MorphBorgs

     Calcium seems to have evolved into Human Beings causing a wide

assortment of problems, such as: 

       Heart attacks from calcium in the arteries. 

       Kidney disease from calcium in the bladder or kidneys.

       Kidney stones in ducts.

       Skin diseases from calcium deposits on the skin.  

       Liver disease from calcium in the bile ducts, the liver and 

                gall bladder.  

       Arthritis from calcium in the joints.

       AlS from sclerosing,  calcium in the peripheral muscles, 

               nerves and blood.

       Cystic fibrosis, is this calcium cysts in the lungs?

     It does appear that calcium could be the cause of many and maybe 

all illnesses.  Why would calcium be so prevalent in our bodies?   It

is in many food items, even sodas.  Are we evolving?  Is there a 

program making that happen?  Is our DNA changing?  Are Humans

being reprogrammed?  Is our DNA code taking on a new meaning in

evolution? Or was this an indicative event in planned Evolution # 1? 

     Here are some thoughts from some who examine evolution and its

explanation of phenetics.  Phenotypes are a type of organism model, 

like a prototype for a new car.

............................ 

"Phenetics holds that we can not know evolutionary history with certainty.  

Therefore, the best measure of relatedness is overall similarity, based on as 

many characters as possible.  It attempts to avoid subjective character 

weighting. However, this approach admits three types of information into a 

scheme which inaccurately reflect evolutionary history. The first is homoplasious

characters; those which arose independently in two groups, and do not reflect 

inheritance from a common ancestor. Such parallel or convergent characters are 

analogous rather than homologous, and do not reflect genealogical relationship.

The second regards evolutionary rate. A taxon which diverges rapidly will have 

less overall similarity to those which it is actually closely related/derived, and 

thus will be classified separately. Third, overall similarity may be misleading, 

because some characters are derived evolutionary novelties (synapomorphy, 

below), and shared by a more immediately related group and others are primitive 

retentions or ancestral characters (symplesiomorphy, below) and tell us nothing 

about close evolutionary relationships. For example, the presence of 

chlorophyll-a tells us nothing about the relationship between diatoms and 

chrysophyte flagellates, because chlorophyll-a is a character of all photo-

autotrophs (for further phycological examples see Kociolek et al. 1989, Gallagher 

1989). The resulting classification depicts overall phenotypic similarity rather 

than evolutionary relationships.  Thus, it defines groups of organisms which 

do not participate in biological processes per se (Mishler 1986)."... 

....."Phylogenetic Systematics uses the principles of set theory to reconstruct 

hypotheses of evolutionary relationships: the phylogeny of a group of organisms. 

It avoids characters indicative of distant, ancient relationship (symplesiomorphies), 

for example the presence of chlorophyll-a among photo-autotrophs, as well as 

false indicators of geneological relationship  (i.e. parallelisms and convergences, 

or homoplasies), using instead homologous characters as indicators of evolution. 

It therefore requires careful investigation of homology . It is recognized that 

homologous characters are of two kinds: relatively derived or advanced 

(synapomorphies), indicative of close relationship, and relatively ancestral or 

primitive (symplesiomorphies), indicative of distant older, more general 

relationships. A hierarchical scheme is constructed on the basis of shared 

characters that are derived or synapomorphic for that level of the hierarchy. 

Each apomorphous character is synapomorphic at some level in the heirarchy, 

and is used in the analysis to resolve the relationship at that level. It can be 

seen that the terms primitive (pleisiomorphic) and advanced (apomorphic) are 

relative, dependent on the level in the hierarchy from which they are viewed. "

......

 cited from: 

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:b_1OuaI6734J:thalassa.gso.uri.edu/

rines/systmtcs/chapter1.htm+Darwin+and+study+of+diatoms&hl=en&gl=us&strip=0

      In "derived evolutinary novelties", or in todays evoluted think, one calls it 

evolutionary development  (Evo Devo) which tells us that evolution can be 

developed, or that a model and/or evolutionary development is taking place, 

or has taken place or is about to take place.  Sickness today, I believe is caused 

by this Evolutionary Development Scheme from "derived evolutionary novelties" 

or "novel organisms" which are called new discoveries, and which Darwin called 

"new creations found".  Either way, they have been created and put in the wild 

or in some cases domestic animals, like cows, pigs, chickens, and sheep. A 

disease like Morgellons could possibly begin by an Evolutionary process applied 

today in what I shall call "Forced Evolution".  

     the above article from the above link concludes with this:

"A gardener can have profound knowledge of ornamental plants, yet be unable 

to create a meaningful garden. For no matter how beautiful or interesting each 

individual plant, their relationship to each other is defined by a higher order of 

structure, an architectural framework. Likewise, study of the interwoven life 

histories, ecological roles and vagariesof distribution of diatoms will draw 

strength from a rigorous framework, the theoretical architecture giving shape to 

the gardens of the sea."

Skytroll

to be continued in next article..................