Has science explained anything relevant to existence? (2)

My problem with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Ever since I read about this theory (when I was 24), I have been a sceptic. I had read a little anatomy and physiology by then. I couldn’t see how the eye could have evolved through random mutation (mutations are usually errors in copying DNA); and how natural selection, which eliminates the failures in adaptation, could have had a role. As the whole process requires a very long time, an inconceivable list of intermediate forms would need to appear along the way.

Cosmic catastrophes may better explain the appearance of whole functioning forms; while yet needing an organising influence. Thus, extra-solar impacts may damage some Earth-bound species; some of the survivors may then evolve into complete, viable forms. These forms may not have been possible through the Darwinian process. Did the modern bird arise from the destruction of dinosaurs?

The concept of punctuated equilibrium, allegedly intended to counter cosmic catastrophes as a cause does not seem to be an explanation – only a description of what occurs. I have read an attempted explanation of this concept, but it was full of suppositions. As well, have intermediate forms (missing links) been found?

What then of flowering plants (100 million years old), with no intermediate species from non-flowering plants (300 million years old)? Most flowers need bees and other pollinators. How did this relationship evolve? By accident? By chance?

Whereas Darwinian evolution is based on competition, co-operation and symbiosis are clearly relevant in life. That competition was seen as the driver was consistent with Karl Marx’s dialectical materialism. Darwin and Marx were original thinkers of the 19th century. Marx’s viewpoint was that matter is the sole subject of change, which is the product of conflict arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all things. That view had a degree of plausibility then.

The biggest challenge was from Michael Behe, a biologist, who listed blood clotting, cilia, the human immune system, the transport of materials within cells, and the synthesis of nucleotides as irreducibly complex, and that no gradual route could have led to their creation.

Simple forms of life could have may have been deposited on Earth through crashing meteorites or comets. Apparently, there is sufficient evidence of this happening. Or, through some catastrophic impacts from space. Could the concept of panspermia also include life being brought to Earth by an advanced civilisation? Indeed, did extraterrestrials also tweak some life forms on Earth onto more complex levels? The Christian Bible refers to the Adam in much the same way that Zachariah Sitchin suggests, from Sumerian records, that the Anunnaki from the planet Nibiru created man (to be a slave).

Theorising that purpose is built into all forms of life on Earth may be of some value. If this is true, how did it happen? My observation of the trees and tall shrubs in my garden competing with one another is suggestive of purpose. Then, there is the issue of how certain lizards and insects were able to acquire the mechanism to change their skin colours at will, or to acquire, on a permanent basis, the colouration of the tree or leaf on which this life-form sites itself.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution may be the only theory available to explain inter-species change. But it has not been proven. Is it time to admit that we should start again?

(The ‘Big Bang’ Theory of Cosmology also does not make sense. Read Part 2)

 

 

Advertisements

How Man arrived in the Cosmos

How soul-satisfying is the beauty of the Universe at all times, and which we are also made aware of in other ways. The majesty of the mountains which tower over all; the sibilance of the sea at rest; the scintillating sensual sunsets; the joyful bombasts of birdcalls; and the soothing scenery surrounding unprepossessing man-made constructions; are only some of the sights and sounds which uplift our spirits.

How incredibly complex is this Universe and its components. The miracle of birth; the very visible and innate love between the young – animal to animal (or bird), and between human and animal (and bird); the structure and functioning of our solar system which affect our lives insidiously; the strange balance between animate and inanimate life on Earth; the mostly unconscious bond between humans of all varieties; and an unavoidable instinctive yearning by many of us for merging with what we conceive of as the Divine; and the unbelievably complex arrangements within our bodies, such as the provision of energy by our cellular structure, which represents life; these are key features of Cosmic complexity.

These, and the totality of the inter-relationships discovered in the Universe, have led me to believe – and to accept – that logically there has to be a Creator of all that is. How and why are questions beyond our comprehension.

As one who was introduced to the scientific method, I follow ‘Occam’s Razor,’ the principle which says that that the simplest adequate explanation is best. Yes, it has to be minimally adequate.

Such an explanation of the origin, structure, and operation of the Universe and its components can be thus: An arm’s-length Creator set up a simple core ‘machinery,’ imbued it with a capacity for continuous change, with an associated sense of ‘purpose,’ and allowing evolution (change reflecting improvement or betterment) to occur.

Purpose (including human free will) can explain, in part, where we are now; possibly aided in our formation by ubiquitous bacteria, and by (Sitchin’s) 223 extraterrestrial genes (not found anywhere else on Earth) during our development. Chance and radiation/bombardment from distant space, as well as solar bursts, would also have had significant impacts on our path to the present.

No Earthly mind can prove – or disprove – this attempted explanation. No one can be blamed or receive credit for what has eventuated. Adding additional complexity may reflect only egoism.

What is postulated is an autonomous process, operating post-creation. A comparison – when sperm fuses with ovum to form a zygote. Asking ‘Why?’ would not be relevant.

Governing by obfuscation

The Land of Oz has a government which is not allowed to govern. However, it needs to be noted that, over many post-war decades, nations in various parts of the world have continued to operate fully, even when lacking a government for months and months.

Australia has a government, but it turns out to be quite useless in dealing with (a) a serious budgetary imbalance (b) establishing necessary infrastructures (c) coping with climate change (d) protecting the environment (e) a real need to reduce the use of coal (f) lifting the Australian indigene to parity with the mainstream populace.

The Federal Opposition and the single-issue parties seem to oppose the government, not as a matter of principle, but as political strategy. I am unsure as to why the taxpayer needs to pay politicians who prefer playing politics to shaping sound policies. All parties also waffle; the level of obfuscation is persistently high.

We do not seem to have any long-term economic planning or even proactive policies. Even when officialdom was required to offer objective, non-partisan policies (a very long time ago) in economic management, the pundits responsible relied on market forces to take the country forward. What happened to the national interest?

Now, we have a fascinating policy in economic management. Cut company taxes; the banks will increase their lending; businesses will borrow, invest, and take the nation forward. Wow! We will also be able to compete with nations offering tax-minimisation schemes. The tax intake will rise. Yet, some companies now reportedly pay no taxes; others pay little; and only a few pay the top rate of 30%.

Government by big business versus government by union leaders, with the small parties (rarely acting together) negotiating for seats at the table. The solution? Lots and lots of small parties, each representing the hitherto unrepresented. Coalition governments, although unpredictable (and not favoured by the media) will be an improvement on static parliaments.

But, will the level of obfuscation be reduced?

Pre-history readable through the zodiac?

I have had real-life experiences to convince me that horoscope reading by experienced Indian astrologers, based on the minute of birth (and its geographic location) enable probabilistic conclusions about a broad view of an individual’s future. However, I am not persuaded that horoscope reading in Western nations like Australia, based on one of the 12 constellations of the zodiac, are reliable. Projected personalities do not match real-life personalities.

Paul LaViolette, a multi-disciplinary scientist and mythologist suggests that the sequence of cosmic ‘houses’ on the zodiac are not in their proper relationship positions.

Nevertheless, does the zodiac as we know it enable us to read pre-history? This is a crucial question. For instance, it appears that the Sphinx in Egypt had a lion’s head originally. Could it have been constructed in the zodiac Age of the Lion? If so, would we now have a date (within a span of 2,160 years for each Age) for its origin? It could be 8,000 BC to 10,000 BC.

I remember reading that a description of a cosmic event in Hinduism’s Vedas (whose oral origin is asserted as before time as we know it) had been dated at about 8,000 BC. Or, could the associated constellation of the zodiac (the ‘house’ against which the sun rises for 2,160 years each time) refer to the previous zodiac cycle 25,920 years before? Why not indeed! Do we know enough to reject this probability?

In the event, could we then focus on the culture or civilisation which produced the Sphinx? In the light of the very limited technology available in that period to mankind, as claimed by the protectors of the current explanatory paradigm,  could we contemplate the probability of extraterrestrial assistance? This may have come from a watery planet from the 3-star Sirius complex – because a moat apparently surrounded the Sphinx originally.

Or, were our then human ancestors so highly civilised and technologically advanced as to be able to cut, lift, shape, and place the huge and heavy stones (the megaliths) – which we are yet unable to handle.

Thus, we have an interesting choice: extraterrestrial involvement or highly civilised and technologically superior human ancestors. While neither seems credible, a choice has to be made.

As to whether the zodiac placed at the ecliptic enables human pre-history to be read depends on what the zodiac actually means, who conceived it, and why it seems to be embedded in a number of cultures of the past. Apart from the link with the precession of Earth, and the apparent usefulness of knowing when to expect the equinoxes and solstices (for agricultural or spiritual purposes?), what does the zodiac tell us? The next probable cosmic catastrophe?

Were the planets closer to Earth once?

In historical times, when the planets were described (in mythology) as gods, were they closer to Earth than they are now? Were they described as being at war with one another, because of the terrible exchanges of lightning which reportedly took place? Was this how propitiation of the planets began?

Does this explain the commonality of the pantheons of gods to which all humans paid homage, except that the names of the gods reflected differences in language? Presumably, travellers and mystics contributed to some inter-tribal (inter-cultural) learning; that is, to the diffusion of belief about the Cosmos.

I instance the spread of Hindu beliefs, texts, and practices all the way from India to the South China Sea, and as far as the island of Bali in Indonesia. Even after the spread of Islam to Indonesia, Hinduism’s Ramayana, a most-durable epic, continues to be celebrated (as I discovered) in Bali – and in Buddhist Thailand. Perhaps matters human override matters religious in the realm of guidance for living – as the gods seemed to be at war with one another.

The only way our planets could have been closer to one another is through being pulled out of their normal orbits by a very, very huge intruder from space passing through our solar system. As I wrote in an earlier post, a remnant of a supernova has been held to have been responsible for a number of inconsistent aspects of this system:

  • Pluto, one of Neptune’s moons, pulled into a planetary orbit
  • the ‘equatorial alignment’ of Uranus changed, and its moon damaged
  • Saturn’s moon Chiron pulled away
  • Tiamat, a planet similar to Jupiter and Saturn, with an orbit between these two, believed to have been destroyed by Marduk/Phaeton (the supernova remnant), resulting in an asteroid belt in its place
  • Mars – orbit changed
  • Phaeton ‘rampaged near Earth only some 11,500 years ago’
  • Venus – its rotational spin reversed

(refer Allan & Delair in ‘Cataclysm,’ who relied on ‘Sumerian texts and recent astronomical data’)

This scenario does not, however, imply that the planets were once closer to Earth (as I have read elsewhere). Such proximity could only have occurred during the formative years of the solar system. But then there would have been no humans around. How then did this mythology develop?

The simpler explanation lies in errors in interpretation of ancient mythology. As well, the Sumerians’ writings are far too recent. Another explanation would be that nearby extra-terrestrials (on a Sirius planet?) were witness to this ‘war’.

Phaeton’s passage through the settled solar system is the most likely source of the claim of a celestial war. From our point of view, this event, believed to have occurred at about 11,500 years ago, seems to have coincided with the universal flood. This is believed to have occurred between 11,500 and 13,000 years ago. Phaeton’s rampage would explain this flood too (refer my earlier post).

Another major cosmic catastrophe is expected relatively soon by a barrage of expert researchers – from a variety of causes. We will not be taking our wealth, or theological differences, or any right to rule others, with us; only our soul memories.

Tribalism – the negatives

In the history of mankind, the imperatives of tribalism would, on balance, be the greatest curse of existence. Were we created by God, or through some other means (refer ‘the Adam’ in both the Christian Bible, and the Sumerian writings as interpreted by Zachariah Sitchin) to ignore, or exploit, or fight (to destroy), one another? Surely not!

Evolution from the animal kingdom would, however, explain the primacy of the integrity of tribal conduct. Not only is every other species ‘the other’; but ‘not one of us’ separates tribe from tribe within the same species. Co-operation – by necessity, and its derivative, habit. Competition – by nature!

Competition within the tribe, reflecting greed (especially for power and possessions) would also seem to reflect Nature. We were obviously not formed in the image of anyone’s god.

At the individual level, I have first-hand evidence of efforts made to ensure that one is not bested or out-run in the race to success by any member of the clan. At tribal level, in a multi-ethnic conglomeration, individuals will favour others in the tribe or sharing a nationality; though a shared nationality or citizenship implies – indeed, requires – non-discriminatory conduct and attitudes.

Yet, exploitation of one’s own people is the simplest means to wealth and power – as widely demonstrated within one’s nation; or as expatriates on foreign soil.

The imperatives of an un-domesticated animal nature seem undeniable. Creating ‘the Adam’ by commixing alien DNA and the optimal animal species (homo sapiens?) on Earth (as suggested by Sitchin) would seem to have been a terrible error; an unforeseen consequence.

However, could mankind’s inherited animal nature explain the devastation caused by tribalism at the institutional level? The oldest human institution would seem to be religion. Institutions involve co-ordination and control, with a rising hierarchy. The display of power within, and competition without, seem to be obverse sides of the same visage. However, does power necessarily corrupt the human spirit, or does it simply demean those subject to the power of controlling priests, or both?

When will the leaders of competitive institutional religions, especially their sects, cleanse themselves of any abuse of power, and positively preach the commonality of creation, the shared Earthly existence, and a co-operative and caring mindset covering all humanity? It would, however, be too much to expect the animal nature driving most of business and governance to follow suit.

Humanity needs to be weaned from tribalism. But only after the Sixth Extinction? I hope not!

Were the ancient Hindus, in their cosmology, correct in postulating repeated closures of all existence, followed by renewals? The extra-terrestrials who probably taught them that perspective may have understood the logic of what they taught; that repeated ‘cleansing’ is a must. Improved products may result.

RAJA – YouTube No. 6

Review of ‘Pithy Perspectives’ by author Raja Arasa Ratnam.

This truly is a smorgasbord of short stories. With 21 wonderful short stories to choose from, I decided to skip about and read in no particular order- simply because I could due to the way the author crafted this book.

Grounded quickly became an early favorite as I liked the interaction of the characters but dear Rueben in the Boat People reminded me much of the delightfully browbeaten Richard in Keeping Up Appearances on PBS.

Nothing Fishy at the Seaside was another story that stood out as I liked the idea of the story and it made my brain work double time.

The last story, Of Mice and Morality, was captivating, thought-provoking, poetic, and left me feeling inspired by the end of it.

After much debating, I find choosing a favorite from these delightful gems is a task that is far more difficult than it seems. While they are stand-alone stories, they flow nicely together when read one after the other.

The author managed to take an eclectic mix of stories and create a book that one can read a little at a time or in one sitting with the same outcome-a true pleasure to read. The stories are engaging, unpredictable, a little weird, highly imaginative, and will appeal to a wide audience.

If you appreciate exceptional short fiction like I do I’m sure you’ll enjoy this 5 star collection. It’s available on Kindle at a very affordable price.

(Review by William Potter of Independent Author Network)