My biological hypothesis

[supersport]

Ok...since the first mention of God get's my thread thrown out of here....I will abstain from mentioning God here in the future. (What is this, The People's Republic of China?) In exchange, though, I'm going to present my own bilogical hypothesis....this IS a biology forum, right? It's a bit long, but read through it and tell me what you think.

------------------------------------------------------

Molecular biology has learned it is not the genetic code that accounts for the difference between the mouse and the fly or between a virus and a chicken. This, evidently has been known for quite a while:

Biochemical changes do not seem to be a main driving force in the diversification of living organisms…It is not biochemical novelty that generated diversification of organisms…What distinguishes a butterfly from a lion, a hen from a fly, or a worm from a whale is much less a difference in chemical constitutes than in the organization and the distribution of these constituents.” Francois Jacob, a founding father of biochemical genetics, 1977.

The researchers who cracked the genetic code immediately realized that it was universal. Guisseppi Sermonti (Author of Why a Fly is not a Horse)


In 1989, Hox genes (clusters of genes) were discovered in mice and worms. Soon after, it was realized that every creature on earth was constructed with the same clusters of genes. However these universal gene clusters manifested themselves in different animals, and thus, were responsible for different regions.

For example, the same gene that’s responsible for the tail of the mouse, as well is responsible for the rear extremities of the grasshopper.

So what is it that makes a mouse a mouse, a fly a fly? The fact is, no one knows….and from what I understand they will never know. One thing that is known, however, is that DNA is not the dictator of life that was once thought. It no longer assumes the role as life’s grand generator of genetic information.

It is not the genes that elicit nascent form, but the nascent form that selects the genes and recruits them for its program. Sermonti

It’s clear to me that contemporary science has only one eye open to how nature really works. Instead of natural observations, science, instead has an obsession to dig below the surface and focus on genetics. It’s a bizarre fixation on the flask and test tube. They've replaced the study of living organisms with the study of bacteria, viruses and genes. But there’s a reason for this odd diversion…and it’s because nature – as it truly operates – shatters theTheory of Evolution. Thus, the truth about how nature operates is very difficult to find.

But it is true that every individual animal on earth is at one with his environment. It’s the REAL way things “evolve.” – individually. And it starts at the moment of conception, when a mental and physical “agreement” of sorts forms -- and the animal melts and molds himself into his surroundings. This is when traits are passed from mother to daughter and/or formed by its habitat. It has nothing to do with genetics. Instead, specific traits are but responses to external stimuli that act on hormones.


Very early on in the development of the embryo, the unformed organism begins a miraculous swirl of unexplainable self-organization. It also immediately starts receiving feedback. This feedback not only stems from its immediate surroundings, but from the external world as well -- through parental hormones. It’s the beginning of a lifelong relationship. No doubt when we were developing in our mother’s womb, we learned to recognize our mother and father’s voices. Thus our minds began to be imprinted by their loving presence. In fact, the mind begins the process of receiving all kinds of stimuli…and this stimuli not only helps form mental and emotional traits, but physical traits as well. It’s the marvelous beginning of a relationship between a new life and the outside world.

The developing embryo responds with little shocks and shivers as these discharges go about shaping the body. Sermonti


The mind and the world arise together. Fransico Varela

Morphogenesis is a process that depends on stresses and relaxations . Lev Belousso

The soul is that excitable little something that awakens when the sperm and egg embrace In the early embryo, forces are activated that evoke the form of the body, bringing it into relationship with the outside world. Sermonti

And my hypothesis is the smaller the creature, the more quickly adaptive it is. Likewise, animals that are more “liquid” (i.e. octopus, fish, etc) are very quickly adaptive. Thus a lion will be slower to adapt than adapt than a dog. A full-sized human is less adaptive than a baby. A bear is less adaptive than a fox. And this is proven by the fact that lots of smaller arctic animals can change fur color over the seasons (the hare, fox, weasel, squirrel, etc)…while deer and bears generally take longer – years possibly. But it can and does happen. I suggest every animal on earth has this ability, just in varying degrees and varying timeframes.

Life is made up of countless, unexpressed designs for life. Goethe

But like I say, the smaller the creature, the more flexible it is. So is it any wonder that our lives started out in microscopic and in liquid form?...it’s when we were at our most adaptive state….it’s when we are not yet formed, yet have the ability to generate multiple forms based on internal signals and external stimuli. Most bilogical structures, in fact are in the liquid crystal state. All cells are liquid crystals, as is the DNA in a chromosome. So are proteins of the muscles and connective tissues. These tissues are all mobil, flexible and reactive to different environmental signals....signals that can start the process of transformation.

For example, a lizard change colors or re-grow a lost limb or tail. The idea that the body can do this without the mind or internal intelligence is absurd. There could be no regeneration of the tail if there’s not some sort of consciousness, thought, or intelligence behind it.

I've already given examples of how moths are morphological creatures. But so are fish, lizards, mammals, frogs, bugs, spiders, insects, and humans. No animal is exempt.

The fact is, countless creatures can quickly change shape or color – or emerge in a different shape or color -- all in response to an environmental change. There is no genetic change, it’s simply the result of a psychological phenomenon during development – or even later in life. I believe peppered moths are a perfect example. Of course you will never read this at a neo-darwin website because the reality of morphological plasticity is that moths have the ability to quickly change colors without a long genetic journey or death to a large segment of their population. Mind over matter…not matter over mind. That’s how our world was created.

But Darwin’s theory of evolution suggests that it’s matter over mind – and that animals change so they can become something different….I however, suggest that every animal changes so they can stay who they are…it’s the mind in action that keeps nature steady. It’s much like when my kids first learned to walk. There was lots of wobbling from side-to-side going on, but it was all that wobbling that allowed them to stay on their feet. It’s no different with animals….animals wobble back and forth physically so they can avoid falling over (extinction). And since scientists cannot find even ONE airtight intermediate fossil, then I suggest that this is all there is to so-called “evolution.” Ultimately, very little is left to chance…Nature does not operate by flipping coins.


Things are as they are because they were as they were. Rupert Sheldrake

Darwinists may try to claim that these abilities were evolved. But the problem lies here: DNA can no more create evolutionary change in animals than a single, unfertilized egg can create a baby: --(the following quote is very important)

One of the fundamental principles of molecular biology (now enshrined as Central Dogma) assigned to DNA the role of absolute governor of the life and inheritance for the cell, and consequently for the organism. The Central Dogma proclaimed: DNA reproduces itself and produces proteins; proteins do not reproduce themselves and are unable to modify the DNA that encoded them. In other words, the information proceeds from DNA to DNA and from DNA to proteins, but it never makes the return journey from proteins to DNA……The egg makes the hen; the hen doesn’t really make the egg – she merely lays eggs that derive directly form the egg that made her. In the new molecular version, DNA was the egg and proteins the hen….. Sermonti

….DNA is not the primary container of genetic information. Sermonti

So what does this mean? It means that since DNA is neither the starting point, nor the ending point. And it could not have played the role in evolution as Darwinists claim. DNA is merely a part of the never-ending circle of life. It’s merely a spoke in the genetic wheel; a curve in the spiral of life.

And the reason evolutionists don't admit that information makes a round trip within the body is because they do not want to admit that acquired characteristics can be inherited....which is what this would indicate. I believe this is why evolutionists have long shouted-down larmarcksim -- which basically says the mechanism of inheritance (the genes contained in our sexual cells) can be effected by the external environment. This is a mortal blow to their theory. Thus, they insist that the genetic system is a one-way street. Information can go out...but it can't come back in, and it certainly cannot be passed on and/or used to alter the characteristics of a future offspring. Evolutionists insist on chance. And this is the anti-chance in action. Yet…cracks are starting to form as I have shown in previous links.

See, with acquired characteristics, my thought is the following: Traits such as muscle-building or any other physically acquired trait is probably not able to be acquired. However, traits that are stimulated by hormones CAN be acquired....all it takes is a simple mutation in the germ cell during development.

According to these observations, genetic information is not like a ward where babies are born but rather like a registry office where citizens can check their vital statistics and make them complete again if any have been lost. Sermonti

And as it turns out, traits such as color, pigmentation, eye color, hair color, etc are often modified by only one gene, one nucleotide of over 5 billion. This would require only a simple mutation or a signal in the developing embryo to change the organism:

There are several different kinds of variations of the phenotype that can be induced by the environment, and many of them can lead to long-term changes in a population….there are some variations in the phenotype that can result from changes in the DNA sequence…….The mutations I am calling for are those that show evidence of being nonrandom in that they are triggered by the environment. Some of them have been seen to be adaptive. These mutations could lead to observed evolution. These mutations act as switches triggered by the environment that switch the genome to one of preexisting set of potential states to produce an adaptive phenotype. (slightly shortned/paraphrased) Spetner (Author of Not By Chance)

In the model of the heritable switch, a change in the environment sends a signal to each member of the population. This signal activates a genetic command in each individual to call up a preprogrammed subroutine, If the new environment does not last long, the population will revert to its previous state. But if the new environment persists for a long enough time, then even after the environment changes, the population will remain in its new state. The new state is carried into future generations, and to this extent is heritable. The heritability is, however not absolute. A different cue can make the population change again. But the longer the environmental cue lasts, the more nearly heritable the effect appears. Spetner.

And obviously, if every individual within a populatin evolves the same traits based on the same environmental cues, there is no need for any selection of "more fit" organisms -- because they all have the same basic traits....which is indeed what we see in nature. We don't generally see a school of fish with a variety of different sizes, shapes and colors mixed in. No, they all generally possess the same physiological characteristics. This concept holds true for virtually all lifeforms.

But like I said before, today’s science seems to be obsessed on genes, while turning a blind eye on real nature. And the reason for this is because a few lingering scientists are holding out faith that by studying mere genes they can somehow/someday learn to construct a new species of animal. But this is proving to be impossible. And the reason it’s impossible is because even though there are such thing as “blue eye genes” and “dark skin genes,” there are no such things as “mouse genes” or “cat genes.” And that’s because the greatest differences in life are not dictated by genes. Instead, genes are dictated by life’s differences. The sun is not orbiting the earth, the earth is orbiting the sun. Science is has turned a blind eye to half of the story.

Thus, ultimately it seems in order for a fish to evolve into a reptile, the invisible internal program that dictates the genes for a fish, must somehow evolve into a program that dictates the genes for a reptile. This, of course, is absurd and defies all rationality. Thus, evolution, at least as neo-darwinists define it, is no longer breathing.

The potential for adaptivity to the environment already exists in the genome. The environment just triggers it. Spetner

[infamous]

Originally Posted by supersport

Ok...since the first mention of God get's my thread thrown out of here....I will abstain from mentioning God here in the future.

Your thread didn't get thrown out, as you put it. It simply got moved to The Strange Claims forum. If you want to continue to discuss it there, look in the forum index and you will find it listed. Just for your information super...., I'm a Christian and I'm the person responsible for moving this thread, it had nothing to do with your belief or nonbelief in God. It was moved there because it does not fit the current accepted position of contemporary science. The purpose of the Strange Claims forum is to grant those individuals with non traditional views a place to express and discuss them with other members. To become a valued member of this forum, you'll need to recognize a few requirements developed on our FAQ and rules page. Please read it. Try to remember these few facts; This is a science forum and members are required to conduct themselves in accordance with the scientific method. You are free to develope new ideas but it is the right of this forum to place them in the proper category and or forum. If you'll notice, we even have a Theology Forum where religous history and cultures can be discussed. This forum is not unlike your neighborhood where you live, the members will soon determine whether you are a good neighbor or not. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions, respect our rights to have ours also.....................Infy

[supersport]

well...I guess I just find it strange to come on to a biology forum -- only to discuss biology and then have it moved to the "strange claims" forum. Just because I don't agree that natural selection -- which by itself only gets rid of information -- could CREATE anything. Why is this a "strange claim"? And then, somebody (I forgot who) made a comment about my using the word "God" -- and that's when the thread gets moved.

I'm not trying to rock the boat here -- I'm all for playing by the rules...but I'm not sure how I've broken any. I will try not to break any in the future. S

[Mercedes Benzene]

I will try not to break any in the future. S

That's all we ask. Thank you for your cooperation.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by supersport

Molecular biology has learned it is not the genetic code that accounts for the difference between the mouse and the fly or between a virus and a chicken. This, evidently has been known for quite a while

I know of no molecular biologist who believes this. Although there has been a growing “revolution” in molecular biology associated with the realization that factors other than the genetic code - “epigentics” - have a significant role in the development of organisms, of the half dozen professional biochemists with whom I have contact, none have suggested that the genome and the expression of its genes is not the most important single mechanism in determining the form of organisms.

Biochemical changes do not seem to be a main driving force in the diversification of living organisms…It is not biochemical novelty that generated diversification of organisms…What distinguishes a butterfly from a lion, a hen from a fly, or a worm from a whale is much less a difference in chemical constitutes than in the organization and the distribution of these constituents.” Francois Jacob, a founding father of biochemical genetics, 1977.

What Jacob means by this is not that the arrangement of atoms in an organism is insignificant, but that the occurrence and stochiometric proportions are – that nearly all organisms are made of about the same proportions of the same chemical elements, only arranged differently.

It’s clear to me that contemporary science has only one eye open to how nature really works. Instead of natural observations, science, instead has an obsession to dig below the surface and focus on genetics. It’s a bizarre fixation on the flask and test tube.

Can you suggest some way other than “digging below the surface”, possibly using flasks and test tubes, that one can perceive things smaller than can be seen with the naked eye? You appear to be suggesting that any measurement that cannot be performed without the aid of tools, including microscopy, is an inappropriate “bizarre fixation”.

They've replaced the study of living organisms with the study of bacteria, viruses and genes.

Bacteria are living organisms – by mass, and number of individuals, by far the most abundant organism on earth. They are, however, smaller than can be seen with the naked eye.

Although viruses are arguable not alive, lacking such defining characteristics as cell walls and the ability to reproduce outside of a host cell, they share characteristics with and interact significantly with living organism.

Genes exist in all known terrestrial life. To study life without studying genes strikes me as akin to studying anatomy without studying bones – except that genes are smaller than can be seen with the naked eye, while bones are not.

But there’s a reason for this odd diversion…and it’s because nature – as it truly operates – shatters theTheory of Evolution. Thus, the truth about how nature operates is very difficult to find.

Nature was studied in great detail thousands of years before the publication of Darwin’s ”On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” in 1859, which is generally considered to have introduced the theory of evolution. Biological information predating evolution is not particularly difficult to find – nor did its presence “shatter” the theory of evolution when it was introduced, and gradually came to be widely accepted, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

From your writing to date, supersport, I get the impression that you seek to discredit not only the theory of evolution, but the idea of reductionistic scientific naturalism. This is by no means an unusual or dishonorable philosophical pursuit, but I question whether it is one that will be appreciated by the readers of a forum dedicated to science, such as hypography’s Biology forum, and suggest that you request your threads to be moved to one of the Humanities forums, and start future posts of a similar character there.

[pgrmdave]

SS - You have clearly put a lot of thought into this, perhaps you have a hypothetical experiment that would help provide evidence one way or the other?

[supersport]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

SS - You have clearly put a lot of thought into this, perhaps you have a hypothetical experiment that would help provide evidence one way or the other?

That's a great question...

Yea I have lots of hypothetical experiments:

How about this....

Let's say someone takes groups of the same animals to different locations of the world. Let's say dogs. In this experimint, one group of dogs is taken to the arctic circle -- and the other group of dogs is taken to Outback in Austrailia. Then, disallow any interbreeding with other native dogs -- and sit back and watch what happens over a few generations. Do their offspring come out with different traits to match up with their new surroundings? Do their coats change colors? Do they grow thicker coats? Lose their coats? Do they grow taller or shorter? Does their body mass increase or decrease? Does this shape of their heads/jaws change from the new diet they consume? How would their traits compare to their counterparts at the other end of the world?

You know what I think? I think there are no such tests like this in the whole world. And you know why? Because the outcome would shatter a whole world-view. Thus....experiments of the sort simply do not exist.

[Mercedes Benzene]

You know what I think? I think there are no such tests like this in the whole world. And you know why? Because the outcome would shatter a whole world-view. Thus....experiments of the sort simply do not exist.

What are you talking about?
Experiments like this are done all the time!
*It's proven everytime a new species is "introduced" to a new environment. These become invasive.
*It's done in the lab, with rodents, bugs, monkeys ---all the time. They're subjected to some sort of condition that is "out of the ordinary". Some die off, but a select few survive. Genes are mapped, and compared, and a conclusion created that explains the survival of that population. We do it high school biology classes for goodness sakes!
*It happens daily when people take antibiotics: Little Johnny has acne. His medicine works for a year, but after that, the only bacteria that are left contain the genes that make them immune to that particular chemical. They reproduce, and poor little Johnny has to switch from Clindamycin Phosphate to Isotretinoin (which I believe is much more expensive). Stupid Darwin, I always knew that he was out to cost people more for their perscription drugs with his natural selection theories.
NS can be seen everywhere. Proof is everywhere.

Regards,
Your aromatic, organic luxury car

[supersport]

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

What are you talking about?
Experiments like this are done all the time!
*It's proven everytime a new species is "introduced" to a new environment. These become invasive.
*It's done in the lab, with rodents, bugs, monkeys ---all the time. They're subjected to some sort of condition that is "out of the ordinary". Some die off, but a select few survive. Genes are mapped, and compared, and a conclusion created that explains the survival of that population. We do it high school biology classes for goodness sakes!
*It happens daily when people take antibiotics: Little Johnny has acne. His medicine works for a year, but after that, the only bacteria that are left contain the genes that make them immune to that particular chemical. They reproduce, and poor little Johnny has to switch from Clindamycin Phosphate to Isotretinoin (which I believe is much more expensive). Stupid Darwin, I always knew that he was out to cost people more for their perscription drugs with his natural selection theories.
NS can be seen everywhere. Proof is everywhere.

Regards,
Your aromatic, organic luxury car

Link? Prove me wrong...controlled labratory/field experiments measuring physiological changes as a result of an environmental change.....animals only, please.....crickets, spiders, mice, worms, ants, dogs, cats...take your pick.

(Prediction: you will not find a single one.)

[Mercedes Benzene]

Link? Prove me wrong...controlled labratory/field experiments with animals only, please.....crickets, spiders, mice, worms, ants, dogs, cats...take your pick.

Oh bother.
I'll make sure I send you a copy of my AP bio lab write-up when I'm done.
Graphical representations included.
After that I'll contact NIH, the Smithsonian Institute, and any other biological organizations that conduct experiments on natural selection.
You could also use google. I'm sure you could turn up something of value.

Let me also take a moment to mention that NATURAL selection is based entirely off of observed data (laboratory or otherwise). NATURAL selection is a NATURAL process... obviously.

I'll find you links when I feel like wasting my life.

Best wishes, MB.