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