Evolution, once more - maybe true and therefore simple; for skinny, fat and average build people

(by SGPierzynowski)

20.06.2024

Preamble

What is the purpose of evolution? Its purpose is certainly not what will result from its action. This theoretical newly created life - new value does not exist and it is not known what it will be or whether it will be - it is rather a wish.

Does evolution just occur for the sake of change or is it for the betterment of a species as a result of them needing to adapt to something, based on the ‘survival of the fittest’ principle? Is the meaning and purpose of evolution therefore the creation of a new being? A new species? Because something has changed. It is not very easy to believe in this primitiveness - this simple reason for the creation of a new species! There is not much time for genetic adaptations to change, but perhaps the genes of the egg or sperm can adapt. The egg's genetic material is already present at birth. And sperm genes - it's hard for me to imagine transmitting new information as many times as a healthy male Homo Sapiens produces. But it's a bit easier (but still difficult) to come to terms with the idea of ​​another male. But if the individual is composed of a different, although very similar material (a few wiser atoms in a conglomerate of older, less educated ones), a similar but slightly different individual will be created. Not necessarily better, just different. Humans probably evolved more as an "other" with enormous genetic freedom to produce molecules from all available atoms. In this case, the genetic material of the crocodile - which has not changed for probably 250 million years - does not have such permission and must always make molecules from the same atoms. Sic!

Main text

Is the purpose of evolution the creation of new species that no one wants and no one is waiting for?– Notwithstanding man’s self-righteousness in thinking that we as humans are in fact the best and last (final) creation of evolution. The last one? – yes, it may indeed be true, because soon we humans are going to destroy everything. It will be quite difficult for us to evolve further, because the slow adaptations are running out or perhaps have already begun, and something better than us must be created - less aggressive towards other products of evolution. Could this in fact be true? It might be a catastrophe!!

Or maybe there is no such neo-Darwinian classical evolution. Perhaps this is just one of our unpleasant inventions - an idea to spite creationism. The cosmos exists, but it evolves (and us along with it). But does it really evolve? It is most certainly a bit different!  Change should be treated as a material value that could possibly explain our existence, which apparently does not exist from the point of view of mathematics.  Speaking of mathematics…..Can animals count? Lund University – even beetles to three. Sic! They say one, two, three...

Maybe something else is driving this evolution?  I have begun to understand the whole matter of evolution at the level of 4 "sapient"/ (able to learn, Sic!) elements - 4 atoms, Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen, along with their molecules. This statement is a simple consequence of the way I think (at least that's what I think). There is so much more to understand though, e.g. the sense of the existence of other elements, not to mention the sense of existence itself – with the simultaneous non-existence of quanta and perhaps something else... . Yes, a quantum only exists if it doesn't exist either. I.e. quantum is the beginning of being - matter and at the same time non-existence, i.e. a dimensionless vacuum, but paradoxically a material vacuum. Let's leave quanta, strings, the Higgs boson and others - I don't particularly feel them. We will return to these 4 important elements that I like, and I think I understand a little, in a moment. It seems that these are the only intelligent elements that are susceptible to learning, or better yet, that are eager to learn, as can be seen in the context of evolution.

Now we have come to the heart of the matter. These four "capable" and ‘fast-adapting’ elements, specifically with regards to their ability and willingness to change, are the driving force - the meaning of evolution, and ultimately of life. It is impossible not to believe that somewhere in space there may be other life forms that are evolving, based on other "dull", lazy elements. It is scary to think about such life! Unfortunately, such other life forms, formed from the ‘slowly learning’ elements, cannot be ruled out. But they would be somewhat ‘delayed’ compared to the life we have here on earth!!!

Please take note of how clever these elements are (C, O, N, H), i.e. Carbon, is the most important element in terms of its ability with respect to organic chemistry. Even more so than Hydrogen, the creator of energy in the beginning, i.e. Hydrogen started everything and is the Great Creator. Now he's a bit lacking and he's probably not very teachable himself, being a terminal genius, so why does he need teaching, but he's structurally needed to take care of evolution matters.

Carbon arrived quite a long time ago from space before the Permian, probably as a large meteorite - i.e. now it still comes as a cosmic Nano diamond. Previously, before the Permian, it was not present in our Earth's vicinity - there is no C in the pre-Permian periods and it started everything de novo. N.B! Space nanodiamonds probably arrived before the Permian and it was probably then that "something" in space, which contained a lot of carbon, disintegrated and came to us as a harbinger of life and evolution. There is quite a clever theory based on the idea that life can spread through space known as panspermia - but it involves DNA. Carbon is at the heart of the panspermia theory.

Carbon "persuaded" water (H₂O) to react with it and we now have carbohydrates and fats as a result. All you need is protein – but it certainly took some time for carbohydrates and fats to be ‘tamed’ and combined with the second, very sophisticated player, Nitrogen. Once this happened, amino acids, and finally proteins formed, which are the meaning of life. It lasted millions, maybe billions of years, certainly quite a long time (I don't see the point of numbers larger than the LIDL bill). You can see that learning about the process of evolution is long, difficult and expensive - yes, very expensive. C, O, N and H therefore had to limit their reactivity and learn many things. Firstly, to not react unnecessarily with other elements, which worked. The formation of H₂, O₂, and N₂ is safer and less reactive. The vapor form of the molecules keeps the super reactivity of HN to a minimum. In the rocks here on Earth, there are few connections of NH with other elements in minerals.

Of course, ubiquitous Oxygen is everywhere, but in the form of H₂O it is practically inaccessible to any reactions except those which take place in metabolism. Oxygen is produced during metabolism and electrolysis - which generally does not occur. This ubiquitous reaction involving O causes a large excess of oxygen to be trapped in the form of H₂O and minerals. This poor imprisoned molecule probably doesn't learn much there. It would be worth seeing whether oxygen from organic compounds has any other properties than that which it has in H₂O or minerals. Interestingly, someone in France once postulated the memory of water involved in the multiplication of viruses, homeopathy or something similar. Metabolism may therefore be a place of ‘oxygen learning’. Or maybe strong rituals or strong will also teach O and H? In Hinduism, water is enlivened, and in Christianity, plants watered with holy water grow better roots. I came across something of that nature at some stage and I saved it somewhere - Google probably knows something about it. Prof. Krzysztof O – a professor of ecology, once tried to drag me to a conference in Ukraine devoted to holy water. I didn't go to the conference, and I regret it because the subject matter would most definitely have fit in with this theory of atomic evolution.

C, however, is a great exception, but someone has to rule and he ordered it. And he hid his excess in coal seams and oil - how it really happened - look for the story about SuperNowa in the blog www.sgplus.sep

N is present in the air as N₂ and in the ground as nitrites and nitrates. Everything circulates together (circulation of matter and energy in biology), and in fact, within this circulation, we learn to create new species, i.e. we evolve through learning. Who is the disciple here? The students are C, O, N and H, who learn something new by going through the metabolism process, i.e. cycling through various molecules. Theoretically, there are more antibody forms than all the atoms in space. Is there anything to learn? True? What is this new molecular and atomic knowledge? And how do we measure it?

A measure of the effectiveness of the learning of C, O, N and H is evolutionary variability. But what is involved in the process of learning and the observed changes in CONH - maybe the number of quanta or states in which they occur, i.e. being or not being? We know very little about it, or maybe nothing at all? Or perhaps we don't actually understand what we know??? I think that soon, when the "AI" craze passes and this empty anti-intellectual AI bubble finally bursts, we will return to how and what CONH learns. In a few decades or more... we will know what the evolution (knowledge) of atoms and molecules is and how it affects species variability, i.e. good old Darwinian evolution.

What about the evolution of all the rest of the elements on Mendeleev's list? I'm sure we'll find out something about it in the meantime... Today it is like this: nothing (it is an idea, i.e. science) evolves (changes, learns) and becomes a quantum; the quantum evolves (learns) and becomes an atom; atoms (especially the talented ones - CONH) learn to be molecules and form multiple connections and then give rise to life.

Some systems of molecules, i.e. those that exist in the rational-learned-evolving world, or they themselves as individual molecules have noticed that they exist. The more they know, the better they are. That is, knowledge is being, it is life. So, immaterially - ideologically we are and that is enough to be happy! So I am! What about other non-CONH atoms? They also evolve, but not in animate matter - they are too slow to be alive in the same rhythm as us.

The first atom to evolve from a quantum was H and apart from a tiny one, its c parts in biology, the H residue takes part in the creation of energy and other atoms: H to He - etc. e.g. to Au - so needed and liked by some people, including me.  

Epilogue

The epilogue should be at the end, but hopefully everyone will still read the wisdom below. And in fact, "two words are enough for a wise head" may even be enough for some people. I read little or almost not at all - I prefer to listen to what someone else has written. And since not everything written can be read, even silently, and certainly not aloud, and if they want to pay for this reading, I have much less to listen to. Oh yes, can you read what he writes?

But let's get back to the Epilogue of Evolution. Let's start with the quantum and its state when it is not there - that is, the material state of "nothing". This state of its absence is the state of knowledge that the quantum has and which it always has with it and supplements it. Next, it is easy to understand the issue of learning atoms, which must somehow be made of quanta. But probably, or rather certainly, the number of quanta in one atom is a matter of "the number of devils on the head of a pin". Sic! Sic! Oh, pee.

Classical evolution has forgotten that everything lives for a very finite and rather short time and it is impossible to transmit the entire evolutionary knowledge of the species through the sperm and the egg. The molecules that build even the best-adapted individual also die (I mean humans) and their knowledge as molecules also dies. However, the atoms remain - CONH. There is no choice - we have to assume that they can - they don't have to or maybe they do? stop this evolutionary knowledge. Sperm and egg are only carriers of information (DNA for short), e.g. what can be done with life. But what this life will be made of is none of their business. It has a chance to be made from smarter atoms - but only a chance and that is the point - the essence of evolution. On average - statistically, some atoms that are available for building new life must be smarter than those that currently participate in life - I would need a mathematician, e.g. Wiesiek S, to calculate how slow this process is, i.e. how fast smarter atoms from the CONH group can enter this evolution game.

So, the egg may be a tad smarter than the hen, but it probably can't be dumber - although I think it does sometimes happen. One dogma is important here: life, no matter at what level (plant, bacterium, animal, human) teaches all atoms - but does it teach all of them equally? Does living as a self-anointed person produce better atom learning results than living as a virus or fungus? I doubt it, looking at what subsequent generations of people are doing and how efficiently they are working towards self-destruction. I'm not talking about three idiots: Putin-Zelęski-Bayden. Paradoxically, their activity reduces human populations - and today this is the only way for life to survive on Earth - to limit the senseless population growth fueled by CONH atoms, which may not be the smartest at the moment. Life, regardless of the quality and degree of learning of atoms in various forms of existence, a new life created from an egg and a sperm (even cloned) must on average be made in some part from more knowing CONH atoms than those from which it was created!

SGP 2024-06-20