Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
UM-Bot

Morphogenetic fields and intelligent design

38 posts in this topic

Image credit: Julia Margaret Cameron
Image credit: Julia Margaret Cameron
William B Stoecker: Modern atheist/materialist science insists that evolution is governed solely by random mutation and natural selection, and that heredity and the forms of organisms are controlled only by DNA. But evidence is mounting that this materialist interpretation simply doesn't work, and that something else is involved in every aspect of life, something denied by the atheist elites. To begin with, natural selection works well enough to explain micro evolution, or variations within a species, but it fails utterly to explain macro evolution, or the origin of species (the title of Darwin's major work). The evidence for intelligent design is so massive that entire books have been written on the subject, but a few of the main points can be summarized here.

First is the problem of irreducible complexity. It begins at the cellular level. Darwin and his supporters like Huxley imagined that cells are simple lumps of cytoplasm, when, in reality, they are incredibly complex structures wherein a variety of complex chemical reactions involving exceedingly large and complex molecules take place. All the components of the cell have to work in concert for the cell to live. For example, some one celled creatures propel themselves through water with a rotating whip like appendage called a flagellum, which is moved by a structure bearing an eerie resemblance to a kind of electric motor, with electrically charged rotor and stator rings. Every part of this structure had to be in place at the beginning for it to function at all; if it had "evolved" gradually there would have been stages when the cell would be saddled with, for example, a worthless stator ring and nothing else. Such a worthless appendage would be a drag on the organism and ensure, not its survival, but its demise. The vesicular transport system within a cell is also irreducibly complex; it transfers enzymes (certain types of proteins) from the ribosomes, where they are constructed, to the lysosomes and other structures, where they are needed. Above the cellular level there are numerous examples of irreducible complexity, such as the various kinds of eyes that have "evolved" over and over in arthropods, cephalopods, and vertebrates, always involving exceedingly complex structures and even more complex chemical reactions that must take place in an exact sequence. The flight feathers of birds, with their complex, branching structure and interlocking barbules would be worthless either for insulation or flight if only partly developed.

Roughly half a billion years ago, only one celled organisms existed; at least no remains of anything more complex have been found and positively dated to any earlier period. Suddenly, in what has been called the Cambrian Explosion, a host of complex animals appeared. They had legs and claws and even eyes, fully formed from the beginning. Darwinian evolution cannot explain this.

Then there is the problem of sea animals abruptly "evolving" into land animals, or land animals returning to the sea or even taking to the air, with no real intermediate species. Once there were crustaceans in the water, and then there were arachnids and later insects on land. There were crawling insects and then, with no transitions, they flew. Understand that for an animal to fly it must have wings, specialized flight muscles, and flight behavior (a plane requires a pilot) all at once, all together, or it will fail and die, leaving no descendants. No fossil remains of gliding insects have ever been found. There were fish breathing water with their gills, and then there were amphibians whose eggs were laid in water and whose larvae (like tadpoles) had gills, while the adults usually had lungs and crawled or hopped about on land. Then there were reptiles whose leathery eggs could be laid on land without drying out, and who breathed air throughout their lives. Then there were huge marine reptiles...with no transition species ever found. Then, again with no transition, there were pterosaurs that flew, not merely glided, again requiring wings, flight muscles, and piloting skills. There were dinosaurs, and then there were birds, resembling dinosaurs but with flight feathers, wings, muscles, and the skill to use all of this. There was some kind of early mammal and then there were bats, who not only could fly, but who also used sonar, and their wings and sonar appear fully formed in the very oldest bat fossils.

Darwinism cannot explain symbiosis. Symbiotes are organisms of different species who work together. There is a kind of shrimp that can dig a burrow in the sea floor (and how did tunneling behavior "evolve"?) where it has a fish for a roomate; the fish's superior eyesight enables it to spot predators and give an alarm so both animals can hide indoors. There is, in tropical America, a plant known as a bullhorn acacia that has hollow thorns and a kind of pseudo fruit. A species of ant lives in the thorns, eats the fruit, and protects the plant from all of its enemies and competitors. But why would the plant evolve hollow thorns and pseudo fruit except to entice its ant defenders who had to exist and have the proper defensive behavior to begin with? And why would the ants have such behavior unless the acacia already existed in its fully symbiotic form? Actually, symbiotes are themselves a kind of irreducable complexity; every component has to be in place, fully developed, at the very beginning, or the whole system will fail.

Flowering plants, or angiosperms, appeared suddenly during the Cretaceous; before them the only really complex land plants were gymnosperms, like pine trees. The angiosperms are the largest example of symbiosis; they have flowers to attract and nectar to reward their pollinators, such as bees. But why waste valuable energy on such structures unless the pollinators already existed, and why would the pollinators "evolve" their pollinating behavior unless the angiosperms already existed? In fact, the angiosperms could not exist at all without the pollinators.

But their failure to explain the development of species is only one of the problems for the materialists. They insist that all of heredity is encoded in the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) in the genes, and that the genes completely control the development of every organism. But genes only carry a code to produce certain proteins, nothing more. That is not quite the same as determining structure. And even that is not well understood; researchers used to claim that human beings have some hundred thousand genes and that each gene codes for one, and only one protein. But the Human Genome Project found that thousands of genes patented by private companies do not even exist, and current estimates for the number of human genes have been downsized to perhaps thirty to thirty five thousand...no one really has a clue. And the human body is now known to contain at least 300,000 proteins; if each gene codes for one, there is a bit of a problem.

Biologists and geneticists have always been a bit hazy, to put it mildly, about how embryonic cells, all carrying the same genes, differentiate into completely separate tissues and organs in different parts of the body.

Enter Rupert Sheldrake. Fringe researchers and writers theorized that there might be "morphic fields," perhaps transcending time and space, that serve as a data base for mental and physical forms.

For example, a group of quartz crystals would generate such a field, and new crystals would tune into that field and their development would be controlled by it. They would also reinforce the field and add new information to it; this is called "morphic resonance." The "akashic records" mentioned in the ancient Hindu Vedas would be an example of a mental field, as would Jung's collective unconscious, which may be the same thing. Such fields might influence human culture and behavior. Needless to say, there is nothing in conventional physics that allows for any of this.

Rupert Sheldrake, with a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge, is a fellow of the Institute for Noetic Sciences, founded by former astronaut Edgar Mitchell. In his 1981 book A New Science of Life: Hypothesis of Formative Causation he coined the term "morphogenetic field" for morphic fields that govern the development of living organisms. This would at least begin to explain how different tissues and organs develop in different parts of the body. Sheldrake believed that DNA might actually function like an antenna (the double helix even looks a bit like an antenna) and receive instructions from the field.

So intelligent design (which does, indeed, require a Designer) seems to explain evolution and morphogenetic fields seem to explain organ development. But the individual's part of the field, though connected with the rest of it, begins to sound like the astral body hypothesized by occultists. And does the act of procreation then involve merely sperm and egg, or is there a spiritual component? Is there some truth to the Catholic belief that the soul is injected into the body at the moment of concepcion? But note then that the soul, via the astral body, would govern the development of that body. And this interconnectedness of all things has long been a belief of mystics. And these fields may then play a role in the process of intelligent design, with the Supreme Being, either directly or through lesser angels, fairies, or nature spirits, modifiying the morphogenetic fields to create new life forms.

This is a truly exciting area of study, scoffed at by materialists. Proper research in this area might well lead to medical breakthroughs and even a higher spiritual understanding.

William B Stoecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't Mr. Stoeker focus on UFOs? He's playing the god of the gaps card and trying to make it sound like a good argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Doesn't Mr. Stoeker focus on UFOs? He's playing the god of the gaps card and trying to make it sound like a good argument.

Agree, Cof. The whole basis of the anti-evolution argument is incredulity, and this is based on either laziness or fear - people who cannot be bothered to, or are afraid to, research and study and learn how evolution has moulded both form and behaviour. Of course the science of evolution does not have all the answers (yet). We [humans] aren't omniscient and there are aspects of the biological system that have yet to be explained, but ID and Creationism both depend on ignorance (not in the personal sense - but in lack of knowledge) for their propagation.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Needless to say, there is nothing in conventional physics that allows for any of this.

That's all right. IDers can just make something up and proclaim it to be revealed knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
linked-imageWilliam B Stoecker: Modern atheist/materialist science insists that evolution is governed solely by random mutation and natural selection, and that heredity and the forms of organisms are controlled only by DNA. But evidence is mounting that this materialist interpretation simply doesn't work, and that something else is involved in every aspect of life, something denied by the atheist elites. To begin with, natural selection works well enough to explain micro evolution, or variations within a species, but it fails utterly to explain macro evolution, or the origin of species (the title of Darwin's major work). The evidence for intelligent design is so massive that entire books have been written on the subject, but a few of the main points can be summarized here.

Evidence to support such a claim? I have been asking creationists on this website for some time now to provide me with a mechanism that effectively limits the amount of variation produced and draws a distinction between "micro and macroevolution". Would you care to be the first to provide a mechanism Mr. Stoecker? Because right now it appears you are just spouting an unsupported claim as fact.

Also, Darwin's book was never meant to explain the origin of life (which I think you are trying to imply) it explains how species arise -Very different then how life arises. It should also be mentioned that no biologist currently thinks natural selection is the only mechanism which produces "macroevolution" please see my signature at the bottom of the post.

You also need to provide evidence that Natural selection fails to explain "macroevolution" because you have made another baseless claim. In fact, a fine example of "macroevolution", that is changes at or above the species level, can be found on the Main Front Page News -Heavy metal-eating "superworms" unearthed, Natural World. Read on!

First is the problem of irreducible complexity. It begins at the cellular level. Darwin and his supporters like Huxley imagined that cells are simple lumps of cytoplasm, when, in reality, they are incredibly complex structures wherein a variety of complex chemical reactions involving exceedingly large and complex molecules take place. All the components of the cell have to work in concert for the cell to live. For example, some one celled creatures propel themselves through water with a rotating whip like appendage called a flagellum, which is moved by a structure bearing an eerie resemblance to a kind of electric motor, with electrically charged rotor and stator rings. Every part of this structure had to be in place at the beginning for it to function at all; if it had "evolved" gradually there would have been stages when the cell would be saddled with, for example, a worthless stator ring and nothing else. Such a worthless appendage would be a drag on the organism and ensure, not its survival, but its demise. The vesicular transport system within a cell is also irreducibly complex; it transfers enzymes (certain types of proteins) from the ribosomes, where they are constructed, to the lysosomes and other structures, where they are needed. Above the cellular level there are numerous examples of irreducible complexity, such as the various kinds of eyes that have "evolved" over and over in arthropods, cephalopods, and vertebrates, always involving exceedingly complex structures and even more complex chemical reactions that must take place in an exact sequence. The flight feathers of birds, with their complex, branching structure and interlocking barbules would be worthless either for insulation or flight if only partly developed.

Are you seriously touting out the ol' IC argument for the bacterial flagellum?

Did you not get this memo about the Type III Secreatory System?

Irreducible complexity has never been shown (nor is likely to be shown) to exist outside of the mind of cdesign proponentsists. You can reduce science to 3 basic steps.

1. Make an observation

2. Form a hypothesis to explain said observation

3. Create experiments to test said hypothesis

So to argue that structure is irreducibly complex, that is it could not have evolved in any manner, you would need to first come up with every possibly way such a thing could evolve -Use that as a null hypothesis, then go about testing and rejecting them all. The problem however, is when one begins to actually study cellular organelles or morphological features, one ends up finding it did evolve....

As far as what Darwin and Huxley believed cells to be, what does that have to do with absolutely anything in modern biology?

I suppose your next argument maybe that because Hendrik Lorentz believed in the luminiferous aether we should throw out his works such as the Lorentz transformations and start rejecting relativity?

Great example of a Red herring though Mr. Stoecker.

Roughly half a billion years ago, only one celled organisms existed; at least no remains of anything more complex have been found and positively dated to any earlier period. Suddenly, in what has been called the Cambrian Explosion, a host of complex animals appeared. They had legs and claws and even eyes, fully formed from the beginning. Darwinian evolution cannot explain this.

Well considering that we started finding and accurately dating Ediacarian Fauna fossils (that is multicellular, animals prior to the Cambrian explosion) in 1946, this sentence means you are lying or you really haven't assimilated the knowledge accumulated in the last 60 years....I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope its the latter.

And the Cambrain explosion was anything but sudden. It lasted for around 50 million years. That's right, say that number out loud -50 million years. To put a number like that in perspective if you took 50 million pennies and stacked them together you would get a length of 591 miles. That stack of pennies could stretch across the state of Montana at its widest point and on into Idaho.

So seeing that we have multiceullar, soft bodied animals (whom exist prior to the start of the Cambrian) who then diversify into more species (not really surprising, that's really the central tenet of evolutionary theory) and come up with new parts such as exoskeletons and more complex eyes (again not really surprising) and all of this is taking place over 50 million years; I fail to see how that counts as something 'Darwinian evolution cannot explain".

Maybe you could enlighten all of us biologists who seem to get it wrong though, and point some kind of mechanism by which such a thing could not happen? Oh and be sure it agrees with fossil as well as molecular and genetic data as well (considering Evolutionary theory applied to the history of life on Earth accounts for all of those).

Then there is the problem of sea animals abruptly "evolving" into land animals, or land animals returning to the sea or even taking to the air, with no real intermediate species. Once there were crustaceans in the water, and then there were arachnids and later insects on land. There were crawling insects and then, with no transitions, they flew. Understand that for an animal to fly it must have wings, specialized flight muscles, and flight behavior (a plane requires a pilot) all at once, all together, or it will fail and die, leaving no descendants. No fossil remains of gliding insects have ever been found. There were fish breathing water with their gills, and then there were amphibians whose eggs were laid in water and whose larvae (like tadpoles) had gills, while the adults usually had lungs and crawled or hopped about on land. Then there were reptiles whose leathery eggs could be laid on land without drying out, and who breathed air throughout their lives. Then there were huge marine reptiles...with no transition species ever found. Then, again with no transition, there were pterosaurs that flew, not merely glided, again requiring wings, flight muscles, and piloting skills. There were dinosaurs, and then there were birds, resembling dinosaurs but with flight feathers, wings, muscles, and the skill to use all of this. There was some kind of early mammal and then there were bats, who not only could fly, but who also used sonar, and their wings and sonar appear fully formed in the very oldest bat fossils.

Wow, that's a lot of mumbo-jumbo.

Well for starters there is nothing abrupt about the evolution from sea to land (fish to amphibians).

We have a very nice set of fossils starting with the Paleoniscoids and going through Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Tiktaalik, Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Obruchevichthys, Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega and ending with the Labyrinthodonts -Which are amphibians with many fish like features. This collection of transitional fossils starts during the early Devonian and ends with the Labyrinthodonts at the end of the Devonian -A time span of over 50 million years, but hey if that is abrupt in your book, I guess we have a different definition of abrupt.

The Cetaceans (whales and dolphins) too have a great set of transitional fossils which takes roughly 15 million years from land back to water. Again, that is 15 million years -Not very abrupt, but maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

Darwinism cannot explain symbiosis. Symbiotes are organisms of different species who work together. There is a kind of shrimp that can dig a burrow in the sea floor (and how did tunneling behavior "evolve"?) where it has a fish for a roomate; the fish's superior eyesight enables it to spot predators and give an alarm so both animals can hide indoors. There is, in tropical America, a plant known as a bullhorn acacia that has hollow thorns and a kind of pseudo fruit. A species of ant lives in the thorns, eats the fruit, and protects the plant from all of its enemies and competitors. But why would the plant evolve hollow thorns and pseudo fruit except to entice its ant defenders who had to exist and have the proper defensive behavior to begin with? And why would the ants have such behavior unless the acacia already existed in its fully symbiotic form? Actually, symbiotes are themselves a kind of irreducable complexity; every component has to be in place, fully developed, at the very beginning, or the whole system will fail.

Again, this is not so. Where are you getting this stuff? Where's your sources and evidence? Animals interact with each in many ways in their environment, sometimes competitively, sometimes cooperatively. If an animal starts to interact cooperatively and it is beneficial -Then the disposition to this behavior will be favored. Over time two cooperators can become inexorably locked into this evolutionary path. They keep evolving together to depend on one another -Till you get two species entirely dependent upon one another.

A great example of this can be shown using Fig wasps and the fig trees they cooperate with. I posted something about this on another topic so I'll summarize it here for you:

Probably one of my favorite examples seen in "macroevolution" (evolution) is the host-parasite relationship of figs and fig-wasps. Male fig-wasp pollinators have only two functions to bore holes and to mate, while females are adapted for flying, burrowing and egglaying. Females also have a specialized mouth part which aids in entry to the ostiole. By exiting through the ostiole the female wasps collect pollen from the male flowers near the exit and then deposit it on flowers of the next fruit they enter while laying eggs.

linked-image

The fig tree has two types of flowers, ones with long styles and ones with short styles. The fig trees evolved in this manner to provide a spot for the pollinators to lay their eggs. Which lay their eggs in the short styles.

linked-image

Cheaters evolved in the system though. There are some species who never enter through the ostiole. Instead they are able to lay their eggs directly through the fig fruit's wall into the flowers with long styles which would normally be producing seed. No seed and no reproduction of the fig trees. Less fig trees and no reproductive method for the "fair" wasps.

linked-image

linked-image

The wasp on the left is a pollinator, while the one on the right with the extra-long ovipositor is a parasitic wasp.

So naturally the fig tree evolved to have varying style length, or "polystylyl". Each species of fig tree has styles of certain lengths. This means that parasitic species of wasps, specific to each type of fig tree have coevolved with the fig tree. We can the question are host and parasite phylogenies more or less similar then we could expect due to chance? Why don't you have a look at the phylogenies and tell us what you think.

linked-image

Flowering plants, or angiosperms, appeared suddenly during the Cretaceous; before them the only really complex land plants were gymnosperms, like pine trees. The angiosperms are the largest example of symbiosis; they have flowers to attract and nectar to reward their pollinators, such as bees. But why waste valuable energy on such structures unless the pollinators already existed, and why would the pollinators "evolve" their pollinating behavior unless the angiosperms already existed? In fact, the angiosperms could not exist at all without the pollinators.

The first angiosperms show up 132 MYA. Molecular data suggests they evolved between 180-140 MYA. Not really sure how this is so amazing too you, Molecular studies and fossil evidence coincide fairly well (For angiosperms to be on the scene at 132 MYA that means they were evolving before then).

Not all angiosperms use pollinators -That is extant and fossils species. I am not sure why wind-pollinators could not have given rise to insect and then insect specific pollinators. In fact the fossil record alludes to this. The earliest fossil angiosperms we have from the Cretaceous are small, rather boring looking flowers. Similar to modern day wind pollinated syndrome flowers with some resemblance to primitive syndrome (nonspecific pollinators) plants. We don't see large elaborate flowers, reminiscent of specific pollinator syndrome plants, till the late Cretaceous.

I'll have to address the rest later, which appears just as scientifically incorrect as the first half of your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am an Atheist but I believe in intelligent design AND evolution.

A while ago, I wrote an article here (Nature's Consciousness) about God.

But the God I believe in is Nature itself, and not some entity in the sky that directs cosmic affairs.

I believe the energy that flows through Nature (which is everything that exists) is itself a conscious, intelligent force that is capable of intelligent design, which explains alot of the problems that scientists face.

Edited by Ashiene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am an Atheist but I believe in intelligent design AND evolution.

A while ago, I wrote an article here (Nature's Consciousness) about God.

But the God I believe in is Nature itself, and not some entity in the sky that directs cosmic affairs.

I believe the energy that flows through Nature (which is everything that exists) is itself a conscious, intelligent force that is capable of intelligent design, which explains alot of the problems that scientists face.

What problems?

We know evolution happens, it is observed.

We have observed random mutation.

Nothing at all suggests ID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mankind once worshiped various sun gods because there was no natural explanation for the sun......

Such a worthless appendage would be a drag on the organism and ensure, not its survival, but its demise.

Much like the African Lions appendix, which assists the species in digesting plant fibers? When was the last time you saw a vegan lion?

Above the cellular level there are numerous examples of irreducible complexity, such as the various kinds of eyes that have "evolved" over and over in arthropods, cephalopods, and vertebrates, always involving exceedingly complex structures and even more complex chemical reactions that must take place in an exact sequence.

I was trying to find the video Ken Miller did, literally showing eye evolution with pinhole cameras. Alas I couldn't find it, but I did find some of his writings on it here.

And in the search I ran across a couple good bits about Irreducible Complexity by Ken Miller.

Mouse Trap example of Irreducible Complexity

Its always amused me the Behe changed his definition of Irreducible Complexity to adjust for Ken Millers points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually you are all wrong. One day a herd of cows wandered out of a mud pit into which no cows entered. The cows roamed around and if their mutant inbred offspring were capable of surviving in the place they were grazing they stayed and thrived. Through this process were all species created. Darwin eat your heart out! For those of you who think you have "irrefutable fossil records", I have a taco shaped like the virgin Mary to show you.

Edited by jingwen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

touche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Copasetic pointed out so well most of the claims are grasping at straws and for me simple evolution and natural selection can explain almost all of what we see.

However the original article did mention one interesting point. Man's DNA seems wowfully inadequate to explain the functional relationship between the DNA and the organism itself. There's simply not enough of it, and no explanation of how it organizes itself into the cellular and bodily structure. Dispute this if you can. There are complex explanations of laired sets of meaning superimposed within the chromosomes such that each chromosome has multiple organic functions. Yet there is no clear explanation for how it all works. For me the idea of Morphic fields is a far better fit between the mismatch between the size of the genetic information and the complexity of the final organism. in this explanation the DNA is reduced to a receiver and enabler, and so has an appropriate amount of complexity for this reduced role.

If I prove to be correct on this one, then I cannot see how science will ever isolate those morphic fields. The question is does that make them impossible.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"evolution and natural selection can explain almost all of what we see."

Really, are you really serious? You sit around all day and catalog animal traits? I doubt anyone here has uncovered a fossil. I doubt anyone here has seen the origin of a new species.

I am a scientist, and I know how much people smudge the data to suit the accepted theory. For instance Einstein and his disappearing reappearing cosmological constant and observations about the expansion of the universe. I see grad students smudge the data all the time so the professors wont think they are stupid. When they do smudge the data they use the current theory as their guide. I don't have blind faith in paleontologists.

how many people are living right now? billions? Where are the new species? Throwing the dice billions of times a decade should give rise to new species, right? The new species will not die, especially in India they try to keep the mutants around as long as possible thinking them to be gods, but they don't survive and never procreate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"evolution and natural selection can explain almost all of what we see."

Really, are you really serious? You sit around all day and catalog animal traits? I doubt anyone here has uncovered a fossil. I doubt anyone here has seen the origin of a new species.

I am a scientist, and I know how much people smudge the data to suit the accepted theory. For instance Einstein and his disappearing reappearing cosmological constant and observations about the expansion of the universe. I see grad students smudge the data all the time so the professors wont think they are stupid. When they do smudge the data they use the current theory as their guide. I don't have blind faith in paleontologists.

how many people are living right now? billions? Where are the new species? Throwing the dice billions of times a decade should give rise to new species, right? The new species will not die, especially in India they try to keep the mutants around as long as possible thinking them to be gods, but they don't survive and never procreate.

Man has evolved a remarkable amount in the million or so years he has been around (in one form or another). Scientists have been observing evolution for a very short space of time. It is no surprise that he hasn't found many examples of evolutionary progression in the human stock. There is also the small fact that evolutionary development has largely been arrested in the human stock due to man's successful interventions in keeping most of us alive.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"evolution and natural selection can explain almost all of what we see."

Really, are you really serious? You sit around all day and catalog animal traits? I doubt anyone here has uncovered a fossil. I doubt anyone here has seen the origin of a new species.

I am a scientist, and I know how much people smudge the data to suit the accepted theory. For instance Einstein and his disappearing reappearing cosmological constant and observations about the expansion of the universe. I see grad students smudge the data all the time so the professors wont think they are stupid. When they do smudge the data they use the current theory as their guide. I don't have blind faith in paleontologists.

how many people are living right now? billions? Where are the new species? Throwing the dice billions of times a decade should give rise to new species, right? The new species will not die, especially in India they try to keep the mutants around as long as possible thinking them to be gods, but they don't survive and never procreate.

Your certainly not a scientist in a field related to biology. We find new species all the time, ones which have evolved in written and near history. Had you kept reading the main front page news, you might have seen that. New species of heavy metal eating worms.

How very scientific of you to make such a declaration without evidence or sources though. Are you a "creation scientist"? Because I hate to break it too you, but that does not qualify you as a real scientist. Actually nothing you have said on this topic leads me to believe you have idea what you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go with the evo discussion again :o

Got the intro to morphogenic fields some time ago.. It does seem to be a very coherent and logical attempt at explaining macro evo.

Personally, Ill take the morphogenic view over the traditional evolution theory anyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are postulating a fixed unchanging morphic field which has the blueprint for all future evolutionary development (like a divine plan) then i'm certainly not buying it. My conception of the concept is that the field is subject to evolution and development and is driving the organic DNA evolution.Anything else requires belief in determinism and I could never see the point of a universe which was predetermined at the start. Even if there is a creative force I can't believe it would write a script and sit back and wait for it to play out as written - why ?

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but when you go to calling a cancer a new species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone suggested the physical mechanism for Morphogenetic fields?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent article! Great read - well spoken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we are postulating a fixed unchanging morphic field which has the blueprint for all future evolutionary development (like a divine plan) then i'm certainly not buying it. My conception of the concept is that the field is subject to evolution and development and is driving the organic DNA evolution.Anything else requires belief in determinism and I could never see the point of a universe which was predetermined at the start. Even if there is a creative force I can't believe it would write a script and sit back and wait for it to play out as written - why ?

Br Cornelius

Every choice, situation, or decision can lend itself to an innumerable potential of outcomes, right? What if the entirety of every action was not scripted but rather the outline for the infinite number of potential outcomes was scripted. Then the Supreme Being could sit back and watch things play out without knowing anything but the range of possibilities. That would keep things interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every choice, situation, or decision can lend itself to an innumerable potential of outcomes, right? What if the entirety of every action was not scripted but rather the outline for the infinite number of potential outcomes was scripted. Then the Supreme Being could sit back and watch things play out without knowing anything but the range of possibilities. That would keep things interesting.

How could you achieve a predictable predetermined outcome through a series of totally random events. that seems very illogical to me.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't but God could? I don't know; I'm merely speculating but I'm sure there's got to be an explanation for this existence that goes beyond survival and reproduction.

I don't know if morphogenetic fields are the answer or not. I couldn't find a source, but I do remember that holograms can be cut in two and the original hologram will appear under ultraviolet light.

Edited by Guyver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dear copasetic

well, about the worms. Who's to say they haven't been under our feet all this time, just no one took the time to analyze their digestive system. Once again your "evolution" happened in a dark corner where no one was really looking or keeping records. If the worms underground can give rise to new species in the last few years, why haven't humans? Why does evolution apply to every other species except humans? That's convenient. I really think, in accordance with my original comment, that these worms were the product of cows interbreeding. They are the germ species.

P.S I'm leaving the discussion. I'm sorry if I challenged your belief system. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dear copasetic

well, about the worms. Who's to say they haven't been under our feet all this time, just no one took the time to analyze their digestive system. Once again your "evolution" happened in a dark corner where no one was really looking or keeping records. If the worms underground can give rise to new species in the last few years, why haven't humans? Why does evolution apply to every other species except humans? That's convenient. I really think, in accordance with my original comment, that these worms were the product of cows interbreeding. They are the germ species.

P.S I'm leaving the discussion. I'm sorry if I challenged your belief system. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Are you kidding me? You're a scientist and you're going to wimp out of this discussion. These guys have been begging for someone like you to step up and go toe to toe with them over in the SvsS board. Step back into the discussion and use your reasoning powers as a scientist to establish your points. MAN UP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dear copasetic

well, about the worms. Who's to say they haven't been under our feet all this time, just no one took the time to analyze their digestive system. Once again your "evolution" happened in a dark corner where no one was really looking or keeping records. If the worms underground can give rise to new species in the last few years, why haven't humans? Why does evolution apply to every other species except humans? That's convenient. I really think, in accordance with my original comment, that these worms were the product of cows interbreeding. They are the germ species.

P.S I'm leaving the discussion. I'm sorry if I challenged your belief system. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

That's what I thought. You didn't hurt his feelings or challenge his belief systems. He's a real scientist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.