Conclusions Page 8 of 8

And lastly , this chicken egg , that might also exist on other planets , wouldn’t have turned into a chicken as it is unfertilized. The female chicken that laid the egg had not met a male chicken. But if it had been fertilized it could have within in a few weeks been a new chicken fancying another chicken. That physical yellow yoke and white albumen contains the ability for it to turn into a an all flapping , pecking chicken. Or in the least , it is there to allow or aid the formation of another chicken. The wording is tricky as we don’t actually know if the ingredients in any egg on their own are enough to bring about life.

If a male chicken had of fertilized the egg with sperm that had an X chromosome , the baby chicken would have been female , and if the sperm had a Y chromosome the chicken would have been male. But chromosomes and DNA and genes don’t seem to really help us really understand how a new chicken comes about. The chromosomes and DNA and genes etc seem in a way like just giving instructions to have the chicken be male or female and to have a certain shade of beak colour and all sorts of other differences , but they don’t seem to really help with explaining the eggs ability to be a chicken.
Just on chromosomes and DNA and genes though , we’d have to wonder about their abilities when wondering about evolution theory. Like the phenomena of the specificity of there being the phenomena of males and females in the first place , there is the sperm chromosome that is either an X or Y that brings about either a female or male.
It’s hard to think that random mutations and natural selection comes up with such specificity. Basically , why are those words and what they convey used at all. We put the word ‘chromosome’ to what is a physical thing , but once we use words to describe something we are sort of content with our descriptive account of only its existence and can loose sight of the fact that the physical chromosome leads to deciding that an egg becomes a male or a female by using an X or a Y. We surely couldn’t say that a chromosome evolved the X and Y to make a baby be either a male or female. No idea. And don’t trust me. Just having a think.
Now though , we would not only just have to imagine the evolution of any whole animal after they somehow exist in the first place , we’d also have to wonder how an X or Y in or on a chromosome also evolved. Just seems that since that is very real , evolution is not at play in either.

Back on the egg though. It would follow with the thoughts that the yellow yoke and white albumen has to be stored exactly in a shell composed of whatever shells are made of that has the right strength and structure that isn’t crushed by gravity. And that can’t be an easy feat to get so right. We wouldn’t say that evolution was involved with the egg shell because the soft egg inside needs the shell to be exact from day one. That means that the egg shell is just there. Silly thinking , but why do we say that animals have evolved when an egg shell clearly didn’t and neither did the X and Y on a chromosome.

A female chicken can make and lay a whole egg in 24 hours. What is difficult to work out is whether the egg contains all of the ingredients to make a baby chicken , if it has not been fertilized. Does the male chicken say have anything to do with the legs that the baby chicken will have or is it all in the female chicken egg and the male adds it’s differences. No idea.
But if all of the eggs could turn into a chicken without being fertilized , we’d be in nightmare territory. Somehow it just can’t happen. That is in some way why the evolution idea fails , otherwise all of the eggs in our pantry could hatch and would be copies of their mother. It just feels that our evolution theory doesn’t have a say in anything.

So in terms of evolution , why would the chicken egg be reliant on our ideas of accidental random mutations and natural selection when what is inside of it can turn into a chicken with a heart and lungs and legs etc in the first place.
Just the thought that a male chicken exists and a female chicken exists to make another chicken should make our comprehension of it wonder how we think about it. In other words , how would our idea of accidental random mutations and natural selection be involved with the bringing about the duality of a male and female chicken that fancy each other and get together to make an egg that can make a baby chicken. That requires a bit of something else , surely.

Also the eggs existence and what it could have done next surely can’t be explained using evolution because the actual phenomena of the chicken fancying another chicken cannot have been naturally selected. The new chicken has to fancy another chicken. It can’t fancy another animal , so that fancying only another chicken cannot occur through any sort of random mutations or natural selection.

If we use the word instinct to explain that fancying, then we invoke something that is not physical. It would then be a bit of a stretch to say that the ability or function of any instinct evolved.
If we say that that instinct is different to the physicality’s of the animal and doesn’t rely on evolution then it could be considered as if it has always happened in an instance and never had to evolve and would have to exist from day one , or day two of the first ever chicken. That would be be the same for every animal that ever existed.
It’s again another word that feels only a little bit satisfactory to explain how a chicken fancies another chicken. But it is obvious that our instinct idea is just an idea. That would mean that although we say that a chicken has an instinct to fancy another chicken , it’s only an idea that we have come up with to explain it. And in the realities of realities , all we know is that a chicken fancies another chicken only. We don’t know anything else. The words instinct and evolution and random mutations and natural selection feel useful to use , but are useful at the moment only as tools to compare the thoughts about it that we have.

And so surely the egg would more likely use whatever is used to do the later fancying thing for it to turn it into a chicken and maybe in the future turn into another species.
That is if it will turn into anything else at all. Chances are it might always be a chicken until it goes extinct.
Having said all this, again , no wonder someone once thought ” which came first , the chicken or the egg “. No way round that one.

But could these abilities like the chicken fancying and seeing and hearing exist before the chicken existed , as after all , seeing and hearing and fancying had existed before chickens existed. All conjecture of course , and we could say that the chicken evolved from some other animal from the past that had sight and hearing. But we could also just as easily conjecture that the chicken , whatever the chicken is , jumps into an available fertilized egg from outside in some way and then that we also jump into the available fertilized human egg in the womb available to be us. All conjecture , just like the theory of evolution.

But an egg needs fertilization , so it can’t be that the necessity of fertilization uses our evolution ideas. Just seems that evolution ideas get messed up with that kind of reality. Firstly there is the concept of fertilization that once didn’t happen and then it did. We can’t at all get to have any thinking on that , but clearly , fertilization and the body parts that do it , are succinct.
The only reason as to why we think that evolution has anything to do with any of the above is because there is the past , but it doesn’t mean that if say there were no lungs in a body today that they couldn’t occur tomorrow. That would apply to the thinking that the nails on toes and the nails on fingers required time to be.
It’s not that time is an issue with the nails. It would be more about how come that they are on the end of the toes and fingers. The toes and fingers are a long way from each other and yet they both somehow have nails. Would a progression like evolution bring that about..

There has to be some thought put to the idea that evolution ideas are wrong , even if evolution theory is right , because there is no evidence to show that say that the five wiggly fingers on our hands rely on evolution to exist. We all have in our thoughts that something called evolution is involved along with genes and DNA in the existence of those fingers and toes and the whole of all living things. They are in all animals but we have nothing to go on to say that they are responsible for the animal.

If those wiggly fingers and toes came from a monkey or apes hand or foot , or whatever animal existed before the monkey or apes , you’d still have to explain the first wiggly fingers and toes.
Hands with fingers and feet with toes seem universal on earth. The feet walk the earth and they do it pretty well. That’s just one or two features. It seems that any one phenomena needs nothing like our imaginary conjectures that we have come up with for them to come about and then progress. They would surely use whatever they used to exist in the first place. Phenomena like wiggly fingers just wouldn’t rely on our evolution ideas. Walking and talking and thinking and memory and birds finding worms to feed their babies and teeth that are solidly fixed in gums also couldn’t be said to have evolved , or in the least started by evolution.

It would also have to be explained how all body parts are evolving at the same time or at different times as each other and how the parts came about to develop their functions and how they would seem to know what functions are needed to exist in the earths atmosphere and the earths gravity , and then how they pass fluids between each body organ. It would go on and on of course. But there are not millions of scientists that have the evidence that any animal uses evolution. There are hardly any experts on the matter and the weight on the shoulders of those that say evolution did it all , must be great. It’s not fair on them.

Not trying to point out how incredible it is that the egg turns into a chicken , or how incredible it is that a pair of lungs breath the air. It’s just that no one can say anything about how they exist or came about. It’s more that it is incredible that we can tell others about our invention of the idea of evolution and that evolution is paramount in how the egg or a pair of lungs exists. Then , could we really show any evidence to anyone that all the features on the chickens face has used our evolution idea to work in tandem with all the other organs like the lungs , and that somehow the chickens have four toes at the end of each of their legs to grip the ground so perfectly to walk.

This next bit gets a bit confusing , because a female chicken has a number of sort of unshelled eggs in the body that get fertilized by the male and then the new to be chicken is inside the solid shelled eggs that are laid. (i might be a bit wrong on that. So don’t trust me) But it makes talking about eggs a little tricky. But like the acorns that turn into other oak trees and the acorn no longer exists in the growing tree , and the male sperm and female egg that turns into a human that also no longer exist in a growing baby that turns into an adult , the chicken continues to grow into an adult chicken without the initial egg that turned into the chicken. That is , the egg and all that was in it has gone like the acorn is gone.

So we could wonder about whether the initial physical start of the acorn or eggs on their own have in them enough properties to turn into trees or animals with common features like hearts and brains and blood etc. So does the acorn have enough on it’s own to grow into an oak tree , and does any egg have in it all that is needed for it to become sort of similar to it’s mum and dad.

It would follow of course that we’d have to also wonder if the egg has in it , it’s future ability to run , skip , swim , hop or fly. If we think of an egg as having in it it’s future those abilities , then we might conjecture further and imagine that we could somehow tap into it. We could take say the future enormous strength from a crocodile egg that turns into a crocodile or the flying ability of a butterfly. But i suppose that if the crocodile egg is reliant on the to follow nature thing idea , then that couldn’t happen. Still worth a thought though , as we don’t know what is in a crocodile egg that makes it be another crocodile , and we also don’t know what is in a butterfly egg that gives the baby butterfly the abilities to fly etc. It’s certainly hard though to grasp how an egg turns into anything , but they do.

Because we don’t actually have any idea about what’s really going on after the acorn or egg and their ingredients are gone , we can at best conjecture. So we could conjecture that the initial in place acorn or fertilized egg in some way calls to nature to give them all those body plans with parts and chemicals galore and the ability to move or fly. Of course though , in say the acorn , the initial start up has been produced by the oak tree that produces the acorn. But is what is contained in the acorn enough to turn it into another oak tree. Same for what is in the human or chicken egg once they are fertilized.

Maybe nature can make all sorts of things. So could it be that the acorn is making this call to nature to turn it into another fully growing oak tree. It can seem sometimes with the thoughts that we can have about it all , that life and trees all happen very easily , after all there isn’t much failure. The same maybe occurs for any seed of any flower. The seed calls to nature to make the new flower. So again , is the acorn , that soon disintegrates , asking nature to kick in and do it’s thing to have it grow into the oak tree. A tree does somehow suck in carbon from the air to give it it’s physicalness , and it has leaves of a certain shape and form to do it , so is that ability contained in the acorn or does it maybe get some help.
So , could the eggs of millions of animals also call to nature for all the body parts that they require before they too disintegrate. It could be that the acorns and seeds and eggs provide the food source for the phenomena or nature to get started.
The whole thing is quite bizarre however we think about it. From dinosaurs and eyes to humans and eggs , so we can basically ponder any idea at all.

This conjecture that nature is called upon by the seed or an egg to make the tree or animal , is like the difference in conjectures of either there being a mind in a body or a brain that makes the mind thing or in the least that there is the illusion of there being a mind.
If it is something like there being a mind that exists separate to the body , then it could mean that the mind or phenomena of it could do much more than it does in a body.

Say we think of running. We don’t really know how we move or run but we think we are using our thoughts to move. We feel in charge of it. We also though do feel the restriction of how fast we can move or run and put it down to the body setup of muscles etc. Competitive athletes try to get past it , but it can’t be done .
Quite possibly is that the mind or phenomena thing will only make the legs run so fast to prevent body injury , but if the legs were more muscular then maybe it could move the legs faster.
That would mean that the body is there , but the whatever is moving the body doesn’t move the body too much to cause it to be injured. And it would be injured if it ran too fast. The joints and ligaments would get injured.
It’s possibly not the other way around , in that the body muscles themselves dictate themselves what they can do , even though that’s how it feels to us. The phenomena or mind or whatever only applies as much energy or movement as the body and muscles can take , otherwise the joints and sockets and bones would injure.

The mind or phenomena thing in say an animal like the cheetah will give the ability to run as fast as a car on an a motorway. That of course is because the cheetah has the body to do it. But if we think that there is a mind or phenomena behind a physical body and that it only pushes the running to a possible running speed based on the body’s physicality , then that would mean that given the right body , the running speed could be much faster. On it’s own , the phenomena or mind or whatever could maybe move at the speed of light. That of course is only if the mind is a separate thing.

The same is worth thinking of with our ability to do mathematics. We can with a bit of practice do say 12 times 13 in our head. It takes a bit of doing to do but when it becomes 126 times 139 it’s altogether different. We can do it written down on paper if we are taught how to do it , but why isn’t it doable with just our thoughts. Again the mind or phenomena or whatever , if separate to the physical body could possibly do it , but like the cheetah’s running speed only being pushed so fast , it only pushes the brains ability to do the two digit multiplications because the brain would be injured. It could otherwise possibly multiply unimaginable numbers.

Putting aside that we puzzle over whether it could be the brain producing consciousness or that the mind is separate , it’s not too far stretched to compare in a similar way as alluded to above that there is this thing that is separate to the physical animal or tree that makes the physical animal or tree grow and for simplicity , we can call it nature or the phenomena of the animal or tree.

Hence the conjecture that seeds and eggs call on nature , or tell nature that they are here , because the seed or egg might not have the ability on their own to turn into what they become , as after all , the initial seed or egg is gone within hours or days. The ingredients in the chicken egg or any other egg do appear to turn into veins and then lungs and eyes and in 21 days are a fully formed chicken.

But it could be thought that the ingredients along with their DNA and genes etc , are there for something to use , and it just looks like the ingredients themselves on their own are turning into the chicken. If nothing else occurs to our thoughts about it , it could in the least be thought of as bizarre as to how this fertilized egg is or was turning into a chicken. I know , was.

commons.wikimedia PaulT (Gunther Tschuch)

There are also other things that we say we are living in , like space and time. It wouldn’t be to unthinkable that we could consider of similar concepts or things or ideas like phenomena that we can for simplicity call nature , that gives all of the seeds and eggs all that they want. After all , things like minds and gravity and space and time are illusive in our thinking. We conjecture about them and we have so far only an undeniably little grasp of them with our knowledge or thinking. But that could change , and when we do get the next thought or evidence about anything it most likely won’t be anything like we think.

So maybe it’s not too far stretched to think that there is this other concept that we can again for simplicity call nature or phenomena , that can make all of these things that the egg or seed calls for like blood and milk and lungs and toe nails etc , and it gives them all in one go. It’s all been done before so no messing is needed.
The Nature or phenomena thing can perhaps make or bring about blood and milk and lungs without ever having to use our evolution idea. Doesn’t that feel more likely or obvious. Otherwise blood and milk evolved , and that makes no sense.
All conjecture , but there is no harm in it , as we just don’t know. It does though feel a bit more prosperous than our evolution theory , even if wrong , and most likely is , as we just don’t know.

But something could happen soon and it could happen fast and maybe in our time. All of these phenomena like bodies , and all that is in them to make babies exist , might need to be given something new in them for their continuation in changing environments. Having said that , most animals go extinct , so their time is done.

But one thing that does change is human thought. It must mean at least that some sort of change can occur. Any thought could be stuck in an individual, but somehow we know that we have similar thoughts and that they are used to manage our lives.
There are thoughts that we have today that have never happened before. Thoughts , whatever they are , exist in some way , and they exist , and we presume one persons thoughts are separate to another person’s thoughts. That’s quite something. An individual has it’s individual thoughts. But are they reliant on today or physicalities or what. No idea.

It’s hard to think that our thinking about what we are , is about as far as it gets. Something is possibly going to happen when today our thoughts, whatever they are , are different to the thoughts of just a few years ago. Of course there are our survival thoughts and nothing over that means more.
But the thoughts that we have must have some sort of implication to the future. It’s not that the earliest humans couldn’t have had the thoughts we today have. They maybe could have the same thoughts but with different knowledge and different times in which to survive. It’s more that the ability to have changing thoughts , is an existence like milk and blood.

But to end , in the main, our evidence for any evolution is scant and is based on only a few plausible examples and huge conjectures that have been put together to prove it. There should be mountains of evidence but there is almost none. There should be much more than one liners about this fossil or or this animal etc. So for now ..

Surely no egg or fruit , or set of eyebrows , or set of teeth , or pair of lungs on earth or on any other planet uses our conjecture of evolution. Common sense says that none of these , including blood and milk or X and Y chromosomes, use random mutations and natural selection when somehow they exist in the first place. And in a simple way of thinking , the millions of different dual physical parts that make babies in millions of animals , surely don’t rely on an evolution process to be what they are. Clearly , no animal or tree relies on chance and luck.
In our case there is a man and a woman , so if we were to say that they evolved , we would have to wonder how the actual differences between them occur by evolution alone.
Everything just seems too specific to have evolved , unless it is that life was always going to evolve into what life form they eventually evolved into. But that would mean that evolution had the knowledge to enable some earlier life to turn into into a man and a woman or a tree. It would have in some way have to have known that there is a future and It would also have to know that environments change and be prepared for those changes. That would mean that in us is the propensity to change and even evolve new senses. Somehow that doesn’t feel right.

And , as said earlier , humans will never now evolve in a normal evolution way because we wear clothes , including shoes. We could go silly in thinking and imagine that our feet and toes in the shoes will evolve in some odd way , but the reality is surely that the feet and toes would not be misguided by a pair of shoes. Firstly , the human has to make the shoes and then we’d have to believe that an evolution process would be stumped by those shoes. That would mean that an animal could evolve for say 500 million years and in a short period of time would now have to evolve the feet and toes that are now all day in a pair of shoes. That would mean that evolution couldn’t use natural selection and random mutations in the future , but probably never used them in the past. Five toes on the end of a foot might not be needed in a shoe. It would go on and on of course , but it’s probably more that the foot and it’s toes can manoeuvre in a shoe before the shoe was made , and won’t or don’t need to evolve to work in a shoe just because they are in a shoe.

So , to follow , we’d have to wonder if animals were going to happen in their dualist forms before they even existed. That does feel true. So on words again , we could ask if a man and a woman were meant to come about , since they once didn’t exist. We could say that there were male and females in other animals like the monkey that evolved into the man and woman that we have today. If it wasn’t meant to be , then it would mean that evolution bungles it’s way somehow to come up with a man and a woman.

The idea that they evolved is only in our minds because there is still an ongoing effort to find the physical evidence in more fossils and DNA and genes etc to prove evolution. Those ideas though are pretty much over. There are just never ever going to be any fossils etc that explain the phenomena of a man and a woman. You and me are one or the other , and yes , it is an oddity. But to have that to happen takes a bit more than a progression.
So to end , the evolution idea has had over 150 years to find evidence to explain how a man and a woman exist. The idea has come up with nothing. Therefore the specificities of life , like a man and a woman and eyes and toe nails , in a conjectural sense , could come about because of the phenomena behind or in them. A physicality could or might not rely on something else. But if there is a something else, it could be the phenomena , whatever they are , that makes the physical body and body parts , and moves all of those physicality’s. Maybe we just can’t sense them and Is it unattainable to understand today. But thinking moves on.

But say we do try to imagine for just one moment , that the two eyes that sit in the head of a human on both sides of the top part of the nose have evolved to be there. It would mean that even the the very first to be evolving eyes , that in some way weren’t eyes to start with , would have to be in the right place to start evolving into eyes. The two of them would have to evolved at the same time in the skull of a head in the first place. Then there is how the eyes knew that light was there and that that light could be physically captured or strike the eyes to bring about sight. That is altogether something else.
Immediately it feels more like it’s a done in a one go occurrence. Quite how an evolution progressive process would also come up with ears on the side of the head at the same time as the brain that they are all connected to, would again say that it’s all done in one go. And it would also have to be thought that way for arms and legs and hearts etc.

To end , once again , anyone’s experience of life , like seeing and feeling , is spontaneous , and it has to be. Spontaneity exists in some way like a toe nail without any evolution process. To perceive or sense just this moment and the dimensions of the space and distances around us , surely didn’t take any sort of evolutionary time or process to come up with that spontaneity. It is instant and always was and always had to be for any animal that ever existed. Are we ever going to find out why eyes are needed to see and ears are needed to hear. No idea. To get there is more about how we wonder about how to get there. But on what we have observed so far , new animals will come about and will most likely have eyes and ears.
The new animals almost certainly wouldn’t have to evolve eyes and ears or mouths with teeth again , if they ever did , as it’s all been done before. They could just copy and modify.
Will they eat us. Probably.

Birds do it, bees do it
Even educated fleas do it
Let’s do it, let’s fall in love .. and lots more

Home