A new theory of evolution: evolution by symbiosis

[Davide71]

The role of species in the individual 

In this forum, I make a strong argument for considering species as living beings. However, I never spoke specifically about the role of the species in its specimen. I never fully differentiated what an individual does out of their own will and what out of the will of their species. 

Let’s start by saying that everything that an animal does, in the sense that is an action it performs, must be out of its own will. I already said that species intervene in everything connected with sex, from arousal, to courtship, to the act itself, and to parental care. All actions performed by animals in those situations are “inspired” by the species, in the sense that the species produces hormones and probably other substances to force the individual to act in a certain way. It’s like eating. All of us decide when to eat and what to eat, but it’s our body that tells us we need food, and we can’t really neglect the signals it gives us because they become more and more insistent and painful. In this case, it’s our body that forces us to “take action”. Something similar happens in relation to sex, apart from the fact that neglecting it doesn’t kill us, and although maybe painful, is not impossible to resist the urge of sex. It may affect our mental health, though, and therefore it’s not something that we can’t just ignore. All other animals work the same way. They can, in theory, resist the urge of eating (and they do, when it’s not safe to eat) and the urge of sex, but the urge become more and more painful, therefore progressively forcing them to act in the way “inspired” by the species. 

When we are hungry, I just said that “our body tells us we need food”, but what exactly tells us, by means of provoking cramps that get more painful the more we stay without food? Scientists would say “the brain”, and in their own way, they may be perfectly right in the sense that the brain produces the molecules that signal that our body is running out of energy. They don’t ask themselves, though, who tells the brain to do so. If this it is out of its own will, then our brain must have a will on its own, differentiated from our will. However, it may be that the brain doesn’t have its own will, but it executes the will of a number of beings, one of which is our individual soul, while the others are the beings that precede us in the chain of beings that links us to the Ultimate living being. In particular, our species, our class, our kingdom. All of them may have the ability to operate in our brains to perform their functions. To be honest this is a point that makes me confused. At this moment I can’t be sure that the brain has its own will (it looks like it does), or it acts as an interface with all the wills that operate in our body (including our individual will). Because of that, I can’t be sure that being hungry is a signal given by our brain or by any other being that works on our individual body, in particular our species. 

However I’m convinced that species is directly involved in forcing animals in involving in activities related to sex, and it’s specially involved in developing sex traits. However, the event that, in my opinion, really shows its presence and its power over us is the process of procreation. Please notice that a woman, while in gestation, may not even notice what happens in her body until the anatomical and physiological modifications become obvious (although there have been cases in which a woman didn’t “connect the dots” and delivered a baby with much surprise!). This clearly indicates that her will isn’t involved at all, and something else intervenes. Why I believe is (mainly) the species? As I said previously, reproduction is not something that enhances the chance of survival of an animal, let alone a plant or a microorganism. For them, it’s just a waste of resources and often something for which they put their lives on the line or they simply lose it. If we consider that a being exists, that survives as long as there are specimens living, we can easily indicate it as the being that is interested in reproducing the individuals. As individuals, we know that we want to live and that we don’t want to die. Animals are not different from us, apart from the fact that they don’t have a complex idea of death. We can extend the same principle to any other living being and say with certainty that species want to live, don’t want to die, and want to do what is in their power to live as much as they can. Not only that, but I’m also sure they like being as big as possible, in the sense that the more specimens they have the better (even if it may be counterproductive in the long run), exactly as we like having imposing bodies. I don’t know exactly how species think (I will talk about it in another post though), and I make here a reasonable inference based on my experience. 

From another point of view, species is the embodiment of the archetype of every single specimen. Archetypes are treated in my book, and I will introduce them in the future if I have time. Here I can say that the archetype contains the “form” of a species, or in other words, the full project. The archetypes know how to build a specimen of the corresponding species, in the sense that they have all the instructions and they know how to operate all the tools that bodies offer to build them. In my view, DNA is only one of these tools, and although it’s an important one, it’s only part of an extremely complex process that only deep brainwashing may believe it’s just a “mechanism”, like a production in a fully automated factory which, by the way, is an extremely recent technological innovation. 

In my view, gestation is a process completely in the hands of species, from the moment in which the ovule is fertilised to the moment in which the offspring is delivered. In this process, the individual doesn’t have a single means to intervene. It can favour it or disrupt it to the point of terminating it, but certainly not work in it. The possibilities that modern science in very recent times gave us must be considered a form of interference, even if, in some cases, they intervene to fix a fault in a process. 

It perfectly makes sense, from my point of view, to assign to species the “duty” of performing procreation because it is its way to survive, because the single specimen is not actively involved, and because the result of the procreation it’s not a copy of any of its parents, but another manifestation of the archetype. However, I can’t say that I’m sure that it’s not one of the beings that is above the species. At this point in my study, I don’t think it’s so important. It’s more important to firmly establish (or refute…) the existence of species (and the beings above them); then we can spend time in further research to define the role of each of them. 

I find that an analysis of certain aspects of reproduction can make interesting contributions to the debate, and I intend to address them in the next section. In theory it would be better to talk about the aspects related to the division of living beings into genders and all the issues involved with it, such as sexual arousal, courtship and the sexual act itself. However, I happened to develop the topic of gestation first, so I'll start with that in the next post. 

[Moontanman]

On 8/1/2023 at 12:35 PM, Davide71 said:

The role of species in the individual 

In this forum, I make a strong argument for considering species as living beings. However, I never spoke specifically about the role of the species in its specimen. I never fully differentiated what an individual does out of their own will and what out of the will of their species. 

Let’s start by saying that everything that an animal does, in the sense that is an action it performs, must be out of its own will. I already said that species intervene in everything connected with sex, from arousal, to courtship, to the act itself, and to parental care. All actions performed by animals in those situations are “inspired” by the species, in the sense that the species produces hormones and probably other substances to force the individual to act in a certain way. It’s like eating. All of us decide when to eat and what to eat, but it’s our body that tells us we need food, and we can’t really neglect the signals it gives us because they become more and more insistent and painful. In this case, it’s our body that forces us to “take action”. Something similar happens in relation to sex, apart from the fact that neglecting it doesn’t kill us, and although maybe painful, is not impossible to resist the urge of sex. It may affect our mental health, though, and therefore it’s not something that we can’t just ignore. All other animals work the same way. They can, in theory, resist the urge of eating (and they do, when it’s not safe to eat) and the urge of sex, but the urge become more and more painful, therefore progressively forcing them to act in the way “inspired” by the species. 

When we are hungry, I just said that “our body tells us we need food”, but what exactly tells us, by means of provoking cramps that get more painful the more we stay without food? Scientists would say “the brain”, and in their own way, they may be perfectly right in the sense that the brain produces the molecules that signal that our body is running out of energy. They don’t ask themselves, though, who tells the brain to do so. If this it is out of its own will, then our brain must have a will on its own, differentiated from our will. However, it may be that the brain doesn’t have its own will, but it executes the will of a number of beings, one of which is our individual soul, while the others are the beings that precede us in the chain of beings that links us to the Ultimate living being. In particular, our species, our class, our kingdom. All of them may have the ability to operate in our brains to perform their functions. To be honest this is a point that makes me confused. At this moment I can’t be sure that the brain has its own will (it looks like it does), or it acts as an interface with all the wills that operate in our body (including our individual will). Because of that, I can’t be sure that being hungry is a signal given by our brain or by any other being that works on our individual body, in particular our species. 

However I’m convinced that species is directly involved in forcing animals in involving in activities related to sex, and it’s specially involved in developing sex traits. However, the event that, in my opinion, really shows its presence and its power over us is the process of procreation. Please notice that a woman, while in gestation, may not even notice what happens in her body until the anatomical and physiological modifications become obvious (although there have been cases in which a woman didn’t “connect the dots” and delivered a baby with much surprise!). This clearly indicates that her will isn’t involved at all, and something else intervenes. Why I believe is (mainly) the species? As I said previously, reproduction is not something that enhances the chance of survival of an animal, let alone a plant or a microorganism. For them, it’s just a waste of resources and often something for which they put their lives on the line or they simply lose it. If we consider that a being exists, that survives as long as there are specimens living, we can easily indicate it as the being that is interested in reproducing the individuals. As individuals, we know that we want to live and that we don’t want to die. Animals are not different from us, apart from the fact that they don’t have a complex idea of death. We can extend the same principle to any other living being and say with certainty that species want to live, don’t want to die, and want to do what is in their power to live as much as they can. Not only that, but I’m also sure they like being as big as possible, in the sense that the more specimens they have the better (even if it may be counterproductive in the long run), exactly as we like having imposing bodies. I don’t know exactly how species think (I will talk about it in another post though), and I make here a reasonable inference based on my experience. 

From another point of view, species is the embodiment of the archetype of every single specimen. Archetypes are treated in my book, and I will introduce them in the future if I have time. Here I can say that the archetype contains the “form” of a species, or in other words, the full project. The archetypes know how to build a specimen of the corresponding species, in the sense that they have all the instructions and they know how to operate all the tools that bodies offer to build them. In my view, DNA is only one of these tools, and although it’s an important one, it’s only part of an extremely complex process that only deep brainwashing may believe it’s just a “mechanism”, like a production in a fully automated factory which, by the way, is an extremely recent technological innovation. 

In my view, gestation is a process completely in the hands of species, from the moment in which the ovule is fertilised to the moment in which the offspring is delivered. In this process, the individual doesn’t have a single means to intervene. It can favour it or disrupt it to the point of terminating it, but certainly not work in it. The possibilities that modern science in very recent times gave us must be considered a form of interference, even if, in some cases, they intervene to fix a fault in a process. 

It perfectly makes sense, from my point of view, to assign to species the “duty” of performing procreation because it is its way to survive, because the single specimen is not actively involved, and because the result of the procreation it’s not a copy of any of its parents, but another manifestation of the archetype. However, I can’t say that I’m sure that it’s not one of the beings that is above the species. At this point in my study, I don’t think it’s so important. It’s more important to firmly establish (or refute…) the existence of species (and the beings above them); then we can spend time in further research to define the role of each of them. 

I find that an analysis of certain aspects of reproduction can make interesting contributions to the debate, and I intend to address them in the next section. In theory it would be better to talk about the aspects related to the division of living beings into genders and all the issues involved with it, such as sexual arousal, courtship and the sexual act itself. However, I happened to develop the topic of gestation first, so I'll start with that in the next post. 

I'm not going to allow you to keep spouting this nonsense forever... get to the point...and provide some evidence. 

[Davide71]

Species and reproduction

 

In my previous posts I proposed the idea that species are living beings, whose bodies are the body of every specimen belonging to them. Some posts elaborated on this idea, while other showed that this idea explains a lot of scientific evidence concerning several aspects of life. This one wants to demonstrate that scientific evidence about embryogenesis can be explained by considering species as living beings, and it should be read in the context set by my previous ones. As a consequence, if you are not familiar with them, you won’t understand a lot of this one.

This is how I see the process of fertilisation. When the sperm cell binds with the oocyte the intelligent entity that I identify with the species (in the case of human being, the species is "The Man" species) will carry out each step of the process that from the two haploid gametes builds up a newborn. It does so by moving the proteins, enzymes, RNAs to the right places and so on so forth. I don't believe gestation is just a chemical process and I ask myself what's wrong with scientists who believe such a thing. The absence of an intelligence operating in the gestation makes, in my opinion, all scientific explanations completely insufficient.

It probably creates the placenta as well. I say “probably” because placenta is a common feature in all mammals. Because I believe not only species are living beings but also classes, it’s perfectly possible that the Mammal class builds the placenta. Building the placenta involves the release of hormones and reactions from the brain and other organs to the hormones. Whatever releases the hormones must be different from what reacts to their release. This principle (nobody sends a letter to themselves) in itself supports the idea that different beings operate in the body of a living creature.

There are few reproductive barriers that prevent “unfit male gametes” to start the process of fertilisation. Because I’m not a biologist I just mention three of them. There are receptors on the membrane of the ovule, a zona pellucida around the membrane and the number of chromosomes in gametes. All of them prevent gametes from different taxonomic species to fertilise the ovule, even if they come from specimens that are related. A scientist would say that, in evolutionary terms, they protect the specificity of the traits of a population, by avoiding crossbreeding with other populations that are not fit to live in that environment. . He doesn't even try to explain what could have created such a complex mechanism, he just goes as far as acknowledging its usefulness. I say that all these reproductive barriers are generated by an intelligent being, which can be the species or a being above it, to protect a successful gene pool (in terms of adaptation to the environment in which it lives) from dilution (with genetic material from populations adapted to other environments or ecological niches). They also avoid (as a last resort indeed, because there are other very effective reproductive barriers before them) fertilisation by species belonging to different families.

Question: if I believe that species is intelligent, why it’s necessary to create so many reproductive barriers? Why can’t the species simply recognise a different male gamete and avoid starting the process of fertilisation if it’s not the “right one”? The general answer is that every intelligence is limited by the tools it can use, and its tools are functional to the role of that particular intelligence in “the scheme of life”. Let’s compare the body of an animal with a factory. In order for it to work we need manual workers, “white collars” and a hierarchy of supervisors of the workforce, that culminate in the CEO of the company. Each of them is intelligent, and each of them have specific knowledge. A turner knows stuff that the CEO doesn’t, but at the same time s/he must keep between the boundaries of their role. As everybody with working experience knows, it’s not convenient to overstep their own role and carry out functions that are reserved to staff at a higher level in the hierarchy. Going back to species, once the male gamete penetrates the ovule it means it passed all the “safety checks”, and species can now carry out its role of building up a new body, without questioning what DNA has been given to it. It will try to build the only type of being he knows of, and if everything works fine, and it normally does, it will succeed. If I’m right, the scientific consequence of it would be that the ovule of a hamster will always try to create a hamster whatever male gamete has been fed with. In my theory the species knows how to create one of its “bodies”, but it doesn’t know how to create anything else.

Scientists generally believe that bodies are created by their DNA. If they are right it should be possible to clone a being using the ovule of another species (like they did in “Jurassic Park”) or to create a being with features belonging to two different species, whatever they are.

Here I assume that, with current technology, we can overcome all reproductive barriers and replace the genetic material inside a hamster egg with DNA from an entirely different species and fertilise that modified egg with a gamete from the same species. The hamster has not been chosen at random. A recent scientific experiment made it possible to fertilise a hamster egg with a human sperm. I did not understand if the process of embryogenesis started or not. I don't even know if it would be legal/morally acceptable to create an embryo in the current bioethical framework.

Using a hamster egg we could try to create another animal that is not a hamster, for example a cat (certainly not a human being!). The idea is similar to the cloning process: one of its eggs (whose nucleus has been replaced with that of a cat's egg) is fertilised with the male gamete of the cat. If it is possible to generate a cat then my theory would be disproved, but if not my theory holds up. At the moment I'm pretty sure they haven't succeeded because I know there would be plenty of reasons to try. For example, they have found mammoth DNA and would like to "resuscitate" it. I'm pretty sure they tried, but failed. Unfortunately failures are rarely published in scientific journals, but from the point of view of the implications for our knowledge of nature it would be important that they were.

I already said, in one of my previous posts, that the term species, as I use it, corresponds usually to the taxonomic family. We know that specimens belonging to the same family but not to the same species may successfully interbreed, but the outcome (called hybrid) may not be optimal. It may be perfectly healthy but infertile, or it may be sickling (it happens when goats and sheep interbreed) or may be stillborn. This range of outcomes is related to the range of reproductive barriers and their interactions, that I assume being too complex to be fully understood. In my theory, if interbreeding is possible, even by means of artificial insemination, then mother and father belong to the same family.

Evolutionists have a concept of species that allows one species to change into another over time. This is a cornerstone of the modern theory of evolution, and the idea that species are living beings has potentially devastating consequences on this principle. A living being does not become something different in the course of its life. It is born and dies, and in the meantime undergoes numerous modifications, but none of these alters its nature to such a point that it becomes another living being. Guénon would say that every being has its own personality, and does not change it over time. His interaction with the cosmic environment generates his individuality, which instead changes continuously, from birth to death. These changes, which are continuous and perhaps even profound, are never such as to affect the "sense of identity" that the being feels from the moment it is born until it dies. If species are living beings, they have an immutable personality and an individuality, which is expressed in all the different forms that the members assume in the various environments in which they live. In my opinion, genetic variability is an expression of the individuality of the species, and is expressed within the limits of its personality, and it is not possible for one species to transform into another. The concept of personality belongs to a plane which is completely outside scientific inquiry, and its existence can therefore never be scientifically proven. Its existence would be corroborated by the observation that the variability of species is limited and does not alter its main characteristics.

The analysis of the reproduction process of an animal supports this idea, as an ovule of a certain species can only generate beings of that species, because the being who intervenes in it is able to build that and not something else. The genetic material it works on certainly guides the being in one direction rather than another, but the builder will interpret this material in a way compatible with what it is. From a scientific point of view it can be said that each egg will express a specific gene in a certain way rather than in another.

We can make a comparison with programs. All of them are stored in the Hard disk as numbers in binary, but a file made with a programming language must be read using the same language. Reading it with a different language will creates a messy list of meaningless instructions. Every species can be compared with a different programming language. We can make a comparison with computer programs. They are all stored on the hard drive as numbers in binary code, but a file created with a program must be read using the same program used to write it. Reading it with a different program will create a messy list of meaningless instructions, resulting in an error. Each species can be compared to a different program. Creating a new specimen is like creating a new file, while creating a new species is like creating a different program. Continuing the analogy, I feel like saying that all species of a class share the same programming language, like, the same way of expressing genes. It's not hard to understand that there is a difference between creating a file with a program, creating a program with a programming language, and finally creating a programming language. They are different things and they are done by different entities. Here I’m not going to explain how different species are created, because I wrote a book about it. Here I want to fill a kind of gap in my work, in the sense that there is so much to say about species as living beings and I overlooked this aspect in my work on evolution.