Brain Evolution and Charles Darwin's Theory
Christina Sponias
Saturday, 12 September 2009 14:17 UTC
According to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, some species manage to survive and prevail in their environment, while other species tend to disappear because they are not strong enough. The selective process decides which species lives and which will become extinct, depending on their resistance.
This concept is accepted by many people until today and they refuse to understand that Darwin was wrong.
He was right when he discovered that the human being is an animal, but the evolution of the species doesn’t occur based on the resistance of each species, as many biologists after Darwin proved to the world with their research.
They concluded that if the organism didn’t have the basis to evolve until certain point, it would never go further. There is a program that allows each organism to know how to behave in its environment and how to solve its survival problems, including how to find food and be protected from enemies.
There is also an evolutionary program in each organism’s cognitive mechanism.
A monkey will never be as intelligent as a human being, no matter how many years it may live, because it doesn’t have a proper brain. It was not programmed to be as intelligent as man. So, there is no natural selection: there are only many programs for each species. These programs define the animals’ behaviour, the route of their lives and evolution. The same happens in case of human beings.
Darwin’s conclusions by observing the selective process were based on the knowledge of his time. He couldn’t suppose that there are several programs behind the selective process that prepares each species to resist natural selection, which means that this selection doesn’t happen by chance.
When we try to understand the formation of the human brain and the appearance of the conscience, we realize that this is a formation that took an incredibly long time. It cannot be something that could have evolved in our planet, because our planet is too young and the components of the human brain and their functionalisms are too complex.
The formation of the first brain and conscience occurred by chance at a time so distant that we cannot calculate it. It didn’t take place on our own planet, in the same way that the formula for the formation of the first live cell didn’t appear by chance in our planet because the planet’s age (about 4.6 billion years old) is not sufficient to allow all the necessary combinations required by probability for the formation of the first live cell, since the permutations and combinations for this event would have been too many and they would take more time than the planet’s age itself.
Therefore, we can conclude that the human being didn’t appear on Earth by chance. The human brain and the formula for the appearance of the animal life are ancient and could not have been developed in our young planet, but all the animals, including man, have behavioral programs in the mechanism through which they acquire knowledge. These programs permit their perfect functionalism and survival in a hostile environment. Programs that might have being prepared by a superior brain for sure, since they could not have appeared by chance.
Thus, the human being inherits an ancient brain that can think and feel and is aware of its existence, but one has to pass through the same evolutionary process through which all animals pass in this planet, because probably, one has to be tamed like them…
Christina Sponias continued Carl Jung’s research into the human psyche, discovering the cure for all mental illnesses, and simplifying the scientific method of dream interpretation that teaches you how to exactly translate the meaning of your dreams, so that you can find health, wisdom and happiness.
Learn more at:
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
“Language skills are not part of behavioral programs.”
Please explain why you think so, and it is also likely that language, and many features such as the dialect, develop by imitation, also , the cases of feral children demonstrate a fundamental inability of such children to eventually learn human language and behaviour because of the deprivation of stimulus which may govern the development of such faculties. It is hard to debate something when all the terms are very abstract and non-standardised, to make matters more difficult. -
Anonymous
“Who told you that all organisms follow the same behavioral programs? Each one follows a collection of behavioral programs specific to their species”
Christina,
So, you are agreeing that each species has specific behavior. This is basically what Darwinian theory says, speciation is key in evolution with each species having a set of skills to sustain and propagate. Response to stimuli is just one. And each respond to the same stimuli differently depending on the overall genetic makeup of that organism. But this is contrary to what you argue in this forum. -
Dear Ankur,
Everything that I’m stating here and also everything that I stated in my article is not what “I think” but what I’ve learned studying what experts in each field have concluded, based on their researches.
Language skills are very complicated and they depend on the learning process, which is not automatic, like the behavioral programs.
It’s really hard for me to explain you in only a few words everything that I learned by reading many books, and as I said before, I’m not at home. I’m in Brazil, and I have so many things to do here, and so many people to meet, that I hardly have time to open my computer.
Dear Anonymous,
Each animal follows a collection of behavioral programs specific to their species. Darwin didn’t know that they existed.
I’m sorry, but I cannot delay online. I have a meeting for lunch and another one for dinner… perhaps later I may have more time to discuss this matter.
-
I would like to see the evidence for irreducible complexity in language learning, please.
-
Dear Ankur,
Language skills depend on a learning process that begins with mimicry, and continues with associations between the words and their meaning. They are not automatic like the behavioral programs, which don’t depend on observation, imitation and comprehension.
I don’t have here any book about them, but you can learn more about this matter searching on the internet.
-
Hi,
Thank you so much for providing this useful information. I hope this will help many readers.http://www.endoacustica.com/wall_microphones_en.htm
-
Some investigators receive certification from a professional organization to demonstrate competency in a field. For example, the National Association of Legal Investigators (NALI) confers the Certified Legal Investigator designation to licensed investigators who devote a majority of their practice to negligence or criminal defense investigations. To receive the designation, applicants must satisfy experience, educational, and continuing-training requirements and must pass written and oral exams administered by the NALI.[url=http://private-investigator-detective.com/Contact.aspx]Private Eye[/url]
-
Hi Christina
Here is some late C20th research that Darwin wasn’t aware of -
1) INTRODUCTION to M.V.T.plus another 8 parts, 2) Intro with Prof. Richard Gregory & Rupert Sheldrake
5) PHANTOM EYE aka MEDIAN VISION THEORY
6) more about MEDIAN VISION THEORY
7) PHYSICS & Machine Consciousness
9) MVT APPLICATIONS, CONCLUSIONS
If you enjoy the documentary please circulate these links.
The PRIMAL EYE gives a complete scientific account of the early evolution of fundamental consciousness. Dreams, R.E.M., waking and hypnotic states are explained mechanistically. This theory is no less than a solution to the ‘Hard Problem’ in Western Philosophy (aka Descartes’ longstanding ‘Mind-body Problem’). Many academic philosophical difficulties are immediately cleared up by this revolutionary approach.
Collected academic papers The Primal Eye
Best, Steve
-
Hi Steve,
Instead of giving links why can’t you post an abstract of the theory. Kindly give your contact detail/email ID in your profile.
Thanks,
DMR Sekhar. -
Sekhar dmr,
you wrote:Dear Dorin,
You wrote Darwin did not create a theory but an ideology. There are no basic terms, no model, no scientific definitions… will you please elaborate.
Thanks,
DMR Sekhar.here is half of the answer:
What is a scientific theory? Let’s explain this term. Don’t worry, I don’t tell you my point of view or other’s points of view. I explain you what it is!
I shall use as refference the four fundamental theories which were created in the last 2300 years. They are: Euclid’s Geometry, Newton’s Mechanics, Max Planck’s Quantum Theory and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. All these Fundamental Theories are simbolic_models, which are associated with a section of the external reality.
What is a simbolic_model ? This term is introduced by descriptition because it is a fundamental term. There are a limited number of elements which are introduced by description. These elements must be defined based on some of their properties. There are also some fundamental relations between these terms.
Once a model is defined in this mode, it can be developed based on the logical and mathematical language.
(Example: Newton’s mechanics is based on Mass, Space and Time. A fundamental property of Mass is inertia. A fundamental relation is F=m*a).
At this level nothing has to be proved. After the symbolic model is described and developed, it is able to generate some predictions which are related to the associated external reality.
If a single prediction does not meet the external reality, then the model in wrong.
Now we can give the definition of a scientific theory: A scientific theory is a symbolic model which is associated to a section of the external reality. A theory is able to predict, in a correct way, the possible evolution of the associated external reality.
We have also the definitions for some associated terms. A Science is defined as a specific field of knowledge which is based on one or more fundamental theories. The fundamental theories must be declared before. Knowledge is defined as the capacity to predict the evolution of the external reality based on a Fundamental Theory which is declared before.
In an implicit way we have to understand that the expression “based on a fundamental symbolic_model” means that the only terms which are allowed are the terms which are generated by the fundamental model. Also, when a symbolic_model is developed, together with the terms, the definition of the terms are also generated. So, every term and definition must be generated by the model. No other term and no other definition is allowed if we want to have a scientific approach.
Also, there is another fundamental feature: once a symbolic_model is declared, the author of the model will lose any control of what happens next. That is, a symbolic_model is developing in a single way, based on logical and mathematical language. If a prediction does not meet the external reality then the whole model is wrong and to correct it, the model must be rebuilt from scratch.
By the way, I search on Internet for terms as “what is scientific” and what I read scared me….
Now, back to our problem. Darwin ideology has nothing “scientific” in it. There is no fundamental model; we have just o single idea called “natural selection” which ( of course…. ) is not defined. In the next post for you and for Christine Sponias, I shall analyse Darwin’s ideology to see how it could be developed to get closer to a scientific theory.
the best regards
Dorin Teodor Moisa
Results
-
