Publisher: Editorial Kairós. Barcelona.
First edition: April 23rd, 2007.
Collection: “Nueva Ciencia”. 338 pages, 14 color plates.
Welcome to the Blog Cosmos and Gaia
Man is the first-born being of the entire nature.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
We should respect our environment to individual level, we need to take care of the Earth because she is dying. Every plant, every animal, even every mineral complex, every landscape, has its right of being. They are not there and at our reach because of randomness or caprice, but they form a part of ourselves. Man is not an UFO coming from a distant galaxy; man is a poem woven with the fog of the dawn, with the color of flowers, with the singing of birds, with the howling of the wolf or the roar of the lion.
Félix Rodríguez de la Fuente
Starting with the study of a series of enigmas located at the boundary between life and matter, the author offers us a revolutionary vision of physics and biology.
What is matter? When and how did life begin? How were the continents, the oceans and the atmosphere formed? What were the factors that determined the evolutionary spread of animal and vegetable species? What were the causes of the great catastrophic extinctions registered by geological history? Why is it impossible to find the remains of any ancestral species? Where does man come from? What is the relationship between the faraway Cosmos and life on Earth? These questions are reformulated from a new perspective, thus establishing the basis for a theory of evolution.
The polarity principle, which manifests as light-darkness, expansion-contraction, counter space–physical space, ascendant macroevolution–adaptive microevolution, cosmic forces–terrestrial forces, Cosmos–Gaia……constitutes one of the most prolific principles in biology, since it is rooted in the reality of nature itself. With a clarity of exposition and a big concern to educate, this book encourages the reader to use his or her own ability to think and to observe in order to realize the truth by themselves.
This book is a tribute to three great European geniuses of the life sciences: Johann W. Goethe, Vladimir Vernadsky and James Lovelock.
Chapter 1. BEYOND MATTER.
The twilight of the gods.
Entering into matter.
Alchemists in the garden or the plants against Lavoisier.
The fourth state of matter.
Chapter 2. LOOKING FOR THE LAWS OF THE LIVING WORLD.
Persephone reappears again each spring.
How could Newton's apple climb up to the top of the tree?
A geometry for biologists.
Life between two spaces.
Chaos and Cosmos: matter as a receptive matrix.
Embryologists stage a come-back.
The body of formative forces.
The measurement of life.
Aphrodite was born from the waters.
Chapter 3. LIFE DID NOT HAVE A BEGINNING.
The enigma of rocks and the origin of life.
When the mountains were alive.
The origin and evolution of the atmosphere and of the oceans.
Life never had a beginning on the Earth.
Chapter 4. ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.
The fact of evolution is beyond our comprehension.
A tree without a trunk and an enigmatic fossil record.
Darwin's explanations: what do they explain?
How did the ancestral species come into being and why are they invisible?
Catastrophic extinctions or crises of growth on Earth?
A theory of macroevolution.
Keys to a mysterious scenario.
Blood plasma as a fossil record.
Macroevolution versus microevolution.
Chapter 5. MANKIND AS THE AXIS OF EVOLUTION.
The antiquity of man.
Man is the baby of Nature.
Has the animal world derived from the successive archetypal forms of the human being?
Discovering the stem of human phylogenesis.
Chapter 6. COSMOS, GAIA, ANTHROPOS.
Coincidences or causalities?
The hidden purpose of evolution. Its philosophical and religious implications.
In all probability, the claim suggested by the subtitle of this book will seem odd and unrealistic to most people. You might think: “Like most propaganda, it’s all just a little too simplistic”. Nevertheless, what you will find in these pages represents my honest effort to build some new scientific foundations in order to confront the mysteries directly related to the phenomenon of evolution. These mysteries and riddles have been with us for the last two centuries and they are still there today. Though many of the hypotheses presented in the book are not entirely new, since they have been developed by the daily work of numbers of scientists over decades, the synthesis that I offer here has not been presented before.
The difficulty for the author increases when, in an essay that wishes to be informative for the general public, the need arises to question the bases of the current scientific paradigm and to present alternatives. Fortunately, the weaknesses of the scientific model prevailing today have been assiduously studied and exposed in recent decades by such philosophers of science as Karl Popper, but especially by physicists. Some of them, such as Fred Hoyle, David Bohm and James Lovelock have extended the debate to the life sciences.
I have purposely chosen several scientific observations that do not fit within the explanatory model of current academic science. These phenomena - so annoying for the official establishment - can become extremely valuable and revealing data when they are applied to a different model of evolution. This may well be the most shocking aspect of the book. For the rest, it is clear that some of the propositions presented here are currently in process of development and will undoubtedly be incorporated into new lines of general work in the future.
The hypotheses that I have developed in the book - after studying some of the contradictions in the current evolutionary model - are put forward without dogmatism, recognizing the enormous complexity of the questions and that the answers given may appear to be simplistic. I don't expect you to accept the new concepts from the very beginning, even though I offer a great deal of supporting experimental data. Equally, the author hopes that his ideas are not simply rejected out of hand. Logical, rational thinking - no matter how accurate it is in itself - is not adequate for approaching the true nature of reality. Immanuel Kant pointed out long ago that if we apply only purely rational thought to a subject, without taking into account the factual reality, it is possible to demonstrate any proposition - but also its opposite.
The task that awaits the reader will demand of him a certain dose of creativity and imagination. He or she should be aware of some mechanical habits of thinking that most of us have acquired through the currently dominant form of education. We recommend Goethe's method in the field of science, summarized in this sentence: "It is not necessary to make judgments or hypotheses on the external phenomena, because the phenomena themselves are the theory, and they express their own ideas when one has matured and allows them to act upon oneself adequately".
Obviously, it is not a question of sitting down to allow our thoughts to flow in the direction of what one believes to be correct. Instead, the aim is to perform a careful observation of the facts and to allow any judgment to appear from the facts themselves. Putting myself in tune with reality means placing myself in front of my thinking activity so that the latter does not turn into a judge of things. Instead, the thinking becomes an instrument which allows things to speak about their own essence. This is the attitude of the real poet, of the real artist, of the real scientific researcher; always open to inspiration in order to grasp the active Idea existing behind any phenomenon.
In this book, together with the reader, we shall try to apply Goethe’s method to some fundamental questions, such as: What is matter? What can we say on the origin of life? How did our planet get its shape? What are the laws of evolution? Where does mankind come from? What is the place of Man in nature? Is there a final meaning to evolution? Today these questions are not only philosophical. Though the explanations are difficult, they fall fully within the field of science. They have caught the interest of philosophers and of scientists for centuries and from them countless controversies have sprouted, which still remain to this day. I will not be so naïve as to try to give them a definitive response. But I do believe that it is necessary to make a determined effort to open up new avenues of thought that will allow us to contemplate these questions in a new light.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In 1978 studies by the U.S. Army provided another interesting contribution to this long list of experiments.The final report was published in May of that year by the U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Command.
We can read:
“The purpose of the study was to determine whether recent disclosures of elemental transmutations occurring in biological entities have revealed new possible sources of energy. The works of Kervran, Komaki, and others were surveyed; and it was concluded that, granted the existence of such transmutations (Na to Mg, K to Ca, and Mn to Fe), then a net surplus of energy was also produced. A proposed mechanism was described in which Mg-Adenosine Triphosphate (MgATP), located in the mitochondrion of the cell, played a double role as an energy producer. In addition to the widely accepted biochemical role of MgATP in which it produces energy as it disintegrated part by part, MgATP can also be considered to be a cyclotron on a molecular scale. The MgATP when placed in layers one atop the other has all the attributes of a cyclotron in accordance with the requirements set forth by E.O. Lawrence, inventor of the cyclotron.
It was concluded that elemental transmutations were indeed occurring in life organisms and were probably accompanied by a net energy gain.” http://www.rexresearch.com/goldfein/goldfein.htm
With all this long series of scientific evidence, any unbiased investigator can recognize that living systems are capable, by means still unknown, of creating matter and transmuting a chemical element in another. The tiniest blade of grass and the most fragile tulip can quietly achieve that has been impossible so far to nuclear physicists: the transmutation of elements with low energy, without the need for huge and expensive particle accelerators .It is a surprising discovery: the alchemists are living in our garden.(Page 46)
If taken seriously, these discoveries regarding biological transmutations and the related changes of state of matter will bring enormous consequences on the scientific current paradigm. Against the belief that life originated from matter (let's remember that this supposition has never been demonstrated in a laboratory), we can put forward the vision of a Cosmos of forces that we can not see with our common senses. This Cosmos is constantly able to make arise the visible world and to immerse it again into immaterial forms of existence.
Is it not the Universe that today cosmologists begin to envision when they speak on "dark energy" ?. Black holes and dark matter are already very common realities among astronomers and astrophysicists. It is less known that analogous phenomena are happening at the microcosmic level in all alive beings. (Page 53)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There are two opposite forms of activity in the alive world that surrounds us. In the first one, matter tends to escape from the vital processes and to surrender to the forces of gravity (the mature apple falls down from the tree). Here the demolishing forces prevail and the result is chaos and death. In the second form of activity, when an organism germinates or grows, the cosmic forces (forces of "levity" as opposite to gravity) prevail (the apple as far it is forming climbs up to the tree). These are forces that build and after their action a new Cosmos is generated.
The main goal in a new scientific paradigm should be to reach, with the scientific conscience, the control of this language based in the polarity principle that applies to any natural phenomenon. This is possible, as Goethe and the scientists who have followed him have shown, and it is also essential in order to manage to understand the nature of the forces in any field of study in biology. (Page 74)
As we can see, the global process of evolution is marked by the tension or polarity between two impulses, present in any phenomenon of nature. We find these impulses in several environments and in different levels they are expressed by diverse names:
• Macroevolution <-> Microevolution.
• Ascending (fluid) evolution <-> Descending (mineralized) evolution.
• Independence from the environment <-> Adaptation to environment.
• Ideal archetype <-> Physical body.
• Cosmic forces <-> Terrestrial forces.
• Counterspace <-> Euclidean space.
• Levity <-> Gravity.
• Yang <-> Yin.
• Light <-> Darkness.
• Cosmos <-> Gea.
The history of development of life can not start from the vision of our planet as an incandescent rock that, inexplicably, was covered with an alive layer. But this vision a priori has been adopted by the majority of the scientists, leading to a serious situation, because to the natural scarcity of data has joined one worse thing, the inability to interpret these data.
The alternative idea is simply to consider the Earth as a living being whose physiology we have barely begun to learn through descriptions of Vernadsky, the implementation of the Gaia hypothesis of James Lovelock and other currents of ecology. In general, we can say that this planetary body had to start as an embryo and then followed a process of growing, hardening and mineralization. The analogy tell us that this life has evolved in stages, called geological eras, separated from each other by growth crisis, that we call catastrophic extinctions [......]
If the reader looks at the edge of a cliff or at the banks along both sides of a highway, with its layers of rock that seem to have been coiled as if they were plastic made, it will become almost impossible to believe what the orthodox geology says: that this rock was slowly folded into these forms simply by means of enormous pressure. With consistency and hardness of rocks of our days, even with the highest pressures it is not possible to explain the appearance of the Alps or of the Himalayas. It is much easier, at least to the simple observer, to imagine that rocks have been of a soft consistency and the entire surface of the Earth was much more active and flexible, up to relatively recent time. (Page 143).
If, as we have expressed before, mountains have been in a alive state during many geological eras, we must imagine the global system more impregnated with vitality and more fluid as we go more back in time in the evolution.
We should imagine this system as an alive planetary set in which the animal kingdom evolves together with plants and minerals. The more back in time we go, the more we see that the three kingdoms evolve together, and none of them can be understood if we isolate it from the other two.
The continous action of life processes on the terrestrial ecosystem during many eras has determined the present appearance of continents and oceans in our planet. But, was only the lithosphere that emerged from the massive processes of life dominating in the early eras? To what extent were these processes also involved in the division between oceans and atmosphere? Which is the cause of the strange composition of the latter in our days, with an abundance of nitrogen and of oxygen and very little content of CO2?
It is known that the large decrease in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was made in part through the photosynthetic function of algae and partly thanks to marine organisms that assimilate this gas and the calcium dissolved in the water of the oceans to form their skeletons.
The logical conclusion would be that the ocean of our days, with its high salinity and its biological activity is the last remnant of the living mass in colloidal state, that in the Proterozoic eon surrounded the entire planet. This is corroborated by the striking similarity between the seawater and the plasma of the cell tissues in all animals.
The German geologist Walther Cloos in his book The Living Earth expresses it as follows:
"Where salts are present in solution, as in the blood and the digestive juices of man and of animals, we find the original terms of the salts on the planet like yet we find today in the external nature, in seawater. The oceans of our days are nothing but the remains of the albumin-like atmosphere of the primitive Earth. All beings, in the different realms of nature, have developped from this amniotic fluid of the planet. Their skeletons were deposited as mineral, forming the continents, whereas attracting the alive atmosphere to the interior of their bodies as blood plasma and other body fluids. So, we can say that this original life of the Earth was disseminated in the forms of individual animals and plants. When the primitive atmosphere of albumins decomposed, gradually emerged the current ocean waters and the air of the atmosphere. Indeed, when the albumin protein is broken down, we find the substances present in sea water and in air: salt, water, oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen". (Page 153).
The evolution of global factors as the atmosphere, the lithosphere and the oceans is inseparably tied to the evolution of the species in a unique process. This shows us that a domain exists, until now unnoticed, a domain that controls simultaneously all these levels. Probably, the most urgent task for the science of evolution is to discover this domain and the laws that govern it. (Page 159).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Today there is no single definition of life accepted by all fields and currents of science. However, the definition given by the Chilean neuroscientists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela is one of the most extensive. The authors call it autopoiesis, which literally means self-construction.
An autopoietic system has the capacity to organize itself in such manner that the only resulting product is itself. There is no separation between producer and product. Being and doing are inseparable in an autopoietic unit and this is its specific mode of organization.
According to this definition, living beings produce, by their own rules, their components, including their environment. This one is carried out as a specific unit in space and time. The important thing is not the material structure of life, but the organization and the relationships between its components. Life is a network that constantly builds upon itself. The simplest autopoietic system is the cell. So, in this definition, there is no need of growth or reproduction, or transfer of DNA for something to be alive.
Vladimir Vernadsky, the great Russian researcher observes that 99.99 % of the different molecules of the Earth have been created or transformed into the process of life; therefore the Earth itself can be qualified as an auto-constructive or autopoietic organism.
The concept can be extended even more in a comprehensive way: why not think that life is a cosmic force that vibrates constantly in the universe and that it simply gets the resonant state in certain privileged places?
The German biochemist Rudolf Hauschka goes ialong this line in his work The Nature of Substance. After describing his experiences on biological transmutations, he concludes:
"Life cannot be interpreted in chemical terms, because it is not a result of a combination of material elements, but something previous to them. On the contrary, matter is precipitated from life. Is it not more reasonable to suppose that life existed much earlier than matter and that it was the product of a Cosmos of forces? . Something that is alive can die, but nothing is created from death ".
Assuming the hypothesis that since the very beginning of the genesis of Gaia, the forces of life were present and have not done more than evolve and generate materials and forms, the reader will see that it is no longer necessary to raise the puzzling question of how and when life appeared on Earth. Like all the wrong issues raised (even science does so), can not be answered. The conclusion is that life never began on Earth and the inert matter that we see today has sprouted from the original life. (Pages 165-166)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Becomes very difficult to admit that the catastrophic extinctions, these changes so crucial in the history of life, have been unpredictable events. We should ask ourselves: Despite the seemingly chaotic elements provided by them, is there any logic common to all crises? We realize that history repeats, but can we find any regularity or frequency?
Dave Raup and John Sepkoski, geologists at Chicago University affirm that crises that cause catastrophic extinctions occur as cycles. In addition to the three major crisis at the border of main eras, at least eight minor episodes of extinction are significant enough, and we find record of them in the fossil record. Through the study of identifiable episodes during the past 250 million years, these geologists found a frequency of a catastrophic crisis every 20 or 30 million years, the most recent took place 14 million years ago.
The graphics of the figure are very illustrative of all this. Today many scientists are convinced that these developments have had a regular basis and its frequency could be controlled by some laws of celestial movements.
The Milky Way is a spiral galaxy, such as Andromeda, and astronomers have identified its four large branches and some other small arms. Its diameter is about 120,000 light-years and the maximum thickness is about 1,000 light-years. Our sun is located about 26,000 light-years from the center of the galaxy and close to the plane of symmetry.
In addition, the solar system orbits the galaxy with a period of about 240 million years. This speed is double the rotational speed of the four main branches of the galaxy. This means that, while the Galaxy has made a complete rotation on its axis, the Earth, following the Sun, has gone through all the arms.
We now know that the misunderstood phenomenon of the great geological crises, namely catastrophic extinctions followed by large radiations of new species, has occurred with a slighty irregular periodicity, with intervals of a few tens of millions of years. We raise the question: how these phenomena detected on Earth are related with the passage of the solar system through the various arms of the Milky Way?
We can not overlook that, as these catastrophic crises are linked to jumps forward in the evolution of living beings, if this relation with the rhythms of our galaxy can be proved, this would be the link that connects the evolution on the Earth to the evolution of Cosmos (Page 203)
After 150 years of explorations and in spite of the efforts of numerous geologists and palaeontologists, there has not been found any bony remainder demonstrating to be one of these intermediate links between a known species and its forefather, as predicts Darwin's theory. Neither, in spite of the repeated announcements of optimistic palaeontologists, has appeared the missing link between man and his hypothetical common forefather with monkeys. (Page 175).
The question as to whether the theory of natural selection is a scientific theory or not did not appear in the trial held in Arkansas against Creationism. But it is very lawful to wonder: can one raise a test to see if the theory of Darwin is real or false? This is equivalent to say, can we check this theory? If the response to this question is yes, then we are really in front of a scientific theory. But we should continue: supposing that the theory of natural selection proves to be scientific and checkable, does it surpass victoriously the tests of confrontation with the reality?. If it is not so, the theory also would lose the category of science. (Page 178).
The 'law' of survival of the strongest, considered by more than one century and a half like a natural law has scientifically justified economic, social and political depredation in the recent history of the humanity, but it might be a simple tautology. The ability of a species to survive appears as the synonymous of the fact of their survival, that is to say, " the most suitable to survive, survives ". Obviously, this is not an independent criterion for doing predictions in a scientific theory. One should add that, apart from expressing a tautology, the survival of the fittest is of doubtful reality. The bloodthirsty competition that Darwin imagined as the distinctive characteristic of Nature rarely appears in practice. Ethological observations demonstrate that the great majority of more than 20.000 species of reptiles, fish, birds and mammals neither exterminate each other because of the need of food, nor fight to the death due to the need of space . (Page 184).
Wholly considered, the theory of natural selection was an attempt of giving an explanation to evolution in agreement with the tastes of the nascent materialism in the science and with the interests of the dominant ideology in the British empire of the 19th century. Similar tastes and the same interests seem to support it still today. (Page 188)
The scientific enigma of the origin of species begins to be disclosed when we consider two trends in evolution that overlap each other: the upward Macroevolution, with virtually no fossils (in color blue in the figure) and adaptive Microevolution or downwards evolution, with fossils (in color red in the figure)
The main hypothesis proposed by scientists that follow Goethe's ideas explains that all species have evolved from a single central stem, a core of embryonic beings that predominated in the planet for very long time, and persisted until 100.000 years ago. The beings who remained in the nucleus were able to maintain physiological conditions similar to those of origin.
It should be remembered that the bodies of animals in that core were of larval or embryonic type, relatively low-skilled and low-mineralized. Therefore, they were suitable for fast genetic and morphological change as was required in times of global crises, those crises that marked the passage of a geological era to another.
We must assume that, in spite of the big changes, the retention of the former situation was possible for these animals, thanks of living in better habitats and climate zones that protected them temporarily from the progressive mineralization of the planet.
The genealogical tree of the species here proposed is designed to reflect the theory of a core of soft or invertebrate beings. In this core or trunk we would find all the ancestral forms, but in a embryonic state or larval. This trunk results from the creative action of the common Archetype or common ancestor.
The tree is designed as a main trunk with branches in blue that represents the evolution in a fluid condition and almost without fossils. Only the terminal branches are drawn in red to represent the appearance and setting of the known species in the more mineralized world (evolution that shows fossils).
There are two directions pointed in the graphic: a vertical one and a horizontal one. These represent two distinct situations, two very different patterns of evolution that interact:
In this situation the morphogenetic fields (fields that create forms) acted on all those living beings in the primitive biosphere, and these changes were governed by the Idea, namely the common Archetype (see works by Goethe,Poppelbaum,Hauschka). From the beginning, these morphogenetic fields regulated the dynamic balance of the ecosystem as a whole. They have caused profound changes,relatively quickly in times of crisis, more slowly during the long periods of rest. The process results in the formation of all these species, genera, families, orders, classes and types of animals that today we know, some more finished and mineralized than others.
The Macroevolution or upward trend of evolution, occurred in a situation governed by a growing independence from the environment, processes increasingly internalized and an increase in biological complexity.
The Macroevolution has provoked the geological eras, true stages in the development of the planetary body. On the one hand, the end of each geologic era is a traumatic crisis, causing mass extinction of species, that affects the most specialized and most adapted beings up to that time. On the other hand we see the subsequent emergence of more independent species from the environment and the introduction of higher levels of organization. These phenomena happen first among the beings of the trunk of the tree and then extends to the mineralized structures of the rest of beings.
The second type of development is marked in red and the horizontal arrow in the graphic. The microevolution is designated as "adaptive" since it consists of various mechanisms for adaptation to the environment through an increasing specialization.
The microevolution, namely, evolution through adaptation , is related to any evolutionary change below the level of the species. At present, biologists are measuring this kind of evolution by the frequency of alleles (alternative genes) within a population or within a species and also by its effects on the phenotype.
Many species took specialized forms and adapted to the ecosystem at epochs with very specific conditions in the environment and these conditions later changed drastically. These species tried to maintain the initial level of alignment with the environment through the processes of adaptive evolution available, but were not able to achieve this and these species became extinct.
The adaptive microevolution exerts its action on those animal forms that the macroevolution has already set. Therefore, the study of such a development can only deal with the manner and the circumstances in which the latest varieties and forms taken by the species were consolidated. The processes of genetic mutation studied by biologists have a very small margin variability and acted only as a factor to maintain the adaptation acquired by the species at the time of consolidation as such. In fact, the adaptive microevolution is the end point of the macroevolution, which is a much deeper process and that follows the internal rules of the Archetype.
It is a pity that we have neglected for over a century the study of the laws of the macroevolution, and furthermore, we have given an exaggerated importance to the laws of adaptive microevolution, even forcing its application to the macroevolution.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
As shown in the hominid's tree here drawn, Homo sapiens sapiens did not come from any of hominids displayed in red, which are species that became extinct (dead ends). He has a line of evolution by itself. This line is always located in the center of the main trunk of macroevolution (in blue), and by its very nature, leaves no fossils until the end (about 120,000 years ago).
Genres gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan separated from the main trunk of evolution long before and do not belong to the family of hominids. Its evolution stalled until today.
In Africa the Pithecanthropus was contemporary of the Australopithecus and lived in the same places. This shows that they did not evolve from each other and neither are in the direct ancestry of present man. Both probably came from a human ancestral from which they differed following a process called backwards humanization. When you look at the figure, the various lines of Australopithecus, Pithecanthropus and other hominids appear as collateral branches of the great tree of humanity.
Against the famous story of the Monkey hominization (a Monkey becomes a Man) that Darwin and his followers told us, we propose the reality of a biological phenomenon in the evolutionary lineages of hominids, which Hermann Poppelbaum, Max Westenhöfer, Bernard Heuvelmans and others scientists have called "hominization backwards".
With these premises, we understand that none of the hominids that paleoanthropologists have hardly classified : Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Pithecanthropus erectus, Sinanthropus, etc., can be a direct ancestor of us, because they belong to successive lateral branches of the archetype of the human form. This means that they are all a premature specialization that became a dead end.
One of the latest species that emerged from the human ancestor was the Neanderthal man (Homo neanderthalensis). He appeared about 200,000 years ago and became extinct about 35,000 years ago without leaving descendants.
Homo sapiens sapiens acquired a bone skeleton much later than Neanderthals (some 120,000 years ago), but it existed long time before. In fact both coexisted for many thousands of years. Neanderthal had been considered as the penultimate man, but again, science does not regard him as the predecessor of modern humans. The Neanderthal line belongs to a parallel development, released from an unknown ancestor, another missing link.
We consider the Neanderthal as the last branch of the trunk of human evolution, in the process we have called "hominization backwards". He appeared in the era of the big European ice ages, as demonstrated by his highly specialized form adapted to cold and mountainous habitats.
When you look at the genealogical tree suggested by the new model of evolution, you can note that the history of the ancestors of man is the original trunk, the core of all other emerging forms. The chain of creatures that leads to the Anthropogenesis runs like a golden thread through the thick foliage of the tree. The descent of man is the internal link that holds the whole evolution.
The structures of higher animals and lower (invertebrates, vertebrates, amniote, warm-blooded animals, placental, primates) have emerged as lateral branches, one after another, from the trunk of humankind. But, regarding the development of the body, the higher mammals have exceeded the human form, so they have entered in evolutionary dead ends.
All the time, the human prototype has evolved inside the current that we have called macroevolution, thanks to the adoption of many successive forms. These human ancestors have always lived in an embryonic form and their bodies were in a very soft state. The ancestors of the great families of animals have been developed that way. These ancestors would be the mysterious chain of "missing links" that have always worried the paleontologists, forcing them to let the center of the tree of evolution be full of questions.
But how do you combine this with the fact that the skeletal remains of hominids are the latest to be found in the fossil record? To address this question, let's see, first that paleontology has come to the conclusion that the species with fossil skeleton bone, internal or external, are only ten percent of all those that have existed.
Well, we have raised the hypothesis that the various human forms always lived in habitats that in each period, were the least dense planet, coinciding with climatically privileged areas. They were able to maintain their fluid consistency all the time, without hardening too much and therefore without acquiring a skeleton bone until relatively recent times. Its skeleton was not mineralized bone, but made of cartilage and thus have vanished without a trace.
This idea becomes more plausible if we remember what we said about the fluid consistency of the planet, including continents, until late Tertiary. Human bodies were not specialized, but they remained flexible until maturation of the entire planet. At that time and for the first time in history, it was possible for a being to adquire an appropriate body to receive the self.
As Hermann Poppelbaum says:
«Again and again, in the long march of evolution, man had the quality of keeping its body flexible,low mineralized and non-specialized, and this feature has allowed his evolutionary development without any interruption. Man is the mother cell of evolution. He does not come from any specialized animal species, but he has its own independent origin, a trend that we still can see reflected in the embryonic development, the mirror of phylogenesis»
For this reason, no paleontologist has been able to find any trace fossil of a true ancestor of modern humans. And if it does not happen a lucky discovery of a fossil of the phosphated kind, may never be found: the famous missing links would be lost forever.
The secret of the sudden appearance of fossil traces of man in the glaciers of the Quaternary, and the lack of older tracks in the geological record, is due to this resistence of man against mineralization in the tertiary era. This clarifies the darkest mystery of evolution, which has been providing extraordinary challenges to the scientists and that has seemed to provide an argument for creationists, who oppose the application of evolutionary fact to humans.
If the evolutionary line of man, until he reached the level of development called Homo sapiens sapiens has been formed entirely of links definitely lost, one can understand the great scientific mystery that has always accompanied his appearance on Earth. (Pages 273-276).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Our expanded concept of evolution proposes that Man is a multi-dimensional being who at first was almost immaterial, and that gradually molded bodies increasingly visible and material, while he adjusted to them. According to this view strongly anthropic, the history of the human species would not be a development from bacteria to actual man, but the path followed by a spiritual seed that crosses all stages of evolution, until the present human form, already with a physical body and able to contain consciousness.
The hidden purpose of evolution from its earliest beginnings would be the emergence and development of Man's consciousness on Earth. What we see today around us as the animal kingdom would not be the ancestors of modern humans, but the rest left on the road by the human being who had to put aside his wraps, in order to free himself from the constraints of his own evolution.