History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Comment from Dov Henis

March 29th, 2011 · 10 Comments

Dov Henis 2011/03/27 at 10:29 am
Rethink Evolution/Natural Selection

“understanding the genetic mechanisms that drive evolution”???
What Drives What???

Apply Critical Thinking For Solving THE RIGHT USA SCIENCE PROBLEM

AAAS Through History’s Lens
Imprinting Diversity?

Enough Is Enough!
It Is Not “Genomic Imprinting Affects Diversity”
It Is “Culture/Diversity Imprints Genetics”.

Part I

A. “Imprinting Diversity”


B. On Human-Primate Diversity

“Aging rates, gender gap in mortality similar across all primates”


“Age affects us all”


C. Again And Again: It’s Culture That Modifies Genetics

But in the case of human-primates the process takes millions of years because the original primate physiological genetics are better conserved in humans than in their original primate relatives. In humans the modifications are in the brains, in evolving capabilities to modify their environments and toolings, whereas their relative primates need to continuously adapt
physiologically to changing environments. Humans modify environs, their forefathers adapt to environs.

D. On Uniquely Human Traits

Horse And Wagon, Culture And Genetics

It’s Culture That Modifies Genetics, Not Genetics That Modifies Culture!

“How DNA deletions may have produced uniquely human traits”


With such a title you don’t need to read the article; it would apparently explain how a wagon pulls the horse.

“Seed of Human-Chimp Genomes Diversity”


Dov Henis
(Comments from 22nd century)


Part II

From a letter I recently e’mailed elsewhere re “Big Brains And Spineless Penises”
Or “Sex, Spines And Human Evolution”:

Now, from where comes such scientific ignorance to Stanford?
Like most science ignorance (and there’s plenty of it around) it flows mainly from the following “spring of creativity”:

A. Genes/genomes are ORGANISMS, subject to natural selection.

Update comprehension of cosmos and life evolution.

Apply Critical Thinking For Solving THE RIGHT USA SCIENCE PROBLEM

Why Life Eats And Why Life Sleeps:
Life eats because the universe expands.
Life sleeps because when RNAs genesised there was not yet biometabolism.

US losing lead in science?

“The proportion of papers authored by US researchers, Wagner reported, dropped by 20 percent from 1996 to 2008.”
News From AAAS


Just the proportion of the “papers”?
Otherwise the US “papers” have been, are, and prospected to be of scientific value?

See “Hope For Science?”


And see the following two E-medium samples, thus presently taboo, nonAAASkoshered nonpeerreviewable notes:


1st sample

Genes And Genomes Are Both Organisms

Genomes Are RNA-Evolved Template ORGANISMS
EpiDNAtics Is Not Epigenetics

From “Dispel Some Figments Of 2010 Science Imagination”


The “heritable or enduring changes” are epiDNAtics, not epigenetics. Alternative splicing is not epigenetics, even if/when not involving alteration of the DNA sequence. Earth life is an RNA world.

It’s the RNAs that evolve proteins. AND IT’S THE RNAs THAT HAVE EVOLVED AND PRODUCE AND EMPLOY THE RNA and (stabler) DNA template genome organisms for carrying out life processes, i.e. for enhancing Earth’s biosphere by proliferating RNAs, for augmenting and constraining as long as possible some energy by augmenting its, RNA’s, self-propagation, constraining temporarily some of the total energy of the universe, all of which is nevertheless destined to fuel the ongoing cosmic expansion.


Science should adjust its vision, comprehension and concepts.

Dov Henis
(comments from 22nd century)


2nd sample

Suggested 2010 Updated Concepts Of Evolution, Natural Selection



On The Nature And Origin Of Cosmic, Including Life, Evolution, Beyond Darwin And Einstein

The purpose of OUR life and of its promotion is ours to formulate and set. It derives solely from our cognition. The nature and origin of cosmic, including life, evolution:

Natural Selection Derives From Cosmic Expansion

“Evolution is energy temporarily constrained in a mass format to postpone reconversion of the mass to the energy fueling the cosmic expansion”.


Origin And Nature Of Natural Selection

Life is another mass format, a self-replicating mass format.
All mass formats are subject to natural selection.
Natural selection is the delaying conversion of mass to the energy fueling cosmic expansion.
Cosmic expansion is the reconversion of all mass to energy.

Natural Selection Updated 2010, Beyond Historical Concepts:

Natural Selection applies to ALL mass formats. Life, self-replicating format, is just one of them.
Natural Selection Defined:

Natural selection is E (energy) temporarily constrained in an m (mass) format. Period.

Natural selection is a ubiquitous property of each and every and all cosmic mass, spin array, formats. Mass strives to increase its constrained energy content in attempt to postpone its reconversion to energy and to postpone addition of its constitutional energy to the totality of the cosmic energy that fuels the cosmic expansion going on since Big Bang.

Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)

Cosmic Evolution Simplified


Gravity Is The Monotheism Of The Cosmos



Longevity Schmongevity Genes?

It’s Not The Procedure, But The Concept That Is Absurd

Longevity Genes Search Reflects Science Decadence


A. “For most centenarians, longevity is written in the DNA.”

A study of people who live past 100 reveals many genetic paths to a long life.


B. Longevity is about survival, which is about “natural selection”, which is about energy constrainment, which is about life evolution, which is about cosmic evolution. All mass is destined to reconvert to energy to fuel the ongoing cosmic expansion. This is why organisms and black holes etc., eat, digest energy in mass forms, to delay-postpone conversion to energy. This is evolution, which is natural selection, which is survival, which is longevity.

All mass formats age, degenerate back into enery. Life is a mass format. Searching for longevity genes is searching for evolution genes…

C. The search for longevity genes is a reflection of the 20th-21st centuries science decadence

Its concepts and terminology reflect the abandonment of basic science for adoption of the pretentious cancerous capitalist 20th-21st century technology culture.

Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)


Rethink Astronomy And The Universe
( even without Quantum Unique Ergodicity, but with plain commonsense )

Galactic clusters formed by dispersion, not by conglomeration. The proof of this is their behaviour, including acceleration, as Newtonian bodies.

These bodies formed at the start of inflation, when all energy was still in mass format, and the inflation was the start of reconversion of cosmic mass into energy. Cosmic expansion acceleration rate differs for galactic clusters, proceeding according to Newton’s laws, proportional to the various galactic clusters’ masses.

– A Basic Physics Tenet
– The Universe In Which We Live

A. “Neutrino quick-change artist caught in the act”

A transformation from one ‘flavor’ to another confirms the elusive elementary particles have mass and suggests a need for new physics.


B. Adopt

– Each and every particle has mass.
– Dark energy and dark matter YOK. All the universe energy and mass are plainly accounted for.
– Higgs field/particle YOK. Mass forms below some value of D in E=Total[m(1 + D)] .
– Do not be afraid of embarrassingly obvious answers. Adopt space-distance in lieu of space-time.

C. And Rethink The Universe:

By the presently available data our universe is a dual-cycle array, between the mass and energy poles.

One cycle, the present, started from singularity, with all cosmic energy in mass format, and it has been proceeding to reconvert all the mass resolved at the Big Bang back to energy, by expanding the cosmos, by accelerating away the galaxy clusters.

The other cycle, the cycle leading to singularity, will re-start when expansion consumes most of the mass that fuels it. Gravity will then overcome expansion and initiate reconversion of all the energy back to mass, to singularity, again.

Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)

Dispel Some Figments Of 2010 Science Imagination


03.2010 Updated Life Manifest


28Dec09 Updated “Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)] ”


Evolution, Natural Selection, Derive From Cosmic Expansion


Tags: Evolution

10 responses so far ↓

  • 1 bible prophesy | 21st century | world war 3 | world war 3 predictions // Mar 30, 2011 at 1:00 am

    […] Is Iran the next target on the United States hit list? Can this possibly be the beginning of World War 3? According the Bible prophesy that is precisely what is going to happen.. Video Rating: 0 / 5 You may also find this relevant: http://darwiniana.com/2011/03/29/comment-from-dov-henis/ […]

  • 2 Ethan // Mar 30, 2011 at 2:40 am

    A surprising number of AAAS presidents were
    directors or members of the American Eugenics
    Society. Like Jordan and Conklin, for instance.
    See here: Darwinism-Eugenics

  • 3 Dov Henis // Apr 3, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    Again, Correct Some Figments Of Science Imagination

    1. Dark energy and matter YOK. Per E=Total[m(1 + D)] all the energy and matter of the universe are accounted for.
    Adopt space-massdistance concept, mass-to-enrgy reconversion.

    2. Higgs Particle YOK. Mass forms below some value of the above D.

    3. Galactic clusters formed by conglomeration?
    Galactic clusters formed by Big-Bang’s dispersion, evidenced by their Newtonian behaviour including expansion acceleration.

    4. The universe expansion is fueled by the mass-to-enrgy reconversion. Eventually, as expansion will slow down, will run out of massfuel, gravity will overcome expansion and initiate empansion back to singularity. The universe is a cyclic array of energy-mass dualism, between all-energy and all-mass poles, under omnipresent gravity.

    5. Natural Selection is a trait of organisms, life?
    No. Natural selection is ubiquitous for ALL mass formats, all spin arrays. It derives from the expansion of the universe. All mass formats, regardless of size and type, from black holes to smallest particles, strive to increase their constrained energy in attempt to postpone their own reconversion to energy, to the energy that fuels cosmic expansion.

    6. Life is an enigma?
    Life is just another type of mass array, a self-replicating mass array. Earth life is a replicating RNAs mass. It has always been and still is an RNA world. ALL Earth’s organisms are evolved RNAs, evolved for maintaining-enhancing Earth’s biosphere, for prolonging RNAs survival.

    7. Cells are Earth-life’s primal organisms?
    NO. Earth’s life day one was the day on which RNA began replicating. RNAs, genes, are ORGANISMS. And so are their evolved templates, (RNA and DNA) genomes, ORGANISMS, as evidenced by life’s chirality and by life’s sleep.

    8. Circadian Schmircadian sleep origin?
    Sleep is inherent for life via the RNAs, the primal Earth ORGANISMS originated and originally active only under direct sunlight, in their pre-metabolism genesis era.

    9. Epigenetics are heritable gene functions changes not involving changes in DNA sequence?
    The “heritable or enduring changes” are epiDNAtics, not epigenetics. Alternative splicing is not epigenetics, even if/when not involving alteration of the DNA sequence. Earth life is an RNA world.

    10.Genetics drive biology and culture modifications?
    NO. It is culture that modifies genetics, not genetics that modifies culture. Culture modifies genetics simply via the evolutionary natural selection process of the RNA ORGANISMS. Likewise many natural genetic changes are due to aging and/or circumstantial effects on the genes and/or genomes ORGANISMS, similar to aging and/or evolutionary processes in monocell communities or in multicelled organisms.


    Dov Henis
    (Comments From 22nd Century)
    Seed of Human-Chimp Genomes Diversity
    03.2010 Updated Life Manifest
    Evolution, Natural Selection, Derive From Cosmic Expansion
    Rethink Evolution/Natural Selection

  • 4 dovhenis // Apr 20, 2011 at 8:54 am

    I tried, several hours, to learn how to POST the following as an “essay” in “science & religion”, but FAILED. Simply FAILED… So here it is as a “comment” :

    Inception And Prevalence Of Western Monotheism

    Sept 23 2007 physforum

    I have always been baffled by references to the Jewish religion, into which I was born, as “monotheistic since Abraham”.


    I have been born and raised with the Hebrew language, and am reasonably familiar with the old testament, that has been fully compiled and cannonized by circa 100 AD. I am not aware of any statement in the old testament that may be cited to suggest or support monotheism, i.e. the doctrine or belief that there is but one God.

    Yes, there is a profusion of urgings of monolatry, i.e. of worship of a single deity, in the old testament, worship only of the Yehovah god that “adopted” Abraham and “promised him The Covenant”. But throughout the OT there is a clear “awareness” of “gods of other peoples” without any shred of denial of their existence. Even the declaration of Moses to the multitudes on their way from Egypt to their forefathers’ land : “Hear O Israel, Yehovah our god is one Yehovah”, is meant by him to allay their apprehension that their long-ago-forefathers’ god may not presently be their protector god. The then prevalent concept was that god was a regional authority, and the Israelites, being then “regionally displaced”, felt unprotected and apprehensive. And Moses proceeds then to warn them : (Deuteronomy 6:14) “You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you…”. Stick with your forefathers’ historical god…


    We thus see that the treatment of, and references to, Abrahamic “monotheism” are incorrectly confused with monolatry, i.e. with worship of a single deity.

    One consequence of this confusion is that e-searches of Explicit Inception Date of Monotheism, and e-searches of Prevalence of Monotheism, are hopelessly and desperately fruitless and overwhelmed with irrelevant background noise.


    I have a feeling that a discussion and clarification of this subject might contribute more than just information…


    Sept 27 2007 physforum

    Jews, And Roots Of Western Monotheism

    I thought that within the framework of examination and definition of “Western Civilization” it would be interesting to learn what our attitudes are about monotheism, i.e. about the doctrine or belief that there is but one god. My ‘plan’ was to follow this with an examination of our attitudes about the ‘nature’ of ‘god’ or ‘gods’.

    As I sought to “research” the background for this thread I became frustrated with the lack of information about the inception and prevalence of monotheism, due to an indiscriminate reference to monolatry as monotheism. The following is from an old, relevant, posting of mine:

    Jews, And Roots Of Western Monotheism:

    (a) To me, a student of evolution, Life is a fractal phenomenon, and I see this wherever I look. In the course of evolution of Judaism (religion of Judea, kingdom of the tribes Judah and Benjamin) there were two revolutionary evolutions.

    Until the destruction of Solomon’s temple and the exile of Judeans to Babylonia (586 BC) the god of the ten-tribes kingdom, Israel, and of Judea, was similar to other contemporary near-east gods, i.e. a regional people’s god with jurisdiction over the people’s territory. At circa 720 BC

    the Assyrian Sargon II completed the 3-year siege of Samaria, Israel’s capital, started by his brother Shalmaneser V, and deported the Israeltes from Israel, replacing them with rebels against Assyria from other countries. Having, most probably, adopted the local regional religions, the ten tribes became “lost” whereas the new implanted Samaritans became “nou-veau Israelites”.

    However, when the Judeans were uprooted into exile to Babylonia they expanded to a concept of non-territorial omnipresent omnipotent god. This to me is similar in significance to 1st century AD evolution of Western religion as the 5.4 million yr ago move of our chimpanze/bonobo forefathers from the trees to the plains, that started human’s evolution. This was the first step in establishing the present Western monotheistic concepts.

    Then in the 1st century AD the Hellenistic Jew Paulus, from Tarsus, started a symbiosis of Jewish thoughts with Hellenistic beliefs, and this evolved into Christianity, which found welcome followers as it released gentile, non-Jewish, joiners from the bothersome daily Mitzvot, commandments, which Jews developed explicitly for preventing such a symbiosis.

    This turned to be a very successful evolutionary turn, similar to the symbiosis of early cells with either a mitochondria or a chloroplast cell to end up with very successful energy processing cells.

    (b) Most present religious Jewish customs/commandments were formulated and developed in their various exiles, especially since the massive Roman exiles during the 2nd half of the 1st century AD, when for surviving with their unique culture and heritage, their unique cultural phenotype, Jews had to separate themselves in several aspects from surrounding cultures. Some few earlier original customs evolved still prior to the first Judean exile into Babylon, for protecting their culture from surrounding cultures.

    (c) My own feeling is that Western humanity made a mistake in 1st century AD. It was then on a cultural crossroad and elected not to continue with the inherently tolerant polytheistic culture, tolerant by definition; it elected to go on a monotheistic route, which is by definition intolerant and raises self-righteous banners of single absolute truths that have lead to endless pains and injustices.


    Sept 29 2007 physforum

    Of Science and Religion

    Nov 11 04 – Dec 4 05, Dov in Brights and biologicalEvolution forums

    Dear Pen-Pal,


    We live on a tiny speck of dust within an infinitely immense swirl.

    Life ( also a black hole? ) is a substantiation of a temporary containment of cosmic energy dilution. All forms of Earth life are thus temporary energy bubbles. We are not yet able to figure out the implications of this.

    Evolution did us a disservice, endowing us with “intelligence”, with the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, causing us to perceive and explore and wonder.

    Some of us, like you, feel desperately lost without an ID (Inteligent Design) or without “everything being shaped by…something”. You need to subsist under some form of Providence. Your peace of mind and your reflective elation are founded on a feeling that your existence is purposed towards something vague of which it will somehow sometime become a part.

    Some of us, like me, regard our cosmic circumstances, all reality, and our meagre comprehension of them as an invitation to explore and chart the infinite aspects of the evolving universe. In pursuit of this we try to fashion ourselves in accordance with what we progressively learn about the universe and about life and about ourselves.

    This, in my opinion, is the difference between religious and science-based worldviews.


    Science is science is science, regardless of WHO SAYS WHAT.

    Someone says “… if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God”.

    NO. Nature’s patterns, physical laws and rules at all cosmic levels, have NOT always been there. They have been evolving since the beginning, from nil through ever more complexity at an ever consequent accelerating rate typical of an evolving system, towards an unfathomable end or towards a border of return back to singularity.

    Thus this someone’s god is an “evolving god”…


    And if you are unable to rid yourself of distress and bewilderment without a god of local or personal involvement just ponder what you are and where you are.

    Out of the billions of galaxies consider just one, our own galaxy the Milky Way. It, OUR galaxy, just one example out of many many billions, comprises circa 300 billion (10^9) M stars (smaller size than our sun) and 30 billion (10^9) G (our sun-size) stars, with planets and with other dust particles smaller or bigger than the tiny dust particle we call Earth…


    15 June 2006, an added entry:

    Science and Religion

    Psychiatrist draws a straight vetrticle line on a sheet of paper, shows it to the patient and asks: “what do you see?”

    Patient, somewhat excited: “A standing naked woman…”

    The psychiatrist draws a horizontal line, shows it and asks: “What do you see now?”

    Patient, more excitedly: “A lying naked woman…”

    The psychiatrist now draws a 90-deg angle and asks: “And what do you see now?”

    Patient, overcome with excitement: “A naked woman lying with her legs up…”

    “Man”, says the psychiatrist, “You’re sex crazy!”

    “Doc”, says the patient, “It’s you who draws these sexy drawings, not I!”

    Scientists see the lines, religious persons see the drawings…


    Albert Einstein:

    “Without Science there can be no Religion, without Religion there can be no Science”.

    You don’t have to be an Einstein to make such a profound statement.

    Obviously there can be no night without day and no day without night. As day and night define each other so proof and faith define each other.

    And re the connotation of this statement: just as in looking at a 90 degree angle a scientism-guided person sees the two sides and angle whereas other persons may see more than the two sides and angle, so this statement conjures different implications in different persons.


    Sept 23 2006, Hypo forum

    Re Religion and Re Bible

    – Religion, being a component of culture, which is a biological attribute, is one of the evolutionary factors ( not revolutionary, even though, I know, subversive too…) that humans artifacted when/where it served them well for survival. It has been functioning socially and personally for human phenotypes survival (comprising also a feeling of geno- and pheno-type self-esteem) for thousands of years. However, being a human artifact based on faith and also in many cases (not all) favoring inherently and intolerantly one cultural phenotype to the exclusion of others, it has been becoming socially increasingly more disruptive and destructive for humanity. For the human genotype to survive it is sensible to hope and to plan to replace its faith-based ethical-moral foundation of civilization on a rational science-informed comprehension of the evolution of the universe and of life and of humanity.

    – I am amazed again and again endlessly at the features and meanings that people attribute to the bible, especially to the “old testament”. I am familiar with it only in Hebrew (my mother tongue) and I am also fairly well familiar with its evolution from earlier cultures and literatures in the middle east thus I am able to trace the evolution of its meanings and messages as the tool it has been for the survival of the Judaic culture-phenotype (Yehudi, from the kingdom of the two tribes Yehudah and Benyamin). But most of the discussions and references to it that I see in the electronic media are carried on by persons who have read it only in translations from translations into another language, and furthermore they amazingly refer to the Bible as if it has been compiled and written in anticipation and in reference to present-day ideas and comprehensions of the society and culture in which they presently live. This has always amazed me. Unbelievable.

    And lest there is an impression that I attribute the reading of hidden meanings and messages in the Bible only to or even mainly to the translations, let me clarify that many are also the Israelis and/or Jews whose mother-tongue is Hebrew who likewise find those hidden or implied things in the Bible. I.e., it is not the language but the psychology/state-of-mind…that makes one see an image in the line(s).


    Sept 29 2007 physorg forum

    Religious Identification Surveys

    IMO a “Religious Identification Survey” cannot convey extent of prevalence of intellectual-conceptual attitudes about god(s) or about religion or even of affiliation with an organized religion. This since “religious identification” involves social/historical/emotional/traditional group-phenotypic elements other than religious elements.

    Thus in my own case I would definitely check-in as Jewish simply because I “identify” with my phenotype group and, being an organism, I do my best for its survival. My “identification” with the Jewish religion/group does not interfere with my science-based comprehension and concepts about the universe and life and humans. I learn and assess my group’s religious matters with a biologist-evolutionist viewpoint, yet simultaneously also with a natural innate group-phenotypic dedication.


    Sept 30 2007 physorg forum

    Humanistic Atheism

    (From postings elsewhere during 2005-6)

    My own humanistic concept/self-image comprises only science-informed-based attitudes and behaviour.


    Becoming a humanist is not envisioned/intended to be a religious conversion, shedding off one’s phenotype traditions and features and adopting another’s phenotype traditions/features. Becoming a humanist/Bright is shedding supernatural beliefs and applying science-informed rational thinking and attitudes. Humanism is broad and firm enough to accept, with scientific rational understanding, concurrent adherence of members to their innate historical phenotypic, former religious customs/traditions, stripped of their elements of faith/belief and sacredness.


    “Spreading the humanist/Brights gospel” should be, I think, mostly and primarily by example and by display of principles and behaviour, both within the family and in the community, rather than by deriding religious beliefs anywhere in any way.


    In Nov 2005 I came across a link of a “Centre for Science and Religion”, comprising:

    “The University of Leeds has now established a new Centre for Science and Religion. The connection between science and religion amounts to far more than conflict. Religions are a source of values, and the sciences give power to implement them, so their study is important for all of society.”

    Thus I finally learned and understood the division of labor between science and religion. It has become clear for me…Dumbfounded DH.


    Morality-ethics are human artifacts, extensions and elaborations of the most basic characteristic of life, cooperation.

    All aspects of organisms’ inter-cooperation within its community are at the base of life’s evolution and are an expression of evolution’s progress towards survival, at ever higher complexity. This scheme started with the genesis of life, with individual genes evolving and elaborating cooperative genomes commune associations.

    Life is a fractal affair, a repetition of phenomena on ever more complex scale. It cannot be otherwise; this is the nature of the universe. And surviving-proliferating life has always been a cooperative affair since cooperation is a most successful mode for overall survival, proliferation.

    Thus all organisms have an innate natural drive and instinctive mode of cooperative action in within-group activities and relationships. This holds for the most complex poly-celled creatures and all the way down to the mono-cell organisms, and it comprises a variety of modes of cooperation including self-sacrifice for the good of the community.


    Humans display a different approach to the scientific study of the nature of life than to the study of anything else. This is most probably due to an aversion to accept the dismaying realization that we are, after all, just one of the many life forms on Earth (or in our galaxy or in the universe?).

    A most essential, and uniquely human, ingrained/inherent need, is an inflated degree of self-esteem. The survival and bearable existence of human individuals and communities of any size is anchored in and established on a foundation of Self-Esteem Culture which is neatly a complete creation of humans.

    The Inflated Self Esteem phenomenon, Religion, may be traced back circa 100,000 years ago, expressed in the forms of human graves.

    Unbelievably even and still now, in spite of the scientific comprehension amassed todate, there are so many humans clinging to the basic human instinct that attributes to humans, religiously, higher “universal value” than to other lives, to other forms of temporary energy bubbles/packages wherever they are…


    Humanity is urgently becoming faced with the vital need to re-formulate the basis of its culture and the communities-format of its organization on Earth, to anchor and build our life edifice on a science-informed rationale of convincing moral/ethical/social values.


    Oct 3 2007 physorg forum

    Rationality vs Faith

    There are two times when I do not understand religious persons: before they explain and afterwards. They seem to think that everyone should become religious, since after all, rational observation is the most important thing to shun in life.

    Obviously conversion from “faith hypnosis” to “rationality” involves a deep personal radical process. Faith-Religion, the circa 100,000 yr old biological-cultural tool of humanity, has been serving humans in various ways for many useful ends and, simultaneously, for some horrible ends. Sadly, the state of survival-balance of humanity on planet Earth is fast becoming too dangerously precarious especially due to evolving survival competition between incompatible human cultural phenotypic groups, and the only hope to avoid an approaching catasthrophe is adoption of science-based rationality.


    Oct 4 2007 physorg forum

    Is Monotheism A Science Progeny?

    I do not view cultural-religious affairs through the eyes-conception of historians or theologians, nor do I regard them as “spiritual” matters. For me culture is a ubiquitous biological matter, selected for survival by modes of response to, and manipulation of, the environment. Thus I view and regard cultural-religious affairs through the eyes of an amateur biology-evolutionist.

    In my compiled OT book Avraham, the immigrant from Ur Kasdim to Canaan, in need of a territorial god protection in Canaan, his new location, “contracted” with Yehovah a “mutual-obligation” covenent. Circa 400 years later Moses extends Avraham’s covenant by “obtaining from Yehovah” a refreshed “alliance” even while still not yet resettled in the original covenant-territory, and basing this alliance on an “history-long mutual god-people committments”. After additional circa 800 yrs the Judeans in exile in Baylon modify “Yehovah’s territoriality”, rendering Yehovah omnipresent.

    However, through all the above years and through the following development of Christianity, first as a Jewish sect and later, via synthesis with hellenistic culture, as a separate religion, I do not find any record of concepts of monotheism. The Roman empire accepted Judaism as one of the several tolerated “legal” ancient religions within the empire, as the Roman religious culture recognized and accepted age-respectful polytheism.

    From a point-of-view of an amateur biology-evolutionist it is rational and sensible and expected that a cultural-religious phenotype will claim for ITS god all the conceiveable and unconceiveable superlatives, for best survival prospects. I started this thread in a sincere attempt-hope to find if and when absolute explicit monotheism was initiated and how prevalent it is. I have a vague feeling that monotheism, absurdly, is a product of the scientific period and of scientific mentality.


    Oct 5 2007 physorg forum

    Monolatry To Monotheism: A Scientific Transformation?


    R.Dawkins: “Carl Sagan put it well: … if by “God” one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying … it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.”

    IMO both of them have stopped short of the cosmic lookout post. NO. Nature’s patterns, physical laws and rules at all cosmic levels, have NOT always been there. They have been evolving since singularity, from nil through ever more complexity, at an ever consequent accelerating rate which is typical of an evolving system, through a metastable cosmos probably towards one of its two stable states, to then reverse its evolution back towards singularity….

    Thus this their god is an “evolving god”…


    In the 17th-18th centuries Western philosophy underwent a most innovative process, in response to

    intensive intellectual developments in natural science, religion, and politics, changing concepts and doctrines inherited from ancient and medieval philosophy.

    The 17th century scientific revolution involved changes in scientific practices and founding of new scientific societies such as the Royal Society and the Academie royale des sciences, and was accompanied with change in how natural philosophers described the knowledge that resulted from the new scientific practices.

    I conjecture that it was in this era that “scientific monotheism” was seeded and began to take root, as an expression of the then revealed infinite cosmic incomprehensibility.


    Of course, with a transformation from Monolatry To Scientific Monotheism the antonym of atheist is not only simply religious, and a believer is not only one who has a firm religious faith in a certain deity…


    Scientific Monotheism


    – Scientific Monotheism is An (therefore not The) unknowable undefined source of the energy that constitutes the unknowable undefined Universe.

    – The unknowability of the source of cosmic energy, which is also life’s matrix, leaves the choice and promotion of our purpose in life to be derived solely from our cognition.

    – A term needs to be drawn for a concept and practice of deriving humanity’s purpose and course of life. The term should not be related to theism or religion because SM is NOT founded on faith-belief, and SM’s ethics code is founded on rational commitment and dedication to Life’s inherent characteristic, which is cooperation for survival.


    Oct 18 2007 physorg forum

    Religion Defined by Science

    Earlier in this thread I refered to ‘god’ as “IMO: Scientific Monodeity is An (therefore not The) unknowable undefined source of the energy that constitutes the unknowable undefined Universe.”

    I failed to find e-references to ‘scientific deity’ or ‘scientific god’ that were not related somehow to religion.

    So I tried an e-search for ‘Religion Defined by Science’, and got a displays of a huge number of pieces of verbiage about religion and about science and about ‘science defined by religion’, but nothing about the requested ‘Religion Defined by Science’.

    I therefore repeat my years-ago suggestion of a ‘scientific definition of religion’, i.e. that “religion is a human artifactual concept that ascribes to some humans a higher value and esteem than to other living organisms”.

    Even though I am fully aware of the history and prevalence of the multi-functional applications of religion by/for humans and for humanity, I do not consider that the definition of the nature of religion should refer to its applications; the definition should refer only to its nature.


    Oct 20 2007 physorg forum

    Implications Of “Culture Is a Ubiquitous Biological Trait”

    It is staggering and despairing that most of us, even most “modern” 21st century humans with much of the latest science-based biological information and comprehension available at our fingertips and PC screens, treat many “cultural” matters (such as the intellectual and art fields) as being wholly unrelated to biology, as if such “culture” subjects have arisen and evolved in a virtual “spiritual” universe unrelated to Earth’s biology and have an independent existence.


    Oct 25 2007 physorg forum

    Spiritual World

    = a belief that there is a realm controlled by a divine spirit


    A. From Merriam Webster Online


    Date: 14th century

    Middle English, from Anglo-French & Late Latin; Anglo-French espirital, spiritual, from Late Latin spiritualis, from Latin, of breathing, of wind, from spiritus.

    1: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal.

    2: of or relating to sacred matters: ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal.

    3: concerned with religious values.

    4: related or joined in spirit.

    5: of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena: of, relating to, or involving spiritualism.

    B. From Merriam Webster Online

    spirit =

    Date: 13th century

    Middle English, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French, espirit, spirit, from Latin spiritus, literally, breath, from spirare to blow, breathe.

    1: an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms.

    2: a supernatural being or essence: holy spirit: soul: malevolent being that is bodiless but can become visible: ghost: a malevolent being that enters and possesses a human being.

    3: temper or disposition of mind or outlook especially when vigorous or animated.

    4: the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person.

    5: the activating or essential principle influencing a person: an inclination, impulse, or tendency of a specified kind : mood.

    6: a special attitude or frame of mind: the feeling, quality, or disposition characterizing something.

    7: a lively or brisk quality in a person or a person’s actions.

    8: a person having a character or disposition of a specified nature.

    9: a mental disposition characterized by firmness or assertiveness.

    C. Unsafe Cultural Tool

    Do we need to adhere to imagination as a tool-means to uphold ethics, knowing very well how pliable imagination is and how it has also been and is being exploited for deleterious ends?


    Oct 28 2007

    Common Sense, Spiritualism And Escapism

    A. Spiritualism

    1) http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9069169/spiritualism

    “In philosophy, a characteristic of any system of thought that affirms the existence of immaterial reality imperceptible to the senses. So defined, spiritualism embraces a vast array of highly diversified philosophical views. Most patently, it applies to any philosophy accepting the notion of an infinite, personal God, the immortality of the soul, or the immateriality…(75 of 405 words).

    Repeat: “A system of thought that affirms the existence of immaterial reality imperceptible to the senses.”

    2) Spiritualism (Merriam-Webster Online)

    Date: 1796

    1: the view that spirit is a prime element of reality.

    2: a belief that spirits of the dead communicate with the living usually through a medium.

    3: capitalized : a movement comprising religious organizations emphasizing spiritualism.

    B. Escapism (Merriam-Webster Online)

    Date: 1933

    ” habitual diversion of the mind to purely imaginative activity or entertainment as an escape from reality or routine.”

    C. common sense (Merriam-Webster Online)

    Date: 1726

    “sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts”.

    By plain common sense I reckon that the above characterizations are obviously relevant regardless of personalities or of subjects or of verbiage.


    Nov 19 2007 physorg forum

    Culture Is Biology Is Biology

    First, a confession. The long list of many things I have not yet done in my life includes reading a book by Gould or by Dawkins.

    Now re the quoted Gould’s “magisterium” and “supposed conflict between science and religion” and/or ‘separate domains of science, religion, arts etc.,’.

    Obviously Gould, and most probably many many others, have not yet assimilated the comprehension that culture is a biological entity that serves/functions for survival. Thus whereas functional sensory matters are treated ‘within the domain of science’ since they are deemed clearly biological processes, yet imaginary ‘spiritual’ domains are conjured for the not yet assimilated biological cultural matters.

    It is plain and mundane that all aspects of all forms of human culture, like all aspects of cultures of all other organisms, can be investigated and characterized scientifically, even if this – sadly – might tarnish our exalted feelings towards them. However, our attitudes and emotions towards our artifacts are ours to set by our cognition.


    Life, Religion, And Virtual Reality

    Life is a virtual reality affair for sensing, self-cognizant, organisms, regardless of size or shape.

    Religion is a specific cultural virtual reality tool for going through life.

    Members of cultural virtual reality affairs groups should see other cultural virtual reality affairs groups as being other cultural virtual reality affairs groups.

    Several additional science/religion titles are included in the following link
    some dealing with the role that AAAS (90-yrs old “scientists” trade-union) has been playing in the science/religion subject…


    Dov Henis
    (Comments from 22nd century)

  • 5 Darwiniana » Comment on Old Testament // Apr 20, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    […] » Comment on Resurrection post on Confusion over the ‘resurrection’dovhenis on Comment from Dov HenisPaul on Confusion over the ‘resurrection’Stephen on Harvard’s Edward O. Wilson […]

  • 6 Comprehend Black Holes Function « dovhenis // Jun 11, 2011 at 11:07 am

    […] http://darwiniana.com/2011/03/29/comment-from-dov-henis/comment-page-1/ […]

  • 7 Update Comprehension Of Universe/Life Evolution « dovhenis // Aug 15, 2011 at 5:43 am

    […] http://darwiniana.com/2011/03/29/comment-from-dov-henis/comment-page-1/ […]

  • 8 21st Century Science, Whence And Whither… « dovhenis // Dec 13, 2011 at 11:35 am

    […] http://darwiniana.com/2011/03/29/comment-from-dov-henis/comment-page-1/ […]

  • 9 Dov Henis // Mar 16, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    Think of the consequences re classical science of this comprehension of gravity…
    ??? ???? ????? ?? ????
    Origin And Nature of the Universe
    New Science 2013 versus classical science
    Classical Science Is Replaced By 2013 Gravity Comprehension !!!
    Attn classical science hierarchy, including Darwin and Einstein…
    “I hope that now you understand what gravity is and why it is the monotheism of the universe…DH”
    Gravity is the natural selection of self-attraction by the elementary particles of an evolving system on their cyclic course towards the self-replication of the system. Period
    ( Gravitons are the elementary particles of the universe. RNA nucleotides genes and serotonin are the elementary particles of Earth life)
    ?? ??????
    ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????? ???? ???????. ?????
    ( ????????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????. ?????, ???????????? ?? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ????)
    Dov Henis(comments from 22nd century)

  • 10 Dov Henis // Sep 10, 2014 at 2:25 am

    Gravity/evolution whence/whither:

    Compilation of Evolution,THE 2013 science feat, and humanity’s god/science

    ???????? ??? ????? ?? ??????

    ?? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ???????, ??? ?”??????”??????? ???, ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??????.

    ?? ????? ???? (“???????????”) ?????? ??, ??????? ???????, ??????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????. ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??????.

    ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????, ???? ???? ????? ????, ???? ?????: ???? ?????? ???? ????? (????? ???????????, ???????? ???????? ?? ?????) ??????? ?????? ??????? ?/?? ???? ??????, ??????,?????? ??? ???? ?????. ???? ????? ?? ?? ????-?????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???????.

    ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? : ????-???????-???????-?????? ???? . ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???????. ???? ????? ?????/?????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????/?????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?????, ?????, ?? ?? ?????? “?????” ??????. ?? ???? “??????” ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?”? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??????. ???? ?? ?????.

    Evolution Derives From Gravity

    The quantity of mass in the universe is constant since the universe started its last self-replication, since its last singularity, its last pre-big bang re-birth conception.

    All Science Disciplines derive from, start and end, evolve and survive in the direction and manner set by the framework of gravity, the monotheism of the universe. All things, everything in the universe, derive from the gravity of the universe. Every mass format exists, like the universe itself, in one of two states: in an inert state like the material (most probably the gravitons, the elementary particles of the universe) stored in black holes, and in an energetic state, in motion therefore capable of performing work. Due to this mass-energy dualism also the quantity of energy in the universe is constant.

    Since the last big-bang all mass formats undergo the same cyclic sequence like the universe itself i.e. birth – evolution – survival – replication. In order to survive and to repeat this sequence every mass format must remain in an energetic state. And since the universe mass/energy quantity is constant there is a melee for it by all mass formats, and the unlucky formats are swallowed and digested by the luckier mass formats.
    It’s indeed, in fact, an eat or be eaten universe…

    Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

    THE GREAT science feat in 2013 ?? ???? ????? ?????

    The 2013 gravity comprehension/definition is the greatest science feat since the early 1920s.

    Learn what, scientifically, natural gravity is and what evolution is.
    Think of the consequences re classical science of this comprehension of gravity…

    ??? ???? ????? ?? ????
    Origin And Nature of the Universe, the greatest science feat since the early 1920s.

    New Science 2013 versus classical science.
    Classical Science Is Anticipated/Replaced By The 2013 Gravity Comprehension !!!


    Attn classical science hierarchy, including Darwin and Einstein…
    “I hope that now you understand what gravity is and why it is the monotheism of the universe…” DH
    Gravity is the natural selection of self-attraction by the elementary particles of an evolving system on their cyclical course towards the re- self-replication of the system. Period
    ( Gravitons are the elementary particles of the universe. RNA nucleotides genes and serotonin are the elementary particles of Earth life)

    ?? ??????
    ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????? ???? ???????. ?????
    ( ????????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????. ?????, ???????????? ?? ????? ???????????, ??????????, ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ????)

    Dov Henis(comments from 22nd century)


    PS: Note, again:

    – Classical Science Is Anticipated/Replaced By The 2013 Gravity Comprehension !!!

    – Think of the consequences re classical science of this comprehension of gravity…

    ?.?. ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ????/????/???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?????.
    ?? ?? ??- ????? ?? ???????/?????? ?? ????? ????? ????????? ??????? ?? ???”? ?????? ????? ???????/?????? ?? ??? ?”??????/???” ??????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ?”??????”, ?????? ?? ???? ??????/?????/????? ?? ???? 2013 ???? ???????, ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ?? ???? ???????. ??-????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? /????/???? ?? ?????.

    ??(????? ????? ?-22)

    What would the human world be without god, or without science
    (May 1/ 3 2014)

    Scientifically natural gravity is the monotheism of the universe.

    The reverence- to- god- tradition, religion of the present Western culture, was introduced by Abraham (2117-1942 BCE) from the Casdites-Babylonians, in whom it was evoked by the sight of the apparently “praying” palm trees, with their palm-like leaves, rewarded with “God’s gift”, in Persian “Bagdad” (bag=god, dad=dat hence date-fruit, data= given/gift. This reverence-culture/ tradition was re- adopted by the Jews exiled into Babylonia (586 BCE) , and later adopted also by the Persians who conquered the Babylonian empire, and later adopted also by Alexander , who conquered the Persian empire, and later adopted also by the Greeks and finally adopted from the Greeks also by the Romans and by their following Western world heritage…

    – What would a world without god look like?
    – What would a world without science look like?

    Science = knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

    God = the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe
    a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people.
    : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions.

    Science and god are incompatible. Incompatible.

    The present world is a god-believer scienceless world, conducted by ruthlessly competing-for- energy interests , with consequent catastrophes to humanity…

    Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)


    Rethink, Re-comprehend Evolution

    A. From

    Dinosaur Evolution, turning large dinosaurs into small birds
    Sacha Vignieri
    Most paleontologists agree that birds are descended from dinosaurs. How did such large terrestrial or aquatic animals evolve into small feathered fliers? Lee et al. used two large databases of theropod morphology to explore possible evolutionary patterns that may have driven this dramatic transformation (see the Perspective by Benton). They found no clear pattern of miniaturization across the entire clade of Theropoda.

    B. From

    – Gravity is the natural selection of self-attraction by the elementary particles of an evolving system on their cyclical course towards the re- self-replication of the system. Period.
    ( Gravitons are the elementary particles of the universe. RNA nucleotides genes and serotonin are the elementary particles of Earth life)

    – Since the universe mass/energy quantity is constant there is a melee for it by all mass formats, and the unlucky formats are swallowed and digested by the luckier mass formats.
    It’s indeed, in fact, an eat or be eaten universe…

    C. Rethink, Re-comprehend Evolution

    The elementary particles of Earth life, ours and of the dinosaurs, are RNA nucleotides genes and serotonin. It is THEIR survival that directs the course of evolution, NOT the survival of their abodes..…

    *Note also the up-growth of the palm and banana herbs…

    Rethink, Re-comprehend Evolution

    Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

Leave a Comment