Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation

Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation…Page 1

Running head: EVOLUTION: PUNCTUATED GENOME EXPERIMENTATION

Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation
James G. Needham
Psy 410-013 – Evolutionary Psychology
Portland State University

Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation…Page 2

A Preface to a Paradigm Shift

The DNA molecule, like the computer disk, stores evolutionary information, but does not create it.” (Sagan, 2002, p. xvii)

What if someone were to state, unequivocally, that “No visible organism or group of organisms is descended from a single common ancestor”? Perhaps the response would be a profound degree of skepticism, at the least, or outright hostility at the impudence of denying the sacrosanct auspices of Darwinian “evolution”. Nevertheless, accounting for the origin of contemporary genera, or the genomes which define them, is speculative at best. Attribution to the experimentation of an “Intelligent Designer” is no less valid and even more logical than contemporary dogma of all genera springing from a common ancestor which magically developed the capacity to become the infinite diversity of life forms which exist today. There is simply no evidence of any organism which descended from a common ancestor. All contemporary evidence points to adaptation as the expression of genetic and epigenetic potential transmitted from one generation to the next within constraints established by genera genomes. No genus has ever become a different genus because doing so would make it more suitable to its environment. Even if such a far-fetched even should ever occur, it would need to simultaneously occur in sufficient numbers to reproduce itself, or occur in a genus which would need to be hermaphroditic and likely an invertebrate (Sagan, 2002, pp. 7-9)! What contemporary Darwinists and Neo-Darwinists like to describe as “natural selection” and “evolution” is more accurately what Piaget described as “autoregulation” within genetic constraints.

The autoregulation which Piaget references in his stages of cognitive development is the capacity to ensure rhythms, regulations, and operations governing both the development and adaptation of the individual. Piaget developed a paradigm for human cognitive development which translates into all the elements of human endeavor, including “evolution”. These fundamental

Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation…Page 3

principles provide the foundation which Piaget’s successors have based an entire universe of hypotheses upon in order to fruitlessly establish a causative relation between Darwin’s “natural selection” and evolution of species. It is also noteworthy that Darwin never mentioned “evolution” in his “On the Origin of Species”. The clear evidence of a relationship between stages of cultural and environmental adaptation, and Piaget’s stages of cognitive development is little more than the logic of realizing that cultures are composed of collections of individuals who have acquired common behaviors in a recognizable fashion. These behavioral characteristics have been, and continue to be described and classified within the ‘holy trinity of Psychology’; essentially the ID, Ego, and Superego or near infinite variations thereof. The same principles of cognitive and “evolutionary” development which produce the multitude of behavioral variations apply to individuals as well as collections of individuals (Piaget, 1970, p. 26).

Numerous psychologists have noted the correlation between Piaget’s Cognitive Development in children, as it applies in various cultures, and extended this correlation to the development of cultures in and of themselves. The consensus appears to be that there is universality in the fashion in which human development is anthropomorphized to be aptly applied in most all human activities. (Piaget, 1951, p. 173) The self-regulating capacity, expressed within the constraints of chromosomal pairings in the human genome, has endowed our species with extensive capabilities and capacities which transcend all other species. Despite the accepted dogma, the human genome has remained essentially constant for tens of thousands of years, only relatively recently has our species discovered and incompletely mapped the functions of human DNA. Indeed, it is difficult to comprehend how human or other organisms might modify the number or composition of chromosomal pairs which define the parameters of genetic expression. Genetic expression which define the scope of adaptive behaviors and ensure the survival of human beings.

Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation…Page 4

The vast variety and characteristics of organisms living on this planet, and the still incomplete identification of differentiated varieties even within genera and species, is quite extraordinary. The uncounted genera varieties of dogs, cats, birds, fish, reptiles, and even human beings, at least demonstrate the possibility that “evolution” may have a component consisting of a multitude of coexistent varieties of the same genome. In view of the evident simultaneous existence of such a multitude of variations it begs the resolution of two questions. Is there a limit to how many varieties may develop and coexist within a specific genome? Did these near-infinite varieties of genera, species, and sub-species “evolve” to adapt to a changing environment, or are they simply the survivors of Punctuated Extinctions? Extinctions which have eliminated or depleted species variations which were excessively dependent upon a too narrow window of traits to ensure survival in all environments. Do species and subspecies which are unable to autoregulate themselves or their environment simply cease to exist when they no longer have the capacity to autoregulate within environmental constraints? These are the questions which may be resolved through Punctuated Extinction rather than Evolution.

The goal of this dissertation is to correlate the factors which lead to the misinterpretation of “On the Origin of Species”, which may have been more suitably named “On Genetic Expression of Species Differentiation”, as “evolution”; the autoregulation which define behaviors maximizing adaptive suitability; and how Punctuated Extinctions have established the process of elimination leading to existence of contemporary genera.

Piaget’s Foundation for Autoregulation as a Dynamic Mechanism for Adaptation

The central theme of Piaget’s theories concerning autoregulation focus upon the human capacity for cognitive development of knowledge and the ability to communicate that knowledge to each other and to posterity. Piaget suggested that “knowledge is not a copy of the environment but a system of real interactions reflecting the autoregulatory organization of life…” (Piaget, 1971,

Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation…Page 5

p. 27). He had a firm understanding and grasp of the essence of human beings which enable them to employ their cognitive capacities to acquire and transmit knowledge. However, the acquisition and transmission of knowledge, alone, is insufficient to ensure survival of the comprehensive diversity of our species or any other.

Mankind needed a structure and authority to govern how acquired knowledge and “dominion” should be managed to avoid abuse. There has been much debate over the spiritual component of the human psyche, but the Holy Scriptures have served as a guide and inspiration for human epistemological and moral conduct for millennia. “Then God said, ‘Let us make [a] man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth’” (Moses, 1989).

After Piaget’s encounter with the writings of Bergson, while yet a teenager, his perspectives regarding knowledge, or epistemology, underwent a major evolution. In the subsequent pursuit of knowledge as being biological, he established an understanding of human beings as being the divine manifestation of the very essence of God, inasmuch as the balance of the universe was embodied in the balance within humanity. This was the occasion which he described as the event of reconciling biology with epistemology and the recognition of the human body’s capacity for automatically maintaining homeostasis, or equilibrium, between internal metabolic functions and external influences; the same autoregulation which governed the physical and metaphysical elements of the universe itself (Chapman, 1988, p. 24)

Human beings were continually subjected to environmental changes which necessitate physical adjustments to maintain autonomic functions in response to external changes. With the revelation of Piaget’s guiding hypothesis, he was able to conceptualize Psychology as being the component of science which provided the link between the physiological elements of the human

Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation…Page 6

condition with human behavior. Through Psychology Piaget was able to explain how internal components of the human body could translate the functions which integrated perceptions with behaviors and produced knowing, or the awareness of these functions. This autoregulating symbiotic relationship between behavioral sciences and biological sciences, physical and metaphysical, was the cornerstone for explanation and understanding of knowledge itself. Knowledge being a summation of awareness of all behaviors employed in the automatic components of the human body.

After formulating his hypothesis, Piaget set out to explain and elaborate upon the manifestation of autoregulation. He addressed the fashion in which organs in the human body were able to provide the fundamental element of preserving equilibrium despite frequent changes and exchanges in and with the environment. “Cognitive processes seem, then, to be at one and the same time the outcome of organic autoregulation, reflecting its essential mechanisms, and the most highly differentiated organs of this regulation” (Piaget, Biology and Knowledge: An Essay on the Relations Between, 1971, p. 26). It was clear, by this statement, that Piaget was aware of the capacity of organs to both be the source of both cause and effect internally. He also was aware of knowledge as being the outcome of these biological functions such that it is not a duplication of autoregulation, but something separate and distinct (Piaget, Biology and Knowledge: An Essay on the Relations Between, 1971, p. 27).

As long as the global environment remains relatively stable, as it has since the last mass extinction, it is likely that human and other species will remain relatively stable. Thus, without going into an extensive analysis of Piaget’s understanding of the acquisition and application of knowledge as a means of ensuring environmental and autonomic biological balance, it is sufficient to observe that mankind has employed his cognitive and epistemological capacities to adapt his environment to nearly any conceivable condition. The human species has demonstrate the ability

Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation…Page 7

to produce a survivable environment in environments from the depths of the oceans to other planets – on a semi-permanent basis, notwithstanding a catastrophic and permanent “punctuated” destruction of a permanent compatible environment.

Piaget’s Approach to “Accepted” Evolution and Cybernetics

Affective life and cognitive life, then are inseparable although distinct. They are inseparable because all interaction with the environment involves both a structuring and a valuation” (Piaget, 1951, p. 6)

Acknowledging that behavioral and environmental changes are intimately interconnected does not diminish the role of behavior in evolution, but instead emphasizes the need to understand sources of behavioral change in order to evaluate the relative importance of behavioral and environmental changes in driving or inhibiting evolution. Piaget considered cognitive functions and the methods in which organs of autoregulation control all exchanges underlying behavior indispensable in understanding the process of evolution (Piaget, 1971, p. 26). Employing the definition of ‘feedback’ or a ‘feedback-loop’ as generally referring to the returning of some aspect of the output of a system, as information or energy, which is reintroduced as though it were input in order to function as a means of self-regulatory correction or control (Richardson, 2000, p. 12), Dr. Richardson evaluates the indispensability of this element in the cybernetic theory of biological evolutionary processes. Although a good case is made to refute the Natural Selection element of Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution, it would appear that the ‘feedback’ element, alone, is insufficient for application as an indispensable element of evolutionary theory. The case is also substantiated to refute the Weismann Barrier concept of hereditary information moving only from genes to body cells.

Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation…Page 8

Rather than viewing “evolutionary” changes in organisms as self-initiated genetic modifications, is it possible that various species may possess the capacity for symbiotic survival? There are components of the human body which are essentially independent of the host organism, such as parasitic organisms which may aid human resistance to morbidity. (Velasquez-Manoff, 2008). There has been research conducted by gastroenterologist, Joel Weinstock, regarding the symbiotic benefits of parasitic organisms which assist human beings in resisting pathology or enhancing autonomic stability; autoimmunity. If human beings are able to develop symbiotic relationships with parasitic organisms, there is the possibility that other organisms may do so also, and that these symbiotic relationships may have intergenerational effects in the expression of genetic and epigenetic traits affecting “evolution”. Notwithstanding recognition that symbiotic relationships and subsequent genetic expression do not constitute the “creation” or “evolution” of any new or modified genomes for either host or dependency.

It is entirely possible evidence which may substantiate or correlate an “evolutionary” model in which ‘feedback’ is invariably necessary exists, but was not discerned at the time of this writing. However, inasmuch as ‘feedback’ mechanisms are believed to provide the information or energy for self-regulatory correction, it would only be relevant if it were sufficient to avoid species extinction. If it were insufficient to prevent species extinction, then it would be essentially little more than biological ‘feedback’ necessary for self-regulatory mechanisms within the organism. The self-regulatory nature of the cybernetic approach to evolution is well supported, and the “Evolution of Evolution” is a process which is clearly demonstrated by the “Theory in Progress”. There seem to be areas of ‘feedback’ and genetic exchanges which compel the questioning of the immutability of “evolution”, rather than Punctuated Extinctions, as being the fundamental element of the origin or survival of species.

Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation…Page 9

Punctuated Equilibriums: The Flip Side of Punctuated Extinctions

The essence of the debate concerning the origin of species has essentially been focused upon two fundamental propositions; either evolution is the result of gradual adaptation or sudden and dramatic extinctions. Both of these imply or compel subscription to the belief that organisms adapt themselves to their environment – self-modify. The difficulty with this concept is that there is little, if any, evidence that human beings or other species retain the capacity to redesign the genetic code which defines the parameters of adaptability. However, there is a growing element of scientific evidence to suggest that it is insufficient to believe that all adaptive change in species or organisms is derived from a single source or agency, so a reasonable and prudent person would easily fabricate methods of falsifying hypothesis which rely upon limited options. “New theories such as punctuated equilibrium reintroduced an element of discontinuity, and there was evidence that mass extinctions form genuine discontinuities in the history of life” (Peter J. Bowler, 2009, p. 347).

Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould first advanced the theory of punctuated equilibriums in 1972, when they suggested that gradualism did not account for Darwinian dogma of “gradualism”. Darwinian “gradualism” necessitates the belief that “new species arise from the slow and steady transformation of entire populations. Under its influence, we seek unbroken fossil series linking two forms by insensible gradation as the only complete mirror of Darwinian processes; we ascribe all breaks to imperfections in the record.” (Eldredge, 1972, p. 84) Eldredge and Gould, on the other hand, suggest that there are rare catastrophic events which produce total disruption of existing speciation in such a fashion as to produce mass extinctions.

One of the enduring qualities of Piaget’s cognitive theories was the fundamental principles upon which he based his developmental model. Regardless of the ultimate falsification, or failure to falsify, the research and conclusions of Piaget or his predecessors, Lamarck and Darwin, the foundations for scientific explanation of individual and cultural human development and behavior

Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation…Page 10

have been firmly and inescapably established. Just as Darwin expanded upon, and constructed his hypothesis upon the works of Lamarck, Piaget has constructed and expanded their works so future students of Psychology and human behavior will construct theorization based upon his conclusions.

“Cybernetics”, by definition “the study of control and communication in the animal and the machine” (Wiener, 1948, 1961, 1965, p. i), can reasonably be considered the next “evolutionary” step in the collective development of mankind. The evidence and hypothesis submitted by Piaget leads us to reasonably conclude the next level of human development is “cybernetics”. “…[W]e can henceforth think of the three main currents in evolutionary thinking as Lamarckism, neo-Darwinism, and the new ideas emerging from cybernetics” (Piaget, 1971, pp. 26, 122). Once the systems and processes of cognitive and epistemological development in human beings have been established, the principle which ensures organic continuity in opposition to natural forces of inevitable extinction naturally progress from maintaining individual systemic
stability to maintaining collective systemic stability.

The essence of Piaget’s cybernetic approach to evolution is the autoregulatory theme of his developmental processes and systems. The autoregulatory function appears to be a fundamental cosmic phenomenon applicable to organisms as well as the material components of the universe itself. The balances which keep stars, planets, and continents from catastrophic chaos also allow organisms to continue production and reproduction processes so long as they have the capacity to preserve their autonomic harmony (balance) with their environment. Of course there are other processes which allow and facilitate this cosmic harmony, but they are the subsystems which manifest the maintenance of the cybernetic processes.

There is a fundamental phenomenon which distinguishes various elements of the known universe from other elements, and that is their behavior. Ancient philosophers speculated about

Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation…Page 11

cosmic motion as being the essence of existence and everything was at some stage of motion; slower or faster, closer or further, which led to Zeno’s paradox of infinite divisibility. Although philosophic deliberation is not the point of this dissertation, it does serve as empiric factors of motion as it affects and is affected by behavior. Piaget considered behavior to be a fundamental element of “evolution” as applied to natural selection. “Sometimes behavior is viewed as causal in relation to evolution, sometimes as determined by it” (Piaget, 1975). There can be no dispute of the primal importance of behavior in autoregulatory function, for it is imperative that an organism or person be able to avoid existential threats, or modify themselves or their environment to minimize existential threats.

An organism’s ability to respond to, or modify itself or its environment, requires a feedback mechanism. “This ‘feedback’ or circularity in a relation between an animal and its environment is rather generally neglected in present-day evolutionary theorizing” (Waddington, 1975). Although Corning (Corning, 1983) proposes “…It was Lamarck who first proposed that changes in habits-that is, in acquired behavior-were a major cause of evolutionary change”, it has since become clear that natural selection does not simply occur randomly, but is the result of several factors which are believed to rely upon some means of behavioral feedback. Thus, because the Darwinian concepts of evolution relied heavily upon natural selection which lacked an explanation other than ‘random’ occurrences, it has largely become obsolescent. An explanation for evolution which incorporates Punctuated Equilibriums, or catastrophic events which suddenly and decisively thrust incompatible or unadaptable organisms into extinction, emerge to explain sudden massive species extinctions.

Although there is no evidence available, at this writing, that there has been research conducted to apply Piagetian stages of development specifically to scientific endeavor, it would seem reasonable to believe there is a structured and progressive development process in effect in

Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation…Page 12

how scientific knowledge is developed. Such a hypothesis may be explored at some point in the future, but for now it is reasonable to assume that science has developed to a formal and postformal operations stage that recognizes abstract realities and the need to explore new methodologies to explore these elements. Present scientific consensus recognize the fact that there are processes which dictate factors which preclude ‘random’ organic selection of the ‘fittest’, and mandate consideration of factors of which we are presently unaware. There is growing evidence that genetic assimilation may comprise a primary determinant of organic selection. Understanding of precisely how genetic assimilation factors into organic selection are not completely understood at this point in time. It seems reasonable to believe there are feedback
mechanisms which affect the development of species-specific genomes, including that of human beings.

There is scientific evidence that the human genome is composed of 23 chromosome pairs which establish the physiological parameters within which a human being is capable of adapting to, and modifying, their environment. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of precisely how chromosome pairs are naturally added to, or subtracted from a genome to determine species variations. What is believed, at this point in time, is that the genes which comprise the genome are triggered or suppressed by environmental and physiological changes. There seems to be evidence that genetic proclivities may be modified and triggered by life experiences and subsequently transmitted to offspring, but always within the constraints of the 23 chromosome pairs. There appears to be no evidence of viral or environmental phenomena which will add to or subtract from the 23 chromosome pairs.

Now that human beings have acquired the ability to modify genes to activate or inhibit genetic expression, it may be only a matter of time before it becomes possible to add or subtract chromosome pairs. However, until such time, it is clear that Piaget’s cybernetic hypothesis is a

Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation…Page 13

valid component of evolution which precludes punctuated equilibriums like cosmic, disease, manmade artificial or other catastrophic events.

Summary: Evolution of “Punctuated Extinctions”

Mankind is indisputably a unique organism in the known universe and has firmly established humanity as the dominant form of life in the perceived cosmos. Piaget’s research established a firm foundation for explaining the biological relationship between cognitive and epistemological functions of the brain, the essential functions of which distinguish human beings from other species. All of what we know and think hinges upon our perceptions and our ability to construct neural networks which allow retention, interpretation, and recall of processes and procedures which enable us to autoregulate our autonomic functions within nearly every conceivable environment. Not only are humans capable of applying these perceptive and constructive abilities to preserve homeostasis for ourselves, but for our posterity!

The recurrent question which has motivated human acquisition of knowledge is “why”? The capacity to simply seek an explanation or understanding of cause and effect, in conjunction with the ability to communicate through verbal and written language, has endowed us with an acquisition of knowledge and supporting empiric data to permit understanding and explanation of virtually anything we perceive. This entire vast warehouse of information is in terms which may be interpreted by our senses and perceptions. Anything and nearly everything which exists outside the limits of our perceptions remains an unchartered territory which may remain forever locked away from us for want of being unable to even conceive of what may exist beyond our ability to conceive. And the single most troubling element of our vast accumulations of knowledge is the nominal knowledge we have of our own abilities to survive and adapt to our environment by virtue of the processes which are operating twenty-four hours a day, every day of our lives.

Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation…Page 14

What we know is that our brains are the engine and the engineer of our thoughts and behaviors. The processes which allow us to perceive and interpret our surroundings and maintain homeostasis are the same processes which limit those functions to anthropomorphizing everything we know. The first binary interpretations of our minds are limited to perceiving everything as good or bad, beginning and ending, and all within the scope of our perceptions of time and space. Is that
all there is? That remains a question which remains to be determined by future events and hypothesizing. We know, however, that we exist, and there is a structure of cognitive development which permits us to “evolve” through the entire conceptual “evolution” of mankind beginning at conception and ending with death. The simple fact is that the entire process of transitioning through our entire epistemological and biological “evolution” is essentially a process of discovering what
already existed, but we lacked the capability of interpretation.

Just as the genes within the human genome are expressed or suppressed in response to environmental or organic changes, so also have we made “discoveries” based upon preceding knowledge and environmental changes. The genes have always been locked into our genome, providing the potential and parameters for expression or suppression. The cosmos, whether known or unknown, have always existed providing the opportunity for illumination or “discovery” as our collective knowledge expanded. Ken Wilber expresses his interpretation of the universe in terms of states of consciousness and stages of development expressed through his Integral Psychograph (AQAL: All Quadrants All Levels) interpretation of everything, based upon his proposition that “everything” lies within some area of his Ego (Individual) quadrants of “I” and “We” or Eco (Collective) quadrants of “It” and “It’s” (Ken Wilber, 2001, p. 53). The existence and consciousness of humanity is based upon cosmic conditions which, for the most part, defy logical explanation such as the “Goldilocks Zone” our planet occupies in the solar system; the existence of our moon which controls or affects a multitude of events and conditions on earth, the likelihood

Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation…Page 15

of biological and environmental conditions which would be compatible to human beings, etc. ad infinitum.

In conclusion, Human beings are on the earth in essentially the same genetic condition as they were in when they originated; from whatever source. Due to the inability to scientifically account for any other explanation of how genera and genomes originated. It is equally valid to ascertain that the respective genera and genomes were created by an “intelligent designer”. Human beings have adapted to their environment largely within the same genetic constraints which apply
to other species. Countless species have existed and become extinct since the origin of human beings with extinction being the imminent outcome of all organisms. All species are subject to extinction under punctuated equilibriums, and if human beings do not further develop and express their genetic potential to exist in a broad diversity of environments, they too will experience Punctuated Extinction.

Evolution: Punctuated Genome Experimentation…Page 16

Works Cited

Chapman, M. (1988). Constructive Evolution: Origins and Development of Piaget’s Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Corning, P. A. (1983). The Synergism Hypothesis: A Theory of Progressive Evolution. London: Frederick Muller, LTD.

Eldredge, N. a. (1972). Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. Models in Paleobiology, 82‐115.

Everything, A. T. (2001). Ken Wilber. Boston, Massachusetts: Shambhala Publications, Inc.

Idea, E. T. (2009). Peter J. Bowler. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Moses, I. J. (1989). Holy Scriptures: New Revised Standard Version. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Piaget, J. (1951). The Psychology of Intelligence ([La psychologie de l’intelligence (1947) ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York: Basic Books.

Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and Knowledge: An Essay on the Relations Between. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Richardson, D. G. (2000). The Evolution of Evolution: A Theory in Progress. 1‐16.

Sagan, L. M. (2002). Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species. New York, New York: Basic Books.

Velasquez‐Manoff, M. (2008, June 29). The Worm Turns. Retrieved March 19, 2014, from New York Times ‐ Idea Lab: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29wwln‐essay‐t.html?_r=0

Waddington, C. H. (1975). The Evolution of an Evolutionist. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Wiener, N. (1948, 1961, 1965). Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Redux for Antisemitism and A Jewish Boycott

Hopefully this message will cause a light bulb to go off in the minds of those who previously lacked enough info to make a fair judgment.

A short time ago, Iran’s Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged the Muslim World to boycott anything and everything that originates with the Jewish people.

In response, Meyer M. Treinkman, a pharmacist, out of the kindness of his heart, offered to assist them in their boycott as follows:

Any Muslim who has Syphilis must not be cured by Salvarsan discovered by a Jew, Dr. Ehrlich. He should not even try to find out whether he has Syphilis, because the Wasserman Test is the discovery of a Jew. If a Muslim suspects that he has Gonorrhea, he must not seek diagnosis, because he will be using the method of a Jew named Neissner.

A Muslim who has heart disease must not use Digitalis, a discovery by a Jew, Ludwig Traube.

Should he suffer with a toothache, he must not use Novocaine, a discovery of the Jews, Widal and Weil.

If a Muslim has Diabetes, he must not use Insulin, the result of research by Minkowsky, a Jew. If one has a headache, he must shun Pyramidon and Antypyrin, due to the Jews, Spiro and Ellege.

Muslims with convulsions must put up with them because it was a Jew, Oscar Leibreich, who proposed the use of Chloral Hydrate.

Arabs must do likewise with their psychic ailments because Freud, father of psychoanalysis, was a Jew.

Should a Muslim child get Diphtheria, he must refrain from the “Schick” reaction which was invented by the Jew, Bella Schick.

Muslims should be ready to die in great numbers and must not permit treatment of ear and brain damage, work of Jewish Nobel Prize winner, Robert Baram.

They should continue to die or remain crippled by Infantile Paralysis because the discoverer of the anti-polio vaccine is a Jew, Jonas Salk.

Muslims must refuse to use Streptomycin and continue to die of Tuberculosis because a Jew, Zalman Waxman, invented the wonder drug against this killing disease.

Muslim doctors must discard all discoveries and improvements by dermatologist Judas Sehn Benedict, or the lung specialist, Frawnkel, and of many other world renowned Jewish scientists and medical experts.

“In short, good and loyal Muslims properly and fittingly should remain afflicted with Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Heart Disease, Headaches, Typhus, Diabetes, Mental Disorders, Polio Convulsions and Tuberculosis and be proud to obey the Islamic boycott.”

Oh, and by the way, don’t call for a doctor on your cell phone because the cell phone was invented in Israel by a Jewish engineer.

Meanwhile I ask, what medical contributions to the world have the Muslims made?

The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world’s population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:
1988 – Najib Mahfooz

Peace:
1978 – Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1990 – Elias James Corey
1994 – Yaser Arafat:
1999 – Ahmed Zewai

Economics:
(zero)

Physics:
(zero)

Medicine:
1960 – Peter Brian Medawar
1998 – Ferid Mourad

TOTAL: 7 SEVEN

The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is FOURTEEN MILLION or about 0.02% of the world’s population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:
1910 – Paul Heyse
1927 – Henri Bergson
1958 – Boris Pasternak
1966 – Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 – Nelly Sachs
1976 – Saul Bellow
1978 – Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 – Elias Canetti
1987 – Joseph Brodsky
1991 – Nadine Gordimer World

Peace:
1911 – Alfred Fried
1911 – Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 – Rene Cassin
1973 – Henry Kissinger
1978 – Menachem Begin
1986 – Elie Wiesel
1994 – Shimon Peres
1994 – Yitzhak Rabin

Physics:
1905 – Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 – Henri Moissan
1907 – Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 – Gabriel Lippmann
1910 – Otto Wallach
1915 – Richard Willstaetter
1918 – Fritz Haber
1921 – Albert Einstein
1922 – Niels Bohr
1925 – James Franck
1925 – Gustav Hertz
1943 – Gustav Stern
1943 – George Charles de Hevesy
1944 – Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 – Felix Bloch
1954 – Max Born
1958 – Igor Tamm
1959 – Emilio Segre
1960 – Donald A. Glaser
1961 – Robert Hofstadter
1961 – Melvin Calvin
1962 – Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 – Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 – Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 – Julian Schwinger
1969 – Murray Gell-Mann
1971 – Dennis Gabor
1972 – William Howard Stein
1973 – Brian David Josephson
1975 – Benjamin Mottleson
1976 – Burton Richter
1977 – Ilya Prigogine
1978 – Arno Allan Penzias
1978 – Peter L Kapitza
1979 – Stephen Weinberg
1979 – Sheldon Glashow
1979 – Herbert Charles Brown
1980 – Paul Berg
1980 – Walter Gilbert
1981 – Roald Hoffmann
1982 – Aaron Klug
1985 – Albert A. Hauptman
1985 – Jerome Karle
1986 – Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 – Robert Huber
1988 – Leon Lederman
1988 – Melvin Schwartz
1988 – Jack Steinberger
1989 – Sidney Altman
1990 – Jerome Friedman
1992 – Rudolph Marcus
1995 – Martin Perl
2000 – Alan J. Heeger

Economics:
1970 – Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 – Simon Kuznets
1972 – Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 – Leonid Kantorovich
1976 – Milton Friedman
1978 – Herbert A. Simon
1980 – Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 – Franco Modigliani
1987 – Robert M. Solow
1990 – Harry Markowitz
1990 – Merton Miller
1992 – Gary Becker
1993 – Robert Fogel

Medicine:
1908 – Elie Metchnikoff
1908 – Paul Erlich
1914 – Robert Barany
1922 – Otto Meyerhof
1930 – Karl Landsteiner
1931 – Otto Warburg
1936 – Otto Loewi
1944 – Joseph Erlanger
1944 – Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 – Ernst Boris Chain
1946 – Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 – Tadeus Reichstein
1952 – Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 – Hans Krebs
1953 – Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 – Joshua Lederberg
1959 – Arthur Kornberg
1964 – Konrad Bloch
1965 – Francois Jacob
1965 – Andre Lwoff
1967 – George Wald
1968 – Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 – Salvador Luria
1970 – Julius Axelrod
1970 – Sir Bernard Katz
1972 – Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 – Howard Martin Temin
1976 – Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 – Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 – Daniel Nathans
1980 – Baruj Benacerraf
1984 – Cesar Milstein
1985 – Michael Stuart Brown
1985 – Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 – Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 – Gertrude Elion
1989 – Harold Varmus
1991 – Erwin Neher
1991 – Bert Sakmann
1993 – Richard J. Roberts
1993 – Phillip Sharp
1994 – Alfred Gilman
1995 – Edward B. Lewis
1996- Lu RoseIacovino

TOTAL: 129!

The Jews are NOT promoting brainwashing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non-Muslims.

The Jews don’t hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants.

There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church.

There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people. The Jews don’t traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

——————————————-

Perhaps the world’s Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.

Muslims must ask ‘what can they do for humankind’ before they demand that humankind respects them.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel ‘s part, the following two sentences really say it all:

“If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.”

Benjamin Netanyahu: General Eisenhower warned us. It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.

He did this because he said in words to this effect: ‘Get it all on record now – get the films – get the witnesses – because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened’

Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it ‘offends’ the Muslim population which claims it never occurred.

It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.

It is now more than 69 it will be 70 this May years after the Second World War in Europe ended.

Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be ‘a myth,’ it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center ‘NEVER HAPPENED’ because it may offend some Muslim in the United States?

Evolution Versus Punctuated Extinction: A Developing Thesis

Evolution Versus Punctuated Extinction…Page 1

Running head: EVOLUTION VERSUS PUNCTUATED EXTINCTION

Evolution Versus Punctuated Extinction
Binary Cognitive Interpretation
James G. Needham
Psy 410 – Cognitive Development
Portland State University

Evolution Versus Punctuated Extinction…Page 2

A Preface to a Paradigm Shift

“Life is essentially autoregulation” (Piaget, 1970, p. 26)– Piaget’s Guiding Hypothesis.

The autoregulation which Piaget references in his stages of cognitive development is the means of ensuring rhythms, regulations, and operations which ensure both the development of the individual and the adaptation of the individual. Piaget has developed a paradigm for human cognitive development which translates into all the elements of human endeavor. These fundamental principles provide the foundation which Piaget’s successors have based an entire universe of hypotheses upon. The clear evidence of a relationship between stages of cultural development and Piaget’s stages of cognitive development is little more than the logic of realizing that cultures are composed of collections of individuals, and the same principles of cognitive development which applies to individuals would apply to collections of individuals.

Numerous psychologists have noted the correlation between Piaget’s Cognitive Development in children, as it applies in various cultures, and extended this correlation to the development of cultures in and of themselves. The consensus appears to be that there is universality in the fashion in which human development is anthropomorphized to be aptly applied in most all human activities. (Piaget, The Psychology of Intelligence, 1951, p. 173) The self-regulating capacity, expressed within the constraints of chromosomal pairings in the human genome, has endowed our species with extensive capabilities and capacities which transcend all other species. Despite the accepted fact the human genome has remained essentially constant for tens of thousands of years, only relatively recently has our species discovered and incompletely mapped the functions of human DNA. Indeed, it is difficult to comprehend how human or other organisms might modify the number or composition of chromosomal pairs which supply the parameters of genetic expression in adaptation.

Evolution Versus Punctuated Extinction…Page 3

The vast variety and characteristics of organisms living on this planet, and the still incomplete identification of differentiated varieties even within species, is quite extraordinary. The uncounted varieties of dogs, cats, birds, fish, reptiles, and even the wide variety of human beings, at least demonstrate the possibility that evolution may have a component composed of a multitude of coexistent varieties. In view of the evident simultaneous existence of such a multitude of variations, it begs the resolution of two questions. Is there a limit to how many varieties may develop and coexist within a species? Did these near-infinite varieties of species and sub-species “evolve” to adapt to a changing environment, or are they simply the survivors of Punctuated Extinctions which have eliminated species variations which are excessively dependent upon a too narrow window of survivability. Do species and subspecies which are unable to autoregulate themselves or their environment simply cease to exist when they no longer have the capacity to autoregulate within environmental constraints? These are the questions which may be resolved through Punctuated Extinction rather than Evolution.

Piaget’s Foundation for Autoregulation as a Dynamic Mechanism for Adaptation

The central theme of Piaget’s theories concerning autoregulation focus upon the human capacity for cognitive development of knowledge and the ability to communicate that knowledge to each other and to posterity. Piaget suggested that “knowledge is not a copy of the environment but a system of real interactions reflecting the autoregulatory organization of life…” (Piaget, Biology and Knowledge: An Essay on the Relations Between, 1971, p. 27). He had a firm understanding and grasp of the essence of human beings which enable them to employ their
cognitive capacities to acquire and transmit knowledge. However, the acquisition and transmission of knowledge, alone, is insufficient to ensure survival of the comprehensive diversity of our species or any other.

Evolution Versus Punctuated Extinction…Page 4

Mankind needed a structure and authority to govern how acquired knowledge and “dominion” should be managed to avoid abuse. There has been much debate over the spiritual component of the human psyche, but the Holy Scriptures have served as a guide and inspiration for human epistemological and moral conduct for millennia. “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth’” (Holy Scriptures: New Revised Standard Version, 1989).

After Piaget’s encounter with the writings of Bergson, while yet a teenager, his perspectives regarding knowledge, or epistemology, underwent a major evolution. In the subsequent pursuit of knowledge as being biological, he established an understanding of human beings as being the divine manifestation of the very essence of God, inasmuch as the balance of the universe was embodied in the balance within humanity. This was the occasion which he described as the event of reconciling biology with epistemology and the recognition of the human body’s capacity for automatically maintaining homeostasis, or equilibrium, between internal metabolic functions and external influences; the same autoregulation which governed the physical and metaphysical elements of the universe itself (Constructive Evolution: Origins and Development of Piaget’s Thought, 1988, p. 24)

Human beings were continually subjected to environmental changes which necessitate physical adjustments to maintain autonomic functions in response to external changes. With the revelation of Piaget’s guiding hypothesis, he was able to conceptualize Psychology as being the component of science which provided the link between the physiological elements of the human condition with human behavior. Through Psychology, Piaget was able to explain how internal components of the human body could translate the functions which integrated perceptions with

Evolution Versus Punctuated Extinction…Page 5

behaviors and produced knowing, or the awareness of these functions. This autoregulating symbiotic relationship between behavioral sciences and biological sciences, physical and metaphysical, was the cornerstone for explanation and understanding of knowledge itself. Knowledge being a summation of awareness of all behaviors employed in the automatic components of the human body.

After formulating his hypothesis, Piaget set out to explain and elaborate upon the manifestation of autoregulation. He addressed the fashion in which organs in the human body were able to provide the fundamental element of preserving equilibrium despite frequent changes and exchanges in and with the environment. “Cognitive processes seem, then, to be at one and the same time the outcome of organic autoregulation, reflecting its essential mechanisms, and the most highly differentiated organs of this regulation” (Piaget, Biology and Knowledge: An Essay on the Relations Between, 1971, p. 26). It was clear, by this statement, that Piaget was aware of the capacity of organs to both be the source of both cause and effect internally. He also was aware of knowledge as being the outcome of these biological functions such that it is not a duplication of autoregulation, but something separate and distinct (Piaget, Biology and Knowledge: An Essay on the Relations Between, 1971, p. 27).

As long as the global environment remains relatively stable, as it has since the last mass extinction, it is likely that human and other species will remain relatively stable. Thus, without going into an extensive analysis of Piaget’s understanding of the acquisition and application of knowledge as a means of ensuring environmental and autonomic biological balance, it is sufficient to observe that mankind has employed his cognitive and epistemological capacities to adapt his environment to nearly any conceivable condition. The human species has demonstrated the ability to produce a survivable environment in environments from the depths of the oceans to

Evolution Versus Punctuated Extinction…Page 6

other planets – on a semi-permanent basis, notwithstanding a catastrophic and permanent “punctuated” destruction of a permanent compatible environment.

Piaget’s Approach to “Accepted” Evolution and Cybernetics

“Affective life and cognitive life, then are inseparable although distinct. They are inseparable because all interaction with the environment involves both a structuring and a valuation” (Piaget, The Psychology of Intelligence, 1951, p. 6)

Acknowledging that behavioral and environmental changes are intimately interconnected does not diminish the role of behavior in evolution, but instead emphasizes the need to understand sources of behavioral change in order to evaluate the relative importance of behavioral and environmental changes in driving or inhibiting evolution. Piaget considered cognitive functions and the methods in which organs of autoregulation control all exchanges underlying behavior indispensable in understanding the process of evolution (Piaget, Biology and Knowledge: An Essay on the Relations Between, 1971, p. 26). Employing the definition of ‘feedback’ or a ‘feedback-loop’ as generally referring to the returning of some aspect of the output of a system, as information or energy, which is reintroduced as though it were input in order to function as a means of self-regulatory correction or control (Richardson, 2000, p. 12), Dr. Richardson evaluates the indispensability of this element in the cybernetic theory of biological evolutionary processes. Although a good case is made to refute the Natural Selection element of Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution, it would appear that the ‘feedback’ element, alone, is insufficient for application as an indispensable element of evolutionary theory. The case is also substantiated to refute the Weismann Barrier concept of hereditary information moving only from genes to body cells.

Evolution Versus Punctuated Extinction…Page 7

Rather than viewing “evolutionary” changes in organisms as self-initiated genetic modifications, is it possible that various species may possess the capacity for symbiotic survival? There are components of the human body which are essentially independent of the host organism, such as parasitic organisms which may aid human resistance to morbidity. (Velasquez- Manoff, 2008). There has been research conducted by gastroenterologist, Joel Weinstock, regarding the symbiotic benefits of parasitic organisms which assist human beings in resisting pathology or enhancing autonomic stability; autoimmunity. If human beings are able to develop symbiotic relationships with parasitic organisms, there is the possibility that other organisms may do so also, and that these symbiotic relationships may have intergenerational effects in the expression of genetic traits affecting “evolution”.

It is entirely possible that evidence which may substantiate or correlate an evolutionary model in which ‘feedback’ is, invariably necessary exists, but was not discerned at the time of this writing. However, inasmuch as ‘feedback’ mechanisms are believed to provide the information or energy for self-regulatory correction, it would only be relevant if it were sufficient to avoid the result in species extinction. If it were insufficient to prevent species extinction, then it would be essentially little more than biological ‘feedback’ necessary for selfregulatory mechanisms within the organism. The self-regulatory nature of the cybernetic approach to evolution is well supported, and the “Evolution of Evolution” is a process which is clearly demonstrated by the “Theory in Progress”. There seem to be areas of ‘feedback’ and genetic exchanges which compel the questioning of the immutability of “evolution”, rather than Punctuated Extinctions, as being the fundamental element of the origin or survival of species.

Punctuated Equilibriums: The Flip Side of Punctuated Extinctions

The essence of the debate concerning the origin of species has essentially been focused upon two fundamental propositions; either evolution is the result of gradual adaptation or sudden

Evolution Versus Punctuated Extinction…Page 8

and dramatic extinctions. Both of these imply or compel subscription to the belief that organisms adapt themselves to their environment – self-modify. The difficulty with this concept is that there is little, if any, evidence that human beings or other species retain the capacity to redesign the genetic code which defines the parameters of adaptability. However, there is a growing element of scientific evidence to suggest that it is insufficient to believe that all adaptive change in species or organisms is derived from a single source or agency, so a reasonable and prudent person would easily fabricate methods of falsifying hypothesis which rely upon limited options. “New theories such as punctuated equilibrium reintroduced an element of discontinuity, and there was evidence that mass extinctions form genuine discontinuities in the history of life” (Peter J. Bowler, 2009, p. 347).

Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould first advanced the theory of punctuated equilibriums in 1972, when they suggested that gradualism did not account for Darwinian dogma of “gradualism”. Darwinian “gradualism” necessitates the belief that “new species arise from the slow and steady transformation of entire populations. Under its influence, we seek unbroken fossil series linking two forms by insensible gradation as the only complete mirror of Darwinian processes; we ascribe all breaks to imperfections in the record.” (Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to Phyletic Gradualism, 1972, p. 84) Eldredge and Gould, on the other hand, suggest that there are rare catastrophic events which produce total disruption of existing speciation in such a fashion as to produce mass extinctions.

One of the enduring qualities of Piaget’s cognitive theories was the fundamental principles upon which he based his developmental model. Regardless of the ultimate falsification, or failure to falsify, the research and conclusions of Piaget or his predecessors, Lamarck and Darwin, the foundations for scientific explanation of individual and cultural human development and behavior have been firmly and inescapably established. Just as Darwin

Evolution Versus Punctuated Extinction…Page 9

expanded upon, and constructed his hypothesis upon the works of Lamarck, Piaget has constructed and expanded their works so future students of Psychology and human behavior will construct future theorization based upon his conclusions.

“Cybernetics”, by definition “the study of control and communication in the animal and the machine” (Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, 1948, 1961, 1965, p. i), can reasonably be considered the next “evolutionary” step in the collective development of mankind. The evidence and hypothesis submitted by Piaget leads us to reasonably conclude the next level of human development is “cybernetics”. “…[W]e can henceforth think of the three main currents in evolutionary thinking as Lamarckism, neo-Darwinism, and the new ideas emerging from cybernetics” (Piaget, Biology and Knowledge: An Essay on the Relations Between, 1971, pp. 26, 122). Once the systems and processes of cognitive and epistemological development in human beings have been established, the principle which ensures organic continuity in opposition to natural forces of inevitable extinction naturally progress from maintaining individual systemic stability to maintaining collective systemic stability.

The essence of Piaget’s cybernetic approach to evolution is the autoregulatory theme of his developmental processes and systems. The autoregulatory function appears to be a fundamental cosmic phenomenon applicable to organisms as well as the material components of the universe itself. The balances which keep stars, planets, and continents from catastrophic chaos also allow organisms to continue production and reproduction processes so long as they have the capacity to preserve their autonomic harmony (balance) with their environment. Of course there are other processes which allow and facilitate this cosmic harmony, but they are the subsystems which manifest the maintenance of the cybernetic processes.

Evolution Versus Punctuated Extinction…Page 10

There is a fundamental phenomenon which distinguish various elements of the known universe from other elements, and that is their behavior. Ancient philosophers speculated about cosmic motion as being the essence of existence and everything was at some stage of motion; slower or faster, closer or further, which led to Zeno’s paradox of infinite divisibility. Although philosophic deliberation is not the point of this dissertation, it does serve to empiric factors of motion as it affects and is affected by behavior. Piaget considered behavior to be a fundamental
element of evolution as applied to natural selection. “Sometimes behavior is viewed as causal in relation to evolution, sometimes as determined by it” (Piaget, 1975). There can be no dispute of the primal importance of behavior in autoregulatory function, for it is imperative that an organism or person be able to avoid existential threats, or modify themselves or their environment to minimize existential threats.

An organism’s ability to respond to, or modify itself or its environment, requires a feedback mechanism. “This ‘feedback’ or circularity in a relation between an animal and its environment is rather generally neglected in present-day evolutionary theorizing” (Waddington, 1975). Although Corning (Corning, 1983) proposes “…It was Lamarck who first proposed that changes in habits-that is, in acquired behavior-were a major cause of evolutionary change”, it has since become clear that natural selection does not simply occur randomly, but is the result of
several factors which are believed to rely upon some means of behavioral feedback. Thus, because the Darwinian concepts of evolution relied heavily upon natural selection which lacked an explanation other than ‘random’ occurrences, it has largely become obsolescent. An explanation for evolution which incorporates Punctuated Equilibriums, or catastrophic events which suddenly and decisively thrust incompatible or unadaptable organisms into extinction, emerge to explain sudden massive species extinctions.

Evolution Versus Punctuated Extinction…Page 11

Although there is no evidence available, at this writing, that there has been research conducted to apply Piagetian stages of development specifically to scientific endeavor, it would seem reasonable to believe there is a structured and progressive development process in effect in how scientific knowledge is developed. Such a hypothesis may be explored at some point in the future, but for now it is reasonable to assume that science has developed to a formal and postformal operations stage that recognizes abstract realities and the need to explore new methodologies to explore these elements. Present scientific consensus recognize the fact that there are processes which dictate factors which preclude ‘random’ organic selection of the ‘fittest’, and mandate consideration of factors of which we are presently unaware. There is growing evidence that genetic assimilation may comprise a primary determinant of organic selection. Understanding of precisely how genetic assimilation factors into organic selection are not completely understood at this point in time. It seems reasonable to believe there are feedback mechanisms which affect the development of species-specific genomes, including that of human beings.

There is scientific evidence that the human genome is composed of 23 chromosome pairs which establish the physiological parameters within which a human being is capable of adapting to, and modifying, their environment. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of precisely how chromosome pairs are naturally added to, or subtracted from a genome to determine species variations. What is believed, at this point in time, is that the genes which comprise the genome are triggered or suppressed by environmental and physiological changes. There seems to be evidence that genetic proclivities may be modified and triggered by life experiences and subsequently transmitted to offspring, but always within the constraints of the 23 chromosome pairs. There appears to be no evidence of viral or environmental phenomena which will add to or subtract from the 23 chromosome pairs.

Evolution Versus Punctuated Extinction…Page 12

Now that human beings have acquired the ability to modify genes to activate or inhibit genetic expression, it may be only a matter of time before it becomes possible to add or subtract chromosome pairs. However, until such time, it is clear that Piaget’s cybernetic hypothesis is a valid component of evolution which precludes punctuated equilibriums like cosmic, disease, man-made artificial or other catastrophic events.

Summary: Evolution of “Punctuated Extinctions”

Mankind is indisputably a unique organism in the known universe and has firmly established humanity as the dominant form of life in the perceived cosmos. Piaget’s research established a firm foundation for explaining the biological relationship between cognitive and epistemological functions of the brain, the essential functions of which distinguish human beings from other species. All of what we know and think hinges upon our perceptions and our ability to construct neural networks which allow retention, interpretation, and recall of processes and procedures which enable us to autoregulate our autonomic functions within nearly every conceivable environment. Not only are humans capable of applying these perceptive and constructive abilities to preserve homeostasis for ourselves, but for our posterity!

The eternal question which has motivated human acquisition of knowledge is “why”? The capacity to simply seek an explanation or understanding of cause and effect, in conjunction with the ability to communicate through verbal and written language, has endowed us with an acquisition of knowledge and supporting empiric data to permit understanding and explanation of virtually anything we perceive. This entire vast warehouse of information is in terms which may be interpreted by our senses and perceptions. Anything and nearly everything which exists outside the limits of our perceptions remains an unchartered territory which may remain forever locked away from us for want of being unable to even conceive of what may exist beyond our ability to conceive. And the single most troubling element of our vast accumulations of

Evolution Versus Punctuated Extinction…Page 13

knowledge is the nominal knowledge we have of our own abilities to survive and adapt to our environment by virtue of the processes which are operating twenty-four hours a day, every day of our lives.

What we know is that our brains are the engine and the engineer of our thoughts and behaviors. The processes which allow us to perceive and interpret our surroundings and maintain homeostasis are the same processes which limit those functions to anthropomorphizing everything we know. The first binary interpretations of our minds are limited to perceiving everything as good or bad, beginning and ending, and all within the scope of our perceptions of
time and space. Is that all there is? That remains a question which remains to be determined by future events and hypothesizing. We know, however, that we exist, and there is a structure of cognitive development which permits us to “evolve” through the entire conceptual “evolution” of mankind beginning at conception and ending with death. The simple fact is that the entire process of transitioning through our entire epistemological and biological “evolution” is essentially a process of discovering what already existed, but we lacked the capability of
interpretation.

Just as the genes within the human genome are expressed or suppressed in response to environmental or organic changes, so also have we made “discoveries” based upon preceding knowledge and environmental changes. The genes have always been locked into our genome, providing the potential and parameters for expression or suppression. The cosmos, whether known or unknown, have always existed providing the opportunity for illumination or “discovery” as our collective knowledge expanded. Ken Wilber expresses his interpretation of the universe in terms of states of consciousness and stages of development expressed through his Integral Psychograph (AQAL: All Quadrants All Levels) interpretation of everything, based upon his proposition that “everything” lies within some area of his Ego (Individual) quadrants of

Evolution Versus Punctuated Extinction…Page 14

“I” and “We” or Eco (Collective) quadrants of “It” and “It’s” (Ken Wilber, 2001, p. 53). The existence and consciousness of humanity is based upon cosmic conditions which, for the most part, defy logical explanation such as the “Goldilocks Zone” our planet occupies in the solar system; the existence of our moon which controls or affects a multitude of events and conditions on earth, the likelihood of biological and environmental conditions which would be compatible to human beings, etc. ad infinitum.

In conclusion, Human beings are on the earth in essentially the same genetic condition as they were in when they originated. Human beings have adapted to their environment largely within the same genetic constraints which apply to other species. Countless species have existed and become extinct since the origin of human beings with extinction being the imminent outcome of all organisms. All species are subject to extinction under punctuated equilibriums, and if human beings do not further develop and express their genetic potential to exist in a broad diversity of environments, they too will experience Punctuated Extinction.

Evolution Versus Punctuated Extinction…Page 15

Works Cited
Chapman, M. (1988). Constructive Evolution: Origins and Development of Piaget’s Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corning, P. A. (1983). The Synergism Hypothesis: A Theory of Progressive Evolution. London: Frederick Muller, LTD.
Eldredge, N. a. (1972). Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. Models in Paleobiology, 82‐115.
Everything, A. T. (2001). Ken Wilber. Boston, Massachusetts: Shambhala Publications, Inc.
Idea, E. T. (2009). Peter J. Bowler. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
Moses, I. J. (1989). Holy Scriptures: New Revised Standard Version. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Piaget, J. (1951). The Psychology of Intelligence ([La psychologie de l’intelligence (1947) ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York: Basic Books.
Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and Knowledge: An Essay on the Relations Between. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Richardson, D. G. (2000). The Evolution of Evolution: A Theory in Progress. 1‐16.
Velasquez‐Manoff, M. (2008, June 29). The Worm Turns. Retrieved March 19, 2014, from New York Times ‐ Idea Lab: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29wwln‐essay‐t.html?_r=0
Waddington, C. H. (1975). The Evolution of an Evolutionist. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Wiener, N. (1948, 1961, 1965). Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Post Moral America and the Corporate Ethic

New World OrderPolitical discussions are always deliberation of generalities. Any time such discussions are interpreted as absolutes, there is an inherent element of tunnel-vision. Politics is all about ‘shades of gray’ rather than black and white, and that includes the human characteristic of morality embodied in a “natural person”. A “natural person”, who is a free moral agent, has the God-like capacity to consider a multitude of perspectives and derive a decision based upon their values and concept of good and evil. That is precisely why I’ve continued to emphasize the fact that Capitalism/business, in and of itself, is NOT evil.

Capitalism and competition, like guns and other weapons, when put into the hands of evil people may become instruments of destruction. Even our FAITH in God can become weaponized in the hands of evil people. This has been demonstrated countless times throughout the history of mankind. Like moderation in the “Golden Mean” of the ancient Greek philosophers, few things in and of themselves are evil; until they are taken to extremes.

Recently, in a monologue expressed by Brigette Gabriel in response to an off-topic question regarding Islamic “ideology”, in Benghazi deliberations, it is NOT the majority of moderates who have ever been the perpetrators of history’s most heinous travesties, but the extremist minorities who achieve leadership. The same obsessive-compulsive motivation which imbues an individual with the capacity to do whatever is necessary to succeed and excel in ANY human endeavor is what produces LEADERS in politics, business, industry, etc.. Such behaviors may be considered extremist by some. One person’s interpretation of “extremism” may be another person’s interpretation of “excellence”. The essential distinction invariably occurs when either interpreted behavior is not tempered by morals and ethics. My point is, was, and always will be that capitalism tempered with morals and ethics based upon accountability to a ‘higher authority’ is NO MORE inherently evil than a gun or a knife. Great success often produces great wealth, and great wealth does not make men evil but gives evil men much greater opportunity to manifest their evil. Although. Power is not inherently evil, but gives evil men much greater leverage and influence to perpetrate evil. A lunatic alone in a desert can do little harm, but if you give him a nuclear device and place him in the heart of New York City he becomes a hazard to multitudes.

A corporation has but one drive, and that is to make a profit. It is a form of business which socializes the costs and benefits of capitalism. The corporation is NOT a free moral agent and is NOT a “natural person”. The corporation is managed by directors and administrators who ARE free moral agents and “natural persons”. They are accountable to other “natural persons” and free moral agents comprising the stockholders. The greatest value of the corporation is the fact that accountability is distributed among ALL the owners and administrators. But ALWAYS, the prime directive is to produce a profit. Whatever decisions and activities a corporation may engage in, it is always “moral” as long as it is within legal constraints and produces a profit. Once again, a corporation in and of itself is a benign means of conducting business with accountability to a ‘higher authority’ comprised of stockholders and the law of the land.

Prior to 1886, legislation of law was reserved to “natural persons” accountable to the higher authority of GOD. GOD was nearly the UNIVERSAL ‘higher authority’ of all “natural persons”, and the essence of what made human beings “natural persons”. With the publication of “On the Origin of Species”, published on 24 November 1859, and the arbitrary interpretation of a court clerk in the SCOTUS ruling in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co. – 118 U.S. 394 [1886], everything changed! Despite the fact that Charles Darwin never ONCE mentioned “evolution” in his theories of how speciation, natural selection, or adaptation took place, and the fact that science has never ONCE demonstrated how the genes in the ape genome were altered to produce the human genome, the scientific community adopted “evolution” as the source of “creation” and thus allegedly disproved the existence of “intelligent design” by the Supreme Authority of God. Before the turn of the nineteenth century the US government had endowed corporations, a totally inorganic abstract entity, with the rights and privileges of a “natural person”. At this point, not only were “natural persons” emancipated from accountability to God, but corporations were endowed with the same rights as “natural persons”! Henceforth corporations would not only be emancipated from accountability as “natural persons”, but they would be endowed with the same rights to write laws as “natural persons”! The foundation was now complete for the “fundamental change” which would come to be known as the New World Order – a world governed by the CORPORATE ETHIC, with the sole purpose of producing profit without regard for accountability to any ‘higher authority’ than producing profit while emancipating corporate managers and administrators from any individual moral or ethical accountability. Now we have an army of intelligent and essentially good-intentioned pawns who serve the interests of those who wish to implement the New World Order Oligarchy by fostering fear and confusion based upon the indistinguishable objectives embodied in those seeking control of all means of 220px-AtlasShruggedproduction in the hands of Marxist “socialism” seeking public ownership, or Keynesian “corporatists” who seek a partnership between private sector and corporate government. If people are led to believe “socialism” is the ultimate evil, they will willingly abdicate the introduction of the “corporatist” New World Order when both will sacrifice individual rights for the greater “government good” similar to Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”.

 The only thing within the sphere of human understanding which is “evolving” are the stages of human cognition and development of ideology. The unfortunate component of “evolution” derived from Darwin’s “natural selection” and survival of the “fittest” is that the “fittest” may not necessarily be the healthiest or most superior. In a hypothetical environment where lunacy prevails, only lunatics are uniquely endowed with capacities necessary to adapt. In a penal institution, the most suitable for survival are those who possess the capacity to adapt to the criminal environment. In the post-moral world of the Corporate Ethic, or Corporatocracy, those who are NOT governed by any sense of moral or ethical accountability will be best equipped to adapt. But of course all of this is conjecture and speculation, isn’t it? Or is it?

1984In the post-moral New World Order of the Corporatocracy, or Oligarchy, the world will discourage or eliminate BORDERS which define the boundaries of communities or nation-states of people with shared ideologies, laws, values, currencies and, of course, politics. Any spiritual beliefs which foster morals, ethics, or laws contrary to the interests and objectives of the ruling corporate interests will be discouraged or eliminated. “Cultural diversity” will be advocated as a means of polarizing any unified resistance as individual human rights are gradually rescinded by intrusive laws “for our own protection”. All of the political resources, which include every facet of human activity in any nation or ethnic group will be controlled by a central oligarchy which educates and socializes all citizens to conform, comply, or suffer rejection to the point of incarceration for re-education or brain-washing. Essentially, the world will be very much like the Oceania described in George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” where human individualism is sacrificed for the sake of the state.

Our Legacy: Law or Lawlessness?

The US Government is mandated to protect the security of citizens. I wonder how secure US citizens can be when they may beImmigrant Drug Cartels robbed, raped, murdered, or infected with some undetected infectious or terminal disease, by ILLEGAL immigrants who would not be here if immigration laws were enforced. I wonder how secure the families of victims of ILLEGAL immigrants can be. I wonder how many of us have even a momentary sense of possible threat each time we see an Hispanic or Muslim in our midst. I wonder if the negligence of the Federal government is what fosters that racial “insecurity” which leads to racial profiling and discrimination.

There are those who say we should “love one another”, that ILLEGAL immigrants are merely “seeking a better life” because of their “love for their families”, or that the United States has “always welcomed immigrants”, and that we are a “nation of immigrants”. NotwithstandingImmigrant On Dock the fact that the traditional immigrants have entered this country LEGALLY and that they wanted to be part OF this “nation of laws” rather than apart FROM a “nation of lawlessness”. I hope that all of these misguided altruistic justifications of lawlessness and idealistic compassion will be the thoughts which go through the minds of the VICTIMS of the corrupt and evil
element of our ILLEGAL immigrant populace as they infiltrate our society at every level!

Then there are those who advocate ILLEGAL immigration and propose granting amnesty for political advantage. The population of ILLEGAL immigrants in this country is presently believed to be between ten and fifteen million. This does not include somewhere in the neighborhood of fifteen to twenty million who have already been granted amnesty. These are conservative estimatesImmigration Demonstration of a number which is impossible to determine except through interpolation and statistical methodology. However, even at this conservative figure of approximately thirty million, total, that is a lawless constituency of 7% of the nation’s registered voters – if only one of the major parties could win such a constituency!

A politician who would place re-election, or having the interests of his/her party prevail over the security of 93% of his/her constituents is not only reckless and treasonous, but an exercise in futility. The embrace and endorsement of this hypothetical constituency will never be within reason, as any more than an illegal voting block, for a number of reasons:

  • ILLEGAL immigrants must be citizens to vote, and there is no emerging faction in this group seeking citizenship.
  • ILLEGAL immigrants are largely illiterate and/or do not speak English, which is required in order to complete ballots.
  • ILLEGAL immigrants are not so gullible and ignorant they would vote for anyone willing to sell out a majority for a minority.
  • ILLEGAL immigrants endure exploitation by racist charlatans who consider them an inferior economic class.

As for me; I would rather live in a nation of MEN who will take a stand for our America’s Core Culture, than a nation of women who will SUBMIT to a multitude of injustices and abuses because it is not their nature or their physiologicalImmigration by Decade constitution to be aggressive or assertive. A Core Culture which has “primarily been the culture of the seventeenth and eighteenth-century settlers who founded our nation. The central elements of that culture are the Christian religion; Protestant values, including individualism, the work ethic, and moralism; the English language; British traditions of law, justice, and limits on government power; and a legacy of European art, literature, and philosophy” (Huntington, 2004).

As for me; I would rather defend to the death a legacy of security under Federal government protection rather than Federal government which is paralyzedImmigration Dedication and impotent because of a faction which justifies their cowardice and impotence by false flags of misguided compassion for those without compassion and tolerance for the intolerant. I would rather perish protecting my wife and children for generations to come than passively submit and doom all posterity to bondage and injustice. If God had intended us to have compassion and tolerance for EVIL, He would not have promised to prevail over Satan and his minions.

 

When Cultures Collide: The Degradation of America

samuel_huntington1_large

Samuel Huntington

Samuel Huntington authored a comprehensive evaluation of immigration and cultural trends in the United States, “One Nation Out of Many: Why ‘Americanization’ of Newcomers Is Still Important” (Magazine article from The American Enterprise, Vol. 15, No. 6). The article dealt with immigration assimilation trends in the United States, and pointed out some rather alarming Huntington 1facts. One of the foremost trends was, as  Huntington’s undeniable statistical evidence provides, a clear disconnect with the general populace by political elites. Political elites or establishment institutions composed of local newspapers and TV stations, local politicians, universities, labor unions, business federations, and minority pressure groups. Almost as if to reinforce Huntington’s point regarding this disconnect, Louis Menand published an article in the New Yorker, entitled “Patriot Games: The New Nativism of Samuel P. Huntington”. Louis Menand is a professor of English and American Literature and Language at Harvard University. He has also taught at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, Princeton, Columbia, and the University Of Virginia School Of Law. It seems evident from Professor Menand’s credentials, he is amply qualified to represent “establishment institutions” Huntington referred to, and dutifully proceeds to express his opposition to most, if not all, the principles Huntington establishes.

Louis Menand

Louis Menand

Huntington carefully analyzes and reveals the results of his research, substantiating his claims and conclusions. He describes a “core culture” in the United States, described as being composed of the Christian religion; Protestant values; the English language; British traditions of law, justice, and limits on government power; and a legacy of European art, literature, and philosophy. Out of these traditional values, derived from fundamental principles established by the Protestant roots of our nation, he describes how the American Creed is formulated with its principles of liberty, equality, human rights, representative government, and private property. Huntington expresses his concern that the assimilation of immigrants, established by Constitutional architects as a means of assuring loyalty and national homogeneity, is no longer possible when “establishment institutions” are creating an environment which precludes assimilation under the pretext of ‘cultural diversity’ or “multiculturalism”. This, he claims and provides evidence to support, is because the “establishment institutions” have adopted policies of “deconstruction” which are harmful to the best interests and solidarity of our nation and contrary to the will of the constituency.

mexicanwarresults

An Agenda of Restoring the Hispanic Empire?

Menand submitted his article as little more than an unsubstantiated denial of all the concerns and evidence Huntington had so eloquently expressed. Without ever really making any counterpoints or rebuttals, Menand proceeds to regurgitate his mocking degradation of the fundamental concerns Huntington expressed. He alleges that culture, “ultimately, is everything that is not nature. American culture includes American appetites and American dress, American work etiquette and American entertainment, American piety and American promiscuity all the things that Americans recognize, by their absence, as American when they visit other countries”, as if to say that all that is necessary to adopt the American “creed” is to look like an American. It is difficult therefore, to say the least, to discern whether Menand is making a statement or simply repeating something Huntington has stated, in a derogatory and demeaning fashion. Due to this fundamental vagueness, it is a major challenge to extract any message from Menand’s article other than his objection to Huntington’s article and his profound contempt for anything contrary to the “establishment institutions”; “Huntington is a domestic monoculturalist and a global multiculturalist (and an enemy of domestic multiculturalism and global monoculturalism).” Other than being a profound derogatory statement of the obvious, so what?

In summary, Huntington made his case with sufficient evidence to demonstrate the danger which is inherent in unassimilated Flag Disrespectmulticulturalism and the divisions it produces in the body politic. Immigrants have traditionally been assimilated into the American culture as the American culture adopted elements of the values and culture of its immigrants, producing the unique ‘hybrid’ culture of the United States. Past generations of Americans have been proud of the unique qualities of our ‘hybrid’ culture. Now we have people who are attempting to impose their beliefs on Americans and encourage immigrants like Hispanics and Muslims to refuse assimilation. The outcome cannot be anything but grave, for the cognitive dissonance produced by competing cultures can never produce anything but prejudice and an ‘us against them’ predisposition. The contemporary irrational violence and terrorism which prevails in the USA is a manifestation of mental illness and aversive behavior produced by a dysfunctional society – the consequences are not unintended, but a component of a destructive agenda which will get worse before it gets better, if left to continue as it has been!

There are still a majority of Americans who take pride in being American, while there are a minority of subversives advocating “cultural diversity” which is code for creating separate Muslim, Hispanic and American cultures when we were formerly all PROUD to be AMERICANS!

Simple Solution for an Over-Complicated Nation

The problem:
As our private and government institutions continue to grow and centralize, despite those who claim to oppose such growth and centralization, professionals claim it is necessary to continue development of ever more complex and technical methods of Imagemanagement. The prevailing approach to managing megalithic private and government institutions has been through exponential growth in regulation. This growth in regulation is untenable because it fosters more growth to monitor and enforce the regulations it is supposed to be rectifying, and it continues to drive up government costs which are a major drain on desperately needed funds which fuel the nation’s economic engines.

The solution.
KISS – Keep It Simple, Stupid. When this nation was founded, the architects of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution developed an eloquent and fundamental approach to government. “We hold these truths to be self-evident” meant that anyone with any degree of intelligence or education would comprehend their meaning.

“That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, ImageLiberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Although there were some, at the time, who considered some people to be fractionally “men”, the fundamental truth was indisputable; God Himself, the ultimate moral authority, had created human beings with fundamental rights.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. The self-evident purpose of government was simply to make those God-given rights SECURE, and those who participated in that government would have no powers or privileges which were not derived from consent of the governed!

ImageFor good measure, the founding fathers threw in a remedy for government which ceased to secure the blessings of liberty and began to engage in activities and policies which exceeded the mandate previously expressed. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

To demonstrate how the rights of states were intended to function in a national union which derived it’s just powers from consent of the people it governed, they also added the ninth and tenth amendments. The ninth amendment guaranteed that some tyrant, in the future would not try to LIMIT our God-given rights to those specified previously. On the other hand, the tenth amendment limited the power of the federal government to those specified in the Constitution.

It was a simple form of government for complicated people who love to fabricate complex problems. As long as there is recognition and Imagevalidation of the diversity of God’s creation, within a framework where NOBODY is superior or inferior, always seeking some common denominator which would integrate some (if not all) of everyone’s needs, government would move ever closer to perfection. Can we just get back to basics and keep it SIMPLE?

There should be nothing complicated or confusing about the VALUES we embrace and support. I am sick to death with those charlatans who divert and divide us by proposing issues of personal morality. I personally embrace the SIMPLE values which are the cornerstone of this nation. The moral issues which continually bewilder and befuddle us are issues which should be dictated by faith and conscience – NOT government. Nor should government be involved in providing fiscal incentives to immoral activities. Partisan activities which advocate VALUES which transcend or supercede CORE VALUES are a detriment to the function of government. If one should feel compelled to engage in partisan participation, the party should be the party of CORE VALUES – LIMITED government securing (as in making more SECURE – fixed or fastened so as not to give way, become loose, or be lost) our God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Whether it is local or national, we cannot allow our VALUES to be compromised!