Some believe that evolution is empty talk, pointless. What are the researchers who study evolution? Some who want to assert themselves, to launch their careers, and that's why I make assumptions, I'm doing studies that no one needs. It would be one of them, as in any profession, but evolution is the backbone of biology, Fara ea biology e naturalism, that is, the description of some species and that's it, as it was done in the 18th century, but even then evolutionary theories had started to be issued (for example that of Lamarck). What I don't know is that it has practical applications, leads to the creation of more productive plant species, so it intervenes in the fight against hunger, but also helps to understand some diseases, which brings us closer to their treatment. I know that some people are allergic to discussions about diseases, about their mechanisms, but evolution does that too. To return to my hammer, my evolutionary theory, exposed in the book The Civilization of Hunger/a New Approach to Humanization really does that. You know that man suffers from very serious or incurable diseases, but rare or non-existent in the chimpanzee, although the similarity between these species at the genetic level is approximately 99%? But who wants to talk about type II diabetes?, cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, Alzheimer's or mental illness, of the common mechanisms of these diseases, of their connection with the environment in which man would have evolved? Anyway, for who is interested, there is only one place where you can find the answer to the question why man gets these diseases or gets them in a much higher proportion than the chimpanzee (it has and how I do not detail here). My book and of course what it has to do with it. Diseases are not a cute subject, and healing them doesn't make you a hero, but the fight.
The war of evolution with sacred embryology
So because people will go to war, they want controversial topics, evolution also gives them something like that. Abortion is, to my great surprise, even in Romania, a controversial topic. Why? Because it is considered that human life begins at conception. Recent, in a statement, doamna Hillary Clinton, said that, after visiting Romania, she speaks in favor of the right to abortion, although he considers that life begins at conception. Mrs. Clinton was said to be a very smart woman. But she seems to be smart, but he didn't like biology. How life begins at conception? Life begins long before. Life is in every cell in the animal body, uman etc. Then how to start from conception? The eggs and spermatozoa from which the egg cell results were dead? Not. Then life begins before conception, life is also in diploid cells (SOMATIC, all cells in the human body except germ cells), but also the haploid ones (with twice the number of chromosomes, i.e. the egg and the sperm). There are mature organisms that are haploid in other species (plante, for example). Then clearly life does not begin at conception. But when human life begins? That's harder. If I'm not mistaken, although I recognize my lack of culture in the field of religion (beyond reading the Bible), it is considered that the soul is received at conception. On the other hand, animals have no soul, what to me, passing over the non-explanation of the nature of the soul and other aspects, it seems to me a great injustice. At least mammals should have souls, although the soul is here a function of their nervous system. But the product of conception is man? Animals don't have souls because they don't talk, they don't have human thinking, they have no conscience, it is said. But the product of conception has? Chimps don't have souls, but some cells with human DNA have In its development, the human embryo, as known from Haeckel, it resembles other organisms that precede man in the phylogenetic scale (Ontogeny repeats phylogeny, although things are more complicated). In these phases, the human embryo is over, amphibious, mammalian, but not man. When can you consider yourself a man?? Well, if we think that in the last trimester of pregnancy, the human brain doubles its volume, the humanization of the embryo takes place very late. The chimpanzee has a brain of 3 times smaller than man, and those who oppose abortion do not think it is a crime to kill a chimpanzee, who communicates so humanely, and his society is so much like ours In addition, the humanization of the human child takes place after birth to an extraordinary extent. The brain continues its rapid growth, but his nervous system is not yet human. The newborn not only does not speak, he has no consciousness, but he can't even walk or keep his head in a vertical position. Man is not only human biology, it is human education, the influence of human society. Feral children are an image of the human biological condition, outside human education. I wonder what the theologians considered, wild children have souls? But the children in Romanian orphanages during Ceausescu's time?
Society makes us human
According to Romanian laws, the condition of citizenship was obtained per year, until then, children were outside the law, they could be killed without legal consequences. Of course, and the barbarism, but it reflects the way of perceiving the appearance of the human condition in the ancients. For a modern evolutionist, the moment of the beginning of human life is quite difficult to place in time, for this we first need a clear and precise definition of the human condition. What is certain is that, through the prism of evolution, we must give human individuals as many chances as possible to exist. As people. The goal of any species is for its genes to be as well represented as possible. Yes, man outside of human culture and society is not a man. An abortion destroys the virtual chance of a human existence. But it can be considered an infinitely smaller crime than blocking a child's access to education, his marginalization and condemnation to a miserable life, often in the penitentiary system. Between the appearance of the product of conception and human life there is a distance measured in decisive natural events, biology, greater than between the condition of an intelligent child and that of an educated adult, integrated into society. That is, an intelligent child, naturally, he has more chances to become a cultured man, more useful to society than an embryo becoming a human, chances that society can destroy. It is the same society that is guilty of abortion, when its most unfortunate members (poor women, needucate, together with their partners from the same backgrounds) I resort to this practice. It is painful that in the 21st century such problems still arise. Instead of banning abortion, society should deal with measures so that people no longer resort to it except in special conditions (serious congenital malformations, endangering the mother's life). The right to abortion should only be like the right to legitimate defense or the defense of property. To be registered in the law, but people must understand that it is not good to kill criminals who enter their house or car.
