Il signore dell’anello mancante.
I biologi raggruppano gli esseri viventi in base ai criteri
da loro stessi utilizzati. Già Aristotele classificò gli
animali in base ai loro mezzi di locomozione e
all’ambiente in cui vivevano.
Linneo sistemò le specie in base alle caratteristiche morfologiche condivise. Il suo sistema fu accettato dagli scienziati e i suoi raggruppamenti furono ccontinuamente perfezionati fino a quando essi
furono riletti secondo le teorie evoluzioniste di discendenza filogenetica proposte da Charles Darwin.
Based on these concepts we humans (Homo sapiens sapiens Linnaeus, 1758)
we were pigeonholed in the family of hominids that includes many
extinct genera and seven species of great apes. In practice
according to these criteria are evolving bipedal primates. It can not be denied that the man has shared it with the other primates, pygmy dall'uistitì the gorilla, the following features:
- 5 toes on each paw, with an opposable thumb and short nails for a firm grip on branches and food;
- a non-specialized dentition, which is an omnivorous diet;
- binocular and color vision, with eyes that face forward, to see
well the distances in three-dimensionally.
We have therefore made a courtesy to classify the family of hominids (Hominidae, Gray 1825) also known as great apes. Of this group includes orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, the genus Homo and some fossil groups, including the australopithecines.
The closest species to man are then of the hominin subfamily (Homininae). It is unclear the exact criterion that distinguishes hominin, but are included in the sub-species that have at least 97% of the DNA corresponding to the human genome and have some ability to communicate between individuals and social relations in the family and the troop. Now the genome
corresponds to 98.6% of chimpanzees to humans and the rest
there are huge differences in gene content between Homo sapiens and other mammals such as the mouse (Mouse Genome Sequencing Consortium
, Nature 2002). Even the puffer fish
essentially the same genes and gene regulatory sequences, the same man, but with only an eighth of junk DNA (1). From the various genome projects shows that are more than 99% genes in common between mice and men. But also realize that biologists want to infer from what a man's descent from the mouse would only be a simplification. In fact, using as criteria
classify certain material aspects and not essential is a very charming way and probably approximate.
But even if the time limit for the observations to the physical
we see fundamental differences between humans and other primates:
man is the only animal to have the pharynx (2) and is the only
mammal to walk upright (3).
Already these two small details would have to reflect the experts classified in the same family since monkeys and men. But obviously too much erudition sometimes clouded his mind, considering that even at the local market have the good sense to divide the apples from oranges even though both are spherical.
When it comes to categorize such books, the librarian does not take into account only some of the size of the cover or the number of pages: categorizes them by subject and by author and title. That takes account of the content. The fact that writers and poets to use the same words, the same marks and equal signs spelling does not necessarily mean that one has copied the other hand: What really is the essence that is the logical thread that holds together the words and concepts. So the fact that living beings are formed of the same proteins and minerals and even have a genomic structure similar to the 90% does not necessarily mean that one evolved from the other.
What then there is an unbroken chain of evolution between the cell and the man is a legend. The reality is that monkeys are monkeys and men are men between the two species there is an abyss. Who have given the name Australopithecus (from Southern píthēkos + (greek) monkey), Homo erectus, Homo habilis fossils to some extinct, using terminology that puts together deliberately ape and man, trying to pretend that they belong to so undisputed same evolutionary chain is a compassionate doomed to a wretched failure. Already some of the most honest scientists recognize that these fossils, even though they have the name of Homo, are extinct apes (including the current walked stooped as monkeys) (4).
Other fossils such as the Cro-Magnon, the Man of Oberkassel, the Neanderthals were perfect men: they had only made the mistake of having a more robust and massive physique
or prominent or hooked nose. It is well
true, but even today there are human types or races (if it is still permissible to use this term) who have more physically robust and massive than the other.
And then there's this frantic quest for the missing. And indeed often
news agencies with which issues press
announce the discovery of the ring is missing between the monkey and man, that would
the final touch to close the question evolution. The that these reports are often already shows that the ring is missing and then there is an unbridgeable difference between monkey and man. Besides, if they had found once and for all there would be no need to continually reiterate the news. But look at one of the last
:
April 2010 "was launched the news of the discovery in South Africa
the partial skeleton of a child dating back two million years ago
Malapa in the cave, not far from Johannesburg and
Sterkfontein, a site well known in paleoanthropology for other hominids
findings reported in 1947 and beyond. In the cave were found some skeletons and a child's of eleven or twelve years have been provided the first observations. It is reported a new species
australopithecines, called 'Australopithecus Sedibe' (a term that
in local language means 'good start') and is part of the evolutionary stage that preceded the appearance of man. The new finding, as reported in the journal Science, 'australopithecines characteristics in morphology and in cranial capacity (420 cc), in body size (and half a meter), length of arms. ... It seems more likely that it is an African australopithecines survived as long as the mitigation of some australopithecines character is not to be linked with age youth "(5).
to consider is that we want to post this fossil in the evolutionary chain
man seems a big stretch. Just note that
a cranial capacity of 420 cc is less than current and chimpanzees is very far from that of man (1250-1500 cc). The fossils, which are considered the ancestors of men, once again, or in fact belong to different human races or species of monkeys (6).
Without recourse to the dictates of Jesus Maria Valtorta of 30 December 1946 (7) the mere use of right reason is to recognize that man is different from the rest of living beings for the intelligence, which verbal language is a feature. Some might argue that other animals are intelligent: it's easy to say that the so-called intelligent animal, like the dog or the dolphin, but intelligence is not only memory and instinct, instinct even as it is only the social language such as ants or bees.
Professor Rocco Pititto, University of Naples Federico II, summarizes it this way: the verbal language is a skill and original characteristic of the man, "a good and a common heritage" to all men. Language is a unique ability of Homo sapiens sapiens, that being giunto, infine, al culmine della sua evoluzione biologica e culturale, seguendo dei percorsi, che lo hanno portato a differenziarsi dagli altri animali e a specializzarsi all’interno della sua specie. La capacità dell’uomo di parlare e significare, da un lato, si situa nelle strutture biologiche dell’uomo (eredità biologica), dall’altro richiede un particolare apprendimento, determinato dalla natura relazionale dell’essere dell’uomo (apprendimento sociale). E’ una
buona sintesi anche se c’è l’immancabile richiamo all’evoluzionismo. Afferma però un concetto irrefutabile: il linguaggio verbale è una capacità esclusiva dell’uomo. Per parlare condizione is necessary but not sufficient to have sufficient biological structures, which only the man (the pharynx, larynx, tongue and mouth and the brain areas in place).
But not enough to have perfect vocal apparatus: the child learning to speak
also requires a particular learning, which in most cases
occurs naturally, listening to their parents or whoever.
Unfortunately, you can be silent for two reasons: either because they lack even one of the bodies involved in the production of sound or simply because
deaf since birth. The deaf people are often in possession
a perfect vocal apparatus, but nevertheless are not
in a position to speak, because they have lacked social learning. In fact, those born deaf or become due to illness in the first year of life, despite all the physical means to speak, unable to hear human words, remain silent if they are re-educated to time. We observe again that children raised by animals learn the language of the animal that has kept them: famous are the cases of children wolf or monkey, which returned only adult in the concert calendar no longer have learned to speak (The Legend of Tarzan is true on the contrary).
a common experience is the case of children who learn naturally and effortlessly
the mother tongue. To learn to speak need to hear someone
who speaks the language, if you hear the Italian learn Italian, if you listen to the Japanese to learn Japanese: it is a truth to which there is no escape (8). If you can not hear because there is nobody to teach you or are you deaf, you learn to speak, the deaf are dumb because of their deafness (not because they lack a larynx or pharynx).
Therefore, the first man could not learn to speak for itself:
necessarily needed to hear the voice of another (eg compare Genesis 3:8 "Then God heard the voice of the Lord ..."). And this is a logical proof against evolution.
therefore understand the meaning of the note in 1866 of Société de Linguistique de Paris, che aveva vietato qualsiasi comunicazione
relativa al tema dell’origine del linguaggio. Infatti le resistenze e i sospetti di molti studiosi contemporanei nei confronti del tema continuano, così come la diffidenza degli studiosi di stampo umanista nei confronti dell’evoluzionismo darwiniano.
La nostra lo ammettiamo non è una prova scientifica: è solo una
dimostrazione logica. Dal punto di vista della scienza sperimentale, entrambe le ipotesi sulle origini, sia l’evoluzionista che la creazionista, sono inverificabili. Su questi temi ultimi non è la scienza, ma la filosofia, a doversi pronunciare.
Noi per il momento ci potremmo accontentare che l’evoluzionismo venisse
presented as is the reality: a scientific hypothesis pending find any verified evidence. And especially in schools and also in the oratorios of the arguments in favor of the creation of man were presented in an impartial manner. Alfonso
Marzocco
1) Andersson U. and others, Long noncoding RNAs with
Enhancer-like Function in Human Cells, Cell 2010, 143:46-48. "Gentlemen, it is time to remove from the dictionary the term 'junk DNA': this term is used to determine that 98% of the genome that does not code for proteins may now be considered obsolete. E 'was coined in a time when it was still believed that all the work in the cells, the proteins they did, and that the DNA could not be translated easily dismissed as a relic with no evolutionary function. In recent years, however, science is backtracking, having discovered that the much-exploited part of the genome actually has some important functions of regulation: after all, the transcripts are translated into proteins that are only a small part of the Mountains RNA produced by the cells. 'RNA interference' and microRNA ', discovered in the 90s are the most prominent exponents of this
army of new players rose to the fore, but they are not alone. "
2) The pharynx is a typical man, is also missing in most primates
close to us. It 's a small space located in the oro-buccal cavity, between the epiglottis and soft palate. In humans, the sounds are formed in the larynx by the vibration of the vocal cords. These vibrations pass through the larynx and arrive at the mouth, where they are changed again.
3) The conquest of the station and walking erect, from a developmental point of view
, experts say, is hard to acquire and is much more unlikely that the developing brain.
4) Compare Lord Solly Zuckerman and Professor Charles Oxnard,
Holly Smith, Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood and Frans Zonneveld.
5) Fiorenzo Facchini, another homo but he is a man? The legend of the ring
missing: a ring that binds those to whom?
6) Harun Yahya, The Evolution Deceit,
www.lingannodellevoluzione.com / index.php
7) Maria Valtorta, The Notebooks 1945-50, Isola Liri, CEV, "writes the mystical December 30, 1946 : I hear the news that they found in a cave skeletons of man-ape. Rest thoughtfully saying: How can they say that? There must have been bad men. Ape ape faces and bodies, there are now too. Perhaps the primitives were different from us in the skeleton. I get another thought: But other than beauty. I can not think that early humans were more ugly of us being closer to the specimen that God had created perfect and that certainly was beautiful as well as strong. I think of as the most perfect beauty in the creative work has been able to degrade so as to allow scientists to deny that man was created by God and man is the evolution of the human ape. Jesus speaks to me and says, 'Search for the key in the 6th Chapter of Genesis. Read it '. I read it.
Jesus asks me: 'Understand?'. No, sir. I understand that men
immediately became corrupt and nothing more. I do not know who has the relevant chapter with the uomoscimmia.
Jesus smiles and says, 'You are not alone in not understanding. They do not understand the
sapienti e non gli scienziati, non i credenti e non gli atei. Stai attenta. E comincia a recitare: E avendo cominciato gli uomini a moltiplicarsi sulla terra e avendo avuto delle figlie i figli di Dio, o figli di Set, videro che le figlie degli uomini (figlie di Caino) erano belle e sposarono quelle che fra tutte a loro piacquero... Ora dunque, dopo che i figli di Dio si congiunsero con le figlie degli uomini e queste partorirono, ne vennero fuori quegli uomini potenti, famosi nei secoli’. ‘Sono gli uomini che per potenza del loro scheletro colpiscono i vostri scienziati, che ne deducono che al principio dei tempi l’uomo era molto più alto e forte di quanto è attualmente, e dalla struttura del loro cranio deducono che l’uomo derivi the monkey. The usual mistakes of men the mysteries of creation '. "
8) Significant in this regard for example the experience of St. Joseph
Bakhita, who was born and lived in Sudan, after meeting
slavery in Africa, including the Canossian Sisters in Schio (Vicenza) spoke no Italian, but only the Venetian dialect.
__________________________
