Physics

In physics they have the law of preservation of matter (mass) and energy. First they had the law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of energy, and then Einstein came and merged them. They have several other conservation laws as it seems.

Quite obviously, - these principles were only relying on experiments done in dead matter. - No one has ever thought it necessary to perform physical research in particular in living organisms. - The assumption is that it would be utterly pointless.

- Here on Earth there are minerals - ;inanimate things - which I related to here as dead matter, - plants, animals, and humans. - Though physics is supposed to relate to them all it practically deals with the inanimate alone for obvious reasons. - No one can accurately measure the energy produced by chemical reactions and tell if this is really exactly what the muscle got in actuality in order for its functioning. The same is of course true elsewhere too. - Such things are not considered or tested.

- The contemporary prevailing materialistic view believes there nothing else than physical matter. This is altogether untrue. - Plants have a higher element unknown to so called materialistic “science”. - This element is also said to consist of two parts. - Without this they would not be plants, - they would be dead matter, - inanimate things. - Animals also have this and another one above it, - and humans also have what they have above this too. - “Death” is the departure of this element all three of them (- plants, animals and humans) have as I said - in collaboration of course with the other ones above it (as mentioned) too if these are there. - (That is is the case of animals and man) Contemporary science may its own definitions of death which will apparently ever miss the point.

The first element I referred to is supervising the physical body. No physical living being here on this plain can be a living being without it. - It is what discriminates living matter from dead matter. - It ever affects your body. you could not perform a single action living here on Earth as you do without it. - For this purpose it must obviously affect the physical plain (your body, or the body of an animal or a plant) from outside the physical plain. - That is to cause something to be different than it was within the physical plain (the physical world) while not being part of it.

In other words, - as it seems - we could say energy has somehow been affected as to alter its level or route. The changes are likely to be fine, - perhaps very fine, - I guess. - But the law of conservation of energy (or of conservation of mass and energy) could not be said to hold, - in its relating to the physical plain alone assuming its exclusive existence which would mean a system closed in the physical plain is closed altogether. It could be true when not relating to effects originating in what you might call higher worlds - but there is not half a second when - relating to a living organism - (- a plant, an animal or a human) it would be possible for such effects not to take place, - unless it is no longer a living being. - So in a way this is all rooted in a misunderstanding.

Of course this is not easy to examine. Not with the common tools used today by those calling themselves “scientists”. There is the question of how to investigate. If you initially negate the possibility of existence of all that is outside of what you imagine to be all of reality you seem to deprive yourself of the possibility to become knowledgeable about it. - Since the tools you would be willing to use would be altogether meaningless for this purpose. The ability to gain what is necessary here lies within man. - External tools thought of as generally the exclusive means for the scientific investigation involved are not expected to do here. - It is much harder to attain the necessary abilities than to sit in a university and listen to what they teach. Far more worthwhile too. - But it is not like academic studies, - no one can tell you that if you sit and learn for so and so years you will get this or that. - It is not like this. - One practices but the results might appear when they would, - or they might not, - perhaps. - It is altogether different. - But this is the true way. - Contemporary science, - at its current state, - with all the obvious benefits it might bring us - which are not to be put away, - is much of a waste of time and seems to be running severely in a ridiculous and wrong way. - I got quite further than what this post was to be about, - but it was necessary to relate to the means by which knowledge is to be attained. - This world is generally going all the wrong way. - And since resources will not be dedicated to bring us to see what is necessary in order to change the path - things seem to continue as everyone might expect.

Accept what you will. - But the means by which science attempts to gain its knowledge ought to be considered, - in a truly rational way, - and not relying on prejudices. - This is not all and this is not enough, but this post is not aimed at changing the world. Just notice what I said about the law of conservation. This was the intended issue here.

Written on October 6^th 2024

The wave of life through random chance

Suppose we accept the common idea of all life here on Earth having developed through natural selection, while as well prior to this the very mechanisms necessary for this have developed by random chance. - This would mean inevitably that this is all like a wave, rising spontaneously in a dynamic momentum, - while eventually it must perish, - and nothing is to be left of it, - as of waves in the ocean or in the sea. - Biologists might often claim their ideas do not mean random chance - they would say mutations occur by random chance, - but that the subsequent process according to which the better occurrences survive is not. I find this very expression somewhat surprising. - Obviously observing within a larger perspective it is all random chance. - Who could doubt it?

I don't know the practical calculations which which might exist in probability theory relating to this. But intuitively it seems most inevitable. - Observe all other processes around us. - All organisms die and dissolve. Disassemble. Decompose. All appearances of order in nature else than those imposed by physical laws (the roundness of the Earth, its route around the Sun, and similar phenomena) are impermanent. - Mountains will eventually flatten. - Fire consumes its substance it feeds on and die out. - Man made things will eventually come to nothing too, - nothing traceable will remain of them. - A tree comes to be and then comes to not be in a harmonious pace.

- I don't know how difficult it is or might be to define order in itself at first, - in order to investigate it mathematically. I am not sure it is possible. But even so I cannot see any way in which my idea here could be rejected. Following the common assumptions ruling today in the world of “science” the idea of a wave harmonious in its rising and descending will be the only possible alternative. - It may be that its duration could be calculated or estimated. Practically, - I believe, - we might come to note the whole process is not possible and the wave has no substantial foundation to produce it as a phenomenon, - but never mind this now. - If one would assume an appearance of life else than here on this planet this would apply too in the same way of course. It is a phenomenon unable to maintain itself limitlessly. According to the common assumptions - of course, - that is!

- If you believe the physical plain in its entirety appeared off higher ones it will be different of course, - but this is not what we are discussing here.

- As for our mind, - regardless of this too, - the common assumptions of mere physical or chemical processes or reactions provide no reasoning for its appearance or existence. - But now it would mean as well all mind or all minds are to be completely extinguished too. Dust and deserts will remain. All fruits of all achievements of humanity in any field will eventually bear no trace or outcome. - It seems all ideas of man conquering the universe - even if otherwise not anyway altogether unreasonable, - will have to be abandoned too. - But the main point is about the very idea of the appearance of life and humanity and all forms of mentality being similar to a wave rising as when you hit water with your hand or a unique form of a cloud in the sky spending its limited duration as a phenomenon in the phenomenal world.

So far.

Note:

As for defining order, - it seems to me the most reasonable way will be in accordance with the ability to express a system or a phenomenon in a smaller number of symbols. - For example the numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 can be expressed through three points alone without the need to particularly list all nine of them: - The first, (3) the distance between each one and the one next to it, - and the number of them all. In case of a random set normally such a method will of course not be possible and the less ordered the items are the more symbols will be necessary in order to describe or document them fully.

Evolution, - one other point

I have written two posts about evolution but I have not related to this one point: - Obviously there are two lines of plants and animals. - Animals could not have appeared simultaneously with plants because they can not feed off minerals like plants but need plants (or other animals) to feed on. - So the two lines as I said couldn't have appeared together. That is to say at first only plants appeared. Then what? - Could have animals developed off plants? As it seems - obviously not.

- So should we assume some time after plants have already been present again an altogether different line appeared independently? - Neither one of the possibilities appears to be acceptable. Why has this not been mentioned earlier? Perhaps it has.

One other point, - quite clearly, - man too is a different line from the animals. It is not so easy to prove this to contemporary so called “scientists” so mentioning it does not seem to be so useful, - but still I believe off those who arrive at my blog relatively many will understand this point too.

So far.

Returning to where we come from (following an earlier post)

I have earlier written a post related to evolution. - I there mistakenly used the term “natural choice” instead of “natural selection”. In translating “natural selection″ to Hebrew - as the Hebrew term I knew, - and then translating it back to English, - you would normally get “natural choice”. It was only years later that I found out about the mistake.

- This post will somewhat repeat what I said there. - I do not see a point in writing it differently.

The older post is at https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2016/06/natural-choice-examined.html. - The comments I added there are to be considered a part of it. - This one I believe will be more complete.

- Some time ago (April 28 2022) I was in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. As I was walking out of there I saw three people walking out of one of the buildings I was passing next to. - Judging by the building they came out of I could guess they were biologists or at least had to do with the issue. - And apparently at least one or two of them were. We had a short conversation, - about as long as it took them to pass from the building they came out of to the one next to it, - and subsequently one of them - Prof. Tamar Keasar, normally related to Haifa University I think, - sent me an e-mail message. She sent me a file of this book, and a link to this page.

- Sometime later I sent her a reply message. (May 19) It included the following:

«לעניין תהליך הברירה הטבעית, - הרעיון הפשוט ביותר עשוי לומר שאם צבי מסויים ירוץ במהירות גבוהה יותר מאחרים סיכויי הישרדותו גבוהים יותר ולכן עם הזמן נמצא צבאים מהירים יותר משהוו קדם לכן.

- אבל אם נניח שמהירותו (כ-) 100 קמ"ש, ואם נניח כמו"כ שמהירותו של טורף פוטנציאלי (- נאמר צ'יטה) עשויה להגיע ל-100 או 115 קמ"ש, - אז אם תגיע מהירותו של הצבי ל-150 או 200 קמ"ש, (כדוגמא מובהקת) כל עוד לא תגדל מהירותם של הטורפים הפוטנציאליים, - לא ימשך התהליך ולא יוסיפו הצבאים להיות מהירים יותר משהינם. לא נמצא צבאים שמהירותם תגיע ללמעלה מ-200 קמ"ש, ל-300 קמ"ש.

- כדוגמא אחרת צוארה של הג'ירפה לא יגיע למעלה מהגובה בו תוכל למצא עלים למאכל.

אבל: - לעניין האדם, - ברור ומובן שתהליך הברירה הטבעית אינו פועל מזה זמן. אינני מציין פרק זמן מתוך הבנה שתוכלי את להעריכו טוב ממני. - אם נתייחס לתקופה שבה עדיין היה ה-"מנוע" של תהליך הברירה הטבעית פעיל לעניינה של האנושות, - אז לעניין היכולות המנטליות המתפתחות על-ידו ניתן להעריך שלא היה בידו (של התהליך) להעמיד או ליצור הכרה (mind) המסוגלת ללמעלה מבניית אי-אילו בקתות קש או יצירת כלים כלשהם בעלי-מידת-מורכבות דומה. שום דבר שמתקרב ליכולות הנדרשות ליצירת רשת האינטרנט, לעיסוק במתמטיקה גבוהה או בפיזיקה גרעינית, לבניית גורדי שחקים, או לבניין כלים כחלליות וטילים הקיימים היום. - הדבר דומה למצב שבו מהירות ריצתו של צבי כבדוגמא מקדם תגיע ל-700 או 800 קמ"ש אם לא הרבה למעלה מכך.».

(In English:

“As for the process of natural selection, - the simplest idea may say that if a certain deer will run at a higher speed than others his chances of survival are higher and therefore with time we will find quicker deers than [those who] had been before.

But if we will assume its speed is (about) 100 km/h, and if we will assume as well that the speed of a potential predator (- say a cheetah) might arrive at 100 or 115 km/h, - than if the speed of the deer will arrive at 150 or 200 km/h, (as a clear example) as long as the speed of potential predators will not increase, - the process will not continue and deers will not further become quicker than they (presently) are. We will not find deers the speed of will reach higher than 200 km/h, - 300 km/h.

As another example the giraffe's neck will not reach higher than where it could find leaves to eat.

But: - As for man, - it is clear and understood that the natural selection process is not active for a period of time. I am not denoting a period out of an understanding that you will be able to estimate it better than myself. - If we relate to the period in which the ‘engine’ of the natural selection process was still active regarding humanity, - than as for the mental abilities developed by it it is possible to estimate that it (the process) was not capable of establishing or creating a mind capable of more than building a number of straw huts or creating any tools of a similar measure of complexity. Nothing coming near the abilities needed for creating the Internet, dealing with high math or nuclear physics, building skyscrapers, or constructing devices like spaceships and missiles existing today. - It is like a situation in which the speed of a deer as in the previous example will reach 700 or 800 km/h if not much further.”)

I never got an answer. Though it did say at the end I will be waiting for one. - What did happen is that the possibility to add comments on the page she had sent me a link to (on a site of the Weizmann Institute in Israel) disappeared. The whole comments section there disappeared.

- The page is entitled “the Scientific Answer to Arguments Countering Evolution”. (In Hebrew) Perhaps here I ought to clarify I don't oppose the idea of evolution itself. I didn't even know about the opposition so much else than having found out off the site of the Weizmann Institute subsequent to the link Prof. Keasar has sent me as I said.

- I don't see reasonability in negating the idea of evolution itself. But the theory of “natural selection” is a joke. - Things which may be often referred to are the development of bacteria resistant to antibiotics and insects being able to become immuned to insecticides. But these are cases in which the attempt is to eliminate the relevant population. - Suppose we put to death every person whose height is below 170 cm in a reasonably or relatively isolated surroundings. - In consistent repetition this would obviously lead to an obvious change in the general distribution there. - Does this prove the reasonability or validity of the theory of natural selection? I do not think an answer is necessary. - Similarly with the bacteria and the insects.

- I think it is a historical matter. - As far as I know before Darwin the view generally has been in accord with the story told in the first chapter of the book of Genesis. - Then Darwin came and following observation he conducted presented his well known idea.

It has been initially most controversial and faced great opposition. Subsequently findings seem to have affirmed the idea of evolution in an unquestionable manner. - But this never proved the idea of what was supposed to have been what was standing behind the evolution. - Darwin referred to evolution and to his idea of natural-selection which were both new then to all, - and saw no need to separate his presentation. So the two were wrapped together as far as relevant interested individuals may have generally noticed, - be those materialistic scientists or conservative men of religion.

- Therefore when apparently the idea of evolution has gained heavy support off finding of fossils, continually, - quite absent-mindedly perhaps - the notion was as if this verifies Darwin's idea of natural selection as well.

I am not learned in the issue or the subject, - but the general idea seems somewhat inevitable.

- Else - I might mention one quote from the book mentioned earlier - I did not read the book and I don't suppose I will, - I came across this reference off which I am quoting: (- …) “We shall keep in mind the fact that these very same ingredients, at least in some rudimentary form, must have arisen spontaneously on the early Earth, otherwise cumulative selection, and therefore life, would never have got started in the first place“. - It seems the author initially assumes the rightness of his idea he wishes to support, - considering its truth inevitable, - and - probably somewhat absent mindedly - practically relies on this supposed inevitability in order to prove what he wishes. I will return to this book in the end. Here the issue he wishes to deal with is the development of the initial tools prior to the possibility of natural selection which are necessary in order to make it possible. It is also what the first point in the main part of this post is about.

However, - after this long passage following my assertion that I don't have an issue with the idea of evolution in itself, - let's get back to where we were. - I said the possibility to comment on the Internet page I mentioned disappeared. Here you can see the page as it was before I sent the e-mail message to Prof. Keasar. (The capture is from January 26, it is the last capture of this page on the Wayback Machine before May 19 when I sent the message) Here you can see the page as I found it subsequently. (Here the capture is from September 19, - the first after the same date of May 19)

Obviously this is not a coincidence. The e-mail message I sent and quoted here has led to this consequence. - Is this the way of science? The reason is obvious, - the learned individuals involved are so certain of their ideas that the point I referred to in the quote above is merely considered a hindrance in their eyes. - They can't answer it, and never will be able to, - but such a thing they think is just an accident where their inability to respond would mislead innocent readers causing them to assume I am right.

- Materialistic people often refer to countering ideas as irrational. - The views negating brute materialism are considered so. - An attitude such as described here causing the disappearance of the comments section on the Internet page so that I will not be able to present what I did in the e-mail message there too, - is not always wrong. - But we should consider it concretely. - What does it display? - What does it reveal?

I dare say the person having written the book referred to here seems like a very stupid one to me. Off reasons not mentioned here. But I can not tell really, - St. Paul was a fanatic persecutor of Christians up to a certain point. - However, - I think this occurrence is quite significant. Particularly since one can really see the point brought [- in the e-mail message quoted here] cannot be bypassed. - It is an actual negation of the common assumption. - And while at the side of other points brought here it obviously stands stronger and clearer.

- Are those imagining themselves to be scientists really rational? Do they follow pure logic? - Or are they sunk in their nearby surroundings where they and their fellow men and women mutually absorb each other's sentiments and ideas? - I might say, at the time I studied math, - (one of the most foolish things I ever did) one time the teacher (in Tel Aviv University) made a mistake in proving a theorem. Out of, I guess, about 300 students - I was the only one who noticed it. I tried to mention it, but I was not sure I was right, so I hesitated, and things went on. - At the end of the course on a special class added then intended as a preparation for the exam I again referred to the matter. - I was right and the proof was not valid. (The course was of set theory) The teacher having made a mistake may certainly be reasonable, - it is known that brilliant mathematicians make mistakes too. - But the practical case where about 300 students have read the proof twice, - first just after the class in which it was presented, and second at the end of the course while preparing for the exam, - and not one of them notices it does not really prove what it is supposed to, - raises questions regarding science in general. - And math is supposed to be just the most solid science of all. - Actually the mistake was not very serious and very easy to correct so the proof would be valid then; - but still - one might ask as for the way things really are. - Regarding the matter we have began with here, - how reasonable are those engaging in life science and biology investigating the issue? - And are they people of independent thought, or somehow somewhere in the vicinity of sheeps in a herd?

Time will tell, inevitably. - But we are here in the present, deeped in ignorance and blindness of selected humans of shallow personality and their own chosen materialistic means.

- Before going to what was supposed to be the main part of this post I wish to make another comment: -
Quite obviously without having particular knowledge about the subject one may assume it is possible to have an estimation of how frequent would mutations occur. Further it is also quite obvious it would be possible as well to estimate how often would these mutations be of use, - contribute to the suggested process of natural selection - have any weight in this sense that is. Then as well it could be estimated how many of these practically useful mutations ought to be necessary for the purpose of the development of any particular organ, or appearance of any new species, or perhaps any other detectable change in a living being as well.
This means it is possible as well to calculate what would be the reasonable pace or speed of such a phenomenon. How long would it take for such things to happen, how much time would it demand or require. Such results - however possibly somewhat inaccurate, - should be compared to what has been found off the findings of fossils. - Assuming the numbers will be at reasonable agreement, - at an acceptable correspondence, - than this would render the theory some support. - Either greater or less significant, - but anyway some reasonability could be claimed. - I have never come across any reference to such a thing, - either on the Weizmann Institute site, or anywhere else. Without such an examination the attitude could not be said to be serious. - It does seem quite obvious too. - It seems it could easily be guessed those involved are simply so sure of the rightness of their theory the need hardly occurs to them, or that for the same reason they find it unnecessary.


- Next is what I referred to as the main part here:


1. - Obviously the theory of natural selection relies on the existence of a mechanism which needs to be in place before it begins to operate. This is unquestionable. - The appearance of such a mechanism of course can not rely on the idea by which the evolution is supposed to take place. - The reasonable possibility of the appearance of such a mechanism does not merely rely on the fundamental possibility of chemical reactions needed for the spontaneous construction perhaps assumed. The actual chances for a random continual process as thought of are most significant for a real actual estimation of the reasonability of the theory. Here, as it seems, - one needs not have professional knowledge of biology or chemistry in order to say that the complex structure of the DNA and whichever other elements necessary accompanying it are such that it would be most unreasonable to think that they would come to be by mere random occurrences as assumed.

I have not thoroughly investigated the matter but I never came across any reference to the matter of the chances. Of the probability. Putting this aside makes no sense. - Again, not relating to this I do not think the engagement could even be called serious. I am quite sure there would be mathematical means today which could serve the purpose.

- One other comment about this matter: - If we accept the idea, we must inevitably assume that all has begun with one single cell. - Assuming the process would have taken place more than once, - than obviously we would get two different mechanisms unable to mutually correspond and which could not (practically) be of the same structure or somewhat even of the same principle. - But the DNA, as far as I know, - is the same everywhere. - All works by the same principle. - Further: - If one wishes to assume that the living cell and the DNA within it did come to be by utter random reactions in a primeval world, it seems that than it would be natural to assume as well that such a process would take place more than ones. - If such a thing could happen once, - than why would it be the only unique occurrence throughout the life of the Earth? - If it could happen by chance, - within a surrounding existing at the time described today by contemporary scientists, - common sense would generally imply we should expect that such an occurrence would not be one which will never be repeated or occur in a similar manner. Unless you assume the period in which conditions enabling the process or convenient for the process was just long enough so that we might expect about a single occurrence of this kind. A funny assumption, I believe all will agree. - If you accept the probability for the event is reasonable you can hardly expect at the same time that only one event will take place altogether. You must guess an event would generally appear in an average every suitable period of time. Unlike that it seems - if one excepts the theory in question, - that all life on Earth came to be through one and only unique occurrence in which a living cell randomly has been constructed through no intention or guiding mechanism. - This also means all life here, including all it has brought, - might as well have not appeared at all, if it had not been for this only happening unintended where pure lifeless matter just fell into place somehow through the mere laws of physics and chemistry.

One thing one should say still is that an idea may be raised of various similar beginnings of which only the one we know today survived. I don't think it is of much worth but still it ought to be mentioned.

2. - Next there is the point I wrote about to Prof. Keasar which made Dr. Garti (of the Weizmann Institute) cease the ability to post comments on the relevant web page. - Clearly no one could argue that natural selection is active within humanity today. - This is also true for a period of time earlier. - Since our survival does not depend on our inherited features the process is not relevant to us. - If we look back and consider when has the situation not been like that, as for human beings that is, - the period we would be thinking of would be such that in particular ways at least the possible development would be most limited.

- This would refer to man in a time when the conditions within which he had lived could no-doubt only contribute in certain ways. - Put aside the physical issue, - as for the mental features there was nothing around which would promote or cause advancement beyond a most initial and fundamental level. - If man was living in a rather primitive situation still any mental capacities which could in any way develop through natural selection would be of course in accord with this. But we do know the mental abilities of humans are far beyond that, - particularly in recent time the evidence is clear and unbreakable: - The construction of buildings including skyscrapers including the engineering work necessary, - the construction of vehicles from sport cars to jets and spaceships, - regarding math - even the work done centuries ago in ancient Greece is unexplainable, but high math today and modern physics go much further. - All computer work including the internet is most obvious today too. The above is most easily noticed and understood, - but actually there are also the abilities as displayed by Master Dogen, Goethe, or Mozart, - art may not be as easy to use as an example which would form solid evidence in the eyes of all, - but in truth is not less significant. However, - inevitably, - the theory discussed sucks heavily in an irreversible manner. There is no doubt there is another force acting in the matter. - And if so, obviously, - there is not a reason to think it could not act elsewhere. Then all is different and the so called “scientists” are similar to the people of clergy having convicted Galileo Galilei asserting that his views are wrong and absurd. (- https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/)

3. - Next, - there is the phenomenon of the mind itself. - Off where is its existence?

- Obviously, clearly, doubtlessly, - no materialistic theory dealing with physical matter only could reason this phenomenon.

As for contemporary “scientific” attitude, - it might just ignore it. It might just relate to bodily and/or physical things while assuming the mind is nothing but some kind of a manifestation of these. But I would say anyway the existence of the mind is undeniable. - We witness its existence as we do this of physical phenomena, even prior to those. - Could science escape supplying any reasoning or explanation for this actual fact we closely know? - Whichever ideas or suggestions may be brought up, - it will never supply the slightest progress toward the understanding of the phenomenon. - It doesn't matter what physical processes (chemical included) you will suppose - it will not bring forth any reason for an appearance of what we know as mind, consciousness, actual consciousness. - The tendency is to not consider this fact meaningful. Why? There is no real reason.

- The matter is not to be ignored. - And if you accept views other than those so common today there is an explanation. - Other spheres existed prior to the existence of the physical plane, our physical world. Mind has existed there already. - Life means other factors entering physical elements here in our world. Different factors for plants, something added for animals, and something again added for man. - Thus the mind is an expression of a different element undetectable through our physical senses. Is this irrational? Dummies will thoughtlessly claim so. But why?

Anyway, - contemporary materialistic “science” may be said to for ever not be able to do. Another explanation exists. If you accept it it again changes the whole picture. - If you accept the existence of “higher” spheres than things you may have considered as a must will no longer be so. - Influence from spheres we do not know (or at least most do not) may have taken place in the development of life on Earth too. - You know your mind. - In order to explain its existence and origin it is inevitable to accept there is something (- ! -) else than just physical matter as we know it here, - otherwise it could not have come to be. - At least this.

- You need not accept what I say beyond that. But you do need to realize the existing theory here too faces a barrier it is eternally unable to pass. You must think further. The suggested explanations today supplied by those considered to be authorities are inevitably unable to create an acceptable model.

4. - The fourth point is about the wing. Again it is not just something contemporary “science” has not yet found a reasoning to, - but a point which one can see could not be explained through the idea the aforementioned “science” wishes to adopt. - It is about the development of the wing. Someone has pointed to the fact that (in some cases) the development of the wing means at first degeneration of the limb off which it develops. - The arm or leg off which the is supposed to develop, - quite clearly and inevitably loses its ability to function as one, while the wing has not yet come to be. - No one would argue the process is short, - it is clear this means a situation being carried on for a very long period of time, - while the being supposed to be in the intermediate period is not only not making progress in a way which could move the process of the natural selection, - but also is in a deplorable state unrelated to this. - Two of its arms or legs are useless and fundamentally just a burden to it. - It is a being we would expect to be extincted even unrelated to the theory of the natural selection.

- But not relying on this too: - Just considering the development of the wing itslef: - The wing is a flat surface needing to be wide enogh in order to be useful as what it is. - As long as it has not acquired the necessary measurements it could not be useful. How could its development begin? - The theory related to here could never suggest an actual line of progress.

- The wing has appeared four times: - In pterosaurs, birds, bats, and insects too. - Each time it appeared independently. - This means of course the above repeated itself four separate times. - There is no coincidence by which it could have come to be according to the existing view in the common scientific establishment, - but even if you would wish to assume one - you would have than to assume it took place four times, or that some alternations of it did anyway.

- As I said at the beginning of this fourth fascicle, - it again is not just something an answer has not been found to yet, - it is, apparently, - a proof the theory could not be valid. - And, as I already mentioned, - if we do know a different force or factor or element was active in creating and shaping the different forms of living beings here on our planet, - than all is different because there is no reason not to allow the possibility it was active elsewhere too, - unlike the common attitude assuming nothing else is possible other than mere physical random occurrences of lifeless matter first, and then through the principle of the natural selection.

So far for this.

- Else I would like at the end to refer to some things off the book I mentioned at the beginning Prof. Keasar sent me. - One reasonable thing said there is that relating to odds - odds of life or particularly a living cell appearing in the ocean here on Earth, - one could not necessarily think of just our “Earth” we know alone, - but of chances of this occurring generally in the universe we know, - on any of the planets thought of as possibly suitable for such an occurrence. - One could not say this does not make any sense. However, - dealing with numbers, - this will not necessarily bring things into reasonability.

- If we wish to relate to a concrete number indicating the estimated probability - it may be so low that even multiplying it by the great number Dawkins implies would still leave it far off what would be thought of as reasonable.

Else, - I wanted to relate to some quotes off the book, - but I will only settle for one: - “To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer”. - Here one might need to relate to a quote to which Dawkins relates in the title of his book:

- “In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, namely, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive -- what we could not discover in the stone -- that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g., that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. To reckon up a few of the plainest of these parts and of their offices, all tending to one result; we see a cylindrical box containing a coiled elastic spring, which, by its endeavor to relax itself, turns round the box. We next observe a flexible chain -- artificially wrought for the sake of flexure -- communicating the action of the spring from the box to the fusee. We then find a series of wheels, the teeth of which catch in and apply to each other, conducting the motion from the fusee to the balance and from the balance to the pointer, and at the same time, by the size and shape of those wheels, so regulating that motion as to terminate in causing an index, by an equable and measured progression, to pass over a given space in a given time. We take notice that the wheels are made of brass, in order to keep them from rust; the springs of steel, no other metal being so elastic; that over the face of the watch there is placed a glass, a material employed in no other part of the work, but in the room of which, if there had been any other than a transparent substance, the hour could not be seen without opening the case. This mechanism being observed -- it requires indeed an examination of the instrument, and perhaps some previous knowledge of the subject, to perceive and understand it; but being once, as we have said, observed and understood -- the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker-that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use.”.

- This is from a book I don't know called Natural Theology by a person called William Paley. - Never mind this. - There may be the question of how stupid could a person be. - I mean Dawkins himself picked this idea. - Now suppose you find a watch on the beach, - and suppose you consider the question of how did it come to be; - and then suppose you happen to meet the watchmaker who made it - or come to know him - or come to know of him: - Does it explain nothing?

- Precisely nothing?

...

- It does seem the most significant difference between quite meaningless dry intellectualism unable to actually relate to reality and true realistic thinking capturing pictures rather than just mere chains of conclusions put together mechanically is to be considered here.

- Unlike what this apparently extreme idiot might say watches are not living beings. - We do not - looking at our surroundings, - wonder how did rocks and stones, sand and water, - minerals in general - come about. - Put aside what contemporary ideas might say about this. - The Appearance of plants and animals, and human beings, - is initially or intuitively baffling. - This is naturally questioned.

Materialists will not deny this too. - They would assume explanations they reject will arise off this phenomenon. - However we have no immediate idea of how did living organisms come to be at first in the same way that our mineral surrounding is natural to us.

Now to the main point here: - For one who is familiar with the higher spheres of existence - for one who knows them - those spheres off which our physical plane has derived its existence, - questions as harsh materialists may be troubled by do not practically arise. - The view is natural and reasonable. You need not accept this. But saying anyway even if you do accept this route it leads nowhere is not acceptable. This is dry materialism.

This is the stupidity of Richard Dawkins. - By the way, - his definition of what living beings are is entirely off course. I never read his book. I do not intend to. - But I did have a look at it, and read a bit here and there. - Very little. - At the beginning he seems to define living beings including manmade objects as such too. - This might tell you of the nature of his mentality. - But I will not proceed. - He is not the subject and I am truly not familiar with him.

I will end at this. There is one other point in a post I have already written which will be on on February. - I started writing this long ago. It could have been finished quite long ago too. But things happened. Never mind. I would have scheduled it to the same date anyway.

- So far. -

Common sense II

There is this post I have written some time ago. - I did not relate to the point then (there) but there is also a very significant point which - as it seems, - follows what is pointed out there.

(Do note, - as for the post itself, - there is there another point added in the comments section strengthening the idea referred to there)

- If you accept what is said or brought up there - in the post linked - that is, - it means life on Earth did not develop as most assume. - Obviously it had to appear somehow. - If you reject the common explanation following the attitude appearing there it would obviously mean you are supposed to come up, - generally, - with some idea of how things came to be, - some other idea.

- If the theory of natural selection is viewed or seen as almost (- generally speaking practically not just almost) void, useless, stupid, - unrealistic, - than it would naturally follow that all living things on Earth have appeared some other way, - plants, animals, humans. - How?

- As it seems in the absence of this theory we are unable to find another reasoning making sense which would replace the existing idea most of humanity follows at present. - Other than if we accept the idea of higher spheres responsible for the development and appearance of existing species here on our planet. This has a more significant value even! - I mean the very acceptance of the fundamental idea of higher - occult, - spheres and beings - an idea most intellectuals today would not even find worthy of [generally] relating to. If you follow common sense it practically leads you to the conclusion. Not easy to accept, for so many accustomed to see things otherwise. But if a majority will accept others will too, - easy to see. - And if the scientific establishment will admit its mistake (quite a ridiculous actually, - viewed retroactively) than it will be corrected, - though as you can see [in the post] it doesn’t really take academic education or great proficiency in order to be able to tell, - just free thinking and an unbiased mind.

(- Written - 8.1.2021 -)

Following the last post

I came across this video not so recently. - Several years ago, I don’t know when.

Recently I had, - naturally, - a thought about integrating it into a post, here on the blog.

- That is using it on the blog. - During the writing of the last post I did not think about it, - the idea of using it in that post or adding it there did not occur to me - but anyway it seems it would not fit in there.

Now that the post is written and scheduled, (not yet posted) I remembered it. - As you can understand the “recent” thought I mentioned is not so recent. - Obviously I like the video, - but it has its point if you have some idea of what the theory I was writing about in the last post is really worth. - Though this was not obviously the clear intention of the piece in the first place. Of its creator. - Anyway - now that you have read the previous post of June 30, - this video here will be better able to speak for itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo

Natural Choice Examined

Among common men observing things as most do today the view accepting and affirming the spheres of reality outside the physical plain where we reside here on Earth is normally presented as irrational.


The truth would be rather contrary. - A person only familiar with solid objects whose thought has been accustomed only to them would find difficulty in relating to liquids he has never seen, - when hearing about them due to his own limited ability of a rather harsh mind he might find or suspect the idea irrational. - A person only familiar with solids and liquids - living in a theoretical world (though of course impossible) where only these two exist, - would find it hard to understand - initially at least, - what gas is. - Unless a person of perhaps unusual abilities - assuming he himself lives in a worlds where all his fallow men too share the same reality and the same conditions, - he would most likely reject as idea of such a state if this is the custom taught in the described society in which he lives.

If a person to whom liquid is totally foreign - as in the first example, - hears about it at first, - it might be very difficult to convince him - describing it to him, - that it is something different from sand. Particularly if it is an intellectual person confident in his inferior abilities of inflexible thinking.

Further, - if one is familiar only with lifeless matter, never having seen any plant or any form of a living organism, - particularly not any living flesh bearing a mind and motion, - his mental processes and particularly those of thought would naturally not be accustomed in a reasonable way to dealing with it.

His mind would not be one of accordance with such a reality as external surroundings. - His mental abilities would practically not be naturally able to match such perception and deal with it in a full and sufficient manner. - Needing to relate to the occult being only familiar with ordinary life as usually faced in ordinary society today is somewhat similar to the above examples.


This is not the direct subject of the post, but it seems in place to preface it. - Other examples might be brought in other posts. Here I will relate to the renowned theory as the title implies.

Charles Darwin, - 1884

It is particularly amazing, as it seems, after all I will say here, - that this theory has been able to persevere and sustain itself until today. The faults I intend to relate to are apparently so obvious and severe, - that it seems difficult to understand how could this idea not only have been accepted as reasonable - but also have been so widely viewed as more-or-less the sole explanation for the existing reality. People simply see it as a fact. Both common men and scientists. This is obviously no secret and has not been.


First, - the main idea of this theory is of a fruit of a need. Or of a fruit of a natural chance, - I mean here “chance” in the sense of an opportunity. - Obviously it is not active today within humanity. So for at least several hundreds of years.

The need or the chance is the engine. - It could, - supposedly, - improve the features of animals through its proposed mechanism, - giving them higher abilities either in the mental or physical fields. - That is to say - the level or amount of improvement would be in accord with the conditions in the environment and the possible achievements useful for the organism at the relevant time.

I will not try to define exactly what would be reasonable improvement for various organisms such as bacteria, sea weed, plants, fish of different sizes, and animals ranging from whichever low forms to monkeys and apes. One reason may sufficiently be that the theory is unreasonable anyway, - and as a general rule is unequivocally not any significant engine behind evolution, - which means that in most cases - as it seems, - this amount to be estimated simply does not exist. Apart from that anyone can use his common sense.

I do not intend to try and make an exact definition for humans either, similarly.

The obvious will be enough. - Given that the process was supposed to have acted a considerable time ago, as for humanity, we can very easily get some reasonable estimation which might be shocking. - Let us try and consider what mental abilities might have been able to develop through this process: - Consider the conditions under which humanity might have been and what or which benefits arising from mutations could have been possible. - How high could this have lifted the human mind? - Today we are familiar with the abilities of the human mind, no doubt, at least to some extent. - Sky scrapers are one result manifesting its abilities. The Internet is another. The genius of artists and men of spirit such as Mozart, Goethe, Dogen, Gauss and of course a considerable number of others is one other exquisite example. - The potential lying  in the human mind is already known to be enormous. The examples here are enough. We need not go beyond that.
What situation in a primitive surroundings as man has been in during the foremost line of his development could have been promoting in a way which would lead to such achievements?

None.

This is utterly impossible. However far we would like to choose to extend or pull the limits of random chance, with any probability which could by any view be considered reasonable, - it would be impossible. The fact is so extreme that it does seem explicitly and considerably silly it could have been overlooked - as it has been, - beforehand.

I could continue with further explanations, but I am quite certain anyone interested with reasonable common sense could observe the reality for himself and see the more complete picture. - What real conditions might have produced might have been at most a mind capable of building a few huts or using primitive language. - Perhaps constructing the simplest levels of society, even democracy as an idea would have been too complicated. - The spring - the apparent spring, - off primitive society where and when these processes (of natural choice) would have been still active, - to what we know lives in potential in the human mind, - would have been practically amazingly off limit.

- This bounce could never have taken place.

The reason the theory has been taken as it has, it seems, is that - roughly thinking at least, - the only alternative considered to exist was the Biblical story of creation. In western society of course. - And through eliminating the other alternative, stupid humans came to imagine there is no other way and Darwin’s theory is inevitable. - This is not a central issue here, but it does seem to a great deal this is what happened.

A second point: - The theory begins with a mutation. Else than some point I will relate to in the end. - This is a mistake in copying a file. The occurrence is very rare. I don’t know how rare. Then there is the question of whether the mutation has been useful or harmful. (or just useless anyway) Obviously, - in the great majority of cases, - it will be of no use. Then the process does not begin. - Only on occasions when a mutation, by pure chance, - has been such that is of aid in some way to the organism, - is it included in the process of natural choice. - But this is still far from being enough.

Consider an organ such as an eye. - It would take a terribly great number of mutations to bring about its appearance. - It could of course never have been constructed by a few mutations. - But this is not all: - the question here would be after how many such mutations would the organ beginning to form, - the organ in its initial appearance and development, - begin to bring any sort of use to the organism it is part of. - Only at the point it is beginning to be of any real use and benefit, - is the process beginning to work. Is the wheel of Darwin’s supposed idea beginning to slowly turn. - Now the question would be the chance of a consequent line of a considerable number of mutations all occurring consequently one after the other before the process has been able to come into action. What would be the chance, - the probability, - of such a series of mutations taking place under such conditions? - Zero, - approximately. - In addition to the rarity of mutations in general, and to the rarity of those of them which would initially be of any relevance to the process, - there would be the impossible probability of the necessary line or chain of consequent mutations in need for the development and appearance of organs absent in the organism beforehand. This is a stupid and impossible theory. Mind you. And mind all.


If you find the general presentation intuitively insufficient, you might relate to practical calculation. - If the probability for the occurrence of a mutation is x, the probability for the occurrence of two would be x². - The probability of the occurrence of 6 mutations would be x⁶ and for the occurrence of 50 of them x⁵⁰. - It doesn’t take much to thrust the chances high into nowhere. - It explodes exponentially.

If you need the mutations to appear in a certain order this would diminish the probability further, if we need n mutations to appear in full order - this would mean the probability would not be xⁿ as before but would be further divided by the factorial - [(xⁿ)/(n!)]. - This would be for example for 5 consecutive mutations x⁵/120 instead of just x⁵. - This additional point isn’t really necessary or very important but it still seems to be worth mentioning.


This post is mainly about these two points, - the attainment of humans being far above anything which might have been achieved through the proposed theory, and the need - in many cases, - for a continuous series of a considerable number of independent occurrences of a distinct deformation which would be to appear before the operation of the natural process is beginning to take its place, - a need which would make the relevant probability fade into nothing like a senseless mosquito trying to battle a basketball on its way to score down the loop or a football flying gracefully into the top right corner of the rectangular goal set in the game’s field.

There is a third point though, not less important as it seems.

Some time ago I came across an article in a magazine called Epoch Times related to the subject. - My mother is getting it for free. - It is about three scientists - James Tour, John Walton and David Berlinski who disagree with the theory of natural choice on grounds irrelevant to my two points above. They are mainly concerned with questions in the field of chemistry of how could the DNA develop beforehand. This is where the “some point” I said I will relate to in the end comes in. - I am not a chemist. It doesn’t seem to me it is possible to take a serious stand as for the subject without knowledge in the field. One can only generally obtain an impression off what others are saying. You can guess who seems serious but you can’t discuss the issues themselves off common normal acquaintance with general issues widely known.

However, - as I thought, prior to reading this article, such knowledge does not seem necessary: - The DNA is a complex structure. - This fact is not secret and not controversial. - It is obvious that the process of the natural choice does not take place in the construction of the DNA itself. This means this complex, very complex, structure was supposed to have come to existence basically (or completely) through mere random chance. The DNA was not yet known when Darwin lived. - So the theory started off not relating to the matter. I don’t know the historical facts but I guess it was already accepted before the additional piece of information referred to here came about.

I don’t think one should consult biologists. I think one should consult mathematicians. This seems quite obviously to be a third severe fault with the idea all contemporary intellectuals in general would imagine to be an obvious sign of advance and progress. Fuck those idiots, frail minded and childishly confident.

I even wonder why have the scientists I mentioned above thought the particular chemical process itself so important in that light.

So far.

This is all for this post.

- I would be happy for comments. (- almost completely absent on this blog)

But I can’t see any way in which what I say could possibly be either rejected or declined.

- Common sense wins the lot.

                                                                                    (Written initially on a “Word”, and modified and completed on the blog later. (- 28.2.16) + Note: - (- 1.5.2021) Being a native Hebrew Speaker I was familiar with the term “natural selection” in Hebrew rather than English, - having translated it (back) to English as “natural choice”. Only today I found out the correct term in English is “natural selection”. So wherever it says [above] “natural choice” you should read “natural selection”. I might sometime correct this in the post itself but for now I guess it is understood anyway. So far.)