Almost all of modern physics is divorced from actual reality despite claims to the opposite.
The fundamental nature of Reality
Physicists repeatedly claim physics as a description of the very fundamental nature of reality and indeed the literature of physics is replete with ‘fundamental’ constants, forces and principles. We are therefore justified in criticising it on these grounds.
Newton’s gravity
Newton’s theory of gravity is a form of ‘action at a distance’ according to both Newton and Einstein. We are entitled to reject it on these grounds alone.
It cannot explain perihelion precession or eclipse effects (Van Flandern)
Nonsense. Density is a scalar value – it has no direction. All objects fall to Earth at the same rate regardless of density. There is no empirical relationship between density and acceleration. Density has nothing to do with gravitational attraction.
What about mass?
Mass is a scalar value – it has no direction. All objects fall to Earth at the same rate regardless of their mass. There is no empirical relationship between mass and acceleration. Passive gravitational mass has nothing to do with gravitational attraction. Gravity debunked
Newton’s bucket
The experiment of Newton’s bucket is of paramount importance. An absolute frame of reference for acceleration and rotation has not been determined and so ‘all’ physical sciences are without a solid foundation.
Einstein did not solve the problem of Newton’s bucket, but without a frame of reference, velocity, acceleration and hence gravity are undefined. Therefore all downstream theory is invalid.
The science of QM is held to be the most thoroughly tested model of reality that we have and yet it does not describe gravity at all. It cannot cope with a phenomenon that occupies 100% of the known universe.
Quantum physics and linearity
Quantum physics and linearity
Quantum physics describes the world as a linear superposition of ‘states’. Each state is the solution to a linear equation. Therefore expect a linear reality but instead see non-linearity everywhere.
This is grounds enough to reject the entire theory.
Quantum slit detector
Particles are said to behave differently if a ‘detector’ is present. There is no record of an experiment with any ‘detector’ that does not significantly alter the physical processes of the set up.
This is a hoax.
The Shnoll effect
Radioactive decay is described as being of ‘random’ origin but Simon Shnoll showed that rates of decay demonstrated both lunar and seasonal cycles.
This directly contradicts the prevailing quantum explanation.
A swinging pendulum is claimed to prove that the Earth is round and that it is spinning relative to ‘absolute space’. No credible, reproducible instance of this experiment with suitable control can be found.
A ship’s gyroscope will turn to point towards the physical North Pole, not magnetic North.
This behaviour is unexplained by contemporary physics and has no conceivable explanation.
Physics is missing something here.
Flight and Bernoulli’s principle
There is no credible explanation for the phenomenon of flight. Bernoulli’s principle is usually trotted out as the cause but plenty of aeronautical engineers on YouTube explain or demonstrate that this is simply not true.
Another hoax.
Electricity
We are told that electricity is comprised of electrons flowing through a wire but this is contradicted by Richard Feynman, a YouTube video from Veritasium and statements by other physicists.
Geocentrism
There is no well-defined absolute frame of reference for cosmic movement, acceleration or rotation. There is no defined centre to the universe.
Accordingly, no discussion of ‘centrism’ makes any sense whatsoever.
For practical purposes, just choose what seems best.
Flat Earth
Globers can no longer rely upon much of Newtonian physics to support many of their arguments but there is still sufficient evidence to propose a globe Earth as the best solution
Boats disappear below the horizon bottom first, stars appear to rotate around the poles..
Causality
Physics, particularly Newtonian physics uses the language of causality but fails to provide a decent definition of such an idea.
There is no symbol for ‘causality’ in commonly used mathematics and so no means of expressing such a notion.
An idea from Quantum Physics but with no sensible definition or representation in terms of mathematics; there is no ‘indeterminism’ operator.
The idea is, by means of convoluted language, to present ‘randomness’ as a causal mechanism rather than a statistical outcome.
No charge
There is no such thing as ‘charge’. It has never been measured directly, is known only through the electric fields it is said to generate and has no other measurable properties.
It is surplus to requirements and can be replaced with an electromagnetic field construct.
Static electricity
Static electric fields are said to emanate from ‘charge’ and to keep instantaneous synchrony with such charge.
This, by analogy with Newtonian gravity, is ‘action at a distance’ and can similarly be discarded as a credible theory.
Clocks were flown around the Earth. Einstein predicted a time difference owing to speed, Konstantin Meyl claims reduced gravity at altitude as the cause.
Meyl’s calculations gave a closer prediction than Einstein’s.
Energy is not in fact conserved and is relative rather than absolute (Hossenfelder). There is no consistent definition of energy as a physical process. To describe completely different processes (kinetic, thermal..) in the same terms is highly misleading.
Aether physics
The phrase ‘aether physics’ crops up more and more now but that is as far as it gets; a mere repetition of the phrase. This is in response to the failure of relativity but until the intrinsic properties of the aether can be described it isn’t really helping.
Photons
From AI: As a fundamental particle, a photon is generally considered to have no diameter, radius, or fixed “volume” that it occupies, acting in some aspects as a 0-volume point.
How does something ‘act like a 0-volume point’?
Are photons ‘fundamental’ or not?
DNA as a blueprint for life
This is a silly idea refuted by its own description and by lack of experimental evidence. There is not enough information in DNA and no physical mechanism for either translation or transcription.
The idea that the sequence of base pairs in DNA represents any sort of blueprint for life is nonsensical from an informational theoretical point of view. The sequences are meaningless by themselves and require systems of translation and transcription which themselves require the existence and maintenance of unfeasibly large amounts of information.
This refutation applies to all systems where ‘information’ is regarded as an abstract entity and divorced from any physical function.
The idea of DNA as ‘information‘
Mainstream science tells us that the ordering of the base pairs in a strand of DNA represents some sort of blue-print for living systems. Depending upon who you read it can represent an entire organism or just the structure of proteins in the body. Either way, the idea is unfeasible.
The base pairs of DNA constitute data, not information, and without interpretation they are really meaningless strings of digits. There is no obvious code for a protein written into a DNA strand and no reference to any laws of physics or biology; all we have so far is a stream of ‘bits’.
The storage of data as a stream of DNA base pairs may be appropriate for stable storage and integrity during reproduction but it will not, of itself, lead to the development of a new organism.
To convert this stream of bits to anything resembling organic life, we therefore need to translate the bits from this coding scheme to one that is more representative of the laws of bio-chemistry and then somehow implement these physical instructions to construct a real entity. Scientists know this and refer to these steps as translation and transcription respectively.
Translation
DNA has about 3 gigabytes of stored data but we need to be able to interpret this data and translate it to a series of protein coding schemes or something similar. The question arises then as to how much data is needed for the translation scheme itself.
An analogy is that I want to send a Shakespeare sonnet to someone in China but they don’t speak English so an English-Chinese dictionary needs to be involved. A sonnet contains a mere 24 lines of text but the dictionary needs to contain every single word in the English language, just in case it is present in the sonnet.
The dictionary in this case then must contain vastly more data than the information to be translated.
What size of dictionary is required to translate all the potential data in a genome? ‘Unfeasibly large’ appears to be the answer.
Maintaining integrity of the data
The volume of data isn’t the only problem; we have to ensure that it is stored somewhere, free from corruption and somehow inherited. We need to specify some medium in which this data is embodied.
If we say that the integrity is maintained by error correction then we now need extra data and extra functions to implement the error correction and these themselves must be error free.
The mechanisms for error correction, translation and transcription need to be precisely inherited themselves and again require the presence of extra information.
The embodiment of biological data as a digital system has not solved any problem at all but instead added extra problems to solve with now exponentially larger quantities of data. The whole scheme actually necessitates an infinite regression of encoding and error correction.
Transcription
In addition to a dictionary for translation, we need some mechanism for transcription. The translated information coming from the DNA needs to be input into some physical process which will go on to construct proteins or whatever. So what does this process consist of, how was it constructed, where is the information for this and how was such information inherited? The information cannot be contained in the DNA itself because it was needed to construct the machinery that extracts information from the DNA in the first place.
We have managed to describe another infinite chain of regression, this time for the transcription process.
A generalisation of the problem
The problems above are described with reference to DNA but clearly apply to any digital encoding scheme within biological systems.
The central problem is that digital data is just a string of bits and at some time this will need to be converted to a real entity via the laws of physics. There are no laws of physics in a stream of bits, no feedback systems and no energy to drive the process along. All these must come from somewhere else.
The whole narrative draws attention away from the practical problem of manufacturing a cell and just points to the ordering of base pairs as somehow a great discovery.
The same problem will arise whenever a data stream is regarded as source of ‘information’ and whenever the idea of ‘information’ is regarded as an abstract mathematical entity with no concrete relationship to the laws of physics or bio-chemistry.
The solution in abstract
The solution then is to stop regarding ‘information’ and physical structure as separate entities and acknowledge that within biological systems at least, biological information must consist of ‘functionality’, i.e. it must consist of some concrete physical entity that is capable of getting things done.
Information must be in some sense ‘absolute’ and related to the laws of physics in order to remove the need for both translation and transcription. Biological information cannot therefore be digital or ‘abstract’ in nature.
A concrete solution
Konstantin Meyl, in his book “Scalar waves..”, has stated simply that: “(biological) Information is the structure of a scalar wave.”
A scalar wave in this case is an electromagnetic structure as described by Tesla which is likely found throughout biological systems. See: The nature of the bio-field
This proposal fits all of the requirements for biological information.
Such structures are inherently self-stabilising
They have their own motivational force
Will propagate along appropriate biological conduits
Have their own intrinsic energy
Additional energy may be absorbed from the environment
Energy transduction enables ‘persistence’
Energy transduction enables ‘function’.
Specific characteristics enable specific function
Electromagnetic nature enables direct interaction with the bio-field
Obviates the need for translation and transcription
These are the requirements that we need in abstract. There may be other physical constructs which implement these features, but scalar waves seem a very good fit.
The morphology and behaviour of both exosomes and anthrobots is explained largely in terms of fundamental vortex physics. There is little need to involve teleological biological processes and it is debatable whether these entities have any biological significance.
The biological artefacts below are claimed by some to represent the Sars CoV-2 ‘virus’ and by others to represent ‘exosomes’, small packages deliberately created by the cell in order to recycle and transport resources from one place to another.
Very likely neither is the case and they are merely agglomerations of biological material released from dying cells and held together by electromagnetic forces.
We can ask how this phenomenon arises from the basic laws of physics and come to the conclusions that very little biology is involved, that the image need not represent any phenomenon occurring in vivo or even in vitro and that it may be purely an artefact of the electron microscopy process.
You can see where the cellular debris is just aggregating around the Lipid coating of the vesicle. The cellular debris on the left is just incorporated into a lipid globule on the right and mislabelled as a “Sars Cov 2” this will become very apparent with our latest research. – Jamie Andrews: https://x.com/JamieAA_Again
Material from an deteriorating cell wall appears have clustered around a vesicle somehow. Some sort of organised movement seems to have taken place and granules of something or other seem to move away from the cell and towards a smaller entity.
Why?
What are the physical forces involved?
Where does the energy come from to effect this movement?
What is the organisational principle by which this happens?
What is it that guides the granules?
Why do the vesicles appear to grow just as the cell is dying?
If a general principle of an electromagnetic bio-field based upon a vortex structure is accepted, then there is no mystery here as everything is explained by the natural actions of such a field and that fact that the tissue has been removed from the host field.
The tissue itself retains some of its own energy and field structure but without a supervening field to supply it with morphogenic instructions and a continuing energy supply, it cannot maintain its own integrity and will inevitably deteriorate.
Firstly, note that the granules are clustered around the vesicle that is nearest to the cell wall and form a pattern that differ from the rest of the cell boundary. It seems that they have moved there from somewhere else (the cell itself) and that this movement is somehow goal oriented.
Much movement of particles within cells is said to be ‘Brownian’ in nature, that is to say, driven by a process of random vibration of molecules. The result though is obviously inconsistent with a purely diffusive mechanism and so something else is at play, some goal directed process that has the power to organise inert matter into ordered vesicles.
Fundamental forces
If the granules have been moved, then there must have been some sort of force that moved them. Physicists recognise four fundamental forces in nature:
Weak nuclear force
Strong nuclear force
Gravity
Electromagnetic forces
The forces we seek exists outside of the atom, which rules out the first two and I don’t think anyone believes that gravitational forces are nuanced enough to organise biological material. This therefore leaves electromagnetism as the motivational force behind this phenomenon.
It may be claimed that the granules are moved by ‘kinetic’ forces i.e. by the flow of water, but kinetic forces ultimately arise from the electromagnetic repulsive force. However, this is a simplified version of an electromagnetic field force and still leaves unanswered the question of what it is that organises the flow of water in such a situation.
The behaviour of electromagnetic fields is so similar to the behaviour of water that they will surely amount to the same thing at the scale of a water molecule.
Energy supply
Some sort of energy supply is needed. Many sources will point at Brownian, Gibbs or ‘free’ energy as candidates, but again this energy is diffusive and random, it can’t be pointed in a particular direction for example. It really isn’t possible to guide these energies in a such way as to have it appear in exactly the right place at exactly the right time and in the appropriate quantities.
The energy required then will come from a fractal vortex system supplied by the host organism at first and by the tissue sample and microscopy environment later on.
Organisation
The granules appear to have moved from a decaying cell membrane towards a developing exosome. How do they know to do this? How do they know in which direction to move? They are not living things and have no sensory apparatus. They cannot ‘see’ where they are going and have no way of knowing that an exosome is developing nearby.
If this is true and there is no knowledge of the future or of some situation at some distance away then the only conclusion is that they are moving according to local forces only and with the help of local energy only.
All the answers
A fractal electromagnetic vortex structure provides all the answers in a very natural way whilst adhering closely to the most fundamental laws of physics.
The human body forms the outer periphery of the vortex system and directs energy down the vortex cascade all the way to a single cell, which becomes a consumer of this continuous supply. A cell forms a vortex of itself and its outer ‘membrane’ is maintained by the concentrated energy that accumulates here.
When the tissue is separated from the main body, it suffers a drop in energy supply but can live on for a while on energy accumulated from the local environment. A vortex develops in a water droplet on a microscope slide maybe and the heat from a laboratory is organised into a vortex structure and moves inwards towards a cellular vortex.
Eventually the cell starts to deteriorate and the main vortex structure, decimated by the lack of energy, starts to re-fractalise into smaller vortices which accumulate matter to become the vesicles we see. Each exosome is now at the centre of its own vortex and commences to suck energy from the environment in the same manner as a tornado accumulates both matter and energy from apparently still air.
The cellular vortex itself weakens, and the granules move along centripetal field gradient created by the exosomes. The vortex principle is sufficient by itself to create forces, energy and directional movement; no other organisational or energetic influence is required.
he smaller vortices of the exosomes are now in the ascendant and will accumulate any energy released by the dying cell. Cell death is now synonymous with energy depletion and vortex decay. Biological entities use the vortex as a template for morphogenesis (The morphogenesis of capillaries) so the process of constructing an exosome is very similar to the way a cell was constructed in the first place; the same laws of physics apply but, being divorced from the main bio-field, there is no eventual teleological end to the formation of exosomes. The look like biological entities with a useful function but are probably just accretions of cellular debris.
The exosome is now at the centre of its own energy vortex and, typical with such systems, subsidiary vortices will form around the periphery comparable to tornadoes forming around a large anticyclone in hurricane season. These are interpreted as some sort of protein and indeed they may be as this is how proteins are constructed with a ring-like vortex accumulating and arranging matter: The nature of the bio-field. Any sort of attempts to ‘isolate’ such a protein will likely fail as it is a product of a unique vortex structure and will disintegrate as soon as such an environment changes in any way.
Electron microscopy
Electron microscopy is described as using an energetic stream of electrons which is focused by an electromagnetic lens in a way similar to a visible light lens. The electrons are depicted as travelling in straight lines towards the sample, through the sample (without modifying it significantly), and out the other side where they accurately register the forms of the physical matter that was on the slide in the first place.
This all seems highly unlikely and if true, needs considerable proof of itself.
An electron has an electric charge and a moving electron constitutes an electric current. Such a current necessarily generates a magnetic field at right angles to the current and other charged particles moving within this field will have their path deflected by this field. The total sum of all these movements has been observed in plasma physics as constituting Birkeland current, manifesting as a stable filament of counter-rotating and co-axial electromagnetic fields. See below.
Such constructs are visible at larger scales as tornado formations in the atmosphere..
.. and when focused on some sort of receptive plate in a laboratory, will produce interesting fractal torus patterns which look very similar to biological artefacts:
Note that these images were not produced by passing an electron beam through a biological sample or through anything at all. All the shapes arise naturally from the interaction of the electron stream with the plate in question and very likely are a reflection of the organisation that was present in the stream even before it hit the plate.
Harold Hillman observed similar structures in electron micrographs of biological samples:
So an energetic vortex stream of charged particles is passed through a sample of biological material consisting of charge-structured molecules and possibly metallic dyes, whilst the biological sample itself relies upon an electromagnetic vortex field to construct and maintain organelles, proteins, vesicles and even entire cells.
In a living organism, the shapes of the vesicles are determined by the bio-field of the organism which is already breaking down once the tissue is removed from the body. Now a powerful stream of electrons, consisting of precisely those type of forces that are used for cellular construction, is fired at the sample. A new type of vesicle is created which bears no relation to anything that a living organism would need to construct.
The construction of the exosome is not a ‘biological’ process with a teleological purpose. There is no biological ‘meaning’ in the artefact and it has no lengthy development process; it is simply the result of electromagnetic forces acting upon cellular debris. The forces are strong and such an artefact can be assembled in the fraction of a second.
I remember someone (Stefan Lanka?) writing that there is no cell membrane as such but that one appears in an instant when tissue is removed from its environment; an apple is broken or cut and some sort of double layer immediately forms, giving the impression of a cellular membrane. The short duration of the creation here lending to support that only physical (electromagnetic) forces are involved as opposed to a lengthy biological development process.
Repair via vortex template
A short video from Michael Levin shows a single celled ‘anthrobot’ repairing a mechanically induced wound.
One very obvious interpretation of this now is that although the physical matter has been misshapen, an electromagnetic vortex persists in a necessarily circular shape and acts as a template for regeneration. Field movement of the vortex simply drags the organic matter back into a circular or spherical shape.
In another video, these ‘artificial life forms’ are apparently seen swimming around all by themselves, but another interpretation is possible. Several interesting features stand out as indicative of a driving vortex structure:
The bots are said to move by use of cilia but some do not have cilia
Motion is chaotic with rapid and apparent random changes in both speed and direction
Movement is not always independent of each other with several bots seeming to stick together even through the random motion
Multiple bots rotate either on the spot or whilst moving
Bots rotate around a centre outside of the bot
Orbital debris moves around and with the bot
Motion can be rapid even with a low Reynolds number
Hypothesis: All morphogenesis, movement and other activity arises from the action of an electromagnetic bio-field and all suppositions to the contrary are merely an illusion.
The bots look like they are in a water droplet i.e. a circular or hemispherical container. This is the ideal shape for the formation of electromagnetic vortices. Imagine the bots are sitting in such a field of swirling electromagnetic currents similar to the water eddies in the bend of a river. The bots now ‘look like’ they are in such an environment.
Each bot is formed and maintained by its own vortex and moves around via field-interaction with its environment. Several bots can become trapped in an enclosing vortex structure and move around together. Sudden changes in velocity can be explained by sudden changes in a field state; this is behaviour typical of electric fields but not so much in a living organism trying to swim through a medium the consistency of warm tar (low Reynolds flow).
Rotating bots are likely driven by an external vortex flow. The cilia may help with this but are not strictly necessary and are not obviously causal. Bots are seen to be rotating about an vortex external to themselves; they rotate at the centre of their own vortex but at the same time caught in the current of another.
Bots accumulate energy from the environment and form a peripheral membrane as with the exosomes. Surplus energy here is discharged in corona-like filaments which form a morphogenic template for the cilia. The cilia continue to discharge once formed and vibrate as they do so, thereby creating the illusion of ‘swimming’.
The external vortex stream funnels debris towards the vortex centre and this is can be seen in orbit around the anthrobot.
Energy consumption s efficient within such a system, with everything moving ‘with the flow’, creating very little friction and dissipating very little waste. Eventually, however, everything slows down, movement ceases and there is little energy to hold together the vortex of the bot itself, which proceeds to disintegrate.
Disintegration alone is insufficient to stop the bots moving as they are driven by forces and energy flows outside of themselves which persist for some time. If movement came from the organised activity of the bots, it would surely subside as the bots disintegrated, but if the bots and their movement originate from the vortex field itself, we would expect that it is the field (and hence bot-movement) which lasts longer than the integrity of the bot.
The energy source
The preparation supplies some initial energy and the tissue that the bots were created from no doubt has energy within its own bio-field which is transferred to the experimental set-up. After this, one possibility is that the vortex field is fuelled by the heat and light from the laboratory itself.
Heat is described as dissipative, entropic, thermodynamic and random, but once within a vortex structure can be absorbed into the general vortex flow to extend the life of the whole bot community. Partial proof of this are the experiments performed by Gerald Pollack and others, which show that an influx of infrared radiation can be organised to push micro-spheres through a tube.
Another possibility is that vortex discharge direct from the ionosphere is transduced directly by the vortex field within the water droplet. The following diagram shows the electromagnetic field at the surface of the sun. It has already organised itself into a cellular pattern albeit on a rather grand scale.
Now if a similar arrangement is present at the surface of the Earth then this could conceivably be used to fuel the anthrobot community.
Similar comments apply to all tissue and bacterial cultures and could explain seasonal variations of behaviour and cytopathic effects as described by Kaznacheev for example: Mirror Cytopathic Effect
The helix as a fundamental in biology and physics
Anyone not believing that vortex structures can arise naturally without supplementary information just needs to look at the many helical patterns in nature, from ‘God’s DNA’ appearing in cloud structures to entire nebula organised as a double helix. This is surely a fundamental structure of nature and arises from primordial electromagnetic fields.
The appearance of vortex structures and specifically double helix patterns in biological systems should, by now, come as no surprise. Stefan Lanka has asserted that DNA comes ‘out of the nothing’, and once again, an initially outrageous sounding statement turns out to have a good scientific basis in electromagnetic forces and plenty pf precedent in parallel structures throughout the cosmos.
Relevance to ‘virology’
The artefacts shown are said to be a pathogenic virus that is the cause of disease in human beings and, moreover, that it is characterised by a specific genome sequence which has been identified and documented.
However, it is obvious now that:
There is no guarantee that the images depicted are valid representations of what happens in biological systems
There is no guarantee that they are even representative of what happens in a tissue culture
The formation of such artefacts is almost entirely by the basic laws of physics and needs very little input, if any, from a biological system
Helical structures can seemingly form anywhere at any time in the cosmos
Nobody can link a specific genomic sequence as belonging to one of these artefacts
There is no ‘model’ for explaining how a particular genome sequence causes specific symptoms
Correlations between these artefacts and either season or latitude may be explained by the direct influence of the Earth’s magnetic field on either the tissue sample itself or the electron stream that ‘illuminates’ it
These artefacts very likely have no biological significance whatsoever
The evolution of species appears to be rapid, discontinuous and somehow directed towards survival within specific environments. Goal oriented behaviour implies adaptive biological feedback systems with specific aims, i.e. ‘cognition’; the organism actively participates in its own evolutionary development.
Interaction with the environment results in a new developmental goal for the next generation, a modification of phenotype or maybe a novel behavioural pattern. The entire template for the next generation is packaged up into an electromagnetic field complex and installed in the developing embryo.
Biological growth is teleological in nature with a conceptually fixed endpoint arising from apparently self-organising randomness. The appearance of randomness is purely superficial, however, with the actual reality being that a new bauplan is implemented with great accuracy at ‘run-time’ via a closed loop feedback system arising from the above mentioned bio-field.
Further activity as an adult generates further responses which then inform the whole reproductive cycle until some happy balance is achieved and the species stabilises.
Evolutionary processes are therefore not in any way random but, like other biological processes, exhibit the goal oriented behaviour and top-down causality of a fully developed cognitive system.
We need to describe some foundational ideas and to present some evidence for this.
Scientists here conditioned mice to be afraid of a specific smell and found that their children exhibited a measurable fear response to the same odour.
Parental olfactory experience influences behaviour and neural structure in subsequent generations – Dias, Ressler
“Using olfactory molecular specificity, we examined the inheritance of parental traumatic exposure, a phenomenon that has been frequently observed, but not understood. We subjected F0 mice to odour fear conditioning before conception and found that subsequently conceived F1 and F2 generations had an increased behavioural sensitivity to the F0-conditioned odour, but not to other odours.“
So what has been inherited is:
Recognition of a novel smell
A specific and complex response associated with that recognition
A whole ‘cognitive’ pattern has been passed from one generation to another. The response of ‘fear’ has made the odour seem relevant to survival and therefore important for evolutionary development.
The odour itself is not a direct cause of the response, this is a creation of the cognitive system in response to an otherwise harmless trigger. ‘Cognition’ is involved in inheritance.
Independence of cognition and ‘matter‘
Retention of Memory through Metamorphosis: Can a Moth Remember What It Learned As a Caterpillar? – Blackiston, Casey, Weiss
This time caterpillars were trained to odour aversion and the resulting moths retained the both memory of the smell and an associated behavioural pattern whereby they would walk so as to distance themselves from the offending stimulus.
What is it exactly that has persisted throughout the biological changes?
Very little of the physical organisation of the neurons survives the metamorphic process and in addition, the physical aspect of the behavioural responses is different in each case. The larvae will use a completely different set of motor skills to the final moth; they don’t even have the same number of legs.
So the thing that is inherited isn’t a simple set of chemical reactions and nerve impulses but rather a novel goal oriented behavioural pattern, a new teleological survival tactic of recognition, aversion and response. The end aim is ‘survival’ and this transcends the physical arrangement of molecules in the organism.
Development precedes function
If an evolutionary novelty is to be ‘selected’ in any way according to some measure of ‘fitness’ then this novelty must first be developed fully in a sufficient number of individuals for it to survive and propagate.
For example, if an opposable thumb is to be tested for practicality in the environment then a functional opposable thumb must first be developed and this development procedure must obey both the laws of physics and the laws of biology. This is not going to happen as a result of random mutations of anything.
It isn’t just a thumb that develops but a whole development plan within the embryo. This plan must be feasible with respect to the general laws of biology but also with respect to the existing developmental process and the implicit laws therein.
So a half finished thumb must be created before the whole is completed and the partial thumb must consist of a viable biological structure at every stage of embryonic development. It must have a consistent blood supply for example and must be capable of piecewise construction.
Darwinist arguments for evolution will furthermore require that an incomplete thumb not only arise from random mutation but also confer some selective advantage at every stage of evolutionary development. This is a big ‘ask’ indeed.
Neo-Darwinists tend to gloss over this aspect somewhat, describing the evolutionary process as ‘gradual’ or in terms of ‘small increments’. This doesn’t help at all as development must still precede function and all the idea of ‘development by increment increment’ does does is to increase the number of intermediate stages that must be selected for before the final advantageous product is completed.
They try to give the impression that development and selection are somehow concurrent and even claim that ‘selection drives development’, thereby inverting cause and effect in order to excuse the failings of the idea.
If evolutionary development has random processes at its heart then development and function are causally decoupled from each other, with the developmental process having no ‘knowledge’ of its final goal.
Development is a teleological process
The development of embryo from egg to adult is clearly a teleological process. There is a clear and largely predictable end point which is reached via apparently random movements of vibrating molecules.
We have a process which is demonstrates a high degree of stability of purpose even when subjected to subject to a continuous stream of perturbations. This sort of structure implies a fixed aim and a feedback system designed to achieve that aim. In engineering terms we have a closed-loop control system and in philosophical language we have teleology.
Teleology v. emergence
Neo-Darwinism takes a determinedly reductionist approach to science, imagining that life forms are somehow outcomes of the random mutation of DNA interpreted via the random vibrations of tiny molecules. Causality here is bottom-up; small meaningless effects, given enough time, are claimed to result in extremely complex biological organisation.
The recognition of the existence of feedback systems, control loops and teleological aims however allows for much more credible explanations for the whole of developmental and evolutionary processes. Emergent effects exist for sure but are utilised by the control system in pursuance of aims that lie outside of the physical distribution of the matter they are organising.
We have bottom-up emergence but top-down causation.
The seemingly ‘directed’ nature of both development and evolution are surely more easily understood by thinking in terms of higher order goal oriented processes than trying to calculate the sum total of a trillion vibrating atoms.
Evolutionary change arises from developmental innovation
The diagram below from Mae-Wan Ho shows a transformational tree of the possible patterns of fruit fly bodies which can be obtained by successive segmentation during development .
Transformation tree of body patterns in fruit fly larvae – Mae-Wan Ho
“(The diagram) is a transformational “tree” of the range of segmental patterns obtained during development. The main sequence, going up the trunk of the tree, is the normal transformational pathway, which progressively divides up the body into domains, ending up with 16 body segments of the normal larva. All the rest (with solid outlines) are transformations in which the process of dividing up the body has been arrested at different positions in the body. The patterns with dashed outlines are hypothetical forms, not yet observed, connecting actual transformations.
This transformational tree reveals how different forms are related to one another; how superficially similar forms are far apart on the tree, whereas forms that look most different are neighbours. It is the most parsimonious tree relating all the forms.
More importantly, the ontogenetic transformation tree predicts the possible forms that can be obtained in evolution (phylogeny), most likely by going up the sequence of successive bifurcations .. This is why phylogeny appears to recapitulate ontogeny (Gould, 1977), though actually it does not; ontogeny and phylogeny are simply related through the dynamics of the generic processes generating form.” – Mae-Wan Ho
The point here is that the observed phenotype is the result of a highly structured developmental process and minor evolutionary novelties are going to arise as end products of this process.
The evolution of phenotype is therefore going to reflect the evolutionary possibilities of the developmental tree. Evolutionary changes are not ‘random’, but result from changes arising from the developmental process itself and are subject to the emergent ‘laws’ of such a process.
Phylogeny and ontogeny
“Phylogeny is the representation of the evolutionary history and relationships between groups of organisms. The results are represented in a phylogenetic tree that provides a visual output of relationships based on shared or divergent physical and genetic characteristics.”
“Ontogeny is the origination and development of an organism usually from the time of fertilisation of the egg to adult.” – Wikipedia
“Ontogeny refers to the development of an organism while phylogeny refers to how the organisms have evolved.”
The idea that “ontology recapitulates phylogeny” comes from Ernst Haekel and supposes that the developmental stages of the embryo somehow follow the adult stages of an organism’s evolutionary ancestors.
This is a clear inversion of causality now as it is now obvious that evolutionary outcomes are the result of developmental processes and therefore must come after those processes and not before.
The segmentation tree though shows why the two processes, phylogeny and ontology, are so similar; because the one arises from the other.
A proposed model
The diagram shows a proposed model for the evolution of phenotype by a repeated alteration of the developmental goals of the organism.
Each modification to a teleological aim results in a phenotypic novelty which is tested against the environment for ‘fitness’ and a new adjustment is suggested to the next generation by the inheritance of such goals.
The children then inherit a new developmental aim which is then is executed as best as can be done with the current toolkit, with new strategies being developed as required and again passed on to the next generation.
All processes involved consist of closed loop feedback systems and are fully ‘cognitive’ with the ability to absorb, interpret and assimilate information of the relevant nature and to act upon such information so as to make intelligent decisions as to the setting of a goal for some other sub-system.
The system as a whole is organised as a hierarchy of largely autonomous modules which communicate via goal-setting, with the upper echelons setting the aims for the lower, more functional processes.
Evolutionary change therefore proceeds in a top-down fashion from the environment to the organism via the various cognitive systems in operation at the time. The idea that population stress drives evolutionary processes is now entirely appropriate as this is what is in fact happening.
This particular way of structuring a complex system is probably a good a definition of ‘life’ as will be found anywhere.
How the giraffe got its neck
Short necked giraffes were eating leaves from the lower branches of the trees but still yearning for the sweeter leaves higher up. They ‘know’ what to do, they form an intention to stretch their necks upwards, a teleological aim in accordance with the reality of their physique and their proprioceptive system, and they make the requisite movement.
All this is planned and executed by a high level control system complete with feedback and real-time adjustment. To describe this in terms of the movement of molecules is clearly a waste of time; we have teleology; we have cognition.
The stretching movement comes with a reward and this behavioural pattern is passed on to the next generation as ‘innate’ behaviour; an ‘instinct’.
In times of drought, the giraffe will still yearn for higher leaves and a longer neck. This yearning together with the experience of urgency resulting from stress and the urge to survive is sufficient for an intention for a longer neck to be formed and passed onto the next generation.
A new phenotypic target has been set and will be inherited by the children. This target comes easily from the giraffe’s inherent knowledge of its own physical shape and the possibilities of stretching. It has nothing to do with the developmental process and nothing to do with transcription of DNA or the manufacture of proteins.
The new goal is adopted by the developmental processes of the child and it is these procedures that are now responsible for achieving the required end-point. This is after all what the developmental system is good at.
A modified giraffe is born and the new phenotype is assessed in the field for ‘fitness’; new information is acquired and again passed on to the next generation in a continuous feedback loop that will in due course either stabilise to the environmental conditions or revert to ‘breed average’.
If adaptation is successful then other giraffes will soon notice what is going on and will simply copy the new phenotype. If we agree that all these processes are fully cognitive then these assertions are no longer outrageous or even unusual but natural corollaries of the main thesis.
Similar ideas were explained by Mae-Wan Ho in her paper but without explicit use of the idea that specifically cognitive processes are at play.
Here is her diagram showing feedback of information to and from the environment. Such information is interpreted via the metabolic and epigenetic nets to be codified into DNA as the inherited substance and passed on to the next generation.
From Mae-Wan Ho
To include DNA in the evolutionary process is an unnecessary distraction (The DNA delusion) but even so, the idea of feedback and top-down information flow is seen as a necessary requirement to explain the observations.
Extracts from the paper:
Almost 35 years ago, Ho and Saunders (1979) proposed the then outrageous idea that the intrinsic dynamics of developmental processes are the source of non-random variations that directs evolutionary change in the face of new environmental challenges; and the resulting evolutionary novelties are reinforced in successive generations through epigenetic mechanisms, independently of natural selection.
The non-random variations are teleological in nature and arise from intelligent modifications of the developmental ‘goals’. No natural selection is involved.
There is no need to change the developmental process as such; the changes occur naturally as the teleological aims change. This simplifies the process greatly by decoupling the evolutionary aims from the details of embryonic development.
We showed that the same (non-random) developmental changes are repeatedly produced by specific environmental stimuli.
Because the organism makes the same intelligent decisions each time. Moreover, each organism makes the same decisions thereby allowing a whole population to evolve at the same time..
But random mutations—changes in the DNA—that generate hopeful monsters must be hopelessly rare, and to make things worse, major taxonomic groups tend to appear suddenly in clusters, as “adaptive radiations” (Gould & Eldredge, 1972),
Of course they do!
Furthermore, evolution does seem to proceed top-down, from phyla to subphyla, classes, orders, and so on (Valentine, 2004), rather than the converse, as predicted by Darwinian and neo-Darwinian natural selection of small random mutations.
A significant evolutionary novelty leads to a new species which then is improved by successive refinements which eventually stabilise into discrete groupings to form sub-species.
Darwinism wants a breadth first development by random mutations followed by specialisation by selection. This predicts a completely different progression in the fossil record to the process described above, where major changes happen first followed by smaller adaptations to local conditions.
.. & crucially, all the evidence indicates that macroevolution is decoupled from molecular or microevolution.
Yes, high level developmental processes are coupled to survivability within the environment whereas molecular processes are driven by the laws of physics. The two processes achieve independence via the construction of closed-loop feedback systems.
There is still no recognition that the patterns themselves and the biological forms need to be explained in their own right, independently of whether natural selection operates or not, and independently of the action of specific genes
Yes, natural selection whether it operates or not does not generate new forms.
The first distinctive feature of our epigenetic theory of evolution (Ho & Saunders, 1979, 1982, 1984) is that neo- Darwinian natural selection plays little or no role, based on evidence suggesting, on the one hand, that most genetic changes are irrelevant to the evolution of organisms, and on the other, that a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary change.
Inheritance is not via ‘genes’, not via DNA.
It is both difficult and risky to become a new species when there is constant pressure to compete for food and outrun predators; best leave this until things have calmed down a bit.
There is no separation between development and evolution.
The scheme presented here actually postulates two separate, self-contained systems that are connected to each other by means of the intended phenotype. The evolutionary system presents a phenotypic change and this becomes the new aim for the developmental system.
The output of one system becomes the goal for another. This is a standard cybernetic principle and with both processes comprised of feedback systems, the whole system remains highly stable to perturbation.
Reversion to breed average
Reversion to breed average is a phenomenon known to breeders of pigeons, dogs and cattle whereby certain features can be attained by selective breeding but will only last a couple of generations before reverting to the breed average.
Darwin accepted in chapter 1 of On the Origin of Species that: “our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms.”
This is inconsistent with Darwinian evolution which is assumed to arise from a process that is directionless, without purpose and lacking in either foresight or memory.
The phenomenon is not inconsistent, however, with the idea of evolution-by-cognition. Various interpretations can be made, with just one possibility being that any modification to phenotype comes with an automatic expiry date. The new adaptation is given a trial period of three generations, say, for assessment and if, after that time, no advantage is perceived then the reversion occurs.
Another idea is that herd animals in particular will tend to copy the herd phenotype under the assumption that it is probably close to optimal and that ‘standing out’ from the rest of the animals is not a particularly good idea.
Arguments such as this are common amongst Darwinian theorists. Even though there is no direction or intent in Darwinian theory, the temptation to use such language is just too much for them. This says something about the nature of the phenomenon they are trying to describe, which is that it is obviously teleological in nature and they are in simple denial of this fact.
Here, however, we a quite at liberty to describe such processes as intentional and directed because this is the whole premise of the theory!
Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance
“Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is the proposed transmission of epigenetic markers and modifications from one generation to multiple subsequent generations without altering the primary structure of DNA” – Wikipedia
So a form of inheritance that is independent of meaningful changes in DNA is possible and can persist over several generations.
The article from Wikipedia is full of statements supportive of the ideas presented in this page:
Feedback systems are involved at the molecular level
Information from the environment results in meaningful changes to the organism
Feedback loops persist cross several generations (are inherited)
This has nothing to do with DNA
Epigenetic inheritance may only affect fitness if it predictably alters a trait under selection. Evidence has been forwarded that environmental stimuli are important agents in the alteration of epigenetic processes.
Positive and negative feedback loops are commonly observed in molecular mechanisms and regulation of homeostatic processes. There is evidence that feedback loops interact to maintain epigenetic modifications within one generation, as well as contributing to TEI in various organisms, and these feedback loops can showcase putative adaptations to environmental perturbances.
The feedback loops seen across multiple generations because of TEI showcases a spatio-temporal dynamic that is associated with TEI alone.
This is describing a cognitive feedback system but without using the word ‘cognitive’.
Examination of the specific reactions between molecules or even the feedback loops controlling them is not particularly useful, as the important factor is the overall organisation of such processes and the nature of such organisation. The activity of individual molecules is always subservient to the over-arching teleological aims of such a system.
Lamarckism
Lamarckism, also known as Lamarckian inheritance or neo-Lamarckism, is the notion that an organism can pass on to its offspring physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use or disuse during its lifetime.
Lamarck argued, as part of his theory of heredity, that a blacksmith’s sons inherit the strong muscles he acquires from his work.
What Lamarck claimed was the inheritance of characteristics acquired through effort, or will. – Wikipedia
This is interesting: What is meant by ‘use or disuse’ and why should this result in the inheritance of characteristics? Is there a record kept somewhere of the degree of usage of each characteristic?
One interpretation is that ‘usage’ consists of a collection of biochemical reactions that result in a permanent change to the muscle mass, say, and that this is then passed on to the next generation.
This doesn’t really help though, as we still need some way of encoding these changes to trillions of cells in order to pass them on and integrate them into the developmental process so that a modified adult can benefit from them. The encoding of volumes of complex information into a compact and meaningful format is otherwise known as ‘cognition’, so similar processes are at work here also.
A better way of describing ‘usage’ is to recognise that the physical action of wielding a hammer is preceded by an intention to uses and accompanied by an acquired cognitive pattern of movement, energy flow and recovery, involving preparation, action and feedback. It is proposed that it is precisely this ‘pattern’ that is passed on to the next generation. The response of individual muscle cells is irrelevant and all that matters is the workings cybernetic control system already programmed by the parent blacksmith.
“What Lamarck claimed was the inheritance of characteristics acquired through effort, or will”
This is more like it! The characteristics have been acquired through ‘effort and will’ through an encoded summary of ‘proprioceptive activity’.
Evolutionary developmental biology
Wikipedia comes out as Lamarkist:
“Evolutionary innovation may sometimes begin in Lamarkian style with epigenetic alterations of gene regulation or phenotype generation, subsequently consolidated by changes at the gene level.” – Wikipedia
So evolution is via some form of Lamarkism .. but genes are involved somehow!
The gene is involved by ‘consolidation’; but what does this mean? The development did not need genetic alteration to start with so why does it need it for subsequent generations? The alteration of genetic information is described here as:
Non-random
Subsequent to phenotypic change
As a consequence of phenotypic change not the cause
As the end point of cellular activity, not the start point
In what sense can genetic changes of this type be considered ‘causal’? In what sense is it ‘consolidation’? This is deceptive language, an attempt to give prominence and salience to changes in genetic structure where no causal relationship has been established.
August Weismann
Weismann conducted the experiment of removing the tails of 68 white mice, repeatedly over 5 generations, and reporting that no mice were born in consequence without a tail or even with a shorter tail. He stated that “901 young were produced by five generations of artificially mutilated parents, and yet there was not a single example of a rudimentary tail or of any other abnormality in this organ.” – Wikipedia
What was he expecting? The slicing off of the tails by Weismann bypasses the cognitive system of the rats. They did not want this to happen and did not see any evolutionary advantage for it and so there is no reason for lack-of-tail to be inherited. The tails were just cut off and this gives no clue as to how this might be integrated into the developmental processes of the rat offspring.
Weismann should have checked to see if the rats had acquired a fear of knives – or of Weismann himself!
Strength is built by cognitive processes
From mental power to muscle power–gaining strength by using the mind Ranganathan et al found that:
Participants increased muscle mass and strength by simply imagining that they were performing exercise. Similar effects were obtained from runners and weight-lifters.
Yes, muscular development, usage, maintenance and repair are all cognitive processes as opposed to simple chemical reactions. The details of a billion molecular interactions cannot be inherited, but the finely tuned parameters of a closed-loop repair system can.
The Cambrian explosion
If there is no direct feedback from the environment into the developmental processes of animals then we would expect evolutionary change to be slow and effectively random with respect to the needs of survival, with any meaningful structure arising only from natural selection.
If an interpretive cognitive system could somehow develop and manage to connect to embryonic development then we should expect a sudden increase in the speed, diversity and appropriateness of evolutionary development.
This is what we see about 540 million years ago with the Cambrian explosion.
Several other such ‘explosions’ exist and other factors provide obvious explanations, for example the development of eyes, nervous systems, locomotion and large brains. All these require the phenomenon described here as ‘cognition’.
Describing evolution as being driven by the ‘motor of ecological change‘ is an explicit admission of top-down causation as you will find.
“We’re inventing nervous systems, we’re inventing eyes and other sensory systems.”
“So you have a whole cascade of feedbacks and it’s really just a matter of trying to pinpoint the trigger versus all the other consequences that flow from that point”
“(An increase in oxygen) is not enough, you also need a mechanism to drive the system into a runaway situation. You need the system to work very fast .. and one of the ways is ecological feedback“
“A good part of what is happening in the Cambrian explosion must be the motor of ecological change.“
When did cognition develop?
Watch the neutrophil below chasing a bacterium.
This single celled animal has no brain, eyes or musculature and not even a nervous system but still seems to know exactly what it is doing.
It is aware of its own environment, has a sense of proprioception and engages in purposeful activity. It is sensing ‘food’, making decisions as how to go about getting it, making an intention to move and then chasing its quarry whilst responding to its efforts to escape at lightning speed.
All this activity implies feedback, awareness of self, formation of purpose and teleological causation; in short: ‘cognition’.
Evolution from bacteria to human should be relatively fast compared to what has preceded this.
Intelligent design vs. atheist Darwinism
The intelligent design lobby are consumed by the idea that complex organisms cannot arise from random changes and require an intelligent process and an informational template.
Neo-Darwinists seem likewise driven by a need, outside of any scientific consideration, to eliminate the requirement for a divine being.
The above hypothesis has the intelligent design reside within the organism itself rather than in the mind of an external creator. The design arises from a sort of bootstrapping process within the cognitive system itself, this is to say, within the organism itself.
Both atheists and ID advocates are therefore happy with this scenario.
The complex structure of phenotype that we see is only ‘apparent’ and not ‘fundamental’. What is fundamental is the cognitive structure that mediates between phenotypic requirements arising from interaction with the environment and the physical requirements of the developmental process.
The true evolution is therefore the evolution of cognition and evolution of development. An intelligent feedback system sits between the The Laws of Physics on the one hand and Environmental Reality on the other and tries to mediate between the two in an effort to survive and procreate.
Structure and complexity arise, not just from the input of information from the environment but also from the need to reconcile this with the basic laws of physics and the emergent biological laws that arise from self-organisation of cellular systems.
This ‘intelligence’, then, ‘knows’ all about development, has a memory, is able to formulate plan, make decisions and recover from all sorts of perturbations and upsets as it pursues its teleological goals.
Cognition as a ‘connection space’
The schematic below is intended to show how information from the environment is able to affect events at the molecular level.
A system of top-down causation (here left to right) proceeds from macro-level reality via an interpretive, cognitive bio-field to direct events at the cellular level. The self-organising properties of the cells, so called ’emergent’ properties, are utilised to then regulate the actions of organelles, molecules and even individual atoms.
The inclusion of the emergent properties here is important. The cognitive system knows nothing about the nature of the atom and only interacts with the layer ‘above’ by means of biological laws which arise as a consequence of the self-organising properties of large groups of cells.
It is the cognitive layer that acts as an informational bridge, connecting the macro world to the micro in a meaningful way.
It is the cognitive layer that evolves, that persists across generations and adapts according to environmental conditions. This must be the case as the laws of physics are fixed and self-organisation happens via emergence, i.e. as an inevitable consequence of the lower laws; there is no room at this level for innovation.
‘Causation’ is different from ’emergence’ and is the result of signals from the cognitive layer acting upon the emergent layer; causation is proceeding from top to bottom. The cognitive system accepts feedback from the emergent layer itself and becomes a learning system, with the lessons learnt being passed on to the next generation.
The laws of physics are immutable whilst the laws of biology are common to all living cells and so neither need an inheritance mechanism. The only structure that needs passing down the evolutionary line is therefore the cognitive bio-field that will interpret information from the environment and use it to organise the development of a new organism. In computing terms this is an adapter class, mediating between the two separate worlds of external reality and internal development.
We are now entirely justified in saying that evolution is “driven by the motor of ecological change“.
Stability in biological systems
Stability in biological systems is maintained by means of engineering-style control systems at all levels of scale from the molecular to the ecological,
And end goal exists for each sub-system which continuously monitors its own performance using feedback mechanisms and performs corrective action as necessary to keep itself on track.
The schematic below is a nice illustration from the world of project management. A control system is shown taking input, delegating work to a subsystem and producing output.
Both the main system and the subsystem stabilise themselves via feedback and the main system accepts feedback from the subsystem. The two systems thus linked form a larger system which is itself a control system and is stabilised by its own internal feedback between the subsystems.
Praxis framework: cybernetic control
“While I think we can be certain that multi-level causation with feedbacks between all the levels is an important feature of biological organisms, the tools we have to deal with such causation need further development. The question is not whether downward causation of the kind discussed in this article exists, it is rather how best to incorporate it into biological theory and experimentation, and what kind of mathematics needs to be developed for this work.” – Denis Noble
The mechanism
Previous theories of evolution have floundered for want of a suitable mechanism.
We need:
Some way of storing vast amounts of information
A means of moving such information around
A way of integrating new information
Some mechanism for translating such information to molecular action
The chosen mechanism will be stable and robust to physical, chemical and electrical influences
Existing physics will suffice; no new fields or forces are required
Now since all forces at the level of biology are electromagnetic in nature and the only way to move charged particles around is an electromagnetic field, we can only consider such a field as a realistic candidate for a cognitive bio-field.
A toroidal ring vortex fits the bill. Watch these things flow through water to see how stable they can be and how energy is managed and conserved. Water loses energy owing to friction but an electromagnetic vortex has no such losses and will hence keep going forever.
Ring vortices can be seen to survive splitting into two (reproduction) and can merge together seamlessly (reproduction!). They can change proportions to pass through a narrow conduit and will survive minor perturbations in shape by simply re-stabilising to the original form.
Konstantin Meyl has proposed that such rings can absorb energy via transfer from the environment (Gibb’s energy) and even from the energy from solar neutrinos. We therefore have an energy structure that is arguably as stable as a molecule whilst at the same time more flexible and more amenable to the storage of information.
How information is stored on these rings is not exactly clear but it is easy to imagine several of these merging together with the result that their individual informational content is also merged by a natural physical process.
Such a merging could be used to integrate impressions within the brain and also to merge together information from male and female gametes. Darwin’s idea of gemmules now seems more reasonable; information from all over the body is packed into ring vortices which flow to the reproductive organs and is merged into a single wave complex for passing on to the next generation. (See: Telegony)
The image that springs to mind is as drawn by Nicholaas Hartsoeker (right), except that instead of a miniature homunculus we now have a complete representation of a bio-field template for a human being. The ‘shape’ is included somehow and the developmental process will work out how to attain the final form.
Action of the bio-field upon emergent phenomena
In the video, a number of heart muscle cells beat in coordination. Each cell is capable of beating individually but here electrical signalling has enabled the cells to coordinate at a distance and a beating ‘muscle’ has formed.
This is an ’emergent’ property as far as we know. There is no central command structure controlling or coordinating the rate or synchrony of contraction.
If the muscle were to be shaped into a tube and twisted into a spiral then we would no doubt see a wave of propagation flow around the heart in the familiar pattern. However, this still isn’t a heart; what is needed is an extra cognitive layer on top to assimilate signals from the rest of the body and respond by triggering muscle contractions at the appropriate rate.
‘Cognition’ here does not interact directly with the physical stuff of the body but instead interfaces with the emergent features of biology via their local electric fields.
The energetic work of contracting heart muscles is implemented by the cells themselves and the coordination is via signalling between the individual cells but the overall pace setting is fine tuned by a somatic intelligence which knows nothing about the workings of a cell but everything it needs to know about the top-down requirements of the cardiovascular system.
A general principle
A general principle can be hypothesised whereby the high level cognitive aspects of biological systems have their effect, not by direct action upon the physical matter but by exerting subtle influences upon the emergent features by means of local bio-field interaction.
This will apply to beating hearts, vascular dilation, movement and proprioception, embryonic development, morphogenesis and even epigenetic feedback loops.
The inherited characteristics will consist of just this: a complete instruction set of all the high level knowledge needed to produce a new organism. In particular, phenotypic blueprints do not consist in any way of a physical shape to be attained but rather a complete set of cognitive instructions on how to achieve final bio-field stability by manipulation of the same features that will emerge from the development process itself.
Once this principle is understood the whole process above sounds much more plausible and the whole of biology simpler to comprehend. Formulations of Life as almost synonymous with ‘complexity’ now seem naïve. Instead, try to regard Life as having a very specific structure which actually reduces complexity to a bare minimum.
The face of a frog
In this short video from Tufts University shows an electromagnetic field emerging as if out of nowhere. The field assumes the shape of the face of a frog where brain, eyes mouth etc. are visible before the physical organisation of the cells has even begun.
One way to interpret this is that it is the field that is ‘causal’, it is the field that contains the relevant information for the organisation of the physical matter, that is to say, it is a morphogenetic field.
In accordance with the general principle above, the cells simply divide for a while, at first simply reproducing and accumulating energy, but soon self-organising to create an emergent bio-field which naturally acts as an antenna for the morphogenic field. See: Bio-field emergence
This field has been inherited from the parents and once it connects to the developing cellular mass will proceed to organise, via the emergent field, the development of the cellular collective into a complete frog shape.
The evolutionary origins of sexual reproduction
If a primitive organism, an amoeba for example, were to somehow absorb some bio-field information from another by transference of physical material, then our amoeba will be ‘enhanced’ somewhat; it has acquired some new cognitive capabilities. It passes on this information when it divides and the new abilities persist down the generations and are integrated into the ecology; the amoeba has ‘evolved’ as a species.
The propensity to engage in this sort of activity proliferates and very soon sexual reproduction is de rigueur in the amoeba community. Evolution now happens very quickly.
Once organisms have developed sufficient cognitive ability to recognise propitious adaptations in other individuals then they will actively try to acquire those abilities, by either mimicry or the sharing of bio-field fragments. Certain individuals now appear more attractive.
As complexity of phenotype increases then so does the complexity of the reproductive process which nevertheless retains a high salience within the cognitive system. The sharing of bio-field material may appear more ungainly in animals whose phenotype has evolved for other purposes, but has also become more efficient, with the packing of all relevant information into specialised gametes for the specific purpose of transfer between individuals.
Parthenogenesis in humans
It appears that the fertilisation of the egg by a sperm is not as necessary as one might think for human reproduction to take place:
“Although reproduction in most mammals occurs through mating between male and female, it has been hypothesized that presence of rare cases of parthenogenesis in humans that result in normal and viable individuals go unnoticed due to the absence of congenital anomalies”
“Parthenogenesis is not as rare as previously thought but can go unnoticed with an ovarian teratoma outcome or even a full-term birth, particularly, in the presence of a male partner.” – Hegazy et al
The peacock’s tail
An AI engine, presumably neo-Darwinist, gives a summary: “The peacock’s tail evolved through a process of sexual selection, where peahens chose mates with the most impressive tails. “
Neo-Darwinist evolution is supposed to be by random fluctuation but again the preferred explanation is one of evolution-by-cognition.
What is meant by ‘most impressive tails‘? Why are some tails more impressive than others and how did the idea of ‘preference’ in this context arise from random fluctuations in the first place? Both concepts require the idea of ‘cognition’ as a prerequisite.
If we accept the idea that cognition and preference contribute to phenotypic change then we can think that in addition to the females preferring exhibitionist males, the males themselves will soon catch on to the idea and start to produce more and more outlandish plumage as a result.
The urge to reproduce is strong and males, being males, will only stop when they get eaten by predators or fall over owing to the weight of their own tails.
This development now has nothing to do with randomness but can legitimately be said to be driven by a combination of cultural norms and the more fundamental need to reproduce.
Developmental plasticity and the origin of tetrapods
Scientists raised bichir, a type of fish with lungs, exclusively on land to see what would happen:
The researchers discovered the bichir raised on land were dramatically different than those raised in water. The land-raised fish lifted their heads higher, held their fins closer to their bodies, took faster steps and undulated their tails less frequently and had fins that slipped less often than bichir raised in water. These land-based fish also underwent changes in their skeletons and musculature that likely paved the way for their changes in behavior. All in all, these alterations helped bichir move more effectively on land.
These findings reveal the bichir is more plastic — that is, malleable — during its development than previously thought. This plasticity is what made this fish capable of growing up very differently depending on its environment. – LiveScience
So functional behavioural and structural changes have been implemented by the fish themselves in response to environmental challenges.
The adaptations were certainly not random though; they were specifically directed towards a certain goal. This now paves the way for a selective process to occur.
The problem with neo-Darwinian selection is that development must precede selection, i.e. a feature must arise somehow before it can be tested for ‘fitness’ and the only solution presented by the neo-Darwinists is via random mutations. With these fish, however, we see that a certain degree of adaptation takes place as a direct response to environmental challenges and is immediately tested for suitability in the real world.
If, now, some fish do not survive to reproduce but others do, we may say that some sort of selection has taken place.
Unfortunately, these researchers did not have enough time to see if these changes were inherited.
Summary
The process of evolution presented here is one of a very specific relationship between the developmental processes and evolutionary. The central hypothesis is that evolutionary cognition is responsible for interpreting environmental information and setting a new teleological goal for the developmental processes.
Many authors have described similar schemes but have been missing a few key ingredients:
Recognition of the feedback system as fully ‘cognitive’
An electromagnetic field as the substrate for that cognition
The specific relationship between developmental and evolutionary processes
Rejection of DNA as the mechanism of inheritance
What we would like to see is that an organism such as a fish, is able to set a new phenotypic goal in response to environmental pressure and produce offspring that in some way have evolved towards that goal.
We don’t quite have this unfortunately but we do evidence for every part of the process separately:
The obvious existence of feedback systems at all physical scales
The inheritance of acquired characteristics is demonstrated
An induced fear response is inheritable
Goal oriented behavioural patterns are inheritable
Phenotypic changes (increased muscle mass) can be induced at will
Phenotypic changes induced by selective breeding can persist across generations
Memory can be inherited and is independent of physical order
Phenotypic changes arise from modifications to the developmental process
Induced changes to the developmental plan can be passed to the next generation
The fossil record seems to support the rapid emergence of new species
And finally: ‘All’ evolutionary theorists talk about evolution as if it were directed and as if adaptations arise as a necessary consequence of environmental pressure. This is true even of neo-Darwinists, who, whilst insisting that evolution has no direction at all, nevertheless cannot resist the temptation to talk about it as if it does!
The necessary conditions for the development of complex organisms from the basic ‘stuff’ of the universe are provided for by a complex electromagnetic field structure that has its origins far from the Earth and whose behaviour is rooted firmly in the laws of physics.
The cosmic ‘field’ flows around the Universe much the same as water flows in a river
Field energy spirals inwards to form galactic whirlpools
Energy concentrates to form stars which emit all manner of emergent energies
Solar output is given fine grained structure via impact with the Earth’s ionosphere
Electric discharge from the ionosphere is instrumental in the formation of complex molecules
Rhythmic patterns in the magnetosphere provide a regulatory basis for life which precedes complex biology
Geographical variation allows for a diversity of primordial soups
The nature of the Cosmos
Mainstream cosmology will have us believe that the Universe consists essentially of a large amount of fairly uninteresting ‘space’, within which exists discrete blobs of uninteresting ‘matter’. The blobs of matter emit strictly radial forces in the form of gravity which influence other objects and it is this collection of connected atoms and forces that will somehow organise itself into galaxies, planets and eventually, organic life forms.
New theories of physics and recent observations by astronomers create a very different impression. Slight modifications of Maxwell’s equations predict a ‘living sea’ of electromagnetic activity that forms a self-sustaining energy field which is full of complex activity and these predictions are confirmed in the spiral patterns of galaxies.
Start to imagine it as a river flowing downstream where eddies and vortices form and interact with each other. So does the cosmic field form spiral patterns which compress the field structures towards the centre of the vortex leading to a great concentration of energy. Compressed field structures morph into a variety of shapes, some of which will adopt the familiar stable configurations that we call ‘matter’
The result is the creation of entire galaxies and the stars within them. A nice example at the top of a page is a barred galaxy showing a textbook formation of a vortex structure. (Vortex physics- Konstantin Meyl)
Formation of the sun
Energy flows towards the centre of a vortex and a star is formed. As the field disturbances are compressed, they are forced into a multitude of different configurations, including matter, light, heat, neutrinos and other components of the solar wind.
Radiative energy streams out of the sun in the above forms whilst at the same time our star is replenished by the inward spiralling cosmic energy.
Electric filament currents form and connect with the ionosphere of the Earth round about the equator. These form a persistent one-to-one connection, feeding the Earth with both energy and information.
The Earthly connection
The broad shape of a solar filament will survive past the ionosphere and will penetrate the Earth’s surface, creating ‘telluric’ currents, large circular or spiral movements of electricity that are easily measurable in the topsoil. These field vortices are highly influential in causing the large scale weather patterns that we see.
The interaction of these currents with the Earth’s magnetosphere creates additional fine-grained structures within this field and it is these magnetic field vortices that are associated with local weather patterns and have a strong influence on the biological regulation of all life on Earth.
Disease and the weather
Strong and undeniable relationships exist between outbreaks of disease and distinctive weather patterns, with specific diseases being triggered at specific times of the year and at specific places on the planet. The disease is caused by the associated disturbance in the Earth’s magnetic field which disrupts the (largely electromagnetic) regulatory processes within the body. See: Influenza and weather
The pacemakers of Life
The work of Frank Brown (External factors in the mechanisms of biological clocks) shows very clearly that terrestrial magnetic activity is heavily rhythmic and is instrumental in the regulation of Life on Earth. Cycles are apparent coinciding with day length, year length and lunar month at least.
Brown concluded that there are no internal clocks in the body and that therefore existing bio-rhythms must be set from the outside, they are fixed by the magnetic activity on Earth and it is the job of biological organisms to attune themselves to these cosmic patterns; to use them as pacemakers.
The rhythms and energies needed to organise and regulate Life therefore precede the genesis of life.
Discharge from the ionosphere
Life evolved between the twin capacitor plates of the ionosphere and the surface of the Earth. This provides a voltage difference to be used by living organisms and also a source of discharge current.
Mainstream science really assumes that this discharge is of no particular interest, consisting of a steady and small current obeying Ohm’s law. Slight adjustments of Maxwell’s equations though, allow for spiral discharge through the atmosphere, making available a continuous flow of vortex energy which in turn will be modified by seasonal and geographical variation.
Primordial ‘soup’
We have arrived at some sort of a description of the environment within which life began.
A continually moving stream of electro-magnetic field energy pervades the atmosphere, representing discharge from the ionosphere to the Earth’s surface. This is modulated by the rotation of the Earth, the orbit of the moon and the passing of the seasons to create a pulsing, rhythmic field, helping to coordinate and regulate the emerging organisms.
The field is right-handed according to the laws of electromagnetism and this no doubt explains the chiral bias in many bio-molecules.
Vortices within the water are said to be capable of energy absorption (from solar neutrinos), frequency conversion (Meyl) and energy transduction. Transmutation of elements is possible under such conditions with calcium being a common product of such activity (Louis Kervran).
We therefore have a regulatory framework, a mechanism for energy transduction and a machine for mineral production already set up in anticipation of Life processes and it is within this electro-magnetic ‘cradle’ that the first biomolecules emerged.
Top-down causation vs Big Bangs
So far we have energy from the cosmos moving spirally inwards to form stars which transmute the energy into vortex filaments whence they are transported to our planet and refined by local conditions into formative forces. These energies will ultimately be absorbed into cellular structures that interpret them in a cognitive fashion and incorporate them into an organised biological system.
There is a plausible transmutation of energy, a refinement of structure at each stage of the process and a continual downscaling of energy from cosmos to cell, all in tune with the laws of physics. We have ‘top-down’ causation.
Compare with the mainstream version:
Universe begins in a big explosion
Stars are ‘matter’ crashing together
The sun works like an atomic bomb
Life started with a big lightning bolt
Molecules bond by bumping into each other
Randomness creates DNA
In other words, the laws of physics are fine until you can’t explain something and then you just invent some kind of explosion where those laws are temporarily suspended and some ‘chance’ process takes over and: “Behold .. Life!”
An explanation is attempted largely in terms of dissipative processes (explosions) and bottom up causation (molecular interactions). This is in tune with ideas such as entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics but is clearly at odds with the requirement to create an organised self-sustaining life form that exists ‘far from thermodynamic equilibrium’.
Any appeal to some sort of molecular Darwinism will not rescue this. You can only select for a sensible molecular arrangement if a sensible molecular arrangement has been created in the first place. This is hardly provided for by a hypothesis based upon randomness and explosions!
Explosions are going the wrong way and randomness is not formative.
The idea of top-down causation presents a pattern altogether more consistent with the observed outcomes: Instead of dissipative explosions and randomness we have a concentration of energy and increase in complexity.
The production of the first bio-molecules
The conditions within which the first complex molecules are to be formed is a mineral-steeped aqueous environment host to a variety of vibratory energies and already subject to diurnal, lunar and annual rhythms.
The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated the spontaneous formation of amino acids. These then are to be regarded as biological ‘fundamentals’, molecular organisations that arise spontaneously according to the laws of physics. No additional input of information is needed for them to form.
Amino acids fall into various classes according to their characteristic resonant frequency and it is this property that enables assembly of the acids into a protein chain. All amino acids contributing to a functional protein will have the same resonant frequency (Cosic 1990) and a water complex vibrating at this frequency will tend to collect together all the necessary parts of the intended protein chain via ‘cymatic’ resonance.
Somehow the chain is assembled and it is time to ‘fold’. Again the vibratory environment is essential for this. The protein chain is pushed around by predominantly electromagnetic forces from one ‘attractor well’ to the next until it reaches the desired conformation. A series of maximal likelihood outcomes add up to a stable least energy solution.
This seems to be how proteins are assembled within the controlled environment of a cell but it is not inconceivable that something like this should occur in a pre-biotic environment as all it needs is the laws of physics.
The mainstream view from evolutionary theorists is that all this simply happens through random kinetic encounters of molecules coupled with the idea of ‘millions of years to get it right’; another typical brute force solution.
Self-replicating molecules
Many evolutionary theorists have stated plainly that a prerequisite for biological evolution is the (happenstance) creation of a self-replicating molecule.
No! Just .. no!
Molecules cannot replicate themselves, they generate no energy, can create no new matter, cannot assemble existing matter and have no self-knowledge, no internal map of themselves to use as a design template for the new molecule.
Bio-molecules are the product of the vibratory water-environment within which they exist. It is this environment that organises the necessary energy, matter and electro-kinetic infrastructure needed to create a new molecule.
A pre-requisite then for the continuance of biological structures is the persistence, not of the molecule itself, but of the environment that was instrumental in creating that molecule in the first place. Here lies the energy, the structure and the information necessary to reproduce molecules sympathetic to the construction of future life forms. Causality in this respect is again not from the molecule itself, not from the bottom up, but rather top-down, with energy, matter and information coming from the cosmos to the local environment and thence to the molecule itself.
Bio-molecules are not the initial cause of Life itself but a visibly manifest end product.
Pre-biotic evolution
The requirement for evolution then is for a persistent electromagnetic field environment within which to construct bio-molecules; a self-replicating protein factory to put it briefly.
This seems a tall order but a large part of the power source and regulatory structure is ever present in the form of the cosmic cycles that originate in the Sun coupled with the resonant properties of water. These are never going away.
This will all be managed by a stable, self-sustaining electromagnetic bio-field taking the form of a closed loop feedback system. See: The origins of life
Mainstream ‘theory’ of evolution
Evolutionary theorists say that the initial construction of self-replicating molecules is by random chance and that this works because there are several million years available.
Note that the invocation of randomness obviates the need to provide an actual mechanism for this process. The construction of these molecules clearly must be in accordance with the laws of Nature but this formulation is actually independent of the specific laws involved, merely needing millions of years to come about.
The suggestion of randomness as a causal means is highly misleading as ‘randomness’ is a statistical outcome pattern, not a generative mechanism.
The use of the term ‘self-replicating’ is likewise deceptive, effectively wallpapering over the inadequacies of the theory by presenting as a de facto solution something which is actually meaningless. The term is easily accepted by a lazy cognitive system and repetition of the phrase by ‘experts’ cements it in place as an unchallenged ‘fact’. Instead of a convenient (though inaccurate) metaphor, it has become a foundational axiom.
DNA is not a solid complex molecule which contains so much data that it serves as a blueprint for Life and nor is it self-replicating in any way. Instead is is a spontaneous materialisation and dynamic organisation of matter that arises from the needs and energy flows of the parent cell.
This page contains transcribed material from Stefan’s lecture followed by some comments that try to resolve his descriptions with the laws of contemporary physics.
Stefan Lanka: What biology IS – body and soul biology and the substance life is made of.
Stefan on RNA: “Here we have a typical diagram of DNA. As soon as a small amount of organic material has accumulated along with a few minerals they form themselves and whatever is beneficial for the metabolism stays there longer and is integrated into the chromosomes. This enables our body to learn how to deal with toxins such as alcohol.”
“Bacteria quickly learn to metabolise everything which is presented to them and which doesn’t kill them straight away. What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger!
“The first experiment I did as a biologist was to see that when you keep increasing dioxin concentrations and at the same time suddenly withdraw the nutrient solution, the bacteria start digesting the dioxin. The nutrient solution is depleted and they live solely on this toxin. The same thing happens when antibiotics are used instead of dioxins; the bacteria start to metabolise them.
“If the nutrient solution is then suddenly given back to them and the poison is simultaneously taken away – they die. They first have to re-learn to metabolise the solution and that is what the RNA is for.
“RNA comes in all variations and that is why a PCR test can test anyone positive for anything. All you have to say is that this is the gene sequence for this or that, and after looking for long enough you will find it. Or you let the PCR run for a long time and it will produce sequences that weren’t there before.
“RNA is self generating. RNA is its own catalyst.
“In that sense it is another presentation of Life and of how Life, invisible to us, emerges from this substance water (Pi water)”
Stefan on DNA: “Here we have a model of DNA. Current science believes that DNA defines the body’s metabolism, that it is the dominator. But it is not that in any way. It is a resonator and stabiliser! It changes permanently (continually?) and serves mainly to release energy in the body.”
“The DNA is coiled up in this diagram, as you can see, but geneticists have known for a long time, that DNA is a long strand in the nucleus most of the time, and it only coils up in this X-shaped way when the cell is dividing. So it is ‘unwound’ most of the time. And not only that, it also constantly builds up and unwinds again. It is not a fixed strand that never changes, it constantly builds up and reassembles itself.”
“The reason why the DNA in the cell nucleus does not get knotted up, is because it constantly builds up and breaks down again, it oscillates. Geneticists, who believe in fixed genes, cannot explain this. It’s a constant transforming, a coming into being, a disappearing again. This is our current knowledge about DNA.“
“But if you are stuck in cellular theory you cannot imagine what you see here. You are forced to think in a too complicated way, you are forced to think in incorrect models. Incorrect models that have been imposed on us throughout our history.“
“This history of ours has culminated in corona. I must say ‘Thank God’ because, through it, we have the chance to get rid of this global dogma, to bring it to a controlled implosion.”
On the atomic theory of reality: “With all this, I have a completely different understanding of my body, of the interrelationships and also connectedness with the cosmos. The atomic theory had prevented this understanding.” – Lanka
“In pre-Socratic times we had the Ancient Greek principle of ‘as above, so below’, and the atomic way of thinking destroyed this way of thinking.
“Democritus said that if we keep cutting through the hemp rope, then suddenly it is no longer hemp, suddenly it is no longer known matter; only atoms remain; we don’t know anything about these atoms but they simply must be there. He then presented this atom theory as an explanation of Life: atoms come into contact with each other, molecules are formed and so on.
“This is 2500 year old rubbish, and it stinks to high heaven; it’s simply incorrect. This has lead us to this dead end and maybe, thank God, we are in this dead end, because we must end this global dogma.
“The weakest point in the whole theory is the virus dogma.”
Key points
Our concept of the atom has held back progress
RNA and DNA are energy accumulators
RNA and DNA have some sort of ‘memory’
Both are created ‘out of nothing’
Creation is not sequential but parallel
There is no ‘replication’ as such
The structure of DNA is determined by the cell
PCR tests are just nonsense
Comments
The concept of a molecule that we are familiar with resembles the illustration on the right where hard metallic looking atoms are held together by indestructible looking bonds which are themselves made of metal, glass or sometimes Bakelite.
Physicists don’t think of them like this (I hope!) but this is how most other people will picture then and whilst this is fine for many purposes it is quite crippling for the imagination and will strongly discourage any hypothesis that is hard to reconcile with this visual image.
Stefan blames the Ancient Greeks but whilst they had some theory of atomism or materialist reductionism, I can’t imagine that they had in mind the image presented above.
Indeed Konstantin Meyl insists that the texts have been mis-translated and that what was proposed was more like his theory of vortex physics which supposes that what we call ‘atoms’ are really agglomerations of field vortices:
“Remarkable about the passage by Plato is not only the fact, that the potential vortex already was known for 2500 years and was taken into consideration for an interpretation, but also the realization that during the described transition the smells form. Smell thus would be a vortex property!” – Konstantin Meyl: Scalar waves p.189
Stefan Lanka wants to describe biological ‘substances’ such as pi-water as the current atomic model is in contradiction with his observations, but the vortex model of Meyl is much more sympathetic to his needs.
As above, so below.
Atoms are composed of fundamental (spherical/toroidal) field vortices and molecules are collections of such. Within this model, the transmutations of Kervran do not seem so unlikely and Meyl describes how solar neutrinos may be captured by the water vortices and materialised as electrons in biological systems.
The vortex structure is seen at all scales of physical reality and so the Greek’s principle of ‘as above, so below‘ is now preserved. This follows from the vortex model of Meyl ,which has field movement as fundamental, and the hairy ball theorem which makes a torus structure a necessity; the torus being the only shape able to sustain smooth energy flow without a discontinuity.
Atoms, electrons, blood flow, brain function, weather systems and galaxies are now all composed of the same ‘stuff’ (field vortices) and all conform to a toroidal topology.
If Stefan were to discover the theories of Meyl he would be able to ‘wash and not get wet’.
(DNA) is a resonator and stabiliser! – Lanka Suspension bridges are prone to dangerous resonant vibrations from wind vortices and earthquakes are are therefore fitted with either counterweights to damp oscillations or connectors (right) at odd intervals to prevent the formation of standing waves..
A cell is in a constant state of energetic vibration and it is therefore perfectly conceivable that some sort of damping system is necessary to absorb surplus energy, whether it be from acoustic waves or electromagnetic pulses (photons).
Various scientists have observed that DNA is the perfect structure to form a fractal antenna meaning it will receive a large variety of frequencies and not just a narrow resonant band. Some have the DNA emitting some sort of instructions to the rest of the cell but the most prosaic explanation is that it is there to stabilise cellular vibration.
Energy is conserved and in biological systems this must happen at all physical scales from the whole organism to the sub-cellular level. There should exist, by analogy with electrical systems, buffers, accumulators and transducers all over the place to ensure smooth flow but these considerations are not talked about too much.
Energy comes into a cell according to supply but is used up according to demand and these do not necessarily match up so there is a need to temporarily store energy as it becomes available and to release it again as it is required.
“It changes continually and serves mainly to release energy in the body.”” – Lanka.
Reality at the atomic level according to Konstantin Meyl is best described as a field structure consisting of potential vortices and eddy currents which are in continual movement and interaction with each other. Some vortices stabilise into what we call ‘atoms’ and others into energetic ‘quanta’ such as photons.
Movement and transmutation are continual, with larger whirlpools sometimes absorbing the smaller before splitting again into different configurations. A molecule of water can be split and the oxygen transmuted to nitrogen and even carbon, so we have the main constituents of nucleic acids created on the spot from H2O and spare energy.
This seems precisely what Lanka is describing above: “(DNA) constantly builds up and breaks down again, it oscillates. Geneticists, who believe in fixed genes, cannot explain this. It’s a constant transforming, a coming into being, a disappearing again. This is our current knowledge about DNA.“
Hs observations are clearly consistent with the atomic model of Konstantin Meyl.
The adaptability of cells and bacteria has been confirmed by many researchers with The ‘Hill effect’ demonstrating increased resistance to toxins of not just the poisoned cells, but also their non-poisoned relatives!
Mae-Wan Ho in The fluid genome describes bacteria with a defective lac-z gene adapting to the introduction of lactose. The cells could not process it at first but soon adapted and ‘corrected’ their defective gene, thereby ‘remembering’ the new metabolic process and passing it on to the next generation.
Causation is top-down in biological systems, with the cellular cytoplasm forming a de-facto cognitive system which is obviously capable of interpreting input and registering the response as a very precise and directed alteration of DNA sequences.
This is what has been missed and seems inconceivable to most people: that it is the cellular activity which is responsible for creating the precise structuring of the DNA and not the other way around!
If the DNA is coming and going as Lanka claims, then it cannot itself be the storage medium for cellular memories or metabolic programs. There must be something else.
John Stuart Reid in his video shows that cymatic patterns induced in water droplets were produced more readily if the droplet had experienced them before and the rates increased with repeated exposure, So a memory of the procedure has somehow been created and recalled at a later time in response to a similar stimulus
Where is this memory stored? There is no DNA here that we know of and the molecular structure if water is not fixed so it seems unlikely that any data can be stored in the physical substance of the water> We are again left with the idea that something else is necessary.
A bio-field based on the magnetic vortices as described by Konstantin Meyl is an obvious solution to all these conundrums. Physical patterns or electrical disturbances in the water or in the movement of DNA strands are registered in this informational field and become available fr use at a later time.
If DNA vanishes then it can be re-materialised again from the information residue in the bio-field and if the cell needs to reproduce, a copy of the DNA is manufactured directly from this field by materialisation and transmutation. No replication needs to take place, there is no need to ‘read’ information from the existing DNA strand as the information is already there, held in a separate domain.
Information can be passed down generations in this way and this is what constitutes inheritance; there is no need to pass on the actual physical DNA as this will be reconstituted from the bio-field information – see Telegony
Conscious materialisation. Lanka has said in another video that “Life is the materialisation of consciousness” (Stefan Lanka: vitalism), indicating that the arrangement of DNA base pairs may not be the sole chance of the laws of physics but that there may be some specific organisational principle at work behind the scenes.
Here again the scalar waves of Meyl should be considered. He has said that the brain is a scalar wave computer (What is the brain?) and so we now have an actual mechanism for consciousness that is supported by contemporary physics and is potentially capable of organising not only thoughts but the materialisation and construction of DNA and RNA.
This bio-field is electromagnetic in nature and will therefore be sensitive to disturbances of this nature whether generated inside the cell or introduced from the outside.
What do isolation experiments show? Virologists are very excited about these and imagine that they are somehow finding small quantities of RNA in tissue cultures but from the above comments we see that they are not isolating RNA but instead are actually creating it from scratch!
There is no replication according to Lanka, only materialisation. The RNA strands are being created from the tissue culture and their structure will reflect the conditions in that culture which arise from a combination of the host bio-field, the chemicals introduced into the culture and very likely the ambient electromagnetic field conditions.
Virologists say that certain viruses are very difficult to cultivate and that very specific conditions and procedures are required. Well this doesn’t sound consistent with a naturally transmissible pathogen, instead a strong association between procedure and gene sequence suggests that it is the procedure itself that is responsible for the measured genome sequence.
Virologists also say that they can track a new variant of virus throughout the season by measurement of the genome but all this proves is that the sequencing techniques are somehow sensitive to the seasons and latitude. Either the host organism, the tissue culture itself or the PCR procedure is sensitive to the Earth’s geomagnetic field and it is variations in this that lead to stereotypical changes in the genome.
Kou et al found that different types of influenza (type A, type B, H1N1) tended to predominate in particular locations at particular times of year and that they were often related to dramatic changes in the weather. This does rather suggest that it is the latitude and season themselves that are being reflected directly in the genome sequence.
This is not an unreasonable hypothesis. The body is regulated by a scalar wave network and the cellular bio-field works on the same principle and so we would expect electromagnetic disturbances to affect this process somehow, with the adaptive, interpretive and teleological nature of the cellular system ensuring stable and reproducible results.
The loose correlation between sequenced genome and disease manifestation is also explained. The change in climatic conditions at a specific time and at a specific latitude has the twin effects of making people sick and also of changing the sequencing results. The two effect are linked but not causal with respect to each other, thereby leading to confusion over false positive tests and ‘asymptomatic’ disease.
The idea of a ‘virus’ being ‘replication competent‘ in this scenario makes no sense whatsoever. There is no ‘reading’ of the RNA strand and no molecular machinery to make new RNA to order. The cell itself is in charge of what happens within the cell. DNA and RNA are energy accumulators and transporters and not instruction manuals. DNA is downstream of cellular organisation, not its origins or blueprint.
Cell division. ” DNA is a long strand in the nucleus most of the time, and it only coils up in this X-shaped way when the cell is dividing.” – Stefan Lanka This makes a lot of sense; the DNA acts as an energy buffer, absorbing and releasing energy as required until it is time for the cell to divide.
Once the molecules have coiled up into a helix, the laws of physics cause the strands to form an antenna and sufficient energy is accumulated to power cell division. See Meyl on DNA
Comparison with mainstream explanation.
The mainstream explanation as to how DNA is replicated involves complicated molecular machinery and a sequential construction method whereby base pairs are ‘read’ one at a time and then somehow a new pair is obtained, moved into place and fixed onto the end of the new strand.
Miraculous indeed! This is made to seem reasonable by nicely constructed cartoons and videos but in reality it creates more questions than it solves.
How do these machines work in a dense viscose water gel?
How are the new base pairs moved into place so precisely?
Where and what is the power supply for all this machinery?
How exactly do you ‘read’ a base pair and how is this information represented?
If DNA is constructed by a molecular machine , then what constructs the machine?
Where is the blueprint for the molecular machine and how is it inherited?
In addition to these questions we have the fact that DNA is claimed to consist of 3 billion base pairs that are replicated in about 1 hour. This means that the base pairs are being aligned and attached at a rate of more than 800,000 per second!
This is just not credible without further evidence. DNA is therefore not created sequentially and not transported around the cell or assembled by a machine but created in parallel and constructed on the spot according to either fixed physical laws or information from a distributed bio-field.
The description from Stefan Lanka is one of a gradual emergence from a structured vortex flow that is in tune with the energy needs of the cell. The mechanism is consistent with the known laws of physics from Konstantin Meyl and the observations of biological transmutation from Louis Kervran.
Cellular water is arranged in vortices which continually absorb neutrino energy from the sun and distribute it to the rest of the cell. DNA and RNA act as a buffer to smooth energy flow with temporary excess being used to transmute water to higher energy molecules such as carbon and nitrogen.
These molecules eventually join together in a spiral structure which accelerates the accumulation of energy and in due course will enable cellular reproduction.
The physical changes see in cells can be seen, not so much as the result of mechanical action or ‘design’ but as a reflection of energy management, which works at least in part by the continual transmutation from low to high energy molecular states and back again.
This page is presents an argument to the effect that there is no sharp dividing line between animate and inanimate matter and hence no single point at which life begins. The life principle is not one of complexity or of digital coding but rather a learning system based upon feedback between the physical body and an organisational/informational field structure.
Key assertions:
The life principle is present in the fundamental laws of physics
Feedback systems exist at the molecular level
Exactly the same pattern exists in whole organisms at the macro level
Reproduction and selection precede the formation of the cell
Organisation and feedback must precede the development of the cell
The organisational field is comprised of magnetic scalar waves
The evolutionary process is driven by energetic input from solar neutrinos
So ‘life’ forms a continuum from the most fundamental particles all the way up the scales of size, functionality and complexity, to a complete organism and even further to entire ecosystems.
The simplest diagram to illustrate this is shown below. Energy from the sun fuels a closed loop control system composed two components: the physical and the organisational. Additional ‘information’ from the environment includes a selective process and is instrumental in adaptation to that environment.
It is this feedback type structure that should be regarded as the fundamental building block of life, not a molecule, not an atom and not a stand-alone electric field.
The physical element is comprised of the atoms and molecules that we are familiar with. These have limited organisational properties. Maybe, just maybe, they can form regular crystalline structures without instruction, but they will still need some energetic input.
Atoms tend to cluster together to form the discrete structures of molecules which have only a local effect on neighbouring molecules and even this is poorly understood.
The rigid physical structure of atoms is necessitated by strong electrostatic forces and this makes them somewhat inflexible and highly unsuitable as carriers of information.
Books and papers on biology talk a lot about self-organisation in an attempt to explain the construction of complex molecules apparently from scratch. There is nothing in the standard description of an atom however that suggests it is capable of such activity and no explanation at all of why the basic elements of life should organise into a protein and sometimes into RNA.
The organisational element is comprised of the scalar waves as described by Konstantin Meyl.
Scalar waves are stable harmonic states of magnetic potential vortices. They are flexible but robust to perturbations, making them ideal carriers of information. A dividing in two of such a field structure results in a duplication of all the information carried therein, meaning we have the phenomenon of reproduction even at the sub-atomic level of reality.
In biological systems, these magnetic fields are responsible for organisation at all scales of reality from gene expression at the molecular level up to the functioning of the human brain as a scalar wave computer at the macro level.
In the case of the brain, a single scalar wave complex is causal in coordinating the physical behaviour of several billion neurons. What is the brain?
Physical-etheric duality. The equations of Konstantin Meyl’s Theory of Objectivity predict the existence of various stable states of spinning field vortices. We can group these into two main categories, electric and magnetic, as depicted below:
Electrical eddy currents. On the left is depicted a spinning electrical eddy current, ‘I’, which results in a static magnetic dipole field ‘H’ with north and south poles. This is the fundamental unit of what we call ‘matter‘, it is an electron. All physical matter in the universe is composed of agglomerations of structures such as this.
Magnetic potential vortices. The diagram on the right is similar but now the structure presents as spinning magnetic field ‘U’, with an associated static electric dipole ‘E’ as a result. These entities are described by Meyl as having very different properties to the eddy currents, They can move through matter completely unaffected or they can interact with it, having an effect on it whilst at the same time being affected by it, depending upon precise field conditions.
The magnetic and electrical aspects of reality are therefore coupled tightly together, with electrical movement creating magnetism and magnetic movement creating an electrical field . In reality, both magnetism and electricity are dual aspects of the same universal field which is self-creating, self-stabilising and self-organising.
Everything in the universe is made of these structures, with the eddy currents constituting the physical matter that we see and measure and the magnetic vortices providing an invisible organisational field. The two aspects of the field affect each other in a self-referential feedback loop which constitutes an adaptive cybernetic learning system:
“The connected regulatory circuit structure provides the matching answer: cybernetic systems, which usually and as is well-known strive to a state of balance, get their target value from their dual “partner”. It is crucial that correspondingly dual systems are self sufficient and can form and develop independently out of themselves without target values of a third side. This basic principle of cybernetics undoubtedly is brilliant.” – Scalar Waves p 181 (Konstantin Meyl)
In living systems, the organisational principle has adapted enough to form an effective etheric body which sustains the physical body throughout its life. Biologists have described ‘self-organisation’, ‘vitalism’, a ‘dynamic kinetic stability’ etc. to explain the effects they see, but we now have a credible physical mechanism.
Consider this videoof a neutrophil chasing a bacterium. It has no nervous system and no brain, eyes, or musculature and yet it reacts instantly and meaningfully to each change of direction the bacterium makes. Scalar waves are used here as a communication medium and as cognitive system. The whole colony here has a single unified etheric body.
Information is passed through the water matrix to the neutrophil whereupon it is immediately interpreted via a scalar-wave attractor system. The output from the attractor is transferred to the physical body of the cell and energetic input from neutrino transduction allows for amplification and the manifestation of the observed physical movement.
The phantom leaf effect showed that a portion of leaf could be photographed even after it has been physically removed from both the leaf and the camera set up. This is explained by the persistence of a bio-field that is separate from the physical molecules of the leaf.
The bio-field has ‘leaked’ from the leaf into the perspex material of the preparation slide which is an electrical insulator and therefore ideal for the conduction of magnetic scalar waves.
So a bio-field exists within bacteria and plant life and is in constant communication with the etheric body of the environment as a whole. The presence of a ‘residue’ in the perspex implies an energy loss from the leaf which means there must be a constant renewal of that energy and we assume that is via absorption of solar neutrinos.
Information in the form of scalar waves has multiplied and has persisted in a separate physical medium. Not much has happened because that medium is not responsive to that structure but it could conceivably act as a transporter for such information.
Water vortices. This short video shows the behaviour of water vortices which are similar in structure to magnetic field vortices. The water rings show many of the qualities we require for an etheric body and help to visualise components of the bio-field.
They fulfil may of the requirements of ‘life’ itself and indeed most definitions of life fail to exclude water itself as a living being!
The vortices are self-sustaining and self-repairing
They move independently of their surroundings but will adapt to it
They are shown merging together
They are shown dividing (reproducing)
Energy input from neutrinos is possible according to Meyl
Ripples on the ring constitute information storage and can be passed on to children (see Telegony)
Cymatics. In this video John Stuart Reid demonstrates that it initially takes about 6 seconds for a water droplet to stabilise to a particular cymatic pattern in response to a to a specific acoustic frequency, but that this time is lessened after each exposure. The relationship between stimulus and response has somehow been encoded into the water.
Explanations for this seem to elude physicists so the we therefore need some new physics. The water has a bio-field, an etheric body that stores the information and recalls it at a later time, translating it to physical organisation of the water molecules. We therefore have feedback between the physical state of the water and a persistent memory-field, a dynamical learning system even before a single cell has evolved.
The cymatic patterns thus made look remarkably similar to early forms of life.
Jacques Benveniste 1935-1994 performed some experiments (here) which were later repeated by Luc Montagnier and others, whereby water was subjected to electromagnetic radiation and the resulting ‘memory’ was used to organise nucleotides into a DNA sequence.
The precise meaning of this result is not understood, but Konstantin Meyl has an explanation whereby the frequency generator will not only output the desired frequency but will also generate scalar waves as an artefact. These waves will have the form of a vortex and will assume a consistent chirality according to the laws of physics.
If similar waves are produced by discharge from our ionosphere then we have a possible explanation for the spontaneous assembly of helical molecules within either the oceans or atmosphere.
Stefan Lanka is claiming in an interview that DNA is materialised ‘out of the nothing, without a template‘ and in a separate essay ‘What is life?‘ that first come the nucleic acids which accumulate energy, followed by the sugars which are used to store that energy. The organisation and materialisation of these molecules is surely via scalar waves and neutrinos?
“All bacteria, cells and tardigrades that have a circular nucleic acid are theoretically immortal, since this, when wetted with water, immediately generates energy again.” – Lanka
Because the circular molecular structure hosts a toroidal water-wave that acts as an antenna for solar neutrinos; this is where the energy comes from.
Corentin Louis Kervran 1901-1983 found many examples of the transmutation of one base element to another. This starts arguably in granite rocks and primordial clays and continues with bacteria in the soil creating their own calcium. A balance is achieved and plants start to thrive on the newly created mineral diet and again transmute more elements.
An entire ecosystem mediates between the indigenous minerals in the underlying bedrock and the requirements of a mammalian population which in turn can apparently manufacture most of their own minerals from a few basics.
How are the base elements in a human being balanced and how are they transmuted? Potassium seems to be created from sodium as and when necessary from the concentrated energy arising out of mere body heat. Some additional process over and above normal metabolism is surely at work here?
The primordial soup is now not a mixture of complex molecules brought to life by a lightning bolt, but a collection of basic minerals coupled to an informational bio-field to form a closed loop adaptive learning system. It is fuelled by sunlight, neutrinos and field vortices caused by discharge from the ionosphere.
The structure of the scalar waves is at least as important as the arrangement of the physical molecules and it is this bio-field that forms the organisational framework for life at all stages and is the true source of continuity, stability and innovation in all evolutionary processes.
Energy falls on a mixture of minerals and water and transmutation begins
The elements thereby formed are those propitious for life processes
Molecular complexes begin to form from scalar wave instructions
Competition for minerals begins results in molecular selection
It is the organisational infrastructure that is selected for – the scalar waves
Stable, successful structures persist, unstable structures do not
If a physical piece of soup breaks from the mass then it carries a copy of the bio-field with it and we have pre-cellular reproduction – evolution speeds up
The bio-field is continuous throughout the whole of evolution
The bio-field learns to reproduce by itself and even initiate movement
Evolution and innovation happen according to the laws of the etheric body – not by random variations of the physical body
The etheric body operates according to attractor patterns and closed loop feedback systems. It will provoke activity in terms of physical structures that are least-energy or maximal-likelihood solutions, giving the impression of purposeful (teleological) or ‘directed’ behaviour.
“Information is the structure of a scalar vortex” – Konstantin Meyl
“All results of the evolution in the biosphere that have arisen between the ‘capacitor plates’ of the earth itself and its ionosphere can be regarded as structured capacitor losses, which also apply to humans” – Konstantin Meyl
On the crucial stages in the origin of animate matter — S Lifson “Life and its origin are shown to be one continuous physicochemical process of replication, random variation, and natural selection. Since life exists here and now, animate properties must have been initiated in the past somewhere. According to the theory, life originated from an as yet unknown elementary autocatalyst which occurred spontaneously, then replicated autocatalytically. “ “The changing environment exerted a selective pressure on autocatalysts to replace dwindling reactants by accumulating sequels. Sequels that were incorporated into the autocatalytic process became internal components of complex autocatalytic systems. Primitive forms of metabolism and organization were thus initiated. They evolved further by the same mechanism to ever higher levels of complexity, such as homochirality (handedness) and membranal enclosure. Subsequent evolution by the same mechanism generated cellular metabolism, cell division, information carriers, and a genetic code. Theories of self-organization without natural selection are refuted.“ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9010131/
The DNA delusion is the idea that a string of nucleic acids is responsible for almost all inherited features of an organism and moreover, that this is an established scientific theory supported by experimental evidence. Nothing like this is remotely true and the confusion arises from the conflation of two related but nevertheless different hypotheses.
The historical roots of the problem lie in the fact that there are two separate ‘theories’ of inherited characteristics which both use words such as ‘gene’ ‘, ‘genome’, ‘genotype’ and ‘phenotype’. Sometimes the words mean the same thing and at other times they have different meanings, thus allowing conflation of two separate conceptual frameworks and enabling discussions of the two as if they form a single coherent and proven theory.
William Johannsen (1957-1927) coined the terms phenotype and genotype in 1909 and referred to a gene as that ‘something’ which was responsible for inherited characteristics. No biological mechanism was identified, a gene was simply some repository of information that would find its ‘expression’ in the formation of a new organism looking fairly similar to its parents.
“No hypothesis about the nature of this ‘something’ should be postulated or supported by it .. The word ‘gene’ is completely free of any hypothesis ; it expresses only the established fact that in any case many traits of the organism are determined by specific, separable, and thus independent conditions.” – Wikipedia
Johann Friedrich Miescher (1844-1895) had discovered DNA in 1869 but after Crick and Watson characterised it as a double helix in 1953, scientists began to speculate that this could be something to do with inheritance and evolution. DNA became, without any evidence, to be described as the ‘Book of Life’ or a ‘Blueprint for life’.
In their excitement, scientists began to describe segments of DNA now as ‘genes’ and to explain that the way that proteins were created from DNA as ‘expression’.
“Gene expression is the process by which information from a gene is used in the synthesis of a functional gene product that enables it to produce end products, proteins or non-coding RNA, and ultimately affect a phenotype.” – Wikipedia
The problem here is that DNA sequences are described at best as ‘data’ as they don’t become ‘information’ until they are interpreted as having ‘meaning’. The interpretation process happens outside of the DNA strand itself, seems to be at liberty as to which portions of the DNA it chooses or discards and is even free to interpret the same piece of DNA in different ways depending upon many factors which are again outside of the DNA molecule itself.
The concept of information is somewhat abstract. You cannot see information and so the characterisation of DNA base pairs as ‘information’ is very much a matter of interpretation itself and rather prejudices the reader in favour of the thesis that is being put forward.
Since genes are ‘expressed’ differently according to context, one valid interpretation of this is that the DNA code of a gene is just ‘nonsense (just a sequence of CGAT bases) until it is interpreted functionally‘ – Denis Noble
Denis Noble (1936-) “Many of the problems with the Modern Synthesis in accommodating the new experimental findings have their origin in neo-Darwinist forms of representation rather than in experimental biology itself“ “The concepts therefore form a biased interpretive veneer that can hide those discoveries in a web of interpretation.“
In his paper “Evolution beyond neo-Darwinism: a new conceptual framework” Noble regards the problems neo-Darwinism as essentially un-fixable as the whole theory has become experimentally unfalsifiable and “All parts of the neo-Darwinist forms of representation encourage the use and acceptance of the other parts.” So any part of the theory really depends on the other parts and no single part has been or could be proved independently of the others.
“Neo-Darwinism is a gene-centred theory of evolution. Yet, its central notion, the ‘gene’, is an unstable concept. Surprising as it may seem, there is no single agreed definition of ‘gene’. Even more seriously, the different definitions have incompatible consequences for the theory..” – Noble
“Of course, no-one now thinks that there is a simple 1:1 relation (between genes and traits) , but the language of direct causation has been retained” – Noble
“In fact, it can be shown that, in the case of some of the central concepts of ‘selfish genes’ or ‘genetic program’, no biological experiment could possibly distinguish even between completely opposite conceptual interpretations of the same experimental findings” – Noble
Calico cats. It is claimed by some sources that every cell of the body contains the same DNA and that this DNA is responsible for determination of the entire phenotype. In the case of calico cats however this cannot be the case as we can see three different colours of fur ‘determined’ by the same genes.
The explanation given is that the DNA somehow contains sufficient information to create all three colours but that other developmental and ‘epigenetic’ factors are responsible for the geographic distribution of the colours. To put it more clearly, DNA is not the determinant of the coat pattern.
Similar considerations apply to eye colour: Heterochromia
XX/XY chromosomes. There is a strong statistical correlation between say XY karyotype and a male phenotype but correlation is not causality. In the paper by DelaChapelle a patient with XX chromosomes had a male phenotype, could function sexually and could produce sperm. The sperm were not viable and he had some feminisation of body shape.
In this case then something has ‘gone wrong’ with development and this is reflected in the karyotype. What we can say however is that most the information required to create a male human being is not dependent upon a Y chromosome. So where is this information held or how is it generated?
“Human ‘XX males’ are sterile males whose chromosomes seem to be those of a normal female.” – Page et al. (If the end result is a male then what is it about the chromosome that is particularly ‘female’?)
Control of sex development “Most of the knowledge on the factors involved in sexual development came from animal models and from studies of cases in whom the genetic or the gonadal sex does not match the phenotypical sex.” – Anna Biason-Lauber
Sexual development is in two stages:
Sexual determination – gonad development at 3 weeks
Sexual differentiation – phenotypical development influenced by hormones from the gonads
“Generally speaking, factors influencing sex determination are transcriptional regulators, whereas factors important for sex differentiation are secreted hormones and their receptors.”
Interesting that there is actually no mention of genes, chromosomes or DNA in this sentence. It is observed that women who take testosterone do in fact develop masculinised features but nobody believes that testosterone contains sufficient information to create a male phenotype so it must be the case that both phenotypes are possible regardless of karyotype. Chromosomes are therefore responsible for neither sex determination nor differentiation.
From the paper we find also that a female phenotype can arise from XY chromosomes: “Patients present with normal female external genitalia, streak gonads, and XY karyotype“
DNA damage can result from both normal metabolic activities and environmental factors resulting in tens of thousands of individual lesions per cell per day. Many of these lesions cause structural damage to the DNA molecule and can give rise to mutation and altered gene expression. Wikpedia
To rephrase: “Human DNA is continually changing“.
In fact identical twins have different DNA by the time they are born and they will continue to diverge throughout life. Each of us has potentially different DNA in each cell of our body. (Stefan Lanka)
The characterisation of altered DNA as ‘damage’ suggests that there is a semi-stable ‘known’ sequence of DNA that has been altered and that can therefore be ‘repaired’. But if DNA is the definitive repository of genetic information then how can this be so? Where is the backup data kept?
Organisms are very good at buffering themselves against genomic change.” – Noble. In other words, we maintain our structural integrity somewhat independently of the content of our DNA.
So how do DNA forensics work? We can infer from watching CSI that some part of the changing genome is stable enough to represent a single individual after being extracted from dried up blood. This sequence is sufficiently different from other people for identification but similar enough to family members to recognise them as such. Amazing.
“The forensic laboratory has no control over the amount of evidence left at a crime scene or the insults to which the biologic material may have been subjected. The analysis performed therefore must be validated carefully and documented extensively before use. Also, the interpretation will often be scrutinized more stringently than routine clinical testing.” – Weedn
A Human chimera is someone with a distinct subset of cells that have a different genotype from the rest of the body. (Wikipedia) .So a female for example can incorporate cells from a male twin and live quite happily without realising it – until they get a DNA test that is..
The Dutch sprinter Foekje Dillema was expelled from the 1950 national team after she refused a mandatory sex test in July 1950; later investigations revealed a Y-chromosome in her body cells, and the analysis showed that she was probably a 46,XX/46,XY mosaic female.
In 1953, a human chimera was reported in the British Medical Journal. A woman was found to have blood containing two different blood types. Apparently this resulted from her twin brother’s cells living in her body. A 1996 study found that such blood group chimerism is not rare.
In 2002, Lydia Fairchild was denied public assistance in Washington state when DNA evidence appeared to show that she was not the mother of her own children. A lawyer for the prosecution heard of a human chimera in New England, Karen Keegan, and suggested the possibility to the defence, who were able to show that Fairchild, too, was a chimera with two sets of DNA, and that one of those sets could have been the mother of the children.
In 2002, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine described a woman in whom tetragametic chimerism was unexpectedly identified after she underwent preparations for kidney transplant. The transplant required the patient and her immediate family to undergo histocompatibility testing, the result of which suggested that she was not the biological mother of two of her three children.
The DNA content of semen from an assault case in 2004 matched that of a man who had been in prison at the time of the assault, but who had been a bone marrow donor for his brother, who was later determined to have committed the crime.
In 2008, a man was killed in a traffic accident that occurred in Seoul, South Korea. In order to identify him, his DNA was analyzed. Results revealed that the DNA of his blood, along with some of his organs, appeared to show that he was female. It was later determined that he had received a bone marrow transplant from his daughter.
Another instance of treatment-related human chimerism was published in 1998, where a male human had some partially developed female organs due to chimerism. He had been conceived by in-vitro fertilization. (Note the assumption here that the female development was caused by the XX chromosomes in contrast to the sprinter who had plenty of XY chromosomes but still retained a female body type.)
Evolution is said to be via random mutations of DNA and ruthless natural selection of the resulting (inherited) traits.
However, the thing that is selected for is essentially phenotype and this does not now appear to be very closely coupled to genotype, with transcription, translation and other epigenetic factors being equally or even more important. For Darwinian selection to work then, what is now needed is for these factors to be inherited somehow. We need transcriptional mechanisms to be somehow encoded in a stable form and to be passed down the generations – but DNA is assumed to be the genetic material.
Or as Denis Noble has put it: If we don’t have a model connecting genotype to phenotype then we don’t actually have a theory of evolution.
Mae-Wan Ho and her husband Peter Saunders have written extensively about genetics and evolution, reaching similar conclusions to Denis Noble: “Much of the problem is that neo-Darwinism appears completely invincible to falsification by observations and experiments, so much so that many doubt if it is a scientific theory at all” – Ho, Saunders
Macroevolution of form and function is ‘decoupled’ from the microevolution of gene sequences; there is no simple mapping from gene to phenotype
Useful genetic mutations are not produced at random. Instead the same non-random gene sequences are repeatedly produced by external stimuli.
The intrinsic dynamic structure of the epigenetic system is the source of non-random variations
Information flows from top down and from the cytoplasm to the genes – the opposite way to that of the Central Dogma
Natural selection plays little or no role in evolution especially in the evolution of major novelties
Epigenetic novelties are common to all individuals in a population – evolution happens to everybody at once and not to a few select individuals
Fluidity of the genome means that environment and organism are inseparable. Hence no variant is random with respect to the environment
Physical and chemical forces that generate biological patterns are independent of natural selection and require their own explanation
Morphogenesis is probably due to electrodynamic forces not ‘hox’ genes
Telegony is a process by which traits from a previous mate can be passed on to children of later mates. In one experiment, female flies who had mated with oversized males were able to pass on that characteristic to offspring of subsequent partners. So inheritance here is decoupled from the physical presence of DNA. See: Telegony
Summary
The almost magical properties that have been attributed to DNA actually preceded the description of the molecule and many have not been verified experimentally.
The picture painted by school text books, TV dramas and celebrity scientists is a long way from reality and is not supported by researchers or academics.
It seems to be typical of many papers on genetics that you can simply cross out all the references to genes and no real information is lost. Scientists stick to the idea that DNA contains genetic information and that all that needs to happen is that the instructions are followed correctly to get a complete human. However, on reading their own papers the impression is created that DNA hardly matters at all.
DNA is not the determinant of phenotype.
“Therefore, nucleic acid cannot possibly contain our inheritance! Ideas such as epigenetics (the theory of flexible heredity) are only desperate attempts to somehow justify and keep alive the old model of a material heredity in the form of genes.” – Stefan Lanka
But if DNA is not the material substance of inheritance then we are left with two burning questions:
What is the mechanism of inheritance?
What is DNA for?
We don’t know how life began and we don’t know how humans evolved, how development takes place or even how order is maintained once we reach adulthood. We don’t know how traits are inherited, how they are encoded or in what substance they persist.
Molecular Biology of the Cell (5th ed.). New York: WH Freeman. p. 963. Lodish H, Berk A, Matsudaira P, Kaiser CA, Krieger M, Scott MP, Zipursky SL, Darnell J (2004).
“Telegony is a scientific theory of heredity holding that offspring can inherit the characteristics of a previous mate of the female parent; thus the child of a woman might partake of traits of a previous sexual partner. ” – Wikipedia
This is a long rumoured phenomenon, with Lord Morton’s mare being a famous example. The mare was mated with a zebra and when later mated with a black stallion, gave birth to foals that showed some striped characteristics in their coats.
According to the Talk Page in Wikipedia, animal breeders will not breed from a pigeon or dog that has mated with a wild specimen because of the assumed effect on subsequent generations.
We need control studies and a scientific explanation:
In Revisiting Telegony, Crean et. al. mated immature female flies with male files who were larger in size because of a highly nutritious diet. When these females later mated with normal size males, the offspring were larger on average than a control population.
“Newly discovered non-genetic mechanisms break the link between genes and inheritance, thereby also raising the possibility that previous mating partners could influence traits in offspring sired by subsequent males that mate with the same female (‘telegony’). In the fly Telostylinus angusticollis, males transmit their environmentally acquired condition via paternal effects on offspring body size. We manipulated male condition, and mated females to two males in high or low condition in a fully crossed design. Although the second male sired a large majority of offspring, offspring body size was influenced by the condition of the first male.” – Crean et al
So we have the characteristic of size, an acquired characteristic (not inherited) which is then passed on to a subsequent generation apparently without being coded into DNA first.
Charles Darwin 1809-1882 of course did not believe in neo-Darwinism or inheritance via DNA as the ideas had not been formulated in his lifetime. However: “It is certain that ovaria are sometimes affected by a previous impregnation, so that the ovules subsequently fertilized by a distinct male are plainly influenced in character” – Darwin and Murray, 1868.
Darwin certainly believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics and espoused the idea of Pangenesis which is that information is collected from every part of the body and bundled up into small particles (gemmules) which circulate around the body and end up in either the spermatozoa or ova, thereby enabling the transfer of information to the next generation.
This sort of idea is needed for the inheritance of acquired characteristics. A modern interpretation would need to suppose a two way exchange of information between DNA and the rest of the body so that somatic changes could be encoded back into the germ line for subsequent inheritance.
Prior to the ascendancy of the scientific establishment, it was thought that the inheritance of desirable features had something to do with maintenance of a pure ‘bloodline’. Don’t laugh..
Pyotr Sopikov (1903–1977) performed repeated blood transfusion from black Australorp hens to white Leghorns with the result that the chicks of the white birds started to develop black feathers. The effect increased over the generations and eventually a new stable cross-breed was created.
Many other researchers reproduce similar results and found that not only physical characteristics but also behavioural traits and immune responses could be induced in chicks by blood transfusion into the parents prior to egg laying. – Liu
Inherited plumage changes
Increased weight gain in offspring
Increased reproductive success
Increased productivity
Results reproduced by Russian, Swiss, French and other scientists
Similar results with rabbits
The offspring of stressed chickens had reduced learning abilities – Liu
Induced and specific immune responses were inherited
Repeated grafting of aubergine plants resulted in a new variety
Xenia. In the picture, each sweetcorn kernel has been fertilised by a different pollen grain from a multitude of different plants and each seed will go on to form a new plant with possibly hybrid characteristics.. So here we have an immediate transfer of genetic information and an inheritable effect before inheritance has even taken place! – Wikipedia
Various mechanisms have been proposed:
Nucleic acids – functioning as Darwin’s gemmules
Proteins functioning as genes – inherited prions again acting as gemmules
Contactless information transfer from the semen to the immature ova of the fly
Foetal genes in the mother’s blood from a previous pregnancy affect the current embryo
Altered uterosome – Genetic information from the sperm somehow infiltrates the walls of the uterus and changes the genetic structure, passing on the information in subsequent pregnancies – Nejabati et al
Wave genetics – genes are field-like structures and transfer information via resonance to the physical structure of the female, leaving a permanent imprint on the genetic apparatus of the female – Gariaev et al
Peter Gariaev 1942-2020 specifically identifies genetic information as wave-like in nature as opposed to classical theory which envisages a particular ordering of DNA base pairs, or as above, a specific conformation of a prion protein. This is natural for a physicist and solves the problem of having to say how the information is stored.
The point is that molecular biologist are fixated upon a physical storage medium such as nucleic acid or proteins for information storage but less specific on how it is moved around the organism. A prion for example is a malformed protein whose shape can propagate to other proteins, thereby initiating some king of information transfer. The mechanism by which this happens though is never specified. If information is moving from one molecule to another than there must be some time in between when it still exists but is not hosted by any physical substance. The answer will be some kind of field structure whether electromagnetic, electro-acoustic or ‘other’.
“The Wave genetics considers telegony as a real life example of DNA phantom effect, and views it as a striking confirmation of Wave genetics principles. In this case the first male leaves his wave signature i.e. he “imprints” his DNA phantom in the genetic apparatus of the female. It appears that this phantom is more powerful than DNA phantoms of other males.” – Gariaev et al
Observations
The need for genetic information to be distributed to all parts of the body, for it to be mutable and for changes in any part to be registered in the sperm or ova ready for the next generation suggests a distributed field structure whose nature is unknown as are the media in which it propagates and the mechanisms by which it interacts with the physical substance of the organism.
A morphogenetic field of some sort is suspected with possibly holographic properties, meaning that all parts of the field contain information about all other parts of the field.
There is much discussion over the mechanisms by which information is inherited but less over what it is that the information represents and how it is encoded. The inheritance of ‘blue eyes’ for example is not just a bit of blue dye passing from mother to child but an entire goal oriented production process that is somehow encoded, preserved and communicated?
