 |
 |
 |
Response to “The Angry Evolutionist”, First part |
||
 |
 |
 |
lunes, noviembre 9, 2009, 05:13 AM After the transcription of the complete article The Angry Evolutionist by Richard Dawkins in Newsweek, published in Internet in September 25, 2009 and in the magazine in the issue dated October 5, please find my Response to “The Angry Evolutionist”, first part Evolution, yes; Charles Darwin, no way My theory says: Evolution is repeated in the development (what goes on in testicles, ovaries and spawn, and in gestation (what goes on in the womb), each species according to its own. Therefore, I do not need fossils to demonstrate that evolución is a fact. The different stages of gestation are, of course, the intermediate stages of evolution. Neither do I need to waste so much time clarifying the reason for the so called “Cambrian Explosion”. In my theory, naturally throughout all the evolution, the “suddenly” is integral part of the theory. Neither do I need to clarify if we are brothers or far cousins or shared descendants with others beings, given that my theory is very clear to say that each species is according to its own. Neither do I need to waste my time dealing with lost links. If evolution is repeated in the processes in the testicles, ovaries and spawn and in gestation, I will feel disappointed if those who know more about it do not point it out and let it be known. Two laws govern mutations (1) Changes take the course of minimum effort and (2) Every time there is a change there are marks, evidences, vestiges and scars left behind. The evolution of a human being  Another way to illustrate it  All the changes of evolution are reflected in the body. Life starts with 2 layered empty bubbles made of fatty acids. How is it reflected in the body? In the issue of November of 1995 of Discover magazine in an article titled “The First Cell” written by Carl Zimmer that starts on page 71, David Deamer, of the University of California at Santa Cruz, offers us his encounter with the first cell. "For many years to the majority of scientists who searched for life origins, genes were everything", but David Deamer keeps reminding them: "without a container for those genes, there can be no life". David Deamer says that a cell membrane's importance to life is often under appreciated. People say, "well, its just a little bag". But it is much more. It is the interface between life and everything that is outside. The membrane of any cell has to do many things at once. It has to be permeable enough to keep essential things in (like DNA) and harmful things out (like viruses and poisons). Yet, a cell membrane can't form a perfect seal. It has to be able to flush out waste and heat from its own system and take in nutrients from the surrounding environment. And the first cell membrane, like the membranes of many single-celled organisms today, probably had to be able to collect energy as well. After 18 years of investigation, Deamer considers he found that origin: empty two layered bubbles built by nature in tidal pools. Given that they are constructed of fatty acids, they fulfill requirements of being permeable enough to permit the entrance to some materials and not to permit the entrance to other materials, also permitting the expulsion of wastes and heat. There are an enormous variety of fatty acids, and each allows the entrance of different materials that begin developing inside a protected space. Thus we have the origin of so many different species. The only thing in common is that they were empty bubbles but of different materials. From then on, the development and gestation are different to the present. All species are different from origin; therefore, Charles Darwin's common trunk does not exist. Thus we have two processes of investigation, totally different, that carried on independently, reached the same conclusion. One, the study of the development and gestation (chapter four of my book, “Scars”) and the other the research by David Deamer, corroborated at the labs of the University of California at Santa Cruz. David Deamer learned by tidal pools that life starts in empty bubbles, and in this theory it is asseverated that life starts in empty bubbles in the ovaries and in the testicles as well as in the spawn of fish and many other species. The testicles of a male start making spermatzoids by creating 2 layered empty bubbles made of fatty acids. While the bubbles of all species have similar appareance, each species makes them of different material and generate singular spermatozoids by species  In the case of women, they are born with some 400,000 empty double layered bubbles made of fatty acids from where they develop 8 about every 28 days. from those 8 one is chosen converted in an ovum. In the past we were spermatozoids and ova living in an aquatic environment in which we continued once they were united. In the womb, the process of evolution is repeated according to gestation. In March 1997's issue of Discover magazine, page 52, there is an article titled “When Life Was Odd”, from it I am extracting the following information: 1. The Ediacarans have been a source of scientific puzzlement since they were discovered more than a century ago. They were named after the hills in southern Australia that harbor a large cache of the fossils that was found in 1940, but Ediacaran impressions are found in rocks all over the world. 2. These impressions in rocks have been found in England, Africa, Russia, Canada, Mexico and in many other places, they range in size from a fraction of an inch long to several feet. Many are marked with radiating, concentric, or parallel creases; others are inscribed within filigree of delicate branches. They seem to have no heads or tails, insides or outsides, fronts or backs; had no obvious circulatory, nervous or digestive systems. They were without teeth, eyes and almost everything we recognize in a body, including bones, muscles, mouths and internal organs. In the middle they had a depression that would indicate that whatever made it had a bulge. The Ediacarans are nearly impossible to classify. Paleontologists can not even agree on whether they were animals or vegetables, single-celled or multi-cellular. The fossils have in the middle a depression that would indicate a bulge in whatever caused such impression. 3. They constitute the earliest and oddest examples of complex life and are interesting in their own right. They have the appearance of a deformed coin. 4. They were first found in the 1860's in a quarry in England and were dismissed as inorganic material. Then in the 1940's they were found in the Ediacara Hills, in southern Australia, from where they get their name. The most famous was an Ediacaran named Dickinsonia that could be the size of a tack or as large as a tablecloth. In the 1950's, the Australian Paleontologist Martin Glaessner of the University of Adelaide made the bold assertion that most of the Ediacaran organisms were the earliest members of animal families still alive today. This concept prevailed until 1982. In one of the stages of gestation we have the appearence of a 2 layered deformed coin and by the process of invagination we aquire a bump running through the middle of the waffer. Could it be that the bump we have in that stage of gestación is the depression of the Dikinsonia?  With the new evolutionary theory by jumps that is here proposed, science will have a tool that could well help resolve some of the unknown factors presented about the Ediacarans. Surely, we have to study the development and gestation of species after species and have a gigantic comparative with all the images of the process and compare the found Ediacarans with those images. In the following mutation, the elliptic waffer folded up itself along the major axis, welding the edges. One end of the flat elliptic formation was transformed into a head and the other end into a tail. The central interior part of this cylindrical formation, became a simple digestive system. The mutation has the appearance of a sea horse: big head and tail, a potbelly and without extremities. Definitely, all human beings passed through a stage of evolution with the appearance of a sea horse. From this transformation, we all carry the evidence of the mutation. Everybody, male and female, and all other mammals, have a scar that goes from the throat all the way down to the genital zone. Every time we have two skins being stitched together, we have a scar —that’s why my book is named “Scars”, they are the vestiges that remind us of our evolution without depending on fossils, and every body has them. By the way, in women when they are in last months of pregnancy, it seems that the belly is going to burst open by the scar, but, of course, it never happens. Also men with a hairy chest have a partition line in which the hairs get closer or separated precisely over the scar. Did we have branquia and a large intestine at this stage? If we had branquia, that would also settle the question of aquatic origin. If we had only small intestine that would settle the question of the origin of the appendix. In another mutation the large intestine was pegged on not at the end, in the annus, but higher up. That distance of small intestine from the old annus to where the large intestine was pegged on was transformed into an appendix. At this point of evolution we had gonads close to the kidneys and we were self reproducing, the same as some of the sea horses. In an article published in Discover magazine in the edition of October 1996, titled “Creating the Creators”, Stephen Jay Gould, Ph.D. (died may 20th. 2003), Professor at Harvard University and one of the most known evolutionists, without meaning that he is a Darwinist, writes about the requirements of a new theory: 1. The evolutionary changes must be quirky shifts and of latent potential. He explains that creatures can not have complicated structures just to solve the problems of the immediate present, for with that, it is insured that there would be no future. Additionally, he questions the possibility of having a wing ever be constructed if evolution must pass through a series of intermediate stages, for five percent of a wing confers no benefit whatsoever in flight. He continues: how can evolution ever build a bird’s wing from the forearm of a small running dinosaur if early stages in the putative transition can not function for flight at all? A row of feathers in a forearm (five percent of a wing, so to speak) can not aid flight, but feathers also work superbly as thermoregulatory devices for conserving heat. Thus, feathers may have evolved from reptilian scales for an initial function in thermoregulation. And only later were they co-opted, used for two functions, the original for thermoregulation and for flight when they became numerous and elaborate enough to provide aerodynamic advantages. Thus, structures evolved to retain heat have a latent potential for use in flight, an originally unexpected capacity that may become important as the organs get more elaborate or as environmental conditions change. 2. Consider another paradox that will help us explain why exquisite adaptations can not provide a primary source of evolution's creativity (but will instead, on the contrary, usually act as an impediment to substantial evolutionary novelty). In organs and body parts, the principle of redundancy finds primary expression in the concept of "over design" or "margin of safety". Two (or more) structures often perform the same basic function. This "generosity" may benefit an organism in the immediate present (just as a spare tire saves many drivers), but extra capacity also permits creative evolution in novel directions-because the spare tire can turn into something marvelously different, and the car still runs. 3. The first two principles are entirely general in evolution. They share the property of providing flexibility (by latent potential and redundancy) against the tendency of natural selection to produce an exquisite fit to environment, thereby dooming the organism in the long geological run as environments inevitably change in major ways. The human being evolves around the flexibility. Having a bigger brain, the body conditions itself to have a longer period of learning than the rest of the species, thus postponing intellectual and sexual maturity to have a bigger training period to face the challenges of life and to obtain the tools to evolve continually. When we compare the concepts that Stephen Jay Gould, Ph.D. requires of a new theory of evolution with what it has been proposed here, we see that it fulfills his requirements to a great extent. The quirky shifts with latent potential (the mutations), we saw them clearly in the transformation from a 2 layered waffer and an invagination bulge to a sea horse looking, big headed (42 percent of the distance from the top of the head to coccyx), tailed human being. We can see the redundancy and latent potential in our skin. It not only serves as a cover for our body, but it also serves as another lung and another kidney (it breathes and it expels toxins through perspiration). In a possible future mutation, the skin may transform itself, maybe to something that stands the infrared light rays, without perturbing those functions since we already have lungs and kidneys to carry them on. The brain is a marvelous machine, but we use it only in a small proportion. It's flexibility potential for changes are enormous, because men remain like little kids all of their lives. That is the reason why I insist that if the first right of a human being is the right to be born, the second must be the right to have a full time mother. The future mutations could be brought up essentially through the rearing of babies, to teach them (with the aid of modern techniques) to use a bigger proportion of the brain. This actually would be the change without a change: the same body but the use of a bigger proportion of the brain (women have the power to do it, if only they would leave behind the present concept of being equal to men when they are so far superior, for the betterment of the species). Please read the article “Biology Isn’t fair” in my site. How many mutations were there? As many as in the stages of development which are repeated in gestation. Please go to the Response to “The Angry Evolutionist”, second part. |
||
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Comentarios |
||
|
|
|
Agregar comentarioRellene los campos de abajo para dejar su comentario. |
||
|
|
|
