 |
 |
 |
Response to “The Angry Evolutionist”, second part |
||
 |
 |
 |
lunes, noviembre 9, 2009, 04:51 AM Response to “The Angry Evolutionist”, second partEvolution, yes; Charles Darwin, no way From my article “The Extinct Human Species That Was Smarter Than Us” (and second response to the Aquatic Ape Theory) I take the following thoughts: If a base concept is wrong, everything built upon it will be wrong. The essence of the book: “Big Brain: The Origins and Future of Human Intelligence” by Gary Lynch and Richard Granger (Palgrave Macmillan, $26.95). When they find a fossil similar to the present human being, but with a bigger head, they reject it. That is not what they are looking for! The time goes by (the article that talks about the book does not mention when they found the fossil for the first time, but in the john hawks web blog it is mentioned that the fossils were found in a Transvaal farm in 1913). In the above mentioned web blog you can also find these words: "To be sure, there has been a reduction in the average brain size in South Africa in the last 10,000 years, and there have been parallel reductions in Europe and China —pretty much everywhere we have decent samples of skeletons. It looks like brains have been shrinking. This is something I've done quite a bit of research on, and I will continue to do so, because it's interesting. But it is hardly a sign that ancient humans had mysterious mental powers.” That is why the fossil hunt has been a total fiasco. One hundred and fifty years after the publishing of the book "The Origin of the Species", by Charles Darwin, scientists look for fossils with smaller brains half way human, half way monkey. What is it that they find? Monkeys with smaller brains! More than anything because they are smaller animals, but that they have nothing to do with the human being. Now, allow me to show you the drawing 6-3 on page 105 of the medicine book "Embriología Clínica, el Desarrollo del Ser humano" (Clinic Embryology, The Development of the Human Being) of PhDs Keith L. Moore and T.V. N. Persaud that shows 4 fetuses. One 9 weeks old, another 12 weeks, another 16 weeks and the last one 38 weeks old.  And what it says in the illustration description: Diagram of changes of the proportions of the body during the fetal period. At 9 weeks, the head is almost half of the length of the fetus from top of head to coxis. By 36 weeks, the circumferences of the cranial cavity and of the abdomen are almost the same. After this time, the circumference of the abdomen could be bigger. All the stages are drawn to the same total height. Once we have seen the drawing, let's read again the description of the fossils of the authors of the book: "the Boskops were similar to modern humans but had small, childlike faces and huge melon heads that held brains about 30 percent larger than our own." Now I ask my readers: Aren't they describing the third of the 4 fetuses of figure 6-3 of the book "Clinic Embrology, The Development of the Human Being"? I would say to perfection! Open letter to the Turkish creacionist Adnan Oktar that writes as Harun Yahya. You challenged Darwinists to present evidences of fossils of intermediate stage of the evolutionary process. I am far from being a darwinist, nevertheless, I am a believer in evolution and I feel myself challenged too. I believe that the fossils subject of this article respond with precision to an intermediate stage of evolution. Study it well, I consider that we have a pending transaction. In spite that I mention that Charles Darwin [Please read "The Useless Body Parts", Discover magazine, June 2004, page 42) gave a lot of value to the human vestiges (but that he did not know how to piece together a theory of evolution from them), time and again his followers demand fossils as if the corporal vestiges were not important. Now they have their fossils, and I will be waiting to see what excuses they plot to continue not believing the theory I have brought forth. Additionally, from the book: "Embriología Humana" (Human Embryology), of PhD Keith L Moore, and translated to Spanish by PhD Homero Vela Treviño, on page 327, I show figure 17-1 and its description:  A. Bud of an arm. B. Plaque of a hand in paddle. C. Digital rays. D. Membranes between digital rays. E. Fingers united by membranes. F. Separated fingers. G. Bud of a leg. H. Plaque of a foot in paddle. I. Digital rays. J. Mambranes between digital rays. K. Fingers united by membranes. L. Separated fingers. Fig. 17-1 Schemes in which it is illustrated the different stages of development of hands and feet from the fourth to the seventh week. The first stages are similar for hands and feet, to the exception of the development of the hands before the feet by a few days. What information can we draw from these last illustrations? To begin with that we originated in a watery environment and ended up in land environment. Mrs. Elaine Morgan: This informatión backs up the concept of aquatic origin. Nevertheless, there is no information backing origin from apes, aquatic or not. Once you assimilate the base concept that evolution is repeated in the development (processes in the testicles, ovaries and spawn) and in gestation, each species according to its own, the information already available of our past is enormous, and the missing information you know where to investigate it. We have seen that in our gestation we had big heads. We have seen that there are human fossils with big heads. Recentely, it was published the finding of a fossilized human pelvis capable of giving birth to big headed babies (that eliminates the possiblity that the big headed human beings were sick, suffered deformations or were phenomenons). In Europe a big headed mouse was found alive. It is mentioned all over Internet of big headed salamanders, turtles, ants. In an article found in Internet titled “Un mono avanzado, pero cabezón” (An advanced but big headed monkey) posted on March 30th, 2006, we learned that scientists found in the Argentinian Patagonia fossils of a big headed monkey. Alas, there are big headed dinasaurs! What does it take to convince Darwinists that with very few exceptions a big head is a pattern of evolution? The following comes from another article in this same blog: Charles Darwin studied the corporal vestiges but shifted his studies to fossils and entered into a dead end street. Charles Darwin asked, why is it that a male...has nipples on his chest? (National Geographic, November 2004, in Spanish, Was Darwin Wrong?) and he himself answered: they are vestiges of the past. Up to that point I agree with him. Nevertheless, he never told us how we were in the past that we ended up with nipples on the chest and that I do tell you. If the nipples are vestiges of the past and in the present they don’t have any function, in the past they did have one, of course, that of breast feeding. Then, what were we in the past? Self reproducing hermaphrodites! With the body of a woman (and therefore functioning mammary glands and nipples), additionally, a pair of testicles lodged in the pubic bones’s holes. That is why we have holes in those bones, that’s where we had the testicles before. Now those holes are vestiges of the past! They are there without an apparent reason to be there. If a man gets into a very cold swimming pool, what happens to his testicles? They shrivel up and hide in front of the holes of the pubic bones. They can’t go any further given that the holes of the pubic bones are already occupied. I can’t be much wrong, can I? What else did the hermaphrodite have? A sperm deposit just into the body from the clitoris. How do we know that. When a woman has an orgasm her clitoris travels into the body. Nevertheless, it is not known the reason for it. That I can tell you. There, into the body from the clitoris that’s where the hermaphrodite had the sperm deposit. What else did the hermaphrodite have? A system of ducts that took the sperm from the testicles to the sperm deposit and from there to the “G” spot of the vagina. With 50 to 70 grams of additional weight, a woman could be a self reproducing hermaphrodite. The “G” spot has been talked about a lot for long time, but nobody can offer an explanation of what its function is or was. In my book “Cicatrices” (Scars) I offer a complete one.  The hermaphrodite took the postration position, precisely that one and no other one, she frictioned her clitoris with the fingertips. When she aroused herself sexually, the clitoris traveled into the body, touched the sperm deposit, ejaculated, and when the ejaculation passed through the “G” spot, she gave off seminal liquids known today as orgasm, which according to this new theory of evolution, it also is a vestige of the past. A woman doesn’t need to have an orgasm to get pregnant. Given that the orgasm is not elemental to get pregnant, then it is a vestige of the past.  What is a man? He is a mutation of a hermaphrodite with only one reproductive function, to engender. Since he doesn’t have the function of breast feeding, his nipples remain like those of a baby all through his life, they are scars or vestiges of the past (nature takes the course of minimum effort).  Now you know why a man has nipples on his chest, and that knowledge you don’t owe it to Charles Darwin who only said that the nipples are vestiges of the past. What other changes occurred in the hermaphrodite to make a man? The clitoris gets elongated and forms the penis. Both, the clitoris and the penis, are cavernous tissues that when they get full of blood they become erectil. The urinary duct gets extended and lodged in the inferior part of the penis. The exterior vaginal lips envelope the growing penis. In doing that we have two pieces of skin coming together and being welded. That leaves a scar that doctors call “raphe” that each and every male has it. That’s the reason my book is called “Scars”. They are the evidences of our past without depending on finding fossils. The interior vaginal lips, the darkest part of a woman and of a hermaphrodite, are expanded and form the scrotum, the darkest part of a male. The testicles that were in the holes of the pubic bones come down to the scrotum. One of the first things that a general practitioner has to do at the delivery of a male baby is to make sure that the testicles have come down. Come down from where? From the holes in the pubic bones, where they used to be in a previous stage of evolution and in a previous stage of gestation. Aside, the brain of a male is the product of a big change. See the articles “Men, Women: Maybe we are different” based on the book “The Female Brain” by Louanne Brizendine, and “Rethinking Gender: What Makes Us Male or Female.” This change was made so that the male would have sexual desire for women all of his life (That is the reason why the eyes of a man almost pop out when a woman that fulfills his fantasy goes by). Now, what happens if in the gestation of a male baby the changes in all his body were carried out, but not those of the brain? The baby ends up with the body of a male and the brain of a hermaphrodite, which is identical to that of a woman (to make a female baby the testicles, the sperm deposit and the duct system get extirpated, or drastically diminished, but there were not changes in the brain). That is precisely what homosexuals have always said: I am a woman imprisioned in the body of a man. All men and all women have within the seed of homosexualism given that we all come from hermaphrodites and that the separation is not one hundred percent. Since we are all different, some people are born with seeds more prone to germinate. If these people receive from the environment the “watering” necessary for the change, they become homosexuals by environment. All societies have approximately the same rate of homosexualism by genetics. The societies in which women do not take good care of their children, they would have more homosexuals by environment. Charles Darwin not only said that the nipples were vestiges of the past. He gave a whole list of structures that were vestiges of the past. See the article “Useless Body Parts” (Discover, June 2004). In this manner we don’t have a doubt that Darwin gave these vestiges the importance of fossils. The difference is that the corporal vestiges are alive (if you prick a nipple, it will surely hurt). To these vestiges we can’t call fossils given that they aren’t converted into stone, but that doesn’t mean that they are not vestiges of the past. The dozen vestiges of the past found in the body that Charles Darwin mentioned are distributed all over the body and he didn’t stitch them together. He didn’t link them into a theory, he left them scattered. The dozen and a half vestiges of the past that I give in my book “Scars” gravitate around the process of reproduction and I stitch up a whole theory of evolution backing it not ony with the body, but also with history, sociology, zoology, etc. Charles Darwin studied medicine and from that period comes the concept of the corporal vestiges of the past, but he went half way, he didn’t finish up. He rerouted the studies to fossils. Fossils, in spite of the information that they give, aren’t enough to make up a theory. If you want to define a 1000 piece puzzle with 2 or 3 pieces, it is an insanity, it is madness. Darwinists do not learn from fossils, they want fossils to say what they want them to say. Almost one hundred years ago they found the Boskops, what did they learn from them?: nothing. The John Templeton Foundation, supporting science —investing in the big questions, when celebrating the bicentenary of Charles Darwin, and hosted by Yale University, through its moderator from Discover Magazine, Corey Powell, asks: Does evolution explain human nature? My response: of course, a great deal. Evidences: We have seen how the hermaphrodite gets pregnant frictioning her clitoris. We also have seen how her clitoris was transformed into a penis to make a man. If a man wants to get sexually aroused by himself, What does he friction? Of course, the penis. And a woman? She still has her clitoris, so that’s what she frictions. What is the origin of masturbation? Of course, the natural method of getting pregnant of the hermaphrodite. We have seen the transformation of the genitalia of a hermaphrodite to make a man with only one reproduction function, to engender. Is there any doubt as to the reason why he is so sexually oriented? We have seen that the brain of a man was changed to have the ability to create mental images. As a derivative of that capacity a male has the potencial to create art, technology and science, from origin, from birth. A woman can learn to create art, technology and science, but only by exception can she do it from birth. I am a living example that man can create science from origin, from birth: I have formal education in business administration, a BA from College of the Ozarks, in Clarksville, Arkansas. What am I doing creating a new theory of evolution? Stephen Jay Gould, with all his 5 doctorates in science, 4 of them from Harvard University, where he was a professor for 27 years, went only as far as writing the book “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory” about the probable structures of new theory of evolution, all of them contrary (some of them mentioned in this article) to the still prevalent theory of Charles Darwin. I do not have the character that Stephen Jay Gould did to say what he said and leave open a back door to darwinism. I am too blunt. I would have flunked my way out of the study of science in the university for saying what I have learned. We have seen that in gestation if a fetus is transformed to be a male and his brain is not changed, he ends up being a homosexual by birth. It could not be any clearer: evolution explains human nature! How can you express this theory in a few words? Evolution repeats itself in the development (processes in ovaries, testicles and spawn) and in gestation, each species according to its own. Fritz Müller, Ernst Höckel and Charles Darwin studied the same elements of this theory, but Darwin was pressed to publish his book “The Origin of the Species” in 1859 precipitously and left out a chapter where he wanted to mention that there were probable evidences that could lead us to the concept that some stages of evolution could be repeated in the gestation. The first two scientists did write about the subject and beat Darwin to the recognition. But in the 1910s, that knowledge was eliminated by the Commission of Studies of New York State to be included in the themes to be taught to the students of that state (therefore, I can very well say “new Theory”). The reason to do it was that they did not find evidences of the beginning of life neither a link with the present state of the human being. In my book “Scars, New Theory of Evolution” I retake parts of the original concepts of Fritz Müller and Ernst Höckel, but I modified and put them in the context of what they could not investigate. (1) The origin of life, beginning with the empty two layered bubbles obtainable in the body in the testicles and in the ovaries, concepts also published by the biophysicist David Deamer from the University of California, campus Santa Cruz, according to his article “The First Cell”, published in Discover’s November 1995 issue and (2) The other end, the hermaphrodite and its mutation to a male and its degeneration to a woman already explained in this article. Up to now I have not mentioned the Bible. Every thing I have said I backed it up with vestiges, scars, fossils and the published opinions of scientists. Nevertheless, there is another facet. Please go to the Response to “The Angry Evolutionist”, third part. |
||
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Comentarios |
||
|
|
|
Agregar comentarioRellene los campos de abajo para dejar su comentario. |
||
|
|
|
