Direct observation in wildlife, basic physics and basic biology, show that the long story of our planet is not about a creation neither an evolution, but the reconstruction of a previous planet similar to ours that has been destroyed by a supernova. The assumed evolution of life on our planet was in fact a recovery of life which means, the regain of a lost past wildlife. A recovery implies a planned outcome, and this is proof that our present life diversity is not the result of adaptations, but was genetically planned and activated. Tests in proteins show evidence for a common ancestor for all life-forms on our present planet. On the contrary, genetics show evidence for a fauna diversity in the very beginning of life. Both results seem contradictory. In fact, the two options are exact. At first life appeared on a first earth directly as a fauna diversity. After destruction, the fauna re-emerged on our rebuilt planet via a common ancestor. The birth of a tree starts from a single seed. The birth of the recovery of life started from a common ancestor. The differentiation of the common ancestry into a fauna diversity was genetically planned, like the reproduction process of the growth of the tree branches, or the limbs of a fetus.
Small animals with fast metabolisms, like birds and insects, take in more information per unit of time. This means they experience time slower than larger animals with slower metabolisms, like turtles and elephants. They can actually perceive time as if it’s passing in slow motion, meaning they can observe movements and events on a finer timescale. This would definitely be an advantage in some situations, increasing their reaction times and allowing them to escape—like dodging bullets in The Matrix—from larger creatures who perceive time slower, and so might miss things smaller animals can spot rapidly. As the lead author of the study, Kevin Healy, remarked: “We are beginning to understand that there is a whole world of detail out there that only some animals can perceive and it’s fascinating to think of how they might perceive the world differently to us.” I turned this question over in my mind for quite a while, and I think it’s simply not reducible to a single dimension. So it’s not just size that determines how bad it is to kill the animal, or just the complexity of its nervous system, or just how many of the species are left. Killing an animal can be wrong for various distinct reasons, and many of those reasons correlate with the animal’s size, but it’s only a correlation.