was inhabited by men of modern type(s)
possibly lOO,OOO years ago(3). And, a group led by Dr. Deakey
discovered in Tanzania 3.6 million year-old hominid footprints(4).
Why when in evolutionary progression according to calculation the first Homo erectus could not have evolved till about a million, could there have been humans in existence long before that? Simple, man did not have to progressively evolve from but had long been in coexistence with the lower forms.These basic undeniable scientific facts totally substantiate my conclusions that the diverse species were each independent of others procreated from a common pool of pre-biotic molecules. Evolution could not and did not occur.
A lot of similarities in both genetic and morphologic features amongst the various species can be attributed to and perhaps necessitates a common pool of pre-biotic molecules for all known species on earth.
A recent finding in China suggests the total lack of progressive evolution of the lower forms into man. "Chinese scientists have found fossils of man-like creatures(apemen) dating from the time of Peking man. . . . The fossil remains of apemen who lived 400,000 to 500,000 years ago, once thought to be the earliest evidence of humans on earth. . . .(5)"
Evidently, Peking man, the "human ancestor" much closer [in features than the apemen ] to modern man, had long appeared before the apemen had gone extinct, and from their obvious co-existence about 500,000 years ago, there could not have been sufficient time under any circumstance for the apemen to evolve into Peking man. Instead, the dates favour a "retrogression" from Peking man to apemen. If so, how could modern man have ever "evolved"? Should not that retrogression have returned the Peking man to primitiveness and lower animal forms?
Yet, modern man does now exist. Evolution therefore could not have occurred and certainly could not have been the responsible mechanism for man's appearance as a life form. Since 500,000 or even millions years ago, apeman and Peking man had co-existed [before their extinction]. Later, while Peking man and modern man survived, apemen went extinct. This course of events gave cause for an evolutionary illusion that the apemen evolved into Peking man that in turn evolved into modern man. In reality, however, that one species has gone extinct does not mean that it has evolved into a higher form. If evolution had occurred, the lower form could have continued to co-exist with the higher one. In the case of the co-existence of Peking man with apemen alluded to in the immediate preceding, the dates tend to favour an earlier appearance of apemen than Peking man. Therefore, there was no interval during which the apemen could evolve into and co-exist with Peking man.(revised 18/1/1998)
That of the three mentioned only man remains merely attests to man's lucky survival, or survival through a greater intelligence to invent and use tools, weapons to triumph over predatory animals including the now "regrettably" extinct dinosaurs. Survival does not mean evolution of the survivors from their "ancestral" lower forms. Rather, it indicates only that they possess some superior attributes for reproduction and survival, or have been lucky enough to have persisted in more favourable environments than what less fortunate species or individuals had to struggle through.(added 18/1/1998) In that perspective, of course apemen and Peking man were biologically and intellectually less equipped for survival than modern man. That is a major determinant as to why only man has survived not that man has evolved from Peking man and therefore the latter ceased to reproduce and propagate as Peking man.1
1. Cheng, K. C., The Theory of Biogenesis, KC Cheng Press, 198_.
2. Cheng,K.C., The Genetic and Environmental Principles of
Inheritance, KC Cheng Press, 198-.3. Schiller, R, New Findings on the Origin of Man, The Reader's Digest, p 74, Aug.,1973.
4. The Citizen(Ottawa, Ont. Canada), Nov. 19, 1979, page 38.
5. The Citizen(Ottawa, Ont. Canada), May 4, 1982, p16.
Copyright subject to restrictions by all KC Cheng Press regulations.
1980©K.C. Cheng, Not to be cited into any writings or broadcasts in excess of 100 words without prior written permission from the author. Revised, edited and typed Dec. 22/80. Kuan-Chyun Cheng, Ottawa, Canada.
3) Memory makes me look like Einstein, and Theory of Biogenesis(27 volumes) directs me to replace Darwin.
Any intelligent person at this point should have come to this sort of normal perception of who I am. However, this is not all.
In psychology, I would be replacing Sigmund Freud in the same way I am replacing Darwin in biology.
Of course, since I would be famous enough just to be "Einstein-like" or "replacing Darwin," there is no reason or need for me to boast that I am replacing Sigmund Freud in psychology as well.
The only reason I am mentioning it is that this is the truth having to be known by certain parties for them to make a generous decision(Money talks!): Here, money makes me talk!
So far I have about 100 volumes of original works in psychiatry and psychology. One would have to take my word for it on basis of my special ability and honesty demonstrated above in my actually proving what I have claimed to be my discoveries.
Hence, unless the matter has gone to such a serious extent as to necessitate that I show the whole works of about 200 volumes 2 before a decision on financial aid to found a top educational institute is taken, I would not waste time here regurgitating so many volumes.If one is bona fide towards me, one ought to be able to arrive at this conclusion at this moment:This Cheng sounds like Einstein, has replaced Darwin, and may be replacing Sigmund Freud.
But this is not all!
4) The physics of colours My new theory of colours has replaced Newton's idea of an object's colour being what is left over after the object has absorbed whatever colours there may be in the incident light. Instead, I have proven an object's colour being, when given energy [ through induction] by an incident [visible] light, whatever visible electromagnetic particles it gives off to elicit a visual colour response(perception). 3
No further proof is warranted at this point: because I have already proven two great discoveries true, and it would be vain and a waster of time to prove this one too which entailed about 2 or 3 volumes.
5) The biophysical mechanisms and processes of colour perception.
6) Refuting [ in volume 1R of my The Electromagnetism of Memory, Mentation and Behaviour] the sodium-potassium transmembrane pump mechanism as being the chief determinant of the cell resting membrane potential (revised 19/1/1998) .
7) Other volumes in medicine and physiology
8) Works in law, philosophy, political philosophy and methodology.
9) Many more volumes to come.
June 1986© Kuan-Chyun Cheng
10) Why a "walking academy?"
If all of my inventions are now used by me to found a new educational institute, this university would have a status at least on a par with the best on earth:Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge.And, if I am to write 1,000 volumes in all in my lifetime, my university would become the world's FIRST and foremost unequalled by even Harvard or Oxford!
Now then, were I to impose embargo on these other leading institutes, denying them my knowledge which in fact is a total monopoly because I alone invent it, they would all go down the drain and turn second-class.That means I am a walking academy in fact, in substance, not just in name!
As stated in a footnote to The Theory of Biogenesis, An Abstract, p 4, included in the preceding The Walking Academy, non-nucleic substances also decisively affect embryogenesis. Further, it is well known that cloning requires the use of ova from individuals of the same species.
Even though the nucleic materials transferred into the ova [being used in cloning] are entirely from the animal [or person] being cloned( let us call it "parent"), the ova used still usually are from individuals of the same species as the parent. This goes to show that cytoplasmic and [ cell] membrane compatibility with the [transferred] parental nucleic substances is still essential for embryogenesis to proceed: Despite the nucleic substances being all parental and already able to direct the synthesis of subsequent cellular metabolic activities toward cell division and therefore embryogenesis as well as fetal growth and development, only when such cytoplasmic and membrane constituents and structures are compatible with these parental nucleic substances does embryological development proceed normally or in any viable fashion at all. For instance, if ape parental nuclei are introduced into mouse ova, these cloning ova ( i.e., ova undergoing the cloning process ) would not be expected to live.
Cytoplasmic and membrane constituents and properties thus do determine the fate of dividing cells. Since they typically have to be of the same species and often even of the same individual for cells to survive a cell having its nucleus replaced by one of the same individual stands a much greater chance of survival [and subsequently undergoing multiplication] than the same cell having its nucleus replaced by one from another individual of the same or different species; it means membrane and cytoplasmic materials and structures usually are of the same species or [of the same] individual or [are of the] same parents (as in a zygote), as that[ species, or individual, or parents] of the nucleus. Person A's cell has A's nucleic materials and A's own cytoplasmic and membrane constituents and structures. Accordingly, cytoplasmic and membrane constituents can in this way secure their own propagation from generation(of cells, or of individuals as in reproductive cell multiplication during embryonic and fetal growth and development) to generation in a non-genetic manner.
This raises the issue of how at the beginning of life the cell membrane and cytoplasmic constituents and structures were first created. Did they come after or before the formation of the nucleus with all its species- and individual- specific genetic constitutions?
Insofar as cell membranes are always species-specific if not always individual-specific, the only plausible mechanism appears being for the nuclear materials to be assembled into a functional entity first. Then, just like in the living cells of today where microscopically visible new membrane formation does not occur till later during cell division, the membrane is formed to encase the cytoplasmic mass into a cell unit. 4 In this way, the membrane becomes individual, and at least species-specific. However, since at that time of life creation from biotic molecules the "solution" of life certainly in contents must have tended to be similar or identical the closer the two spots of that solution, and more dissimilar the farther they were apart. Because of this, a cell's membrane could have been randomly formed in the solution without genetic direction from the nucleus of the cell which it eventually encased. The membrane and nucleic substances were simply compatible enough for them to become two components of a same cell. Still, though, this second possibly is less sound than the first one which provided an underlying stable genetic entity first to direct membrane formation for the same cell. Since this is more or less the order of events in living cells of today during their multiplication, it should be considered the more plausible of the two possibilities because this process of cell division (multiplication) and membrane formation still constantly repeats itself in modern living cells. There is no reason, therefore, to suspect that this process could not have occurred at the very beginning of life when it was arising from that(those) vast biomolecular ocean(s).
In either case, membrane and cytoplasmic constituents and properties must be compatible with, and at the beginning of life, were capable of being compatible with, the same cell's nucleic substances. That is how the cells and therefore the living being whose cells they were(are) have survived to date. Otherwise, if there had been excessive mismatch between the nucleic and non-nucleic components of all the cells, no living organism would have survived and propagated to this day.
This need for genic and non-genic compatibility for a cell to survive and reproduce renders it even more difficult for evolution to occur. Whenever a genetic mutation occurred, it had to be tolerable to the cytoplasmic and membrane constituents. Otherwise, the cells would die. Had this been not the case, interspecific cloning would be an easy procedure. There would be no need for women to provide ova for humans to be cloned. But, the reality is that nowadays in cloning any animal, such as a sheep, ova from the same species are used. Hence, in sheep cloning, sheep ova, not mouse ova, were used.
End of I:4
1 See preceding text on why it is impossible for an apeman's fetus to "mutate" into a human fetus before birth.
2 Now at about 460 volumes(18/1/1998)
3 On rare other occasions, energy in the form of intense heat, etc. would excite atoms enough for them to give off visible colour lights.
4 K C Cheng, The Theory of Biogenesis, volume 29(?), and
The Electromagnetism of Memory, Mentation and Behaviour, volume 1R, section on resting membrane potential.
Human rights violation
Cheng Review Home
Cheng Review I:1 Home I:2 Home I:3Home
Cheng Institutes Home
KC Cheng Press Home