http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php Copyright 2010, Felix Rocha Martinez Felix Rocha Martinez es-ES SPHPBLOG 0.4.8 http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry100803-034339
7 Biology Myths an Electrical Engineer, Would Never Tolerate

As an Electrical Engineer, I am utterly appalled at the intellectual slop that passes for science in biology. Engineers would lose their jobs in droves if they tolerated the mushy thinking and lack of rigor that is routine in the life sciences.



Before I elaborate on this, some background.

10 years ago I couldn’t have imagined I would become interested in DNA, biology, evolution or any such thing. Biology in high school was b-o-r-i-n-g. Chemistry in college was a hard slog.

I got my degree in Electrical Engineering. Specialized in communications and control systems. Graduated and developed analog circuits. Worked as an acoustical engineer. Designed the speakers in the 1994 Ford Probe, the 1995 Acura Vigor, the 1995 Jeep Cherokee and the 1996 Honda Civic.

Left acoustics & pursued digital communications. Sold embedded networking hardware, software and IC’s in the automation and robotics industry. Fought digital networking standards battles in manufacturing. Wrote an Ethernet book, published by the world’s #1 technical society for process control engineers.

And now here I am discussing DNA, evolution, and telling you about scientific discoveries so new, you can’t buy books about them in the bookstore. I’m loving it.

As an outsider to the “biology industry” I bring a very particular perspective: That of an engineer who’s performed digital network design (very exact), analog circuit design (a quasi-art form), and acoustics (extremely complex and messy).

All industries become incestuous as they age. They resist change. All professions are run by good ol’ boys clubs. In every industry, innovations almost NEVER come from the inside. Novel approaches usually come from outsiders. External innovations are opposed by the old guard because they threaten the status quo.

Bill Gates was a complete outsider to the computer business. Larry and Sergey, founders of Google, were complete foreigners to the search engine game. (Early on, they tried to sell their search technology to Yahoo for $1 million but Yahoo turned them down.)

Fred Smith, founder of Federal Express, was a complete virgin in the shipping industry. Ray Kroc of McDonalds wasn’t a restaurant veteran; he was a milkshake machine salesman.

All these people had an outsiders’ point of view that enabled them to see what insiders were blind to.

Like these men, I am a total outsider in biology. Yet despite the fact that I wouldn’t pass a test on retroviruses or organic chemistry, as an EE I see certain things with crystal clarity that biologists are blind to. One reason is, in Electrical Engineering, theory matches reality better than it does in almost any other engineering discipline.

Examples: In metallurgy, when you predict the failure load of a steel beam, you’re lucky if your guess is within 10%. In chemical engineering, a 5-10% error factor is considered good for many reactions. Civil engineers over-design bridges by 50% to 100% just to be safe.

But a model of an electrical circuit or computer chip is often accurate to within 1% and sometimes 0.01%.

Because you can’t see electricity and shouldn’t touch it, EE is abstract and very mathematical. It’s also rigorous. I can’t tell you how many times in my engineering classes, the professor would be explaining something like, say, the behavior of a semiconductor, and he would derive the calculus equation from scratch.

Of the appliances in your house, which ones work exactly the way they’re supposed to? Your car doesn’t. Your dishwasher doesn’t. Your refrigerator needs new parts every few years. The mechanical stuff is prone to problems.

But your TV does exactly what it’s supposed to, for years. So does your iPod and your Microwave oven and your clock radio and your cell phone.

You can thank an EE for that.

For this reason, EE’s have very high expectations of theoretical models… because the model has to be built and it has to work. Engineers don’t have much tolerance for B.S.

Today: 7 Urban Legends Biologists Believe…. but an Engineer Would Never Tolerate:??1. “Random mutations are usually neutral or harmful but occasionally they confer a benefit to an organism. Natural Selection filters out the harmful mutations, causing species to evolve.”

This is THE central dogma of neo-Darwinism and is allegedly accepted by “virtually all scientists.” You will find it in literally 1,000 textbooks and 10,000 websites.

To the average biologist and to the average man on the street, it sounds perfectly plausible. And I fully understand why people believe this. But I’m an EE. I know that the information in DNA is a signal. By definition, random mutations are noise.

Telling a communications engineer that adding noise to a signal sometimes create new, useful data structures is like telling a nurse you can occasionally cure a common cold by swallowing rat poison.
This is absurd! You’ll be hard pressed to find any communications engineer who, upon examining this claim, would agree with it. Have you ever had a data glitch on your computer that improved your files? Ever?

There is not a one single principle or practice in engineering that would ever suggest that this is actually true. All the Natural Selection in the world is powerless without a beneficial mutation. And you’ll never get a major benefit from accidental copying errors.

The mutations that drive evolution are systematic and directed, not accidental.

2. “97% of your DNA is junk - an accumulation of evolutionary leftovers from random mutations over millions of years.”

The only reason anyone believes lie #2 is that they believe lie #1. Here’s how any rational person can quickly figure out that #2 is B.S.:

Human DNA holds 750 megabytes of data, the same as a Compact Disc. If 97% of your DNA is junk, that means the 3% that isn’t junk is 22 megabytes. In other words, they’re implying that the entire plan for a human body only takes up 22 megabytes of storage space.

Heck, the “Windows” folder on my PC - the directory that contains most of the Operating System - is 27 gigabytes. Does anyone actually think Microsoft Windows Vista is more sophisticated than the human body? Bill Gates sure doesn’t.

The fact that a plan for an entire human body can even be contained on one CD is nothing short of a miracle of data compression.

Actual fact: DNA is not 3% efficient. It’s more like 1,000% efficient. The same gene can be used in completely different ways by a dozen different processes. The result is a level of data density that software engineers only dream of. Engineers see profound elegance where biologists see junk.

Which perspective is more in keeping with the aims of science?

3. “You only need 3 things for evolution to occur: heredity, variation and selection.”

Tufts university philosopher and prominent atheist Daniel Dennett famously said this. He would never say this if he had an engineering degree. If this were true, computer viruses (which have heredity, variation and selection) would mutate all by themselves and develop resistance to anti-virus software. They don’t.

If this were true, the pirated copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of Windows XP or The Eagles’ “Hotel California” that you can buy on the street corner for $2 in China would occasionally be superior to the original. It never is.

If this were true, Bill Gates wouldn’t have to employ 10,000 programmers in Redmond Washington. He would just buy truckloads of computers, add random errors to a billion copies of Windows and filter them through natural selection.

Nobody writes software that way. Nobody. Have you ever wondered why? Most biologists think evolution just happens automatically. They say all you need is time and a lot of raw materials and it will just happen.

So why don’t computer programs ever evolve by themselves?

They don’t and they never will - not unless they’re programmed to do so. Evolution is not a given; at some level it’s always a design feature. Software programmers will tell you that self-adaptive code is profoundly difficult to write. Never happens by accident.??4. “Biology is nothing more than sophisticated physics and chemistry.” That’s like saying the Internet is nothing more than sophisticated copper wire and silicon chips.

I’m an e-commerce consultant. I practically live on the Internet. I have conversations with people about the Internet all the time. Nobody I talk to ever describes the Internet that way.

Do you?

You talk about things like email and Google and Facebook. You tell your friend about the Youtube video where the guy goes to every country in the world and does his little dance jig. And the latest gaffe by Sarah Palin. All those things are INFORMATION.

90% of Electrical Engineering is concerned with controlling and processing information. Only a small part of EE is concerned with things like motors and generators and watts and horsepower. Even power equipment is controlled by information.

All the interesting things you do with electricity involve signals or digital codes. Temperature measurement or text messages or a radio transmission.

The SOFTWARE is more interesting than the hardware. So it is with DNA. Chemicals are just the hardware.

Until the biology profession accepts that the real power in biology is in the information - the software and not the chemicals - it will continue to slam into brick walls and put forth evolutionary theories that make wrong predictions.

It will continue to get nowhere in Origin of Life research.

Information never improves by accident. Information evolves only through highly structured processes.

5. “Genetic Algorithms Prove Darwinian Evolution.”

A Genetic Algorithm (GA) is a computer program that modifies code and then evaluates the code against some pre-programmed goal, keeping the winners and discarding the losers. GA’s refine software programs through an evolution-like process.

GA’s are not a be-all-end-all by any means, and they have limited application. But they are useful.

Some years ago Richard Dawkins wrote a software program that took the following garbage text:

WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P

After only 43 iterations, by deleting characters it didn’t want, the program reached its pre-programmed goal:

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

Traditional Darwinian evolution by definition has no goals, just blind natural selection. Dawkins’ program has a definite goal and is programmed to reach it. This program has nothing to do with formal Darwinian evolution. It’s intelligent evolution.

Every single Genetic Algorithm I’ve ever seen, no matter how simple or complicated, only works if it has pre-programmed goals. Which requires both a program and objectives. I’ve never seen a GA that actually mirrored Darwinian Evolution. They always sneak in some element of design.
Which only adds to the reasons why the Neo-Darwinian theory of purposeless random events is wrong. Real world evolution is pre-programmed and has goals of some sort pre-loaded. I’ve never seen an exception. This is no different than computer programs that evolve.??6. “The human eye is a pathetic design. It’s got a big blind spot and the ‘wires’ are installed backwards.”

There are many, many variations on this argument. It’s just another version of “Junk DNA.”

When I was a manufacturing production manager, I had to produce an indicator lamp assembly for a piece of equipment. The design had a light bulb and 2 identical resistors, which I thought were stupid. I suggested that we replace the 2 resistors with one resistor of twice the value. This would save money and space. I told the customer the design was obviously lousy. The engineer got angry and almost took his business elsewhere. Then my boss spent 30 minutes lecturing me. He reminded me that my job was to put the customers’ product into production, not insult him with my warped critique of his design skills.

What I didn’t know was that 600 volts would arc across one resistor, but not across two. A second, “redundant” resistor was an elegant way to solve that problem and it only cost 2 cents.

I learned the hard way that when you criticize a design, you may have a very incomplete picture of the many constraints the designer has to work within.

Designs always have delicate tradeoffs. Some have amazing performance but are extremely difficult to manufacture. Sometimes a minor change in material would make a huge improvement but the material is unavailable. Sometimes you have to make a compromise between 15 competing priorities. Sometimes people have no appreciation for how difficult that maze is to navigate.

I am not saying that there are no sub-optimal designs in biology - I’m sure there are lots of sub-optimal designs. Furthermore I do believe that life followed an evolutionary process and many designs are “best guesses” engineered by the organism’s ancestors.

But human beings must be very careful to not proudly assert that we could ‘obviously do better.’ We don’t know that. We do not understand what’s involved in designing an eye because we’ve never built one.

My friend, if you lose your eye, there’s not a single arrogant scientist in the world who can build you a new one. Especially not the scientists who try to tell you why the design of the eye is “pathetic.”

If I were selecting an eye surgeon, I’d look for one who has deep respect for the eye, not disdain for it. How about you?

Every engineer knows that you never truly know how something works until you can build it. Merely taking it apart is not enough. Until we can DESIGN eyes for ourselves, we must be very cautious about what we say. The scientist must ALWAYS be humble in the face of nature and you should be wary of anyone who is not.??7. “There is no such thing as purpose in nature. There is only the appearance of purpose.”

“Teleology” is a scientific term which is defined as ‘purpose in nature.’ Atheism denies teleology in the universe. For this reason some biologists have forbidden their students to use purposeful language.

In 1974 Ernst Mayr illustrated it like this:

1. “The Wood Thrush migrates in the fall in order to escape the inclemency of the weather and the food shortages of the northern climates.”

2. “The Wood Thrush migrates in the fall and thereby escapes the inclemency of the weather and the food shortages of the northern climates.”

Statement #1 is purposeful, statement #2 is not. Mayr does fancy footwork in order to avoid reference to design in biology. (It also converts all of his writing to colorless passive sentences. Any good writer will tell you passive language is a sign of mushy thinking.)

The famous biologist JBS Haldane joked, “Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he’s unwilling to be seen with her in public.”

Everything in biology is purposeful. Which is precisely why biology is fundamentally different than chemistry. Chemicals have no purpose. Organisms do. You cannot formulate a coherent description of life if you deny purpose.

For proof of this, look no further than the genetic code. Every codon in DNA maps to an amino acid that it is SUPPOSED TO make - but an error is possible. It is not possible to even talk about any code at all without acknowledging purpose. Purpose is absolutely implicit in every strand of DNA in every organism in the world.

In his book “Perceptual Control Theory,” William Powers explains that the study of any goal-directed (control feedback) system is fundamentally different than the study of rocks or chemicals or magnetic fields or anything purely physical. The failure to acknowledge this has wreaked all kinds of havoc in science for 150 years.

Even something as simple as a thermostat cannot be understood if you see it as only an assembly of molecules. A thermostat is programmed to hold your room at a certain temperature. The thermostat’s purpose can only be understood from a top-down point of view. It has a goal.

In Electrical Engineering, the top-down nature of information is described by something we call the OSI “7 Layer Model.” Simplified explanation: The 7 Layer model says that in your computer, there’s an Ethernet cable that connects you to the Internet. The copper wire and the voltage on that wire is Layer 1 - the “physical layer.”

Layer 2 is is the 1’s and 0’s that voltage represents. Layers 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the operating system and layer 7 is your spreadsheet or email program or web browser, the “application layer.”

When you send me an email, information is encoded from the top down and sent through your Ethernet cable.

When I receive your email, information is decoded from the bottom up starting with the signal on the cable, and I read your email on my screen.

ALL information is organized this way - in a top-down hierarchy. The wire has its purpose. The 1’s and 0’s have their purpose. The operating system has a purpose, my email program has a purpose and your message has a purpose.

You cannot deny purpose in computers or biology without immediately contradicting yourself 2 minutes later. Even a person who denies purpose is purposefully denying it.

Everything I just told you, I absolutely know to be true as a result of my education and experience as an engineer. Which is why I’m willing to make ballsy proclamations like “Darwinism as we currently know it is going to crumble in the next 2-5 years.”

Yes, I know that might sound ridiculous. Some people scoff at that.
But people scoffed at the idea that communism would fall. They were quick to remind you that every time someone tried to cross the Berlin Wall, they got shot by the guards in the tower.

But then one day someone made it across and nobody opened fire. Then another. Then another. It didn’t take long before that wall became rubble. The fall of communism was surprisingly swift and thorough.

Just a few years ago, people mocked the idea that real estate prices would stop rising. But those who had a deep understanding of the inside story of both of those industries saw the cracks forming. (My friend Nathan, who was a mortgage broker at the time, tells me about stacks of paper being sold, that no sane investor would touch with a 10 foot pole.)

Darwinism as we know it CANNOT stand under the weight of 21st century DNA research. It’s impossible. Because I’ve read the literature. Amazon is absolutely littered with books written from every imaginable point of view, both religious and non-religious, pointing to the creaking, groaning edifice of Neo-Darwinism.

It is inevitable that it will fall. And it’s not going to be long.

It will be replaced by an algorithmic model of Evolution.

BOLD HYPOTHESIS: When Biologists accept what Electrical Engineers know about information, a whole bunch of problems in biology will be solved:

1. The random mutation theory will be discarded. It will be replaced with Transposition, Natural Genetic Engineering, Horizontal Gene Transfer and Genome Doubling. Suddenly evolution will make sense because it is understood as an engineered process not random accident.

(My theory eliminates random from the very beginning).

2. We’ll discover that what was originally thought to be junk DNA is actually the heart of the most sophisticated database format ever devised.

(In my theory, every time there is a change there is "in writing" scars, prints, evidences, vestiges, and the "junk" DNA that I call "binnacle" DNA. That 's the reason there are so many genes of this category: all the evolution is written in them).

3a. Evolution will not be taken for granted but deeply appreciated as an utterly ingenious mechanism, pre-programmed into living things. As software engineers replicate the evolutionary algorithm in computer programs, we’ll achieve huge breakthroughs in Artificial Intelligence.

3b: Evolution is orchestrated at a very high level within the organism.

(The evolution is repeated in the development [the processes carried out in the testicles, ovaries and spawn; the genetic aspect] and in gestation [the process carried out in the womb; the scars, prints, evidences, vestiges], each species according to its own [therefore there is no common trunk]).

It is controlled by a mechanism that is currently poorly understood. This mechanism is beautifully efficient, elegant, fractal, and follows a very exact mathematical protocol.

(2 laws: 1.- Every time there is a change there is left behind scars, prints, evidences, vestiges and binnacle DNA and 2.- nature takes the course of minimum effort [that is why the scars, prints, evidences, vestiges, and binnacle DNA are left behind]; to erase them would cost energy and there would be chaos).

Bioninformatics will become the most rigorous discipline in engineering. The ‘code’ of this protocol will be cracked because of the Human Genome Project and the public availability of DNA sequences. This discovery will lay the foundation of an entire new branch of Computer Science in the 21st century.

4. The “Physics and Chemistry” paradigm of biology will be replaced with a “Bioinformatics” paradigm. Evolution and the origin of life theories will make much more successful predictions.

5. Neo-Darwinism will be discarded because biologists will recognize that biological evolution is just like Genetic Algorithms: It employs pre-programmed goals and educated guesses, not random chance.

(My book, "Scars, New Theory of Evolution" is like "D Day" for the discarding of Neo-Darwinism).

6. Rather than assuming designs in biology are “pathetic” or “stupid” we’ll discover deeper reasons for why organisms are the way they are. And greater insights into the subtlety of living things.

(Deeper and simple reasons. My theory is easily understood by 12 year old boys and girls [the part described in gestation]).

7. Everything in biology makes sense once you understand that every single one of the 5 million trillion trillion cells on earth is purposeful and intentional and the original cells were designed to evolve and adapt.

Finally I would like to suggest that there is nothing in the world that can teach us more about digital communications and software programming than DNA. DNA is an absolute gold mine, a treasure trove of insights of data storage, error correction, software architecture, robust design and fractal data compression. Every Electrical Engineer and Computer Science major should study it intensively.

And there is much we engineers can learn from the biologists - because even the simplest living thing is more elegant than the greatest man-made supercomputer. As Engineers and Biologists begin to talk to each other, the 21st century will be amazing indeed.

Perry Marshall

P.S.: Innovations almost always come from outsiders. This means that those who read widely and embrace multiple disciplines - pockets of humanity that don’t normally talk to each other - can enjoy long and prosperous careers as innovators.

(I am Mexican by birth [from Mexican parents and Mexican grandparents], I studied in 3 schools that belong to the Presbyterian Church in the United States, I graduated in Business Administration at College of the Ozarks, at Clarksville, Arkansas [very far from being a school for the rich]; without having studied formally medicine, I offer information that the medicine books say openly that they do not know; without formally having studied to be a Priest or Minister, I offer concepts and visions unknown to them; without having formally studied linguistics, I offer information unknown to those that did study it).

The watchword of 21st century biology will be “Interdisciplinary” - the great mysteries will be solved by people who bring the expertise of other fields to bear on the biggest questions in science.

(That's why I believe that Perry Marshall and myself, Felix Rocha Martinez, have complementary thoughts and that we should get toghether to make the fall of Neo-Darwinism a reality in the next 2 to 5 years).

My challenge to you: Make a deliberate decision to step outside of your normal and familiar environment and innovate. The world will reward you for it.

(The deliberate decision to step outside my normal and familiar environment and innovate I took it back in 1965. Please read my work in www.cicatrices.com.mx. It is quite long because it is an outline of 45 years of investigations. Felix Rocha Martinez, frocham@yahoo.com).




]]> http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry100803-034339 Felix Rocha Martinez Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:43:39 GMT http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/comments.php?y=10&m=08&entry=entry100803-034339 http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry100802-012321
7 mitos de biología que el ingeniero electricista, Perry Marshall, jamás toleraría.

Como ingeniero electricista, estoy totalmente horrorizado por la bazofia intelectual que pasa por ciencia en la biología. Los ingenieros perderían sus empleos en masa si se tolerara el pensamiento deplorable y la falta de rigor que son la rutina en las ciencias de la vida.



Antes de abundar sobre este tema, algunos antecedentes.

Hace 10 años no podría haber imaginado que me interesaría en el ADN, la biología, la evolución, ni cosa semejante. La biología en la preparatoria fue aburrida. La química en la universidad tomó demasiado esfuerzo.

Me gradué en Ingeniería Eléctrica. Especializado en comunicaciones y sistemas de control desarrollé circuitos analógicos. Trabajé como ingeniero acústico. Diseñé las bocinas del Ford Probe 1994, del Acura Vigor 1995, del Jeep Cherokee 1995 y el Honda Civic 1996.

Dejé la acústica y opté por las comunicaciones digitales. Vendí hardware de redes, software y circuitos integrados en la automatización y la industria robótica. Luché batallas por los estándares de las redes digitales en su fabricación. Escribí un libro sobre la Ethernet, publicado por la sociedad técnica número uno del mundo para los ingenieros de control de procesos.

Y, ahora, aquí estoy hablando de ADN, de la evolución y contándole de descubrimientos científicos tan nuevos, que no se pueden comprar libros sobre ellos en la librería. Me encanta eso.

Como persona de fuera para la "industria de la biología" tengo una perspectiva muy particular: la de un ingeniero que ha llevado a cabo el diseño de redes digitales (muy exacto), diseño de circuitos analógicos (una forma cuasi-arte), y la acústica (extremadamente compleja y desordenada).

Todas las industrias se cierran a las personas de fuera en la medida en que envejecen. Ellas se resisten al cambio. Todas las profesiones son administradas por viejos compañeros de los diferentes clubes. En todas las industrias, las innovaciones casi nunca vienen desde el interior. Las nuevas ideas suelen venir de fuera. Las innovaciones externas son la oposición a la vieja guardia porque amenazan el status quo.

Bill Gates era un completo extraño en el negocio de las computadoras. Larry y Sergey, fundadores de Google, desconocían por completo el juego del motor de búsqueda (al principio, trataron de vender su tecnología de búsqueda a Yahoo por 1 millón de dólares, pero Yahoo la rechazó).

Fred Smith, fundador de Federal Express, era completamente ajeno al sector del transporte. Ray Kroc de McDonalds no era un veterano de los restaurantes, era un vendedor de máquinas para hacer malteadas.

Todas estas personas tenían una perspectiva extraordinaria de externos que les permitió la información privilegiada que los internos no pudieron ver.

Al igual que estos hombres, yo soy un completo extraño en la biología. Sin embargo, a pesar de que no pasaría un examen sobre los retrovirus o la química orgánica, como ingeniero electricista veo ciertas cosas con una claridad absoluta que los biólogos son incapaces de ver. Una razón es que en la Ingeniería Eléctrica la teoría coincide con la realidad mejor que en casi cualquier otra rama de la ingeniería.

Ejemplos: en la metalurgia, al predecir la carga de ruptura de una viga de acero, tiene suerte si su conjetura está dentro del rango de 10%. En la ingeniería química, un 5 a 10% de margen de error se considera bueno para muchas reacciones. Los ingenieros civiles diseñan puentes con un 50% al 100% de exceso sólo para estar seguro.

Pero un modelo de un circuito eléctrico o chip de computadora es a menudo preciso al 1% y a veces al 0.01%.

Porque usted no puede ver la electricidad y no debe tocarla, la Ingeniería Eléctrica es muy abstracta y matemática. También es rigurosa. No puedo decirte cuántas veces en mis clases de ingeniería el profesor explicaría, por ejemplo, el comportamiento de un semiconductor, y derivaría la ecuación de cálculo desde cero.

De los aparatos en su casa, ¿cuáles funcionan exactamente de la manera que se supone? Su vehículo no lo hace. Su lavavajillas no lo hace. Su refrigerador necesita piezas nuevas cada pocos años. El material mecánico es propenso a tener problemas.

Pero la TV hace exactamente lo que se supone debe hacer durante años. Lo mismo sucede con el iPod y su horno de microondas y su radio reloj y el teléfono celular.

Usted puede agradecer todo eso a los ingenieros electricistas.

Por esta razón, los ingenieros electricistas tienen altas expectativas de modelos muy teóricos... porque el modelo tiene que ser construido y tiene que funcionar. Los ingenieros no tienen mucha tolerancia hacia la palabrerías aceptables por la Biología

Hoy: Las 7 leyendas urbanas que creen los biólogos... pero que un ingeniero electricista jamás toleraría:
?1. "Las mutaciones al azar son generalmente neutrales o perjudiciales, pero ocasionalmente se otorga un beneficio a un organismo. La selección natural filtra las mutaciones dañinas, causando que las especies evolucionen".

Este es el dogma central del neo-darwinismo y supuestamente aceptado por "virtualmente todos los científicos". Usted lo encontrará en, literalmente, 1,000 libros de texto y 10 mil páginas web.

Para el biólogo y hombre promedio de la calle, suena perfectamente plausible. Y entiendo totalmente por qué la gente cree esto. Sin embargo, soy un ingeniero electricista. Sé que la información en el ADN es una señal. Por definición, las mutaciones al azar son ruido.

Decirle a un ingeniero de comunicaciones que el ruido añadido a una señal a veces crea nuevas estructuras informáticas útiles es como decirle a una enfermera que de vez en cuando puede curar un resfriado común con la ingestión de veneno para ratas. ¡Es absurdo! A usted le será muy difícil encontrar cualquier ingeniero de comunicaciones que, al examinar esta afirmación, estaría de acuerdo con ella. ¿Alguna vez ha tenido una falla de datos en el equipo que mejoró sus archivos?

No hay un solo principio o una sola práctica de la ingeniería que alguna vez pudiera sugerir que esto es realmente cierto. Toda la selección natural en el mundo no puede hacer nada sin una mutación beneficiosa. Y usted nunca conseguirá un importante beneficio del copiado accidental de errores.

Las mutaciones que impulsan la evolución son sistemáticas y dirigidas, no accidentales

2. "El 97 % de su ADN es chatarra, una acumulación de restos evolucionarios de mutaciones al azar durante millones de años".

La única razón por la que alguien cree la mentira # 2 es porque cree la mentira # 1. Le digo el porqué cualquier persona racional puede rápidamente darse cuenta de que la afirmación # 2 es una mentira:

El ADN humano contiene 750 megabytes de información, al igual que un disco compacto. Si el 97% de su ADN es chatarra, es decir el 3% que no es basura significa 22 megabytes. En otras palabras, están implicando que el plan completo para el cuerpo humano sólo ocupa 22 megabytes de espacio de almacenamiento.

Veamos. La carpeta "Windows" en mi PC - el directorio que contiene la mayor parte del sistema operativo - es de 27 gigabytes. ¿Alguien piensa realmente que Microsoft Windows Vista es más sofisticado que el cuerpo humano? Bill Gates seguro que no lo hace.

El hecho de que un plan para un cuerpo humano en su totalidad, incluso puede estar contenido en un CD, es nada menos que un milagro de compresión de datos.

Hechos reales: el ADN no es 3 por ciento eficiente. Pareciera más un 1,000% eficiente. El mismo gen se puede utilizar de manera completamente distinta en una docena de diferentes procesos. El resultado es un nivel de densidad de información que los ingenieros de software sólo pudieran soñar. Los ingenieros ven elegancia profunda en donde los biólogos sólo ven basura.

¿Cuál es la perspectiva más acorde con los objetivos de la ciencia?

3. "Usted sólo necesita tres cosas para que la evolución ocurra: la herencia, la variación y la selección".

El filósofo de la Universidad Tufts y prominente ateo Daniel Dennett, se hizo famoso al decir esto. Nunca lo hubiera dicho si hubiera tenido una carrera de ingeniería. Si esto fuera cierto, los virus informáticos (que tienen una herencia, variación y selección) podrían mutar por sí mismos y desarrollar resistencia al software anti-virus. No es así.

Si esto fuera cierto, la copia pirateada de una copia de una copia de una copia de Windows XP o de "Hotel California" de The Eagles que se pueden comprar en la esquina a 2 dólares en China en ocasiones sería superior a la original. Nunca lo es.

Si esto fuera cierto, Bill Gates no tendría que emplear a 10,000 programadores en Redmond, Washington. Él compraría camiones de equipo, agregaría los errores aleatorios de mil millones de copias de Windows y los filtraría a través de la selección natural.

Nadie escribe software de esta manera. Nadie. ¿Te has preguntado por qué? La mayoría de los biólogos piensan que la evolución simplemente sucede automáticamente. Dicen que todo lo que se necesita es tiempo y un montón de materias primas y que simplemente va a pasar.

Entonces ¿por qué no evolucionan por sí mismos los programas de computadora?

No lo hacen y nunca lo harán-- no a menos que estén programados para hacerlo. La evolución no es un hecho; en algún nivel, siempre es una característica de diseño. Los programadores de software le dirán que el código auto-adaptativo es profundamente difícil de escribir. Nunca sucede por accidente. ??4. "La biología no es más que la física y la química sofisticadas".
Eso es como decir que el internet no es más que el alambre de cobre y chips de silicio sofisticados.

Soy un consultor de comercio electrónico. Yo prácticamente vivo en el Internet. Tengo conversaciones con la gente acerca de la Internet todo el tiempo. Ninguno de ellos describe la Internet de esa manera.

¿Y usted?

Usted habla de cosas como el correo electrónico, Google y Facebook. Le dice a su amigo sobre el video de Youtube donde el chico va a todos los países del mundo y hace su rutina de pasos de baile. Y la última metedura de pata de Sarah Palin. Todas esas cosas son INFORMACIÓN.

90% de la ingeniería eléctrica tiene que ver con el control y procesamiento de la información. Sólo una pequeña parte de la Ingeniería Eléctrica se ocupa de cosas, como motores y generadores, los vatios y la potencia. Incluso el equipo de energía se controla por la información.

Todas las cosas interesantes que usted hace con la electricidad implican señales o códigos digitales: la medición de la temperatura o los mensajes de texto o una transmisión por radio.

El SOFTWARE es más interesante que el hardware. Lo mismo ocurre con el ADN. Los productos químicos son sólo el hardware.

Hasta que la biología acepte que el poder real de esta ciencia está en la información - el software y no los productos químicos - ésta seguirá chocando contra las paredes de ladrillo y exponiendo teorías evolucionistas que hacen predicciones equivocadas.

Seguirá sin llegar a ninguna parte en la investigación sobre el origen de la vida.

La información nunca mejora por accidente. La información se desarrolla sólo a través de procesos altamente estructurados.

5.- "Algoritmos genéticos prueban la evolución darwiniana".

Un algoritmo genético (AG) es un programa de computadora que modifica el código y entonces evalúa el código contra algún objetivo pre-programado, conservando a los ganadores y descartando a los perdedores. Un AG perfecciona los programas de software a través de un proceso parecido al de la evolución.

Los AG no son una panacea, de ninguna manera; tienen una aplicación limitada, pero son útiles.

Hace unos años, Richard Dawkins escribió un programa de software que tomó el siguiente texto-basura:

WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P WDLTMNLT P

Después de sólo 43 repeticiones, mediante la supresión de caracteres que no quería, el programa llegó a su objetivo pre-programado:

ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL = ME PARECE QUE ES COMO UNA COMADREJA

La evolución darwiniana tradicional, por definición, no tiene metas, sólo selección natural ciega. El programa de Dawkins tiene un objetivo definido y está programado para llegar a él. Este programa no tiene nada que ver con la evolución darwiniana formal. Es la evolución inteligente.

Todos y cada uno de los algoritmos genéticos que yo haya visto, sin importar cuán simple o complicados sean, sólo funcionan si tienen metas pre-programadas, lo cual requiere tanto de programas como de objetivos. Nunca he visto un AG que en realidad refleje la evolución darwiniana. Ellos siempre deslizan algún elemento del diseño, lo cual añade a las razones por las que la teoría neo-darwinista de sucesos aleatorios sin meta está equivocada. La evolución del mundo real es pre-programada y tiene metas de algún tipo de pre-cargado. Nunca he visto una excepción. Esto no es diferente a los programas de computadora que evolucionan. ??6. "El ojo humano es un diseño patético. Tiene un gran punto ciego y los cables conductores "están colocados al revés".

Hay muchas muchas variaciones de este argumento. Es sólo otra versión del "ADN chatarra".

Cuando yo era gerente de producción de manufactura, tenía que producir un conjunto de luces indicadoras de una pieza del equipo. El diseño tenía una bombilla y dos resistencias iguales, lo cual yo pensaba que era estúpido. Sugerí que se sustituyera las 2 resistencias con una resistencia del doble del valor. Esto ahorraría dinero. El ingeniero se enojó y casi llevó su pedido a otra parte. Entonces mi jefe pasó 30 minutos dándome un discurso. Él me recordó que mi trabajo era poner los productos de los clientes en la producción, no insultarlo con mi crítica deformada acerca de sus habilidades de diseño.

Lo que no sabía era que 600 voltios harían un arco a través de una resistencia, pero no a través de dos. Una segunda resistencia "redundante" fue una forma elegante de resolver ese problema y sólo cuesta 2 centavos de dólar.

Aprendí por el camino difícil que cuando uno critica un diseño, puede tener una imagen muy incompleta de las muchas limitaciones que el diseñador tiene que trabajar en su interior.

Los diseños siempre tienen decisiones delicadas. Algunos tienen un rendimiento increíble, pero son extremadamente difíciles de fabricar. A veces un pequeño cambio en el material es una gran mejora, pero el material no está disponible. A veces hay que hacer una decisión entre las 15 prioridades de la competencia. A veces la gente no tiene aprecio por lo difícil que es el laberinto de navegar por un diseño.

No estoy diciendo que no hay diseños sub-óptimos en la biología --estoy seguro de que hay un montón de diseños sub-óptimos. Lo que es más, creo que la vida siguió un proceso evolutivo y que muchos de los diseños son "las mejores estimaciones" de ingeniería hechos por los antepasados del organismo.

Pero los seres humanos deben tener mucho cuidado de no afirmar con orgullo que podríamos "obviamente hacerlo mejor". No sabemos eso. No entendemos lo que está involucrado en el diseño de un ojo porque nunca hemos construido uno.

Mi amigo, si usted pierde su ojo, no hay un solo científico arrogante en el mundo que pueda construirle uno nuevo. En especial, no los científicos que tratan de decir por qué el diseño del ojo es "patético".

Si yo fuera a elegir un oftalmólogo, buscaría uno que tenga un profundo respeto por el ojo, no desprecio por él. ¿Y usted?

Todo ingeniero sabe que nunca se sabe realmente cómo funcionan las cosas hasta que se pueden construir. Sólo con desmontar no es suficiente. Hasta que podamos DISEÑAR ojos para nosotros mismos, debemos ser muy cautelosos con lo que decimos. El científico debe ser SIEMPRE humilde frente a la naturaleza y usted debe estar alerta ante cualquiera que no lo sea. ??7. "No hay tal cosa como el propósito en la naturaleza. Sólo hay la apariencia de propósito".

"Teleología" es un término científico que se define como “finalidad en la naturaleza". El ateísmo niega la teleología en el universo. Por esta razón, algunos biólogos han prohibido a sus estudiantes usar el lenguaje con propósito.

En 1974 Ernst Mayr lo ilustró así:

1. "El zorzal emigra en el otoño con el fin de escapar de las inclemencias del tiempo y la escasez de alimentos de los climas del norte".

2. "El zorzal emigra en el otoño y por lo tanto, supera las inclemencias del tiempo y la escasez de alimentos de los climas del norte".

La declaración # 1 es intencional, la declaración # 2 no lo es. Mayr hace filigranas con el fin de evitar la referencia para el diseño en la biología (también convierte todos sus escritos a oraciones pasivas e incoloras. Cualquier buen escritor le dirá que la lengua pasiva es una señal de pensamiento sensiblero).

El famoso biólogo JBS Haldane, bromeó: "La teleología es como una amante para un biólogo: no puede vivir sin ella pero él no está dispuesto a ser visto con ella en público".

Todo en la biología tiene un propósito, lo cual es, precisamente, la razón de que la biología sea fundamentalmente diferente de la química. Los químicos no tienen propósito, los organismos sí. No se puede formular una descripción coherente de la vida si se niega el propósito.

Como prueba de esto, no tiene que buscar más allá del código genético. Cada codón de ADN está orientado a un aminoácido que se supone debe fabricar --pero un error es posible. No es posible hablar siquiera de ningún código sin reconocer un propósito. El propósito es absolutamente implícito en cada hebra de ADN en todos los organismos en el mundo.

En su libro “La Teoría del Control Perceptual”, William Powers explica que el estudio de cualquier sistema de meta dirigida (control de retroalimentación) es fundamentalmente diferente del estudio de las rocas o los productos químicos o campos magnéticos, o cualquier cosa puramente física. El no reconocerlo es lo que ha causado todo tipo de estragos en la ciencia desde hace 150 años.

Incluso algo tan simple como un termostato no se puede entender si se considera solamente como un conjunto de moléculas. Un termostato está programado para mantener una habitación a una temperatura determinada. El propósito del termostato sólo puede entenderse desde un punto de vista de arriba hacia abajo. Tiene una meta.

En Ingeniería Eléctrica, la naturaleza de arriba hacia abajo de la información es descrita por algo que llamamos "El modelo de 7 capas”, el cual da una "explicación simplificada: El modelo de 7 capas dice que en su computadora, hay un cable Ethernet que conecta a la Internet. El alambre de cobre y el voltaje en ese alambre es la Capa 1 --la capa "física".

La capa 2 son los unos y ceros que el voltaje representa. Las Capas 3, 4, 5 y 6 son el sistema operativo y la capa 7 es su hoja de cálculo o programa de correo electrónico o navegador web, la "capa de aplicación".

Cuando se envía un correo electrónico, la información se codifica de arriba hacia abajo y es enviada a través del cable Ethernet.

Cuando se recibe el correo electrónico, la información se decodifica de abajo hacia arriba a partir de la señal en el cable, y es posible leer el correo electrónico en la pantalla.

TODA la información se organiza de esta manera --en una jerarquía de arriba hacia abajo. El cable tiene su propósito. Los unos y los ceros tienen su fin. El sistema operativo tiene un propósito, el programa de correo electrónico tiene un propósito y el mensaje tiene un propósito.

No se pueden negar los propósitos en las computadoras o en la biología sin inmediatamente contradecirse 2 minutos más tarde. Incluso una persona que niega el propósito tiene el propósito de negarlo.

Todo lo que acabo de decir, absolutamente sé que es verdad, como resultado de mi educación y experiencia como ingeniero. Por eso estoy dispuesto a hacer proclamas firmes como la de “el darwinismo, como lo conocemos en el presente, sabemos que va a desmoronarse en los próximos 2 a 5 años”.

Sí, ya sé que puede sonar ridículo. Algunas personas se burlan de eso. Sin embargo, la gente se burló de la idea de que el comunismo caería. Ellos se apresuraban a recordar que cada vez que alguien trató de cruzar el Muro de Berlín, fue asesinado por los guardias de la torre.

Pero entonces un día alguien cruzó y nadie abrió fuego. Luego otro lo logró. Y luego otro. No pasó mucho tiempo antes de que la pared se convirtiera en escombros. La caída del comunismo fue sorprendentemente rápida y completa.

Hace apenas unos cuantos años, la gente se burlaba de la idea de que los precios inmobiliarios dejarían de aumentar. Pero los que tenían un profundo conocimiento de la historia interior de dos de esas industrias vieron las grietas formarse. (Mi amigo Nathan, que era un corredor de hipotecas en ese entonces, me habla de las pilas de hipotecas que se vendían, que ningún inversionista en su sano juicio compraría).

El darwinismo, tal y como la conocemos, NO puede soportar el peso de la investigación del ADN en el siglo 21. Es imposible. Porque yo he leído la literatura en Amazon, está absolutamente llena de libros escritos desde todos los puntos de vista imaginables, tanto religiosos como no religiosos, señalando a los crujidos, los gemidos de la edificación del neo-darwinismo.

Es inevitable que va a caer. Y no va a ser a largo plazo.

Será reemplazado por un modelo algorítmico de la evolución.

HIPÓTESIS ATREVIDA: cuando los biólogos acepten lo que los ingenieros eléctricistas saben acerca de la información, un montón de problemas en biología se resolverán:

1. La teoría de la mutación al azar será descartada, y será reemplazada por los cambios a la Ingeniería Genética, la transferencia genética horizontal y duplicación del genoma. De repente, la evolución tendrá sentido porque se entiende como un proceso de ingeniería, no un accidente casual.

(Mi teoría descarta el azar de origen).

2. Vamos a descubrir que lo que se pensó originalmente de que era ADN chatarra es realmente el corazón del formato de base de datos más sofisticada jamás diseñado.

(En mi teoría cada vez que hay un cambio queda por escrito en el cuerpo con las cicatrices, huellas, evidencias, vestigios y en el ADN "chatarra" que yo lo considero bitácora. Por eso hay tantos genes de esa categoría: toda la evolución está por escrito en ellos).

3a. La evolución no se será tomada a la ligera, sino apreciada como un mecanismo absolutamente genial, pre-programada en los seres vivos. En la medida en que los ingenieros de software repliquen el algoritmo evolutivo en los programas de computadora, vamos a lograr avances enormes en inteligencia artificial.

3b: La evolución es organizada en un nivel muy alto dentro del organismo.

(La evolución se repite en el desarrollo [los procesos que se llevan a cabo en los testículos, ovarios y hueveras; el aspecto genético] y en la gestación [el proceso que se lleva a cabo en la matriz; las cicatrices, huellas, evidencias, vestigios] cada especie de acuerdo a sí misma [por lo tanto no hay tronco común]).

Está controlada por un mecanismo que actualmente es poco entendido. Este mecanismo es maravillosamente eficiente, elegante, y sigue un protocolo de matemáticas muy exacto.

(Dos reglas: 1.- Cada vez que hay un cambio deja cicatrices, huellas, evidencias, vestigios y ADN bitácora y 2.- la naturaleza toma el curso del mínimo esfuerzo [por eso deja cicatrices, huellas, evidencias, vestigios, y ADN bitácora]; borrarlos costaría más energía y habría caos).

La bioninformática se convertirá en la disciplina más rigurosa en la ingeniería. El «código» de este protocolo será descubierto debido al Proyecto Genoma Humano y la disponibilidad pública de secuencias de ADN. Este descubrimiento sentará las bases de una nueva rama entera de la informática en el siglo 21.

4. La "física y la química", paradigmas de la biología, serán reemplazadas por los paradigmas de la Bioinformática. Las teorías de la evolución y del origen de la vida harán predicciones con mucho más éxito.

5. El neo-darwinismo se descartará porque los biólogos reconocerán que la evolución biológica es como algoritmos genéticos: emplea metas pre-programadas y conjeturas educadas, no al azar.

(Mi libro, publicado en año 2003, "Cicatrices, nueva teoría de la evolución", es como el "Día D" del descarte del neo-darwinismo).

6. En lugar de asumir que los diseños de la biología son "patéticos" o "estúpidos" descubriremos razones más profundas de por qué los organismos son como son. Y tendremos mayor conocimiento de las sutilezas de los seres vivos.

(Más profundas y sencillas. Mi teoría la pueden captar niños y niñas de 12 años [la parte descrita en la gestación]).

7. Todo en biología tiene sentido una vez que se comprende que cada uno de los 5 millones de billones de billones de células en la tierra tienen un propósito e intención y las células originales fueron diseñadas para evolucionar y adaptarse.

Por último, me gustaría sugerir que no hay nada en el mundo que nos pueda enseñar más acerca de las comunicaciones digitales y la programación de software que el ADN. El ADN es una mina de oro absoluta, un tesoro de conocimientos de almacenamiento de datos, corrección de errores, la arquitectura de software, diseño robusto y la compresión de datos fractal. Cada ingeniero electricista y estudioso de las ciencias de la computación lo debiera estudiar de forma intensiva.

Y es mucho lo que los ingenieros pudiéramos aprender de los biólogos - porque incluso la cosa más sencilla la vida es más elegante que la mayor supercomputadora hecha por el hombre. Cuando los ingenieros y biólogos empiecen a hablar entre ellos, el siglo 21 será increíble en verdad.

Perry Marshall

PS: Las innovaciones casi siempre vienen de los que están afuera. Esto significa que aquellos que leen mucho y abrazan múltiples disciplinas - lagunas de la humanidad que no suelen hablar entre sí - puede disfrutar carreras largas y prósperas como innovadores.

(Soy mexicano de nacimiento [de padres y abuelos mexicanos], estudié en 3 escuelas de la Iglesia Presbiteriana en Estados Unidos, me gradué en Administración de empresas en College of the Ozarks, en Clarksville, Arkansas [muy lejos de ser una escuela para ricos]; sin haber estudiado medicina formalmente, doy a conocer información que los libros de medicina abiertamente desconocen; sin haber estudiado para sacerdote o ministro religioso doy a conocer conceptos y visiones desconocidos para ellos; sin estudiar linguística, doy a conocer información que desconocen los que sí la estudiaron).

La consigna de la biología del siglo 21 será "interdisciplinaria" --los grandes misterios serán resueltos por las personas que traen conocimientos de otros campos para influir en las cuestiones más importantes en la ciencia.

(Por eso creo que Perry Marshall y un servidor, Félix Rocha Martínez, somos de pensamientos complementarios y que debieramos unirnos para lograr hacer realidad la caída del neo-darwinismo en los siguientes 2 a 5 años).

Mi desafío a usted: tomar una decisión deliberada para salir de su entorno habitual y familiar e innovar. El mundo le recompensará por ello.

(La decisión deliberada para salir del entorno habitual y familiar e innovar la tomé desde 1965. Por favor lea mi obra www.cicatrices.com.mx es extensa pero es un resumen de 45 años de investigación. Félix Rocha Martínez, frocham@yahho.com).

]]> http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry100802-012321 Felix Rocha Martinez Mon, 02 Aug 2010 00:23:21 GMT http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/comments.php?y=10&m=08&entry=entry100802-012321 http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry100518-231315 "Evidence for turtle evolution" by Jerry Bergman and Wayne Frair. At the end you will find my response to it.

The fossil record is rich with many well-preserved turtle shells and a wide variety of turtles ‘dating back’ to before the dinosaurs in the Triassic. Phylogenetic analysis of turtles has resulted in much controversy and conflicting results that vary depending on the techniques used. Molecular evidence also contradicts previous evolutionary classifications based on gross morphological comparisons. The extant evidence shows that turtles appear in the fossil record fully form.



Turtles are ideal animals for testing evolutionary ideas because some of their most unique structures, such as their hard shells, preserve extremely well in the fossil record. What also makes turtles perfect candidates for studying evolution is that their body plan is unique among tetrapods, and would require ‘some remarkable changes in the skeleton and internal organs’ as they evolved from a typical tetrapod to a carapace-plastron clad turtle. An example is that the scapula of vertebrates is outside the rib cage, but in turtles the scapula, the humerus and several other bones are all inside of the rib cage. Moreover, breathing is very different compared with other reptiles because the turtle chest is not distensible. Therefore, if turtle evolution were true, we would expect the fossil record to provide a better record of intermediate morphologies than for many other vertebrates. However, the evidence for such ‘missing links’ is still missing.

The fossil record

With Proganochelys [the ‘oldest’ known turtle], our trail into the past runs cold. We do not know from whence it came.—evolutionary turtle expert R. Orenstein.

Extensive fossil turtle deposits extending back to the Triassic have been found throughout the world, including Germany, India, Thailand, South Africa, North America and China. The earliest known turtle, named Proganochelys and discovered in Germany in the 1880s, was dated by evolutionists to 210–220 million years ago. The specimens had a shell consisting of 60 plates of various sizes, and a carapace up to 1 m long. Its skeleton was ‘characteristic of turtles—carapace, plastron, scapular girdle inside the rib cage (unique among vertebrates).’
This primarily aquatic turtle possessed ‘cervical vertebrae with well developed acuminate, spiny apophyses—making it impossible for the turtle to retract its head’ to protect itself. Most known modern turtles can retract their heads (a major exception are sea turtles). No intermediate forms between these first turtles ‘and any other reptile, living or extinct’ has ever been found:

‘With Proganochelys, our trail into the past runs cold. We do not know from whence it came. We may be not be much closer to knowing today than we were more than a century ago, in the 1880s, when Proganochelys was first discovered … the possible choices for the original turtle span almost the entire range of reptiles, living and extinct.’

Proganochelys ‘literally pops into the fossil record as a completely formed turtle.’ Furthermore the whole chelonian body plan ‘appears in the fossil record without intermediates, and the relationship of turtles to other amniote groups is not certain.’ Gilbert et al. concluded that the ‘absence of intermediates or transitional forms in the fossil record’, especially when the fossil record is coupled with the developmental and anatomical novelties exhibited by turtles, argues that turtles arose saltationally. The late well-known paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson emphasized a well known fact that the fossil record of most taxa, including turtles,

‘ … appear abruptly. … A great many sequences of two or a few temporally intergrading species are known, but even at this level most species appear without known immediate ancestors, and really long, perfectly complete sequences of numerous species are exceedingly rare.

The abundant turtle fossil record supports the conclusion that turtles have remained ‘unchanged for at least 150 million years.’14 Flank concludes that ‘Turtle fossils are found more often than other animals of similar size, and the evolutionary history of the modern turtle is fairly well known’ except the earliest turtle ancestors and, as a result, ‘the exact ancestry of living turtles is disputed among paleontologists.’

Monophyletic or polyphyletic evolution

Another question evolutionists are unable to answer is: did the various families of chelonians evolve from some common ancestor or by parallel or convergent evolution? One theory is that sea turtles evolved from land turtles, requiring significant evolutionary changes to adapt to the sea. For example, sea turtles filter salt from sea water by producing large salty tears. Feet must evolve into flippers, requiring extremely elongated phalanges. Yet not one transitional sea turtle fossil has been found. However, the consensus among herpetologists is that
‘ … the evolutionary position of turtles with the amniote phylogeny has eluded evolutionary biologists for more than a century. This phylogenetic problem has remained unsolved partly because turtles have such a unique morphology that only few characters can be used to link them with any other group of amniotes.’

Proganochelys ‘literally pops into the fossil record as a completely formed turtle.’—J.R. Spotila

Another hypothesis postulates that modern turtles evolved from the Chelidae, a ‘primitive’ side necked turtle unique to Australia and South America. Other herpetologists argue for a placodont ancestor, especially a Henodus because of its turtle-like appearance. Since there are many phylogenic problems of postulating turtle evolution from a Henodus, others speculate that the similarity of turtles and Henodus is explained by convergent evolution. As Rieppel and Reisz conclude, ‘Turtle relationships remain labile, and further investigations of their relationships are required.’

Many evolutionary trees exist, all based largely on speculation rather than fossil evidence. So far, no convincing evidence exists for any view.

Evolution of the turtle shell

[The] problem for an evolutionary biologist is to explain these transformations in the context of a gradualistic process.—O. Rieppel, who supports a ‘hopeful monster’ explanation
Because of the lack of fossil intermediates, evolutionists have to resort to speculative hypotheses to rescue to fit turtles into evolution. One hypothesis is that the turtle carapace gradually evolved from ‘elements of the primitive reptilian integument.’ Reptile expert Olivier Rieppel argued that a big ‘problem for an evolutionary biologist is to explain these transformations in the context of a gradualistic process.’ Rieppel argues that turtles could not evolve by a gradual process, and concluded that they may be an example of ‘hopeful monsters’.

More recently Gilbert and his associates have proposed a theoretical embryological model involving movement of the ribs into the dermal layer leading to the evolution of a turtle shell. This modeling, although useful, cannot replace the need for paleontological evidence.

Turtle teeth

It is also theorized that ancient turtles possessed teeth but lost them. A good example is that Proganochelys had midpalatal homodont ‘teeth’ which were actually small denticles formed by the development of a tough covering over some of the bones of the palate (which modern turtles lack), yet was otherwise similar to modern turtles. The evolution of teeth is the problem evolutionists have to deal with and, conversely, the loss of teeth would be expected in the biblical model of the Fall which predicts corruption of the genome and the accompanying deterioration of the phenotype. A mutation could easily have occurred in one of the ‘tooth’ development genes in turtles that disabled tooth maturation but still allowed the animal to survive. If it proved beneficial for its specific feeding habits, it may even be selected for as a result. Loss of teeth has evidently occurred several times in history in animals, including possibly some birds, and certain monotremes such as the platypus.

Moreover, this provides no solace for evolutionists because such a process results in a loss of genetic information, not the addition of completely new information that the evolution of turtles from their putative ancestors requires. Because of their genetic constitution turtles have produced a great range of morphologies. Their wide genetic variation allows the creation of variety both through careful breeding and by various natural mechanisms. Moreover, fossilized turtles prove that far greater chelonian diversity existed in the past than is found today.

Biochemical comparisons

Researchers, disappointed with the lack of progress in understanding turtle evolution, have increasingly looked to molecular and physiological studies to solve this evolutionary enigma. However, comparisons of turtles have conflicted with the hypothesized phylogenies based on gross morphological comparisons.

Hedges and Poling assembled all of the known genetic data available in order to resolve the controversy. According to their analysis of the largest available collection of reptile genes, turtles have been found by genetic studies to be the closest relatives of, not birds as once believed, but rather of crocodiles and alligators. They concluded that ‘The results provide strong evidence that the turtle is the crocodile’s closest living relative.’

‘The study’s conclusions contradict decades of research based on anatomical and fossil studies, which had firmly positioned birds as the reptile group most closely related to crocodiles and alligators, a group known as crocodilians.’

Other researchers have concluded that molecular data favours the view that archosaurs (crocodiles and birds) are ‘ … the living sister group of turtles, whereas morphological studies support lepidosaurs (tuatara, lizards, and snakes) as the closest living relatives of turtles. Accepting these hypotheses implies that turtles cannot be viewed any longer as primitive reptiles, and that they might have lost the temporal holes in the skull secondarily rather than never having had them.’

After a study of nuclear DNA-coded proteins, Iwabe, et al. (2005) also concluded that turtles belong to a monophyletic cluster including birds and crocodiles. They emphatically stated that, ‘All other possible tree topologies were significantly rejected.’

In summary, the molecular research has, so far, provided evidence to support the conclusion that ‘the molecular data conflict with paleontological data … and it will be a challenge not only to paleontologists … but also to molecular systematists to resolve these conflicts.’ Increasing research has tended to uncover more conflicts between molecular and gross morphological data as time passes.

Conclusions

Turtles are an ideal life form for evaluating the evidence for evolution, not only because their shells are readily preserved but also because of the abundance of turtles in the fossil record. Yet no evidence ever has been found in support of the evolution of turtles from a non-turtle ancestor in spite of over a century of extensive fossil explorations and the identification of many thousands of fossils.

‘Turtles are so different from any other reptile that their peculiarities are practically useless as a guide for distinguishing among potential ancestors, and the origin of turtles remains one of the great unanswered questions of evolutionary biology … the possible choices for the original turtle span almost the entire range of reptiles, living and extinct.’

The origin of turtles has long been, and continues to be, a major evolutionary enigma. The oldest known turtles clearly were turtles. Since turtles appear abruptly in the fossil record, the current data are consistent with a creation event followed by considerable diversification coupled with degeneration.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Eric Blievernicht, Jody Allen and Clifford Lillo for their helpful comments.

My response to "Evidence for turtle evolution"

Creationists are perfectly correct pointing out the incongruencies of Darwin´s Theory of Evolution. I agree with Creationists: that evolution has not evolved in 150 years and whatever they know about turtles today is no different from what they knew when Charles Darwin published his book The Origin of the Species. The judging elements that Creationists use to show that Darwin´s evolution does not solve the unknowns that show up in the fossil record are exactly the same that I use to show that that evolution is not correct, that Charles Darwin was wrong.

If evolution is slow there should be a lot of intermediate stages that the fossil record shows that they do not exist. Therefore, evolution comes by sudden changes, the saltacionism of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge is correct.

Nevertheless, if there is not a pattern of those changes that will show us the way, we will be equally lost. The patterns used by Darwinists to show the evolution of the human being from a monkey to a human being is not valid given that it is not backed up by the fossil record, they end up in lost links. The other pattern used by Darwinists of a common trunk of the species is even worst, it is full of lost links.

A lot of scientists have said that they believe in Darwin because there is no more viable option and they were right for quite a long time, but not anymore.

I shall use again the illustration from my book "Scars, New Theory of Evolution" (Cicatrices, nueva teoría de la evolución, available only in Spanish at www.e-libro.net) and in my response in 3 parts to Richard Dawkins´s article "The Angry Evolutionist" (that I invite my readers who haven´t done it to read) to let be known a new theory of evolution:

In my theory it is stated that: the evolution is repeated in the development (what goes on in testicles, ovaries and spawn) an in the gestation (what goes on in the womb) each species according to its own. The Bible says: "And God created all the animals each according to its species". There is no common trunk (more information in my response to Richard Dawkins already mentioned). It also can be seen that the illustration shows a ladder that allows to see that the changes came abruptly: there is no such thing as changes little by little, they come by jumps.

But let´s go direct as to why they do not find the turtle´s ancestors:

The illustration of human evolution according to my theory:



From the gestation stage that shows a lateral view and a view from top of an ellipsoid wafer to the following stage where it shows a big headed, big bellied, and big tailed humanoid there is such abysmal difference that if you were looking for the predecessor of that humanoid you could spend 150 years looking for it and never find it, given that if you do not have the pattern to help you look for it, you would not know where to begin looking for it.

The pattern in the form of a ladder is for the human being. In the same way, we have to make another in the form of a ladder for the turtles studying the evolution of the development, beginning with eggs laid by the turtles or in the amniotic bag, each species of turtle according to its manner of reproduction.

I challenge the scientists of the world to prove me wrong.

Truly enough, our definition of species could be proved short, giving that "some species" could be only one species differentiated by epigenetics (in my blog there are several articles about this new science that could be interesting to a lot of people).

Coming back to the human evolution, What evidence is there that we passed from a stage of evolution in which we were a two layered elliptical wafer with bump in the middle created by invagination to a stage in which we already had a humanoid appearance; big head, belly and tail? All men and women, have a scar that goes from the throat to the genital zone, notoriously visible in women in their ninth month of pregnancy and in men with hairy chests (that is why my book is called "Scars, New Theory of Evolution". The scars are the evidences of our past that make it unnecessary to search for fossils, a new theory of evolution). Once again, I exhort my readers to read my response in 3 parts to Richard Dawkins´s article given that I offer in it an outline of my theory and a lot more information.

When are they going to find the predecessor of the turtle if to begin with they are looking for it where it doesn't exist, in all the variety of reptiles alive or extinct? If you want to find their appearance you need to look for in the incubation of the turtles eggs or in the "gestation" in the amniotic bag, each turtle according to its own manner of reproduction, in a previous stage when they have carapace for the first time, given that it is the equivalent of the mutation in the human being from a 2 layered wafer with a bump made by invagination to a big headed, big bellied and big tailed humanoid. You may also find that the previous stage mentioned may be similar to known ediacarans.

Darwinists have seen all their lives astonishing transformations of some species and they haven't learned anything from them. the time has come to learn from them. Who hasn't known of a worm that covers itself in a cacoon that comes out as a moth from it? This information has been known for thousands of years. the moth is a mutation from the worm, it is the same species at different stages of evolution or different stages of life (for believers, that's the way God created them). In my theory there are no such things as "hopeful monsters", only some "normally" (given that they occur once and again) drastic mutations.

Do not get tangled up. Each species according to its own (allow me to remind creationists that that is precisely what the Bible says: God created all the animals each according to its species). Nevertheless, epigenetics has shown that several "species" could be only one with some enzymes covering permanently some important genes that make them look like and behave as different species. All this means that in my theory there are not evolutionary trees, given that each species evolves according to its own. I do not especulate, I give evidences. Creationists are right when they say that there is not convincing evidence for darwinist's evolutionary trees and I give evidences with vestiges and scars. Nevertheless, There is evolution in turtles and you can see it in their complete incubation (starting from eggs) and in the development and "gestation" (for those born in amniotic bags), each species according to its own.

In brief, creationists Jerry Bergman and Wayne Frair, as far as I am concerned, have successfully proved that Charles Darwin's evolution does not exist. Nevertheless that does not mean that evolution does not exist. To creationists I beseech them not to take me as an enemy, I am as Christian as you are, only with a different set of aptitudes and data bases (that's the way God created us). To atheists I beseech them not to take me as an enemy. You are not required to be religious to believe my theory. Each and every one of us has the evidences of our evolution in our bodies, the same as other species. Charles Darwin's Theory, truly, involuntarily, is already doing a lot of damage to humanity and to scientists given that it is an obstruction that does not allow the truth to come forth and the Bible says only the truth shall make us free.

Once again I exhort Creationists, Catholics, Evangelicals, Christians, members of Islam together with atheists to read my response in 3 parts to Richard Dawkins's article "The Angry Evolutionist" in this same blog.
]]> http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry100518-231315 Felix Rocha Martinez Tue, 18 May 2010 22:13:15 GMT http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/comments.php?y=10&m=05&entry=entry100518-231315 http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry100410-031007
Respuesta a "Evidence for Turtle Evolution" (La evidencia de la evolución de la tortuga)

El registro fósil es rico en muchas conchas de tortuga bien conservadas y en una amplia variedad de tortugas "que se remontan" a antes de los dinosaurios en el Triásico. El análisis filogenético de las tortugas ha dado lugar a mucha controversia y los resultados contradictorios que varían en función de las técnicas utilizadas. La evidencia molecular también contradice anteriores clasificaciones evolutivas basadas en comparaciones morfológicas. La evidencia existente indica que las tortugas aparecen en el registro fósil completamente formadas.



Las tortugas son animales ideales para probar las ideas evolucionistas, porque algunas de sus estructuras más singulares, como su conchas duras, se conservan muy bien en el registro fósil. Lo que también hace a las tortugas candidatos perfectos para el estudio de la evolución es que su plan de cuerpo es único entre los tetrápodos, y requeriría "algunos cambios notables en el esqueleto y los órganos internos", en la medida en que evolucionaba de un tetrápodo típico a una tortuga de caparazón blindado. Un ejemplo es que los omóplatos de los vertebrados se encuentran fuera de la caja torácica, pero en las tortugas los omóplatos, los huesos húmero, y varios otros están todos dentro de la caja torácica. Por otra parte, la respiración es muy diferente en comparación con otros reptiles, porque el pecho de la tortuga no es distensible. Por lo tanto, si la evolución de las tortugas fuera cierta, esperaríamos que el registro fósil proporcionara un mejor registro de morfologías intermedias que para muchos otros vertebrados. Sin embargo, la evidencia de esos "eslabones perdidos" sigue sin aparecer.

El registro fósil

Con Proganochelys (la tortuga "más antigua" conocida), nuestro camino hacia el pasado es desconocido. No sabemos de dónde vino, dice el experto en la evolución de tortugas, R. Orenstein.

Los extensos depósitos de tortugas fósiles que se remontan al Triásico han sido encontrados en todo el mundo, entre ellos Alemania, India, Tailandia, Sudáfrica, América del Norte y China. La tortuga más antigua conocida, llamada Proganochelys, descubierta en Alemania en la década de 1880, fue fechada por los evolucionistas con una antiguedad de entre 210 a 220 millones de años. Los especímenes tenían una concha constituida por 60 placas de diversos tamaños, y un caparazón de hasta 1 m de largo. Su esqueleto fue "característico de las tortugas --caparazón, plastrón y faja de omóplato dentro de la caja torácica (único entre los vertebrados)."

Esta tortuga mayormente acuática poseía "vértebras cervicales y apófisis bien desarrollado, puntiagudo y espinoso que hacen imposible que las tortugas puedan retractar su cabeza" para protegerse. La mayoría de las tortugas conocidas modernas pueden retractar sus cabezas (una excepción importante son las tortugas marinas). No existen formas intermedias entre estas primeras tortugas "y cualquier otro reptil, vivos o extintos", nunca se ha encontrado:

"Con Proganochelys nuestro camino hacia el pasado es desconocido. No sabemos de dónde vino. No estamos mucho más cerca de saber ahora de lo que estuvimos hace más de un siglo, en la década de 1880, cuando fue descubierto Proganochelys... las opciones posibles para saber de dónde proviene la tortuga original es casi toda la gama de reptiles vivos y extintos".
Proganochelys "literalmente aparece en el registro fósil como una tortuga completamente formada." Además, el plan de cuerpo queloniano "aparece en el registro fósil, sin intermediarios, y se desconoce la relación de las tortugas con otros grupos que se desarrollan en bolsa amniótica". Gilbert y colegas concluyeron que "la ausencia de intermediarios o formas de transición en el registro fósil", especialmente cuando el registro fósil es, junto con las novedades de desarrollo y anatómicas exhibidos por las tortugas, prueba que las tortugas evolucionaron por saltos. El conocido paleontólogo finado, George Gaylord Simpson hizo hincapié en un hecho bien conocido que en el registro fósil de la mayoría de las especies, incluidas las tortugas,

"...aparecieron abruptamente ... Un gran número de secuencias temporales de dos o unas pocas especies son conocidas, pero incluso en este nivel la mayoría de las especies conocidas aparecen sin antecesores inmediatos, y secuencias completas, perfectamente largas de numerosas especies son extremadamente raras".

El abundante registro fósil de tortugas apoya la conclusión de que las tortugas se han mantenido "sin cambios por lo menos 150 millones de años". Flank concluye que "los fósiles de tortugas se encuentran más a menudo que otros animales de tamaño similar, y la historia evolutiva de la tortuga moderna es bastante conocida", excepto los primeros antepasados de las tortugas y, en consecuencia, "la ascendencia exacta de vida de las tortugas está en disputa entre los paleontólogos".

La evolución monofilética o polifilética

Otra pregunta que los evolucionistas son incapaces de responder es: ¿las distintas familias de quelonios evolucionaron a partir de un ancestro común, o por evolución paralela o convergente? Una teoría es que las tortugas marinas evolucionaron de tortugas de tierra, que requieren de importantes cambios evolutivos para adaptarse a la mar. Por ejemplo, las tortugas marinas filtran la sal del agua de mar mediante la producción de lágrimas saladas de gran tamaño. Las patas deben convertirse en aletas, que requieren falanges muy alargados. Sin embargo, todavía no se encuentra un fósil transicional de tortuga marina. Sin embargo, el consenso entre los herpetólogos es que

"...la posición evolutiva de las tortugas con la filogenia de desarrollo en bolsa amniótica ha eludido a los biólogos evolutivos durante más de un siglo. Este problema filogenético sigue sin resolverse parcialmente debido a que las tortugas tienen una morfología tan singular que solamente unas cuantas peculiaridades pueden ser usadas para vincularlas con cualquier otro grupo que se desarrolle en bolsa amniótica".

Proganochelys "literalmente aparece en el registro fósil de una tortuga completamente formada". J.R. Spotila.

Otra hipótesis postula que las tortugas de hoy evolucionaron de la Chelidae, una tortuga "primitiva" de cuello al lado, tortuga únicamente encontrada en Australia y América del Sur. Otros herpetólogos se inclinan por un antepasado Placodonte, especialmente un Henodus debido a su aspecto de tortuga. Puesto que hay muchos problemas para postular la evolución filogenética de la tortuga a partir de un Henodus, otros especulan que la similitud de las tortugas y Henodus se explica por la evolución convergente, como concluyen Rieppel y Reisz, "las relaciones de tortugas siguen siendo inestables, y se requiere más investigación".
Existen muchos árboles evolutivos, todos ellos basados en gran medida de la especulación más que en la evidencia fósil. Hasta el momento, no existe evidencia convincente para cualquier punto de vista.

Evolución de la concha de tortuga

El problema para un biólogo evolutivo es explicar esas transformaciones en el contexto de un proceso gradual –O. Rieppel, quien apoya la explicación de un "monstruo esperanzador".
Debido a la falta de fósiles intermedios, los evolucionistas tienen que recurrir a hipótesis especulativas para rescatar a las tortugas para adaptarlas a la evolución. Una hipótesis es que el caparazón de tortuga ha evolucionado gradualmente de los "elementos de cubierta de reptil primitivo". El experto en reptiles Olivier Rieppel argumentó que un gran problema "para un biólogo evolutivo es explicar estas transformaciones en el contexto de un proceso gradualista. Rieppel sostiene que las tortugas no podrían evolucionar mediante un proceso gradual, y llegó a la conclusión de que pueden ser un ejemplo de "monstruo esperanzador".
Más recientemente, Gilbert y sus colegas han propuesto un modelo embriológico teórico que involucra el movimiento de las costillas en la capa dérmica que conduce a la evolución de un caparazón de tortuga. Este modelo, aunque útil, no pueden sustituir la necesidad de evidencias paleontológicas.

Dientes de Tortugas

También se ha generado la teoría de que las tortugas antiguas poseían dientes, pero los perdieron. Un buen ejemplo es que las tortugas Proganochelys tenían "dientes" en el paladar medio que eran realmente pequeños dentículos formados por el desarrollo de una cubierta resistente a algunos de los huesos del paladar (del que carecen las tortugas modernas), pero por lo demás, similares a las tortugas modernas. La evolución de los dientes es el problema que los evolucionistas tienen que enfrentar y, por el contrario, la pérdida de los dientes que seria esperado en el modelo bíblico de la Caída que predice la corrupción del genoma y el deterioro acompañado del fenotipo. Una mutación fácilmente podría haber ocurrido en uno de los genes de desarrollo del "diente" en las tortugas que impidió la maduración del diente, pero que, sin embargo, permitó que sobreviviera el animal. Si probó ser benéfico para sus hábitos alimentarios específicos, incluso puediera ser seleccionado como resultado. La pérdida de dientes, evidentemente, ha ocurrido varias veces en la historia de los animales, incluidos, posiblemente, algunas aves, y algunos monotremas como el ornitorrinco.

Además, esto no proporciona ningún consuelo para los evolucionistas porque tal proceso resulta en una pérdida de información genética, no la adición de información completamente nueva que la evolución de las tortugas de sus antepasados supuestos requiere. Debido a su constitución genética las tortugas han producido una gran variedad de morfologías. Su gran variación genética permite la creación de la variedad, tanto a través de la cría y cuidado de los diversos mecanismos naturales. Por otra parte, las tortugas fósiles demuestran que la diversidad de quelonios fue mucho mayor en el pasado que lo que se ha encontrado ahora.

Comparaciones bioquímicas

Los investigadores, decepcionados con la falta de progreso en la comprensión de la evolución de la tortuga, recurren cada vez más a los estudios moleculares y fisiológicos para resolver este enigma de la evolución. Sin embargo, las comparaciones de las tortugas han estado en conflicto con la generación de hipótesis de filogenias con base en las comparaciones morfológicas generales.

Hedges y Poling ensamblaron toda la información genética disponible conocida con el fin de resolver la controversia. Según sus análisis de la colección más grande disponible de los genes de reptiles, las tortugas han sido encontradas por los estudios genéticos como los parientes más cercanos, no de las aves como se creía, sino más bien de los cocodrilos y caimanes. Llegaron a la conclusión de que "los resultados proporcionan una fuerte evidencia de que la tortuga es el pariente vivo más cercano del cocodrilo".

"Las conclusiones del estudio contradicen décadas de investigación basada en estudios anatómicos y de fósiles, que ha posicionado firmemente a las aves como el grupo de los reptiles más estrechamente relacionados con los cocodrilos y caimanes, un grupo conocido como los cocodrilianos."

Otros investigadores han concluido que la información molecular favorece la opinión de que los arcosaurios (cocodrilos y aves) son

"...el grupo viviente hermano de las tortugas, mientras que los estudios morfológicos sostienen que los lepidosaurios (tuatara, lagartos y serpientes) son los parientes vivientes más cercanos de las tortugas. Aceptar esa hipótesis implica que las tortugas ya no pueden ser vistas como reptiles primitivos, y que ellas pueden haber perdido los agujeros temporales en el cráneo en lugar de nunca haberlos tenido".

Después de un estudio de proteínas nucleares codificadas de ADN, Iwabe y sus colegas también llegaron a la conclusión de que las tortugas pertenecen a un grupo monofilético, que incluyen a las aves y los cocodrilos. Declararon enfáticamente que "todos los otros árboles topológicos posibles fueron significativamente rechazados".

En resumen, la investigación molecular, hasta el momento, proveyó evidencia para apoyar la conclusión de que "la información molecular se encuentra en conflicto con la información paleontológica ... y será un desafío no sólo para los paleontólogos ... sino también a los que proveen sistemas moleculares para resolver esos conflictos". El incrementar la investigación, con el paso el tiempo, ha tendido a descubrir más conflictos entre los datos morfológicos y los moleculares.

Conclusiones

Las tortugas son una forma de vida ideal para evaluar la evidencia de la evolución, no sólo porque sus depósitos son fáciles de conservar, sino por la abundancia de tortugas en el registro fósil. Sin embargo, no se han encontrado pruebas en apoyo de la evolución de las tortugas de un antepasado no-tortuga, a pesar de más de un siglo de extensas exploraciones fósiles y la identificación de los miles de fósiles.

"Las tortugas son tan diferentes de cualquier otro reptil que sus peculiaridades son prácticamente inútiles como una guia para distinguir entre los antepasados posibles, y el origen de las tortugas es una de las grandes preguntas sin respuesta de la biología evolutiva...las opciones posibles para el periodo original incluye la gama casi completa de reptiles vivos y extintos".

El origen de las tortugas ha sido, y sigue siendo, un enigma evolutivo. Las tortugas más antiguas conocidas fueron claramente tortugas. Dado que las tortugas aparecen abruptamente en el registro fósil, los datos actuales son consistentes con un evento de creación seguido por una considerable diversificación, junto con la degeneración.

Agradecimientos

Queremos agradecer a Eric Blievernicht, Jody Allen y Clifford Lillo por sus útiles comentarios.

Mi respuesta a La evidencia de la evolución de la tortuga

Los creacionistas tienen toda la razón en señalar las incongruencias de la teoría de la evolución de los darwinistas. Estoy con los creacionistas: esa evolución no ha evolucionado en 150 años y lo que se sabe de las tortugas hoy en día no es diferente a lo que se sabía cuando Carlos Darwin publicó su libro "El origen de las especies". Los elementos de juicio que utilizan para mostrar que la evolución de Darwin no resuelve las incognitas que hay en el récord fósil son exactamente las mismas que yo utilizo para dar a conocer que esa evolución no es correcta, que Darwin se equivocó.

Si la evolución es lenta debiera haber muchísimos pasos intermedios que el récord fósil nos dice que no hay. Por lo tanto, la evolución por saltos, el saltacionismo de Stephen Jay Gould y Niles Eldredge está correcto.

Sin embargo, si no hay un patrón que nos oriente en los saltos quedamos igualmente perdidos. Los patrones utilizados por darwinistas para mostrar la evolución del ser humano a partir de un mono que se va transformando en ser humano no tienen validez dado que no los respalda el registro fósil dado que se topan una y otra vez con los eslabones perdidos. El otro patrón que utilizan los darwinistas de un tronco común en las especies está peor, está plagado de infinidad de eslabones perdidos.

Muchos científicos han dicho que creen en Darwin porque no hay otra opción más viable y en eso tuvieron razón por mucho tiempo, pero ya no.

Utilizaré de nuevo la ilustración de mi libro "Cicatrices, nueva teoría de la evolución"
(disponible en www.e-libro.net) y en mi respuesta en 3 partes al escrito de Richard Dawkins "Un evolucionista enojado" (que invito a leer a aquellos que no lo han hecho) para dar a conocer una nueva evolución:

Mi teoría dice: La evolución se repite en el desarrollo (lo que pasa en testículos, ovarios y hueveras) y en la gestación (lo que pasa en la matriz) cada especie de acuerdo a sí misma. La Biblia dice: "Y Dios creó a todos los animales cada uno de acuerdo a su especie". No hay tronco común (más información en la respuesta a Richard Dawkins en tres partes ya mencionada). También se puede ver que la ilustración muestra una escalera que nos da a conocer que los cambios son por saltos: no hay tal cosa como cambios lentos, éstos son por saltos.

Pero vayamos directo al porqué no encuentran los antecesores de las tortugas:
El dibujo de la evolución humana de acuerdo a mi teoría:




De la etapa de gestación que muestra una vista lateral y una vista de arriba en forma de elipse a la siguiente figura que muestra a un humanoide cabezón, botijón y con cola hay una diferencia abismal. Si uno anduviera buscando el antecesor de ese ser humanoide, cabezón, botijón y coludo se pudieran pasar 150 años y no lo encontrarían al igual que no encuentran al antecesor de las tortugas, porque sin este patrón no sabrían que buscar.

El patrón en escalera mostrado es para el ser humano. Hay que hacer uno, igualmente de escalera, para las tortugas estudiando la evolución de su desarrollo a partir de huevos o dentro de la bolsa amniótica, cada especie de acuerdo a como ella misma se reproduce.

Reto a los científicos de todo el mundo a que me prueben que me equivoco.

Ciertamente, nuestra definición de especie pudiera quedarse corta, ya que "algunas especies" pudieran ser una sola diferenciada por la epigenética (en mi blog hay varios artículos sobre esta rama de la ciencia que a muchos les pudiera parecer interesantes).

Regresando a la evolución humana, ¿qué evidencias hay de que pasamos de una etapa de gestación en donde fuimos una elipse de 2 capas y un bordo creado por invaginación a un humanoide cabezón, botijón y coludo? Una cicatriz que todo ser humano tiene, que va de la garganta a la zona genital, visible notoriamente en la mujeres embarazadas en el noveno mes y en los hombres de mucho pelo en pecho (por eso mi libro se llama Cicatrices. Estas son las evidencias de nuestro pasado sin necesidad de buscar fósiles, una nueva teoría de la evolución). Nuevamente hago el exhorto a que lean mi respuesta a Richard Dawkins en 3 partes dado que es un resumen de mi teoría y mucha más información.

¿Cuándo van a encontrar el antecesor de las tortugas si para comenzar lo andan buscando en donde no existe, en toda la gama de reptiles vivos o extintos? Si quieren encontrar su apariencia lo necesitan buscar en la incubación de los huevos de tortuga o en la "gestación" en la bolsa amniótica, cada tortuga de acuerdo a su forma de reproducirse, en una etapa previa a cuando ya tienen caparazón, que es la equivalente a la mutación del ser humano de una elipse de 2 capas y un bordo por invaginación a un humanoide cabezón, botijón y coludo. Además, encontrarían posiblemente que se equiparan con ediacaranes ya conocidos.

Los darwinistas han visto transformaciones asombrosas en algunas especies toda la vida y no han querido aprender de ellas, y ya les llegó la hora. ¿Quién no sabe de un gusano que se envuelve en una pupa y que de adentro de ella sale convertido en un insecto volador? Eso se ha sabido por miles de años. El insecto volador es una mutación del gusano, es la misma especie en diferentes etapas de evolución o de vida (para los creyentes, así los creó Dios). En mi teoría no existen los "monstruos esperanzadores", sólo algunas mutaciones "normalmente" (porque suceden una y otra vez) drásticas.

No se hagan bolas: Cada especie de acuerdo a sí misma (les recuerdo a los señores creacionistas que eso es precisamente lo que dice la Biblia: Dios creó a todos los animales, cada uno de acuerdo a su especie). Sin embargo, la epigenética nos ha enseñado que varias "especies" pudieran ser una sola con enzimas cubriendo permanentemente algunos genes importantes que los hacen parecer y actuar como diferentes especies. Lo cual significa que en mi teoría no existen los árboles evolucionarios, dado que cada especie es de acuerdo a sí misma. Yo no especulo, doy evidencias. Tienen razón los creacionistas al decir que no hay evidencia convincente para los árboles evolucionarios de los darwinistas y yo doy las evidencias que hay para mi evolución con vestigios y cicatrices. Sin embargo, sí hay evolución en las tortugas y la pueden observar completa en su incubación (a partir de huevos) y en el desarrollo y la "gestación" (los que nacen de bolsa amniótica), cada especie de acuerdo a sí misma.

Resumiendo, los creacionistas Jerry Bergman y Wayne Frair, en cuanto a mí corresponde, han probado exitosamente que la evolución de Carlos Darwin no existe. Sin embargo, eso no significa que han probado que la evolución no existe. A los señores creacionistas les pido encarecidamente no me tomen como enemigo, soy tan cristiano como ustedes, sólo que con un juego de aptitudes y recopilación de información diferentes (así nos creó Dios). A los ateos les pido encarecidamente no me tomen como enemigo, no requieren ser religiosos para creer en mi teoría. Todos, absolutamente todos, traemos las evidencias de nuestra evolución en nuestros cuerpos, al igual que el resto de los animales. La teoría de Carlos Darwin en verdad, involuntariamente, le está haciendo ya mucho daño a la humanidad y a los científicos dado que está obstruyendo que la verdad salga a relucir, dado que bien dice la Biblia: sólo la verdad nos hará libres.

Una vez más exhorto a creacionistas, católicos, evangelistas, cristianos y miembros del Islam junto con ateos a que lean mi traducción del artículo "The Angry Evolutionist" de Richard Dawkins y mi respuesta en 3 partes a este ateo de renombre mundial en este mismo blog.

]]> http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry100410-031007 Felix Rocha Martinez Sat, 10 Apr 2010 02:10:07 GMT http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/comments.php?y=10&m=04&entry=entry100410-031007 http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry091109-052631
The Angry Evolutionist

More Americans believe in angels than in evolution—and Richard Dawkins isn't going to take it anymore.

Creationists are deeply enamored of the fossil record, because they have been taught (by each other) to repeat, over and over, the mantra that it is full of "gaps": "Show me your 'intermediates!' " They fondly (very fondly) imagine that these "gaps" are an embarrassment to evolutionists. Actually, we are lucky to have any fossils at all, let alone the massive numbers that we now do have to document evolutionary history—large numbers of which, by any standards, constitute beautiful "intermediates." We don't need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized. It is a bonus that we do actually have rich seams of fossils to mine, and more are discovered every day. The fossil evidence for evolution in many major animal groups is wonderfully strong. Nevertheless there are, of course, gaps, and creationists love them obsessively.



Let's use the analogy of a detective coming to the scene of a crime where there were no eyewitnesses. The baronet has been shot. Fingerprints, footprints, DNA from a sweat stain on the pistol, and a strong motive, all point toward the butler. It's pretty much an open-and-shut case, and the jury and everybody in the court is convinced that the butler did it. But a last-minute piece of evidence is discovered, in the nick of time before the jury retires to consider what had seemed to be their inevitable verdict of guilty: somebody remembers that the baronet had installed spy cameras against burglars. With bated breath, the court watches the films. One of them shows the butler in the act of opening the drawer in his pantry, taking out a pistol, loading it, and creeping stealthily out of the room with a malevolent gleam in his eye. You might think that this solidifies the case against the butler even further. Mark the sequel, however. The butler's defense lawyer astutely points out that there was no spy camera in the library where the murder took place, and no spy camera in the corridor leading from the butler's pantry. "There's a gap in the video record! We don't know what happened after the butler left the pantry. There is clearly insufficient evidence to convict my client."

In vain, the prosecution lawyer points out that there was a second camera in the billiard room, and this shows, through the open door, the butler, gun at the ready, creeping on tiptoe along the passage toward the library. Surely this plugs the gap in the video record? But no. Triumphantly the defense lawyer plays his ace. "We don't know what happened before or after the butler passed the open door of the billiard room. There are now two gaps in the video record. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my case rests. There is now even less evidence against my client than there was before."

The fossil record, like the spy camera in the murder story, is a bonus, something that we had no right to expect as a matter of entitlement. There is already more than enough evidence to convict the butler without the spy camera, and the jury was about to deliver a guilty verdict before the spy camera was discovered. Similarly, there is more than enough evidence for the fact of evolution in the comparative study of modern species and their geographical distribution. We don't need fossils. The case for evolution is watertight without them, so it is paradoxical to use gaps in the fossil record as though they were evidence against evolution. We are lucky to have fossils at all.
What would be evidence against evolution, and very strong evidence at that, would be the discovery of even a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum. As J.B.S. Haldane famously retorted when asked to name an observation that would disprove the theory of evolution, "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!" No such rabbits, no authentically anachronistic fossils of any kind, have ever been found. All the fossils that we have, and there are very very many indeed, occur, without a single authenticated exception, in the right temporal sequence. Yes, there are gaps where there are no fossils at all, and that is only to be expected. But not a single solitary fossil has ever been found before it could have evolved. That is a very telling fact. A good theory is one that is vulnerable to disproof, yet is not disproved. Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colors. Skeptics of evolution who wish to prove their case should be diligently scrabbling around in the rocks, desperately trying to find anachronistic fossils. Maybe they'll find one. Want a bet?

The biggest gap, and the one the creationists like best of all, is the one that preceded the so-called Cambrian Explosion. A little more than half a billion years ago, in the Cambrian era, most of the great animal phyla "suddenly" appear in the fossil record. Suddenly, that is, in the sense that no fossils of these animal groups are known in rocks older than the Cambrian, not suddenly in the sense of instantaneously; the period we are talking about covers about 20 million years. Anyway, it is still quite sudden, and, as I wrote in a previous book, the Cambrian shows us a substantial number of major animal phyla "already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists."

The last sentence shows that I was savvy enough to realize that creationists would like the Cambrian Explosion. I was not (back in 1986) savvy enough to realize that they'd gleefully quote my lines back at me in their own favor, carefully omitting my careful words of explanation. On a whim, I just searched the World Wide Web for "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" and obtained no fewer than 1,250 hits. As a crude control test of the hypothesis that the majority of these hits represent creationist quote—minings, I tried searching, as a comparison, the clause that immediately follows the above quotation: "Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record." I obtained a grand total of 63 hits, compared to the 1,250 hits for the previous sentence.

I have dealt with the Cambrian Explosion at length before. Here I'll add just one new point, illustrated by the flatworms, Platyhelminthes. This great phylum of worms includes the parasitic flukes and tapeworms, which are of great medical importance. My favorites, however, are the free-living turbellarian worms, of which there are more than 4,000 species: that's about as numerous as all the mammal species put together. They are common, both in water and on land, and presumably have been common for a very long time. You'd expect, therefore, to see a rich fossil history. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing. Apart from a handful of ambiguous trace fossils, not a single fossil flatworm has ever been found. The Platyhelminthes, to a worm, are "already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

But in this case, "the very first time they appear" is not the Cambrian but today. Do you see what this means, or at least ought to mean for creationists? Creationists believe that flatworms were created in the same week as all other creatures. They have therefore had exactly the same time in which to fossilize as all other animals. During all the centuries when all those bony or shelly animals were depositing their fossils by the millions, the flatworms must have been living happily alongside them, but without leaving the slightest trace of their presence in the rocks. What, then, is so special about gaps in the record of those animals that do fossilize, given that the past history of the flatworms is one big gap: even though the flatworms, by the creationists' own account, have been living for the same length of time? If the gap before the Cambrian Explosion is used as evidence that most animals suddenly sprang into existence in the Cambrian, exactly the same "logic" should be used to prove that the flatworms sprang into existence yesterday. Yet this contradicts the creationist's belief that flatworms were created during the same creative week as everything else. You cannot have it both ways. This argument, at a stroke, completely and finally destroys the creationist case that the Precambrian gap in the fossil record can be taken as evidence against evolution.

Why, on the evolutionary view, are there so few fossils before the Cambrian era? Well, presumably, whatever factors applied to the flatworms throughout geological time to this day, those same factors applied to the rest of the animal kingdom before the Cambrian. Probably, most animals before the Cambrian were soft-bodied like modern flatworms, probably rather small like modern turbellarians—just not good fossil material. Then something happened half a billion years ago to allow animals to fossilize freely—the arising of hard, mineralized skeletons, for example.

An earlier name for "gap in the fossil record" was "missing link." The phrase enjoyed a vogue in late Victorian England, and on into the 20th century. Inspired by a misunderstanding of Darwin's theory, it was used as an insult, in roughly the same way as "Neanderthal" is colloquially (and unjustly) used today.

The original meaning, a confused one, implied that the Darwinian theory lacked a vital link between humans and other primates. History-deniers, to this day, are very fond of saying, in what they imagine is a taunting tone of voice: "But you still haven't found the missing link," and they often throw in a gibe about Piltdown man, for good measure. Nobody knows who perpetrated the Piltdown hoax, but he has a lot to answer for. The fact that one of the first candidates for a man-ape fossil to be discovered turned out to be a hoax provided an excuse for history-deniers to ignore the very numerous fossils that are not hoaxes; and they still haven't stopped crowing about it. If only they would look at the facts, they'd soon discover that we now have a rich supply of intermediate fossils linking modern humans to the common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees. On the human side of the divide, that is. Interestingly, there are as yet no fossils linking that ancestor (which was neither chimpanzee nor human) to modern chimpanzees. Perhaps this is because chimpanzees live in forests, which don't provide good fossilizing conditions. If anything, it is chimpanzees, not humans, who today have a right to complain of missing links!

Another meaning concerns the alleged paucity of so-called "transitional forms" between major groups like reptiles and birds, or fish and amphibians. "Produce your intermediates!" Evolutionists often respond to this challenge from history-deniers by throwing them the bones of Archaeopteryx, the famous "intermediate" between "reptiles" and birds. This is a mistake. Archaeopteryx is not the answer to a challenge, because there is no challenge worth answering. To put up a single famous fossil like Archaeopteryx panders to a fallacy. In fact, for a large number of fossils, a good case can be made that every one of them is an intermediate between something and something else.

The silliest of all these "missing link" challenges are the following two (or variants of them, of which there are many). First, "If people came from monkeys via frogs and fish, then why does the fossil record not contain a 'fronkey'?" And, second, "I'll believe in evolution when I see a monkey give birth to a human baby." This last one makes the same mistake as all the others, plus the additional one of thinking that major evolutionary change happens overnight.

Well, of course, monkeys are not descended from frogs. No sane evolu-tionist ever said they were, or that ducks are descended from crocodiles or vice versa. Monkeys and frogs share an ancestor, which certainly looked nothing like a frog and nothing like a monkey. Maybe it looked a bit like a salamander, and we do indeed have salamander-like fossils dating from the right time. But that is not the point. Every one of the millions of species of animals shares an ancestor with every other one. If your understanding of evolution is so warped that you think we should expect to see a fronkey and a crocoduck, you should also wax sarcastic about the absence of a doggypotamos and an elephanzee.

Indeed, why limit yourself to mammals? Why not a kangaroach (intermediate between kangaroo and cockroach) or an octopard (intermediate between octopus and leopard)? There's an infinite number of animal names you can string together in that way. Of course hippopotamuses are not descended from dogs, or vice versa. Chimpanzees are not descended from elephants or vice versa, just as monkeys are not descended from frogs. No modern species is descended from any other modern species (if we leave out very recent splits). Just as you can find fossils that approximate to the common ancestor of a frog and a monkey, so you can find fossils that approximate to the common ancestor of elephants and chimpanzees.
As for the second challenge, once again, humans are not descended from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys. As it happens, the common ancestor would have looked a lot more like a monkey than a man, and we would indeed probably have called it a monkey if we had met it, some 25 million years ago. But even though humans evolved from an ancestor that we could sensibly call a monkey, no animal gives birth to an instant new species, or at least not one as different from itself as a man is from a monkey, or even from a chimpanzee. That isn't what evolution is about. Evolution not only is a gradual process as a matter of fact; it has to be gradual if it is to do any explanatory work. Huge leaps in a single generation—which is what a monkey giving birth to a human would be—are almost as unlikely as divine creation, and are ruled out for the same reason: too statistically improbable. It would be so nice if those who oppose evolution would take a tiny bit of trouble to learn the merest rudiments of what it is that they are opposing.

Excerpted from The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, by Richard Dawkins. © 2009 by Richard Dawkins. Reprinted by permission of Free Press, a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Find this article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140
© 2009

You will find my commentaries to it in the following 3 articles.
]]> http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry091109-052631 Felix Rocha Martinez Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:26:31 GMT http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/comments.php?y=09&m=11&entry=entry091109-052631 http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry091109-051317
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.
]]> http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry091109-051317 Felix Rocha Martinez Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:13:17 GMT http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/comments.php?y=09&m=11&entry=entry091109-051317 http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry091109-045119 Response to “The Angry Evolutionist”, second part

Evolution, 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.

]]> http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry091109-045119 Felix Rocha Martinez Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:51:19 GMT http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/comments.php?y=09&m=11&entry=entry091109-045119 http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry091109-043924 Response to “The Angry Evolutionist”, third part

Evolution, yes; Charles Darwin, no way

The Bible and this theory

One day I faced the biblical passage of the Creation (Genesis 1:26). God created a man, so says the Bible. But I asked myself: a man as he is today? That is impossible! A man is structured to reproduce himself through a woman and if there is no such woman, that structure would be useless. How would he reproduce himself? If there was no solution to this problem, the species would end right there and then, at the time of his death.



Then I said to myself, God got himself into the trap of time. Either He created a woman within Adam’s reproductive life or he has no human species at all. I considered that it was too big a flaw for someone who is Omniscient. But what if a woman was first? I asked myself. It would all be the same: alone, without a male, she can not reproduce either. The only solution would have been to have the first creature be “self reproductive”. Voila! The rest of the passage coincides perfectly with this concept. God created a hermaphrodite that reproduced by herself.
Time went by. But given that she needs no one and no one needs her, she gets lonely and clamors to God, who sees that it was not good for her to be alone. God tells her: "I am going to give you a companion, flesh of your flesh and bones of your bones", and the hermaphrodite gave birth to a baby boy. Fabulous! Now everything works well.

This demanded a good definition of a hermaphrodite. How was she? Was she more similar to a man or to a woman? The answer was obvious: to a woman. A man has no womb and therefore can not conceive. But, what does it take for a woman to be a hermaphrodite? It takes everything she has today, plus a pair of testicles, a sperm deposit and the necessary ducts to take de sperm to the “G” spot of the vagina. Obviously the following question would be: Where could the hermaphrodite have the testicles? When my studies induced me to consider that “the holes in the pubic bones would be a great place for them”, it was so surprising that it was hard to believe. More and more questions came, and the answers that were brought up, all seemed sound and easy to grasp. Every new little detail seemed to corroborate that the original creature was indeed a hermaphrodite.

It was traumatic. The Scriptures are very clear that the original creature was a male, and he had a name, Adam. But with that concept, the Bible has no scientific viability. But if we consider that the first human being was a hermaphrodite, even that same biblical passage has scientific verification, that seemed madness! When the accumulated scientific information got bigger and bigger, the biblical concordances with that information also got bigger, but only if we stuck to the premise that the original creature was a hermaphrodite.

The “incongruity” of the biblical narrative, in regards to the creation of the human being, starts with the specification that he was created first. Apparently, the image of being first is given the meaning of being the source of everything and the most important. But we have seen in the first chapters of my book how man is far from being first, and on the contrary, is weak and dependent of women. The importance of a man is derived from his capacity to create science, technology and art from origin, from birth, and his availability to engender.

In the narrative of the creation of Eve from Adam's rib, to fulfill the specification of being “flesh of the flesh and bones of the bones of the first creature”, necessarily has to be taken as a “miracle” and as an “act of faith”, for it does not stand any scientific analysis. Once Adam and Eve were created, the Bible mentions that they had three male children, and it is not explicit about the names or where did the women with whom they had children came from. To have all three sons procreate with their mother (since there were no more women), sounds improper, to say the least. And all that for what purpose, just to say that man was created first?

Now let us look at it from another point of view. Let us consider for a moment that the first created creature was a hermaphrodite. The specification that at the beginning only one type of human being was created gets fulfilled and God does not fall in the trap of time. The human hermaphrodite is by nature independent and auto-reproductive and being a human, a thinking creature, and why not say too, created in the image of God? Being a hermaphrodite makes it possible to have a male as a son (a mutation instead of the normal hermaphrodite). If this had happened one or a thousand generations (or more) later there would have not been any difference, in the mean time the hermaphrodite would be auto-reproduced.



Men were conceived especially for women and not the other way around. So a man, is the divine prescription, God’s recipe to give a woman (into which the hermaphrodite degenerated) the opportunity to get away from loneliness. A man was made dependent of a woman so that he would have to search for her, long for her, to be anxious over her and rejoice at her, so that he would have to search for her again, long for her again, to be anxious and rejoice at her over again. A man without a woman has no reason for living.

The fact that a man is born out of a hermaphrodite makes him a kind of a mutant (the normal way would be to have a hermaphrodite be born of a hermaphrodite) and all mutants are more specialized but of less quality of design than the creature they come from. In the case of a man, he is a successful mutant, but nevertheless a mutant. A man is the best therapy (work therapy, the healing of sicknesses through work) to take away the loneliness of a woman, or at least, that is God’s will.

I consider that someone changed that portion of biblical scripture with the idea of making a man seem the first human being created. Surely, Adam was the first man of a lineage, but not the first human being, not even the first male. For me it is easier to understand it that way and know that the Bible has scientific agreement, than not to accept it (discarding all the scientific evidence accumulated) and see that the Bible has no scientific agreement. But, of course, each one has to take his own decision.

If the Bible was changed to make the statement that a man was the first human being created, then that concept is a lie. With this in mind, it was not even desirable that there would be an acceptance of concepts between science and religión. That would have been terrible.

The Lunar Calendar of the Jews establishes that the 11th. of September of the year 1999 was the first day of the year 5760. Taking this into account the Bible could be one 100 percent correct if we take in consideration the intrinsic peculiarities of the Jewish people who wrote it. For them, for as long as there was no male in their midst, nothing existed. Then this world truly is 5760 years old, to the date mentioned, to them. What the Jewish Calendar is measuring, and with precision, is the time they have had a male in their midst, in their lineage of hermaphrodites. Lots of Christian scientists have made a very poor service to science and to religion when they try to transform the times of the existence of the universe to only ten to 12000 years, because in that manner the numbers of religion and science match (according to them). Due to the fact that apparently the biblical times do not allow a longer period of existence, they have said that the continents drift at much higher speed and that the moon only has eight thousand years circling the Earth, among so many other incredible things. Whenever scientists, of any sort, induce experiments to corroborate what they want to prove, they are prone to end up in disaster. I have tried, to the best of my abilities, to keep away from that procedure, even if I have to accept that somebody did change the Bible in the passage of Creation. Another way of putting it is: this is a scientific work and not a religious presentation.

Approximately 12,000 years ago, there were males born in the area that now is known as the border between China and Pakistan. This group divided itself in two: the ones descending into Pakistan adopted the Sanskrit Language, from which the occidental languages are derived, and those that moved into the high plateau of China and adopted the Mandarin Language, from which the Far East languages are derived.

The search by men of new groups of hermaphrodites, forced the Pakistan group to move, some to the east, and created the Hindu family of languages, and those that went to the west, that founded the Iranian family of languages (and the Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Teutonic, Celtic, Greek and Latin families of languages). Part of the Iranian family of languages is the Aramean one, very much linked to the Jewish people, and one of the languages of the original Bible. The time elapsed between the 12,000 years mentioned before and the beginning of the Jewish Calendar, 5760 years ago to the date referred before, was the amount of time required between the creation of males in the China-Pakistan border and the birth of Adam.

The hermaphrodites from where the Jewish people descend, could have given birth a male of their own or had a male through one visitor coming from the East, in any way, they obtained a male to start the greatest and longest religious revolution of the world. The biblical geographic scenario is well established, and the times are within range of credibility. The very important factor of language is also capable of being corroborated, but once again, you have to put first the concept of the hermaphrodite in the biblical scenario in order to have the Bible, history, geography and the linguistic science match.



I have described that in this theory, the evolution of each species repeats itself in its own development and gestation. Since each species has its own development and gestation, then the evolution of each species is different. In the Bible it says that the animals were created each according to its own (in the original Aramean), Genesis 1:21, which could well be interpreted as that each animal has its own history or evolution. Therefore the Bible and this theory coincide surprisingly 100 per cent. This new theory only differs in that it describes the meaning of “its own”, its own development and gestation. The biblical passage is considered to have been written 3,600 years ago and differs totally to what Charles Darwin wrote (hardly 150 years ago), who affirmed that there was a common origin of the species.

To the human being and particularly to the Christian, it has always been a puzzle the enigma of the fatherhood of Jesus of Nazareth. To science it is not credible that a woman would get pregnant without the participation of a man (much less in those times of the birth of Jesus in which there was no conceiving in vitro and no cloning). But for religious people it is very different: “for with God all things are possible” (Mark 10: 27). It could seem that “science” has a better hand, given that truly women can not conceive without the spermatozoa of men. Nevertheless “science” (once again in quotation marks) in almost 2,000 years could not come up with a credible theory that could decipher that enigma (and neither the Christian Churches, the most interested in this matter, because they got away from science, could they decipher it).

For ancient Greeks, the concept of hermaphrodites was an integral part of their experiences (the word is part of their mythology). In their voyages they had encounters with them (west of Gibraltar). Jesus of Nazareth comes into existence hardly five hundred years later after the Golden Age of the Greeks. Surely enough, at that time there were hermaphrodites in existence as even now they are present. Now let us look at the biblical passage: an angel appeared to a young virgin named Mary (Saint Luke 1: 26-35). The angel informs her that she is going to have a baby to be called Jesus. Let us imagine her astonished and awed face, kneeling down in the manner usual to her, (she is in front of God’s Messenger) knees and chest to the ground. She tells the angel that it is impossible for she is a virgin, but the angel insists.

Let us continue imagining Mary's anemic state: with the nerves and hair at edge (the group to which she belonged stoned to death single pregnant women), electricity running down her spine. Lots of people, in situations that are very extraordinary, lose control of their sphincters and end up urinating or even defecating. Mary, being a hermaphrodite, ejaculated, and being in the proper position, knees and chest to the ground, got pregnant so the old scriptures would get fulfilled that the Son of God would come to this earth without male participation. After the conditions are ripe for the conception Mary changes attitude and says that the will of God be fulfilled in her body. Surely, before our eyes, we have a world of new sensations. The narrative has been there, waiting patiently to have some one to interpret it for those that care.



The Bible says that we must search the scriptures (Saint John 5:39), which is far more than just memorizing and repeating them. It also says that the truth shall make us free (St John 8:32), but that truth we must search for it, it is not coming easy.

Put yourself in my place (whether you are a Believer or a scientist). If in the search for the truth you can prove that the Bible was changed to say a lie (that a man was the first human being created), would you put in writing or would you look the other way as if you had not learned anything?

Put yourself in my place (whether you are a Believer or a scientist). If in the search for the truth you can prove that Charles Darwin is wrong as far as evolution is concerned, would you put in writing or would you look the other way as if you had not learned anything? (Many scientists, including Stephen Jay Gould, left a back door open to darwinism because it was politically correct and scientifically wrong).

Put yourself in my place (whether you are a Believer or a scientist). If in the search for the truth you can prove that this new theory of evolution, one in which you do not need to be a Believer to believe it (the evidences of it you have them in your own body, whether you are a man or a woman, straight or gay), one in which if you are a Believer you have to accept that the Bible was changed to say a lie (that a man was the first human being created) in order to believe it, would you put in writing or would you look the other way as if you had not learned anything?

I, Felix Rocha Martinez, did what I considered scientifically and religiously correct, even though it was not politically correct, because only the truth shall make us free.

Response to an Angry Evolutionist (Richard Dawkins)

I should be as angry as you are. Christians take a translation of the Bible without considering that it is a translation. The Bible changes without having anybody to change it. The value of words change with time. The Bible in itself is an interpretation of translators. The Bible in Aramean says: And God created a man-woman and the translator wrote: And God created a man and a woman. It is not the same. They translated over material they did not know (or willfully mistranslated it, which is worse) and started a process of putting Christians and scientists, needlessly, face to face.

The Bible is the binnacle of a lineage, not of humanity. That people decided that life did not start until there was a male in their group of hermaphrodites, so their history starts according to their calender that begins with their first male, very correctly, for the Jews, it is measuring. very precisely, for how long they have had males in their midst. (Muslims do not have the problem of translations, they read the Koran in its original language. Nevertheless, the first 5 books of the Old Testament of the Bible, with minor changes, are also in the Koran. In this way, they share the story of Adam and Eve).

I should be twice as angry as you are. Darwinists make exactly the same mistakes than Believers, be them Christians or Muslims. The first time that I put in Internet that before we were men and women we were hermaphrodites, they laughed to their hearts content. Without reading my reasoning they said: What did he smoke? Darwin never said that. If Christians say that by definition I am wrong because I say that before we were men and women we were hermaphrodites and the Bible does not say it, Darwinists say that by definition I am wrong because Charles Darwin did no say it. (Mr. Richard Dawkins, Are you still reading in spite that I wrote about religion?).

I do not have a Ph.D. in medicine, nevertheless, I studied by myself anatomy from a totally different perspective to that studied by medics (they study anatomy, among other things, to observe health deviations to see how they are going to face them) that allowed me a very different set of knowledge than they get from their studies.

That allows me to make a series of questions that my theory answers and that now I make to you, scientists and Believers:

1.- Why is it that human males have nipples on their chests?

2.- Why is it that women as well as men have holes in their pubic bones?

3.- Why is it that women have a clitoris that when there is an orgasm it travels into the body?

4.- Why is it that women have a G spot?

5.- Why is it that the clitoris as well as the penis have glans, frenum and prepuce and that both are cavernous tissues that become erectile when full of blood?

6.- Why is it that men have raphe?

7.- Why is it that the interior vaginal lips of women as well as the scrotum of men have the similarity of being the darkest parts of their bodies apart of being so similar in the reactions to temperatures and touch?

8.- Why is it that when a man enters into a very cold water swimming pool his testicles shrivel up and some times come up almost to the holes of the pubic bones?

9.- Why is it that women are better designed than men? (They can survive with less food, with less air, They stand more pain. They can carry a baby for a lot more time than men).

10.- Why is it that women as well as men have a scar from the throat to the genital zone? (in women in the ninth month of pregnancy it looks like a zipper about to get ripped apart and in a hairy chest man it is quite obvious).

11.- Why are there homosexuals?

Make a survey among your friends and see how many of them can answer these questions.

Scientists have an advantage: They do not need to have faith to believe in this theory. The evidences in our bodies are plentiful. Nevertheless, they do not have an easy way out for the same reason, the evidences in our bodies are plentiful. If they do not believe my explanations, What are theirs? (to the 11 questions that I have just made). Inadequate answers: I do not like it. Charles Darwin did not say it, therefore, by definition it is wrong.

Believers are at disadvantage. I do not consider an adequate proposition to say that there is a scientific truth and there is a religious truth. No. There is only one truth, no more. There is no easy way out, the evidences in our bodies are plentiful and the evidences in the Bible are surprising. If you do not believe my explanations, What are yours? (to begin with to the 11 questions that I have just made and to the biblical passages mentioned, and there are more). Inadequate answers: I do not like it. the Bible does not say it, therefore, by definition it is wrong.

I know it is horrible to accept that the Bible was changed to say that a man was the first human being, I went through that experience many years ago. I know it is not easy. You open Pandora’s box and you do not know what course it is going to take. But if you do not open it, you will be skidding in the same place for as long as there is humanity.

It is a great opportunity for scientists and Believers (it would be fantastic for the States of the United States that have an enormous problem in their schools): Only the truth shall make all of us free.

I remind my readers that I am capable, willing and available to give talks and conferences about my theory. frocham@yahoo.com.mx
]]> http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry091109-043924 Felix Rocha Martinez Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:39:24 GMT http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/comments.php?y=09&m=11&entry=entry091109-043924 http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry091107-044807
Un evolucionista enojado

Más estadounidenses creen en los ángeles que en la evolución –y Richard Dawkins no lo va a aceptar más.

Los creacionistas están profundamente enamorados del registro fósil, debido a que han sido enseñados (uno al otro) a repetir, una y otra vez, el mantra de que está lleno de “vacíos”: “muéstrame tus pasos intermedios”. Con gusto (con mucho gusto) imaginan que estos “vacíos” son una vergüenza para los evolucionistas. En realidad, tenemos suerte de tener fósiles, aunque no sean las cantidades masivas que ahora sí tenemos para documentar la historia evolutiva –grandes números de los cuales, por cualquier medición, constituyen hermosos “intermedios”. No necesitamos fósiles para poder demostrar que la evolución es un hecho. La evidencia de la evolución estaría totalmente segura aun cuando ni un solo cadáver se hubiera fosilizado. Es un bono que en realidad tenemos de que haya canteras de fósiles de donde proveernos y más son descubiertos cada día. La evidencia fósil para la evolución en muchos grupos importantes de animales es maravillosamente fuerte. Sin embargo existen, por supuesto, los vacíos, y los creacionsitas los aman de manera obsesiva.


Usemos una analogía de un detective que llega a la escena del crimen en el cual no hubo testigos presenciales. El barón ha sido asesinado. Las huellas digitales, las huellas de las pisadas, el ADN de una mancha de sudor en la pistola, y un motivo fuerte, todos señalan al mayordomo. Es un caso clásico en el que se cierra al abrir, y el jurado y todos los participantes en la Corte están convencidos de que el mayordomo lo hizo. Sin embargo, una pieza de evidencia descubierta en el último minuto, en el último segundo, antes de que el jurado se retire a considerar lo que parecía un veredicto de culpabilidad inevitable: alguien recuerda que el barón había instalado cámaras espía para descubrir ladrones. Con la respiración alterada, la corte observa la película y una de ellas muestra al mayordomo en el acto de abrir un cajón de su armario, tomando una pistola, cargándola, y deslizándose furtivamente fuera de la habitación con una mirada malévola en sus ojos. Usted pudiera pensar que esto hace aun más sólido el caso en contra del mayordomo. Sin embargo, remarcando la secuela, la defensa del mayordomo astutamente señala que no había cámara espía en la biblioteca en donde se llevó a cabo el asesinato, y no había cámara espía en el corredor donde conducía a la habitación del mayordomo. “Hay un ‘vacío’ en el registro del video. No sabemos qué sucedió después de que el mayordomo sacó la pistola del armario. Claramente hay evidencia insuficiente para condenar a mi cliente”.

En vano, el abogado acusador señala que había una segunda cámara en el salón de billar, y ésta muestra, a través de una puerta abierta, al mayordomo, con la pistola lista, de puntillas a lo largo del corredor hacia la biblioteca. Seguramente esto taponea el vacío en el registro del video ¿verdad? Sin embargo, la defensa no lo consideró así. De manera triunfante el abogado defensor juega su último as. “No sabemos lo que sucedió antes o después de que el mayordomo pasara la puerta abierta del salón de billar. Ahora existen dos vacíos en el registro del video. Señoras y señores del jurado: este caso se acabó. Ahora existe menos evidencia en contra de mi cliente que lo que había antes”.

El registro fósil, al igual que la cámara espía en la historia del asesinato, es una ventaja adicional, algo que no tenemos que esperar como si fuera un derecho.Ya existe más que suficiente evidencia para condenar al mayordomo sin necesidad de la cámara espía, y el jurado estaba a punto de entregar el veredicto de culpable antes que la cámara espía fuera descubierta. Similarmente, hay más que suficiente evidencia para el hecho de la evolución en el estudio comparativo de especies modernas y su distribución geográfica. No necesitamos fósiles. El caso de la evolución no los necesita, por lo tanto es paradójico que utilicemos los vacíos en el registro fósil como si fueran evidencia en contra de la evolución. Tenemos mucha suerte de que siquiera haya fósiles. Lo que fuera evidencia en contra de la evolución, y hasta eso una muy fuerte, sería el descubrimiento de aun un solo fósil en el estrato geológico equivocado. Como contestó J. B. S. Haldane de manera famosa cuando le pidieron que hiciera una observación que pudiera desaprobar la teoría de la evolución; “fósiles de conejos en el periodo precámbrico”. No hay tales conejos, y no hay fósiles auténticamente anacrónicos de cualquier tipo que hayan sido encontrados. Todos los fósiles que tenemos, y hay ciertamente muchos de ellos, ocurren, sin una sola excepción auténtica, en la secuencia temporal adecuada. Ciertamente hay vacíos en donde no existen fósiles, y eso bien pudiera ser esperado. Sin embargo, no hay un fósil solitario que haya sido encontrado antes de que pudiera haber evolucionado. Y ese es un hecho que dice mucho. Una buena teoría es una que es vulnerable a que la desaprueben, sin embargo, no ha sido desaprobada. La evolución pudiera fácilmente ser desaprobada si tan sólo un fósil solitario apareciera en la orden de fechas equivocada. La evolución ha pasado esta prueba de manera excelente. Los escépticos de la evolución que deseen probar su caso debieran diligentemente hurgar en las rocas, desesperadamente tratando de encontrar fósiles anacrónicos. Tal vez ellos encuentren uno. ¿Quieren apostar?

El vacío más grande, y uno que a los creacionistas les encanta más que cualquier otro, es uno que precedió a la denominada explosión cámbrica. Hace poco más de 500 millones de años, en la era cámbrica, la mayor parte de los grandes animales “de repente” apareció en el registro fósil. De repente, en esencia, dado que no hay fósiles de estos grupos de animales conocidos en rocas más antiguas que las cámbricas, no de repente en el sentido de instantáneamente; el periodo del que estamos hablando cubre unos 20 millones de años. De cualquier manera, todavía eso es muy rápido, y, como escribí en un libro previo, el cámbrico nos muestra una cantidad sustancial de animales importantes “ya en estado avanzado de evolución, definitivamente la primera vez que aparecen. Es como si ellos hubieran sido plantados ahí, sin ninguna historia evolucionaria. No hay necesidad de decir que esta aparición repentina ha sido una delicia para los creacionistas”.

La última oración muestra que tuve la suficiente sapiencia para darme cuenta de que los creacionistas iban a aceptar con gusto la explosión cámbrica. No era lo suficiente sabedor (allá por 1986) para darme cuenta de que ellos iban a citarme con placer y que me iban a reprochar en favor de ellos, cuidadosamente omitiendo mis palabras cautelosas de explicaciones. Sólo por buscar, me metí a la Internet a buscar la frase “estaban ahí como si hubieran sido plantados, sin nada de historia evolucionada” y obtuve no menos de mil 250 entradas. Como una prueba de control muy rudimentaria de la hipótesis de que la mayoría de estas entradas representan citas creacionistas, traté de buscar, como una comparación, la cláusula que inmediatamente sigue de la cita de arriba: los evolucionistas de todo tipo creen, sin embargo, que esto verdaderamente representa un gran vacío en el registro fósil”. Obtuve un total de 63 partidas, comparadas con las mil 250 para la oración previa.

He tratado en gran escala anteriormente la explosión cámbrica. Aquí sólo agregaré un nuevo punto, ilustrado por las lombrices Plathyhelminthes. Este gran género de lombrices incluye algunos parásitos y solitarias, las cuales son de gran importancia médica. Mis favoritas, sin embargo, son las lombrices turbelarianas, de las cuales hay más de cuato mil especies: esa cantidad es tan numerosa como todas las especies de mamíferos puestas juntas. Son comunes, tanto en el agua como en la tierra, y presumiblemente han sido comunes por un tiempo muy largo. Usted esperaría, por lo tanto, ver una historia fósil muy rica. Desafortunadamente, prácticamente no hay nada. Aparte de un puñado de trazas fósiles ambiguas, no hay un solo fósil de gusano plano que haya sido encontrado. Los Plathyhelminthes se encontraron en una forma avanzada de evolución, en la primera vez que aparecen. Es como si hubieran sido plantados ahí, sin nada de historia evolucionaria”.

Sin embargo, en este caso, “la primera vez que aparecen” no es en el periodo cámbrico, sino que se trata del día de hoy. ¿Ven ustedes lo que esto significa? ¿O cuando menos lo que debiera significar para los creacionistas? Los creacionistas creen que las lombrices planas fueron creadas en la misma semana que todas las demás criaturas. Estas tienen, por lo tanto, exactamente el mismo tiempo para fosilizarse que todos los demás animales. Durante todos los siglos, cuando aquellos animales huesudos o con caparazones fueron depositando sus fósiles por millones, las lombrices planas debieron de haber vivido felizmente junto con ellos, pero no dejaron la más mínima huella de su presencia en las rocas. ¿Qué es, entonces, tan especial acerca de los vacíos en el registro de estos animales que sí se fosilizan, dado que en la historia pasada de las lombrices planas es un gran vacío, aun cuando las lombrices planas, por relatos propuestos por los creacionistas han estado viviendo por la misma longitud de tiempo?. Si el vacío antes de la explosión cámbrica es usado como evidencia de que la mayoría de animales de repente aparecieron en existencia en el cámbrico, exactamente la misma “lógica” debiera ser usada para probar que las lombrices planas aparecieron en existencia el día de ayer. Sin embargo, esto contradice la creencia de los creacionistas de que las lombrices planas fueron creadas durante la misma semana creativa junto con todos los demás. Usted no puede creerlo de ambas maneras. Este argumento, como un golpe, completa y definitivamente destruye el caso creacionista de que el vacío precámbrico en el registro fósil puede ser tomado como evidencia en contra de la evolución.

¿Por qué en la visión evolucionaria, hay tan poquitos fósiles antes de la era cámbrica? Bien, presumiblemente, cualquiera de los factores aplicados a las lombrices planas a través del tiempo geológico hasta este día, esos mismos factores aplican al resto del reino animal antes del cámbrico. Probablemente, la mayor parte de los animales antes del periodo cámbrico fueron de cuerpos suaves como las lombrices planas modernas, probablemente muy pequeñas como las modernas turbelarianas –simplemente no son buen material para fosilizar. Entonces algo sucedió hace 500 mil millones de años que permitió que los animales se fosilizaran libremente – por ejemplo, dando a conocer esqueletos fuertes mineralizados.

Un nombre previo para “vacío en el registro fósil” fue “eslabón perdido”. Esta frase estuvo en boga al final de la Inglaterra victoriana, y hasta el siglo 20. Inspirada por el mal entendimiento de la teoría de Darwin, fue utilizada como un insulto, más o menos de la misma manera como “neanderthal” es coloquial (e injustamente) utilizado el día de hoy.

El significado original, uno confuso, implicó que a la teoría darwiniana le faltaba un vínculo vital entre humanos y otros primates. A los negadores de la historia, hasta este día, les gusta mucho decir, en lo que ellos imaginan un tono de voz provocativo: “pero es que todavía no has encontrado el eslabón perdido”, y muy a menudo sacan a relucir el caso de Piltdown, por buena razón. Nadie sabe quién perpetró la burla de Piltdown, sin embargo, hay muchas cosas que debiera contestar. El hecho de que uno de los primeros candidatos de fósil hombre-mono que se haya descubierto se convirtiera en una burla, proveyó una excusa para que los negadores de la historia ignoraran la gran cantidad de fósiles que no son burlas, y todavía no han parado de estar repitiéndolo. Si tan sólo ellos observaran los hechos, pronto descubrirían que ahora tenemos un rico abastecimiento de fósiles intermedios que vinculan a los humanos modernos con el ancestro común que compartimos con los chimpancés. Eso es, en el lado humano de la división. De manera interesante, todavía no hay fósiles que vinculen ese ancestro (que no sea ni chimpancé ni humano) a los chimpancés modernos. Tal ves esto sea debido a que los chimpancés viven en las selvas, que no proveen buenas condiciones para la fosilización. Si acaso, ¡los chimpancés, no los humanos, son los que tienen el derecho a quejarse de los eslabones faltantes!

Otras preocupaciones acerca de los significados son las supuestas espaciaciones denominadas “formas transicionales” entre los principales grupos como los reptiles y pájaros, o los peces y los anfibios. “Produzcan sus intermedios”. Los evolucionistas muy a menudo responden a ese reto de los negadores de la historia a base de lanzarles los huesos del Archaeopterys, el famoso “intermedio” entre “reptiles” y los pájaros. Este es un error. El Archeopterys no es la respuesta al reto, debido a que no hay un reto que valga la pena contestar. El poner un solo fósil famoso como el Archeopterys satisface una falsedad. De hecho, para una gran cantidad de fósiles, un buen caso pudiera ser hecho de que cada uno de ellos es un intermedio entre algo y algo más.

Los más tontos de estos retos de “eslabones perdidos” son los siguientes dos: (o variaciones de ellos, de los cuales hay muchos). El primero, “si la gente proviene de los monos a través las ranas y los peces, ¿entonces por qué el registro fósil no contiene una “monana”? Y en segundo lugar, “creeré en la evolución cuando vea a una mona dar a luz a un bebé humano”. Este último caso lleva a cabo el mismo error de todos los demás, y además, uno adicional: el de pensar que un cambio evolucionario importante sucede de un día para otro.

Bueno, por supuesto los monos no descendieron de las ranas. Ningún evolucioniesta sano alguna vez lo dijo; o que los patos descendieran de los cocodrilos o viceversa. Los monos y las ranas comparten un ancestro, el cual ciertamente tiene fósiles parecidos a la salamandra, que están fechados en el tiempo correcto. Sin embargo, ese no es el punto. Cada una de las millones de especies de animales comparten un ancestro con algúna otra. Si su entendimiento de la evolución está tan distorcionada que considera que debieramos esperar ver una “monana” o un “patodilo”, también debieramos ser sarcásticos acerca de la ausencia de un perropótamo o de un elefanpancé.

Ciertamente, ¿por qué limitarse a los mamíferos? ¿Por qué no una canguracha (intermedio entre canguro y cucaracha) o un pulpardo (intermedio entre pulpo y leopardo)? Existe una cantidad infinita de nombres animales que se pudieran conjuntar de esa manera. Por supuesto los hipojillones o descendieron de los perros o viceversa. Los chimpancés no descendieron de los elefantes o viceversa, al igual que los monos no descendieron de las ranas. Ninguna especie moderna descendió de alguna otra especie moderna (si dejamos fuera divisiones muy recientes). Al igual que usted puede encontrar fósils que se aproximen a un ancestro común de una rana y un mono, de esta manera usted puede encontrar fósiles que se aproximan a un ancestro común de elefantes y chimpancés. En cuanto al segundo reto, una vez más, los humanos no descendieron de los monos. Compartimos un ancestro común con los monos. Como sucede, el ancestro común se hubiera parecido más a un mono que a un hombre, y ciertamente lo probable es que le hubiéramos llamado un mono si lo hubiéramos encontrado, hace unos 25 millones de años. Sin embargo, aun cuando los humanos evolucionaron de un ancestro que pudiéramos sensatamente llamar un mono, ningún animal le da nacimiento en un instante a nuevas especies, o cuando menos ninguna tan diferente como sí misma como un hombre lo es de un mono, o aun de un chimpancé. Esto no es de lo que se trata la evolución. La evolución no solamente es un proceso gradual como asunto de hecho; tiene que ser gradual si ha de poderse explicar. Lo saltos enormes en una sola generación -lo que sería similar a un mono dando a luz a un humano sería -casi tan improbable como una creación divina, y son eliminadas por la misma razón: estadísticamente demasiado improbable. Sería tan bueno si aquellos que se oponen a la evolución tomaran un poco de tiempo para aprender los rudimentos más simples de qué es a lo que ellos se oponen.

Seleccionado de The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, (El espectáculo más grande sobre la Tierra: la evidencia de la evolución) por Richard Dawkins, © 2009 . Reproducido con permiso de Free Press, una división de Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Encuentre este artículo en http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140
© 2009

Por favor lea mis comentarios en las 3 siguientes partes de "Respuesta a 'El evolucionista enojado'"



]]> http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry091107-044807 Felix Rocha Martinez Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:48:07 GMT http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/comments.php?y=09&m=11&entry=entry091107-044807 http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry091107-042907
Respuesta a “El evolucionista enojado”, primera parte

Evolución, sí; Carlos Darwin, para nada

Mi teoría dice: La evolución se repite en el desarrollo (lo que pasa en los testículos, ovarios y hueveras) y en la gestación (lo que sucede en la matriz), cada especie de acuerdo a sí misma.



Por lo tanto, no necesito de fósiles para demostrar que la evolución es un hecho. Las diferentes etapas de gestación son, por supuesto, los pasos intermedios de la evolución. Tampoco necesito desperdiciar tanto tiempo en aclarar el porqué de la denominada “explosión cámbrica”. En mi teoría, de manera natural, a través de toda la evolución, los “de repente” son parte integral de la misma. Tampoco necesito aclarar que si somos hermanos o primos lejanos o descendientes compartidos de otros seres, dado que la teoría dice muy claro que cada especie es de acuerdo a sí misma. Tampoco necesito desperdiciar mi tiempo con eslabones perdidos. Si la evolución se repite en los procesos de los testículos, ovarios y hueveras, y en la gestación, me sentiré defraudado si los que más saben al respecto no los puntualizan y los dan a conocer.

Dos leyes gobiernan las mutaciones (1) Los cambios toman el curso del mínimo esfuerzo y (2) Cada vez que hay un cambio deja huellas, evidencias, vestigios, cicatrices.

La evolución del ser humano



Otra manera de ilustrarlo



Todos los cambios de la evolución se reflejan en el cuerpo.

La vida inicia con burbujas vacías de doble capa de ácidos grasos. ¿Cómo se refleja en el cuerpo?

En la edición de noviembre de 1995, de la revista Discover, en la página 71, en un artículo titulado “La primera célula”, escrito por Carl Zimmer, el biofísico David Deamer, de la Universidad de California en Santa Cruz, nos relata su encuentro con la primera célula. "Por muchos años, para la mayoría de los científicos que buscaban el origen de la vida, los genes lo eran todo". Pero Deamer les sigue recordando: "Sin un recipiente para esos genes, no puede haber vida".

Deamer dice que la importancia de la membrana de una célula para la vida es a menudo mal apreciada. La gente dice: "Bueno, es sólo una bolsita". Pero es mucho más. Es la interfase entre la vida y todo lo que hay fuera. La membrana de cualquier célula tiene que hacer muchas cosas a la vez. Tiene que ser lo suficientemente permeable como para mantener las cosas esenciales en su interior (como el ADN), y las cosas dañinas afuera de ella (como los virus y venenos). Sin embargo, la célula no puede formar un sello perfecto. Tiene que ser capaz de eliminar los desperdicios y calor de su propio sistema y de introducir los nutrientes del medio ambiente que la rodea.

Y la primera membrana de la célula, al igual que la membrana de muchos organismos de una sola célula del día de hoy, probablemente también tuvo que tener la capacidad de recolectar energía. Después de 18 años de investigación, Deamer considera que encontró ese origen: burbujas vacías de dos capas fabricadas por la naturaleza en charcas a la orilla del mar. Al estar constituidas de ácidos grasos, llenan los requisitos para ser lo suficientemente permeables y tolerar la entrada de algunos materiales, no permitir la entrada de otros, dejando salir los desperdicios y el calor.

Hay una enorme variedad de ácidos grasos y cada uno permite la entrada de materiales diferentes que empiezan su desarrollo dentro de un ambiente protegido. De esta manera, tenemos el origen de tantas especies diferentes. La única cosa que tienen en común es que originalmente fueron burbujas vacías, pero de diferentes materiales. De ahí en adelante, el desarrollo y gestación son diferentes hasta el presente. Todas las especies son diferentes de origen y, por lo tanto, el tronco común de Carlos Darwin no existe.

De esta manera, tenemos dos procesos de investigación totalmente diferentes, que llevados a cabo independientemente, llegaron a la misma conclusión. Uno, el estudio del desarrollo y gestación, y el otro, la investigación del medio ambiente a la orilla del mar en California llevada a cabo por el biofísico David Deamer y verificada en los laboratorios de la Universidad de California, en Santa Cruz. David Deamer aprendió en las charcas a la orilla del mar que la vida empieza con burbujas vacías y en mi teoría asevero que la vida empieza en burbujas vacías en los ovarios, en los testículos y en las hueveras de peces y de muchas otras especies.

Los testículos del varón empiezan a hacer espermatozoides creando burbujas vacias de doble capa de ácidos grasos. Si bien las burbujas de todas las especies son similares en apariencia, cada especie las conforma de diferente material y genera espermatozoides singulares por especie.



En el caso de las mujeres, éstas nacen con unas 400 mil burbujas vacías de doble capa de ácidos grasos de donde desarrollan 8 cada 28 días, aproximadamente, de las cuales escogen una ya convertida en óvulo.

En el pasado fuimos espermatozoides y óvulos en un medio ambiente acuático y en ese seguimos una vez unidos. En la matriz, el proceso de la evolución es repetido de acuerdo a la gestación.

En la revista Discover, edición de marzo de 1997, en la página 52 se publica un artículo denominado "Cuando la vida era rara" (When Life Was Odd). De ahí extraigo la siguiente información:

1. Los ediacaranes han sido una fuente de perplejidad científica desde que fueron descubiertos hace más de un siglo. Se llaman así por las colinas del sur de Australia donde se encontró un yacimiento importante en 1940, pero las impresiones en rocas de ediacaranes han sido encontradas en todo el mundo.

2. Estas impresiones en rocas que han sido localizadas en Inglaterra, África, Rusia, Canadá, México y en muchos otros lugares, tienen un rango de dimensión que va desde una fracción de centímetro hasta varios decímetros. Muchos tienen marcas de pliegues radiantes, concéntricos o paralelos; otros están inscritos dentro de una filigrana de delicadas ramas. Parecen no tener cabeza o cola y partes internas o externas, anteriores o posteriores; no tenían sistemas circulatorios, nerviosos o digestivos que fueran obvios. Sin dientes, ojos y casi cualquier cosa que podamos reconocer en un cuerpo, incluyendo huesos, músculos, boca y órganos internos, los ediacaranes son casi imposibles de clasificar. Los paleontólogos no pueden ni siquiera ponerse de acuerdo sobre si son animales o vegetales, de una célula o multicelulares y en medio tienen una depresión que indicaría un abultamiento de lo que haya hecho tal impresión.

3. Constituyen los fósiles más antiguos y los ejemplos más extraños de vida compleja y son interesantes por méritos propios. Tienen la apariencia de una moneda deforme.

4. Primero fueron encontrados en la década de 1860, en una cantera en Inglaterra y fueron descartados como material inorgánico. Después, en la década de 1940 fueron encontrados en las colinas de Ediacara, en el sur de Australia, de donde toman su nombre. El más famoso fue un ediacarán denominado “dikinsonia”, que pudiera ser del tamaño de la cabeza de un alfiler o tan grande como un mantel de mesa. En la década de 1950, el paleontólogo australiano Martin Glaessner de la Universidad de Adelaide, hizo la audaz afirmación de que la mayoría de los ediacaranes eran los miembros más antiguos de familias de animales que todavía existen. Este concepto prevaleció hasta 1982.

En una de las etapas de nuestra gestación tenemos la apariencia de una moneda deforme de 2 capas y por el proceso de invaginación adquirimos un borde por el centro de la oblea. ¿Acaso pudiera ser que el borde que tenemos en esa etapa de gestación es la depresión existente en la dikinsonia?



Con la nueva teoría evolutiva por saltos aquí propuesta, la ciencia tendrá una herramienta que bien pudiera ayudar a resolver las incógnitas presentadas por los ediacaranes. Ciertamente, se tendrá que estudiar el desarrollo y la gestación de especie tras especie, tener un comparativo gigante con todas las imágenes del proceso y comparar los fósiles encontrados de ediacaranes con estas imágenes.

En la siguiente mutación, la oblea elíptica se dobló sobre su eje más largo, soldando las orillas. Uno de los extremos se transformó en la cabeza y el otro en la cola. La parte central interior de esta formación cilíndrica se convirtió en un aparato digestivo simple. La mutación en general tiene la apariencia de un caballito de mar: una cabeza y cola grandes, botijón y sin extremidades. Definitivamente, todos los seres humanos pasamos a través de una etapa de evolución con la apariencia de un caballito de mar. De esta transformación, todos cargamos la evidencia de la mutación.

Todos, hombres y mujeres, y todos los demás mamíferos tenemos una cicatriz que va de la garganta a la zona genital. Cada vez que se soldan dos pieles tenemos una cicatriz —por eso, el libro se llama “Cicatrices”. Éstas son los vestigios que nos recuerdan nuestra evolución sin depender de los fósiles, y todos las tenemos. Por cierto, en las mujeres, cuando están en los últimos meses de embarazo, pareciera que la cicatriz a medio vientre se pudiera abrir, pero por supuesto esto no sucede. También los hombres de mucho pelo en pecho tienen una línea muy notoria que va de la garganta a la zona genital en la cual el pelo o se aproxima más o se aleja más precisamente sobre la cicatriz. ¿Tuvimos branquias e intestino grueso en esta etapa de gestación? Si tuvimos las branquias significaría una prueba más de nuestro origen acuático. Si sólo tuvimos intestino delgado, eso definiría el origen del apéndice. En otra mutación el intestino grueso fue añadido, pero no al final, en el ano, sino un poco arriba. La distancia del intestino delgado entre el antiguo ano y el lugar en donde se añadió el intestino grueso, se convirtió en el apéndice. En este punto de la evolución tuvimos gónadas cerca de los riñones y éramos autorreproductivos, al igual que algunos de los caballitos de mar.

En un artículo titulado "Creando a los Creadores", publicado en la edición de octubre de 1996 en la revista “Discover”, el doctor Stephen Jay Gould (murió el 20 de mayo de 2003), catedrático de la Universidad de Harvard y uno de los más reconocidos evolucionistas —mas no por eso darwinista— enumera los requisitos que debe cumplir una nueva teoría:

1. Los cambios evolutivos deben ser caprichosos y de potencial latente. Explica que los seres no pueden tener estructuras enormemente complejas sólo para resolver problemas del presente, pues con eso lo que aseguran es no tener futuro. Adicionalmente, cuestiona la posibilidad de que se pudiera construir un ala si ésta debiera pasar por una serie de etapas intermedias, pues el cinco por ciento de un ala no confiere ningún beneficio posible para el vuelo. Y continúa: ¿cómo podría la evolución construir el ala de un pájaro del antebrazo de un pequeño dinosaurio corredor, si las etapas iniciales de la transición putativa no pueden funcionar en absoluto para el vuelo? Una hilera de plumas en un antebrazo (cinco por ciento de un ala, por ponerle un número), no puede ayudar al vuelo, pero las plumas también funcionan magníficamente como instrumentos termorreguladores para conservar calor.

De esta manera, las plumas pudieron haber evolucionado de las escamas de los reptiles para una función inicial de termorregulación. Sólo después pudieron haber sido coadaptadas, utilizadas para dos funciones: la original de termorregulación y para volar cuando fueran más numerosas y suficientemente elaboradas como para proveer ventajas aerodinámicas. De esta manera, las estructuras evolucionadas para retener calor tienen un potencial latente para su uso en vuelo, una capacidad originalmente inesperada que pudiera convertirse en importante, cuando los órganos se hacen más elaborados o cuando las condiciones medioambientales cambian.

2. Consideremos otra paradoja que nos ayudará a explicar el por qué las adaptaciones exquisitas no pueden proveer una fuente primaria de la creatividad de la evolución (sino por el contrario, actuarán como impedimento para novedades evolucionarias sustanciales). En los órganos y partes del cuerpo, el principio de la redundancia encuentra expresiones primarias en el concepto de "los excesos en diseño" o "en los márgenes de seguridad". Dos (o más) estructuras a menudo llevan a cabo la misma función básica. Esta "generosidad" pudiera beneficiar a un organismo en el presente inmediato (al igual que una llanta de refacción salva a un conductor), pero la capacidad extra también permite una evolución creativa en direcciones novedosas, como la llanta de refacción que se puede convertir en algo maravillosamente diferente y el auto continúa funcionando.

3. Los primeros dos principios son totalmente generales en la evolución. Comparten la propiedad de flexibilidad (por potencial latente y redundancia) contra la tendencia de la selección natural a producir una forma a la medida del medio ambiente, predeterminando de esta manera la destrucción del organismo en el largo plazo geológico, en la medida en que inevitablemente cambian los medios ambientes de manera importante. El ser humano evoluciona alrededor de la flexibilidad. Al tener un cerebro más grande, el cuerpo se acondiciona a tener un periodo de aprendizaje más largo que el resto de las especies, y de esta manera pospone la madurez intelectual y sexual a fin de tener un periodo de entrenamiento más largo para encarar los retos de la vida y obtener las herramientas para evolucionar continuamente.

Al comparar los conceptos que el doctor Stephen Jay Gould exige para una nueva teoría de la evolución con lo aquí expuesto, vemos que llena en muy alto grado sus especificaciones. Los cambios caprichosos y el potencial latente (las mutaciones), los vimos claramente en la transformación de un elipsoide de 2 capas y una protuberancia por invaginación a un ser humano con apariencia similar a un caballito de mar, con una enorme cabeza (42 por ciento de la distancia de la parte superior del craneo al coxis) y una cola.

Podemos observar la redundancia y el potencial latente en nuestra piel. Ésta no sólo sirve como envoltura para nuestro cuerpo, sino que también llena las funciones de otro pulmón y otro riñón (la piel respira y expele toxinas a través de la transpiración). En una posible mutación en el futuro, la piel pudiera transformarse, digamos, en algo con capacidad de soportar los rayos infrarrojos del sol sin perturbar aquellas funciones, pues ya tenemos riñones y pulmones que las llevan a cabo.

El cerebro es una máquina maravillosa, pero lo utilizamos sólo en una pequeña proporción. Su flexibilidad potencial para cambios es enorme, debido a que los hombres permanecemos como niños toda nuestra vida. Esa es la razón por la que insisto en que, si el primer derecho de un ser humano es el derecho a nacer, el segundo debe ser el derecho a tener una madre de tiempo completo. Las futuras mutaciones pudieran ser llevadas a cabo esencialmente a través de la crianza de los bebés, enseñándoles (con la ayuda de técnicas modernas) a usar una proporción más grande del cerebro. Esto en realidad sería el cambio sin cambio: el mismo cuerpo, pero el uso de una proporción mayor del cerebro (las mujeres tienen el poder de hacerlo, si tan sólo dejaran atrás el concepto presente de querer ser iguales al hombre, cuando son tan abrumadoramente superiores, para el mejoramiento de la especie). Por favor, lea el artículo “La biología no es justa” en este mismo blog.

¿Cuántas mutaciones hubo? Las mismas que etapas de desarrollo, las cuales están repetidas en la gestación.

Por favor pase a la segunda parte de "Respuesta a 'El evolucionista enojado'".

]]> http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/index.php?entry=entry091107-042907 Felix Rocha Martinez Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:29:07 GMT http://www.cicatrices.com.mx/comments.php?y=09&m=11&entry=entry091107-042907