Today (24 Nov 2015) Lucy is been honoured with a Google Doodle on the 41st anniversary of her discovery.Who is Lucy?
Well is nothing but a collection of fossilised bones that once made up the skeleton of a hominid from the Australopithecus afarensis species, who lived in Ethiopia 3.2 million years ago.
Researchers who support Darwin's THEORY OF EVOLUTION are used to think at this finding as one of the most important evidence that man kind is an "evolution" of previous animal spieces.
While "evolution" might be reasonable proven by the great number of fossils found by archaeologists which likely by the time and the location and the shape are evidence of living beings who lived in a subsequent time to each other and which their shape were gradually changing like in a "morphing" generational ongoing process, the Theory of Evolution, which is based on the idea that "changes" between generation are "random" and then "selected" by the natural law of "survivor of the fittest", is far from being proven and is indeed a very weak theory.
Unfortunately the Darwin's THEORY OF EVOLUTION is the only one that is "officially" accepted and supported by the so called scientific community (whatever that term might mean) as explanation of the evolutionary process.
The "theory" doesn't require any "design", any form of "intelligence" that attend to the evolution process, instead it suppose that all is happened by "chance" and environmental "selection" and so it better fit with the atheist ground on which are supposed to rely who deserve to be called a "scientific researcher".
As alternative to the "official" theory, I will now expose my own theory, the Hal's Theory of Evolution, which is kind of r-evolutionary theory but that in my opinion better fits with the available "evidences" and provide an original explanation of the evolution of living beings and doesn't rely on the inconsistent assumption that all existing species are the result of a "natural selection".
Why I state that natural selection and random changes on animal bodies is an inconsistent assumption?
Because is easy to observe in real life that a random small change on the living being DNA doesn't outcome in a new being with relevant differences from the source, and if the difference aren't relevant, then the process of "natural selection" cannot take place.
Let's make it clear with one example.
It is said, that birds are evolution of previous species that didn't have anything like "wings", they were plain terrestrial animals.
So it's obvious that unless a "random" change had suddenly made appear the wings to an individual whose parents were not provided of wings, then the the small modification that might have been appeared by chance and seems toward to a future shape of wings, isn't enough to differentiate the new individual from the spieces it originates and therefore isn't enough to provide the better survival ability which the birds are supposed to have in comparison to terrestrial.
So here is my theory.
I've observed that in nature "evolution" is a very common thing.
Think at how a human being turns from a single cell, to a complete body.
The "source" cell is the one that comes from the union of the female "egg" and the male "sperm" which both carries half of the human DNA.
Once the two half are together the resulting LIVING cell with the complete DNA set start to "reproduce" itself.
At the beginning the first few generations of cells are all same each other, but then something happens and the "differentiation" process take place.
So, by the time that generation and generations of cells comes to "life" we can observe that a number of different kind of cells are existing... all STILL carrying the same DNA!
So we can observe blood cells, tissue cells, skin cells, bone cells, brain cells, etc... etc... those are all carrying the SAME DNA, still they are "evolution" of the 1st cell, the union of egg and sperm, which must have had "inside" the "descriptions" of all the other cells that had to come after a number of generations.
How do scientist explain cells differentiation?
They say that the DNA contains the description of all the kind of cells that are part of the human body and for "some reason", each kind of cell is the "result" of just a "portion" of the DNA which is "activated" after are past a number of generations from the 1st source cell.
So each cells, despite it carries inside the whole DNA containing the description of all the cells, is just the result of one portion only of that DNA.
So, here is my guess.
What if the same "process" apply to the evolution of the living being species?
What if at the beginning there's a "source" living being that contains in it the description of all the future different species of animals (and/or plants) and those different species appears when, after a number of generation, their portion of DNA is "activated"?
We are used to think that primitive live being, the one from where we are suppose to be evolved, were very simple, as simple as a single cells living being.
So, we may imagine that the DNA of those primitive and unicellular living beings have to be somewhat "short", compared to the one of evoluted animals like a human being as a high degree of complexity require more organic informations.
Well, it seems that scientist, by studying the genomes, had proven the opposite.
According to recent findings (see here) «In the animal kingdom, the relationship between genome size and evolutionary status is not clear. One of the largest genomes belongs to a very small creature, Amoeba dubia. This protozoan genome has 670 billion units of DNA, or base pairs. The genome of a cousin, Amoeba proteus, has a mere 290 billion base pairs, making it 100 times larger than the human genome.»
Those findings are actually an evidence that support my Hal's Theory of Evolution as my theory assume that the primitive original living beings, despite their simple "shape", must have contained the description of the next species on which the original being will evolve slowly generation after generation.
Hal Ex
#HalEx
