HOW DID LIFE EVOLVE?
________________________

1. Various items, including names at within [ ] parentheses. As this is not a scientific 'Paper', I am not including links. As a teacher, I teach students to research the information themselves to validate differing opinions so that they make up their own mind. For myself, I claim nothing but a search for data to lead to my own knowledge and conclusions (if ever they should occur and which I doubt will ever occur).

2. Belief/s should be, in my view, the accumulation of data which leads to a knowledge that is acceptable and perhaps comforting to the entity searching for such knowledge. It may be shared but never enforced by one entity upon another.

3. Opinions are a subsection of belief/s. They differ only, in my view again, only in the entrenchment of belief/s.

4. There is no Truth, there are only truths. Truth is the point when there is no more incoming data to change that. However, everything changes, whether we like it or not. That is evident, I submit, from watching a cloud in the sky change from one shape to something else and upon which we might write poetical fancies.

5. Since within our own lifetimes it is obvious that the planet changes because it is part of a larger universe ( a point a great many people seem to find difficult to understand), conditions so many millions/billions of years ago (and about which we can't even start to contemplate), were not the same as they are now. This leads only to a conclusion that the world is not static and that it changes, all the time (whatever that is).  Science tends to explain, it does not explain since it uses a language. [General Semantics] states that whatever you describe takes you to another level that does not explain what you were talking about in the first place. 'You can't see the wood for the trees', and so forth.

6.  Theories are guesses. They aim to explain. But explanations of events (e.g. why does the sun shine?) must change with new data. When they become entrenched in a belief (which is pretty static) they are no longer science but a belief/opinion and so forth. This is not science.

7. If a person is entrenched in a belief then there is nothing that can be done. The earth is open-ended. It knows nothing about what it does, it just does it. I say that because no evidence has come forward to change that view. If it did, I would change my earth-view.

8. Evidence can only be accumulated from some type of observation. That observation from any one or more of the five or more senses is all that we have. Thus every person (human animal) depending on the time, place and circumstance, must always have a different earth-view than anybody else. I believe that this is self-evident but, of course may be corrected at any time, place or circumstance. So, to claim a belief/opinion is to gather evidence that it may be possible for others to reproduce. This is change, it is not static.

9. That people agree (to any certain extent) is how we survive. Contrary to this is why we have differences which are survival mechanisms or destructive mechanisms.

10. What science (or anyone else for that matter) attempts to do is to locate the lowest common denominator. That is the smallest 'particle' or element that can exist and from which everything else came. That way, we might understand 'everything'. The notion is superb, the means of finding out impossible at this stage of our existence because we are too entrenched in  beliefs/opinions. Beliefs and opinions are not science as I understand it.

11. The problems is, that the smaller and smaller we 'go', the less and less we understand it. Conversely, the larger and larger we go. Somewhere in between this microcosm and macrocosm, we find it so difficult (at present), that we stop, freeze the frame of the film of things and say: That's enough! Herein start the beliefs and opinions. Then there is stasis. Nothing moves forward but looks backward. Whilst me may look backwards for any data it is impossible to look forwards for data since it isn't there, yet. So we 'predict' or 'extrapolate' from past data and the present data we are collecting. The problem is that a lot of data is not included in present data because of a vested interest of some kind, be what it will.

12. Unfortunately, also, looking backward too much, we will never look forward. Hard to see where you are driving when you look constantly in the rear-view mirror, I would say (although I don't doubt it is possible for a contortionist of some kind).

13. It is unfortunate for the human animal that he is constantly looking in the rear-view mirror which has also been tainted with incorrect data. Except that it hasn't.

14. The human animal seems to be invested with a notion that exploiting others is its main game. It's main game used to be hunting and gathering for its family or the preparation of such to feed a family.

15. This is where I see a divergence of the human animal into two groups, the humans and the humanoids (I'll call them).

16. On this tiny, tiny planet that we call Earth, a mere 'speck of dust' compared with the cosmos, a mere 'quark' of a molecule, invisible from outside the solar system (so-called), no more visible than any such planet of any other 'solar' system billions of miles away, we presume to know the origin of the cosmos we live in. Well, that is part of the human animal's egotism.

17. Anyway, back to earth. As far as I can see it, two human animals have emerged. The humans inhabit the earth. The humanoids inhabit two places upon the earth. Humanoids have invented a World. The World is their domain and they also live on this planet called Earth.

18. It is pretty obvious, given this conclusion (?) of mine that the two species are not compatible. Humanoids, it seems want to control the humans. Humans do not want to be controlled.

19. Humans do not need to be controlled, they are self-regulating, as we would say. Humanoids, apparently need control to control themselves or they have lost control. Humans are survivors. Humanoids are not survivors (in the long run) but parasites on the humans.

20. The problem with humans is that they are so interested in their survival that some on the 'borderline' are tempted to breach their enemies camp and become willing to be controlled.

21. Now survival is just that, nothing else. Tending towards humanoid (however tempting it may seem) is the loss of survival.

22. Given then a tendency to 'change camps' as it were, the humans are then subjected to the treatment metered out by humanoids. Thus results a conflict between the human and the humanoid but on a personal basis. Depending on how much (or far) the human leaves one camp for the other, results in a self-constructed 'warfare'. Which way?

23. Humanoids can accomplish this with their own devious ways. They are not survivors, remember, they need to prey on the humans for their existence. Given enough incentive to 'join' the humanoids, they relinquish their humanity on promises of survival that really have nothing to do with survival. Therefore they become slaves (or more) of the humanoid World.

24. Humans invented medicine (for example, Hippocrates et.al.). Humanoids are adapted to exploit this data for their own ends.

(Yes, I did start a new paragraph for effect).

25. Béchamp, Rife, Naessens (for examples) are not in textbooks for medical students. These people were humans.

26. Jenner, Pasteur were humanoids. They appear in all the textbooks, human or otherwise.

27. Why do I say this? Because, 1) they are not mentioned and 2) because the humanoids gained ground over their ideas. Not the least, this is unscientific.

28. Likewise, the Gamowian (et.al.) ['Big Bang'] theory of the origin of the universe is now current. I don't say Gamow was a humanoid but it is humanoid that his theory has never accepted an alternative theory. [Electric/plasma universe].

29. Not revealing data from previous ages and passing anything else as 'science' is NOT science.

30. So we get to vested interests and/or affiliations. It is the quest of humanoids to (whilst exploiting the humans they rely upon for their bread and butter, so to speak) that some humans wish to join this merry camp, thus losing their survival.

31. Survival is for humans that remain in one camp and will not allow themselves to go to any other. Sure they can weigh the wheretofores, or whatever but they must not let themselves be tempted (hard as it may be) to go to some other camp that cannot give them their survival as they would wish it.

32. What is called freedom is the feeling that one is free. There is no emotion attached since feelings are no emotions. Emotions rely on feelings.

33. Such is the same with faith. What we call faith is a feeling. Feelings are real to those who perceive them. We all perceive things in different ways because we are all different, whatever.

34. So it is the same with all qualities. Qualities cannot be defined for everyone because we all feel the qualities differently because we are all different.

35. Man came about by adaptation to the environment. However that environment came about is really a moot point. The conditions were correct for that to happen, created, evolved or otherwise. The point is, we are here on this earth, human or humanoid.

36. If certain human animals was to attach some form of explanation that suits their personal comfort zone, then so be it. My gripe is that humanoids want to inflict their opinions onto those who do not wish to see, hear, feel, or whatever. There are no 'rights' attached. 'Rights', as well as 'wrongs' are man-animal created, they were not created at the level of the [microzymas] or [somatids] both of which (or one in the same) appear to be almost indestructible.

37. Life obviously evolved from the elements at a certain, time, place and circumstance at which we can only guess at, although I seem to remember many years ago that they were able to produce some very simple bonds resembling life. However, that would still be conjecture and dependent on whether the 'Big Bang' theory, the Spontaneous generation [Hoyle et. al.] or the plasma/electric theory (or any other) was vogue at the time the data was presented.

38. There is a real possibility that the animal man will die out as have countless other species before it and still do. The accumulation of any kind of data that will help us personally survive is a function of the human animal not the function of a humanoid, who plainly is bent on self-destruction either deliberately or as a side-effect of their parasiticity.

Peter K. Sharpen
May, 2009









Return to CONTENTS page