Saturday, November 6, 2010

The Truth about Species! - Part 4 (Entropic Nature)

This will be the last post of the series of 4. Today I will try to close this subject about species.

In the post about the Cambrian Mystery, there is a very important thing that was not talked about. Today I want to show that life has a real cancer, this cancer has its roots in the entropic physical world. Nowadays, entropy in evolution is a no man's land. Here the Classic Evolutionist has little to say, for him mutations take millions of years where the deleterious ones are minimized by Natural Selection.

What you don't see a Classic Evolutionist doing, is answer the following questions:
  • How can Natural Selection minimize frequent day by day deleterious mutations being a very slow process?
  • If de novo deleterious mutations are so frequent, why aren't called entropic mutations?
To have an idea of the amount of this deleterious mutations, we may refer the numbers from the CDC showing America's leading types of birth defects. Researchers looked at the U.S. rate of birth defects from 1999-2001.

Here's the list of the six major types of birth defects covered in the CDC's report, along with the number of babies per year born with those conditions:
  1. Genetic defects (Down syndrome and other conditions): 6,916 babies per year;
  2. Mouth/facial defects (cleft lip and/or cleft palate): 6,776 babies per year;
  3. Heart defects: 6,527 babies per year;
  4. Musculoskeletal defects (including arm/leg defects): 5,799 babies per year;
  5. Stomach/intestinal defects: 2,883 babies per year;
  6. Eye defects: 834 babies per year.
Birth defects are the leading cause of infant death and contribute substantially to long-term disability, the CDC reports.

As we can see in the following graphic, the incidence of this kind of diseases is more or less the same along time, something that make us suspect of its systematic character, something that strongly indicates limitations intrinsic to the reproduction system.

From CDC

And this isn't all. If doubts remain, we just have to point out the correlation between age and autosomal trisomy. The Relationship between Maternal Age and Chromosome Size in Autosomal Trisomy by N. Risch et al., proves that not only Trisomy 21 is exponential correlated with the maternal age, but also, many others trisomies.

Exponential incidence of Down Syndrome

In this case, not even Chernobyl can compete with age when it comes to cause birth defects.
"In terms of the sheer number of cases, genetic factors are the most important cause of congenital anomalies. It has been estimated that they cause approximately one third of all birth defects (see Fig. 19-1) and nearly 85% of anomalies with known causes. Any mechanism as complex as mitosis or meiosis may occasionally malfunction; thus, chromosomal aberrations are common and are present in 6% to 7% of zygotes. Many of these early embryos never undergo normal cleavage to become blastocysts. The changes may affect the sex chromosomes, the autosomes, or both (chromosomes other than sex chromosomes). In some instances, both kinds of chromosome are affected. Persons with chromosomal abnormalities usually have characteristic phenotypes, such as the physical characteristics of infants with Down syndrome. Numerical and structural changes occur in chromosome complements." - in Before We Are Born, Keith Moore and T. V. N. Persaud

Fig. 19-1: Aneuploidy - a deviation from the human diploid number of 46

Here the Classic Evolutionist supports Natural Selection exclusivity arguing that the severity of the previous anomalies have a serious effect on health, making impossible the achievement to the reproductive age, and so, minimizing this anomalies in the gene pool. However, they don't have nothing to say about the systematic character of this anomalies.

But even with the argument of the reproductive age we have problems, for instance, if we include the children up to 2-year-old, we have an increase of incidence of birth defects from 3% to 6%! And in the case of including the up to 5-year-old children we have 8% of incidence, due to the fact of some birth defects being only detectable at upper age. And more can be said:
"Congenital anomalies may be single or multiple and of major or minor clinical significance. Single minor anomalies are present in approximately 14% of neonates. Anomalies of the external ear, for example, are of no serious medical significance, but they indicate the possible presence of associated major anomalies. For example, the presence of a single umbilical artery alerts the clinician to the possible presence of cardiovascular and renal anomalies." - in Before We Are Born, Keith Moore and T. V. N. Persaud
Those minor anomalies doesn't necessarily diminishes the population at fertile age, making Natural Selection exclusivity a little bit limited.

Now that we start to realize that Entropic Nature aren't a far-fetched idea, we can see it as a barrier to the development of complex organisms as explained in the following graphic:

Per-site mutation rate versus genome size for CChMVd and other biological

"These primitive replicons would also resemble hammerhead viroids in their extremely error-prone replication. Thus, our results support the notion that the emergence of replication fidelity mechanisms was central to the evolution of complexity in the early history of life." - in Extremely High Mutation Rate of a Hammerhead Viroid by Selma Gago et al.
Complexity is an important issue, and so, it's unsurprisingly that human activities, like production, have to solve the same problems as those that from the beginning undermined life's complexity.

In the end of the 20st century, increased complex products, like chips, demanded a new and more strict kind of quality control. The old 3 Sigma became obsolete to this new increased complexity, and for those new extremely complex products, like mobile phones, computers, and other electronic devices, was drafted the new 6 Sigma, resulting in 3.4 defects per million items, something that makes nature blush of shame. Not so much? Yes, you are right!

We should not misunderstand life. Organisms are of an extremely and unimaginable complexity and incomparable with the most complex devices ever made. However, my point isn't about increased conformity, it's more about the need for a new form of reproduction, the Sexual Reproduction in life.

As told in The Truth about Species! - Part 1 (Why Sex) post, Sexual Selection is the mechanism of speciation. So, this mechanism has to guarantee the health of the specie.

Because the Classic Evolutionist lives obsessed with the sexual dimorphism, that in fact is no more than a curiosity, he became a passionate to the point of believing in this sexual dimorphism as a prerequisite for sexual selection. For me, sexual dimorphism is just a variable trait specific to the specie, so, you may have great dimorphism, middle dimorphism, low dimorphism and no dimorphism at all (see New Mexico whiptail in Why Sex), and yet, because they are all species, they are all sexual mating organisms (see Why Sex). Now I will exemplify how Sexual Selection blocks Replication Entropy accordingly to that same dimorphism in the next manner:

Sexual Reproduction same as Gaussian Product

Sexual Reproduction same as Gaussian Product, because attractive organisms are more likely to inbred between them, and consequently, produce more offspring. It's up to species to guarantee that organisms, albeit similar in traits, doesn't became able to reproduce if aren't conform to its will (sexual attractiveness).

For the special case of two Gaussian probability densities:

the product density has mean and variance given by:

Those two Gaussian curves represent the distribution of Sexual Attraction (relative to a protocol's blueprint) for each sex. Note that as told before, this is a kind of fitness at the species level, that has nothing to due with environmental fitness. This fitness is all about Sexual Selection (a priori) and nothing about Natural Selection (a posteriori).

For a Classic Evolutionist, Sex is all about diversity, and more diversity. So, it's hard to convince him of Sex as a mechanism of Speciation, as a mechanism of sameness, where inducted diversity is the only diversity, as explained in The Truth about Species! - Part 3 (Inductive Nature). But as we can see, Sexual Reproduction reduces variance, because the product of two Gaussian probability densities with variance less than 1 (high levels of replication fidelity), results in a new Gaussian probability function with a reduced variance, reinforcing the Species' Kernel.

Lower variance greater conformity (narrow bell shape)

In An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection, there is a simulation of sexual reproduction as the product of two Gaussian probability densities, where it's concluded that the Mating Process is the most value compared to asexual reproduction.

Asexual vs. sexual reproduction in replication fidelity

If the problem is the expression entropy, we can call it noise, distortion, inefficiency, drift or any other name that essentially means the same, divergence of alignment.

Now we realize that induction is the main tool against entropy, and population number is the fuel of that induction. With low populations induction loses its strength, and the fitness of the organism can't be sexual selected accordingly to the now weakened fitness of the respective specie, because this species starts to act more as a singular organism than a group of them.

There is a miss-intuition that says that genetic homogeneity is the cause of genetic diseases (intrinsic to the organism). But if genetic diseases are distortions how can we say that there is a genetic homogeneity? In fact, it's the other way around. What we have is a distortion trough entropic mutations that become accumulated in the gene pool, and finally, because the mechanism of induction is weakened, those mutations start to being fixed trough genetic drift, and it's this fixation that indicates a greater vulnerability to intrinsic diseases that have never before been able to fixate.

For instance, the Cheetah species accumulated intrinsic genetic diseases, due to low population size able to induce otherwise, and so, it become divergent of its own otherwise normal specie, trough genetic drift and resultant genetic diseases.

Random genetic drift of a single given allele (Bigger the Population lesser the diversity)

By other words, we are assisting to a Population bottleneck, something that doesn't only supports the notion of Species' Kernel, but also the irreversibility of a species opposed to what it happens in the case of a polymorphism, just as supported in all the previous posts (see Inductive Nature).

To end this series of posts, I can add to the second post about the Cambrian Mystery, that the explosion may also happened mainly due to this entropic nature conquered by the new speciation skill, with induction as his essence.

An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection by Rui Monteiro - 2010
The Relationship between Maternal Age and Chromosome Size in Autosomal Trisomy by N. Risch et al.
Before We Are Born, Keith Moore and T. V. N. Persaud
The Truth about Species! - Part 1 (Why Sex)
The Truth about Species! - Part 2 (Cambrian Mystery)
The Truth about Species! - Part 3 (Inductive Nature)

Monday, November 1, 2010

The Truth about Species! - Part 3 (Inductive Nature)

Today I will specify the terms I have been used before. One of the terms are Software. When I say that Sexual Selection it's more about Software than Hardware what I'm really saying?

For Software I mean what Faraday expresses about Matter and its Lines of Force, whose theory holds that all reality is made up of force itself. So, I will explore this Lines of Force to explain speciation.

In An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection, we have a new scheme, that gives a new meaning to the word Species.

Scheme for the The Survival of the Fittest

Next we see stated the following about the The Survival of the Fittest:
"By analogy, it means the survival of the most adapted object to the environment. By induction, it means the survival of the most adapted protocol to the environment induced by its objects." - in An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection
Looking to the scheme, we can see that speciation doesn't apply to Prokaryotes. There is a void in the line of species.

In the sentence that follows, we see speciation associated with induction, that supports a take off of a new layer, here called protocol. The organisms aren't considered in an isolated way, the fitness is now made collectively, it's the species the most fitted not the organism, supporting a strict differentiation between organism and specie.

Recognizing this layer of species as a reality, and not just as a mere classification, we are able to frame Sexual and Natural Selection per interfaces. So we have for each interface:
  • Concept/Protocol: Natural Selection;
  • Protocol/Object: Sexual Selection.

This view is fundamental for any step further in the explanation of evolution.

Now we will take the concept induction a little further. We will try to construct a good metaphor for this induction idea.

The Electromagnetic Induction is a good example of Induction, where a systematic variation of a magnetic field results in an inducted electric current.

We know that the most efficient way to induce an electric current it's trough a solenoid, or a coil if you prefer. This solenoid is made of loops or turns, where the Inductance (the induced electric voltage) is proportional to the square of the number of loops, and some how to the coil radius.

Solenoid as a group of loops

Now we will construct our metaphor. I stress the word metaphor, to rest no doubts about this reasoning.

In this metaphor we have:
  1. Magnetic field = Environmental Opportunity;
  2. Solenoid = Species;
  3. Loop = Organism;
  4. Induction = Selection;
  5. Loop Fitting = Sexual Fitting;
  6. Alignment (torque vector) = Environmental Fitting.
In this example we will think in a species of birds and two differing environmental opportunities (small seeds in patch A, large seeds in patch B). This two differing environmental opportunities can result in two polymorphisms or in two species through a speciation process. This environmental opportunities need to be two previously unexplored opportunities, or else, they aren't opportunities at all.

Thinking in the Solenoid metaphor we have the following two scenarios:

1. Polymorphism as a single bended solenoid (specie)

2. Speciation as two straight solenoids (species)

We may argue that there is a Ultimate Limit State beyond which the species breaks up. The line of force comes from the opportunity that resembles a strong magnetic field.

This disruption is well described in the following images:

Simulated speciation with the punctual population split - in On the Origin of Species by Natural and Sexual Selection

Simulated speciation with the punctual mutational process - in An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection
"In this way, a polymorphism is reversible if, for any case, the associated opportunity ceases its effect. On the other hand, a speciation has its own kernel, ending the previous implication, that is, a speciation is not reversible if, for any case, the associated opportunity ceases its effect." - in An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection
In the same article sited before it's stated the following:
"However, there is one thing that I think as a wrong presumption. The presumption that the migration rate leads the speciation, because is another example of bad intuition. In the Fig. 3 of your article, where you correlate migration rate with sigma, there is a clear symmetry. This symmetry reveals a correlation between sigma and migration rate, with the first causing the last! Being so, migration rate is the consequence, and not the cause." - in An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection

Fig. 3. Effect of ecological parameters on the rate of speciation. - in On the Origin of Species by Natural and Sexual Selection

For the question, in which way it's Sexual Selection the mechanism of speciation? We may answer that Sex; Selects the Fitting of the Organism accordingly to the Fitting of the Specie, which in turn, Fits the Species to the Environmental Opportunity, or metaphorically saying, Inducts the Alignment of the Loop accordingly to the Alignment of the Solenoid, which in turn, Aligns the Solenoid to the Magnetic field. In other words, this opportunity is always expressed on Species, because there is always a significant population of Loops that retain its Fitting as Sexual Fitting.

By other words, Sexual Selection forces the integrity of the Species (Solenoid), not allowing any change by nothing else than an opportunity acting in an aggregated way, and it's exactly because of this aggregated way, that species, instead of polymorphisms, are reversible only by extinction.

So Sexual Selection isn't about diversity as many try to prove! Sexual Selection is about aggregated exploitation of existing opportunities. Sexual Selection doesn't support diversity by itself, Sexual Selection "accepts" aggregated diversity at the cost of an opportunistic exploitation.

For this aggregated diversity, we may even think in the premises of another kind of induction, the mathematical induction. Here we basically need two conditions:
  1. The basis: One chosen organism within one given aggregated diversity represents an opportunistic exploitation;
  2. The inductive step: An opportunistic exploitation by one organism within one given aggregated diversity, implies the same opportunistic exploitation by one other subsequent organism within the same aggregated diversity.
The previous conditions are needed to any specific diversity become dominant in an opportunistic niche.
"Mutation is the resource of information for any species, however, it has to be amplified by an Opportunistic Exploitation to be convergent at the Species level." - in An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection
The speciation skill forces the integrity of the species with the respective kernel, so we should expect long periods of stability and short periods of fast change (speciation). In general, we may conclude:
  1. Prokaryotes - Phyletic gradualism;
  2. Eukaryotes - Punctuated equilibrium.
This is probably one of the main reasons why transitional fossils tend to be missing links.

To be continued...

References:An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection by Rui Monteiro - 2010
On the Origin of Species by Natural and Sexual Selection by G. Sander van Doorn, Pim Edelaar, Franz J. Weissing - 2009
The Truth about Species! - Part 1 (Why Sex)
The Truth about Species! - Part 2 (Cambrian Mystery)

Saturday, October 30, 2010

The Truth about Species! - Part 2 (Cambrian Mystery)

Today I will clarify my previous post about speciation as an acquired skill. I will try to answer the question or observation that I am making a circular argument!

Thirst of all, I'm not one of those that support Ring Species, so, I am the thirst one to refuse those kind of circular arguments as you can see in my post Ring Species another Illusionist Trick.

My point is very simple, I defend that speciation is an acquired skill. I'm just saying that speciation isn't possessed by all organism, I'm saying that there is a very sharply defined frontier line between organism with and without speciation, I'm saying that that frontier is between Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes!

My following argument is strongly based in the brilliant article of Rui Monteiro entitled An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection.

In the article mentioned before, that I strongly recommend, we see the following very important concepts:
  1. Potential Speciation;
  2. Polymorphisms;
  3. Species' Kernel.

Delimitation of the Species' Kernel

This Species' Kernel is a landmark in the perception of the evolution of life. However, for more ingenious that you can think about that landmark, the terms Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes already have the answer.
Prokaryotes - Without a nucleus;
Eukaryotes - With a nucleus (kernel).
The previous definitions relate to the Hardware of the organism, but what a classic evolutionist can't do, it's to turn this Hardware concept in a Software one. If they did, it would be evident that speciation is all about nucleus, the never glimpsed, Species' Kernel.

Kernel, nucleus or core, are names for a very important concept, the concept that something can be very strict, and at the same time, very versatile. For example, your computer system is very common among other computers. However, the way each computer system or operating system is configured, reveals a great adaptation to circumstances in a very independent way from the system itself. This concept does not apply only to computers, or are exclusive to human activities, and aren't necessary an human innovation.

Planet earth has a core, sun has a core, dismissing any intention or even life, it's something intrinsic to nature. Brains, from the more simple to the more complex have a core, the so called Hypothalamus, making something natural even to life. Even physics reveal that the materialistic world of atom have a center, designated by Atomic nucleus, amazingly discovery only in the 19th century. So, we should not be surprised that the concept of nucleus, as the base of speciation, remains a very obscure subject.

With nucleus, or kernel, we have another important concept, called layer. Nowadays everything that is produced has layers, and the respective process itself is layered. You are seeing this page thanks to protocol layering, with the OSI model as its best metaphor. In fact, protocol layering its the core of the Internet revolution that we see today. No wonder that life caught its potential thousand of millions of years ago, giving birth to Eukaryotes and its layered Polymorphisms!

What have a classic evolutionist to say about this? In fact nothing! For him, there are only Natural Selection, and he is blind to the point of thinking in an animal as a bacteria. For him, the sharp difference between Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes doesn't ring a bell.

For a classic evolutionist, evolution is a continuous event. The classic evolutionist are living a nineteen century philosophy, unknowing that nature aren't continuous, that nature are discrete and countable. So, a classic evolutionist says things like:
"The tyranny of the discontinuous mind" - Richard Dawkins
something that I must correct:
"The tyranny of the discontinuous nature"
Unfortunately, classic evolutionists are supporting their own chains. Unfortunately they are now dependent on the allopatric speciation, they can't explain sexual selection, and can't give a good explanation to the Cambrian Explosion!
"Allopatric speciation is just another miss intuition, where a species needs to be isolated from other to evolve. There is something that separates all the species in an irrefutable and allopatric way, time. Despite some species have millions of years of existence; they would be able to interbreed with others along any moment of that same time. So, for instance, crocodiles exist for 200 million years, and yet, the crocodile of 200 million years would be able to interbreed with the actual one. This means that the process of speciation does not depend on isolation, it is much more robust and abstract than any intuition could predict." - in An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection
Well, even this isolation can be refutable by a classic evolutionist. For instance, Michio Kaku believes in time travel, and in invisible man. If you believe in that blindly, maybe crocodiles are interbreeding along time, and time aren't a allopatric isolation!

Kaku believes in time travel

By the way, you know that Charles Darwin wrote a book entitled On the Origin of Species, yet, this book has a dangerous idea, and that idea is in the title, misleading the classic evolutionist. The book should have been entitled On the Origin of Life, because Life and Species aren't the same thing! The dangerous idea is thinking that Life and Species started at the same time and are the same thing. We may forgive Charles Darwin, because he hasn't had the tools to study Prokaryotes, however, we can't excuse the contemporaneous evolutionists, because nowadays we have all the tools to see the difference between Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes!

This is why the classic evolutionist will never explain the Cambrian Explosion, because the Cambrian Explosion is in fact the Origin of Species. Life started along time before, but it was the strength of speciation that generated an explosion of life that only the new acquired skill allowed, being the prove of its revolutionary new concept.

The new concept of speciation is powerful precisely because doesn't require any kind of isolation, allopatric isolation or any other kind, and it's because the break of this restrictions that life exploded as never seen before (see Entropic Nature for more explanations).

To be continued...

An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection by Rui Monteiro - 2010
The Truth about Species! - Part 1 (Why Sex)

Friday, October 29, 2010

The Truth about Species! - Part 1 (Why Sex)

Today I will show how easy is to understand species without complex theories, in a simple and natural way. The only way!

My first point is about the meaning of the word species. Species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. This means that you can't apply this concept to all forms of life, in other words, some forms of life can't bee classified as species in this way. The best example are the Prokaryotes. Surely they can be morphological classified, but not as species.

Secondly, you can't understand a species without understanding sexual reproduction. Today, sexual reproduction means processes that pass a combination of genetic material to offspring, resulting in increased genetic diversity. But this may be a bad definition, making the evolution of sexual reproduction a major puzzle. A bad definition, because Sexual Selection is in fact a very simple puzzle as I will show next.

The placed pieces of the classic view do not solve the puzzle, because they are wrongly positioned in the next way:
  1. Speciation (all organisms);
  2. Sexual selection (some species)
Those pieces need to bee changed, like this:
  1. Speciation (some organisms);
  2. Sexual selection (all species).
For any classic evolutionist this sounds stupid, but I can explain it. You need to think in species as an end by itself, this means that Prokaryotes have no species like mammals laid no eggs! Speciation is an acquired skill, it's so simple that is annoying how people don't see it!

Now you can complete the puzzle in a extremely trivial way, knowing that sex is the mechanism that support speciation like the mammal womb discard the need of eggs!

For the question, why sexual reproduction? You may simple answer, because it's the mechanism of speciation.

In this moment some may ask, but aren't there asexual species? We should never forget that we are first of all working with words and their meaning. Words are some times very miss leading and more subject to opinions than facts.

For a child, a tree is an asexual organism, like for some grownups, because for them trees don't move. For a classic evolutionist a tree is a sexual organism, because its wisdom says to him that trees have sexual organs. However, they are all wrong!

Thinking in the Parthenogenesis, we may ask, are not they asexual species? Again, for the classic evolutionist, its wisdom says yes, they are, because they are all females. Here, the classic evolutionist it's like the child thinking in trees, arguing that they don't move!

The answer is in fact very easy, and lies in the first question. When we ask if there aren't asexual species, the answer is an absolute no, there are not asexual species, because sex is the de facto speciation mechanism. Thinking again, Parthenogenesis are species, so they are sexual. Simple isn't it?

No? OK, I understand! Let's return to the tree example. Trees are not sexual only because they have sexual organs, they are sexual because there is a process that can be classified as sexual selection. In this process we have more than the flowers, we have the pollinators. Pollinators are not only participants but essential to the sexual selection achievement. Now the child knows that albeit trees don't move, bees fly.
"If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man." - Albert Einstein
Classic evolutionists can't see Sexual Selection as a no matter what kind of process (mating courtship), unlike the anything matter kind of process of the Natural Selection (where the first works a priori, and the last a posteriori), and it's because that they need sexual organs, and it's because that they don't see bees, and it's because that Parthenogenesis are asexual, and because all of that, they say:
"A lack of sexual reproduction is relatively rare among multicellular organisms, for reasons that are not completely understood." - Wikipedia, Asexual reproduction
The no matter what kind of process in Parthenogenesis, for instance in the case of the New Mexico whiptail, makes that despite being an all female species, the whiptail still engages in "mock mating" with other members of its own species, giving rise to the common nickname "lesbian lizards". A common theory is that this behavior stimulates ovulation, as those who do not "mate" do not lay eggs. By other words, the classic evolutionist doesn't see the mating process as central in sexual reproduction, the classic evolutionist can't see beyond the organism's physical hardware, where instead, sex is all about software, all about species.

Aspidoscelis neomexicana

To be continued...

An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection by Rui Monteiro - 2010

Sunday, October 3, 2010

Ring Species another Illusionist Trick

We are accustomed to arguments from Creationists, and some of those arguments are in my opinion really valid, like the Cambrian Explosion argument. However Evolutionists are some times deluded by them self, and that is a shame.

Ring Species are the greatest evolutionist delusion, first because you can't prove ring species at a macroscopic level, and secondly, the only valid study on a supposed ring species proved otherwise.

At a macroscopic level a Chihuahua isn't able to interbreed with a Pit Bull, despite belonging to the same specie! However, if you doubt the need of the artificial insemination of the previous example, think in the French Bulldog, that is unable to naturally interbreed with the same kind dogs! What about that?

Ring Species? I don't think so!

So, you can't say you have a Ring Species just because macroscopically two supposed ring ends' organisms don't interbreed! However, it's very strange how evolutionists accept as scientific fact this evident delusion.

A truly evolutionist would say, wait! Wait, the only scientific study at microscopically level proved that the classic example of the Larus gulls aren't a ring species... Wait, stop the fairytale!

Thankfully scientists don't speak at a single voice, and being so, Liebers et al. made the evident conclusion, the herring gull complex is not a ring species.

So please, don't be far-fetched, be simple like Darwin have been.

Illustrated Ring Species illusionist trick by Escher

Ring Species delusion - Part 1

Ring Species delusion - Part 2

Ring Species delusion - Part 3

Nature Sucks

Why not? It looks like every one of us tends to speak bad about everything, except "mother" nature. Why we just credit her form all the good things in the world, why not credit her for all the bad things?

I think this is because you already born with a brain washed way of thinking, not from any supposed evil manipulator, that tries to make you believe bad is good, or a corporation that wants you to buy more and pay more, no. You born brain washed from Nature! From your own species constitution.

Like in science, you don't need actors for a good explanation, and the real explanation it's the one that really don't need any subject or any actor, a good explanation almost lives by itself.

It's this natural machine in your head that makes you point the finger in the wrong direction. And because that, we have people in the past making exactly the same mistakes, again, again, again, and again. So some ask, why they never learn? Because nature was never truly fingered.

Ren being strangely happy - The Ren and Stimpy Show