Darwin

Charles Darwin must have had a most enjoyable and rewarding life. It would have been real ''Boy's Own' stuff sailing round the world, stopping off at exotic locations and basically being an employed sightseer. There was more to it though, than simple sightseeing for Darwin. He had made a connection about species and it was this connection that was to fuel a major area in future science and produce a rift between the political and religious bodies. It was as if there had been a vacuum before Darwin and that his work was simply drawn into the vacuum. Prior to his work, the church had had the monopoly over the matter of where we all came from and his work helped to forge a chasm between the establishment (science and politics) and the church. All the great alchemists who had paved the way for modern science had had an important philosophical side to them which connected them to the possibility of a fount of all knowledge but the work of Darwin came at a time when other potentials could be seen beside the strictly scientific. Here, his work, laid before his masters provided them with a tool to use against the church. So, there was no need to think that God had made everything in His wisdom, it had become clear that these things which the church had previously attributed to God were in fact the result of another feature, evolution. There was now proof that living things had not been separately put here by a supreme being but that they had actually evolved from other living things. In the new grand scheme of things, everything should be able to be placed within an evolutionary tree. Of course, there were what were called 'missing links' and there still are today many missing links but the basis of the evolutionary process had been set. The picture became clearer as time progressed and though we still lack an enormous amount of information regarding missing links, the principles set out in Darwin's work have remained as the mainstream of our collective understanding of where we came from.

Darwin himself must have been an odd character though, and I do appreciate that in a person. In 'The Correspondence of Charles Darwin ( Vol 2, 1837-43) he produced a list with the title 'This Is The Question'. The question was to marry or not to marry. A good question for someone so closely connected with the propogation of genes but a question that he answered in a rather odd way. He listed all the pro's and con's of marriage and came to the conclusion that marriage to his first cousin Emma was preferable because of the fact that family visits would not be increased by the union. The resulting 10 children suggest that it was a worthy match and his work, at least in the direction of marriage, was well founded. This single fact endeared me to the man but nothing in his work has proved to me that our understanding of evolution is correct. It is important to understand that Darwin did not know many of the species we know of today and that his work was in establishing the principles of the origins and not the origins themselves. My opinion is that it does not account for man's existence and that it's rubbish. Natural selection clearly does work, it's happening all the time, but it can never account for the whole story. Likewise, creationists who would have us believe that the world and all it contains were made in a week have some explaining to do in the face of scientific findings. There must be though, a complete explanation of the process albeit one that has been out of our sights.

I have clearly stated that my intention is to put the evolutionary explanation of our existence where it belongs. Without getting involved in any socio-political argument, that place is the bin!. But that statement alone means nothing, there has to be some proper reasoning behind the attack on the assumption that evolution accounts for our existence. After all, it is too important a question to leave it improperly answered. What, if evolution is not responsible, is the answer to the question "where do we come from?" I intend to show proof that man's existence is the result of an introduction of each separate race, introduced at particular points in time and at particular geographical points. No small task for an uneducated person but one which I nevertheless relish.

Measuring any form of progress is quite a simple task.

What we need to do is to put Darwin's theory of evolution properly to a test which if the theory is correct will show To do this, we will need some tools and a technique which will include some very strict rules. Clearly, the most effective tool will be a visual representation of man's journey over the time he has been present on our planet. I have selected a simple graph to show this. The actual data

No scientific rule can be broken.

Who is it that really has some form of understanding regarding this subject?. During my research, I found that few resources actually used all the names. Much of the information was out of date and ......... I did reach a point quite early on when I just thought it was too much work for nothing in return. My view is either that something like H. Rudolfensis, where all the data known to man is sourced from a single atrefact should be at least mentioned. There are many sources that simly do not discuss it and do not include it. There is no basic agreement even on how many different homind (hominoids) there have actually been. Each source appears as an island and assumes you will agree with what they say. I have had to make some decisions regarding the inclusion of fossils such as that of H. rudolfensis because frankly, 1 fossil seems to be so little to base so much opinion upon.

Cube rules

If any data is missing chronologically it should be straight lined.

Actual data will intersect with the forecasted data at least 3 times (including start and finish)

All data will occur within the constrainsts of the cube

at least 50 of actual data will run parallel to the forecasted data.

Backplane upon which 2 important trends in the evolution of the genus Homo are plotted in X-Y axis (brain capacity and ?) fine red line.

multiple identical elements representing the passage of time.

Horn shape to identify population volumes where known

Brain size or more realistically, the space into which it fits, has doubled in size in 2 million years. Thats an increase of 0.00005% pa.

The story of man's evolution is an unclear and confused one and is subect to often dramatic change to the extent that we might even wonder what is meant by evolution in the context of man. We are often reminded that man shares more of his genetic material with the chimpanzee than with other hominids and that fact alone provides some room for reflection. What we do know is that it all started about 2 million years ago with the emergence of the first example of the hominid species, H. Habilis, followed by H.rudolfensis some 100,000 years or so later. There is not a great deal known about H. Rudolfensis (KNM-ER 1470), but there is a significant amount known about H. Habilis or handy man as he is affectionately called. These 2 species apparently co-existed and there is no evidence that they interbred and no examples of hominids with characteristics from both species. This is quite shaky ground to be building a whole philosophy of evolution upon. The next example however (H. Ergaster) makes the evolutionary story even more fanciful because there appears to have been a 25,000 year gap between him and his predecessors and there is no evidence that he had evolved or adapted from either of them anyway. More recently, evidence has now emerged (see postscript) that H.habilis was actually a contempoary of H.erectus but again no evidence exists of any species which could support a thoery about them cross breeding. If I was to make an assertion, it would have to be backed up with evidence but science is currently 'still investigating' the evolution of man but we have to accept the scientific assertion. Evolution forms part of the curriculum in the U.S. and in Europe and no argument is provided for any other possibility.

In fact, there are no mid species examples of any of the 7 hominids that have inhabited this earth. What are we to make of this fact bearing in mind that we are given to beleive that our race (H. Sapiens) is the result of 2 million years of evolution and that because we share characteristics of certain hominids that we have evolved from them. We also have a feature of our bodies which is shared by fish (the oseophagus) and this is cited as evidence that fish were the precursors of even the earliest hominids. As handy as the oseaophagus is, I do find it curious that we are not natural swimmers and that we share no other features with fish.

If we look at this data in the failure graph style we can see some real problems. First, we see that the shape of the graph is abnormal in that is is not complete and that there are breaks. Normally, we could straight line the breaks in a graph and build the picture that way but its not possible in this case. Having 2 start points is a definite problem but even if we treat them as a bifurcation, we still have to ask ourselves what was just right 2 million years ago to allow not 1 precursor species but 2. Had they appeared at th same place at the same time, they would undoubtedly have bred. Perhaps, they were not at the same place or possibly they were not able to breed. There is no reason to beleive that they fought for supremacy even. So, we look at this curious shape on the graph and we have to make some sense of it, how might we do that.

For clarity, I think we should erase all data that is assumed or guessed. Some very strange things occur when we do this. Because each individual exemplar of the species remained static and did not show any evolution, the only evolution which is suggested is within the areas which we have straightlined. Taaking these out shows a jerky step graph which The shape then suggests a very different story and that story is based upon 7 different incarnations of a similar species with no connections between species. That provides some food for thought and we will return to this subject to investigate it later.

This evoltionary story has some other interesting facets. We are led to believe that our genetic code does not have racial markers in it. The official story thus far is that we came from primeavil matter in swamps and evolved into H. Sapiens and over time the race grew and it dispersed globally. The various dispersed groups further evolved to suit their environment so here is a very good opportunity to account for black men and chinese men and Australian aboriginal men and all the other races that we know. It is a romantic notion but again, there is no proof. Man seems to have his earliest history in Africa so are we to beleive that the original men were black and that they became chinese for example when they dispersed. After this dispersal millions of years ago and the subsequent 'racial changes' that we underwent, we waited until the 20th century and decided to interbreed to make 1 race again. There simply has to be an alternative explantion, if we were tutors marking papers we would send them back marked 'wheres the proof'. When scientists first proferred papers to journals on the subject of DNA, they were often rejected marked 'wheres the biology' which is a difficult question to answer in a molecular science.

Religion informs monotheists that Adam is the precursor of man though the Adam as described in the Bible seems an unlikely candidate. There simply has not been enough time elapsed for Adam to have played that role. If we are to understand anything about the ascent of man and the diaspora and subsequent changes he underwehnt to suit his environment, we must first understand about early man. There are 3 main candidates for the role. The first candidate is the very first H. habilis to arrive. The second is the first H. sapiens to arrive and the 3rd is Adam. Having discounted Adam, we have a straight choice between the other 2.

After arriving, in whatever circumstances, it appears that the diaspora was beginning to be made. This aspect of man's ascent is also not possible. If we plot a graph showing 1 individual in the bottom left and 6 billion top right, split into the human types it does not make sense. was the precursor within any of the five groups or was the precursor a supra type containing a composite genotype.

They would appear to have spent thousands of years in the dispora and cultural and racial diversification that it involved, became completely separate and identifiable as such only to meet up again and suddenly decide to mix the gene pool.

The 5 basic human types are as follows:

1, Kapoid / Khoisanid

2, Congoid

3, Caucusoid / Europid

4, Australoid

5, Mongoloid

All human beings will belong to at least one of the above types. Interbreeding between races will have flattened some of the characteristics of the type in some people. Generally, racial chacteristics tend to iron themselves out within 5-6 generations, though the mitochondrial trace will remain. Other traits such as autism will remain in the pool permanently.

My opinion is that the true scientists are right. The archeological records are corect, the carbon dting records are correct. In fact everything that can be related to outside criterea are correct. What is not correct is that modern man has evolved from one species. The very suggestion places me outside science as far as the evolutionists are concerned. More importantly, it clearly puts our modern understanding of evolution as a fabrication which does not explain enything. The likelyhood is that each individual type (and even subtype) of examplar of H.sapiens has been introduced as has the individual types of hominid. This theory accounts for all the major findings in science and even throws some small light on the nature of Adam