Читать книгу The Dot of Noah’s-Darwin’s: the Ark, evolution, totemism and interspecific wars. Correspondence with anthropological journals - Oleg Kot - Страница 6

Inasmuch as in these groups the biological prevails over the social, let’s consider them from the point of view of the synthetic theory.

4.1. If you look at the ship Noah with the view of an evolutionist, the supporter of the modern synthesis, he will say this: “In relation to all living things, the method of artificial selection was used, on the gap. Changes in nutrition (forages), waters, violation of biorhythms, restriction to a minimum of a locomotion, manipulation of objects, inactivity, the hypodynamia, sensorial starvation, a chronic stress, neighborhood animals antagonists could lead to a surge of mutations among pairs of individuals that represented all the former species diversity”.

The disruptive selection after a year in the Ark has only intensified. The ship has not delivered to a place of former settlement of animals and birds, and threw them in mountains, where these animals were once again awaited by a drastic change in the conditions of life, water, climate, fodders, the absence of relatives (absence of the gene material for exchange).

The disaster made many survival skills unnecessary. As a consequence, many organs of surviving birds and animals, as well as humans, have undergone atrophy. This is situation is well known to any biologist – atavisms and rudiments are present in all species of animals and birds (the vestige). All the inhabitants of the ark had to developed the unfamiliar territories, remote from their former habitats for tens of thousands of kilometers. Their descendants promptly formed all new and new biogeocenoses, the conditions of which were completely unfamiliar to the ancestral forms. Therefore, with the release of the surviving representatives of species, an unprecedented parade of rudiments and atavisms has begun.

In the materials of the synthetic theory it is described as follows. “In the structure of almost any organism, it is possible to find organs or structures that are relatively underdeveloped (devoid of any important parts compared to homologous structures of similar forms) and have lost their main importance in the process of phylogenesis: such organs or structures are called rudimentary”.

Thanks to the Galapagos flightless cormorant (Latin Phalacrocorax harrisi), Darwin was the first to who correctly explained the presence of atavisms and rudiments in animals, deducing out atavisms from ancestral forms, inasmuch as in a norm they do not meet. Atavism so and is translated from the Latin athavis – ancestor.

Flightless cormorant (Phalacrocorax harrisi) with chick, Punta Espinosa, Fernandina, Galapagos Islands.

Rudimentary row of plants, animals, birds of amphibians, reptiles is endless. But more recently (55, 000 years ago or before the flood), most of these organs were fully developed in the predecessors. Therefore, the lion’s share of the rudiments has nothing to do with evolution. Otherwise, these organs would not have developed quite normally during the period of intrauterine development and in the early stages (then atrophy) and were not relatively developed in adults. They simply do not perform their functions because the organisms of their owners have been unnaturally torn out of the motion of evolution. They had to go through the most genetic bottleneck, through which ever passed all terrestrial.

Synthetic theory. “The presence of rudiments, as well as homologous organs, indicates the common origin of living forms”. But peek truth in the eyes and continue: “On the ship of Noah” the scientists can’t. If the organ does not work, then the mechanisms of evolution should turn it off. But for some reason there is no shutdown of reproduction of “unnecessary” organs. Evolutionary “process” tens of thousands of years not can detect such organs and they are submitted one’s self to themselves!

There is only one reason why this is happening. The emergence of rudiments was the reaction of organisms to the disaster – from the populations remained a pairs of animal units who gave offspring in a completely new conditions for them, on new lands and feed and the entire exchange of genetic material revolved between two or three pairs of animal units. Darwin’s theory considers rudiments as one of the proofs of evolution from ancestral forms by divergence of features (divergence) to new species, so biologists collect and study the facts of rudimentary organs. But a question not so much emergence how many preservation of rudiments did not find a coherent explanation yet.

4.2. The elimination of all alive forsake from the former pool of genes only couple of animals and birds from each species. One species was represented by one couple of animal units women’s and male’s. Those left without a couple were burned or eaten. Also arranged Noah an altar to the Lord; also took from any cattle clear and from all birds clear and brought in burned sacrifice on an altar (Genesis 8, 20).

Noah’s sacrifice by Daniel Maclise (between 1847 and 1853).

“Ship’s recessive mutations” of brothers and sisters gave start to sympatric speciation on the basis of kinship crossing or blood-related crossing. Mother with the son, daughter with the father. And again daughter with the father. Brother with the sister, grandson with the grandma, great-grandfather with the great-granddaughter. Only relatives of the surviving couples copulated. The mass incest after a flood will become the main supplier of material for the most important postulate of synthetic evolution: “Mutations are the material of evolution, the single source of heritable variability” (postulates are on; Vorontsov 2004: pp. 293—297).

4.3. Biologists have never considered as a unit of evolution the reality of the Wurm – the pairs of animals and birds from the Ark. This was facilitated by Darwin, whose mentality was thoroughly imbued with theology of the College of Christ of Cambridge University. He just moved the principle of the creation of Paradise Adam to what he saw on a round-the-world journey. The unit’s of speciation becomes is alone an animal or animal unit (Darwin 1859). But what Darwin researched and systematized his entire life, was neither evolution nor the creation of the world. Hence “Swamping argument” Jenkin’s and the answer of the beaten Darwin (Darwin 1869, p. 104). Only after 59 years, the Russian geneticist S. S. Chetverikov was able to find the compromise – the place of the Darwin animal unit will be taken by the effective breeding population (Chetverikov 1926A). Mayr soon open a founder effect (Mayr 1942; 1954, pp. 157—180), finally having calmed opponents. But why then do all the biology textbooks say in complete consensus? – “The process of speciation is irreversible. The species has many genes that are changed by mutations, and the previous forms are absent”. Maybe because of that (Genesis 6, 6—7)?

Auklet flock, Shumagins 1986.

4.4. The biblical anachronism of the sibses or siblings for 50 thousand years was able to engender to all modern terrestrial fauna. And all for whom the ark became the native house, gravitated to each other. This aura of attraction eventually acquires the character of permanent small biological communities – populations. One more indisputable postulate of the synthetic theory: “The elementary unit of evolution is the population as an elementary structural unit of the species”. And I’ll just continue. “Inasmuch as at the dot of Noah’s-Darwin’s all the species diversity of the planet narrows to a historical minimum – randomly selected pairs from each species”. The unlimited random mating of these couples has led to emergence of steady populations on the basis of pair speciation.

A pack of wolves in Yellowstone Park.

4.5. Darwin spent five years on the waves of the biblical flood. He described it as “natural selection”. “The main or even the only driving factor of evolution is the survival of the fittest, based on the selection (selection’s) of random and small mutations” (postulate №2). The Flood took the life of the overwhelming majority and gave it to an insignificant minority. Therefore, criteria of the species of evolutionary theory are unacceptable to all biological species in time. This is why the concept of the species is absent in paleontology. “All fossil forms remain outside the biological concept of the species, they are supposed to use terms such as ‘chronospecies’ or ‘phratrie’ as equivalents of the species. But replacing terms does not solve the problem. <…> The same species criteria do not apply to forms without a sexual process, agamic, amphimictic, parthenogenetic forms” – postulate №9 of the theory (Vorontsov 2004