The origin of this page, which replaces that hosted on the website of the Department of Biology of the Autonomous University of Madrid, is a problem of genuinely Darwinian inability to adapt. In this case, and perhaps by chance, it closely resembles the problems of the “mature” people to adapt to (to compete in) the new conditions imposed by the “labor market”. It is, in short, that I feel incompetent to participate in the new direction of teaching and research that involves the implementation of the so-called “Bologna Plan”. Fortunately (I assume for both parties), I have had the opportunity to host my University’s voluntary early retirement program for the step-up renewal of the templates.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to my dear Autonomous University of Madrid for the thirty-five years of scientific education, freedom of thought but above all, personal growth that has given me thanks to the fact that I have found truly exceptional people. And especially the Department of Biology, both teaching staff and administration and services. It is a great fortune to work surrounded by friends. Among them I include colleagues who, on occasion, may have been annoyed by my “blasphemies” against “Him.” I hope you know how to apologize. It has been without malice. Ah! And my students and students. I almost forgot …
Let me clarify this page.
The content of this page is not directed “against Darwin”, but in favor of Biology, of life.
The attitude, which can be described as belligerent, which is reflected in some of the texts that follow, is certainly a product of the temperamental expository clumsiness of whoever writes this, but also of the anguish that proves, after fifteen years of dedication Exclusive, almost obsessive, to study, to try to unravel the origin of Darwinism, its causes and its consequences, how much damage it has done to Biology as a science, to Nature and to society and, especially, that if we observe the drift Of its applications, is still to be done.
The Darwinian conception of life, of reality, a “purification”, a refinement of the confused ideas of Darwin, has made an omniscient, omnipotent and ubiquitous being the “natural” selection, with all the conditions that it implies, In the explanation of the Whole. The use of its supposed and never verified power to explain any kind of biological process, however complex, and “chance” as regent of the phenomena of life, has been hindering the understanding and deepening of biological knowledge. The competitive and reductionist conception of relationships between living beings (even among their most intimate components) has led to a sordid and deformed view of Nature and has caused serious imbalances among its fundamental components. Genetic determinism (without which “natural” selection does not make sense) extended to relationships between humans, the consideration that defects, diseases, even behavior, are “inscribed in our genes”, has had Terrible consequences for millions of poor people and has, for many, constituted a “scientific” justification for human inequalities.
For the reader who comes for the first time to this page may seem pretentious, for some even absurd (and there may be something both) the attempt to propose a sketch of an evolutionary model that makes it possible to coherently integrate the enormous amount of data And scientific knowledge that is accumulating, especially during the last ten, fifteen years in Biology. Precisely, this amount of information from various disciplines, the unimaginable complexity of life’s phenomena, their extreme interdependence and conditioning, their ability to communicate with the environment, makes it extremely difficult to integrate them into a coherent, unifying model, By generic or superficial that this is, and absolutely impossible by a single person.
I have not tired of insisting where it has been possible for me (even before the academic hierarchies) to join the cooperative efforts (with pardon) of experts from different disciplines in order to try to put some order in the theoretical chaos in the which is plagued by biology. As this situation does not seem to be evident from the continuous, repetitive manifestations coming from the field of “official” science, I dare to set out the outline of the proposal and its scope, as far as my limitations have allowed me to reach:
I have said this before, I am going to be repeating myself, but that’s not such a bad thing, if it helps me to iron out my thinking and clarify how I see things. Might also be helpful to others.
I’ve probably run out of steam for interesting new angles on the world, after 155 essays here. Is that understandable ? This blog seems to be averaging around 180 – 200 visitors every day, so I guess that’s a reason to continue. I’ll be so glad if this paedophilia thing gets sorted, so I can drop it, and read about more enjoyable topics.
Anyway, I usually need some sort of interesting snippet to spark my inspiration, and marty supplied this video by a buddy of Zecharia Sitchin, re the Sumerians, UFOs, etc.
I’ve never given much time to Sitchin. I’ve read the main site by one of his critics, (Michael Heiser) which goes into fine details as to why his translations of Sumerian words and phrases are totally wrong, and that seemed well argued to me.
It is very easy to bullshit the public, if you happen to have the talent. I burst out laughing when I discovered yesterday that Slavoj Žižek had been caught red handed as a plagiarist. It does not seem to have harmed his career, does it. But for me, such a lack of integrity is damning. ‘..plain old stealing.’
Why does someone put their whole career and reputation in jeopardy, sell their soul to the devil, just to steal someone else’s essay ? Žižek is amusing, entertaining, a sort of clown, but I don’t take him seriously, he’s a jabbering loon really, pouring out his stream of consciousness Lacan, Marx, post modern twaddle.
I’ve never favoured the ‘extra-terrestrial physical beings’ theories, ever since I read Von Daniken, way back. I’m more amenable to non-material aliens that have influence. But I guess I have always had an open mind towards weird possibilities, and these days, when I come across so many anomalies that appear unexplained, I’m on the lookout for a more satisfactory paradigm.
Here’s what wiki says about Sitchin.
Sitchin’s ideas have been rejected by scientists and academics, who dismiss his work as pseudoscience and pseudohistory. His work has been criticized for flawed methodology and mistranslations of ancient texts as well as for incorrect astronomical and scientific claims.
This literalization of the imagination doesn’t make any sense, but every time it doesn’t, you hear Sitchin say “There can be no doubt, but…”
He sold a lot of books and made a lot of money. I have not read his books, so I’m not in a good position to pass judgement. The mainstream orthodox scientists say the same sort of things about Hancock and Sheldrake, both of whom I respect and take seriously. Same for Brien Foerster, Robert Schoch, and John Anthony West.
Here’s the long video. I gave up before the end. I think there are a lot of interesting points, but I don’t see what he sees. I think he’s seeing what he wants to see. For example, at 44: he thinks they are exhaust ports for a capsule thingee. To me, they look much more like animal skins, with the two hindlegs and tail skin hanging down.
But who knows ? I’m not nearly familiar enough with Sumerian texts and images to be confident about what is there. I’d need to spend years at it. Earlier he says the images are of the planets, with Saturn showing its rings. Well, it might be that. But it might be something else. Seems to me, everything he’s saying is open to interpretation and alternative hypotheses.
The past has gone. It is not here. What is here, is this, now. Whatever it is, wherever you are, it’s all around you, but last year it was different, and that has now vanished. And all the years prior, going back for as long as you like to imagine. All gone.
It’s really all a huge blank for all of us. However, the past has left traces. There are signs and clues that can point to whatever it was that happened. So, if we want to study the past, we can observe whatever traces and evidence we can observe and come to conclusions.
The way I see it – there are other ways – is that we build up a mental model in our mind, and substitute that model for the unknown blankness. And the more that we think and study, the richer and more detailed that model becomes.
I’m not excluding the non-rational schools or approaches, those who try past life regression, remote viewing, or other intuitive or esoteric means to gain knowledge. But there are even more problems ih that area, because there is no coherent overall theoretical basis that is shared. I do a lot of lucid dreaming and have amazing experiences in that domain, which, like other visionary experience, enriches my personal life, but is almost impossible to describe or communicate, and is open to even wider interpretation than the more usual external tangible stuff in our everyday worlds. I’ve also had a lot of experience with psychedelics, LSD, psylocybin, etc. which has been a great influence, but has not assisted much in clarifying the past, history and pre-history, which is the topical issue.
Any mental model is never going to be fully correct, is it. That is because it is not the thing itself. It’s like a map of the territory, and the map is always a representation, it cannot be the territory itself. To be so, the map would have to be identical in every respect to that which is mapped, and this is obviously impossible.
So we have to accept that our mental models of ‘what happened’ will always be deficient and tentative. But, as with mapping some unknown country, or the bed of the ocean, or some distant portion of Space, by careful study and research the maps can be improved and made more accurate.
It is a bit like plotting out data onto a graph, so that you can extract useful information. The graph is supposed to be based on accurate measurements and to have integrity, so that sensible conclusions can be drawn, but it is never the actual ‘thing’ that it represents, it’s just one angle to try and gain some insight. Like using a mirror to see around a corner, it can be useful or useless, depending on what information it gathers.
And of course, there are many different ways to map stuff. Road maps, geological maps, maps of the vegetation, and so on. So people make and use the map that is useful and appropriate for their own particular purpose.
So, if we apply this thinking to the past, to history and prehistory, does it help ?
When we speak about what we believe to have happened, we’ll be telling a story. Describing our personal mental model, or map, so we can communicate with others and discuss our ideas.
You’ll have your story and I’ll have mine, and they may even agree on some points.
They are unlikely to be identical. You only need to speak to a handful of individuals to realise what tremendous difference there are in how people conceive of the past and history.
There’s several reasons for this, the main one, of course, being the differences in education that people receive and attain. But there are more subtle ones, cultures have different stories, and some languages force their speakers to think in certain ways, not least because they structure time differently.
The greatest influence must be whatever belief system is handed out to you in childhood, by the culture or tradition that you happen to be born into. I’d suggest that it is slightly similar to the operating systems that get put onto computers. Apple Mac, Microsoft Windows, Linux, etc, each have their own peculiarities that make the incompatible, and if they are to communicate, they need intermediate bridging software of some kind. I probably got that idea from T. McKenna.
People’s fundamental beliefs are often mutually exclusive. A literal belief in Genesis is incompatible with a belief in Darwinism, and neither of these will be acceptable to the thousands and thousands of other beliefs that various people hold.
If you are indoctrinated into a belief as a child, it is hard to escape and to switch to another belief. And if you do, for example, move from a devout belief in some religion, to science, or vice versa, why do people do that ? To garner approval ? To feel they belong ? Or to promote some insight that compels them to assert a case ?
I think of all these beliefs as stories, so that leads into the ‘story war’ phenomena, which is what we observe all over the internet, where people on forums and commenting on blogs will insist that THEIR story is superior, truer, better, than some other story.
Some people will insist that their story wins, because it is based on ‘the facts’ or ‘the evidence’. But that argument fails, because, for one, it’s often very hard to establish ‘facts’ in an incontrovertible fashion, and even when ‘the facts’ can be agreed upon, there is then the matter of ‘interpretation of the facts’, which can rarely be agreed upon.
Interpretation of any fact depends upon the context within which it is nested. So, the meaning of the fact will change, according to the story which surrounds it. For example, the fact that there appears to be evidence suggesting a Great Flood, where, if you walk around in the landscape you can see remains or signs of such an event at some distant point in the past.
One bunch of people will slot that evidence into their standard mainstream scientific geology story, where they account for the flood by referring to melting glaciers as an Ice Age ended. The exact same ‘fact’ can also be accommodated by the biblical literalists, who will account for the same evidence by referring to the episodes described in the Bible, referring to Noah’s Flood.
There appears to be no possibility of ever resolving these kinds of disputes. It is the hermeneutic spiral. Indeed, with the amplification of the internet, the differences appear to be getting increasingly bitter and acrimonious. People gather into groups, tribes, cliques, where they can agree with one another on THEIR favourite story, and then they repel all attempts to have any kind of dialogue with other groups who have a different story at their core.
Nobody wants to have fruitful discourse, they want to resist it. Because they see it as a hostile attempt to grab and desecrate the flag around which they have clustered.
It is quite an amazing phenomenon to witness. I’ve become quite weary and jaded by it, which is why I restrict myself mostly to my own blog here, now, because the waste of energy and time expended by argument is not a positive influence in what’s left of my lifetime.
I’ve moved politically, (as I’ve tried to explain occasionally) because I find it impossible to tolerate what some others find acceptable to them. The licentiousness that leads to paedophilia, bestiality, the downgrading of human conduct, horrifies me. It’s not ‘freedom’ or ‘liberation’, it is decadence, perversion and depravity, and I feel it degrades us all, if we allow such things to occur and become part of our culture.
I’ve also moved philosophically. I’m more open to questioning the story that I previously adhered to, because I have encountered so many anomalies that do not fit.
These changes are quite uncomfortable, because there’s a ‘what I used to think and believe’ and there’s a ‘what I think and believe now’ which are opposed.
A good example of something that I sort of took onboard as a matter of faith, because I understood it to be the scientific orthodoxy, was that there are areas of the world where virgin nature persists, unaltered by human intrusion and activity. The most pristine and majestic of these, I believed, was the Amazon rain forest, which was purely a natural product. So it was something like an intact Garden of Eden, the way things were ‘meant to be’, before The Fall. This knowledge came via science, but was in fact a sort of disguised myth, which had strong emotional appeal.
But then as it turned out, it was all WRONG. As we now know, there had been MILLIONS of people living there, and they had pretty much engineered their environment into a human creation. You know, the Terra Preta thing, and all the strange structures that deforestation is revealing. What had happened is the the great population of humans that once occupied the area were all killed when the first European diseases arrived, and because the forest is so vigorous, it quickly covered over all the signs of that civilisation.
It is now a good many years since I was forced to make that adjustment, but it was quite difficult at the time, to take on the new story and displace the old. And now there is another example that I am wrestling with. The New Earth Lady’s videos present many things that have never been featured in the various archaeology and history books that I have studied. This is bewildering.
The best example is the enigma of the ancient cart tracks or ruts. They do not fit the standard paradigm. So there is a serious problem here. It seems absolutely obvious from some of the photos that what is now hard rock was SOFT, in some cases, when the tracks were made. This defies the orthodox archaeology, geology, chemistry, and physics that is taught by the mainstream education system in Britain, and perpetrated by the reputable scientific press.
This is a wonderful example, because, unlike so many of the story wars, the evidence is empirical, could not be more solid and substantial. It’s not just some crazy reference in an ancient text about, say, ‘fish falling from the sky’, or some sighting of a UFO by just one or two witnesses, who might or might not be reliable. Anybody can go to the sites and observe and measure the actual evidence for themselves.
So then it becomes a matter of interpretation. That’s where the trouble starts. You try to fit it into your favourite story. If you want to persuade others that you have the correct interpretation and the correct story, then you have to argue a convincing case that explains and accounts for the observed features.
I have no idea, now, what I really believe about these tracks and what they mean. I’m unsettled by what they MIGHT mean, because I may have to revise and adjust much of what I previously held to be true.
I cannot get my head around the version that says there were human civilisations millions or tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of years ago. It’s too much of a stretch for me. I’m still stuck in the paradigm that people like Chris Stringer at the Natural History Museum in London stand by. But that itself is mind-boggling enough.
This is the fellow
Apparently he has now concluded that so called ‘modern man’, that is, skulls and skeletons which are indistinguishable from our own, in any very meaningful or significant way, could have appeared some 500,000 years ago.
The New Earth Lady has spoken with some contempt and derision about the quackademics who want to tell her that her grandfather was a monkey. But no reputable scientific anthropologists or biologists or other academics, in the mainstream, have been saying anything like that. The idea comes from a cartoon put out in the 1800’s which was an attempt by the Christian biblical literalists to ridicule Darwin’s theories. It was satire. ( I’m not certain, I think it was Punch Magazine.)
The ‘monkey’ ancestry of the existing primates, would have been many more millions of years ago. I’m sure you can check for yourselves on the details with a few clicks. So that would have been an antecedent form that gave rise to the lineages which lead to gorillas, chimpanzees, orang utans, and to the various hominid species which are now extinct, which are numerous, and contentious, because the picture of what happened is not that clear. It changes all the time, as new remains are found and the experts argue as to how they should be understood and classified. You know, Denisovans, Floriensis ‘Hobbit’, etc.
I mean, I know that there are plenty of people who will reject the whole of Darwin’s thesis, but then you have to come up with a better explanation for the evidence. I don’t know of one, although I’m open to the possibility. You look at the hand of a chimpanzee, or any other primate and compare it to your own, with the knuckles, finger nails, hair, etc, there is a close similarity or resemblance that cannot be denied.
Anyway, what I am working around to, is that half a million years is a very long time in human terms. I think that the standard accepted measure for generations, is 25 years, four to a century. So work out how many generations of people there have been over the last several hundred thousand years, who have been, to all intents and purposes, just like us, physically. Some may have been a lot less intelligent and capable, and some may have been much more intelligent.
The picture that we have is MOSTLY blanks. But humans could have been shifting stones around and digging out caves and building walls out of rocks for half a million years, within the mainstream standard story. It is possible. Within the bounds of the mainstream paradigm.
If you want to present an alternative, I’m open to suggestions, if they argue the case and explain the evidence better. Perhaps I will have to take on a new paradigm.