INTRODUCTION
"The Temple
of science is a multiform construction. Men and spiritual forces that frequent
it are very different. Some people feel joyful exercise his intellectual
strength; Science is for them only the sport more suitable to satisfy their
vital energies and satisfy their ambitions. Others enter there willing to lay
down his gray matter at the service of utilitarian goals. If an angel of the
Lord appeared and expel the temple to all who belong to these two categories is
possible this was nearly empty"
Albert Einstein (my view of the world)
Many times I have wondered: do in this last time, not to say in these last decades not appeared biologists, professors or scientists with a capacity to rebut one of the main deductions, not to say the principal of Charles Robert Darwin evolution theory as it is the origin of the human species?
I understand that it is not for lack of interest. I guess
it may be out of fear. Fear of being wrong?
Fear of ridicule? to be criticized or discredited professionally or
socially? Does perhaps fearing a condemn
religious? Finally, there may be many
reasons, but sure that with all the scientific and technological advances of
recent decades should overrun the instruments to make the necessary
observations and achieve a demonstration and understanding objective of the
true origin of man.
This trial that I present some read as a matter of
science fiction; others read it with the seriousness that it deserves, even if
it seems bizarre; I just hope they serve to cultivate a spirit of reflection
and research on this subject.
Anyway, now you verify its likelihood, and accredit the
possibilities that this other theory can be really certain.
Claudio Marcelo Rigoni
CHARLES DARWIN REFUTING
Another theory about the origin of the
human species
With all the respect that I deserve the hero British Charles Darwin as naturalist, biologist, researcher and scholar of the species, I am convinced and encourage you to hold in this work that his conclusion about the origin of the human species was wrong.
Now, prove that
he was wrong and to try to convince the public it is not easy task, not only
because of the implications of this refutation, but because even in the year
2013 for many people this new theory may be extraordinary, crazy, crazy or may
even reject it for religious reasons. But at the end and Cape also Darwin in
his time called it's fanciful, and some of his colleagues scoffed at their
conclusions.
Intrigued by the
geographic distribution of wildlife and fossils collected on his journey,
Darwin investigated over the fact of the transmutation of species and conceived
his theory of natural selection in 1838.
Worth clarifying
that I recognize all its investigative work, its great capacity for observation
and analysis, and at the same time his courage not only by having sailed seas
and inhospitable land (for its time) aboard the Brig "Beagle" by our
Malvinas Islands and the Beagle Channel with its effort and scientific passion,
but I also agree with almost all of its conclusions of the General theory of
species but not her second book related to the origin of the human species.
The origin of
species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of the race favorite
in the struggle for life, published in 1859, established that the explanation
of diversity observed in nature is due to modifications accumulated by the
evolution over successive generations.
In natural
selection examples and cases of Darwin appear to be sufficient when it comes to
marine species, birds, and mammals, but the same arguments are not completely
convincing when he tries to explain the origin of the human species as derived
or descended from a species of monkeys.
It is at least
objectionable from several points of view, and several decades later with
technological advances and experiences as possibilities for study, scientific
observation and other observations or findings that later I will explain, that
is can challenge the part of the theory that holds that man descended from
monkeys.
It is here that
the theory of selective chain and evolutionary is with a "missing
link" because we see a huge change or very incredible leap between the
monkey and the man in the physical and intellectual development, and then
awarding them only to natural selection and the passage of time becomes almost
whimsical, and this part of the theory is eclectic in a way that does not close
even for scientists, anthropologists, lay or ecclesiastical.
Let's say that
both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man had bony structures, and skeletons similar
to modern man, but the structure of their skulls are well distinct. In the same
way we could compare if you want some prehistoric felines with some current and
while they could have a common ancestor, or a similar in your family tree,
still considering possible genetic mutations, this shows accurately enough
offspring.
E.g. would it be
valid to say that intelligence develops over time when there is no other animal
species that possess the intelligence of man?
And yet there
are many species believed to have evolved in parallel with the man. We put the
case in the marine species, and have cases such as dolphins, orcas, octopuses
and sharks with some degree of intelligence; just the shark is one of the
prehistoric long instinct but with lack of intelligence. Another example can be
the killer whale which with the passage of the years was gaining territory in
relation to the sperm whale; However, the brain of the sperm whale is larger,
but its large body size and slowness, coupled with the depletion of Whaling
ships have left this species endangered.
I understand
that there have been doing million-year-old species that have been adapted to
the big climate changes from extreme cold to intense heat, and with the passing
of the centuries its adaptability led to mutations in the forms, bodies, colors
of skin, etc. Still this part of perhaps valid theory to explain the evolution
and emergence of new land animals like birds, fish, insects and even plants,
but precisely for this reason it is that science (historians, biologists,
paleontologists and anthropologists) needs to locate a particular meridian
exactly the appearance of the man at the historical and geographical level.
Despite all the
explanations of the natural selection of the fittest, strongest, most beautiful
specimens and improvement with the passing of the centuries; There are so many
differences between those primates, apes or anthropoids and man that is
inconceivable to accept a big qualitative leap regarding the improvement of the
species, from a monkey to a cave man capable of designing weapons, tools and
with enough intelligence to draw and paint.
So I understand
and I conclude that the origin of the human race cannot be determined as a
simple natural evolution from a species of monkeys.
We then say that
the origin of man on Earth is indeed ancient, but that does not come from a
species of apes.
Now the question
is: if man does not descend from ape from who descends?
I think the good
thing about a theoretical rebuttal to a researcher is to present not only
doubts, shortcomings or contradictions in a set theory, but to present a more
realistic, compelling, logical and although bold having a clearer explanation,
sign and present.
Remember that
after Darwin's theory about the evolution of species and the selection be
world-renowned natural through the struggle for the life of organisms or
"struggle for life" appeared criticisms with regard to the example of
the fish that changed their fins or former members to convert them into wings
and bird species originate.
On the origin of
man, Darwin applied the evolution of natural selection theory to human
evolution with special emphasis on the importance of sexual selection. In
addition the book discusses many other aspects of evolutionary psychology,
evolutionary ethics, and differences between the different races of human
beings as well as the key role of women in the choice of mating partners.
The main
conclusion which will reach, and that currently many naturalists, support is
also that man descended from some less organized form. The fundamentals on
which rests this conclusion because of the close similarity between man and the
lower animals in embryonic development, as well as countless points of
structure and constitution, both as none importance (the rudiments that
preserves and abnormal reversals that are occasionally prone) are facts that
leave some doubt.
Seems more
reasonable version of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in that animal, vegetable
organisms, etc are adapting to the environment and the climate, and thus
produce their transformations, varieties or subspecies that are developed and
become more efficient to survive, explaining as well them changes in the
evolution of species; and not in a mere natural selection of the fittest.
Also in this
same sense are expressed Spencer when he explains the survival of the most
efficient. Understanding efficiency in biological terms by the possibilities of
leaving offspring and last over time.
Everything was
leading to Neo Darwinism, where achieves acceptance version of mutations
according to Hugo de Vries and finally comes the genetic explanation of Mendel.
This last is
what I consider the most successful. It is which had increased development and
scientific checks. To such an extent that today we are talking about medical
genetics, DNA and even have genetic data banks.
Now as to the
origin of man itself, is where I disagree with Darwin in ' The Descent of Man,
and Selection in Relation to Sex' (1871)
I would argue
that just the man is not the result of evolution natural of a species of
monkey, but on the contrary the man is a genetic "hybrid" developed
artificially by superior beings with an existence of thousands of years earlier
than ours.
There are
serious doubts about the exact place and time of the appearance of the man
still in 2013.
Some
paleontologists put it on the African continent, but even if they didn't the
man a contemporary of dinosaurs, recent archaeological discoveries estimated
that the man could have lived with some species of dinosaurs, and even have
domesticated to some of them. Remember that not all dinosaurs were carnivorous.
I give you a
link that discusses engraved stones of Ica:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQXk8XX_Nvo
For Darwin the
man was an incipient species with racial varieties. But the man had other
origin and form of development.
We know that
hundreds of species have gone extinct on the planet. We conceive the evolution
but also involution.
We also know
that new species have been discovered in recent decades. Many more species in
the future will surely are discovered. For example in the great forests of
Canada or in the Amazon rainforest.
Let's not forget
that man has just explored the depths of the seas 10%. Here I want to mention a
recent discovery of a creature way Navy humanoid as sirens views and drawn at
different times by sailors. With a very peculiar feature: its head has a
similar to the human skull and he has recorded it is communicating with
dolphins. What does no doubt his intelligence. Once the man managed to take
this specimen in captivity you can study it and elucidate their origin but it
would be a mistake to consider it a simple fish, since it could learn a lot
from it.
Here I give you a link for more information on the
internet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGOkluzToYM
I propose that
we not be short-sighted in our analysis, and do an analysis with universal
criteria.
As you know the
man only has only explored 0,000000000000000000001% of our universe (perhaps
missing some zeros).
If the Earth has
hundreds of millions of years, life on Earth is millions of years, and our
planet is one among thousands in a universe with hundreds of Suns, and almost
infinite, and with hundreds of millions of years of existence... so only by a
law of mathematical probability we should also accept the existence of life on
other planets.
Now, the
question is: can we be so egocentric or unbelieving hold that we are the first
human organisms in the universe?
Then I wonder it
cannot be that man is a creature from a kind of genetic experiment of higher
beings? Why not?
I am referring
to beings like us today we make genetic manipulation and create cloned animals
or of test-tube babies; with a technology far superior to ours by thousands of
years of existence before our appearance, have been able to be them our
creators. Why not?
Is this taboo of
biologists, anthropologists, scientists and/or Governments and their space
agencies? Is it a matter so classified
and secret the existence of UFOS and extraterrestrial beings that have banned
the astronauts and military of almost all countries the public acceptance of
its existence?
It is an issue
of international security where they agreed the United States and Russia and
other countries with spatial development?
Specifically, I
contend not descend a variety of monkey that we descend from a variety of being
from another planet. That man is not neither more nor less than a creation of
laboratory, made by superior beings, with an existence thousands of years
previous to ours. And this theory doesn't rule out at all the existence of God.
I say that we
have left in this planetary zoo so we fight for our lives and with our survival
instinct we grow or progress over time.
In case have
they been monitoring our evolution?
They have moral
or ethical standards in relation to us?
It has seen and
filmed in almost all countries of the world.
On the other
hand, the question is what do they do today on our planet? It is clear that if they wanted us to conquer
already would have done so a few centuries ago.
For western
culture and the eastern who generated life should value it. So that we could
infer that they are peaceful. When they were pursued by the air force from
different countries always they evaded and escaped at an incredible speed.
It is believed
that they use our natural resources, which feed on algae and fish, and also of
cattle (animals whose organs were cut as with laser in different countries).
There are also many reported cases of abduction, even some military which was
then returned with life (Chile), where there were several soldiers witnesses.
Just see notes
with the Google search engine or YouTube footage, or documentaries from the
History Channel where spend footage and testimonies of commercial pilots,
pilots of air force, University professors and UFOlogists.
The interesting
thing is that these events have occurred and occur in many countries of the
world. And apparently have occurred hundreds of years ago.
Could it be that
they don't want to share their knowledge and technology with the man because
they still considered immature for both advancement?
If we reflect a
little we realize that technological progress or scientific discovery of the
man has not only helped to improve the quality of human life, but also to destroy
it, as for example the use of nuclear energy.
I understand
this also as part of the struggle for life, for the survival of the fittest or
the most efficient. I do not mean to the daily struggle of man, but also to
armed conflicts or wars.
Now well will
man evolve so that one day the problems of health, housing and food of all can
be solved? Do or will continue like any
animal destroying their ecosystem and causing climate changes to which must
then readjust if manhood can?
I invite you to
see an autopsy recorded more than 50 years ago of an extraterrestrial being
taken out of a spaceship that fell in Roswell, desert of Arizona, United
States.
If you impressed
easily, do not look it. I give you the link to see it on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMVmZuhrR7w
Observe the
color of gray skin, the body shape and her face with big eyes and greater
cranial capacity.
Many doubted the
authenticity of the recording, but United States acknowledged the fall of UFOS,
and autopsy body is the same type of being that they describe other
testimonies. Although they mention different sizes; just as we have very tall
men and other dwarves.
This being has
much more similarity with the man than any ape species. This is evident. The
existence of these beings has already been evidenced in many countries and
testimonies and filming amateurs, professionals and military. The coincidence between
all of them in the last four decades is undeniable.
I don't think
that my version of the origin of man with God's existence has been
inconsistent. I believe in God as the creator of the universe.
Unlike the
renowned physicist Stephen Hawking that holds that for God does not exist
because the universe is created, while he conceives that the universe was born
from a first energy or mass, I think just that first energy or force is from
Creator God of the universe. I made this comment in English the same Hawking on
Facebook but I never responded... in fact the recent Nobel Prize in physics was
for the "God particle" theorists who conceive how subatomic particles
acquire mass forming the universe.
I also believe
in the Virgin Mary and our Lord Jesus Christ; and at the meeting of the beings
in another plane of existence. There is a theory of Albert Einstein and other
"string theory" which would serve to explain the continuity of
spiritual life, but I think that this topic deserves another trial.
Now without
differing religions I think that humanity should pray today, and must pray more
in the future for the survival of humanity itself.
It will continue ...
