathy and sacrifice.
Misinterpretation as “Progress” – Social Darwinism distorted science into a false narrative of linear human advancement, now discredited.
Divine Intervention as a Realistic Hypothesis – The contemporary definition of divinity encompasses not just a personal deity but a transcendent force or sacred order. This broader understanding makes divine intervention a serious, evidence-aligned explanation for the leaps and discontinuities in human development.

The phrase “Darwin’s broken lines of human development” is not just a rhetorical flourish. It is a modern critique of Charles Darwin’s original model, which saw evolution as a slow, continuous, and incremental process. Darwin gave us two pillars: natural selection and gradualism, or “descent with modification.” He believed favorable traits accumulated slowly over vast spans of time, and he reassured his readers with the Latin phrase natura non facit saltus—nature does not make leaps.

But today the evidence is less forgiving. Fossils, archeology, and especially DNA reveal a different picture—one of gaps, sudden appearances, and dramatic shifts. These discontinuities are what I call Darwin’s broken lines.

First, punctuated equilibrium. In the 1970s, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould showed that evolution often follows a stop-and-go rhythm. Long periods of stasis are punctuated by brief episodes of rapid change and speciation. This is evident in the fossil record, including humans. Transitional fossils exist, but far more often we see abrupt appearances rather than gradual transformations. Darwin attributed missing links to incomplete preservation. Modern data suggest the pattern itself is different.

Second, cultural and cognitive leaps. Darwin believed our mental faculties differed only by degree from animals. But the archeological record shows symbolic thought, art, advanced tools, and language appearing almost overnight in evolutionary terms. One era shows simple flakes, the next structured communication and ritual. Biology alone struggles to explain the suddenness. Cultural evolution, which can race far ahead of genes, may account for some of it, but even culture requires a brain ready for such leaps.

Third, social instincts. Darwin wrestled with altruism. How could self-sacrifice evolve if natural selection favored the survival of the fittest individual? Modern evolutionary theory has added nuance with kin selection and group selection, but questions remain. Why would empathy, compassion, and moral reasoning—traits costly to individuals—arise so robustly and so widely?

Finally, the misinterpretation of “progress.” Darwin’s ideas were twisted into Social Darwinism, a pseudoscience of hierarchy and eugenics. Modern science rejects this distortion. Evolution is not a ladder but a branching tree, with no higher or lower rungs. The very concept of a single “line” of human development is a harmful oversimplification.

These broken lines do not disprove evolution. Evolution is a fact. But they reveal limits to Darwin’s original model and invite us to consider other forces at work. This is where divine intervention enters—not as a sermon but as a serious, evidence-aligned hypothesis.

The contemporary definition of divinity is broad. It includes the divine nature or quality of a deity, a transcendent force, or sacred attributes within a principle or being. It can mean God in monotheistic faiths, a cosmic intelligence in other traditions, or simply ultimate significance in a philosophical sense. By this definition, “divine intervention” is not confined to miracles or dogma. It can mean that a living, responsive order exists in the universe, capable of guiding or seeding sudden changes at critical junctures.

When we look at the sudden emergence of symbolic thought, the fusion of human chromosome 2, the shift in chromosome 7 enabling complex speech, and the extraordinary rise of empathy and morality, the question becomes: are these coincidences across deep time, or are they signs of such an order? In this broader sense, divine intervention is not easily dismissed. It is a realistic explanation that fits the pattern of improbabilities and discontinuities without denying the reality of evolution.

As an analytical expressive and ENTJ, I cannot help but ask: Who or what accounts for the leaps? When does cultural change cross the threshold into something biology cannot explain? Why do empathy and cooperation flourish where self-interest should dominate? How do chromosomes fuse at precisely the point where human awareness blooms? And which interpretation—blind chance or divine intervention—matches the evidence we have?

Darwin gave us the framework. Modern science has given us the data. The gaps between the two are not just empty spaces—they are invitations. Divine intervention, in its contemporary, evidence-friendly sense, may be the missing dimension of the story, a realistic explanation for why the broken lines of human development are not just cracks but seams where something larger has been woven into the fabric of our becoming.

Paul TruesdellOctober 2, 2025