Conclusions page 2 of 7

Does evolution have anything to do with the existence of males and females. Am simply putting it that way because we are informed or taught that animals have evolved using random mutations and natural selection. But why would any animal rely on evolution when it can be born a male or female. Being able to be a male or female is incomprehensible to our our thinking , and using the word evolution is unfair on our thinking about it. It should not be used as fact that the phenomena or the physicalities of a male and a female evolved. It’s a complete oddity that some of us are male and some of us are female , but it’s even odder that we conjecture that our conjecture of evolution has something to do with it.

That kind of male and female difference is beyond what we are able to conjecture about so far. We have nothing to go on about it and the idea of evolution using random mutations and natural selection to come up with males and females makes no sense. The outcome though is babies. Maybe every baby comes with new things or maybe they don’t at the present time. Maybe they will in the future . We react to what they do sometimes , rather than the other way round. We can make a sound like gugery goo and clap our hands to the baby , but allowing the baby to get a response from us to what they do is as equally something. We don’t know where they came from , but today’s babies are the latest babies. One of them tomorrow might do something quite extraordinary. Most likely not though.

But how the baby learns it’s language might offer some clues to think further. A few months after being born a baby begins to talk words and sentences and understands the meaning and outcomes of the sounds and words . To be able to do that seems like a specific innate ability to learn and use a language. We might use the word instinct as an explanation of it , but that doesn’t really help. It feels more likely that it’s as much a given , like man and woman or male and female. It just doesn’t seem that the ability to learn and speak and understand with thoughts had ever have to have evolved. It feels more like it is something specific and is in place for the baby to learn a language.

The baby can learn any language in the country it is born in or even can be taken to another country and learn that countries language very quickly. It’s hard to imagine that our conjecture of evolution has anything to do with the actual ability. Its more like the whole ability exists to do it , but that ability doesn’t have to have relied on the past. So once again , it feels more like a one off phenomena that requires no evolution process for it to to be in place.

The use of the word instinct doesn’t easily explain it because there are scores of in place languages. The idea in the word instinct suggests that a behaviour is passed on to the baby , but somehow that feels like a weak and possibly a misleading idea because there would also have to be the instinct of understanding to go with it.

So how would an ability to understand after living for a few months come about. Clearly , as difficult as it is to say anything about the reality of language and understanding , it is strikingly obvious that the words of instinct and evolution carry far too much weight in them to have anything to do with the reality. Much more likely in the world of conjecture is that there are phenomena behind them and the phenomena simply do their thing when there is a place for them to be like a planet with air on it.
And it must be simple. There surely isn’t any hard work needed to make a heart or lung or make a voice box or make the understanding that goes with different languages. Of course our thinking of what hard work is not really useful to explain how they all come about , but what is certain , is that an organ like the heart has come about somehow and also somehow has not ever failed to exist because it wasn’t any good in an earlier time. In fact , the failure of just one organ in a body would mean the end of that animal species , and no animal has ever gone extinct because it’s heart or any other organ wasn’t up to the job that they do.
Also all of the chemicals in a body have surely also never had to evolve. They somehow come to be and maybe are not new. Given the hearts ubiquitous existence , it is more likely brought about by the phenomena of them , whatever that is. All conjecture. No idea.

Back on language though , if humans evolved from apes or monkeys or from something before, then the earliest humans must have had this ability to learn and do language in all sorts of ways. It just doesn’t seem like it all started with grunts that lead to the languages we have today. It is a bit bizarre though that different languages exist and also hard to think that some thought of foresight used grunts to progress into the language and understanding of things that we have today as humans.

It maybe could have , but it feels much more likely that like the existence of a heart , the existence of a voice box that sits in the throat is a given to be used. We ourselves don’t use the heart but we do use the voice box. What is standout about language , is our crystal clear understanding of the language that we have learnt , and we don’t have to think twice about what we say or hear.
And no other animal has ever had any problem communicating with each other from when they first came about. If there was a day one , then everything would have to be fully working , and clearly no animal at all has ever had a problem communicating from day one , not one. Our evolutionary conjectures surely can’t account for anything.

It also wouldn’t mean though that little insects are going to develop language and turn into something else. The insects have their forms of communication and maybe that’s where it stays. The insects might have differences in their communications like our different languages , but those communications between them also don’t necessarily rely on our evolution ideas. Pretty sure someone must have taken some insects to another country to so see if the insects can communicate with each other.

Got messy again here. But one baby might say produce a different coloured fluid like blood. That would be startling. Why doesn’t something like that happen. Most likely it doesn’t happen because the colour of blood doesn’t rely on evolution to be red. Some animals do have blue or green blood and in betweens of different colours , but any animals blood colour is more likely the colour that it is because of reasons. But we don’t don’t say that there is the theory of reasons like we say that there is the theory of evolution. The theory of reasons wouldn’t have in it any progression like the theory of evolution so there is nothing to build upon in terms of evidence for it. Straightforward evolution theory on the other hand allows us to jump into action and do things like cataloguing fossils and make the case that some animal changed as the environment changed. It’s a sort of doing thing. We can sort of put energy into proving the notion of evolution using physical artifacts that we find.

Problem is though , that the nose and lips that sit on a face , could actually be on the face for a reason rather than they evolved. In simple thinking , a nose and a mouth do not rely on evolution , and their future must be set to be. Noses will come to be tomorrow and if they do change in any sort of way at all , it will be because they know how to change. Problem with that thought though would be how would the nose know the future. It’s almost like maybe it does. Noses existed 500 million years ago and they exist today. Our odd conjecture that they used evolution to evolve and survive 500 million years later doesn’t make any sense at all. Much more likely is that noses come about to smell and breath the air as whole noses.

Life in whatever shape or form , exists in many of the different environments on earth. If the environment is cold then there are animals today with thick fur. That fur has either evolved or it hasn’t , or the animal had some fur that has evolved into thicker fur to live in colder conditions. Doesn’t matter how we try to think about it , the fur to keep the animal from from being cold is on the animal.

Straight away we know with our thinking that the phenomena or idea of having fur to keep an animal warm is more of a specific and a necessity. Of course our thinking is only as good as it is and we can’t think outside of our thinking. We simply don’t know how good our thinking is. But if we are pretty good at thinking about the fur on animals then we would think that fur on animals is there to keep them warm. It does other things of course but it does protect the animal.

Natural selection would say that those animals with thicker fur over those with thinner fur survived and therefore had more babies with the thicker fur. But fur would have to be there from the for start to have any animal to have more fur. Our evolution theory also includes that random mutations were involved with making the thicker fur. But our conjectures sort of jump over the fact that any fur at all did once not exist and then it did. Fur on animals seems like a whole thing , like toe nails and eyebrows and noses.

Evolution would be a pretty busy thing with keeping animals warm and giving trees the protection of bark and giving worms the ability to find each other underground to make eggs to have baby worms. But surely worms do not fancy each other because of evolution. Fancying is a one off thing. It is a whole phenomena. Every animal , like the worms , fancy their own species. They find each other , they fancy each other and then they make babies. A phenomena like that surely does not evolve. It seems like a whole thing.

It is only because we can visibly see and ponder about the physical bodies of animals and plants and trees that we can come up with conjectures that they all physically evolved. Our thinking though can’t conjecture about the phenomena of them. That is fully beyond any thinking. We conjecture that the physicaities evolved , but we could also conjecture that it is the phenonena of those physicalities that are more about whatever they are. It feels as if the movement that we or other animals can do is down to a phenomena and not evolution ideas. We can move because of the phenomena of being able to move and not the phsicality of being able to move.

freepik.com.

Take a bunch of bananas. What were they before they were a banana. Were they naturally selected. How did the concept of any fruit come to be when once there was once no fruit at all. Nobody really believes that our ideas of accidental random mutations and natural selection come up with any fruit at all , or any other concepts like males and females dancing to music. That is because in our thinking we can’t imagine how an idea like fruit or any of the other phenomenas must have existed before any of them existed. Fruits carry the seeds to make more plants , so although say we might think the banana tree exists to make bananas and tomato plants exist to make tomatoes , it’s unclear what is important.

And we can be almost certain that when we look at a bunch of bananas , they might not exist in the way that we perceive them. That would be for everything else of course. On conjectures like mentioned earlier , the bananas could use the universally available physicalities and come to be. The real banana and it’s tree might be something altogether different.

Sticking with our perceiving them in the way that we do though , it seems unlikely that they themselves need to rely on an evolutionary process to be what they are. We surely can’t say that banana trees evolved bananas to carry the seeds that make more banana trees , no more than we can say bananas evolved to carry the seeds that make the banana tree. Again it’s head scratchingly like the chicken and egg thing , but .. stuck. Had a thought and forgot it. Never mind.

The genes in bananas can be modified to have less seeds or no seeds and to be more resilient to certain diseases. How. No idea how they do it. But these possibilities of what can be done to the banana and what can be done to all fruits and flowers and the changes to animals in breeding are used to back up the theory of evolution. That is , accidental random mutations followed by natural selection. But these bananas , i think we can confidently say , are not going to turn into giraffes. Could easily conjecture that they did though.

If they have similar DNA it would not mean that one of them evolved from the other. It could simply be that having a certain DNA or a certain gene makes this or that pattern.

Leopard freepik.com This guy or girl would eat both the above and below.

Said earlier that I’d heard or read somewhere that ‘genes establish a range of probabilities or possibilities to the environment’ or something like that. But it seems to me that no banana is going to turn into an apple or evolve into a giraffe , and no rose bush is going to turn into an oak tree and no ladybird is going to turn into a frog.
Our conjectures about genes and DNA and random mutations and natural selection seem futile to explain how an animal has the features of eyes and ears and noses and lips that are all nicely situated to connect to the brain.
It is though put in evolutionary theory that some sort of divergence in some earlier life forms occurs to bring all of the above separately.

But surely you’d have to have a face or structure to have all of those features on. This kind of thinking could of course go on and on. We might next try to explain a leg or how the nose has two nostrils. It would go on and on. So no more. Except to say that it is more difficult to explain how we are content to accept evolution ideas like random mutations and natural selection and genes and DNA etc to explain any of this.
The genes and DNA would also have to rely on evolution to be themselves and do what they are supposed to do. They would somehow have to evolve after the phenomena and the first physicalities existed.

Next page

Home