CHARLES DARWIN REFUTING essay by Claudio Rigoni

                                                 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 ...