Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
1
Of One, God Created various…. Of various, the man created one … Of what were we talking about..? of
one same thing…. The...
2
you that he has faith in God, and that this beginning will be found someday, that this animal it’s coming
back, and in t...
3
appears. Metaphor was the term that the dr. used as well to refer herself to the system of sexual
determination in the n...
4
much stupidity, justly for misunderstanding the Book, and not being able to argue that the problem
wasn’t in the nature:...
5
‘God created the man, and from the man, created Eve’: this is the sequence to be won: it was the man
that fecundated the...
6
the Beginning… it was the out-there that created the beginning of your cave…’, and Haeckel would say,
‘But Darwin, God i...
7
…Theological Conclusion. This Catholic account of original sin, then, if not the text of Genesis 2–4, has
seemed to many...
8
understood in the latu sensu of a unity, the man and the fountain, excludes the woman. However, on
defending a straight-...
9
The theory of the ToM didn’t sought an understanding of affinity with the latu sensu of the natural: I
mean: simple gest...
10
Biologically, the formation of proteins, through its basic presupposition, the amino acids, would be
mysteriously group...
11
themselves frustrated in reading my articles, but I also think that their understanding of God it’s the
understanding o...
12
To everything, a metaphor: but to everything, the same sequence: a unity: unity this that refers itself
to the standard...
13
CHAPTER 1.6. THE OVUM AND THE AMOEBA.
In order to understand clearly the course of human embryology, we must select the...
14
organisms, a colony or commonwealth, made up of innumerable independent units, or very different
tissue-cells.
In reali...
15
“…In order to convince oneself that this cell is really an independent organism, we have only to observe
the developmen...
16
there are. There are assuredly still unicellular organisms which are, in their whole nature, really nothing
more than p...
17
Hence, although the amoeba is nothing but a simple cell, it is evidently able to accomplish all the functions
of the mu...
18
“…(FIGURE 1.19. Blood-cells that eat, or phagocytes, from a naked sea-snail (Thetis), greatly magnified. I
was the firs...
19
CHAPTER 1.7. CONCEPTION.
The recognition of the fact that every man begins his individual existence as a simple cell is...
20
spermatozoon, is one of the smallest cells in the animal body. Conception usually consists in the bringing
into contact...
21
posterior to his antecedence, being its principle the center over which the horizon which they rejoin each
other could ...
22
the pronucleus femininus. It is the latter alone that combines in conception with the invading nucleus of
the fertilisi...
23
The stem-cell which is produced, and with which every man begins his career, cannot be distinguished in
appearance from...
24
There was a Theological tentative of takin Adam to the Chromosomes, the Y. To whom has doubts,
here.
In my final review...
25
understood as pair. However, the theologians play with the term, of which they know very well, but
disguise their under...
26
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The Phylogenic - The Beginning

The Phylogenic - The Beginning

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

The Phylogenic - The Beginning

  1. 1. 1 Of One, God Created various…. Of various, the man created one … Of what were we talking about..? of one same thing…. The Beginning . The frame, the Phylogenic refers to the commencement, to the first, to the primogenitor and his progenitor, the first of God, the son-man, that, made of Him. Half of the creature possesses the chromosome where the nothing existed: and half of the creature possesses the chromosome where everything existed: this is the portrait of the monogenesis, under the Theological angle: The cell it’s one-eye only. The hereditariness of the nothing doesn’t count in the nature: because in the reality, the eye it’s only one angle of two different things: the LUCA-creature has this face: This creature created the sex, but it itself isn’t sexual. If Haeckel had painted the nature, the nature now paints the face of the man: the Adam-creature was seen swimming, in the interior of the plain, and disappeared [sumiu] in the horizon: it can only be found, now, where the rainbow born: it’s in the end of the rainbow that it’s the bucket of gold, and it’s there that the creature hides itself: worse than the box of Pandora, you have to be very careful when you go photograph it: in mode that, to be seen, just really one hiring an specialist: that, whom understands of everything of the natural phenomenon’s: he will tell The Beginning The Phylogenic
  2. 2. 2 you that he has faith in God, and that this beginning will be found someday, that this animal it’s coming back, and in the coming back, he will explain how he disappeared, and in a few minutes you will understand the metaphor: that the learning it’s that the Prophecy still didn’t happened, and that the understanding it’s in some point more ahead: the truth still didn’t happen. If the man lost his biological sequence, it was God that disappeared. On coming across with the frame The Primogenitor, many considerations could come ahead: The sensation of coming ahead it’s as curious as coming from behind: an impossible meiosis, and a dreamed mitosis: the lost sequence found, the Y-chromosome of God, the miracle happened: the Phylogeny describes of a frame painted in the nature. For you deal with the question, it’s necessary you understand the due anthropocentric terms: Monogenesis: The theory that humans are all descended from a single pair of ancestors. Also called monogeny Monophyletic: (of a group of organisms) descended from a common evolutionary ancestor or ancestral group, especially one not shared with any other group. Phylogenesis: The evolutionary development and diversification of a species or group of organisms, or of a particular feature of an organism. The word monogenetic, so defined as the pair, takes the indebt use, because the taxonomy in use allows the science to be manipulated theologically in its scientific base. For that, right next, it takes a Darwinist rampage, equally Creationist: one of various: in mode that, few matters the size of an ancestor group or determined locality: all will be descendants of the enigmatic one of various. This individual, necessarily, could not be a pair: there could not have an X: as if to the man were denied the condition of embryo: as if the first homo sapiens didn’t have neither father neither mother. In mode that this is an important observation, because all the theories in use carry the same hypothesis of the absurd: On applying a regression in the straight line, stumbles in the embryo: arriving in the group isn’t a phylogenetic answer. Even though biologically, groups could be effectively isolated, by resemblances and differences, such theory would never have an effective separation, would fall in any genetic study, for most simple and rudimentary that it was: starting by a separation in the chromosomes X and Y : Dr. Sarah Richardson, makes a comment in her chapter seventh of the book Sex Itself[…]. The chromosome Y isn’t a sexual chromosome, point. The SRY it’s a falsity that the convenience, by studies coordinated in the 90’s decade, created. By diverse international conferences between scientists with competence to deliberate on the issue, didn’t encountered and neither proved any substantiality that could address that the SRY were any sexual determinant: not even are involved with the development of the male gonads [testicles]. Another gene that are not even related to the Y have much more significance and importance than the SRY in the sexual formation. The SRY it’s understood as something new, a novelty, in the genome, and in many animals, the males don’t even have it, and are perfectly healthy and fertile. The doctor, in her book, and in diverse debates, denunciates the fraud that any chromosome of the human being, any genes, could be indeed a factor of sexual determining which conducts the science to a probable hierarchy, that the spermatozoon cell, gametocytes, do not be an autosome, turning special or differentiator of that which she called of ‘sexual dimorphism’. On level of genome, there doesn’t exist man and woman, there’s no genres. The reports of dr. Sarah Richardson are interesting, because the humanity, since the beginning, I mean, the Christianism, created these kind of situations: forging proofs, conducing false debates, conditioning the science to theological researches, which result it’s what’s being discussed: it was wanted to find something, point. And this something cannot be found, point. And subtly, the metaphor
  3. 3. 3 appears. Metaphor was the term that the dr. used as well to refer herself to the system of sexual determination in the nature. In mode that in that on which the matter reaches the most intimate of the tree of life, these three literatures were quoted. The X of the matter it’s phylogeny, also known as the unique principle of the anteriority, of which the hypothesis of the genetical transfer, claims to possess a hereditariness. It was in these conditions that the hypothesis of the last common ancestor passed to be harassed in the Darwinists molds: and about this, something more must be said. I don’t write do PHD’s, but many times, the reach of mine ideas demands indeed a little more of the reader, and some requisites are necessary, the biological understanding it’s one of them. In the same mode, I orient the reader, much more than informing correctly, in a taxonomy considered valid, but that seeks for the coherence, the simplicity…. The complexity it’s human, and not of the nature… And this is basically a quite simple perception: the as much I was fooled: the believing it’s something rational, reflexive, and requires proofs: if you cannot prove something, you cannot affirm it: or , if you affirm something, leave it clear that that it treats about a theory, a hypothesis… : and in this sense, in my understanding, proving something it’s disaffirming something: and in this sense, it’s plain to the reader that my arguing, in that which involves the science and the religion, it’s angling the question in the sense that that which the theology affirms about the nature isn’t found not even in the science: and in this sense, the minimum that I ask it’s that the people who reads the texts, go read as well the scientific basis, because my bases are indeed ultimate, they are encerrativas. The second it’s that, my argumentation it’s very good and it makes sense: it clears up the thing, and not, tries to hide: for this, the chosen literatures to this topic it’s exactly this: one, a passionate scientist wanting to show the things, and another one, that talks in a compromised, suffered, confuse form, wanting to hide the things up and wanting with this create an environment of possibilities. I think so most of the people are tendentious to accept this kind of things, for being this so the system of detection of determination of the belief: the understanding that ‘that makes part of the Idea, and for this, must be validated as truth’. I don’t know until where it goes this craziness, as it was already seen, the books were already burned. And to whom readed the book of the doctor Sarah Richardson, she, that was chief of genomic studies of the humanity, the sentiment it’s of whom understood the man: she herself removed herself off the front, for understanding that the human being needs of this image. Indeed, the doctor doesn’t understand very well the Book, because this seems to be the deficiency of every PHD. Friends, in the Book, I am the PhD. And in this sense, you may line up cardinals, popes, doctors, that they are easily closured. For one to understand the Book, it’s necessary you be submitted to the misunderstanding. And in this sense, I won’t stay making demonstrations, it was something that I’ve already done too much, for this, today I talk in a finisher form…: there exists a problem, point. And isn’t the nature, point. Dimensioning the as much the Theology it’s involved with the Science has been the angle of my argumentations. In mode that this is one more warning about the existence of a theological wall that isolates human knowledge in that which one may call honest or truly, that must be sought in first hand. In mode that you won’t ‘find the truth in the net’, because it doesn’t treat about not even of 2%. And in this sense, it doesn’t depend just on lucky. In mode that perceiving the blockage, not even can be considered a half path walked. The tree of Haeckel it’s much more harmonic than any other evolutionist tree: however, it was the one of Charles Darwin: and it’s brutal, to someone that not even scientist is, seeing the grand scientists, that wrote their name in the history, that were so close of the thing, at the same time, committed so
  4. 4. 4 much stupidity, justly for misunderstanding the Book, and not being able to argue that the problem wasn’t in the nature: and this justifies the second quoted text, because he refers himself to something curious, The Original Sin: and the question it’s quite simple: in what the Original Sin affects in anything the concept of Phylogeny? The expression it’s quite clear: One refers to one Adam: Adam refers to one man: Adam refers to one of various: read it, various which came after him.:. It’s unnecessary adding that, in the concept of the Judaic conception, the woman has no seed, that the uterus of the woman it’s sterile, in the sense that she doesn’t have ovule, it’s the man that fertilizes her. And this is the importance of the text of Haeckel: the cell, in its organic concept, it’s quite different of the conception in its Ideological concept. The monogenesis isn’t exactly a biological concept, in mode that, historically, and this is almost scientific, the parents of the monogenesis it’s the Torah, and in this sense, the Theological monogenesis will never be equal to the Biological monogenesis: and this, maybe be the bigger stupidity of the Book. Ora, you that’s going to read Haeckel with attention, will perceive that none man, on birthing, carries his own embryo in his testicles. You may argue that every man, on birthing, has a stem-cell, has his own reproductive system, and this includes the genital organs: But semen isn’t embryo, in the same mode that embryo isn’t seed, and neither the cell it’s seed. The Book affirms that the plants bring their own seeds: isn’t an eschatological understanding, but the understanding of the Book it’s that the semen of the man already comes fecundated, and that for this really, he cannot waste it: special clauses of fornication, niddah and masturbation: are details of a culture and its beliefs, and of a misunderstanding of the nature. It wasn’t only the Jews, many people of the antiquity believed that the woman was sterile, woe, the ovule was only discovered in the woman in 1928 [x], and the one of the plants and of all nature, until then considered unfertile, a little time before. Be it for wisdom or ignorance, the Beginning was quoted and possesses a sequence: sequence this that’s hided, because it would stay ridiculous saying that God erred justly in the conception: it would be discussing the magnitude of this interpretations, it would be blurring more yet the beginning in which his Genesis was already tutored by the unexplainable and equally blamed, the evil: in mode that the Naturists which went ahead with this idea, were pressed to solve this question in a silently way. The Book of Haeckel, with so many details, would never be a best seller as the one of Darwin, rich in ghost hypothesis, thing that only he saw and only he believed: it’s just compare the tree of one with the tree of the other: Because the conception of Adam it’s the phylogenetic bottleneck. In mode that the monogenesis it’s quoted by the author, and him without having a biological answer, abuses of the belief to that all understands that the monogenesis in question it’s the one of the Judaism. Ora, sir Charles Darwin, on drawing his tree, in an A4 white paper leave, went to the middle of the paper and drew the number one, for understanding that that was the initial point, by side, the rest of the straight-line. Perceive that, one cell only produces “seed” when fecundated by another cell: soon, the conception would never be of one cell only, for it wouldn’t be a fecundation, but a reproduction, extensive, a duplication, a mitosis. I think so this will exhaustively spoke by Haeckel, but indeed, there exists a mental reluctance in accepting the natural. The question raised by Kenneth it’s interesting because it does important evolutive markers: the monist philosophy, of which Haeckel refers to, believes that God created the nature, and therefore, the nature it’s Him as well: there doesn’t exists two consciences, but a supreme conscience. Biologically, whether ‘mono’ gives the understanding of a unity, curiously, refers to two: the genetical understanding of the monogenesis it’s the pair.
  5. 5. 5 ‘God created the man, and from the man, created Eve’: this is the sequence to be won: it was the man that fecundated the woman: so, it was from the man that came the humanity, the woman indeed doesn’t have bigger importance’s over the reproductive angle: she doesn’t participate of the reproduction. To some this may seem an absurd, but this is the understanding of LUCA: never one gave up of this theory. But it’s interesting halt** one more time how the question it’s angled: the author speaks of the monogenesis as being a pair, but right next, quotes the monophyletic, which refers to an ancestry, ancestry this that doesn’t refers properly to a pair, but to a phylogeny, to right next linking his well- contextualized One, the first, with a supposed fountain, perfectly understood as God. Well, this is a standard model of any evolutionist theoretical angling The Book. Such rational procedure was only possible because the biological terms may be easily confused up. Ora, the monophyletic concept, for that it may be put ahead, it needs of an anchor, of a monogenic concept: in mode that Adam would never be the father of the humanity without Eve, point. In mode that the anthropogenesis would never explain itself through a phylogeny, for one would never find an animal alone, without family, lost in the nothing, without wife, without kids, without mother, and abandoned by his father: ‘the mother that never was and the father that disappeared’: tamanha tragedy, it could only result in sizes. Ora amigos, I won’t stay repeating the crime scene… for this, we’re going back to the beginning, to do it of one time only: as should have been the Creation… the Creation seems to be one thing and isn’t. God, which chromosomal story it’s well known through the inexistent chromosome-Y, which finishes the fountain, in the case, the blood, created Adam, genre masculine, specie man… well, after, he created Eve. Ora amigos, let’s not misunderstand the sequence… it is genetical.. it’s what a genetic is, a chromosomic sequence: the chromosome it’s a straight line, and it begins in the Y, and the Y it’s a unity. You may ask me about the zero and I tell you, it’s one, and you may ask me about the two, and I’ll say it’s one, because there only exists one in the equation: in mode that the ‘mono’ can only be an ideological joke, because it’s affirmed two things, but the significate which it’s sought it’s one. It wouldn’t be possible a hierarchy without that, in the base of an antecedence, didn’t existed a unity: the dominance of a conscience would never stablish itself if the Principle weren’t Unitarist. And in this sense, it’s ontological the naturalist principle. As it was said, Haeckel was a naturalist, and had an interesting thought, that God created the nature, and for this, he was the nature as well: because this is justly the angle of a Protestant: the Catholics understand very well that God could never be the nature. It’s the case of Darwin. It doesn’t matter B, C, D, 3 and 4: the one it’s the base: For this, the radix of Haeckel was the same as the one of Charles Darwin: he also understood the monerans as being a unity, because they reproduced themselves asexually. The problem it’s that Haeckel understood that the monerans were God, while Darwin suspected that it was the nature: and it was like this that the ruler happened in the table, the incredible angle of the vision: the center: exactly the stem of the man in the tree of Darwin: Haeckel had putted the man in the top of the tree, Darwin had putted God in the beginning. Haeckel used to say, ‘This is the beginning…’, and Darwin said, ‘no.. it’s the center..’: and they continued.. Haeckel used to say, ‘the man it’s the beginning…’, and Darwin said, ‘Of course, the man it’s the center…’ , and in a long afternoon of conversation, Haeckel would’ve become Darwinist. But he had painted a frame, where he describes that the life begun in a cave… and that everything had sprouted from the nature… and from there, the life exited to the outside: while Darwin would hold his hand and say, ‘Haeckel, you’re understanding wrong
  6. 6. 6 the Beginning… it was the out-there that created the beginning of your cave…’, and Haeckel would say, ‘But Darwin, God it’s the nature…’, and Darwin would say, ‘God isn’t the nature’. Haeckel than said, ‘You’re not a naturalist’, and Darwin would have said, ‘And you are a protestant..’.. Haeckel had created the straight-line: but it was Darwin that created the point: and that’s the explanation of the man and the fountain. But it’s interesting, Haeckel had painted the nature, that which he called The beauty of God’: Darwin had painted the point, that which he called The beauty of the man. The beauty of Haeckel’s drawings it’s a good explanation of the misunderstanding of the conception. Haeckel thought that the cell was justly the such resemblance with God… And this could be very easily contextualized in his understanding of eukaryotic, the cell it’s the principle of the human being. And the cell was, for 150 years, all of good, to angling theological questions, but always under suspect, because indeed, the Theology never accepted such definition: the cell also wasn’t exactly equal to Adam… there exists the Apocrypha theory that ‘Adam refers to a spiritual fusion, of the man and of the woman’: this is something discussable and possesses the same geometrical problems: In mode that this theory cannot be mounted ahead, for not having a biological sustaining. The body of Adam came in the front, point: After, appeared the spirit: and the body of Eve wasn’t there, until the action of God happens once again: such phenomenon doesn’t occur in the nature. It was where Haeckel tried to angle the stem-cell as being a hermaphrodite, but erred the angle again: for Theologically, there couldn’t be two in there, there couldn’t be X in the cell: the hermaphroditism existed, but only in the mind, crhomosomatically, this even doesn’t manifest itself in the nature. And this is even ridiculous, because, by the rule of the procedence, the current science understands that, in the XY it’s most probable that the X have coming in the front. Not having a defined sex it’s not the same thing of being hermaphrodite or asexual: not having a defined sex it’s two, it’s chromosomic, and natural: because this is the primary marker of the conception. Even though Adam and Eve were twins, and born of one same belly, this belly would have to be found in the nature: because the genome of the mother would be lacking. In mode that the person it’s intelligent: but, on trying to follow the sequence of the Book, ends up erring. “…In Paul’s sermon to the Athenians (Acts 17:26) we find the following line: “He made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth” (RSV-CE). The text does not explicitly say from one what, and two ways of understanding the text have been proposed. One possible understanding would be “from one man.” Some manuscripts, however, as well as some of the early Fathers, complete the phrase, not with “man” but with “blood.” Monogenesis and Original Sin. Catholic theology, in its traditional support of monogenesis, places less emphasis on those passages than it does on monogenesis as the only view consistent with the doctrine of Original Sin. Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis wrote: “For the Christian faithful cannot maintain the thesis which holds that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that “Adam” signifies a number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the magisterium of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.” Whatever one makes of this passage, the teaching of the Church was clearly articulated at the Council of Trent (1545–1563)—the guilt of this sin is inherited by us all. The Council went on to say: the sin of Adam is in its origin one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in all men and proper to each.11
  7. 7. 7 …Theological Conclusion. This Catholic account of original sin, then, if not the text of Genesis 2–4, has seemed to many to require a monogenetic account of the origins of the human race.12 (12 It should be noted, however, that Pope John Paul II’s comments on evolution in his Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences of 22 October 1996, though they followed Pope Pius XII’s encyclical on many points, were silent on the question of monogenesis.)…” Obs.: no, they weren’t silent, it’s the Catholic understanding… . In mode that the texts in matter orbits primarily in the understanding of the cell, in its meiotic and mitotic concepts: to right next, taking a genetical rampage, the chromosome SRY. The study of Kenneth, tries to equation this problem , using as theological basis Genesis and Paul [Acts, etc]. In mode that, the three studies are to be readed. I think so this will give conditions to a good understanding of the why that the Theology tied up the question and submitted the science to a biological interpretation compatible with the one of the Book. You may say ‘these things never existed…’, and I say You are wrong, never existed another thing. But if you still have some doubt, read the articles, and say to yourself toward the mirror, where someday, something was different, since the idea appeared, why that the simple became complicated. In mode that the ToM of the conversation it’s the conscience: the dominance which doesn’t proves itself and neither explains itself: in what the human conception will may be one day considered natural[?]. In mode that Kenneth, on trying to give his catholic view, adulterated a scientific term. Until the studies of genomes, extensive to microorganisms, being available in grand centers of researches worldwide, Mendel would have given Darwinist support, in the sense of explaining an ancestry, but not being able to be used to the point of misunderstanding an embryo: such condition only Y was never proved in the nature. Neither only X. In mode that, to the perfect understanding of what is, of what was, the theory of the evolution, one has to have understanding of the scientific terms that are used, so one can perceive correctly the manipulation of the information, when it occurs, and when the magic happens. For this, in some texts, I did the markings, for that the reader perceives what is a rolling up, independently of the scientist in matter being or not considered top. In most of mine studies, I’ve encountered sick scientists, disturbed, cursed by the belief, and compromised with the result, to the point of, in determined point, they becoming atheists: by the so much that they sought, challenged, persecuted, the impossible. The study of sir Kenneth follows below, but already declassified as a scientific study indeed: ‘Resolution. Two diverse modes of knowing, one based on the data of observation and the other on the data of revelation, seem to lead, as I said at the outset, to contradictory conclusions—the one favoring a polygenetic, the other a monogenetic, account of man’s origins. What options are available to the Christian who is committed to taking theology seriously, but who does not want to run afoul of St. Augustine’s famous injunction: “Usually even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world . . . and this knowledge he holds to be certain from reason and experience. . . . If [non- Christians] find a Christian mistaken in a field that they themselves know well and hear him maintaining foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, when they think that their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?” ’ Sir Kenneth it’s a bad-formed catholic or unformed: the relation it’s proportional to his angles. Kenneth proposed three theories, and invalidated the three. Understanding that monogamy must be
  8. 8. 8 understood in the latu sensu of a unity, the man and the fountain, excludes the woman. However, on defending a straight-line without point, abuses that the orthogenesis may be indeed understood on linguistic factors in the axiom of the idiom, and as himself already invalidated himself, the polygenesis it’s the current position of the science: position this that didn’t please the Theology. Because this is the current position of the Vatican, don’t financier anything else, until someone brings him something substantial: ‘don’t bring me anything else which doesn’t have a proved phylogeny’. Independently of the quantity, the basic principle in matter, it’s the anteriority: there doesn’t exists a monogeny in matter, in the ambit of the one of various. And in this sense, few matters the resultant ancestry, be it vertical or parallel, it will be always Theological: or mean it, phylogenetic: In nothing the Original Sin it’s discordant or affects the comprehension of the anthropological term in matter: The Origin of the Man. The monogenesis it’s understood as pair , and not as one. Kenneth follows, then, with his demonstration, in his system of hypothesis: “…The first is whether man came into being in one single place or independently at several distinct places. These two possible accounts of anthropogenesis have been called monophyletism and polyphyletism, respectively. …” So, an important observation: scientifically, phylogeny will never be able to be equal to monogeny. The author refers himself to a monogenic origin, but on explaining his theory, introduces another scientific terms: monophyletism and polyphyletism: as if the monophyletism excluded his monogenic beginning, at the same time that angles being this some kind of phylogeny: and so he goes sewing Adam and Eve. He follows: “…The monophyletic answer to the first question raises a second: Was there a single original human couple from whom all future men are descended, or can the origin of the human race only be traced to an original group of more than two people? These alternatives have been given the names “monogenism” and “polygenism,” respectively.2 The traditional Christian preference for monogenism (and the consequent rejection of polyphyletism altogether) has had two grounds. For some Christians, the defense of the thesis is based directly on certain passages of Scripture. In the Catholic tradition, however, much more emphasis has been placed on monogenism as the only view consistent with the doctrine of Original Sin.” – (Obs.: read it, otherwise, the science would be wrong..). To all the cases, the explanations of sir Kenneth hits in the same question: none of the theoretical possibilities finishes the question of the beginning. His text it’s valid, because the questions raised are valid, the solutions proposed as well, until the point on which extrapolates its geometrical reach and a clamor of understanding of a purpose steal the scene of a possible comprehension, weren’t enough the theological unsustenance [insustentação] towards the organic. Curiously , sir Kenneth used as base of his arguments, the active principle of one of the most reputable and equally precursor of the evolutive model tree of life, the model of the cursed straight line [o modelo da reta maldita]: was already born sentenced by the curse of the beginning: straight-line this that moves itself more ahead, and that possess one unique objective: the unicity of the senses: the tree was already born without an ideological process which sustains it: proving that the nature possesses indeed an objective: objective this that supposedly may be the explanation of the schism between the religion and the science: the separation between those who believe and those who misbelieve: never was an original problem, but of naturalness: it doesn’t exists one unique conscience in the nature: it was the maximum that the invasion of the mind reached.
  9. 9. 9 The theory of the ToM didn’t sought an understanding of affinity with the latu sensu of the natural: I mean: simple gestures, facial expressions, the human cognitive system, in what regards to the emotions, on which a sentiment could be perceived: but angled as a rationality: something behavioral of the self-recognizance of his actions and of the others: it is reflexive and reflective. Ora, one lion doesn’t reflect the other, so he isn’t in the standard of the conscience of God, but these animals are interactive: ora, only the monkey and the man are reflexives: emotionally, there’s nothing that separates the man of the highest primates, for that the human language [a fala humana] be angled as the center of propagation discipliner of an in-effect-conscience in the nature, and that this be the manifestation of the passage of the fountain. Until where it’s known, the homo erectus talked, Neanderthals talked, cannibals talk as well…. The rhesus monkey would also talk if it wasn’t for a very small problem in his vocal chords, something that the genetics try to understand. There isn’t also any argumentation which sustains that the animals don’t talk or don’t have any kind of language, or even, that they don’t do it telepathically or that they don’t possess one unique mode of expression: the language cannot be the limit of an interpretation: for this really, cannot be the explanation: said otherwise, the interpretation needs of an axiom to sustain itself: the axiom it’s the interpretative vein of a vision, vision this that has problem in self-explaining itself, and in this sense, the human being would explain himself only in having being the unique that understood the metaphor, in the same mode, affirms that the creation it’s a metaphor, because indeed, it’s what the theology affirms, the metaphor it’s the human origin. But, in the same mode, nothing in the nature relation itself through a metaphor: in mode that Kenneth gave a Theological answer, and not a Biological one: ‘God exists in function of the reason and experience, and his educational method it’s the accompanying’: And even though with this, one sought that the result would come in the front, such understanding would step- away of the nature an understanding of a natural ToM on which the nature moves, over the language of the pleasure, in that which could lead one to the comprehension of the love: and this is only validating the unnaturalness of the reflex, and this validating equally the stepping-away of the pleasure: the love could never be misunderstood as a conscience, without that the nature were over the table, angled as a human ToM. The man manifests his understanding of knowledge because, of all the animals, he’s the one who has major capacity of interaction, in the same form that affirms this for being a political being: And developed with this a relation of transactional goodness: but does it in a reflexive form: something unnatural. In mode that, even though one goes ahead with the language as an explanative factor of a beginning, it cannot be considered valid, because stopped toward the phylogenetic wall of the nature. It was sought understand as being the manifestation of one unique conscience: The unique conscience isn’t natural: and in this sense, proving that the nature has a conscience, loses as well its consistence, and this is stepping-away the intention-God, the human procedence. The purpose was something that ones persecuted, the latu sensu of the straight-line, the objective. But linking biologically a conscience to a cell was the cleavage of the beginning: X and Y: It was accepted as something given: The matter which involves the mysterious fountain: The Theory would challenge a bottle-neck worse than the one of the giraffe: the fountain, in all the evolutive models, it’s external to the nature: the conscience already existed before the nature: the conscience already existed before the Creation: but this is arguing that the conscience Creates, and so God existed. In mode that the plainest understanding of the matter, it’s that God Created copying himself: but, it was made this using a sequence of two-times: first, he created the clay, the dead-matter, and after, he adds the life, through the mysterious breath: be it the Word, the semen or the blood: the sense it’s of unique vein and not of double-hand..
  10. 10. 10 Biologically, the formation of proteins, through its basic presupposition, the amino acids, would be mysteriously grouped up, in the optic of the mega-understanding of a recycling, primarily, to then, a recombination. But, to the desperation of the desperate Science, the recombination, in its lowest level that the Genetics reached, the genetic level, it’s also understood as sexual. It’s as the sex in the bacteria’s, one of the animals angled as origin of the Tree, woe, are also sexual. So, the term asexual-reproduction was angled, because the fecundation it’s the drama of the conception. And it didn’t lacked bandits, nasties, much more than incompetents of epoch, be it by an instrumental limitation or not, that produced hypothesis that never ceased to be Creationists: The question it’s that these authors hide themselves, and of so much hiding, end up losing themselves: But of nothing solves grabbing itself in the loose, in that which was the external since the beginning (the reflexion). In mode that all these which adventured themselves in the projections of the cursed-straight-line, bittered [amarguraram] their end, and the same result: the beginning: And the difficulty was the same: explaining the fountain: it was easy explaining the straight-line, the difficult was accepting that the straight-line didn’t have point: And without the fix, there would never have a center of propagation: goodbye phylogeny. And this is basically the explanation of how the conscience of God propagated itself in the nature. Explanations didn’t lack for this: but none it’s able of solving the matter of the beginning. Most of the people thinks that these matters were already solved, but indeed, they weren’t. From 1980, genomic studies started to be made and, in 2010, the straight-line falled: the microbiology doesn’t sustain the Darwinism neither the Neo-Darwinism anymore. Just as in the Physics, many theoretical models to solve the problem of the Tree of Life were proposed: in their most ultimate matters: the human anthropology. By convenience and opportunity, it was accepted that the homo sapiens it’s original of the East of Africa. But of nothing would solve investigating the homo erectus, because this would give in the Rhesus. Linking the man to the fountain it’s the question: if you try to do it not using the Theological method, the straight line will fail: and the straight line cannot fail: because if the straight line fails, God failed: and in this sense, X and Y will fail. But indeed, this is the understanding that one must have in hands: all the theories which proposed one unique propagative center, loses themselves in their arguments, are not accepted inside of a concordance in the scientific world, as well as they are ambiguous: they deny and affirm themselves, just as the religion: and this is one more interesting point, in the basis of my arguments, that in the current status, 2017, the Science and the Religion are under a temporary schism. In mode that I’ve posted, a series of researches pertinent to the matter. I’ve chosen literatures which are clear, which don’t play with results, and which methodology it’s considered valid. It was the minimum that one could wait of the Science. So, to this posting in matter, I’ve separated these three studies, which I consider valid, and I’ve commented with green paint that which I’ve considered a naturalness, in yellow where the author was coherent with the science, and in red, that which the author counter-says himself in his affirmation, or, extrapolated the limit of his affirmation, in the sense of that being contrary to the contents of his affirmations, or, simply, erred the angle, or mounted his angle wrong. It’s something that I always seek clearing up, in that which I write: the control of the information: it was something that always existed. And in the same mode, how these argumentations are fail in proving an objective in the nature. I think so the atheists, in determined point, may feel
  11. 11. 11 themselves frustrated in reading my articles, but I also think that their understanding of God it’s the understanding of a human being… God it’s human: and in this sense, it’s correct affirming that God it’s one thing and the nature it’s another: in mode that, to all the angles, the humanity seems to closure the matter: and in mine understanding, the human being doesn’t knows neither what’s God, neither what’s nature, neither lesser yet what it’s the human being. It was of what I came to talk about, the naturalness: the human being doesn’t knows what is the natural, doesn’t knows what is the animal, misunderstands that the nature it’s two: and in this sense, going back to the beginning and focus myself in the bottlenecks where the knowledge was closured and the addressing of values were explicitly put ahead, of how occurred the election of the truth in some crucial points of the History, also passed to be integrant part of my argumentations: but, as I’ve already said before: if all this is necessary[..?]: no: it isn’t necessary: it’s, was and will be necessary to the parable, to the metaphor, and to the system- God: it’s completely irrelevant to the nature. In my most basic understanding, the man separated himself from the nature, and doesn’t knows exactly why he did this: to the animals, this may seem a fatality, to the else’s, only a functioning. About Haeckel, a man that met Charles Darwin, have been in Galapagos, as so many others that knew the work of Charles Darwin[x], that drew Evolutionary progress as a tree of life, he was happy with what he had founded: he had arrived to the conclusion that the life begun in middle the biota, the natural pair and its ecosystem: that, for him was the Paradise: and that the embryo was the explanation of the seed: harmonic, natural: ‘God created the man and the woman at the same time, point…’ : for this, he was not captured: he just misunderstood that the science wasn’t talking about the nature. As I’ve said before, Darwin possessed the differential of epoch: the original of the species could be easily canonized: the else’s, no… And this it’s being well-explained, which was it the Charles Darwin- differential. It’s also the explanation of why the polygenesis will never be accepted: and this explanation will not be made in Haeckel, but in Kenneth, a Theologist without expressivity. In mode that I’ve opted for beginning with Haeckel and leave Kenneth for later, for the author having stepped-away too much from the science: one more motive of having being selected as example: for turning public a conflict very well-known: the author, in one of his narratives of the article, in a frustrated tentative of angling the Original Sin as something that preceded the creation of Adam and Eve doesn’t brings to the scene nothing that may explain the creation of Adam being previous to the one of Eve and of Adam could have being effectively created alone: in mode that the creator quotes the couple, but in belief, refers himself to a direct relation man-God, the relation man-fountain, where the blood can only be angled as semen. In mode that God, in this sense, can only be understood as an asexual or an hermaphrodite being: and this is something that every Christian has to answer: did God had vagina..? : Indeed, man and woman each one has one sex, and that these sexes are naturals of God, and that the explanation of the why the man being the dominant comes from the Torah: but, the man was created in the front: it’s deductible that, in this sense, the penis was the first thing that appeared: in mode that the vagina appeared from the man: isn’t clear that came from God: the rib it’s so undefined, as it may be any part of something: in the same mode, the rib of the man came of the clay, isn’t clear that came from God…: in the same mode, the SRY cannot be angled as rib as well, because, along with the Y there’s vagina, and along with the X there’s penis. If God didn’t had sex, so he could not have created the man: for none phenotype that could be addressed to his father would be found. The hereditariness closures itself towards an improbable phylogeny. And this is my basic argumentation: The Genesis it’s grossly wrong.
  12. 12. 12 To everything, a metaphor: but to everything, the same sequence: a unity: unity this that refers itself to the standard-man. And in this sense, sir Kenneth failed in relating biologically something that may have consistence with the natural world, that such event occurred, that the Theology it’s organic. The sequence-man isn’t found in the nature: point. Genesis falled, point. The current status it’s that, the answer of the genetics it’s impossible such relation one day have existed. The big most of my readers are Christians, and for them, indeed, questioning the word be a heresy: but it’s the science that’s doing it: trying to encounter its procedence. In the moment, I’m clearing up -clearing up, because, even a scientist seems that never readed the Book, Darwin it’s a good example of this: he didn’t have the perfect biblical understanding. I know this seems incredible, but the Catholics know what I’m talking about: they don’t get upset with nothing of what I write, they think that’s something that the Protestant had to listen from the enemy’s mouth, and are completely agreeable with all my arguments: in nothing I’ve increased or diminished Christ: because the humanity of Christ it’s something that they believe as well. In mode that the stories that are involved with the naturalness don’t have to be messed up with the biblical clearing ups: the reader may perfectly understand that the stories treat about fables of some uncompromised one… as an attempt against the patrimony of his actions, the humanity…but it’s how I understand the stories of The Book: fables, which attempt against the naturalness. The God-One it’s a ridiculous, as ridiculous as the monkey, and why the most intelligent thinks like this, for me it’s also a mystery: understanding that the intelligence it’s original of the distaste. Was how I understood the literature of sir Kenneth, a distaste. And how I understood the literature of sir Haeckel, a pleasure: he liked of what he was doing, the other never liked of what he did. In mode that it doesn’t matter which’s the real sense of the human actions, but it’s of one expects of an action, a minimum of naturalness. Calling a catholic of a distasteful one doesn’t matters, because he vanishes himself with this. In the same mode, it’s embarrassing you see a scientist as Haeckel, in the end of his life, becoming an atheist, see an anemone trying to understand itself as a monkey... . Chromosomic studies, for more special that they be, don’t go beyond the cell, and that which’s not found in the cell, won’t be found as well in smaller structures had as specials or most complexes. In Biology, the Cell it’s the law, of which the man raised and raises himself. In mode that the cell, in none hypothesis will may be discarded as explanative vein of something. The human being founded his origin, and it is all contained in the unicellular life. The matter that doesn’t accepts such facility, to be point of being seen on naked eye, in having preferred the lens, and the prophecy as dogmatic use of his reason, dues to the fracasso of his entire experience in disexplaining the natural. And so, he spoke:
  13. 13. 13 CHAPTER 1.6. THE OVUM AND THE AMOEBA. In order to understand clearly the course of human embryology, we must select the more important of its wonderful and manifold processes for fuller explanation, and then proceed from these to the innumerable features of less importance. The most important feature in this sense, and the best starting-point for ontogenetic study, is the fact that man is developed from an ovum, and that this ovum is a simple cell. The human ovum does not materially differ in form and composition from that of the other mammals, whereas there is a distinct difference between the fertilised ovum of the mammal and that of any other animal. (FIGURE 1.1. The human ovum, magnified 100 times. The globular mass of yelk (b) is enclosed by a transparent membrane (the ovolemma or zona pellucida [a]), and contains a noncentral nucleus (the germinal vesicle, c). Cf. Figure 1.14.) This fact is so important that few should be unaware of its extreme significance; yet it was quite unknown in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. As we have seen, the human and mammal ovum was not discovered until 1827, when Carl Ernst von Baer detected it. Up to that time the larger vesicles, in which the real and much smaller ovum is contained, had been wrongly regarded as ova. The important circumstance that this mammal ovum is a simple cell, like the ovum of other animals, could not, of course, be recognised until the cell theory was established. This was not done, by Schleiden for the plant and Schwann for the animal, until 1838. As we have seen, this cell theory is of the greatest service in explaining the human frame and its embryonic development. Hence we must say a few words about the actual condition of the theory and the significance of the views it has suggested. In order properly to appreciate the cellular theory, the most important element in our science, it is necessary to understand in the first place that the cell is a UNIFIED ORGANISM, a self-contained living being. When we anatomically dissect the fully-formed animal or plant into its various organs, and then examine the finer structure of these organs with the microscope, we are surprised to find that all these different parts are ultimately made up of the same structural element or unit. This common unit of structure is the cell. It does not matter whether we thus dissect a leaf, flower, or fruit, or a bone, muscle, gland, or bit of skin, etc.; we find in every case the same ultimate constituent, which has been called the cell since Schleiden's discovery. There are many opinions as to its real nature, but the essential point in our view of the cell is to look upon it as a self-contained or independent living unit. It is, in the words of Brucke, "an elementary organism." We may define it most precisely as the ultimate organic unit, and, as the cells are the sole active principles in every vital function, we may call them the "plastids," or "formative elements." This unity is found in both the anatomic structure and the physiological function. In the case of the protists, the entire organism usually consists of a single independent cell throughout life. But in the tissue-forming animals and plants, which are the great majority, the organism begins its career as a simple cell, and then grows into a cell-community, or, more correctly, an organised cell-state. Our own body is not really the simple unity that it is generally supposed to be. On the contrary, it is a very elaborate social system of countless microscopic
  14. 14. 14 organisms, a colony or commonwealth, made up of innumerable independent units, or very different tissue-cells. In reality, the term "cell," which existed long before the cell theory was formulated, is not happily chosen. Schleiden, who first brought it into scientific use in the sense of the cell theory. […]” “…Here we have a most elaborate apparatus, the delicate structure of which we are just beginning to appreciate through our most powerful microscopes, but whose significance is rather a matter of conjecture than knowledge. Its intricate structure corresponds to the very complicated functions of the mind. Nevertheless, this elementary organ of psychic activity—of which there are thousands in our brain—is nothing but a single cell. Our whole mental life is only the joint result of the combined activity of all these nerve-cells, or soul-cells. In the centre of each cell there is a large transparent nucleus, containing a small and dark nuclear body. Here, as elsewhere, it is the nucleus that determines the individuality of the cell; it proves that the whole structure, in spite of its intricate composition, amounts to only a single cell. […]” Obs.: Haeckel had then quoted a unity. And this was the key of his happiness: this explained the human body, in every its non-minimal but excellent details: except for the binning: the cell, or, cytola, as he named it, or simply, stem, or, stem-cell, or simply, the seed, treated itself about an hermaphrodite, which sexual life of that embryo would define itself later without bigger addressing’s, at the same time that this would lead him to the condition, in his analyze, that every cell of the human body, and this includes the own human being, would also be an autosome, never an unity indeed: unity this that his theory seemed to misunderstand. But it was something that he had found in the nature, and, the symmetry of that which he had founded, seemed to repeat itself in everything, even in the man. He proceeds: “…But when we speak of the cells as the elementary organisms, or structural units, or "ultimate individualities," we must bear in mind a certain restriction of the phrases. I mean, that the cells are not, as is often supposed, the very lowest stage of organic individuality. There are yet more elementary organisms to which I must refer occasionally. These are what we call the "cytodes" (cytos = cell), certain living, independent beings, consisting only of a particle of plasson—an albuminoid substance, which is not yet differentiated into caryoplasm and cytoplasm, but combines the properties of both. Those remarkable beings called the monera—especially the chromacea and bacteria—are specimens of these simple cytodes. (Compare Chapter 2.19.) To be quite accurate, then, we must say: the elementary organism, or the ultimate individual, is found in two different stages. The first and lower stage is the cytode, which consists merely of a particle of plasson, or quite simple plasm. The second and higher stage is the cell, which is already divided or differentiated into nuclear matter and cellular matter. We comprise both kinds—the cytodes and the cells—under the name of plastids ("formative particles"), because they are the real builders of the organism. However, these cytodes are not found, as a rule, in the higher animals and plants; here we have only real cells with a nucleus. Hence, in these tissue-forming organisms (both plant and animal) the organic unit always consists of two chemically and anatomically different parts—the outer cell-body and the inner nucleus. […]” Obs.: it’s a Darwinist thought: the existence of the environment-God in the nature, pre-cellular, which’s the base of the LUCA-Theory, that the life appeared as a puzzle: pieces of protein, isolated, living free in a pool, encountered each other. And to the recombination of amino acids, and a reproduction in the context of a mitosis preexisted to the formation of the step-2. But he would go back behind, on analyzing an amoeba: and would maintain his concept of embryo as being the casuism of the nature, even the smallest of the creatures
  15. 15. 15 “…In order to convince oneself that this cell is really an independent organism, we have only to observe the development and vital phenomena of one of them. We see then that it performs all the essential functions of life—both vegetal and animal—which we find in the entire organism. Each of these tiny beings grows and nourishes itself independently. It takes its food from the surrounding fluid; sometimes, even, the naked cells take in solid particles at certain points of their surface—in other words, "eat" them— without needing any special mouth and stomach for the purpose (cf. Figure 1.19). [….]” Further, each cell is able to reproduce itself. This multiplication, in most cases, takes the form of a simple cleavage, sometimes direct, sometimes indirect; the simple direct (or "amitotic") division is less common, and is found, for instance, in the blood cells (Figure 1.10). In these the nucleus first divides into two equal parts by constriction. The indirect (or "mitotic") cleavage is much more frequent; in this the caryoplasm of the nucleus and the cytoplasm of the cell-body act upon each other in a peculiar way, with a partial dissolution (caryolysis), the formation of knots and loops (mitosis), and a movement of the halved plasma- particles towards two mutually repulsive poles of attraction (caryokinesis, Figure 1.11.) “…FIGURE 1.16. A creeping amoeba (highly magnified). The whole organism is a simple naked cell, and moves about by means of the changing arms which it thrusts out of and withdraws into its protoplasmic body. Inside it is the roundish nucleus with its nucleolus.) When the mature bird-ovum has left the ovary and been fertilised in the oviduct, it covers itself with various membranes which are secreted from the wall of the oviduct. First, the large clear albuminous layer is deposited around the yellow yelk; afterwards, the hard external shell, with a fine inner skin. All these gradually forming envelopes and processes are of no importance in the formation of the embryo; they serve merely for the protection of the original simple ovum. We sometimes find extraordinarily large eggs with strong envelopes in the case of other animals, such as fishes of the shark type. Here, also, the ovum is originally of the same character as it is in the mammal; it is a perfectly simple and naked cell. But, as in the case of the bird, a considerable quantity of nutritive yelk is accumulated inside the original yelk as food for the developing embryo; and various coverings are formed round the egg. The ovum of many other animals has the same internal and external features. They have, however, only a physiological, not a morphological, importance; they have no direct influence on the formation of the foetus. They are partly consumed as food by the embryo, and partly serve as protective envelopes. Hence we may leave them out of consideration altogether here, and restrict ourselves to material points—TO THE SUBSTANTIAL IDENTITY OF THE ORIGINAL OVUM IN MAN AND THE REST OF THE ANIMALS (Figure 1.13). …” “…Now, let us for the first time make use of our biogenetic law; and directly apply this fundamental law of evolution to the human ovum. We reach a very simple, but very important, conclusion. FROM THE FACT THAT THE HUMAN OVUM AND THAT OF ALL OTHER ANIMALS CONSISTS OF A SINGLE CELL, IT FOLLOWS IMMEDIATELY, ACCORDING TO THE BIOGENETIC LAW, THAT ALL THE ANIMALS, INCLUDING MAN, DESCEND FROM A UNICELLULAR ORGANISM. If our biogenetic law is true, if the embryonic development is a summary or condensed recapitulation of the stem-history—and there can be no doubt about it—we are bound to conclude, from the fact that all the ova are at first simple cells, that all the multicellular organisms originally sprang from a unicellular being. And as the original ovum in man and all the other animals has the same simple and indefinite appearance, we may assume with some probability that this unicellular stem-form was the common ancestor of the whole animal world, including man. However, this last hypothesis does not seem to me as inevitable and as absolutely certain as our first conclusion. This inference from the unicellular embryonic form to the unicellular ancestor is so simple, but so important, that we cannot sufficiently emphasise it. We must, therefore, turn next to the question whether there are to-day any unicellular organisms, from the features of which we may draw some approximate conclusion as to the unicellular ancestors of the multicellular organisms. The answer is: Most certainly
  16. 16. 16 there are. There are assuredly still unicellular organisms which are, in their whole nature, really nothing more than permanent ova. There are independent unicellular organisms of the simplest character which develop no further, but reproduce themselves as such, without any further growth. We know to-day of a great number of these little beings, such as the gregarinae, flagellata, acineta, infusoria, etc. However, there is one of them that has an especial interest for us, because it at once suggests itself when we raise our question, and it must be regarded as the unicellular being that approaches nearest to the real ancestral form. This organism is the amoeba. For a long time now we have comprised under the general name of amoebae a number of microscopic unicellular organisms, which are very widely distributed, especially in fresh-water, but also in the ocean; in fact, they have lately been discovered in damp soil. There are also parasitic amoebae which live inside other animals. When we place one of these amoebae in a drop of water under the microscope and examine it with a high power, it generally appears as a roundish particle of a very irregular and varying shape (Figures 1.16 and 1.17). In its soft, slimy, semi-fluid substance, which consists of protoplasm, we see only the solid globular particle it contains, the nucleus. This unicellular body moves about continually, creeping in every direction on the glass on which we are examining it. The movement is effected by the shapeless body thrusting out finger-like processes at various parts of its surface; and these are slowly but continually changing, and drawing the rest of the body after them. After a time, perhaps, the action changes. The amoeba suddenly stands still, withdraws its projections, and assumes a globular shape. In a little while, however, the round body begins to expand again, thrusts out arms in another direction, and moves on once more. These changeable processes are called "false feet," or pseudopodia, because they act physiologically as feet, yet are not special organs in the anatomic sense. They disappear as quickly as they come, and are nothing more than temporary projections of the semi-fluid and structureless body. (FIGURE 1.17. Division of a unicellular amoeba (Amoeba polypodia) in six stages. (From F.E. Schultze.) the dark spot is the nucleus, the lighter spot a contractile vacuole in the protoplasm. The latter reforms in one of the daughter-cells.) FIGURE 1.18. Ovum of a sponge (Olynthus). The ovum creeps about in a body of the sponge by thrusting out ever-changing processes. It is indistinguishable from the common amoeba.) If you touch one of these creeping amoebae with a needle, or put a drop of acid in the water, the whole body at once contracts in consequence of this mechanical or physical stimulus. As a rule, the body then resumes its globular shape. In certain circumstances—for instance, if the impurity of the water lasts some time—the amoeba begins to develop a covering. It exudes a membrane or capsule, which immediately hardens, and assumes the appearance of a round cell with a protective membrane. The amoeba either takes its food directly by imbibition of matter floating in the water, or by pressing into its protoplasmic body solid particles with which it comes in contact. The latter process may be observed at any moment by forcing it to eat. If finely ground colouring matter, such as carmine or indigo, is put into the water, you can see the body of the amoeba pressing these coloured particles into itself, the substance of the cell closing round them. The amoeba can take in food in this way at any point on its surface, without having any special organs for intussusception and digestion, or a real mouth or gut. The amoeba grows by thus taking in food and dissolving the particles eaten in its protoplasm. When it reaches a certain size by this continual feeding, it begins to reproduce. This is done by the simple process of cleavage (Figure 1.17). First, the nucleus divides into two parts. Then the protoplasm is separated between the two new nuclei, and the whole cell splits into two daughter-cells, the protoplasm gathering about each of the nuclei. The thin bridge of protoplasm which at first connects the daughter-cells soon breaks. Here we have the simple form of direct cleavage of the nuclei. Without mitosis, or formation of threads, the homogeneous nucleus divides into two halves. These move away from each other, and become centres of attraction for the enveloping matter, the protoplasm. The same direct cleavage of the nuclei is also witnessed in the reproduction of many other protists, while other unicellular organisms show the indirect division of the cell.
  17. 17. 17 Hence, although the amoeba is nothing but a simple cell, it is evidently able to accomplish all the functions of the multicellular organism. It moves, feels, nourishes itself, and reproduces. Some kinds of these amoebae can be seen with the naked eye, but most of them are microscopically small. It is for the following reasons that we regard the amoebae as the unicellular organisms which have special phylogenetic (or evolutionary) relations to the ovum. In many of the lower animals the ovum retains its original naked form until fertilisation, develops no membranes, and is then often indistinguishable from the ordinary amoeba. Like the amoebae, these naked ova may thrust out processes, and move about as travelling cells. In the sponges these mobile ova move about freely in the maternal body like independent amoebae (Figure 1.17). They had been observed by earlier scientists, but described as foreign bodies—namely, parasitic amoebae, living parasitically on the body of the sponge. Later, however, it was discovered that they were not parasites, but the ova of the sponge. We also find this remarkable phenomenon among other animals, such as the graceful, bell-shaped zoophytes, which we call polyps and medusae. Their ova remain naked cells, which thrust out amoeboid projections, nourish themselves, and move about. When they have been fertilised, the multicellular organism is formed from them by repeated segmentation. It is, therefore, no audacious hypothesis, but a perfectly sound conclusion, to regard the amoeba as the particular unicellular organism which offers us an approximate illustration of the ancient common unicellular ancestor of all the metazoa, or multicellular animals. The simple naked amoeba has a less definite and more original character than any other cell. Moreover, there is the fact that recent research has discovered such amoeba-like cells everywhere in the mature body of the multicellular animals. They are found, for instance, in the human blood, side by side with the red corpuscles, as colourless blood-cells; and it is the same with all the vertebrates. They are also found in many of the invertebrates—for instance, in the blood of the snail. I showed, in 1859, that these colourless blood-cells can, like the independent amoebae, take up solid particles, or "eat" (whence they are called phagocytes = "eating-cells," Figure 1.19). Lately, it has been discovered that many different cells may, if they have room enough, execute the same movements, creeping about and eating. They behave just like amoebae (Figure 1.12). It has also been shown that these "travelling-cells," or planocytes, play an important part in man's physiology and pathology (as means of transport for food, infectious matter, bacteria, etc.). The power of the naked cell to execute these characteristic amoeba-like movements comes from the contractility (or automatic mobility) of its protoplasm. This seems to be a universal property of young cells. When they are not enclosed by a firm membrane, or confined in a "cellular prison," they can always accomplish these amoeboid movements. This is true of the naked ova as well as of any other naked cells, of the "travelling-cells," of various kinds in connective tissue, lymph-cells, mucus-cells, etc. We have now, by our study of the ovum and the comparison of it with the amoeba, provided a perfectly sound and most valuable foundation for both the embryology and the evolution of man. We have learned that the human ovum is a simple cell, that this ovum is not materially different from that of other mammals, and that we may infer from it the existence of a primitive unicellular ancestral form, with a substantial resemblance to the amoeba. …” Obs.: which was not extinct, and it’s common to all the things. “…The statement that the earliest progenitors of the human race were simple cells of this kind, and led an independent unicellular life like the amoeba, has not only been ridiculed as the dream of a natural philosopher, but also been violently censured in theological journals as "shameful and immoral." But, as I observed in my essay On the Origin and Ancestral Tree of the Human Race in 1870, this offended piety must equally protest against the "shameful and immoral" fact that each human individual is developed from a simple ovum, and that this human ovum is indistinguishable from those of the other mammals, and in its earliest stage is like a naked amoeba. We can show this to be a fact any day with the microscope, and it is little use to close one's eyes to "immoral" facts of this kind. It is as indisputable as the momentous conclusions we draw from it and as the vertebrate character of man (see Chapter 1.11). ..”
  18. 18. 18 “…(FIGURE 1.19. Blood-cells that eat, or phagocytes, from a naked sea-snail (Thetis), greatly magnified. I was the first to observe in the blood-cells of this snail the important fact that "the blood-cells of the invertebrates are unprotected pieces of plasm, and take in food, by means of their peculiar movements, like the amoebae." I had (in Naples, on May 10th, 1859) injected into the blood-vessels of one of these snails an infusion of water and ground indigo, and was greatly astonished to find the blood-cells themselves more or less filled with the particles of indigo after a few hours. After repeated injections I succeeded in "observing the very entrance of the coloured particles in the blood-cells, which took place just in the same way as with the amoeba." I have given further particulars about this in my Monograph on the Radiolaria.) We now see very clearly how extremely important the cell theory has been for our whole conception of organic nature. "Man's place in nature" is settled beyond question by it. Apart from the cell theory, man is an insoluble enigma to us. …” Obs.: something more must be said about Haeckel: he was not convict that that which precedes the cellular life had indeed a different functioning of his imaginary point of propagation, because indeed his radix was always the cell: he did not believed, as Darwin, in the monogenesis, but in the polygenesis, here was a quoi of Lamarck in his ideas: because anything that affirmed itself as spontaneous generations, would be cellular: and the sex would be involved somehow, even though it could not be transcribed as being exactly equal as the one of the amoeba: and understood that this could indeed be an obstacle to the belief: the nature indeed having created a phylogenetic obstacle: and he understood once more in a simple form: that could only be the manifestation of God, that the truly origin had already been given… the Paradise and Adam and Eve was the cell… and accepted the sentence that the beginning, that beginning, the genomic, wasn’t so important, not even relevant, because, independently of being able of being proved or not in the nature such beginning, the place of the man was the place of God: and all that which he could know of the nature, was already enough: and that indeed, the amoeba and the man made the biggest sense, and didn’t understood why didn’t the scientists of his epoch see like this as well. And he follows: “…Hence philosophers, and especially physiologists, should be thoroughly conversant with it. The soul of man can only be really understood in the light of the cell-soul, and we have the simplest form of this in the amoeba. Only those who are acquainted with the simple psychic functions of the unicellular organisms and their gradual evolution in the series of lower animals can understand how the elaborate mind of the higher vertebrates, and especially of man, was gradually evolved from them. The academic psychologists who lack this zoological equipment are unable to do so. This naturalistic and realistic conception is a stumbling-block to our modern idealistic metaphysicians and their theological colleagues. Fenced about with their transcendental and dualistic prejudices, they attack not only the monistic system we establish on our scientific knowledge, but even the plainest facts which go to form its foundation. An instructive instance of this was seen a few years ago, in the academic discourse delivered by a distinguished theologian, Willibald Beyschlag, at Halle, January 12th, 1900, on the occasion of the centenary festival. The theologian protested violently against the "materialistic dustmen of the scientific world who offer our people the diploma of a descent from the ape, and would prove to them that the genius of a Shakespeare or a Goethe is merely a distillation from a drop of primitive mucus." Another well-known theologian protested against "the horrible idea that the greatest of men, Luther and Christ, were descended from a mere globule of protoplasm." Nevertheless, not a single informed and impartial scientist doubts the fact that these greatest men were, like all other men—and all other vertebrates—developed from an impregnated ovum, and that this simple nucleated globule of protoplasm has the same chemical constitution in all the mammals.
  19. 19. 19 CHAPTER 1.7. CONCEPTION. The recognition of the fact that every man begins his individual existence as a simple cell is the solid foundation of all research into the genesis of man. From this fact we are forced, in virtue of our biogenetic law, to draw the weighty phylogenetic conclusion that the earliest ancestors of the human race were also unicellular organisms; and among these protozoa we may single out the vague form of the amoeba as particularly important (cf. Chapter 1.6). That these unicellular ancestral forms did once exist follows directly from the phenomena which we perceive every day in the fertilised ovum. The development of the multicellular organism from the ovum, and the formation of the germinal layers and the tissues, follow the same laws in man and all the higher animals. It will, therefore, be our next task to consider more closely the impregnated ovum and the process of conception which produces it. The process of impregnation or sexual conception is one of those phenomena that people love to conceal behind the mystic veil of supernatural power. We shall soon see, however, that it is a purely mechanical process, and can be reduced to familiar physiological functions. Moreover, this process of conception is of the same type, and is effected by the same organs, in man as in all the other mammals. The pairing of the male and female has in both cases for its main purpose the introduction of the ripe matter of the male seed or sperm into the female body, in the sexual canals of which it encounters the ovum. Conception then ensues by the blending of the two. We must observe, first, that this important process is by no means so widely distributed in the animal and plant world as is commonly supposed. There is a very large number of lower organisms which propagate unsexually, or by monogamy; these are especially the sexless monera (chromacea, bacteria, etc.) but also many other protists, such as the amoebae, foraminifera, radiolaria, myxomycetae, etc. In these the multiplication of individuals takes place by unsexual reproduction, which takes the form of cleavage, budding, or spore-formation. The copulation of two coalescing cells, which in these cases often precedes the reproduction, cannot be regarded as a sexual act unless the two copulating plastids differ in size or structure. On the other hand, sexual reproduction is the general rule with all the higher organisms, both animal and plant; very rarely do we find asexual reproduction among them. There are, in particular, no cases of parthenogenesis (virginal conception) among the vertebrates. Sexual reproduction offers an infinite variety of interesting forms in the different classes of animals and plants, especially as regards the mode of conception, and the conveyance of the spermatozoon to the ovum. These features are of great importance not only as regards conception itself, but for the development of the organic form, and especially for the differentiation of the sexes. There is a particularly curious correlation of plants and animals in this respect. The splendid studies of Charles Darwin and Hermann Muller on the fertilisation of flowers by insects have given us very interesting particulars of this.* (* See Darwin's work, On the Various Contrivances by which Orchids are Fertilised (1862).) This reciprocal service has given rise to a most intricate sexual apparatus. Equally elaborate structures have been developed in man and the higher animals, serving partly for the isolation of the sexual products on each side, partly for bringing them together in conception. But, however interesting these phenomena are in themselves, we cannot go into them here, as they have only a minor importance—if any at all—in the real process of conception. We must, however, try to get a very clear idea of this process and the meaning of sexual reproduction. In every act of conception we have, as I said, to consider two different kinds of cells—a female and a male cell. The female cell of the animal organism is always called the ovum (or ovulum, egg, or egg-cell); the male cells are known as the sperm or seed-cells, or the spermatozoa (also spermium and zoospermium). The ripe ovum is, on the whole, one of the largest cells we know. It attains colossal dimensions when it absorbs great quantities of nutritive yelk, as is the case with birds and reptiles and many of the fishes. In the great majority of the animals the ripe ovum is rich in yelk and much larger than the other cells. On the other hand, the next cell which we have to consider in the process of conception, the male sperm-cell or
  20. 20. 20 spermatozoon, is one of the smallest cells in the animal body. Conception usually consists in the bringing into contact with the ovum of a slimy fluid secreted by the male, and this may take place either inside or out of the female body. This fluid is called sperm, or the male seed. Sperm, like saliva or blood, is not a simple fluid, but a thick agglomeration of innumerable cells, swimming about in a comparatively small quantity of fluid. It is not the fluid, but the independent male cells that swim in it, that cause conception. When the Dutch naturalist Leeuwenhoek discovered these thread-like lively particles in 1677 in the male sperm, it was generally believed that they were special, independent, tiny animalcules, like the infusoria, and that the whole mature organism existed already, with all its parts, but very small and packed together, in each spermatozoon (see Chapter 1.2). We now know that the mobile spermatozoa are nothing but simple and real cells, of the kind that we call "ciliated" (equipped with lashes, or cilia). In the previous illustrations we have distinguished in the spermatozoon a head, trunk, and tail. The "head" (Figure 1.20 k) is merely the oval nucleus of the cell; the body or middle-part (m) is an accumulation of cell-matter; and the tail (s) is a thread-like prolongation of the same. Moreover, we now know that these spermatozoa are not at all a peculiar form of cell; precisely similar cells are found in various other parts of the body. If they have many short threads projecting, they are called ciliated; if only one long, whip-shaped process (or, more rarely, two or four), caudate (tailed) cells. Very careful recent examination of the spermia, under a very high microscopic power (Figure 1.22 a, b), has detected some further details in the finer structure of the ciliated cell, and these are common to man and the anthropoid ape …”. “…The process of fertilisation by sexual conception consists, therefore, essentially in the coalescence and fusing together of two different cells. The lively spermatozoon travels towards the ovum by its serpentine movements, and bores its way into the female cell (Figure 1.23). The nuclei of both sexual cells, attracted by a certain "affinity," approach each other and melt into one. The fertilised cell is quite another thing from the unfertilised cell. For if we must regard the spermia as real cells no less than the ova, and the process of conception as a coalescence of the two, we must consider the resultant cell as a quite new and independent organism. It bears in the cell and nuclear matter of the penetrating spermatozoon a part of the father's body, and in the protoplasm and caryoplasm of the ovum a part of the mother's body. This is clear from the fact that the child inherits many features from both parents. It inherits from the father by means of the spermatozoon, and from the mother by means of the ovum. The actual blending of the two cells produces a third cell, which is the germ of the child, or the new organism conceived. One may also say of this sexual coalescence that the STEM-CELL IS A SIMPLE HERMAPHRODITE; it unites both sexual substances in itself….” Obs.: the nature is as much hermaphrodite as the conception it’s the fecundation of the truth. It’s interesting, Haeckel… he understands the cell as being an animal: and it’s correct. It’s correct affirming that that which he called cell it’s something natural. What isn’t natural it’s supposing the existence of one stage of the conception, the stem-cell being understood as hermaphrodite. there exists a complex structure, but not exactly the sex: the sex it’s justly that which will be created, it doesn’t treats about an hermaphrodite, neither an asexual one, but that the embryo will have its genital organ in the resemblance of his parents: it’s the simple understanding of that it’s after the conception that appears the seed: there’s to be understood that an hermaphrodite being doesn’t have the capacity of self-fecundate itself: one of the simplest errors, in this sense, it’s calling a plant of hermaphrodite: Darwin broke the face in this: the orchids that don’t let me lie. In mode that Haeckel committed error of angle…God it’s hermaphrodite in the sense that God it’s asexual: this is a biological concordance, not theological. Biological in the sense that God could not create that which he doesn’t has, and theological in the sense that he cannot be that which the nature is: sexual: Both sexes are lateralized posterities in the body of that which created them, but which isn’t any of them, just as isn’t part, but it’s the parallelism of its rejoining, of which they’re
  21. 21. 21 posterior to his antecedence, being its principle the center over which the horizon which they rejoin each other could be possible, on the contrary, there wouldn’t be path. To be simpler, even because this is one of the most common sense between the PhDs, error of angle. But think: God created the beginning and the end, but he himself isn’t neither the beginning neither the end: as this is worth as for X as for Y. And to be simpler yet, the moment of the conception cannot be understood as the penis, in the figure of the spermatozoon, and as the vagina, in the figure of the ovule: there was substance of the male and of the female, but in none moment which precedes the conception, the sex could be visualized: this would lead to the latu sensu that one wants to avoid: that the fecundation of Adam was a self-conception of God in himself: would be misunderstand that Adam it’s a propagation of God, the latu sensu of a theological conception it’s a cloning, a mitosis that doesn’t explains itself in the nature: extensive reproduction isn’t self-fecundation, but this so, propagation: in mode that, what’s known of the mitosis is that it isn’t something that occurs in an isolated cell, but in an organism, which isn’t Theological: in mode that, even though God could fecundate himself, and this is admitting that he also has vagina, independently of his molecular feminine structure, the conception, in the nature, it’s understood as something sexual . In the same mode, the self-fecundation isn’t found in the nature: there doesn’t exists auto nothing in the nature: the term self-fecundation, self-fertilization, self-florescence, auto-germination, are a montage, a binning of which it’s being given the due clearing up: there exists a concordance and a want to of background, which provides an erroneous background. For one century, and this is few, it was believed in biological fables. However, Haeckel committed only one little error of belief: not for having seen something, but for wanting to see an interpretation. Interpretation these which he would revise later, on angling the polygenesis. It’s not the scope of the text in matter, what’s wanted it’s showing the understanding of embryo, in the cellular standard: the pair it’s the natural. It’s in this sense that the term monogenesis must be understood. Another things, much more interesting, are happening: and it’s about these things that I came talk. And one of them it’s that the model of cell of Haeckel was incompatible with the Seed-model of the Torah, from where Paul it’s a copyist. Haeckel proceeds: “…I think it necessary to emphasise the fundamental importance of this simple, but often unappreciated, feature in order to have a correct and clear idea of conception. With that end, I have given a special name to the new cell from which the child develops, and which is generally loosely called "the fertilised ovum," or "the first segmentation sphere." I call it "the stem-cell" (cytula). The name "stem-cell" seems to me the simplest and most suitable, because all the other cells of the body are derived from it, and because it is, in the strictest sense, the stem-father and stem-mother of all the countless generations of cells of which the multicellular organism is to be composed. That complicated molecular movement of the protoplasm which we call "life" is, naturally, something quite different in this stem-cell from what we find in the two parent- cells, from the coalescence of which it has issued. THE LIFE OF THE STEM-CELL OR CYTULA IS THE PRODUCT OR RESULTANT OF THE PATERNAL LIFE-MOVEMENT THAT IS CONVEYED IN THE SPERMATOZOON AND THE MATERNAL LIFE-MOVEMENT THAT IS CONTRIBUTED BY THE OVUM. The admirable work done by recent observers has shown that the individual development, in man and the other animals, commences with the formation of a simple "stem-cell" of this character, and that this then passes, by repeated segmentation (or cleavage), into a cluster of cells, known as "the segmentation sphere" or "segmentation cells." The process is most clearly observed in the ova of the echinoderms (star- fishes, sea-urchins, etc.). The investigations of Oscar and Richard Hertwig were chiefly directed to these. The main results may be summed up as follows:— Conception is preceded by certain preliminary changes, which are very necessary—in fact, usually indispensable—for its occurrence. They are comprised under the general heading of "Changes prior to impregnation." In these the original nucleus of the ovum, the germinal vesicle, is lost. Part of it is extruded, and part dissolved in the cell contents; only a very small part of it is left to form the basis of a fresh nucleus,
  22. 22. 22 the pronucleus femininus. It is the latter alone that combines in conception with the invading nucleus of the fertilising spermatozoon (the pronucleus masculinus). These remarkable facts of impregnation are also of the greatest interest in psychology, especially as regards the theory of the cell-soul, which I consider to be its chief foundation. The phenomena we have described can only be understood and explained by ascribing a certain lower degree of psychic activity to the sexual principles. They FEEL each other's proximity, and are drawn together by a SENSITIVE impulse (probably related to smell); they MOVE towards each other, and do not rest until they fuse together. Physiologists may say that it is only a question of a peculiar physico-chemical phenomenon, and not a psychic action; but the two cannot be separated. Even the psychic functions, in the strict sense of the word, are only complex physical processes, or "psycho-physical" phenomena, which are determined in all cases exclusively by the chemical composition of their material substratum. The monistic view of the matter becomes clear enough when we remember the radical importance of impregnation as regards heredity. It is well known that not only the most delicate bodily structures, but also the subtlest traits of mind, are transmitted from the parents to the children. In this the chromatic matter of the male nucleus is just as important a vehicle as the large caryoplasmic substance of the female nucleus; the one transmits the mental features of the father, and the other those of the mother. The blending of the two parental nuclei determines the individual psychic character of the child. But there is another important psychological question—the most important of all—that has been definitely answered by the recent discoveries in connection with conception. This is the question of the immortality of the soul. No fact throws more light on it and refutes it more convincingly than the elementary process of conception that we have described. For this copulation of the two sexual nuclei (Figures 1.26 and 1.27) indicates the precise moment at which the individual begins to exist. All the bodily and mental features of the new-born child are the sum-total of the hereditary qualities which it has received in reproduction from parents and ancestors. All that man acquires afterwards in life by the exercise of his organs, the influence of his environment, and education—in a word, by adaptation—cannot obliterate that general outline of his being which he inherited from his parents. But this hereditary disposition, the essence of every human soul, is not "eternal," but "temporal"; it comes into being only at the moment when the sperm-nucleus of the father and the nucleus of the maternal ovum meet and fuse together. It is clearly irrational to assume an "eternal life without end" for an individual phenomenon, the commencement of which we can indicate to a moment by direct visual observation. The great importance of the process of impregnation in answering such questions is quite clear. It is true that conception has never been studied microscopically in all its details in the human case— notwithstanding its occurrence at every moment—for reasons that are obvious enough. However, the two cells which need consideration, the female ovum and the male spermatozoon, proceed in the case of man in just the same way as in all the other mammals; the human foetus or embryo which results from copulation has the same form as with the other animals. Hence, no scientist who is acquainted with the facts doubts that the processes of impregnation are just the same in man as in the other animals.
  23. 23. 23 The stem-cell which is produced, and with which every man begins his career, cannot be distinguished in appearance from those of other mammals, such as the rabbit (Figure 1.28). In the case of man, also, this stem-cell differs materially from the original ovum, both in regard to form (morphologically), in regard to material composition (chemically), and in regard to vital properties (physiologically). It comes partly from the father and partly from the mother. ..” Obs.: Adam really needed of the parents, because only the parents could explain the embryo. Haeckel, brightly , had encountered an answer in the nature: for this, his analyzes are plains, are corrects, without rowdies, and simples: that which one should waits of a geometry. Without the parents, there’s no embryo, there’s no cell, and without cell, the unity jamais could claim itself in the biology. The unique problem, and that’s why the theory was not accepted, it’s that that which he called cell, wasn’t a unity: for this, even though erring, hit right in almost everything that his theory reaches: and did it in an honest and clear manner, almost poetic. It’s in the frame that he painted, because indeed, that which he loved was indeed the nature. Without knowing, he painted his self-portrait. Haeckel proceeds: “…Hence it is not surprising that the child who is developed from it inherits from both parents. The vital movements of each of these cells form a sum of mechanical processes which in the last analysis are due to movements of the smallest vital parts, or the molecules, of the living substance. If we agree to call this active substance plasson, and its molecules plastidules, we may say that the individual physiological character of each of these cells is due to its molecular plastidule-movement. HENCE, THE PLASTIDULE-MOVEMENT OF THE CYTULA IS THE RESULTANT OF THE COMBINED PLASTIDULE-MOVEMENTS OF THE FEMALE OVUM AND THE MALE SPERM-CELL.* (* The plasson of the stem-cell or cytula may, from the anatomical point of view, be regarded as homogeneous and structureless, like that of the monera. This is not inconsistent with our hypothetical ascription to the plastidules (or molecules of the plasson) of a complex molecular structure. The complexity of this is the greater in proportion to the complexity of the organism that is developed from it and the length of the chain of its ancestry, or to the multitude of antecedent processes of heredity and adaptation.)…” [The Evolution of the Man – Ernest Haeckel – Ch.1.6 and 1.7]
  24. 24. 24 There was a Theological tentative of takin Adam to the Chromosomes, the Y. To whom has doubts, here. In my final review about Haeckel, something more needs to be said: living beings, which Haeckel quoted as asexual, are known today as being sexual. But as it was already said, the procedence of this thinking came from the Theological angle, and of his understanding of the Book, of what was the sex for God. On comparing the sexual reproduction with the asexual propagation, didn’t do the due distinction of what the Theology considers conception: and the explanation it’s that , for Haeckel, the explanation wasn’t indeed important, the sexual life had a reason of being, and he angled it as the pleasure, as not as a compromise with the seed: something grew, but wasn’t anchored in none compromise, and that probably was this sentiment that created the cell. Ora, why going more beyond, if the cell was already everything…? The matter was that, to the others, it was the nature happening, and not exactly God. But to Haeckel this a beautiful moment of the organisms, were they sexual/asexual or both, per both being male and female (they have chromosomes): even though he didn’t knew, it was exactly about this that he was talking: genetic material : in mode that in Haeckel with have the exact comprehension of what is this biological term monogenesis, and in the same mode, in nothing may be called phylogenetic. That the cell don’t be confused up with the Theological concept of Seed, which tends to mischaracterize the cell, angling it under the optics of unity. And in this sense, the cosmological principle Adam, would never be a cell. And the same it’s worth for Eve. And it was exactly there that Haeckel falled, for this his theory was discarded. Kenneth: ‘Abstract. Francisco Ayala and others have argued that recent genetic evidence shows that the origins of the human race cannot be monogenetic, as the Church has traditionally taught. This paper replies to that objection, developing a distinction between biological and theological species first proposed by Andrew Alexander in 1964.’ [x] “The object of this paper is to explore a question within the general topic of anthropogenesis on which theology and the natural sciences have seemed to many to give contradictory answers. That question is whether the human race had its origin in a single pair of human beings. I will apply to this problem the scholastic adage, when faced with a contradiction, make a distinction, and will argue that the apparent contradiction is not in fact real. I will address three questions in turn. First, what account of man’s origins has traditionally been given by theology? Second, what account is given by natural science? And third, how can the apparent conflict that arises in the answers to the first two questions be resolved?” Obs.: the explanation of how is it a metaphor: for some motive, A isn’t equal to B: The motive it’s simple: A isn’t equal to B. So, the Theologist will make a magic: he will twist the straight-line, using the unique sense of his comprehension: from the end, he will go back to the beginning. Because the sense of the Science it’s always regressive: and each and every scientific study needs to, obligatorily, return to the initial point. But, for this to happen, he needs to face the bottom of the pit [poço]: and this is the first axiom: the pit has bottom [o poço tem fundo]: and this is the first weirdness between A and B: the pit isn’t exactly a fountain. The second axiomatic problem it’s that inside of the pit there’s two: never it’s encountered one alone: and the third and last problem, which was angled as the worst, proposed by the nature, it’s that it doesn’t exists just one pit, but various pit’s. In mode that even though one argues the monogenesis as beginning, the monogenesis doesn’t refer to one unique creature, but two: scientifically, the monogenesis it’s
  25. 25. 25 understood as pair. However, the theologians play with the term, of which they know very well, but disguise their understanding. These three metaphors of the nature, so understood by the human rationality, refer themselves to one unique thing: the phylogeny: the phylogenetic it’s the most ultimate understanding of the science, it’s proportional to the Higgs particle, which may be perfectly understood as the Principle of the Anteriority: it has the capacity of overwriting any ancestry: It’s possible suppose a common ancestor, in the same mode that is, equally, suppose its phylogeny: The Theology understood that this treats about a dogmatic problem, of which the patience will never solve: and this is the motive of its separation: all the theories fail on coming across with their phylogeny. It’s argued that the phylogenic explanation it’s God: because simply God cannot be found in the nature. For very long, this was very well comprehended, in certain point even explanative. But, if God created the nature, even though one doesn’t finds God, his action should be encountered: even though one understands by the vein of the conscience that the action of the man it’s spiritual, this spirit should be passed to the man in some point: and this passage should be, obligatorily, in the phylogenetic standards: the first creature would have to be, obligatorily, man: and the form of affirming this, would have to have been in a creature of which the sex was not involved, was the first and unique, and existing in one unique, where nothing existed, except him: and everything which developed, from this being, be it reproductive or not, any genetical material involved in the matter, would have to be understood under the angle of a cloning : only in this conditions the Genesis could be accepted and understood under the optics of a naturalness: the moment on which God copied himself in the nature. In mode that proving The Beginning through a result, will may be considered valid, for the human being ‘being the objective of the nature: God’ , and by his comprehension of a high-level language, be the differential-God (reason and experience): and this be the learning, the differential-recognition: but equally, the phylogenetic answer affirms that, in this sense, the man it’s that is the differential-nature: because in this sense, he would be, in the maximum, the embryonic form of God, a cell, jamais his progenitor. The ontogenesis it’s the maximum that the human understanding reaches in its evolutive understanding: only an objective. ..of what were we talking about…?
  26. 26. 26

×