Establishing a new science; The case for the existance of a blind scientist

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Part 1 The narrowing shallows of the shoreline
by Uncle Emanuel Watkins

Here are a few things I feel I can perceive without the use of my vision.
Question: Does mankind exist because sea creatures evolved to walk out of the water?
When going to the beach of the ocean and swimming along the shore, while holding my head beneath the water, I can hear a noise similar to breathing by listening as the waves wash in and out.
Also, when digging my fingers into the sand, I won't find any living fishy things, but crabby things. As I am blind, I can determine that crabs live within the shells I am diggin up as they will be reaching out to pinch my fingers with their claws. The further I go out, the larger the shells of the crabs get that I dig up.
Assumption: Mankind didn't evolve from crabby things.
What I believe I can perceive intelligently about the life swimming around me without the use of my eyes.
Big things out in the deep will tend to eat little things (with a few anomalies). In deep water, big things will get eaten by even bigger things. In the shallower water, smaller predators are better adept at eating the smaller things than are the bigger ones (also with a few anomalies or acceptions) as the smaller creatures are better adept at swimming around in a narrowing environment.
Therefore, as creatures evolve towards shallower water, both the predator and the prey together will tend to reduce down in size Zeno like as such adaptions are better adept at surviving.
Once again, all this can be understood by me without the use of my eyes meaning that it is possible for me to be a blind scientist.
Complex creatures do not evolve alone, but many relationships factor in like the one they have with the predators hunting them and the prey they are likewise hunting.
Assumption: Complex creatures can't evolve to walk out of the water!
Question: Does mankind exist because life evolved to walk on top of water?
According to what I heard not long ago on the news (I won't be able to read the newspaper if I am a blind man), scientists recently figured out why flying bugs have those seemingly useless little wings along with the larger ones they use for flying, which was a phenomenon that bothered Darwin to no end. After clipping off their larger wings and leaving only their smaller ones and then sitting them on top of the water, scientists found out that these bugs were able to scoot along the top of the water. So, what was their conclusion? Well, bugs can't evolve to fly by taking off from water. Instead, they had to evolve a way to first scoot towards solid land before they could gain support to develop their ability to fly up in the air.
Assumption: Mankind didn't evolve from insects.
As an argument can be made that I can't possibly know some of these things without the use of vision, the argument can also be made that my eyes are a detrement to me seeing certain things with my remaining senses. An example of this is the lung function in the waves that I perceived with the use of my ears.
Next writ: Part 2: A blind man sings the blues about "What is The Original Catalyst for Locomotion in Mammals."[/QUOTE]

[squarepusher]

see ya in off topics

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

see ya in off topics

If it goes into the off topics, then I will finish my argument in my blog. Anyone who has been around understands that this isn't an off topic topic. I will agree with you that it isn't fast food. Anyway, thanks for the five word response. But, wouldn't the word "idiot" have been easier for you to type?
(You know, you somehow have 3,116 posts to my 3069. You type way too little. I'm going to report you to mother.)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Part Two: The Catalyst for the locomotion of Mammals
As a blind man, with help, I feel I could envision the differences between the side to side locomotion of fishy things when compared to the up and down locomotion of mammalian things.
First off, understand, I'm not here to tell you what you want to hear. In fact, that should be used as an indicator to judge whether I am being doggedly philosophical in my approach or eloquently sophisticated. As it is becoming apparent to me, mankind didn't just walk straight out of the water as the superior of all animals. He and she had to take a rather unspectacular detour along the way, one which most of us will surely have a difficult time accepting.
Question: Why would mammals evolve an up and down locomotion from a side to side motion?
Answer: Digging.
Once again, as a hypothetical blind man, I can read, but I can't look at the evidence. So, I have to rely on my hearing by way of listening and feeling. In arguing that land mammals evolved into sea mammals, scientists have created an experiment superimposing the locomotions of both over each other. In other words, there are differing casual kind of walking and more desperate kind of galloping locomotions in both land and sea mammals which become apparent when the two motions are superimposed over each other and matched up.
While this does substantiate evolution, it doesn't answer the question of what was the original catalyst causing mammals to evolve an up and down locomotion from a fishy side to side locomotion.
The answer to that question is the act of "digging."
Once again, lest we get off the point, I can envision all this as a blind man.
Mammals exhibit two kinds of digging. There is the casual walking kind of dig in which soil is dug out, in unison, with one front paw alternating with the other digging into the soil, and then, in unison, using one back paw alternating with the other to clear the dirt out of the hole.
The other kind of digging is what I call the desperate galloping kind of dig in which soil is dug out with both front paws simultaneously as they are thrust into the ground in desperation by both prey and predator alike. Likewise, both back paws are used simultaneously to thrust the dirt out of the hole even to the extent that the dirt will fly up many feet into the air.
As the casual walking and galloping motions match up in both land and sea animals when they are superimposed over each other and their speeds matched up, the same is true of the digging motions of mammals when they are superimposed and matched up with both the land and sea mammals.
Understand that this idea is totally orginal as you won't find it anywhere else but here. As the superimposing of both the land and sea mammals was an experiment performed to substantiate the theory of evolution, I am using the superimposing of the locomotions of digging mammals to the land and sea mammals to establish an alternate version of how mankind relocated from the sea onto the land.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Bump
Part 3. A few anomalies involved with establishing the possibility that a blind man can be a scientist.

Anomalies are endless. Still, there are a few problems here. First off, the ocean at its shoreline doesn't just narrow from the deep water to the shallow. There is also a problem with the moon and the sun effecting the tide. When currents are volitile where oceans collide though, there does seem to be huge species of crabs instead of fish. For example, the Bering sea has ample amounts of different kinds of crabs. Crabs have adapted well at surviving in strong currents as they can use one claw to dig into the ground to support themselves while they use the other one to capture prey to eat.
If one takes a slow motion picture of a galloping animal, their front and rear legs aren't perfectly in sync with each other with the front legs thrusting out and digging into the ground so that they can pick up both hind legs and use them to anchor their bodies so that they can thrust the front legs out again. The brain is the explanation for this as, the majority of the time, its dominate side is going to be leading the other side.