About & Scientific Review
The Biological Origins Project investigates ancestry, major biological transformations, Temporal Adequacy, and biblical interpretation while keeping their questions and evidence standards visibly separate.
It is an independent science-communication and evidence-evaluation project founded and led by Mark Shlapobersky, PhD.
Scientific External Review — Reviewer recruitment in progress · Interpretation & Meaning External Review — Specialist review underway
The Biological Origins Project was created because discussions about biological origins often combine several different questions: who is related to whom, how major biological transformations occurred, and what scientific findings may mean beyond science.
The project separates those questions so that each can be examined with the evidence appropriate to it, without asking one kind of evidence to establish more than it can.
The goal is to build a transparent, evidence-first public resource where important claims are stated clearly, tested against evidence and counterevidence, and accompanied by their uncertainties and limitations.
Conclusions should remain open to revision when stronger evidence, better analysis, or substantive criticism requires it.
Mark Shlapobersky, PhD, is the founder and project lead of the Biological Origins Project. His professional background is in molecular pathology, molecular diagnostics, genomics, biomarker evaluation, laboratory quality, and evidence-based scientific interpretation.
That experience shapes the project’s emphasis on explicit claims, source traceability, validation, uncertainty, and correction.
He does not present himself as a specialist in evolutionary biology, phylogenetics, paleontology, geology, biblical studies, hermeneutics, or theology. Where the project reaches those fields, specialist sources, qualified external review, and substantive criticism are important.
The Biological Origins Project is independent. Professional affiliations are biographical only and do not imply institutional endorsement.
The project preserves interest in the Multiple Ancestral Lineages Hypothesis (MALH) but requires proposed boundaries to face evidence that could disconfirm them.
Universal common ancestry (UCA) is the prevailing scientific interpretation. MALH is a working alternative and is not presented as equally supported.
Ancestry, transformation, and biblical interpretation interact without substituting for one another. Temporal Adequacy belongs inside transformation, not as a fourth layer.
The whale result against the proposed MALH boundary remains public. Its transformation and temporal assessments are still in progress.
People, support, and interests
Relevant qualifications are stated together with explicit expertise boundaries.
Transparency and disclosure
Professional affiliations are provided only as biographical context. They do not imply institutional sponsorship or endorsement. The Project’s views and conclusions should not be attributed to Barzilai Medical Center or to any other employer, institution, collaborator, or professional organization unless that body expressly states otherwise.
The Project has no external funding, no commercial sponsorship, and no institutional financial support. Current project expenses are personally funded by the Founder and Project Lead. Any future relevant funding, support, or financial relationships will be disclosed.
AI-assisted tools have been used to help organize information, compare sources, support research workflows, and assist with drafting, editing, and presentation structure. AI-generated output is not scientific evidence or an authoritative source. The Founder and Project Lead retains responsibility for verification, analysis, wording, publication decisions, and corrections.
The Project is founder-led. The Founder and Project Lead selects questions, sources, structure, and framing, creating a potential for selection and interpretation bias. Explicit methods, claim-level sourcing, visible limitations, and independent review are used to make that influence inspectable.
Citation policy
Case claims link to the publication used, identify the inference supported, and state a limit on use. A DOI verifies source identity; it does not make the project’s interpretation infallible.
Open the evidence ledgerCorrection policy
A correction should identify the page or claim ID, the wording at issue, the evidence or rationale, and whether a case conclusion changes.
Review the correction processRevision & version history
Framework v2.1 and Ledger v2.1 add cross-layer structure without changing the existing whale ancestry assessment. Future substantive changes require a new version and an affected-case record.
Open framework historyScientific participation
Useful review identifies an exact claim, offers evidence or reasoning, and distinguishes disagreement from error. Reviewer names and credentials will be listed only after a review has begun and the reviewer has agreed to public identification.
