Orangutans and Humans - History Forum ~ All Empires

My queen Cleopatra(joking) the things you are wrote are facts. But there are many dark spots. For example if we accept Darwin(which is prooved to be wrong) there are many gaps. For example how the man eventually start walking in the way that is walking now. The monkeys(or apes) the were walking using their hands. There is no proove of how that evolution happened. Darwin said that this occured through a random mutation.

Samos national guard.

260 days left.

Perikles,

Quote;

"There are huge gaps in evolution using that kind of methods. These gap cannot be explained by these methods and so they assumed that that became through random mutations. We must find a different way. If i knew i would be a doctor. The random mutations is something you can accept? "

Precisely that is The Problem.

Though, even if the explanation of evolution is still far from complete, it is still the best we have - as a basis for investigating the processes of creation - to understand how the nature of this globe grew to become what it is.

In our day and age we may understand that the religious texts have been created for political and not scientific purposes. Though, we may find that some of the major mythologies have a different queality altogether, sicne the "pre-religous" cultures indeed tried to investigate the very same question and carry their aquired knowledge through generations. Unfortunatley these schools of knowledge and wisdom was lost, subjected to political subjugation, stigmatisation and political violence. Add two millenias of philosophical retardation and religous deception we end up with the present understanding og these ancient myths, namely that we do not have the insight required to understand them...

Lucklily the fundamental teocraties of the middle ages lost its grip and during the rennesaince we got a renewal of the classical sciences, where logic, reason, objective investigation and critical discussions was re-introduced - as the parameters of philosophy.

Thanks to the re-introduction of the classical philisophy and science the natural sciences could re-cover and evolve, fluorishing into the various branches of science that may support our present curiousity about the nature we have around, within and behind us.

At the turn of the 19th century we finally had Wallace, Darwin and Lamarck presenting the idea of evoution. Since then there have been numerous discoveries within biology that confirm the general outline of the evolutionary process - as a general ramafication to understand the magnitude and multitude of the species inhabitting this earth. But - as you most corresctly point to; the very process that have to explain the multitude of species is NOT sufficently explained - yet.

It is little or no doubt that both Darwin and Wallace was at a loss over this specific question. But, since it is a criticial one - to explain A logic, behind the obvious fact of evolution as it could be observed - they "needed" a logical explanation, to validate their observations. With the help of Lamarck they found the most "reasonable" solution, explaining speciation as the result of "adjustment and fitness", introducing the term "natural selection".

And there we are - still today. Darwins "genetic overflow" and consequent "mutation" are still far from being confirmed, by any experiment or observation. Thus there is a serious link missing, in the whole theory. Seemingly.

So what did Darwin not look into?

Opposing the old dogma of the fundamental religion Darwin had to endure a heavy pressure from evry nook and corner of his contermporary society. If the religous fundamentalists had got their will he would have been sentenced for heresy - if not burned on a stake. And still, due to the massive biblical impact on Darwin and his contemporary culture - he was unable to grasp the enormous difference in TIME that separates the Biblical story of creation, with the creational process behind his own observations. Darwins first and foremost issue was to prove that the stages of evolution DID exist, while he was trying his best to explain why and how. Being antagonized by each and evry theologican all later Darwinists/Biologists have - for obvious reasons - continued to oppose the ignorants that kept insisting that the world was just about six thousand years old - as the result of a "Divine Creator". But in so doing they may have been trapped - into what we may call a philosophical "catch 22".

The problem starts with the stringent, persistent and fundamental argument AGAINST anything that contradicts Darwins theory on HOW the multitude of species occured - namely "mutation". Thanks to modern biology we have started to learn how the nitty-gritties of biological herritage works.

Today we know all the rows of genes that substantiate the very construct of all living things - cucumbers as primates alike. And one of the major findings in modern genetics is the mere fact that gens do NOT adjust to "environmental circumstances". A specie can adjust - and most clearly do so - by using its genes in varous ways. But the genes by themself do not mutate - they just adjust, by different levels of activation, to the signals given by to chromosomes. Thus we see various families arise - within one and the same specie. Thus we may - even - use Lamarcks theorem of "inherrited capavilities" to explain how the human specie have grown into different branches (etnicities/races), as a result of separation - where the different regional conditions made us mutate into aboriginals, amerindians, chineese, indians, africans and europeans.

But still we have not explained how the first human being occured - since there are no signs of proof that we started as a "odd" mutation of a monkey. And there are no "circumstantial realms" that may indicate a need for the ancient monkeys to mutate into a human being. (Unless the first human beings are the successors of a arctic race of monkeys that adapted by becomming human beings - since they would need to learn how to build houses with a fireplace a sauna and a food-storage, to survive...)

Although it is clear that the Chimps are very close to us geneticly, there is still a crucial link missing from the chain of evidence needed to explain our existence. directly contradicts the theory of "mutation" as the driving factor behind adaption and "natural selection" as an explanation to the creation of NEW species...

So then, what on earth could the missing factor be, that ?

Recently the geneticans have found that we also have a very close genetic relationship to the Dolphins. Whic in turn descended from the Goat, according to the same geneticans - who keep wondering why this higher mammal chose to "go back to the Ocean".

Well, besides this Sea-Goat we seem to be having the Goat and The Monkey as the highest mammals existing on this planet - before the "naked monkey" with the vocal sounds occured. Which actually gives us ONE more possibility for the creation of the human kind - namely cross-breeding.

In nature we may observe cross-breeding between close species all the time. Thus a horse and a donkey creates a HYBRIDE, called a mule. Further it is a GENERAL RULE that such crossings dont re-produce. BUT, it is known from that hybrid plants - such as avocado and morins - are reproducing like heck.

Another thing about cross-breeding of plants and animals is the posibility it gives the human culture - to improve on its surroundings by "CHOICE and SELECTION".

Thus we may find that the Darwinists have to make a small adaption themselves - and look in some of the more dusty corners of modern science, where we will find the myths of Genesis, where the first naked apes were made - as a cross-breed between a monkey and a dolphin or goat. It may have been numbers of these hybrids before - ine day - there were two of them existing that were able to mate and successfully REPRODUCE. Thus our myths can talk about a "Garden of Eden" were the first man were able to create off-springs, such as Adam and Eve. Who in turn got kids, who eventually succeded to populate the earth - before the great deluge splitted the braches from its original stem, to create the various MUTATIONS we know today - of human beings, animals and plants alike - that inhabit the various continents.

If man have been on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years we may have to admit that the intelligence of our speaking ancestors were not particularly lower than ours. Thus we may have to accept that the ancient civilsations had the ability to create cross-breeds of both plants and animals too - by study, acquired knowledge and a cultural purpose. Which may provide us with the missing link needed to explain the creative imperative behind the specific multitude of species our nature hold. Some of that multitude can be explained as a millenial process of creation and re-creation made by our ancient ancestors that later created a series of incredible artefacts and enormous megalitts - as well as perfect pyrmaids - all around the globe.

If the issue is to find a logic explanation to the creation of the species it's time to to release Darwin from the teosophic catch this debate have spun into. To do so we need to read the major myths with a clear scientific objectivity - rather than fundamental scepticism or emotional claims.

Be good or be gone.

Nobody said to discard mutations. These are facts. The think that makes me be suspicious is that the possiility of an succesfully mutation is very low. And in the Darwin thoy are many of these in almost any species. Thats way i am thinking that something else must happen.
Religion as Boreasi said is not science. It depends on the culture of people the priests ar talking. Look for example the first book of bible. There are like fairy tails. Or Korani. Huge amounts of rise and many beautiul women fo those who go to heaven. These are not true of course.
One that maks me wonder is came from UK offical church. That the hell is the dissapeaence of the soul. So what is the soul? what is then the heaven? and if there is soul how come the darwin theory is getting along with that? I don't know. The one is for sure (for me). That we are not have the same ancsors humans and animals.
Although the dna is similar we must don't forget that we have similar operations. We breath, the heart beats, the msucles are lmost the same, the reproduction ioperation is pretty much the same(The quality changes)

I don't know what to think!
Is it God? We all came from ape and BIg boom? THere are aliens? who knows?

Samos national guard.

260 days left.