Conclusions page 1a of 7

Again it’s hard to think that eyes and noses that sit embedded on a face have had to use an evolution process. The face also has a mouth with teeth in it. The mouth has all sorts of physicality’s in it and also has functions brought about by it like making speech and sound, and maybe provides natures natural vaccines to pass between two mouths when they kiss before they start a family. I suppose that that could lead to the thinking that we could pass on the immunity in one person to another that doesn’t have the immunity for a particular illness. Again don’t trust what I say. Just conjecture. But saliva in the mouth could hold all sorts of immunity.

But it’s hard to imagine that the parts on a face can be explained using our evolution ideas of random mutations and natural selection. The parts seem whole. It just doesn’t seem that any face with all it’s features has relied on any evolution process. Have we sort of conjured up that idea that they evolved out of quest rather than fact. Of course we might say that it is the whole animal that evolves and the body parts that they have are just there. But in the very least , that seems very unreasonable to postulate.
We could try and think that a nose evolved from a non nose , but why or how would it evolve from a non nose to become a nose in the first place. If a few cells turned into a fully functioning nose , it surely wouldn’t be an evolutionary process that comes up with that fully functioning nose.

The plethora of noses and ears and eyes should tell us that they can come about and come about very easily. To say that they evolved needs far more proof than using the proof of the reality that they exist , and just saying that they exist proves that they evolved. That’s a bit of a problem. They exist but how do they exist.
To say that they evolved is meaningless. Also to say that they are brought about in some ingenious way that is outside of our thinking is just our feeling that it is all incredible. Our comprehension of it is filled with our credulity of it all. But It is only incredible to us , and that is only our emotion to it.

A lung is a lung and a heart is a heart , and both exist with or without our amazement of them. Somehow they can come about very easily. That’s an understatement. They obviously more than easily exist and they don’t exist in isolation. There is no need to imagine that their is any evolutionary hard work going on in the background to make them. If it worked like that then both the lung and heart would fail from day one and all the trees would fall down. What’s more odd about organs is that they exist and sit among other organs and work alongside each other and together. The idea of evolution would have explain the togetherness , and it couldn’t.

And then there are of course legs that have feet at the end of them with toes and toe nails. Any end result of having them be there , would surely not need our conjecture that they have evolved using random mutations and natural selection to be what they are. It would mean that if they evolved , then they had to have started off as something else. Hard to think how and why any animal that is going to be able to stand and walk in the earths gravity and eat the available food would rely on our evolution ideas to do what they do.

I suppose though , that this kind of thinking could be in a way , directed , and a way to say that ‘evolution didn’t do it’ , and is also sort of saying that the existence of all the body parts and chemicals etc , don’t rely on an evolution process to be what they are. Of course , thinking in one way only isn’t always good.
But all of the thought that is possible as to how all of the features on a face like a nose and a mouth and then ears on both sides of the head could have evolved , comes up with nothing. There are simply no thoughts or any physical evidence available to us to explain how they could have come about using our evolution ideas.

The dash and effort to find fossils showing gradual developments in animals and their body parts has possibly ran it’s course. The fossils show only that whole animals have existed , and so that endeavour to find the sort of in between fossils has more or less dwindled. There are no fossils to show that the face with all of it’s features evolved. Not one.
The one fossil though that does pop up everywhere on google to prove that animals evolve is of the one of the dinosaur Archaeopteryx from one hundred and fifty million years ago. The excitement of finding the fossil might of overshadowed the reality. The leap was that this dinosaur had feathers and so must have evolved into birds. But Archaeopteryx also had teeth in it’s mouth and could be said to be just another animal , or even a normal dinosaur type. Can’t find any other fossils showing it evolving from that time. Seems that it is all conjectured by one or two scientists.
Archaeopteryx also had eyes , but we don’t say that it turned into a human or a kangaroo.

Mentioned earlier that scientists at the London Natural History Museum have concluded , that in the past , animals jumped and hopped and glided and developed abilities like flying because of them jumping and hopping and gliding. That would mean that the dinosaur Archaeopteryx at an earlier point didn’t have feathers but somehow evolved them relying on it’s way of moving in it’s environment to get an ability to possibly at some point fly. But how did the feathers occur because it jumped and hopped and glided.

There is now the recent scope that genes and DNA can show that evolution occurs , but that scope seems very limited to say choosing hair colour or the shape of a nose. Genes and DNA don’t come up with the actual phenomena of the hair and it’s colour , or a nose. They might only influence what happens to the hair or the nose.
The use of genes and DNA don’t add anything to the evidence that animals evolve , but they are used to further the idea of evolution. In a way they are thrown into explanations of the idea of evolution with no facts and just leave the impression that they are important to to the evolution idea.

Evolution theory , sort of floats around in our thoughts , and gets mixed up with the actual reality that all of the happening of features on a face are just unexplainable. The word evolution gets used in a lackadaisical way , and It is left in ones thinking that it holds some kind of truth. But faces with their features are there and we don’t know how or why. Saying that a human face evolved from a monkeys face or an apes face or some other animals face , wouldn’t mean that our ideas of evolution explain it.
If that scenario happened , it would still leave the puzzlement of how or why would the face parts on a monkey or apes face rely on something that is secondary like evolution to continue to turn their faces into human faces. And what or where would this consistency to have animals evolve arise from. That consistency to evolve would have to be going on in every animal and insect on earth and would have to be in some way be in place for it to continue today and tomorrow. But even that makes no sense , as it would mean in some way that tomorrow is known about.

It would lead to the following thoughts that ..
Eyes don’t wait for light to arrive to be eyes. They are expecting light.
Ears don’t wait for sound waves to arrive. They are expecting sound waves.
And noses are expecting all sorts of different molecules to give distinctive smells etc.
We could then say that the wings on birds are expecting air and wind and that the immune system is expecting germs and then a whole animal like a fish is expecting water.
Just a little bit more on the mouth. The mouth takes in water , and a swallow of the throat sends the water on it’s way , and every other organ and cell in the body then has it’s equivalent of receiving the water and then after using what it needs they pass it on to be released. But what is in our evolution idea that can explain how that water that gets drank , has a way to leave the body. There has to be some way for the water to leave the body and there are the physicality’s for it to do so. But the physicality’s to do it it would have to exist. Then the whole body would also have to sort of know that it itself needs water in the first place.
It sort of turns circular because water exists and food exists and air exists , and somehow an animal comes about and uses those utilities. The animal is then said to evolve via natural selection and random mutations and that brings about changes in say bird beaks and bird feet to work very nicely in their environment.

It would be easier to think that all of them are phenomena , without any need for evolution thought because there is an oddity to think that we think that these physicalities evolved to exist after they once did not exist.
It can’t be that a nose breathes in air without knowing about air , as much as an eye allows light to enable vision and so on.
Evolution theory certainly does not explain those phenomena and others. If we consider one like the human baby needs parents to feed it , we can’t say that there was the evolution of the phenomena of parents looking after their babies. It’s a one off thing. The phenomena gets more complicated since only the mother has milk and the ability to give the milk to the baby , and the baby has a mouth and suckles to get the milk. We could then wonder about why the father doesn’t have the milk but the mother does. It could only mean that that the mother has the milk to give to the baby and the father doesn’t. We wouldn’t say that evolution theory has anything to do with any of that.

Again the above seems like silly thinking , but the word evolution is embedded in our thoughts. It just seems more likely that any phenomena can easily come about and none of them rely in anyway on our evolution ideas. It’s almost like nothing at all needs to evolve. The existence of a male and a female tells us that.

Evolution theory might be said to have something to do with the success that follows after the phenomena and their physicality’s come about, but common sense would say that a mother having milk ready for their baby would use whatever the phenomena itself used to continue in the future. Evolution could only act on the physicality’s that already exist. Evolution doesn’t make babies exist and doesn’t make milk exist and also doesn’t make males and females exist. And it certainly has nothing to do with the phenomena of them. But somehow the word evolution contains in it a sort of presence that it is involved in their existence.

We could go back to how we use words to think about these things. If we were to say that evolution ’caused’ the milk in the mother to be there for the baby, that does not seem right because evolution doesn’t cause anything to exist. Then there is the phenomena of the baby growing into an adult. Would we say that evolution caused that. We wouldn’t. Every time that the word evolution is used when talking about any animal , it should be stated that evolution doesn’t cause the existence of them or the existence of any other phenomena associated with them , like milk or blood or arms and legs.

Still on words , we could use the word ‘used’ and go on to say that a nose on the face has used evolution to be a nose with two nostrils. Clearly though , it would have to be that a nose that has two nostrils comes before any natural selection acts on it. Still using words , we might then ask ‘what has evolution got to do with a nose.’ The answer would be ‘nothing.’ We could of course ask ‘why is my nose on my face and not on the back of my head’ , but that’s some other kind of thinking. Most likely though is that having the nose at the front of our body on a face is the best place to have it. Evolution theories leave us thinking that the nose somehow evolved on the face but doesn’t address why or how the nose exists on a face. There isn’t really anything to contend with.

So why do we say that an animal evolved. Could we say that evolution caused a spider to spin a web or that the spider used evolution to make it spin a web. We couldn’t and wouldn’t. But we do say that the spider evolved , and we do say that all animals and trees have evolved. Surely an animal or tree that exists today in it’s present state is a whole thing just like the whole things that existed millions of years ago. It’s hard to think that a squirrel , like the spider , has relied on our evolution ideas. Of course , quite what is going on is unfathomable.

The word and idea ‘evolution’ that is used to help us understand animals and plants , is our invention , and might be considered in the future to have been a ‘zeitgeist’ . It’s a German concept that a single word has been used to sum up a whole thinking idea over a period of time. So in our case , we say that all life and plants have evolved and evolve and hence ‘evolution’. It sits in our thinking as a reality. It is that way because the onus is more on disproving the idea of evolution than it is on proving evolution , and it therefore sticks.

The word evolution is a monumental word that gives some sort of relief to how we wonder about the lifey things. The thought is given that animals and plants evolved a bit at a time from some simpler or smaller and less complicated assembly of cells and fluids and body parts , and then when the environment changed , the by now already existing animal or plant was relying on random mutations and natural selection to continue. Clearly that is not what happens or has happened. Surely our spiders and squirrels and their skeletons exist because they exist , and we just can’t explain it away with the word evolution,

The evidence for evolution , using another German word is zilch. There are no fossils to explain how eight million species of animals just on our planet have all of the different male and female bits and pieces to make babies , and no fossils showing the development of the differences in their milk and blood and all the other billions of body processes and behaviours like fancying their own species.
It’s just as easy to conjecture that the animals , whatever they are , use the universally available bits and pieces to be physical. When we see a dead animal , it looks or feels like the actual animal is gone and all that is left is the carcass. Some dead animals are stuffed and stuck on walls in pubs and restaurants. Deer heads were once quite popular. We know that the animal that used it or was in it or was it , is gone.

Whether the deer has gone somewhere else or is gone forever of course is unknown , but in the world of conjecture , the deer that fancied another deer , whatever it actually is , is no longer using that physical body. That would open the thought that the deer existed before its choice of using the body that is the physical deer. The deer , uses all of the available organs and other body parts including flesh and blood and eyes and ears that are essentially the same as every other animal , but set up differently. So we could look at a living deer and wonder about what is the phenomena of the deer in the physical deer. Of course though we don’t get far in our thinking about it. But we do have an advantage to pursue it further , because we ourselves , as far as we know , are in a physical body made of the same substances like flesh and blood and organs and eyes and ears etc. In effect we are not much different to the deer.

Next page

Home