DARWIN. SPECIES. BIBLE.

This article was written in the most obscure time, when it was clear, that dark forces were preparing the arrest of N. E. Alyoshin. The article was published by his friends and disciples in the journal "Rice of Russia" 1999, v. 7, № 1 (18), p. 29 - 49.

This jounal issue was printed in fact undergroundly - when N. E. Alyoshin was in prison. The publication was the unique act of the moral support for the arrested scientist. Lower we put the copy of the article, having been made from one of the existing journal exemplars.

 

Alyoshin N.E., Alyoshina N.V., Koff N.E., Alyoshin V.N., Alyoshina N.N., Alyoshin E.P.

BIBLICAL GARDEN. COMMUNICATION 10:

THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL OR

«THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES» IS NOT «THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES

FROM ONE ANOTHER»

In the middle of February 1999 the first of the authors of this article had a strange talk with the postwoman. The noble representative of this profession, serving in our district, refused to carry into our address the parcel from Japan, alleging it's super weight. The first author was to visit personally the Krasnodar Main Post delivery department, where received he the named parcel. That was the gift of the Japanese Government, which through it's Food and Agriculture Policy Research Center (FAPRC) in the person of the FAPRS Board Director mister Shiro Okabe presented the most luxurious edition in four volumes, named «Science of the Rice Plant». The first volume (1) - «Morphology» - con­tains 690 pages, printed on the splendid paper, has thousands of citations in the scientific apparatus, hundreds of beautiful pictures. It appeared in Tokyo in 1993 in English author the translation of the corresponding Japanese volume. The second one (2) - the same way luxurious volume - «Physiology» - was pub­lished in the mentioned place and in the mentioned manner in 1995, and con­tains 1248 pages. The third (3) (1008 pages «Genetic»), and the fourth (4) (190 pages, «Indices») volumes appeared to light in the end of 1997.

The Japanese Government officially considers this edition the National treasure and presents it to the most outstanding rice scientists of the planet Earth as the award for their contribution into the science about rice. To receive such a gift was as honorable as pleasant. Especially, as it was known to us, that it had been awarded to such persons as doctor Rothschild (the former director of the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines) and doctor Obien (the PhilRice director), with whom the first author was personally acquainted and knew about their high appreciation of the named Japanese bibliographical treasure.

29

This estimation was shared - sincerely and in full - by us, when we sank into the gigantic ocean of the innumerable facts about rice, having been gath­ered by the Japanese coryphaei during nearly two thousands years of the rice cultivation in Japan. This sinking superimposed itself upon the sinking into the other scientific ocean - the ocean of thoughts about the nature of the alive. This -second - ocean was caused with our meditations upon the works of the partici­pants of the International Symposium in Crimea («2000 Years of Christianity and It's Contribution to Medicine, Science and Society», Dneper Sanatorium, Miskhor, Yalta, 20-23 May 1998.): Georges Carillet (USA), Bruce Little (USA), Yanovsky S.S. (Ukrain), John Patrick and his wife Sally Patrick (the reminis­cences about their wit and hard principles of morality - the great help in our work), O.G. Syropyatov (Ukrain), John Hess (USA), Ron Jurgensen (USA), Rick Yount (USA; thank you for the support, Rick!), Scott Grooms (USA), my wonderful interlocutor and friend Jeff Fountain (New Zealand - Holland), Ken­neth Kemp (USA). The symposium discussions, in a big extent, were circling around the ideas of professor Kemp, that the evolution teaching did not contra­dict the Christianity (5). These ideas with the decision of the Roman Pope John Paul II (1997) were declared the official position of the Catholic church. In the Kemp's (i.e. John Paul IPs) opinion «creation is productio totius substantiae ex nihilo sui et subiecti»; evolution, in it's turn, is «the development of the presently observable diversity and complexity from an earlier homogenous and simple state». In such a case no doctrine of the exnihilation does contradict the theory of a change (and vice versa), becaus the latter (as distinct from the Absolute Creation - i.e. exnihilation) is the Derivative Creation, that is «formation of any thing by God in this way: that the preceding matter has been created with the potentiality to evolve from it, under suitable conditions, all various forms it sub­sequently assumes» (5). Such an idea, in principle, contains nothing surprising for anybody, who is acquainted with the works of Nicolaus Cusanus, which works are transpierced with the category of «being - possibility» (or «possest») (6,7).

30

The views of Kemp were especially actively attacked by the representative of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad in the Motherland father Timophey Alpherov (Gatchinah), having declared, that the recognition of the origins of one species of the alive creatures from the other ones was the recognition of the fact, that «God had chosen death as a tool of his creation; and in such a God we do not want to Trust!» (A funny position, is not it ?). Here it is clearly seen the influence of the hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), thinking, that the recognition of the idea of evolution certainly means the origin of one species from the other ones, understood as - one creatures from the others, with the presence of the death, as the creative force, that is quite unacceptable at all, and in relation to human being - in particular (8).

The very first acquaintance with the ideas of Rev. Timophey and hiero­monk Seraphim led to the thought, that they badly understood the essence of the alive organisms death, as well as the essence of the biological species. This misunderstanding in itself alone pushed far in the back view their non-acceptance (or ignorance, or once again misunderstanding) of the main Kemp distinction between the Absolute Creation and the Derivative Creation. There­fore it has seemed necessary to compare the essence of the biological species and the essence of the alive organisms death with the Bible. This necessity was even more strengthened with the talks of the article authors one with another in Krasnodar after the symposium; the talks and the correspondence with the splendid scientific creationist doctor S.L. Golovin (Sympheropol); the corre­spondence with the doctor of medical sciences, professor A.N. Makarenko (Kiev); the talks of the authors with the specialist on the Biblical literature Yu.V. Skopylatov; with the big organizer of the missionary work S.A. Borodin; with the man, having gifted us the idea of the necessity of the regular comparison of the scientific ideas with the Scripture, the former prisoner of conscience and vic­tim of the psychiatric repressions A.M. Antipyonok (the latter two persons have given us a big support); with the well-known businessman A.N. Eropkin; and , at last, with the new stage of correspondence with the outstanding organizer of

31

the science-technical propagation of Christianity - Ziden L. Nutt («Good News productions, Internationals», Joplin, Missouri, USA).

The superimposition of these two oceans - Christian - theology - philo­sophical with the Euro-American mentality and natural-scientific-oryzological with the Japanese mentality - has occurred in the point, connected with the mul­tiformity of species in the Oryza genus (and even more - in the subfamily of Oryzoideae).

That is the way the things were. Having begun to acquaint with the Japa­nese rice treasure, we were very much surprised with the fact, that in this edition, it seemed, there was no uniformity of the views upon any question. Two of the authors of the present article have formulated the united and monolithic view on all the things, connected with rice (9, 10)/ For us it is closer such - pure author, original, self - made, if you want - an approach. All the Japanese, well, consists of the myriad of the separate scientific miniatures, frequently contradicting to one another. (Not for nothing, probably, the Japanese literature mentality has it's base in «Man-yo-shu», i.e. «Collection of the Myriad of Leaves» or «Collection of Ten Thousand Leaves») (11).

How can one esteem such a difference ? One can think, it has taken place an element of the epiphany here. Therefore we have understood: the contradic­tions between the miniatures of the Japanese edition are in reality not the con­tradictions, but only objective (in Buddhistic manner not touching the inner mirror essence of the thing) reflection of the contradictions, existing in the brains of human beings, in the brains of scientists, in our case - of systematists, taxonomists, evolutionists, philosophers and theologians. And it is namely our solid view upon rice which is striking out of these contradictions the spark of the epiphany.

Let us explain this.

Yoshio WATANABE in his article «Morphological characters of the wild species in the genus Oryza» (1, p.23-30) report, that the classification of the ge­nus Oryza is still «confused» even today (we would remind, that we are speaking about most widely cultivated cereals of the planet, having been grown for 10000

32

years!). According to Watanabe, Roschevicz (1931) picked out in the genus 19 species of rice. Chevalier (1932) described 23 species. The same number of them was counted by Chatterjee (1948). Chose (1956) picked out 21 species of rice, Sampath (1966) - 23 species, while Sharma and Shastry (1971) - 28 species. Let us not enumerate here even more diffuse derivatives, such as: subspecies, varie­ties, forms, proles, sections, etc. Let us limit ourselves namely with the species. Watanabe writes, that Sampath recognizes Oryza officinalis and Oryza malam-puzhaensis as the separated species (it is thought, that the first is diploid with 24 chromosomes and genome B, while the second is tetraploid, with 48 chromo­somes and genomes В and C). Tateoka (1963), in his turn, recognizes Oryza malampuzhaensis only as the subspecies of Oryza officinalis. Oka (1963) used in his works the species Oryza perennis , but the following evolutionists, the most significant of whom was the author of the «theory of scattered genes from Gondwanaland» T.T. Chang (1976), divided that species in wild annual Oryza nivara and wild perennial Oryza rufipogon (i.e. they had the division in the per­ennially, that seems rather strange for the describers of the species). Namely these species are straightly being stood as the predecessors of Oryza sativa. However, while all these species are similar botanically, one has to pick out some superspecies taxon - «complex» «perennis - sativa» (9, 10).

Let us return from our comments again to the Japanese treasure, now to the third it's volume (3). The same Yo. Watanabe puts here (p.29-39) his new ar­ticle «Phylogeny and geographical distribution of genus Oryza». The article is surprisingly interesting in a number of parameters. But we, in our context, are interested in that, how different authors of species Oryza regarded the species of one another. (We ask the reader not to lode from the view the funny denomina­tion - «the author of the species», which, in itself, brings us to the thought, that something here is rotten). Thus, Roschevicz inside the species Oryza sativa iso­lated the form spontanea. Chevalier declared it the species Oryza fatua. Chat­terjee declared it, in his turn, the fatua variety of Oryza sativa. Sampath again decided, that it was the species - Oryza rufipogon; he was supported by Tateoka, as well as by Nayar (having done, as a truth, a reservation, that it was an annual

33

form). Sampath picked out Oryza perennis, but Nayar considered it only as the perennial form of Oryza rufipogon. In the same form reckoned he also the ac-quatica form of Oryza sativa by Roschevicz. The latter described the species Oryza longistaminata, whiie Chevalier declared it the species Oryza barthii, and then - the species Oryza perennis (subspecies longistaminata). Chatterjee re­turned to it the state of the species Oryza perennis, Sampath considered it as Oryza barthii, the same opinion was of Tateoka's, and Nayar returned to the species Oryza longistaminata. Roschevicz isolated the species Oryza dewilde-manii, Chevalier declared it Oryza barthii, the same was done by Tateoka; Chat­terjee reckoned that rice among the species Oryza perennis, while Nayar - among the species Oryza longistaminata. Prodoehl described the species Oryza grandiglumis; this state was kept by Roschevicz, Chatterjee, Tateoka and Nayar; but Chevalier attributed it to Oryza latifolia (variety grandiglumis), while Sampath - simply of Oryza latifolia. Prodoehl described Oryza punctata, he was followed by all the mentioned authors, except Chevalier, having had de­clared this plant Oryza officinalis, and then - Oryza minuta (subspecies punc­tata). Roschevicz described the species Oryza stapfii, Chevalier declared it Oryza glaberrima (subspecies stapfii), while Sampath and Tateoka considered it Oryza breviligulata. Prodoehl wrote about Oryza mezii; Roschevicz, Chevalier, Chat­terjee, Sampath and Tateoka declared this plant Oryza breviligulata, while Nayar - Oryza barthii. Oryza alta by Chatterjee was reckoned by Sampath to Oryza latifolia. Oryza schwenfurthiana (by Prodoehl, Roschevicz, Nayar is Oryza minuta (subspecies punctata) by Chevalier, Oryza punctata (by Chatterjee and Tateoka), Oryza eichingeri by Sampath. Oryza officinalis (by Prodoehl, Ro­schevicz, Chatterjee, Sampath and Nayar) is Oryza punctata (or Oryza minuta subspecies officinalis) by Chevalier, or the officinalis subspecies of the same Oryza officinalis by Tateoka. Oryza malampuzhaensis was discussed above. Sampath picked out Oryza ubhangensis, while Tateoka considered it nomina nuda form (but was not agree with Sampath). The same did he with Oryza jey-porensis, which was recognized by Nayar. Oryza granulata (by Prodoehl) was declared Oryza meyeriana (subspecies granulata) by Tateoka. The species Oryza

34

meyeriana, in itself, was recognized by Prodoehl and Nayar. Tateoka considered this there species as subspecies meyeriana of the same species. Chevalier Oryza meyeriana to Oryza granulata, while Roschevicz - to the mixture of the species Oryza granulata and Oryza abromeitiana. Prodoehl, followed by Roschevicz and Nayar, picked out Oryza abromeitiana; while Chevalier, Chatterjee, Sam-path considered it Oryza meyeriana; Tateoka, in his turn, considered it subspecies abromeitiana of Oryza meyeriana. Oryza coarctata (by Prodoehl, Roschevicz, Chevalier, Chatterjee, Sampath, Tateoka) is at all by the opinion of Nayar, not a rice, but a representative of genus Sclerophyllum. In the same way Oryza an-gustifolia (of Sampath and Tateoka) was declared by Nayar Leersia angustifo-lia. Prodoehl (as well as Roschevicz, Chevalier, Chatterjee and Sampath) recog­nized Oryza subulata, while Tateoka and Nayar declared it the according species of genus Rhynchoryza. Oryza perrieri (by Chevalier, Chatterjee, Sampath, Tateoka) was declared Leersia perrieri by Nayar. In the same way he named Leersia tisseranti that thing, which Sampath and Tateoka considered Oryza tis-seranti.

We shall not further tire the reader with the details of the taxonomists war. Let us watch (very briefly) to the studies of genetics, described in the article of T. Katayama (3, p. 39 - 48). He writes, that there are some systems of rice genomes description: the system A, B, C, D...; the system pOM, etc. But even in the same systems the genomes of the plants, being reckoned to one and the same species, are being described in different way. E.g., Oryza glaberrima has by Morinaga the AA genome, while by Yeh and Henderson - the ЕЕ one. Oryza of­ficinalis has by Morinaga the CC genome, by Bouharmont - OO, by Hu and Chang - BB. Oryza punctata is by Sampath a diploid (24 chromosomes) and has CC genome; by Katayama and Ogawa it has genome BB; by Hu and Chang - it is tetraploid (48 chromosomes) with the genome BBCC. The same regards Oryza eichingeri: by Nezu it has BBCC genome (48 chromosomes), while by Katayama - CC (24 chromosomes).

And so on to endlessness.

35

Here we want to turn the attention to the fact, that the absolute signifi­cance of the genetical differences is a myth; that genetical structures, in their-selves, are not more, than the other, in comparison with the bodies, level of the material carriers of the biological information; that they are not the essence of this information. Therefore, for example, pronounced as insuperable interspecies obstacle, the chromosome differences are, in reality, not the such one. They are permanently being broken in nature (here from are all the theories of the intro-gressive hybridization) (3); they are easily being overcome during the fusion of protoplasts, e.g., of rice and lettuce (1), of rice and azolla (12). Furthermore, 99% of all DNA (genetical material of the cells) are «silent», i.e. they do not express theirselves, do no show theirselves visually in the life of cells and multicellular organisms. The main mass of DNA exists, as if for itself, using the expressing it­self DNA as the «service staff», which informationally controls the synthesis of proteins, necessary for the construction of cells and their systems of higher hier­archical levels. These systems are inclined to think, that DNA is working for them, and to be puzzled - what is such a big amount of «silent» DNA for ? But about this - some later.

It is thought, that out of the exposed material becomes clear the question: what do the systematists work with ? What are the taxonomists at war about ? What is the nature of the biological species (and taxons at all) ?

The endless fight of the creationists against the evolutionary theories (not, that there are many of such theories, and not at all the only one; and, further­more, not at all the theory of Darwin, who has very many theories upon differ­ent items, which are today in the most part the historical value, except, of course, the theory of the species origin) comes out of the prejudice, consisting of the idea, that biologist - systematist considers every biological species the sepa­rate creature, which inevitable originates during the evolution from the other creature (8); or, that is even worse, as if taxonomist thinks, that the species are the perfect objects, appearing by themselves in some mysterious way (without God) in the beginning of beginnings, and then, though they are isolated, origi­nating one from another.

36

This prejudice arose out of the huge pride of human being, when the bi­ologists of all the world in the united impulse bent themselves in front of Carolus Linnaeus, having had created his system of nature, based on the binary nomenclature. It seemed, here! - the genious had found himself, who had fin­ished the labour, given to Adam by God, - to name all the creatures (Gen., 2:19); and, furthermore, who had restored their names in one language, lost after the Babel tower construction (Gen., 11:1-9). Alas! And Adam had been got out the Edem, and Carolus Linnaeus had not been with us for a long time, but the hu­man being has been continuing to call the creatures with different names; put­ting that nomination into the centre of biology, into the centre of the contact of biology and theology, and keeping the endless debates about this item. Cunning debates. The system of Linnaeus seemed to him and to his admirers the wreath of the biology efforts in the systematization of the Alive. Alas! It, in reality, ap­peared only to be the genial beginning of the construction of the vast amount of systems and classifications, which seem complicating themselves till the endless­ness. The species, which, would the Linnaeus system be the only one, could have been considered the approximate description of the God's creature, is washed away and spread among the great number of systems and appears to be only the object of the systematics, existing only in the head of a taxonomist, and not at all the description of the creature, and what is more, - not of the Absolute Creature.

What is the sence of speaking upon origin of species ? What for is it neces­sary to prove, that species originate or not originate one from another ? For the purpose, that the systematists, having been constructing the systems, saw (the eyes of Adam have opened themselves!), that all the organisms, which were dif­ferent in some features, made up, allegedly, at the same time the continuous chain of transitions. Here from is a temptation: to say, that the species do origi­nate one from another. And from that one comes out the next temptation: to under­stand the first one in such a way, that the creatures (as creatures) originate from one another; and even to make the position more cruel - originate without God.

37

The funniest thing consists in the idea, that those temptations as if come out of Darwin's book «The Origin of species», and against it, as against some object, contradicting to the Bible, is supposedly necessary to fight.

Thus, we have come to the book of Darwin. Let us look into it. At first, it is clear, that, if this book has appeared not by the straight will of God, in such a case it has been connived by Him. A vast problem of the relation of the connivence and of the evolution (as possibilities) we are to put aside for the time being, because, in the other case, we should not tame the self-growing text. We should note only, that, if the Kemp's logics is used, the misty term «connivence» receives the philosophical transparency of the above mentioned Derivative Creation (5), as well as the Grace corresponds with the Absolute Creation. At second, the book of Darwin, being the Splendid example of the theoretical investigation and English language (and scien-tifical language at all), contains in itself the essence of his theory, and also the great number of facts, which have no connection with the essence. Let us take a good look at the essence of that book. Nowhere in it is said how Life did appear. In the book it is said namely about species. (Here note, that the English Bible of King James easily goes away from the future contradictions, using in Genesis (1:24-25) translation the term «kind», and not the term «by their genus», which the Russian and the Slavonic Bibles do use, that makes the possibility of these terms fastenning to the taxonomy; even more possibility is given by Vulgata, giving the terms «genera» and «species».

All the essence of that, what Darwin says, is with a surprising manner hidden in the book's name, which, as a rule, is abridged, that originates a great number of absurdities. Thus, the title of Darwin's book is: «The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life» (13). In Russian variant we give here the literal translation of the combination «naturalnaya selectsiya», because the traditional Russian translation «yestestvenniy otbor» is rather good, but it hides the fact, that it was namely Darwin, who had intro­duced into the scientifical turnover the term «selection» (instead of the previously used term «breeding»), and by this, had become the founder of the whole practical science.

38

But let us return to the book itself. Read once more into the title and answer the question: whether Darwin says about the origin of species from one another (accordingly, creatures from one another, etc., etc.) ? No. He says about the origin of species. And whether «the origin of species» is identical to «the origin of species from one another»? In no measure. We dare asseverate this. And to asseverate it, coming out of Darwin himself. The surprised reader would ask: and what about in such a case does that Darwin write ? About the following.

Let us take his famous chapter upon the pigeons. Darwin says, that we have the huge multiformity of the most different pigeons breeds. And if the systematists have met them in nature, and not in the columbaria, they would in one voice have considered them the different species. But we have the thousand years dove genealo­gies, being kept as great value. We have the thousand years columbaria (such pi­geons - houses some part of this article authors was happy to watch in Jersey, for ex­ample, in Samare-Manor). And we wittingly know, that all this is one and the same dove. And the systematist is obediently nodding his head: yes, this is one and the same species. And why is it so multiformious ? Well, because in consequence of time and space isolation with some representatives of the species in the endless turn of it's generations were kept in the revealed form the different combinations of the potenti­alities, which it had possessed from the very beginning. So replies the systematist. And in the same time, having met the differentiy looking organisms in nature, he says, that «these are the different species».

In reality, - it comes out of the book of Darwin, - the continuous totality of the Alive does exist. But it exists in the form of the separate individuals, isolated in time and space. Such an isolation leads the temporal and spacious revealing of the differ­ent potentialities. Such namely temporally revealing themselves combinations of the features are called species by the systematist. They do appear and originate only in the head of the systematist and namely in consequence of the fact, that he, as a man, has not the enough power to embrace in his view all the continuous multiformity of the Alive, but sees only it's discrete manifestations. That is all, what Darwin said.

39

The contents of his tremendous book, coming out the limits of this construction, is the attempt to explain the mechanism of accumulating of different features in the dif­ferent points of the biological time and space. Here Darwin was successful in the clearing up the role of the natural selection, but he did not succeed in the explanation of the facts of the different features hereditary transfer. One used to consider, that such an explanation was given by Mendel and the following genetists. But we dare say, that Mendel, the chromosome theory and molecular biology do only explain further the begun by Darwin explanation of the process mechanism. But the essence of the process (and along with it - the essence of Darwin's conception) was ex­plained by Weismann (14). He, having not known the biological nature of the postu­lated by him objects (the discovered much more later chromosomes, genes, DNA, etc.), had declared, that in every alive organism the «germ plasm» and «body» («soma») did exist. They do separate from one another at once after the fertilization. The germ plasm forms around itself (from the cells - slaves) the body. This body considers itself the wreath of the nature, and thinks, that the plasm carries the he­reditary information for it. In reality, the body is only the temporal hamlet, the tem­porary dress of the germ plasm. The body is mortal, temporal, transient. While the germ plasm is, in potentiality, immortal. (The analogous structure can be looked through inside the cell - watch higher about the «silent» DNA). The bodies are sepa­rated in time and in space. Thus, in one or another body, and more correctly - in their group, these or those peculiarities of theirs are being kept, which peculiarities we call species (in the systematical sence). No relation with the Creation those species do not have got (expect, of course, with the features of the systematist's brain, which is also the creature). Evidently, the Absolute Creature is the composition of the Breathing of Life and the dust, clay (Gen., 2:7). In it, in potentiality, are rolled up all the future and able to unroll combinations of the features of the alive beings, which combinations in the determined point of time and space are given to us in the con­templation of the bodies-hamlets, which are temporal, but in the determined time moment encircle the potentially immortal germ plasm. In such a situation, all the

40

huge knowledge, kept by the human being, are in potentiality hidden in his DNA; and the DNA potentialities are hidden in the crystal grid of clay, to which the man returns, constructing his computers on the basis of silicon (15).

Whether the biological system - the couple of the immortal germ plasm (it, sure, can be killed as a concrete manifestation - the cell, DNA, etc. - but it cannot be murdered, as the DNA potentiality, the potentiality of the information grid, the po­tentiality of the atoms features - so on, till the endlessness) and bodies - huts, bodies - dresses - can function in the other way ? No, it cannot.

And it is given in the Bible revelation, while Darwin and Weismann have only made us understand the sence of that revelation from their point of view, while the authors of this article have gone on to do this for the modern reader.

Let us explain this thesis with the example of the man. He was created in the Image and after the likeness of God (Gen., 1:26). Upon those categories let us listen to the father of the western and eastern philosophy Plato: «And here when the Father had seen, that the born by him... was moving and living, he rejoiced and in the tri­umph intended to make the creation even more like the model. But because the model is revealing in itself the eternally alive being..., the nature of that being is eternal, and this cannot be in full transferred to anything born. Thus he intended to create some dynamic likeness of the eternity;... he... creates for the eternity, being in the entity, the eternal also image, moving from number to number, which we have called time» (16).

Thus, the time is the dynamic image of the eternity, moving from number to number. Human being has been created in time - in the dynamic image of the Eter­nity; he also has the eternal and preeternal Breathing of Life, which gives him the likeness of God. Thus, any biological system consists of two components - temporal (soma) and eternal (germ plasm).

In connection with the above - stated, those things, which we call the biologi­cal species are neither primordial creatures (of the Absolute Creation), nor the crea­tures, originated from the primeval ones (i.e. not the objects of Absolute and con-

41

stantly going on Creation). They are the dynamic image of the biological component of me Absolute Creation (first of all - in the brains of man: either taxonomist, or the simple spectator). And, on the high account, the constant moving, the dynamicness of this image constitute in fact the thing, which Kemp calls the Derivative Creation.

Let us compare it, for example, with the state of liquid water (17). It consists of the crystal-like very briefly living (billionth parts of the second) structures - the so called «twinkling clusters». They do constantly appear and decay, while water re­mains water. Those things, which systematist calls the species, are the twinkling clusters in the fluid breathing of life, eternally flowing and twinkling with the clus­ters of clay bodies features; with it's scintillating giving one of the components of the Image of God. The constant presence of the Breathing of Life makes the system be in the likeness of God. The Breathing of Life is unbroken for every creature from the Absolute Creation - through the continuum - the untearness, if you want - nir-vanity (23) - of the germ plasm; through the uninterruptedness of the generations turn (9, 10 - paragraph «Ontogenesis»).

Death is the departure of the twinkling biological (dusty) shell. Thus, the «organic evolution» is not the creating with death or the development by means of death (the thought upon which has shaken the faith of Rev. Timophey Alpherov); as well as the change of the clothes is not the death of a person, changing the clothes. We have the straight Life from the Saint Spirit, breather into the clay (in which in the mystic omnipotence all the possible information is rolled up), and the clay of this was plunged into the water (firmament with waters above and under).

The meaning of the shells dance and the calmness of the germ plasm is hidden in the structure of the ratio: the soul, being with the God, and temporal cosmos-changing, tormenting itself. The germ plasm is eternity; the shells are the dynamic image of it.

Here we would want to note, that, it one can trust to Daniel Granin (24), this ratio was accepted also by such coryphaei of science as N.V. Timopheev-Ressovskiy and Max Planck. According to Granin, they believed in the soul immortality; in the

42

«launching» of life by God with the further it's moving in itself- in the way of evo­lution. The idea of «launching» by God clearly shows, that they namely understood the evolution in the Platonic sence - as the dynamic image of the eternity.

Here, of course, it is necessary to give the self- account, that the giant problem of the other ratio arises - the ratio between the personal soul and germ plasm (which includes contraception, abortions, cloning, medical and biological ethics, etc.). This problem needs separate detailed investigation, with which, if the God let, we shall be busy later. At the time being, we shall limit ourselves with two notes. At first, the just mentioned problem can be withdrawn with the faith into the Absolute Creation of every individual soul (5). At second, the Christian approach here is diametrically opposite to the approach of metempsychoses. The metempsychotics believe, that one and the same soul endlessly migrates into the new biological objects, not connected with the previous ones. The above stated ideas, on the contrary, show, that the Ab­solutely Created soul of every the person is connected with the body, which is the «newly built hut» of the unbroken from the moment of the Absolute Creation bio­logical object - germ plasm.

Returning to the ratio between the germ plasm and the soma, we shall say, that we see in it the biological image of the Christian Hope (and Biblical Hatikvah, in general); as well as our dear friend Jeff Fountain sees in the relation between the Christian spirit and the endless change of the political shells the Hope for the Europe of the third millennium (25).

Anyone, thinking in the other way, is to concentrate on the idea of the death omnipotence, that is the sin, that is connected with the suffering.

Death is connected with the suffering. It follows the sin - the knowledge of Good (Eternity) and Evil (Temporality). The suffering, in its turn, is the misunder­standing of the way, how the God works with his image and nonunderstanding of the likeness of God in the continuos turn of the potentially immortal (possest) germ plasm.

The sharpest description of suffering in time and from time was given by the

genious Shakespeare:

.

43

«There would have been a time for such a word. To-morrow, and to- morrow, and to- morrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing» (Macbeth, V, 5:18-28) (18).

And it is not surprisingly, that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is con­nected in the Bible with the time. In this tree, in it's name - a vast mystery. Many asked the question: why is this tree associated with the apple-tree ? We have replied this question (19, 20, 21, watch also the first page of the j ournal jacket). Now we are asked the other question: how is the tree of Knowledge of good and evil connected with the time ? Let us remember, that saint Paul says: «Redeeming the time, because the days are evil» (Eph., 5:16). The Bible of King James here straightly uses the term «evil», i.e. «the days are evil». The time is straightly called the evil. Further, Jesus, teaching the disciples to pray (Mt., 6:9-13), says: «... but deliver us from evil». This is very important moment, because in Russian and Slavonic Bibles in these places (Eph., 5:16; Mt., 6:9-13) is used the term «cunning» (literally «lukavogo» in Rus­sian). Vulgata here insists on it's famous term «malo», that gives the play on words again («deliver us from evil» or «deliver us from apples») (watch 19). And Russian, as well as Slavonic texts, connected with the Septuagint, connected with the labours of Cyril and Methodius, sent by the Roman Pope, insist on the term «cunning». And here the mystery partly discloses itself, because in the Slavonic Bible (22) the tree of knowledge of good and evil is called (Gen., 2:9): «... tree for reasonable under­standing of good and cunning». Thus, the tree of good and cunning. It turns out - of

44

eternal and temporal (because cunning - are the days, i.e. time). We would remind you here, that in the Hebraic variant for the name of the tree of good and evil for the latter the word «rah» is used, which originates from the root «raw-ah», literally meaning «to tear into pieces» or «to break into pieces» (27). Hebraic is the Nostratic language. Thus, compare, the reader, the root «raw-ah» with the other Nostratic -Russian - word «rwat» (to tear) and remember the above written Nostratic passage upon the «nerwanost» (23) (as well as also Nostratic - English - word «rag»). Well, one more reminiscence - «The time is out of joint», - says Hamlet (I, V, 188) (28) (though it seems to the Russian translation that he says: «The age is shaking», or «The walk of life is deranged», or «Age is out of joint», or «The tie of times is dis­integrated», that does not matter).

In turns out, that the cunning - the devil - is making the man clutch at the time and run from the eternity, tearing into pieces his soul!

In this running away the human being suffers from the realizing of his exis-tentiality, his endness, from the calculatingness of all, that is in the time, in the tem­poral image. Let us remember, that time, according to Plato (16), moves «from num­ber to number». And not for nothing St. John the Divine says about the number of the beast, about calculation of the people, about the numbers of the seals-Living in the dynamic image of the Eternity, being this image (it's anthropo­logical component), the man runs away from the Eternity, not believing, that the Breathing of Life eternally is likening him to the God. God constantly establishes the covenant with the man. But it is not enough will in the dynamic image to see the likeness (or the straight will appears - not to see it), and the suffer and run of the temporal begin: to Adam was given the untemporality and the Eternal Life, while he runs and hides from God, from the Eternity (Gen., 3:8-9). And here, he is exorcised from the Paradise, and his progeny is nearly exterminated with the Flood. The struc­ture of the latter - the firmament with water above and water under - is the structure, analogous to the Creation. It again repeats in Jonah (Jonah, 1-2), that (remind man-dorla!) is the prophecy of the Christ being in the sepulchre (26, watch also page 4 of

45

the journal jacket). (We shall note, that such an interpretation is accepted also by the archbishop of Krasnodar and Novorossiysk Isidor - watch., e.g., his speech, pub­lished in the newspaper «the Free Kuban» for 13.03.1999, p. 1-2). The same structure repeats itself also in the baptizing of Christ.

We cannot but note me amazing symbol: the body of the Savior was put into the sepulchre in the middle of the garden (and crucified, or transfixed - stauros or kakos - he was in the middle of the garden - hortus) (John, 19:41). Taking into the account the above brought ideas about mandorla, we see the splendid symbol: the fish of sacred in the sacred garden. The Second Man again brings us into Biblical Garden - to the Tree of Life. But the human beings, originating from the First Man and being saved by the Second Man, again do not see it.

Look. God establishes the covenant with all, saved after the flood (he himself chose them, and whom chose - those save - in his Grace). He establishes the cove­nant with every living creature (including all animals) and puts the bow as the token of the covenant (Gen., 9:11-14). And what further ? The man does not believe, that he is saved. Again he runs inside the time from the Eternity, and everybody is exter­minated with the endless plagues, and the Covenant is again being established with Abraham (Gen., 15-18, 17:2), though, probably, also with Melchizedek (Gen., 14-18). But the progeny of Abraham also runs away inside the time from the Eternity, waiting for the terrestrial king and worshipping the terrestrial law. The Eternity - the Word -again comes to the human being, and the Word is crucified or transfixed (22). And the firmest of the disciples thricely denied the Word (Mat, 26:69-75), and satan (Mark, 8:33) speaks through that disciple, and even after the baptizing with the Saint Spirit he again thricely denies the God's words (Acts, 10:9-16)! And only to the most beloved disciple the Savior let learn and asseverate: «there should be time no longero (Rev., 10:6) (in Latin «quia tempus amplius non erit»; in Greek «oti chronos uketi estai»).

And you, temporal biologically - social beings, having understood the message of the beloved disciple, go and carry this message to those temporal creatures, who, giving themselves to the cunningness of time, try to run away inside it from the Eter-

46

nity. Teach them, that the salvation is to overcome the time cunningness and through this overcoming to come to Eternity.

LITERATURE.

1.     «Science of the Rice Plant». V.l. «Morphology». (Ed. by Takane Matsuo and Ki-yochika Hoshikawa). Tokyo. FAPRC. 1993. 690 pp. (transl. from Jap.).

2.     «Science of the Rice Plant». V.2. «Physiology». (Ed. by Takane Matsuo, Kikuo Kumazawa, Ryuichi Ishii, Kuni Iskihara, Hiroshi Hirata). Tokyo. FAPRC. 1995. 1248 pp. (transl. from Jap.).

3.     «Science of the Rice Plant». V.3. «Genetics». (Ed. by Takane Matsuo, Yuzo Fur-suhara, Fumio Kikuchi, Hikoyuki Yamaguchi). Tokyo. FAPRC. 1997. 1008 pp. (transl. from Jap.).

4.     «Science of the Rice Plant». V.3. «Indices». Tokyo. FAPRC. 1997. 190 pp. (transl. from Jap.).

5.     Kemp K.W. «Evolution and Creation». Paper presented at the International Sym­posium «2000 Years of Christianity and It's Contribution to Medicine, Science

and Society». Yalta. 20-23 May. 1998. pp. 1-6. у I

6.  Nicolaus Cusanus. Works. V.l. Moscow. «Mysfe» Ed. 1979. 488 pp. (Rus., transl.

from Lat. and comment, by A.F. Losev, et al.).

7.     Nicolaus Cusanus. Works. V.2. Moscow. «Myse» Ed. 1980. 472 pp. (Rus., transl. from Lat. and comment, by A.F. Losev, et al.).

8.     Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose). «The Orthodox View upon the Evolution». Moscow. Ed. of Svyato-Vvedenskiy Monastery of the Optina Desert. 1997. 96 pp. (Rus.).

9.     Alyoshin E.P., Alyoshin N.E. «Rice». Moscow. 1993., 504 pp., 100 fig. (Rus.).

10.    Alyoshin E.P., Alyoshin N.E. «Rice». (2-nd ed., revised and add.). Krasnodar. Journal «Ruce of Russia» ed. 1997., V.5. № 3 (11). 506 pp., 101 fig. (The edition received the award of the Krasnodar territory Administration for science).

11.    «Man-yc~shu» («Collection of the Myriad of Leaves»). In 3 vol. Vol.1. Moscow. Main Ed.of Eastern Lit. 1971. 680 pp. (Rus., transl. from Jap.).

47

12.     Davidenko E.A.., Alyoshin N.E., Avakyan E.R. «The phenomenon of the exis­tence of the cells - heterokaryons of rice and azolla». The Diploma for discovery of the specialized organization «Ricepatent» № 7 from 18.11.1998. «Rice of Rus­sia». 1998. № 3 (17). P.22. (Rus.).

13.     Darwin Ch. «The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preser­vation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life». London. UK. «Senate» Ed. 1994. (Printed in Guernsey). 472 pp. (Fax. ed. from the sixth - the last - in Dar­win's lifetime ed. of 1872).

14.     Weismann A. «Das Keimplasma. Eine Theorie der Veverbung». Jena. 1892.

15.     Alyoshin N.E. «Upon the structures». - «Rice of Russia». 1994. V.2, № 2. pp. 9-13. (and in the: Alyoshin N.E. «Oryzology against obscurantism». Oxford. 1996.

l

36 pp., 22 fig. Published by Chris Browne Associates, London. Watch pp. 30-31).

16.     Plato. «Timaeus» (37, d-e). In: «Plato. Works in 4 volumes. V.3». Moscow. «Mysl» ed. 1994. P.421-500 (p.439-440). (Rus., transl. from Anc. Greek).

17.     Lehninger A.L. «Biochemistry». Moscow. «Mir» Ed. 1974. 960 pp. (Rus., transl. from Engl.).

18.     Shakespeare W. «Macbeth». In: «The Riverside SHAKESPEARE». Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, etc., 1974, 1932 pp.; pp.1306-1342 (p.1337).

19.     Alyoshina N.V., Alyoshina N.N., Alyoshin N.E. «Biblical Garden. Communication 5: Apple-tree and Apples». - «Rice of Russia». 1998. V.6. № 3 (17). P.12-13. (Rus.).

20. Alyoshina N.V., Alyoshina N.N., Alyoshin N.E. «Biblical Garden. Communica­tion 6: She-apple-tree and He-apple-tree». - «Rice of Russia». 1998. V.6. № 3 (17).P.14-15. (Rus.).

21. Alyoshina N.V. «Biblical Garden. Communication 8: Dancing Tree». - «Rice of Russia». 1998. V.6. № 3 (17). P. I, III (jacket).

22. «Biblia. Books of the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament in the Church - Slavonic, Language». Moscow. Russian Biblical Society. 1993. 1672 pp. (Printed in typ. Sanct Michael Print. Mikkely. Finland. Reprint edition with

48

blessing of the Patriarch Alexius II from the second Saint - Petersburg ed. of 1900). (In Church - Slavonic with Rus. Notes).

23.  Alyoshin N.E., Avakyan E.R. «Rice in the Tibetan Lamaistic Cult Statuette». -Bui. sci.- tech. inf. of the all - Union Rice Res. Inst. Iss.38. Krasnodar. 1989. P.74-77. (Rus.).

24.  Granin D.A. «Zuhr». Moscow. Izvestiya Ed. 1987. 240 pp. (Rus.).

25.  Fountain Jeff. «Hope's Radical Legacy - the Transformation Influence of Judaeo - Christian «Concept of Hope on Europe's Identity». Paper, presented at the Inter­national Symposium «2000 Years of Christianity and It's Contribution to Medi­cine, Science and Society». Yalta. 20-23 May. 1998. pp.1-6.

26.  Alyoshina N.V., Alyoshin N.E. «Biblical Garden. Communication 9: Biota of Jo-nab). - «Rice of Russia». 1998. V.6. № 3 (17). P.18-19. (Rus.).

27.  Strong J. «A. Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible; with their Renderings in the Authorized English Version». E.E. Gaddy and Associates, Inc. -Publishers. Keene. Texas. USA. 1982. 128 pp. In: «Holy Bible. Giant print. Red letter edition. Old and New Testaments. King James Version. Referenced with Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries from Strong's Concordance». Seminars Unlimited Ed. (with E.E. Gaddy and Associates, Inc.). Keene. Texas. USA. 1982. 1826 pp. (+ X, + 128, + 80, + 10 pp.). (Watch p.109 HD - № 7451 and p. 110 HD - № 7489).

28.  Shakespeare W. «Hamlet». In: «The Riverside SHAKESPEARE». Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, etc., 1974,1932 pp.; pp.1135-1197, (p.l 151).

■ Krasnodar. 15.03. - 29.03. 1999.