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!


Michio 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...

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

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...

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