A new theory of evolution: evolution by symbiosis

[Davide71]

 

As a first post I want to tell you something about me.

I elaborated a theory of the evolution of life on Earth that is based on Sacred texts from various traditions, Bible included, but at the same time agrees with scientific data. As a believer, I do not question that God is the ultimate responsible for the creation of any single being on Earth, in the past, in the present or in the future. My theory concerns how it happened historically and which entities drove it. Although I will use ideas taken from Intelligent design and Creationism, my theory works also on other concepts, like the idea that species are living beings, that laws of physics change over time, and that events like Noah's Ark happened every end of geological era.

I believe that modern scientific theory, that considers random genetic mutations and natural selection as the engine of evolution, is false and based on false proves, or false interpretation of scientific evidence. This theory has been pushed by the ruling classes at the time with the purpose of driving away people from religion and creating a materialistic society in which people are only concerned with producing and consuming.

I also believe that bacteria are the first lifeform on Earth and the rest of life was built in stages upon them, but I will explain myself further in  successive posts. Each of them will expound on a single aspect of my theory. I try to update this forum every week.

 

 

[Davide71]

Why science is unable to arrive to a plausible theory for the origin and evolution of life on Earth.

 

Someone asked me if I’m a scientist. This implies that, for them, deep scientific knowledge is essential in coming up with a good theory. Here I want to explain why this is not the case.

Modern science is the product of the scientific mentality, which has three distinctive features:

1)      It is rationalistic. It means that it completely ignores everything that can’t be controlled or measured.

 This makes perfect sense because a key component in the scientific method is the experiment. If I can’t control a phenomenon how can I do experiments on it? If we look at evolution, scientists believe (in fact they want us to believe) that it is triggered by random genetic mutations, which is something they can control. Unfortunately they made an enormous amount of experiment and they never found a single instance of evolution. I’m not talking about adaptation, for that there is plenty of evidence, I’m talking about developing a new feature in a species that hasn’t got it, for example feathers on a reptile, or lungs on a fish. By the way, evolution happens all the time: every time a caterpillar becomes a butterfly, or a tadpole becomes a frog, this is evolution. Evolution happens every time an embryo develops in a womb, or an egg is laid (if fecundated), or a seed sprouts. We may not be able, at this moment, to witness the first instance of evolution from a species to another, for which the former one “disappears” (in fact becomes a stage of the next one), but we can see plenty of evolution taking place if we want to. However we can’t control its cause. Now, because we can’t control it, scientists replaced it with something they can somehow control (genes) and tell us this is the cause, but since they couldn’t create a single instance of evolution the truth is that it’s not. Not only that, but because we will never be able to control it, we have to live with the fact that we will never be able to explain scientifically what it is. Simply put, evolution is not something that modern science can deal with.

2)      It’s mechanist. It means that it based on the assumption that any event happening in the material world has a material cause and every event happening in the psychic world has a psychic cause. The two domains do not interfere with each other.

This is clearly not the case when dealing with living beings. I personally believe that each and every living being is intelligent, and that you can’t explain everything about life without considering it. In fact modern science ignores the aspects of life it is uncomfortable with (for example the feelings of the animals used in  experiments), and intelligence is one of them. Science is mechanist because what it’s most interested with is in finding new technologies, not explaining how Nature works. Scientists, and their financial supporters, want results that can be converted in something useful. From a materialistic point of view, there is no point in understanding the real causes of evolution, because they can’t be controlled and no technology can ever be made out of them.

3)      Science in materialist. Most scientists believe there is nothing apart from the material world, and in particular there is not a domain that controls it. Even if they are believers (and many of them are) they just ignore the components of our world that are not materialistic because they are mechanist.

This attitude has gone so far as to think that God “kickstarted” the universe and that from that moment onwards it followed the “Laws of Nature”. Of course I completely reject this idea. Not only I believe that God intervenes continuously in the present world, but I don’t believe at all in the “Laws of Nature” as they are presented now, as immutable features of matter. There is no prove of it, and philosophically speaking is unsustainable. How can we possible think that matter, that is not intelligent, follows “laws”?

I’m sorry this post is long, but this is an extreme synthesis of the content of a book I wrote, that is way longer. I will be very happy to answer to any objections, but unfortunately I don’t have so much time available, as I can’t support myself financially with the sales of my book, and I don’t think I ever will.

[OceanBreeze]

Moderator Reply:

You admit that your “new theory of evolution” is not based of the science of biology but instead on an odd mixture of religious belief, intelligent design and creationism. Yet, you claim that it still conforms with “scientific data”. I find that very difficult to accept since you further state that you “believe that modern scientific theory, that considers random genetic mutations and natural selection as the engine of evolution, is false”

 

You have expressed some rather non-scientific, and even anti-scientific ideas in these two posts.

For example, your statement that “evolution happens all the time: every time a caterpillar becomes a butterfly, or a tadpole becomes a frog, this is evolution. Evolution happens every time an embryo develops in a womb, or an egg is laid (if fecundated), or a seed sprouts” is greatly at odds with what the mainstream science of biology says.

According to the mainstream science of biology you are confusing evolution with metamorphosis:

Individual organisms that undergo metamorphosis, undergo it during their own life span as part of their normal development or life cycle.

Human embryos undergo metamorphosis while in the womb.

It would not be incorrect to say that metamorphosis is a programmed biological process.

 

 Evolution, on the other hand, is something that happens to populations, over many generations.

Evolution occurs on a species level and is driven by natural selection and genetic variation.

It would not be correct to say that evolution is a programmed biological process.

Based on what you have written so far, your posts do not belong in the biology section, since biology is a science and based on the scientific method which is:  Unbiased, Falsifiable and Reproducible.

Your theory appears to be very biased, based on non-scientific facts and amounts to little more than a rant against science.

That being the case, I am forced to move your thread to Strange Claims.

You are free to continue to post your theory under that sub-category for now.

 

 

 

[Davide71]

Hi OceanBreeze,

the perfect place to put my theory, following your classification, should be Biology/Alternative theories/Strange claims. However I don't think you should, as a moderator, label something as "strange". "Alternative" should be enough to label it as non-mainstream. Not only that. What is considered scientifc now is not what has been considered scientific in the past, because science evolves, and I feel the right to criticise modern science in its attitude towards explanations that do not meet the present requirements for being "scientific".

As for your claim that science is unbiased, this is wishful thinking. I just wrote why it is biased. It is rationalist, mechanist and materialist. Modern science doesn't accept the idea of an intelligence operating in matters of evolution, while modern studies argue in favour of intelligence being spread throughout all living beings. Scientists claim that bacteria are intelligent, plants are intelligent and certainly animal are. Cartesian's claim that animal are machines has now been dismissed for good (I hope).

As for your main criticism, I follow the idea that ontogenesis reproduces phylogenesis, therefore every metamorphosis shows which evolutionary steps that species took to arrive where it is now. This idea is disputed, but there is nothing antiscientific in it.

Also, although my theory is not creationist, it involves God (or indeed a supernatural intelligence) at a certain point. Now, science never disproved the existence of God, and if God exists, it must play a part in the Evolution of Life on Earth. If you believe that any theory involving God is not-scientific and God exists, it may be that the right explanation for the Evolution of Life on Earth is not-scientific. If it's so, then certain aspects of evolution can't be reproducible, and therefore falsifiable, and we have to live with it. What we can do is to check that the theory proposed agree with scientific data.

This is what I claim. My theory agrees with scientific data better than neodarwinian's one, and agrees also with religion, if correctedly interpreted.

Those were my first posts, and I will follow them with others that explain the single aspects of my theory. 

 

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, Davide71 said:

Hi OceanBreeze,

the perfect place to put my theory, following your classification, should be Biology/Alternative theories/Strange claims. However I don't think you should, as a moderator, label something as "strange". "Alternative" should be enough to label it as non-mainstream. Not only that. What is considered scientifc now is not what has been considered scientific in the past, because science evolves, and I feel the right to criticise modern science in its attitude towards explanations that do not meet the present requirements for being "scientific".

As for your claim that science is unbiased, this is wishful thinking. I just wrote why it is biased. It is rationalist, mechanist and materialist. Modern science doesn't accept the idea of an intelligence operating in matters of evolution, while modern studies argue in favour of intelligence being spread throughout all living beings. Scientists claim that bacteria are intelligent, plants are intelligent and certainly animal are. Cartesian's claim that animal are machines has now been dismissed for good (I hope).

As for your main criticism, I follow the idea that ontogenesis reproduces phylogenesis, therefore every metamorphosis shows which evolutionary steps that species took to arrive where it is now. This idea is disputed, but there is nothing antiscientific in it.

Also, although my theory is not creationist, it involves God (or indeed a supernatural intelligence) at a certain point. Now, science never disproved the existence of God, and if God exists, it must play a part in the Evolution of Life on Earth. If you believe that any theory involving God is not-scientific and God exists, it may be that the right explanation for the Evolution of Life on Earth is not-scientific. If it's so, then certain aspects of evolution can't be reproducible, and therefore falsifiable, and we have to live with it. What we can do is to check that the theory proposed agree with scientific data.

This is what I claim. My theory agrees with scientific data better than neodarwinian's one, and agrees also with religion, if correctedly interpreted.

Those were my first posts, and I will follow them with others that explain the single aspects of my theory. 

 

You do not have a theory, you do not even have a hypothesis, what you have is baseless speculation. Science does not and cannot speak to the supernatural, for it to be science there has to be a way to test it, a way to show the truth of it. All you have is claims that you cannot back up, no evidence, nothing but your own incredulity, that is not science, not even close to science. Come back when you have actual evidence.  

[Diamonds]

On 6/26/2023 at 8:02 PM, Davide71 said:

I also believe that bacteria are the first lifeform on Earth and the rest of life was built in stages upon them, but I will

When I looked on the images of a book about fossils I was asthonised how they all were like one different part of a human body. There were fossils like ears, pelvis and so on. It looks like the human Being is made up from that kind on single parts put together.

But then I read Darwin Origin of species couple of Pages and he said there is also the Evolution of the parts or organs of the body. So Evolution can be just for seperated organs of a body not the wholeness of it. I was and am still satisfied with the science of Darwin. He has taken on account almost everything?

 

 

 

[Davide71]

Species are living beings

 

As I said in my first post, a key component of my theory of evolution is that species are living beings. In order to explain what I mean by that and why it’s important I have to start from far away.

The idea that a single living is formed by a community of beings should not come as a surprise, because every living being of some complexity is made out of cells, that are living beings. In our body cells are not free to do everything they want, but have to follow instructions that come in the form of chemical compounds. When they stop doing so they become cancerous and show some interesting behaviour. One of the problems in fighting cancer is exactly that cancerous cells become “smart”: for example they inhibit the time-bomb mechanism that kill them after some time (apoptosis).

Although we can’t but marvel at how well-organised our body is, considered its complexity, we still think that cells can be easily directed by means of chemicals and they are all interconnected by a network of blood vessels, nerves and lymphatic vessels. We can make sense of it. When we think that a being is made out of other beings that are completely separated from each other and independent we can’t really understand how this is possible.

There are scientific studies that show that beehives and anthills act as they were single living beings. It’s enough to have a close look at how they are organised to see it. They are called a “superorganism” because scientists are reluctant to give the status of “living being” to the whole colony. Scientifically, is very hard to demonstrate that a beehive is one creature and at the same time a multitude of creatures. Someone has to prove that there is an intelligence in the beehive, that is separated and at the same time connected with the intelligence of each individual. This task is clearly outside the scope of science because intelligence is immaterial (so much so that its existence is disputed) and resists any attempt to be measured (I hope you don’t take it seriously the QI tests).

Of course there are a few options if we want to explain the behaviour of ants or bees:

1)      Maybe any of them is so intelligent and so cooperative that it can figure out its place in the beehive and fulfil its duties independently from each other, and there is no need for a hierarchy or an overarching intelligence;

2)      Beehives are organised hierarchically, as human societies, with a chain of command that starts from the queen and goes through selected specimens till the working insects.

3)      Beehives are a single living being, and single individuals (whose nature of single living being is not in question) are somehow forced or pushed to cooperate with it.

These are the options that come out in my mind, but there may be others. I believe that, with a closer look at how colonies work and maybe some well designed experiments, we can single out the most likely option, but, scientifically speaking, we will never be sure.

As far as I’m concerned, the third one is the simplest option, therefore fulfilling the Occam razor’s rule, and most likely to be the correct one. As I said, I can’t be sure, but it can’t be ruled out either, and the best way to see if this idea is correct is to check what it can explain and what it cannot explain.

As for the other options, I’m not going to explore their strengths and weaknesses because I’m clearly biased, and this post is already long. However, with little thinking, we can see that they are highly problematic.

I can’t say I fully understand how it works, but this doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Theories are formulated before being proven! Moreover, I believe that the relationship between the superorganism and the single organisms may be conflictual, in the sense that sometimes they don’t do what the superorganism ask them to do. This means that, by observing a specimen, we can’t never be sure that it’s following its own will or the orders of the superorganism.

In my theory I took a step further. I think that every species (let’s define it, for now, as a population in which reproduction between its member is possible) is a single living being that coexists with each and every individual being. I argue that, for example, not only individual cats are living beings, but also "the cat". Of course we can point our fingers and indicate "a cat", but we cannot do this for "the cat". The body of the species "the cat" is the body of all cats living on our planet. This species was born when the first cat appeared on Earth, and will disappear (become extinct) when the last cat is dead. This living being coexists with single individual beings, and the relationship of coexistence is definitely not as straightforward as the one between bodies and single cells.

On top of all the questions that may arise, there is a very interesting one. Where is the species? If we look at a beehive, and we see it a superorganism, we easily assume that the centre of all decisions made in the colony is the queen. This doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true, but in our mind, if something exists, it must be somewhere! If a species exists a single being, in our conception, there should be something that plays the role of “centre of decision” for all its specimen. My conclusion is that certainly there is one, but it’s not located in the physical plane. As difficult as it may be to understand, I remind you that only animals have a brain, as to say something that can be considered the decisional centre for the all being (although I don’t believe it is, but this is another question). Plants do not have brains, but they are single living beings in which different sets of specialised cells cooperate for the sake of the plant. Is it possible that the single cells are independent and there is not an entity that coordinates their work. I don’t think so, but then, where is it?

While species play a vital role in my theories, for neodarwinian evolutionary science species do not even exist. They are just the product of the filter of natural selection on a stable environment. I find their position very problematic, because I think that, if it were the case, all living beings should be much more similar than what they appear.

 

Evidence to support the idea that species are living beings

 

Which scientific evidence can I present to support the idea that species are living beings? In theory, every argument that supports the theory of the selfish gene supports the idea that a species is a living being. In fact, is more sensible to believe that a population of living beings are also a single organism than to believe that a chemical compound has feelings and intelligence. Of course Stephen Dawkins didn’t believe that genes have feelings and intelligence, but he definitely used that expression to say that “Nature behaves as this is the case”. He knew that it’s impossible that genes are selfish. But I hope you realise that it’s not impossible that species exist, have intelligence and may explain all the evidence used to support the Selfish gene theory.

For example, there is evidence for the existence of a survival population strategy called “kin selection”. It basically states that living beings tend to care about their relatives because they carry the same genes as theirs. This attitude may lead to “altruism”, in which a specimen put at stake its survival chances for the sake of another (typical case: parental care). If you’re familiar with evolutionary studies, they very often find natural laws that work perfectly well in the real world, but for which they can’t provide any meaningful causal explanation (this is a problem that was raised also by Karl Popper). In the theory of Selfish Gene, the law is that “natural selection favours the best gene, not the best individual, not the best group”. I can believe it, but why? If we assume that species exist and they care about their survival, they are perfectly able to understand which of their specimen has better survival chances, and they do their best to have that specimen reproduce and his/her offspring survive. Kin selection is a possible strategy, but nothing prevents different species from favouring different strategies.

If species exist then we must conclude that they have a will of survive and that they have the means to do it. A species survives as long as its body does, then its key survival mechanism is reproduction. In fact, when an animal reproduces, it doesn’t do any favour to itself, on the contrary. It jeopardises it survival chances, and some animals regularly die in the process. However, the species survives! If you think about it, everything about sex makes sense if it is something that the species pushes individuals to do instead of being something that they do for their own sake. Think of all the complexities involved in courtship, sex, gestation, parental care, and the fact that nothing in them increases any one’s chance of survival, with very few exceptions. There are social species for which young specimens care for their older ones when they can’t provide food for themselves anymore, but they are very few! For more than 99% of nature this is just a waste of energy, if you look only from the point of view of the single specimen. I can go into details about sexual behaviour, but I think you see my point and Facebook is not the place for extremely long posts.

Basically, my idea is that when animals are hunting, or fleeing from danger, or playing with each other, they are acting upon their own will. Instead, when they are looking for a mate, courting, having sex, carrying offspring and providing parental care they are under the control of the species’ will. How can it take control of the specimen? Most likely, by producing chemicals (hormones) and delivering them through bloodstream where it’s needed.

Where can I see most distinctively the work of the species? In the process of gestation. Now, modern science wants me to believe that all the process of gestation, from the fecundated egg to the delivery of the newborn is managed only by means of chemical reactions directed by cellular DNA but, I’m sorry to tell you that, only years and years of materialistic brainwashing at school and on TV can possibly allow to reach this conclusion. There must be an overarching intelligence that oversees all the process, and it makes much sense that it is the intelligence that is more interested in its results, because from these results it depends its own survival! The bottom line is that the species:

1)      Pushes male and female animals to mate by means of injecting hormones in their bloodstream;

2)      Build the newborn;

3)      Pushes the parents to care after them.

There are species also in the plant kingdom, in which the process is different. There we see flowers being produced, fecundated and then seeds spread. Seeds then germinate and so on so forth. Again, what’s the point for the tree to generate flowers, fruits, seeds? Isn’t it just a waste of energy from its point of view? However, if we consider that in all these processes another being is involved, for which all of them are key process for its survival, everything makes sense.

Even in bacteria, in which the duplication of the cell basically either kills the mother cell either it deprives it of half of its nutrients, everything makes sense if there is another being who actually gains something from meiosis! By the way, logically speaking, self-replication is impossible. This means that cells don’t replicate themselves, but there must be the intervention of another being. The idea that self-replication is impossible doesn’t sit well with modern science, and the silence that surrounds it is more explanatory than a million words. Self-replicating machines are equally impossible. However it would take another post to explain this point, and it’s not in my schedule for now.

I personally believe that the idea the species exist is a powerful idea, that have far-reaching consequences in psychology, other social sciences and biology. In the next post I will explain why it is important in my theory of the evolution of life on Earth.

 

[Davide71]

Hi Diamonds,

Darwin theorized that the processes by which species adapt to the environment in which they live (which Darwinists call micro-evolution) lead, over time, to the creation of new species (which Darwinists call macro-evolution). The use of the terms micro- and macro- evolution are a clear remark of this connection. Scientists now regard the horse and the donkey as two different species, and surely the process they describe applies to them, so evolutionists boast that there is "innumerable evidence" that micro-evolution leads to macro- evolution. However they never say that that process is unable to cross the boundaries of the taxonomic family. A feline can genetically mutate as long as it wants, and it always remains a feline, as well as an equine (from which the example of horse and donkey has been taken), and there is no scientific proof that a series of micro-evolution (which are only genetic mutations that have the purpose of adapting to the environment in which beings live) generate something different.
For example, scientists say that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and I agree with them. But surely, microevolution has absolutely nothing to do with that process. And they know it very well. Microevolution does not create new organs. This doesn't happen. Never. And there is no scientific evidence of this and there never will be. Evolution is another thing and involves completely different processes. It is not gradual at all, and in fact there is no evidence of "gradual evolution". The fossil record shows that species present in a geological era remain fundamentally the same throughout the duration of the geological era. Simply, at the beginning of each geological era, some organisms appear that are evolutions of those that went extinct in the previous era. From this point of view, there is strong scientific evidence for creationism.

[Davide71]

Hi Moontanman,

I have a complete theory, for which I have evidence, in the sense that scientific evidence agrees with it.

I wrote a whole book about it, and I'm not going to post it all here. My purpose is to spark discussions about the aspects of my theory that are controversial and to argue in favour of them using scientific evidence. The main pillar of my theory is that species are living beings, and this idea has never been put forward, as far as I know. The post above is about it, and it will be followed by another to explain why it is important in my theory of evolution.

Creationists don't have a theory, I do.

[Moontanman]

4 hours ago, Davide71 said:

Hi Moontanman,

I have a complete theory, for which I have evidence, in the sense that scientific evidence agrees with it.

I wrote a whole book about it, and I'm not going to post it all here. My purpose is to spark discussions about the aspects of my theory that are controversial and to argue in favour of them using scientific evidence. The main pillar of my theory is that species are living beings, and this idea has never been put forward, as far as I know. The post above is about it, and it will be followed by another to explain why it is important in my theory of evolution.

Creationists don't have a theory, I do.

You do not have a theory, you do not even have a hypothesis, a theory is backed up by empirical evidence, all you have is baseless speculation and what do you mean by species are living beings? All living things can be called living beings, how about you define what you mean by species are living beings. I am a living being, as is my cat and my aquarium fish. you are not making any sense. I'm betting you don't even know what a theory is in science. 

[Davide71]

Evidence to support the idea that species are living beings

 

This is an elaboration of the second part of my post. I wanted to clarify some points and add others.

Occam’s Razor is a famous philosophical criterion that states that we should not multiply entities over necessity. Is there any point, then, in stating the existence of living beings other than the ones we already have, that are billions? Moreover, if we imagine an overarching intelligence over a whole population, we have to understand where it is, how it works, how it controls its specimens, especially because we see them doing pretty much what they want!

In this case I believe that the cost in terms of new mysteries, is well worth its explicative scope. Here I can’t show any scientific research in support of this idea, but I can show that it explains sensibly several phenomena that, until now, have been explained inconsistently.

Let’s start with what I believe is the most inconsistent of all, the theory of Selfish Gene.

Every argument that supports the theory of the selfish gene supports the idea that a species is a living being. In fact, is more sensible to believe that a population of living beings are also a single organism than to believe that a chemical compound has feelings and intelligence. Of course Stephen Dawkins didn’t believe that genes have feelings and intelligence, but he definitely used that expression to say that “Nature behaves as this is the case”. He knew that it’s impossible that genes are selfish. But I hope you realise that it’s not impossible that species exist, have intelligence and may explain all the evidence used to support the Selfish gene theory.

For example, there is evidence for the existence of a survival population strategy called “kin selection”. It basically states that living beings tend to care about their relatives because they carry the same genes as theirs. This attitude may lead to “altruism”, in which a specimen put its life at stake for the sake of another (typical case: parental care). If you’re familiar with evolutionary studies, they very often find natural laws that work perfectly well in the real world, but for which they can’t provide any meaningful causal explanation (this is a problem that was raised also by Karl Popper). In the theory of Selfish Gene, the law is that “natural selection favours the best gene, not the best individual, not the best group”. I can believe it, but why? If we assume that species exist and they care about their survival, they are perfectly able to understand which of their specimen has better survival chances, and they do their best to have that specimen reproduce and his/her offspring survive. Kin selection is a possible strategy, but nothing prevents different species from favouring different strategies.

We know that the most accepted evolutionary theory is based on the fact that random genetic mutations happen in populations, and that this process lead to phenotypical adaptation to the environment that are filtered through the process of natural selection. Evolutionary biologists call the whole process “micro-evolution”. However, when they say the word “random”, they basically say that they don’t know its cause, is it? If we assume that species exist, we can fill this gap. We can say that the species mutates genes in its specimens to create specific phenotypical adaptations to their environment. Now, on this respect it’s important to make a distinction. I state that the process by which random genetic mutations are created is not random, in the sense that species create those mutations. However the mutation itself may very well be random, in the sense that the species just tries a mutation and checks by means of natural selection if it’s a good one.

There is good evidence that mutations are indeed random, in the sense that there is not a causal relationship between the mutation and the environmental hazard is meant to tackle. The species, when it creates the mutation, doesn’t know for sure if it works or it doesn’t, and to which extent it does. Considered that environment itself changes, in space and in time, and there is not such a thing like a “perfect” mutation that solves every problem of the species, it’s perfectly sensible that a species “tries” a solution and perfects it over the generations.

Experiments with bacteria show that, when they are faced with unknown and potentially threatening substances, bacteria create mutated enzymes to try to destroy them. The successful ones will make the bacteria a “survivor” and will be passed on future generation, but they will still be perfected. I can very well assume that it’s part of the intelligence of the bacteria to create those mutations, and this is supported by the fact that, if a bacterium is faced by a substance it already knows, it chooses the right chemical to disintegrate it (this is related to what Jacques Monod won its Nobel prize for).

As every other cell is an evolution of a bacterium (or something similar), it makes perfect sense that this capability has been inherited by the rest of living beings on Earth, and there is plenty of evidence  for it, from insect resistance to chemicals to specific traits in localised human populations.

For scientific research, there is no difference between stating that genetic mutations are simply random and stating that they are randomly throwed by an intelligence. From a scientific, and mathematics, point of view, it’s the same thing because they can’t interact with that intelligence and ask it how it chooses the mutations. It makes perfect sense they do not consider intelligence in their research, because the single outcome of a mutation is unpredictable, while the outcome of a mutation in a population is predictable with the tools offered by probability. However, if we want to make sense of what happen in our world, we must consider that there are intelligent beings and that they make choices. Scientists (and investors in their research) re only interested in understanding our world to the extent that it’s useful for exploiting it. This is not something everybody like to hear, but it’s true.

If species exist then we must conclude that they have a will of survive and that they have the means to do it. A species survives as long as its body does, then its key survival mechanism is reproduction. In fact, when an animal reproduces, it doesn’t do any favour to itself, on the contrary. It jeopardises it survival chances, and some animals regularly die in the process. However, the species survives! If you think about it, everything about sex makes sense if it is something that the species pushes individuals to do instead of being something that they do for their own sake. Think of all the complexities involved in courtship, sex, gestation, parental care, and the fact that nothing in them increases any one’s chance of survival, with very few exceptions. There are social species for which young specimens care for their older ones when they can’t provide food for themselves anymore, but they are very few! For more than 99% of nature this is just a waste of energy, if you look only from the point of view of the single specimen. I can go into details about sexual behaviour, but I think you see my point and Facebook is not the place for extremely long posts.

Basically, my idea is that when animals are hunting, or fleeing from danger, or playing with each other, they are acting upon their own will. Instead, when they are looking for a mate, courting, having sex, carrying offspring and providing parental care they are under the control of the species’ will. How can it take control of the specimen? Most likely, by producing chemicals (hormones) and delivering them through bloodstream where it’s needed.

Where can I see most distinctively the work of the species? In the process of gestation. Now, modern science wants me to believe that all the process of gestation, from the fecundated egg to the delivery of the newborn is managed only by means of chemical reactions directed by cellular DNA but, I’m sorry to tell you that, only years and years of materialistic brainwashing at school and on TV can possibly allow to reach this conclusion. There must be an overarching intelligence that oversees all the process, and it makes much sense that it is the intelligence that is more interested in its results, because on these results it depends its own survival! The bottom line is that the species:

1)      Pushes male and female animals to mate by means of injecting hormones in their bloodstream;

2)      Build the newborn;

3)      Pushes the parents to care after them.

There are species also in the plant kingdom, in which the process is different. There we see flowers being produced, fecundated and then seeds spread. Seeds then germinate and so on so forth. Again, what’s the point for the tree to generate flowers, fruits, seeds? Isn’t it just a waste of energy from its point of view? However, if we consider that in all these processes another being is involved, for which all of them are key process for its survival, everything makes sense.

Even in bacteria, in which the duplication of the cell basically either kills the mother cell either it deprives it of half of its nutrients, everything makes sense if there is another being who actually gains something from meiosis! By the way, logically speaking, self-replication is impossible. This means that cells don’t replicate themselves, but there must be the intervention of another being. The idea that self-replication is impossible doesn’t sit well with modern science, and the silence that surrounds it is more explanatory than a million words. Self-replicating machines are equally impossible. However it would take another post to explain this point, and it’s not in my schedule for now.

I personally believe that the idea the species exist is a powerful idea, that have far-reaching consequences in psychology, other social sciences and biology. In the next post I will explain why it is important in my theory of the evolution of life on Earth.

[Moontanman]

6 hours ago, Davide71 said:

Evidence to support the idea that species are living beings

 

This is an elaboration of the second part of my post. I wanted to clarify some points and add others.

Occam’s Razor is a famous philosophical criterion that states that we should not multiply entities over necessity. Is there any point, then, in stating the existence of living beings other than the ones we already have, that are billions? Moreover, if we imagine an overarching intelligence over a whole population, we have to understand where it is, how it works, how it controls its specimens, especially because we see them doing pretty much what they want!

In this case I believe that the cost in terms of new mysteries, is well worth its explicative scope. Here I can’t show any scientific research in support of this idea, but I can show that it explains sensibly several phenomena that, until now, have been explained inconsistently.

Let’s start with what I believe is the most inconsistent of all, the theory of Selfish Gene.

Every argument that supports the theory of the selfish gene supports the idea that a species is a living being. In fact, is more sensible to believe that a population of living beings are also a single organism than to believe that a chemical compound has feelings and intelligence. Of course Stephen Dawkins didn’t believe that genes have feelings and intelligence, but he definitely used that expression to say that “Nature behaves as this is the case”. He knew that it’s impossible that genes are selfish. But I hope you realise that it’s not impossible that species exist, have intelligence and may explain all the evidence used to support the Selfish gene theory.

For example, there is evidence for the existence of a survival population strategy called “kin selection”. It basically states that living beings tend to care about their relatives because they carry the same genes as theirs. This attitude may lead to “altruism”, in which a specimen put its life at stake for the sake of another (typical case: parental care). If you’re familiar with evolutionary studies, they very often find natural laws that work perfectly well in the real world, but for which they can’t provide any meaningful causal explanation (this is a problem that was raised also by Karl Popper). In the theory of Selfish Gene, the law is that “natural selection favours the best gene, not the best individual, not the best group”. I can believe it, but why? If we assume that species exist and they care about their survival, they are perfectly able to understand which of their specimen has better survival chances, and they do their best to have that specimen reproduce and his/her offspring survive. Kin selection is a possible strategy, but nothing prevents different species from favouring different strategies.

We know that the most accepted evolutionary theory is based on the fact that random genetic mutations happen in populations, and that this process lead to phenotypical adaptation to the environment that are filtered through the process of natural selection. Evolutionary biologists call the whole process “micro-evolution”. However, when they say the word “random”, they basically say that they don’t know its cause, is it? If we assume that species exist, we can fill this gap. We can say that the species mutates genes in its specimens to create specific phenotypical adaptations to their environment. Now, on this respect it’s important to make a distinction. I state that the process by which random genetic mutations are created is not random, in the sense that species create those mutations. However the mutation itself may very well be random, in the sense that the species just tries a mutation and checks by means of natural selection if it’s a good one.

There is good evidence that mutations are indeed random, in the sense that there is not a causal relationship between the mutation and the environmental hazard is meant to tackle. The species, when it creates the mutation, doesn’t know for sure if it works or it doesn’t, and to which extent it does. Considered that environment itself changes, in space and in time, and there is not such a thing like a “perfect” mutation that solves every problem of the species, it’s perfectly sensible that a species “tries” a solution and perfects it over the generations.

Experiments with bacteria show that, when they are faced with unknown and potentially threatening substances, bacteria create mutated enzymes to try to destroy them. The successful ones will make the bacteria a “survivor” and will be passed on future generation, but they will still be perfected. I can very well assume that it’s part of the intelligence of the bacteria to create those mutations, and this is supported by the fact that, if a bacterium is faced by a substance it already knows, it chooses the right chemical to disintegrate it (this is related to what Jacques Monod won its Nobel prize for).

As every other cell is an evolution of a bacterium (or something similar), it makes perfect sense that this capability has been inherited by the rest of living beings on Earth, and there is plenty of evidence  for it, from insect resistance to chemicals to specific traits in localised human populations.

For scientific research, there is no difference between stating that genetic mutations are simply random and stating that they are randomly throwed by an intelligence. From a scientific, and mathematics, point of view, it’s the same thing because they can’t interact with that intelligence and ask it how it chooses the mutations. It makes perfect sense they do not consider intelligence in their research, because the single outcome of a mutation is unpredictable, while the outcome of a mutation in a population is predictable with the tools offered by probability. However, if we want to make sense of what happen in our world, we must consider that there are intelligent beings and that they make choices. Scientists (and investors in their research) re only interested in understanding our world to the extent that it’s useful for exploiting it. This is not something everybody like to hear, but it’s true.

If species exist then we must conclude that they have a will of survive and that they have the means to do it. A species survives as long as its body does, then its key survival mechanism is reproduction. In fact, when an animal reproduces, it doesn’t do any favour to itself, on the contrary. It jeopardises it survival chances, and some animals regularly die in the process. However, the species survives! If you think about it, everything about sex makes sense if it is something that the species pushes individuals to do instead of being something that they do for their own sake. Think of all the complexities involved in courtship, sex, gestation, parental care, and the fact that nothing in them increases any one’s chance of survival, with very few exceptions. There are social species for which young specimens care for their older ones when they can’t provide food for themselves anymore, but they are very few! For more than 99% of nature this is just a waste of energy, if you look only from the point of view of the single specimen. I can go into details about sexual behaviour, but I think you see my point and Facebook is not the place for extremely long posts.

Basically, my idea is that when animals are hunting, or fleeing from danger, or playing with each other, they are acting upon their own will. Instead, when they are looking for a mate, courting, having sex, carrying offspring and providing parental care they are under the control of the species’ will. How can it take control of the specimen? Most likely, by producing chemicals (hormones) and delivering them through bloodstream where it’s needed.

Where can I see most distinctively the work of the species? In the process of gestation. Now, modern science wants me to believe that all the process of gestation, from the fecundated egg to the delivery of the newborn is managed only by means of chemical reactions directed by cellular DNA but, I’m sorry to tell you that, only years and years of materialistic brainwashing at school and on TV can possibly allow to reach this conclusion. There must be an overarching intelligence that oversees all the process, and it makes much sense that it is the intelligence that is more interested in its results, because on these results it depends its own survival! The bottom line is that the species:

1)      Pushes male and female animals to mate by means of injecting hormones in their bloodstream;

2)      Build the newborn;

3)      Pushes the parents to care after them.

There are species also in the plant kingdom, in which the process is different. There we see flowers being produced, fecundated and then seeds spread. Seeds then germinate and so on so forth. Again, what’s the point for the tree to generate flowers, fruits, seeds? Isn’t it just a waste of energy from its point of view? However, if we consider that in all these processes another being is involved, for which all of them are key process for its survival, everything makes sense.

Even in bacteria, in which the duplication of the cell basically either kills the mother cell either it deprives it of half of its nutrients, everything makes sense if there is another being who actually gains something from meiosis! By the way, logically speaking, self-replication is impossible. This means that cells don’t replicate themselves, but there must be the intervention of another being. The idea that self-replication is impossible doesn’t sit well with modern science, and the silence that surrounds it is more explanatory than a million words. Self-replicating machines are equally impossible. However it would take another post to explain this point, and it’s not in my schedule for now.

I personally believe that the idea the species exist is a powerful idea, that have far-reaching consequences in psychology, other social sciences and biology. In the next post I will explain why it is important in my theory of the evolution of life on Earth.

Creationists call the process "microevolution" not evolutionary biologists, no one actually says genes have feelings (it's called a metaphor), and who the hell is Stephen Dawkins? So far you have provided zero evidence for your baseless assertions, nothing but your own claims and incredulity.    

[Davide71]

Creationists call the process "microevolution" not evolutionary biologists, no one actually says genes have feelings (it's called a metaphor), and who the hell is Stephen Dawkins? So far you have provided zero evidence for your baseless assertions, nothing but your own claims and incredulity.

Sorry, it's Richard Dawkins.

But microevolution and macroevolution are current terms in evolutionary biology.

And my point is that, although biologists know that genes do not have feelings, the supporters of "selfish gene theory"  explain natural phenomena as if they have. My evidence is the same as theirs. If they have evidence for their theory, I have it too. You can't say that there is evidence for the Selfish Gene Theory and there is not for the idea that species are living beings, because this idea explains the same evidence, even better in fact.

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, Davide71 said:

Creationists call the process "microevolution" not evolutionary biologists, no one actually says genes have feelings (it's called a metaphor), and who the hell is Stephen Dawkins? So far you have provided zero evidence for your baseless assertions, nothing but your own claims and incredulity.

Sorry, it's Richard Dawkins.

You are forgiven. 

3 hours ago, Davide71 said:

But microevolution and macroevolution are current terms in evolutionary biology.

No they are not, they are terms from creationists that are used to confuse the reality of evolution. Both microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing.  

3 hours ago, Davide71 said:

And my point is that, although biologists know that genes do not have feelings, the supporters of "selfish gene theory"  explain natural phenomena as if they have. My evidence is the same as theirs. If they have evidence for their theory, I have it too. You can't say that there is evidence for the Selfish Gene Theory and there is not for the idea that species are living beings, because this idea explains the same evidence, even better in fact.

No, your explanation has no evidentiary support, the analogy of the selfish gene is not saying genes are conscious, it means that genetics can be used to predict behavior in animals by thinking of genes as being selfish. No one is actually saying genes are conscious beings. Your idea that population of the same species are in fact single beings is flawed because there is no detectable mechanism that would allow for it other than maybe the supernatural and there is no evidence for the supernatural by definition.   

[OceanBreeze]

11 hours ago, Davide71 said:

Evidence to support the idea that species are living beings

 

This is an elaboration of the second part of my post. I wanted to clarify some points and add others.

Occam’s Razor is a famous philosophical criterion that states that we should not multiply entities over necessity. Is there any point, then, in stating the existence of living beings other than the ones we already have, that are billions? Moreover, if we imagine an overarching intelligence over a whole population, we have to understand where it is, how it works, how it controls its specimens, especially because we see them doing pretty much what they want!

In this case I believe that the cost in terms of new mysteries, is well worth its explicative scope. Here I can’t show any scientific research in support of this idea, but I can show that it explains sensibly several phenomena that, until now, have been explained inconsistently.

Let’s start with what I believe is the most inconsistent of all, the theory of Selfish Gene.

Every argument that supports the theory of the selfish gene supports the idea that a species is a living being. In fact, is more sensible to believe that a population of living beings are also a single organism than to believe that a chemical compound has feelings and intelligence. Of course Stephen Dawkins didn’t believe that genes have feelings and intelligence, but he definitely used that expression to say that “Nature behaves as this is the case”. He knew that it’s impossible that genes are selfish. But I hope you realise that it’s not impossible that species exist, have intelligence and may explain all the evidence used to support the Selfish gene theory.

For example, there is evidence for the existence of a survival population strategy called “kin selection”. It basically states that living beings tend to care about their relatives because they carry the same genes as theirs. This attitude may lead to “altruism”, in which a specimen put its life at stake for the sake of another (typical case: parental care). If you’re familiar with evolutionary studies, they very often find natural laws that work perfectly well in the real world, but for which they can’t provide any meaningful causal explanation (this is a problem that was raised also by Karl Popper). In the theory of Selfish Gene, the law is that “natural selection favours the best gene, not the best individual, not the best group”. I can believe it, but why? If we assume that species exist and they care about their survival, they are perfectly able to understand which of their specimen has better survival chances, and they do their best to have that specimen reproduce and his/her offspring survive. Kin selection is a possible strategy, but nothing prevents different species from favouring different strategies.

We know that the most accepted evolutionary theory is based on the fact that random genetic mutations happen in populations, and that this process lead to phenotypical adaptation to the environment that are filtered through the process of natural selection. Evolutionary biologists call the whole process “micro-evolution”. However, when they say the word “random”, they basically say that they don’t know its cause, is it? If we assume that species exist, we can fill this gap. We can say that the species mutates genes in its specimens to create specific phenotypical adaptations to their environment. Now, on this respect it’s important to make a distinction. I state that the process by which random genetic mutations are created is not random, in the sense that species create those mutations. However the mutation itself may very well be random, in the sense that the species just tries a mutation and checks by means of natural selection if it’s a good one.

There is good evidence that mutations are indeed random, in the sense that there is not a causal relationship between the mutation and the environmental hazard is meant to tackle. The species, when it creates the mutation, doesn’t know for sure if it works or it doesn’t, and to which extent it does. Considered that environment itself changes, in space and in time, and there is not such a thing like a “perfect” mutation that solves every problem of the species, it’s perfectly sensible that a species “tries” a solution and perfects it over the generations.

Experiments with bacteria show that, when they are faced with unknown and potentially threatening substances, bacteria create mutated enzymes to try to destroy them. The successful ones will make the bacteria a “survivor” and will be passed on future generation, but they will still be perfected. I can very well assume that it’s part of the intelligence of the bacteria to create those mutations, and this is supported by the fact that, if a bacterium is faced by a substance it already knows, it chooses the right chemical to disintegrate it (this is related to what Jacques Monod won its Nobel prize for).

As every other cell is an evolution of a bacterium (or something similar), it makes perfect sense that this capability has been inherited by the rest of living beings on Earth, and there is plenty of evidence  for it, from insect resistance to chemicals to specific traits in localised human populations.

For scientific research, there is no difference between stating that genetic mutations are simply random and stating that they are randomly throwed by an intelligence. From a scientific, and mathematics, point of view, it’s the same thing because they can’t interact with that intelligence and ask it how it chooses the mutations. It makes perfect sense they do not consider intelligence in their research, because the single outcome of a mutation is unpredictable, while the outcome of a mutation in a population is predictable with the tools offered by probability. However, if we want to make sense of what happen in our world, we must consider that there are intelligent beings and that they make choices. Scientists (and investors in their research) re only interested in understanding our world to the extent that it’s useful for exploiting it. This is not something everybody like to hear, but it’s true.

If species exist then we must conclude that they have a will of survive and that they have the means to do it. A species survives as long as its body does, then its key survival mechanism is reproduction. In fact, when an animal reproduces, it doesn’t do any favour to itself, on the contrary. It jeopardises it survival chances, and some animals regularly die in the process. However, the species survives! If you think about it, everything about sex makes sense if it is something that the species pushes individuals to do instead of being something that they do for their own sake. Think of all the complexities involved in courtship, sex, gestation, parental care, and the fact that nothing in them increases any one’s chance of survival, with very few exceptions. There are social species for which young specimens care for their older ones when they can’t provide food for themselves anymore, but they are very few! For more than 99% of nature this is just a waste of energy, if you look only from the point of view of the single specimen. I can go into details about sexual behaviour, but I think you see my point and Facebook is not the place for extremely long posts.

Basically, my idea is that when animals are hunting, or fleeing from danger, or playing with each other, they are acting upon their own will. Instead, when they are looking for a mate, courting, having sex, carrying offspring and providing parental care they are under the control of the species’ will. How can it take control of the specimen? Most likely, by producing chemicals (hormones) and delivering them through bloodstream where it’s needed.

Where can I see most distinctively the work of the species? In the process of gestation. Now, modern science wants me to believe that all the process of gestation, from the fecundated egg to the delivery of the newborn is managed only by means of chemical reactions directed by cellular DNA but, I’m sorry to tell you that, only years and years of materialistic brainwashing at school and on TV can possibly allow to reach this conclusion. There must be an overarching intelligence that oversees all the process, and it makes much sense that it is the intelligence that is more interested in its results, because on these results it depends its own survival! The bottom line is that the species:

1)      Pushes male and female animals to mate by means of injecting hormones in their bloodstream;

2)      Build the newborn;

3)      Pushes the parents to care after them.

There are species also in the plant kingdom, in which the process is different. There we see flowers being produced, fecundated and then seeds spread. Seeds then germinate and so on so forth. Again, what’s the point for the tree to generate flowers, fruits, seeds? Isn’t it just a waste of energy from its point of view? However, if we consider that in all these processes another being is involved, for which all of them are key process for its survival, everything makes sense.

Even in bacteria, in which the duplication of the cell basically either kills the mother cell either it deprives it of half of its nutrients, everything makes sense if there is another being who actually gains something from meiosis! By the way, logically speaking, self-replication is impossible. This means that cells don’t replicate themselves, but there must be the intervention of another being. The idea that self-replication is impossible doesn’t sit well with modern science, and the silence that surrounds it is more explanatory than a million words. Self-replicating machines are equally impossible. However it would take another post to explain this point, and it’s not in my schedule for now.

I personally believe that the idea the species exist is a powerful idea, that have far-reaching consequences in psychology, other social sciences and biology. In the next post I will explain why it is important in my theory of the evolution of life on Earth.

So far, I don't find your theory to be as far-fetched as at first I thought.

Nor is it entirely original, as I have found others who have shared similar theories including one that goes beyond what you are proposing.

You, as far as I can tell, are proposing that all members of the same species are somehow connected by some sort of collective mind, or perhaps a collective consciousness. Since we know this is the case with particular species such as bees, wasps, ants and a few others, and there does seem to exist a herd mentality among other animals, perhaps even humans to some extent; what you are saying doesn't strike me as being too strange.

I have even come across a paper (which I will cite in a later post) where the author(s) claim that all living things are somehow interconnected by a "universal consciousness" although they cannot prove such an assertion.

Consequently, I have decided to upgrade your thread to "Alternative Theories" at least for now; unless it gets too weird and there are requests to move it.😈

[Davide71]

The importance of species in the theory of evolution by symbiosis

 

Species are the subject of evolution. It’s not just single specimens that evolve, but the whole species. If it weren’t the case, I think we should see that, when an animal give birth to a number of offspring, they would be in different stages of evolution, and it doesn’t look like it normally happens. Therefore, a close look at the nature of species is a key step before talking about how they evolve. Modern evolutionary biology certainly disagrees with me, because Neodarwinian evolutionary biologists don’t believe species exist. They are just knots in the thread that links the very first living being on Earth, called LUCA (last universal common ancestor). These knots have been created by Natural Selection, which tends to favour certain genetic mutations over others.

However, if species do really exist, their position becomes problematic.

In my theory I accept that genetic mutations play a role in the adaptation of species to their environment, but I reject the idea that they play any role in creating new species out of the previous ones, as I already mentioned in the previous section. I’m not giving evidence for it in this work, because I already spoke about it in my book, to which my reader can refer, if they wish. In my theory, evolution is explained in a completely different way.

I already mentioned some consequences of considering species living beings separated from the specimens that form their “body”. Between the species and each specimen there is a hierarchical relationship, although evidence suggests that, progressing from inferior to superior animals the will of the single specimen can at times contrast the will of the species, making it conflictual. I consider “superior” animals birds and mammals, but it not something set in stones. It also appears to me that, in plant kingdom (and in unicellular lifeforms), individual specimens do not really exist, and although I can considerate a plant a single living being, I don’t see it as having a will by itself, but it’s comparable to on organ of the species. At least this is the normal situation. If there is evidence that cancerous cells in our body act “out of their own will” and certainly against the will of our body, nothing prevents, in principle, for it to happen in more complex beings, and recent studies on plants’ behaviour point in other directions. Although this is an interesting question, I’m not sure about the answer, and at this stage it can be left aside for future research.

None of the consequences I indicated are related to evolution, though. Let’s get to that point then.

The first idea I need to discuss with respect to evolution is that there are living beings that control populations. Superorganisms control colonies (ant there is nothing to prevent us to believe they are restricted to beehives and anthills), species control their specimens. I believe that there other beings that “oversee” group of species. For example, insects, birds, mammals, and fish are all groups of species for which I think such a being exists. I’m not sure for reptiles, because I see a lot of difference between snakes, turtles, lizards and frogs, but maybe I’m just distracted by their exterior appearance. However, for now, I consider them all as species overseen by a single being. I call the beings at these level “classes”, following the classical taxonomy, although in my work, I simplify it. If I refer to one of them specifically, I will use something like “The Bird”. I also believe that kingdoms are single beings. I believe there are only three kingdoms, mineral, plant and animal. Mineral kingdom comprehends all unicellular lifeforms and their colonies. In my work I do not consider minerals because they are not, scientifically speaking, living beings. The next step is considering the existence of a single living being that oversee all life on Earth. I developed this part in depth in my book. Here I want to give a comprehensive introduction.

I think that, from a scientific point of view, it’s interesting to consider the existence of superorganisms and species, because these are concepts with a powerful explanatory scope. I also believe that it’s not a big step for science to take onboard these new concepts, because there is a whole group of sciences for which its strict materialistic approach doesn’t work, and has to be replaced by a softer approach. In my opinion the gain is worth the trouble.

However, I’m not sure if there is any reward, scientifically speaking, in exploring the idea that classes and kingdoms are a single being. Not only I can’t possibly think of a line of exploration, or laboratory experiments to prove or disprove their existence, but I don’t see any way for all resources that must be involved in it to produce any practical outcome. Unfortunately, those are the beings that are, as far as I understood, involved in the evolution of species. As I said, it looks to me that species go through evolution without having any decision power in the process, and because evolution is something that definitely needs an intelligence to carry out the process, the first place to look for one is within classes and kingdoms. Species in the same classes share similar organs. For example, nearly all birds have feathers and wings, and a beak, nearly all fish have scales and fins and so on so forth. However, different species of birds have different feathers, and wings, and the overall anatomy of the body, and the same happens in each class. If I have to point out to an intelligence who “designs” wings, and feathers, and caved bones, and all the other component of birds anatomy that are essential to flight, I will definitely think of the Bird as a class being. It projects the feathers, then all species adapt them to their environment, and the Bird gets feedbacks from all of them, therefore creating more successful feathers. As mind-boggling as it may be, it’s certainly more rational that leaving the whole process to “random genetic mutations” that, I must repeat it, are not able to do that. There is no such a thing as “a wing gene”. No scientist has ever managed to extract the “wing gene” from a bird, implant it to any other being, and having it growing wings. Genes do not carry that information. Scientists are very reluctant to admit it, but this is the truth. Genes carry information about tweaks in the organs, but not about how to construct the organ itself. These tweaks can make the world of difference in terms of survival, and are key in explaining the scope of sex as a mean to propagate successful traits, but there are limitations in their scope.

The problem in exploring scientifically evolution (what evolutionary biologists call macro-evolution) is that scientists will never be able to intervene in the process of it, because our science cannot access that type of knowledge. It sits in the “heart” of intelligent beings with which there is no chance we will ever be able to interact. As simple as that. Therefore all resources involved in trying to “crack open evolution” are not going to yield any practical outcome. Why they do that, then? Because, on one side, they still (after fifty years since the discovery of genetics) believe otherwise, and on the other side, they desperately stick to their materialistic approach which plays a huge part in the authority science has. As far as now, scientists have explored a lot the field of adaptation (what they call micro-evolution), and with good results in a number of fields, the most important one, in my opinion, being the application of genetic algorithms to engineering and artificial intelligence. But that it’s not “evolution”, no matter what they say. In terms of (macro) evolution they achieved nothing. Simply nothing, and God knows how much they tried using public and private money. The bottom line is that, although philosophically speaking it would be extremely interesting to carry out a scientific exploration of the idea that there is a chain of beings overseeing all life on Earth, for scientists themselves, and most of their supporters, it will be counterproductive, and therefore I don’t think it will ever happen on a large scale.

If I deem that an entity is a living being, I have to give it a body, a soul (it must have feelings, sensations, a will, maybe a mind , memories, imagination and so on so forth), but also something that doesn’t change at all, for which that living being stays as such from when it appears to when it disappears. I’m Davide Orlandi since I was born, and I will be Davide Orlandi till my death, but I will undergo many modifications in my body and within myself. There must be something in myself that never changes, and allows me to recognise myself since my birth. It has different names in different Traditions, but in my work I like to use the Platonic term “Archetype”. Here we are clearly outside the realm of modern science, but I already anticipated that it was going to happen. Each individual being has its own archetype, and each species has its own, and it never changes. I repeat it, it never changes. Never. The archetype contains the instruction to fabricate the being. This operation doesn’t stop at birth, but definitely continue all throughout puberty, and even further, showing that the archetype operates into the body of the specimen throughout all its life.

If the archetype never changes, how it happens, then, that species evolve? As incredible as it may be, the archetype of the evolved species is the fusion of two archetypes. One is the creature that has been already on Earth, the second one is a new creature that comes from the “World of archetypes”. This is exactly what happens in a metamorphosis. When you see a caterpillar becoming a butterfly you see an archetype (the caterpillar) that builds and operates the body of the caterpillar; at a certain point, a second archetype, the butterfly archetype, intervenes and “transforms” the caterpillar in butterfly. The archetype of caterpillar doesn’t change, and the archetype of the butterfly doesn’t change either, but at a certain point in the history of life on Earth they just “joined forces”. The same thing happens with the tadpole, that was originally a fish, and the frog. The archetype of the tadpole builds the body of the tadpole until it is ready for the frog to continue to build upon it. Why it happens is a question I will discuss later. For now I just want to focus on the process. At the start of a new geological era a fish which was living in the world enter in symbiosis with a frog that comes from another world (the world of archetypes, in which all archetypes wait to be called to express themselves in our world), and for the first time a transmutation of the fish occurs, and it becomes a frog. From now on, all its descendants will be a fusion of two archetypes, and the process of their formation will be pretty much the same as the first one. In all forms of metamorphosis the single archetypes are often clearly recognizable as stages of the process, while in gestation they aren’t anymore. But it’s the same process. Because evolution is the central process in my theory, I will come back to it after I introduced other concepts that help make more sense of what I’m saying.

[Davide71]

Difference between species as a living being and species in modern taxonomy

 

One point on which I admit I have not been very clear is the difference between the species as a living being and the species in a taxonomic sense. This creates a lot of confusion among those with a scientific background because I repeatedly claim that genetic mutations do not determine any speciation, and that there is no scientific evidence to support it, while scientific research has shown numerous instances of speciation caused by genetic mutations. The confusion arises from the fact that I use the term "species" in a slightly different sense from how scientists use it. Those with a scientific background will find this approach convoluted and misleading because the species is a scientific term and should be used in the sense that science gives to it. I admit that I should have been clearer in my distinction from the beginning; however, even science uses it in a confusing and misleading way, and we will see why.

In general, the species in a scientific sense is a population capable of reproducing in its natural environment and is unable to reproduce, in its natural environment, with members of other species (belonging to the same family or 'closely related'). An emblematic case is precisely that of Darwin's finches, which most likely originated from the same initial population and, despite living on the same island, had adapted to different ecological niches to the point of creating different species that could not crossbreed with members of species around them, even though they have the same origin.

Darwin was convinced that species have this ability, and that it is 'innate.' Since I consider the species a living being, which therefore has intelligence, a will to survive, and abilities that allow it to survive, I somehow agree with him. In my view, species could indeed have the ability to modify their physical appearance to meet the challenges of their environment, and I can well imagine that they store these modifications in the genetic code to make them available to their offspring, something that an individual cannot do. However, at this stage of my study, I am not sure if it is the species itself that is responsible for these changes. As you may recall, I mentioned that there are living beings that are, for the species, what the species is for individual beings. I used the term 'class' to define them, and I am quite convinced that this is their prerogative, while species undergo all changes in their form passively.

If we make a comparison, a woman is capable of conceiving a child, but she is not really the one who does it; it is her body. In my theory, procreation is managed by the species to which she belongs (in this case, the human one), which uses the female body in a way quite dismissive of any protests from the woman!

What I contest in Darwin's theory is that this ability does not allow at all the species to create a different species from its own, but in this case, I am referring to the living being, not the species in a scientific sense. I repeat, for me, the species is a living being, and no living being is capable of procreating another living being that does not belong to its same species. In other words, this capability does not explain how amphibians formed from an ancient species of fish, or how birds formed from an ancient species of reptiles, or how insects formed from an ancient species of worms. A scientist could challenge my use of the terms 'fish’, 'reptiles’, and 'worms' for beings that lived millions of years ago, but the point here is not to understand from which species birds evolved but through which process.

Returning to Darwin's finches, from my point of view, all the species (in a taxonomic sense) of finches he studied belong to the same species, which is 'the Finch.' In my theory, The Finch (if not its class of belonging, i.e., the Bird) generates different varieties of itself to colonize different ecological niches and creates reproductive barriers (if natural ones are not sufficient) to prevent successful traits from being diluted through hybridization and thus lost. This has to do with the method by which species (or classes) modify physical traits to adapt them to the environment, a method I will discuss later. From a taxonomic point of view, the species as I see it, at least for the animal kingdom, mostly corresponds to the family. For example, I do not think that the cat is a species in the sense of a living being, but that the entire family of felids is. In the plant kingdom, the individual living being might correspond to an even higher classification. For instance, the entire family of umbellifers could be a single living being, and therefore, in this case, the correspondence between species as I see it and the taxonomic family is confirmed, but it may well not be so because plants have rather puzzling possibilities for hybridization, and I must admit I know little about it. In any case, I propose a theory whose importance lies in considering the existence of living beings outside the sphere of the individual being. Understanding the boundaries of the individual living beings in terms of taxonomic species is less important at this moment.

I understand that scientists use classifications as a working tool, and I also understand that defining a species for them means defining a population that reproduces only within itself in its natural environment, and this is important in their work. On the other hand, I do not believe that this gives them the copyright on the term, just as they do not have it for the term 'family’. When I started developing my theory, I used the term 'species' because it fits very well with the concept I want to express, and I do not intend to change it. When I refer to species in a scientific sense, I will talk about 'taxonomic species'; otherwise, the species, in my work on the Theory of Evolution, is always a living being. I also remember that, since scientists use only materialistic criteria to define their concepts, they often come across various complications. Scientific classifications are indeed extremely complicated, and I have no need to understand them in detail because I do not use them for work. If it were ever to happen that scientists accept my idea of species as a living being, they will realize that it often corresponds to the taxonomic family.

As we know, Darwin was unaware of the existence of DNA. After its discovery in the 1950s and the understanding (in my view still rather vague and somewhat inaccurate) of its biological role, evolutionists developed the theory that a new species is born when individuals accumulate sufficient genetic mutations to be able to reproduce only among themselves and are unable to reproduce with the species they come from. They also believe that the accumulation of genetic mutations will eventually lead a population so far from its original one that it becomes something different, namely another species. From a scientific point of view, such a population changes family. Unlike me, they see families as groups of closely related species that share similarity in shape; members of the same family undoubtedly have a common origin, but they do not see in the similarity of shape the commonality of structure that I see. I understand this, but at the same time, they must understand that such similarity of shape is a clue to something much deeper. I unequivocally affirm that there is no possibility that a sequence of genetic mutations can create a species that goes beyond the boundaries of the family. This happens because the genetic mutation that encodes a trait is, indeed, a code, and each species (which is a living being with its own personality, not just a jumble of genes) interprets the genetic code based on its own nature. In other words, species use the same letters (bases), but each speaks its own language (maybe it’s just a dialect); using a different symbolism, each of them has its own programming language. There is a barrier that genetic mutations cannot cross, which is precisely the language with which they were 'compiled.' Since we know that, during geological eras, this barrier has been overcome (e.g., worms evolved into insects, fish evolved into amphibians, reptiles evolved into birds), we must find a process that allows us to overcome this barrier, and this is where my theory comes into play. For now, I think there is no scientific problem if I call this process 'evolution.'

If we look at the scientific evidence, we certainly find cases of speciation in a taxonomic sense. On the Internet, one can easily find studies on cases of speciation in plants, but I am sure that there are cases in animals as well. In the case of plants, an interesting example is that of some species obtained through natural hybridization which, having an odd number of chromosomes, cannot divide their DNA in two to generate a gamete, thus becoming sterile. In some cases, it has been observed that the species doubles the number of chromosomes, creating a copy of the set it possesses, becoming fertile. In doing so, it becomes a new taxonomic species, but it certainly does not create a new family. Moreover, the process of multiplying the chromosome set (polyploidy) is too widespread to be 'a random genetic mutation.' It would be much more logical to consider it a strategy to overcome a reproductive barrier. An odd number of chromosomes is a reproductive barrier that easily occurs when a species (which has an even number of chromosomes) crosses with a related species that has a number of chromosomes that differs by 2; for example, there are clovers with 14 and 16 chromosomes. A hybrid between these two species would easily have 15 chromosomes and would not be fertile (although sometimes it is). This is a reproductive barrier, and clearly, scientists consider it randomly generated but advantageous in evolutionary terms. In my view, it is much more logical to consider such a reproductive barrier part of the survival strategies of the species, and the overcoming of this barrier by polyploidy is another species’ strategy to spread hybrids that have proven advantageous. However, such a viewpoint can only be supported by considering the species a real, living, and intelligent being, and as far as I know, the scientific community has never even considered this possibility.