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.
This is a response to Clare Craig’s essay in the Daily Sceptic titled: The Unsolved Mystery of How Viruses Spread – and Why Germ Theory Isn’t the Whole Answer which asks why the epidemiology of influenza does not support the idea of viral transmission.
Clare is highly unusual amongst virus believers in taking an interest in the epidemiology of influenza and in attempting to explain it. However, this is the correct way to proceed. Evidence must be explained; this is an immutable rule of scientific endeavour. It is no good having a nice sounding theory of small particles, genetic sequences and immunity theory, if your predictions simply do not accord with reality.
If the predictions of virology are insufficient to explain the epidemiology, then there must be some additional or alternative cause of disease which leads to the patterns we see. Clare gives some plausible mechanisms for these.
Compare with the views of the emerging ‘no-virus’ movement who have worked out that no virus has ever been isolated but take no interest whatsoever in the epidemiology of disease. Andrew Kaufman has stated in his interview with Steve Kirsch that “Epidemiology is not science” and Tom Cowan is claiming that there is “no such thing as disease” but that all symptoms are really just signs of the body healing itself and are therefore beneficial.
This is no way to make progress. The epidemiology of influenza is key to its cause, as we have nothing else to work with.
The Unsolved Mystery of How Viruses Spread – and Why Germ Theory Isn’t the Whole Answer – Clare Craig [link]
The essay makes some key claims and presents arguments for each:
Viruses exist and are the cause of disease (this post disagrees)
The epidemiology of influenza does not support the orthodox view of viral spread (correct)
Some other seasonal influence is at work (this post agrees and identifies such influence as some sort of disturbance of the Earth’s magnetic field)
Evidence for viral contagion
Viral genetic material turns up in clusters of sick people. The sequences match. They change over time with new mutations in consistent ways without reverting. Even though testing is not perfect, people with positive tests are far more likely to be sick than not. – Clare Craig
This is not evidence for viral contagion.
The existence of viruses has not been proven and so it is premature to talk of ‘viral genetic material’. Moreover, ‘genetic material’ is said to be present in tissue cultures and not within living organisms; this is the whole aim of so-called viral isolation.
No virus has adequately isolated and so we can never say with any certainty whether or not a particular genetic sequence originated in a virus or somewhere else.
As a consequence of this we can never say with any certainty that changes in measured sequences are the result of ‘mutation’. All that we know is that the results of certain laboratory procedures and software routines produce somewhat reproducible results which vary over time and seem to correlate with disease. Everything else is mere interpretation.
One alternative interpretation is that the body is responding to seasonal variations of the Earth’s electromagnetic field in a stereotypical way. Sick people are in a ‘state’ where metabolism, regulatory processes and gene expression are significantly altered and something of this new state persists in the tissue culture. It is this regulatory persistence which then gives rise to the patterns we see with PCR tests and sequencing results.
Such patterns in the results are then misinterpreted as mutations. The lack of reversion may be caused by the ever changing magnetic field or by the body’s tendency to adapt to almost any stimulus and to produce a noticeably different response when it next encounters a similar stimulus.
The lack of reversion is thereby explained along with the apparent rapid global spread of novel variations in sequences which is now not caused by transmission at all but by the propagation of electromagnetic effects across the globe.
Another interpretation is that a tissue culture forms a biological system of itself which is capable of receiving and interpreting seasonal cues from the environment. In this case, the resulting sequencing results are less related to the state of the original host and more related to the laboratory procedures.
Disease correlates with season and so PCR tests correspond with both season and disease.
PCR and sequencing equipment work by measuring small changes in electrical voltage and so we cannot rule out that seasonal phenomena in the Earth’s magnetic field may have some effect upon the outcome of these procedures by directly influencing the mechanics of the equipment itself. Magnetic variations can be very strong; see the Carrington Event.
Viruses have been well described. Even if isolation methods are not flawless, electron microscopy and crystallography have shown fine-grained details including the shape of structures like the surface of the spike protein.
Viruses have not been adequately isolated and we therefore cannot say that any image seen through an electron microscope is a virus, no matter how well described the morphology. There is little point in looking at a ‘spike protein’ if you can’t demonstrate its function and can’t demonstrate transmission.
Spike proteins may be present in sick individuals but the protein arises from the regulatory status and not the other way around. The spike is a result of sickness, not the cause of it and does not itself constitute a virus.
Morphology, no matter how distinctive, is not proof of function, not proof of virus and not proof of causation of disease.
At high doses, transmission works. Human challenge trials demonstrate that viral exposure can cause illness when the dose is high enough.
The referenced link shows no human to human transmission, no transmission via breath and no transmission via droplet. It did not isolate a virus properly and therefore did not demonstrate viral exposure via any means at all.
All these arguments presuppose that the existence a virus has already been established and that such a virus has been successfully isolated. Neither of these has happened and so no transmission study is worth anything in this respect.
Genetic tracing of viruses during outbreaks shows that distinct lineages spread from person to person in predictable clusters, confirming person-to-person transmission.
No lineage has been seen to ‘spread from person to person’. Influenza occurs in geographic clusters and such a clustering is merely assumed to have been produced by transmission.
Genetic sequences are assumed to come from a virus but this is not yet proven. The tracing of a sequence is, of itself, not proof of the existence of a sub-microscopic particle containing genetic material and is not proof of any causal link between such sequences and any actual disease.
If individuals are responding in predictable ways to disturbances in the Earth’s magnetic field for example, then this will give the impression of transmission. Whole communities will get sunburn at the beach but this does not confirm person to person transmission.
This evidence explains the mechanism of viral infection. But it does not explain the timing of the waves of infection that are characteristic of many viruses like influenza and COVID-19.
No, the evidence does not explain the mechanism of viral infection.
Genetic tracing looked at group clustering, not individual mechanisms
Genetic coincidences in clusters says nothing about a mechanism
Purported morphology of viruses has no relevance to mechanism
High dose nasal inoculation is not a natural transmission mechanism
Big Fail.
Where the traditional model fails
Normal-dose challenge trials often fail. The evidence here is strong: under experimental conditions, exposure frequently does not result in illness. A recent study confirmed this again.
“Often fail”? – “Invariably fail” is closer to the truth.
Influenza comes in seasonal waves at specific locations and that is that. If you arrange a trial outside of flu season you will get no new patients. If you attempt a trial during flu season then either nobody gets ill (wrong location) or a reliable 10% of patients will get ill.
Proving actual transmission will be another Big Fail though as control groups will get as ill as the rest of them. See studies in Antarctica, submarines, cruise liners and space stations.
Hospital-acquired infections peak at the same time as cases in the community. If spread were primarily driven by close contact, we would expect a lag, as community infections peak then admissions then within hospital infections. But the expected lag does not occur. In fact, hospital-acquired infections peak before the admissions to the hospital.
Influenza is caused by exposure to antipathetic EMF whether it be from natural or man-made sources. These are invariably localised, can entrain to a single individual and can penetrate the roof of a building. There is no escape from them: Influenza is a regulatory disorder caused by changes in the weather
The conditions in hospitals with a high degree of ambient EMF, 5G monitoring equipment, patients in close proximity and lack of fresh oxygen (What causes pneumonia?) further weakens patients and expedites outbreaks in hospitals.
I asked a local covid nurse if she was worried about catching the disease. She replied: “No, nurses have very good hand hygiene” She was not worried about transmission by breath.
Doctors, nurses, dentists, care workers, shop till assistants have theoretically far greater exposure than the rest of us and should therefore be sick almost all of the time. This never happens.
Waves occur with seasonal regularity. Epidemic peaks in the UK often occur with peak deaths at predictable times of year before falling away for a time
It is often claimed that respiratory virus waves are driven by viral evolution or viral interference. In this view, waves happen when new variants arise that can evade existing immunity, which increases transmissibility and allows the virus to reinfect previously exposed populations.
The reality is .. much harder to explain by mutation or interference alone.
The timing is too consistent
In the UK and many other temperate countries, waves have arrived roughly every 13 weeks, across multiple years and virus types. This rhythm has held steady through variant shifts, travel restrictions and mass behavioural changes. Random events like mutation and competition do not produce this kind of precision.
Influenza arrives with a seasonal rhythm, strongest at winter solstice, but with smaller waves in summer, spring and autumn. The timing is slightly different for different regions and there are latitudinal patterns. Influenza and weather
Submariners are not protected from infections
Quite. Seasonal changes have an effect even when under water or in space. This suggests the presence of electromagnetic scalar waves (Tesla waves) which can penetrate all forms of matter.
Faster mutation does not speed things up
In the 24 months before December 2021, pre-Omicron SARS-CoV-2 accumulated around 20 mutations per year. From January 2022 to mid-2025, Omicron accumulated approximately 25 per year. Despite this 25% increase in mutation speed, the waves kept arriving on the same seasonal schedule.
This is because mutation is an illusion. Sequences are downstream of disease states and disease states vary strictly with the seasons. See above.
Hospitals are full of virus aerosols year-round but infections still peak and fall
An AI engine could not find an experiment that claims this and so this is likely to be an incorrect inference drawn from an unproven theory.
Viruses have not been shown to exist in hospitals or anywhere else.
Spread skips regions
Each variant of SARS-CoV-2 spread country to country following the same seasonal susceptibility patterns as influenza. Large regions were skipped entirely in early waves e.g. Eastern Europe in spring 2020 and UK, Portugal, Ireland (i.e., the west of Western Europe) in spring 2021.
This is further support for the idea that the cause of influenza comes directly from the atmosphere. We need a cause which can, at the same time coordinate a disease over a large area but which may also have definite boundaries. An outbreak may cover an area the size of a cruise liner or a whole continent.
Weather systems are a good candidate for this, being organised along the lines of cyclonic vortex structures. Such structures may cover a continent or may be focused down to something a few yards across.
The susceptibility model
The model that makes sense of these observations is one where infectious agents are necessary but not sufficient. The timing of illness must be due to something else.
Infectious agents have not been shown to exist and so cannot be considered necessary.
There must be a third factor that:
Peaks once each season (always in autumn and winter and not always in spring and summer)
Affects only a fraction of the population each season
Can spare certain regions entirely in any given wave
Is capable of synchronising illness peaks across hospitals and communities
Yes, at last we have some agreement.
The necessary factor is some sort of disturbance in the Earth’s magnetic field. Supporting evidence is that influenza outbreaks are sometimes synchronous along lines of latitude and exhibit a general movement from tropics to poles in winter. Exposure to man made EM disturbances such as 5G causes influenza in trials and the initial outbreaks of covid correlated strongly with the rollout of 5G in Wuhan, Italy and New York.
The evidence excludes certain possibilities:
Other environmental factors like electromagnetic or space weather effects have cyclical differences but these track annually, not quarterly.
No. Big mistake here to exclude space weather effects. We have:
Seasonal effects of the magnetic field including those in summer, spring and fall
The chart shows a clear correlation between the Kp index of the Earth’s magnetic field and covid cases. Covid cases in red with Earth’s magnetic field in blue (trendline in black)
This chart from Nasirpour et al. shows a clear association between pandemics and solar activity.
The immune clock
Our immune systems change with the seasons. Gene expression studies show clear and consistent shifts in immune pathways across the year – with January and July as polar opposites and transitional patterns in April and October. These changes are not subtle – nearly a quarter of genes are affected. The pattern is the opposite in Europe to Australia. In some cases, the winter and summer immune profiles are as different as those seen in entirely distinct disease states.
If there are no viruses then there is no immune system as there is nothing to be immune to!
So what are they measuring?
What is being measured is some parameters of the regulatory system and these are seen to vary across the seasons. The system gets its cues from external sources such as light, temperature and electromagnetic events. Biomarkers have been seen to vary according to the phase of the moon but nobody believes that this is because of gravity or even moonlight and so the only remaining candidate is an electromagnetic signal. See: Magnetic flux ropesThe Shnoll EffectBirth date, lifespan and diseaseFrank BrownGiorgio Piccardi
Now, as gene expression is involved, then anything involving gene expression is involved and that means almost anything.
The ‘immune system’ is regulatory in nature and phenomena such as the coordination of symptoms and sustained high temperature in influenza are surely managed by such a system as opposed to a small viral particle.
Disease is therefore a problem of regulation and regulation is receptive to cosmic rhythms: Frank Brown
Susceptibility and dose
Whatever the factors are that lead to susceptibility they must overcome the mucus barrier of the respiratory tract which is normally impenetrable to viruses.
No, because no virus is involved. Disease is the direct result of atmospheric disturbances on the regulatory system. No material substance is involved.
There are three main explanations for the seasonal cycling seen in human immune gene expression:
The viral mutation model. Immune cycling is downstream of viral exposure. Seasonal waves of infection, with everyone exposed to airborne viruses, drive immune activation, while gene expression shifts reflect that exposure.
Alternatively, gene expression, ‘mutation’ and ‘immune evolution’ are all downstream effects of atmospheric disturbances which are slightly different each year. Affected individuals adapt to specific disturbances and produce different sequencing results thereby creating the illusion of mutation. The illusion of immunity is similarly created as, having adapted to a stimulus, they will likely not succumb to a similar stimulus the following year.
Immunity studies can, to some extent, be ‘repurposed’.
Innate biological rhythm. Each person’s immune system runs on a built‑in annual clock, independent of environment or exposure.
Environmental entrainment. Immune function responds gradually to sustained environmental inputs – atmospheric, electro-magnetic or otherwise – which vary by season and location.
This one is tempting I will admit but I think that it is again incorrect; there are no built-in clocks in the human body and even the idea of ‘entrainment’ is highly doubtful.
Influenza outbreaks conform to a characteristic pattern with narrow peaks which occur close to the winter solstice but which vary in their timing from year. Such variation is not characteristic of entrainment where we would expect very precise timings with any variation taking several annual cycles to develop.
There is disease following tornadoes and earthquakes, both associated with electromagnetic output. There are associations between sferics and headaches and there are almost instantaneous outbreaks associated with humidity changes or the rollout of cell-phone technologies. These rapid responses to randomly timed exposure show that population entrainment is certainly not necessary for the production of disease.
What seems to happen is that our bodies know approximately what sort of rhythm is required and will pick one from the available sources as a timekeeper. Speeding up the metabolism of laboratory animals will not speed up the timekeeping and so the time keeping does not arise from any metabolic process.
Our bodies seem to be able to select and receive any desired rhythm from the environment but unable to produce it internally. See: Frank Brown
The fact that people in Australia have the opposite cycle of immune gene expression indicates that the rhythm is not innate.
Told you so!
Experiments on students in deep underground caves show that they can sustain circadian rhythms with no exposure to light and this has led scientists to think that the rhythm is innate. However, the experiences of astronauts and submarine crew suggest that some influence is still reaching them somehow.
The electromagnetic scalar waves as described by Tesla are said to be capable of penetrating water or rock and so these must be considered as a prime candidate for transmission of environmental or maybe ‘cosmic’ information.
Note that sferics are said to be measurable thousands of kilometres away from the source with little to no attenuation. This is a defining characteristic of a Tesla wave.
This lack of attenuation can only be achieved if the energy of the pulse is strictly contained in a finite footprint. This will clearly result in exposure to only a certain percentage of the population and will confine such exposure to limited geographical regions at any one time.
However, it could well be something we simply have not measured e.g. a seasonal atmospheric phenomenon that is invisible to our current tools.
Yes. This is the way to go.
Contemporary physics is unable to describe biological systems despite the best efforts of both physicists and biologists. Moreover, there are so many anomalies and unexplained phenomena in the world that we must conclude that physics cannot even explain physics!
This incompleteness is important. We must expect to find things that we cannot explain in conventional terms and must not panic too much. The temptation to ignore anomalies must be resisted as must the temptation to use terms such as ‘pseudo-science’ for almost anything outside of orthodoxy. Arguments such as “This cannot be true because there is no physical explanation” are now invalid.
This raises the salience of experimental observations and emphasises the importance of epidemiology. The study of pure correlation is science without a mechanism, it enables us to uncover some aspect of truth even when we have little to no idea of how things work.
Revealing the relationship between solar activity and COVID-19 and forecasting of possible future viruses using multi-step autoregression (MSAR) – Nasirpour et al. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33725302/
The chart below is from the Dissolving Illusions website and shows the decline of most so called ‘infectious’ diseases from 1840 to 1976. All diseases shown were almost extinct before the mass production of penicillin in 1944 and certainly before the first vaccines in 1957.
The vaccines cannot therefore be responsible for the abolition of these diseases, which begs the question: What is responsible?
The answer according to many people now is that these diseases were caused by some sort of poisoning and that improvements in hygiene, sanitation and workplace conditions are what led to the dramatic decline shown.
This cannot be the whole story though.
The mortality rates for scarlet fever in particular show, not a steady decline, but instead huge variations which suddenly settle down circa 1900.
These variations have two outstanding features:
Magnitude: They are of a greater amplitude than the overall average decline
Periodicity: They show clear and regular cycles
These variations are of an order of magnitude that is actually greater over a 3 year period than is achieved in a hundred year average decline. When the variations exceed the actual trend you have a problem!
What is the explanation then for these short term variations? Improvements in hygiene now seem very unlikely; how to explain a coordinated nationwide predisposition for hand-washing that comes and goes every few years? How to explain any influence that has such a cyclic nature?
Sunspot cycles and pandemics
The chart below from Nasirpour et al shows a striking correlation between many assumed infectious diseases and either high or low sunspot activity.
“Regarding the results of this study, we found that sunspots are the main cause of virus generation in the world. This research reveals that the biological and astrophysical mechanisms are related to the generation of world pandemics such as COVID-19.“
So although they still think that these diseases are caused by viral infection, the observed pattern itself is not caused by infectious spread but by the sunspot activity somehow.
Could sunspots cause disease?
First note that many of the disease outbreaks started before the sunspot maximum which tends to suggest that it is not the sunspots per se that are the cause of the outbreaks.
Mainstream wisdom is that sunspots originate from deep within the sun according to some internal process. In this case we may somehow be seeing the effects of this process at the Earth’s surface before they are visibly manifest on the Sun’s surface.
Other cosmologists see the solar cycles driven by external forces in the form of ‘galactic wave sheets’ or some such. Electromagnetic filaments between the Sun and the Earth are responsible for coupling events on Earth with those on the sun. Such filaments harness energy from the wider cosmos and propagate waves along the filament to the Sun at one end and the Earth at the other.
Sometimes effects are seen first at the Sun as solar flares and sometimes they appear as disease on Earth before the solar cycles peak.
These electric currents between the Sun and Earth will have an impact upon our weather and electrical discharge from the ionosphere will disturb the regulatory systems of our bodies thus leading to diseases of an inflammatory nature. See: Influenza and weather
Disease and magnetism
There are quite a few papers describing connections between ‘infectious’ diseases and changes in the Earth’s magnetic field. The assumption of a viral intermediary confuses the issue a bit but the correlations are always there and various mechanisms have been postulated.
This paper from Zaporozhan and Ponomarenko points the finger at altered gene expression and attempts to:
Bring attention to periodicity as a common feature of numerous biological processes and to discuss the nature of corresponding regulatory influences
Show theoretical possibility of bio-regulatory effects of magnetic fields
Outline some signalling pathways capable of implementing bio-regulatory (including genome-regulatory) functions of electromagnetic fields
Summarize our knowledge about Geomagnetic field, its principle parameters and sources of variation
Review possible evidences of regulatory influence of Solar cycles and corresponding Geomagnetic field perturbations on flu epidemic process
Describe probable mechanisms of Solar cycles and Geomagnetic field regulatory influences on virus-host interactions and other biological processes
Connections between the sun and Earth are quite surprising, with statistical correlations between the Earth’s rotation rate and solar activity deep within the sun.
“Not only the minimums of the Earth’s rotation show connections with the solar activity period, but also, as Currie (1973) showed, the rotation rate of the Earth actually correlates with the solar activity!” – Attila Grandpierre
Grandpierre notes that sometimes the change in solar activity comes first and at others it is the Earth’s variations that seem to initiate activity in the sun!
A better explanation surely is that energy accumulates in the solar filaments and propagates along the filament to cause correlated events in both Sun and Earth.
Whatever the origin of these phenomena, it seems to have the power to both cause sunspots and affect the rotational speed of the Earth; this is not a ‘subtle’ energy! From this perspective then, the idea that it could somehow be responsible for causing disease on Earth now seems a little less surprising.
The decline in disease
The chart again:
The peaks in the mortality rates for scarlet fever look to be about 5 and a half years apart, i.e. half a sunspot cycle. Now given the strong association between other diseases and sunspots, why should it not be that these cycles are also the result of electromagnetic disturbances?
Moreover, if such an explanation should be found sufficient for the larger variations in mortality then why is there any need of a separate explanation for the general decrease of mortality rates over the century? Something about the cosmos has settled down over the last century or so and the health of humanity has improved as a consequence.
The idea that the observed decline is largely to do with ‘space weather’ will seem like nonsense to many, but if it is supported by the data then it must at least be considered plausible.
Revealing the relationship between solar activity and COVID-19 and forecasting of possible future viruses using multi-step autoregression (MSAR) – Nasirpour et al https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7961325/
Mechanisms of Geomagnetic Field Influence on Gene Expression Using Influenza as a Model System: Basics of Physical Epidemiology – Valeriy Zaporozhan, Andriy Ponomarenko https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/3/938
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.
Rupert Sheldrake’s TED talk , “The Science Delusion”, listed ten points of contention concerning ‘accepted’ tenets of modern science. The presentation caused quite a stir and was “taken out of circulation by TED, relegated to a corner of their website and stamped with a warning label.” – Sheldrake
The general theme of the talk is that contemporary physics, as usually described, is mechanical, materialistic, insufficient to describe biology, inheritance or consciousness and is in any case incomplete of itself. Modern science is therefore deluding itself if it thinks it has the answers to everything or even that it could supply the answers to everything, as it is hampered by its own self-imposed constraints.
This is only partly true. There is a strong streak of ‘materialistic’ thinking in all sciences certainly but field physicsand in particular the Theory of Objectivity of Konstantin Meyl do not deal with ‘matter’ or even ‘forces’ as fundamentals of nature and therefore paint a very different picture from the one to which we are accustomed.
The desire to reject ‘materialism’ is fuelled in part by an incomplete description of what actually constitutes ‘materialism’.
The ten points:
Nature is mechanical or machine-like
Matter is unconscious
The laws and constants of Nature are fixed
The quantity of matter and energy is constant and was fixed by the big bang
Nature is purposeless and evolution is without direction
Inheritance is via the continuity of the structure of some physical substance (genes)
Memories are retained in the brain as material traces
‘Mind’ is inside the head and consciousness is just brain activity
Apparent paranormal abilities such as telepathy are the illusions of Bad Science
Mechanistic medicine is the only one that matters
3. The laws and constants of Nature are fixed Yes! Of course they are! If not then how does the universe run? How does it maintain pattern, order and stability? If the laws that maintain order are changing all the time then there must be some meta-laws that determine how these changes occur.
The alternative is that things just happen and anyone who thinks that can just give up on pretending to be a scientist.
The problem we have is not whether or not the laws are fixed but whether or not the laws and constants that scientists use to describe reality are in fact the fundamental laws and constants of reality. Countless observational oddities and internal inconsistencies suggest that they are, at best, incomplete.
The laws of physics as described by Konstantin Meyl are described by a single field equation and from this can be derived the laws of gravity, the Schrödinger equation and the laws of general relativity. So Meyl’s equation can reasonably be described as ‘fundamental’ but the other laws cannot. They are just mathematical representations of isolated laboratory observations.
The speed of light. In his talk Rupert mentions that the speed of light slowed down by about 20 km/s between 1928 and 1945 before resuming its approved value. The response of the standards authorities was to simply re-define the length of the metre in terms of the speed of light so as to correct for the difference So the speed of light is now a constant by decree (but not by observation) and length is no longer fundamental. But what about ‘time’? Is that not fundamental?
We have no direct way of measuring time and the best we can do is to count the number of oscillations of an atomic clock and declare the result to be representative of elapsed time. A big problem with this is the following chart which shows that two atomic clocks in the same room but oriented differently will keep very good time with each other – except during an eclipse!
So we are stuck with a science that somehow regards length as a variable quantity and has no reliable way of measuring elapsed time and we can therefore ask: “What then is meant by speed?” or “How on can we measure distance travelled per second when we have no stable definition of either a metre or a second?”
We have too many variables and no clear idea as to which are to be regarded as ‘fundamental’.
The solution.
Konstantin Meyl cuts through the confusion with a single field equation (below). This equation only is ‘fundamental’ and nothing else.
This is the entire equation and there are no three types of mass, no separate force of inertia, electrostatic attraction, gravity etc. and as a consequence, no need for multiple ‘constants’ to mediate between such entities.
Both time and distance and the speed of light are dependent upon field strength, with high field strength leading to a shrinking of distance and a slowing of time. Light speed can vary in absolute terms but measurements of it will remain constant to the observer because as lengths shrink, so will time slow down, giving the impression to the observer of a fixed light-speed.
The observer is now part of the experiment and will shrink or speed up along with the experimental equipment and the observed phenomena.
It is the variations of the rate of atomic clocks owing to changes in the solar neutrino stream that is likely leading to variations of the measured speed of light.
4. The quantity of matter and energy is constant and was fixed by the big bang. Classical physics is clearly struggling on this one. There can be no explanation of such an initial event in terms of known physics simply because the bang itself, having created the laws of physics must therefore precede them and hence cannot be derived from them.
According to Meyl, ‘matter’ is a stable balance of positive and negative field elements which together cancel each other out. Matter can be materialised from non-matter and can be destroyed again to leave nothing behind. The total amount of ‘energy’ in a particle is always zero and so the total amount of ‘energy’ in the universe is in fact constant and equal to zero.
Einstein’s famous E=mc² is incorrect and Tesla agreed with this, having claimed to have destroyed billions of atoms with no ill effects.
Note that Meyl’s assertions concerning mass and energy derive straight from his single field equation which therefore remains the single fundamental assertion with all other physical entities being emergent properties of those equations.
Contrast this with mainstream physics where the well studied entities matter and energy are held to be fundamentals and obeying the laws of nature but at the same time all coming from the big bang and so cannot really be fundamental. They even derive from something that is not itself part of the laws of nature, is not describable by them and is fundamentally unmeasurable, untestable and un-falsifiable.
The whole framework is topsy-turvy and badly structured. We need a single testable hypothesis but what we have a patchwork quilt thrown together from ideas which are good enough of themselves but bear not much relation to each other.
6. Inheritance is via the continuity of the structure of some physical substance (genes) This is just not true. The phenomenon of Telegony is proof of this, the page on The DNA delusion confirms that inheritance has nothing to do with DNA and the page Evolution and Inheritance puts a good case that inheritance is via some sort of informational field.
It is this field that is responsible for morphogenesis and inherited or ‘innate’ behaviour – does anybody really believe that the nest building abilities of a bird for example could be encoded in a few gigabytes of DNA?
Mainstream biology now only ascribes the function of protein construction to DNA and even then there are only 20,000 genes to encode for 100,000 proteins.
What is inherited is, in most general terms, a dynamic pattern of biological activity, or a set of rules for a molecular or neural network. Stable, dynamic patterns are best represented in terms of ‘attractors’ or closed loop control systems and the suggested physical mechanism for these is the magnetic scalar waves as described by Konstantin Meyl. They are stable, dynamic, can co-exist with matter and are not measurable by modern instruments which s why they gave been missed by scientists so far.
These scalar waves are by far the best candidate for Sheldrake’s morphic field.
A bio-field to create the shape of a snowflake? The image, taken from a Michael Clarage lecture shows distinctive looking patterns in the formation of snowflakes. At the same time it is asserted that all snowflakes are different so how do they achieve self-consistency and variety at the same time?
Physics doesn’t provide a good explanation as to how groups of billions of molecules can apparently ‘know’ what each other are doing so some new physics is needed.
The snowflakes are arranged according to some template which is going to be electro-magnetic and cymatic in nature. It looks like some force-field is creating a pattern in the way the molecules are bonding together. However Martin Chaplin claims that even this is not true, with there being no fixed pattern of bonds and instead a constantly shifting landscape of molecular connections which somehow seem to maintain a precise overall shape.
“In the case of ice the hydrogen bonds also only last for the briefest instant but a piece of ice sculpture can ‘remember’ its carving over extended periods.”
“.. the behaviour of a large population of water molecules may be retained even if that of individual molecules is constantly changing.” – Martin Chaplin: The Memory of Water
So what is it that is constant? What is it that determines the overall shape?
7. Memories are retained in the brain as material traces Ideas that the brain works by arrangements of neurons or movement of chemical currents have been ditched I think for ideas that it works by electric fields or currents but this still isn’t correct. The brain most likely works as a scalar wave processor (What is the brain?)
Scalar waves are stable of themselves and have all the characteristics required of a medium for the hosting of cognitive computation:
Parallel processing
Associative memory
Speed of light response
Energy renewed by solar neutrinos (?)
De-coupled from the physical brain
The last is particularly important. The physical brain has its own supply of energy and nutrients. Brain cells will de and be renewed. To have conscious thought somehow coupled to the physical maintenance of the brain or to even use the same processes as are used by that maintenance would surely result in chaos and confusion?
We require that cognition is kept separate from maintenance somehow. We do not want every physical change in the brain leading to, or being perceptible as, a ‘thought’ and nor can we have ‘thoughts’ requiring physical changes in the brain – this is just too slow.
The first computers used mechanical levers to implement logic circuits but they were very slow, the maintenance cost was proportional to the amount of thinking and the complexity of thought was limited by the complexity of the physical structure of the machine.
Modern computers are a big improvement, are much faster and the complexity has been factored out into the software which runs as electric currents. ‘Portable’ software means that the computations are now independent of the hardware that they are running on.
Computers do not maintain themselves however so that electric currents are available for computation whereas in the human brain, electric currents have physical consequences not necessarily related to the intent of conscious thought. Using scalar waves is therefore a much better solution for thought processes that are to be largely independent of the physical state of neurons.
One free miracle: “As Terence McKenna observed, ‘Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.” – Sheldrake
So modern science is really asking for a whole set of interrelated miracles which seem finely tuned to permit the existence of life:
“The universe looks more and more like a great thought rather than a great machine.Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter… we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” – James Hopwood Jeans (Physicist, mathematician, idealist)
“The characterization of the universe as finely tuned intends to explain why the known constants of nature, such as the electron charge, the gravitational constant, etc., have the values that we measure rather than some other (arbitrary) values. According to the “fine-tuned universe” hypothesis, if these constants’ values were too different from what they are, “life as we know it” could not exist. – Wikipedia
“The fine-tuned universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range of values, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood. Various possible explanations of ostensible fine-tuning are discussed among philosophers, scientists, theologians, and proponents and detractors of creationism.” – Fine tuned universe
So a little confusion maybe with the scientists unable to explain in terms of science how the fundamental constants arise and the creationists seizing the opportunity to preach intelligent design. However, both are basing their views on what is apparent and not what is real; both are assuming that the description they have of reality is the best available.
Konstantin Meyl provides the most consistent description of physical reality so far with his Theory of Objectivity. This is based upon a single field equation (see above) and all the ‘fundamental’ constants are derived from this so there is nothing fundamental about them at all.
Meyl has calculated, just from his single equation and with no additional input, the masses of the elementary particles and the radii of the elements [more]
So we really are in a situation now where we only need a single ‘miracle’, which is the prior existence of some medium, the behaviour of which is consistent with the field equation.
“Sooner or later even the last natural scientist will realize, that nature does not provide ‘constants’ at all. If ‘constants of nature’ did exist, as listed in textbooks and encyclopaedias, then they aren’t consistent with causality, since we don’t know the cause, why the factor should have exactly this size and no other. Behind every so-called constant of nature unnoticed is hiding a physical closed loop conclusion. (solution)” – Scalar waves p. 599
So ‘causality’ here remains within the realm of the physical world or more accurately, within the (theoretical) confines of the Theory of Objectivity.
9. Apparent paranormal abilities such as telepathy are the illusions of Bad Science The root cause of this attitude I think is not that there is lots of bad science around (there certainly is) but that paranormal phenomena have, by definition, no plausible mechanism within the accepted scientific frameworks.
This leads to a view that “If there is no mechanism then it isn’t science and so it isn’t really happening.” This isn’t quite true of physicists though. Reading books and papers on biology and consciousness written by physicists it seems that almost all of them believe in some sort of telepathy and even life after death.
The reason is that they are used to working with ‘insubstantial’ entities such as force fields, ‘information’, quantum entanglement and action at a distance. The brain is assumed to work by electric fields and these are the ideal candidate for transmission of thoughts.
Konstantin Meyl describes instead magnetic scalar waves and wave resonance as being the medium of choice for thought transference. These turn out to have precisely the properties required to describe many experiments on ESP.
Are hypothesised to be the medium for cognition
Can form persistent connections between two individuals
Can penetrate walls
Resonant connections do not diminish with distance
Connections may be stronger between related individuals (The ‘Hill effect’)
The existence of a putative mechanism now means that there is something to investigate, something to try and measure or in other words some chance of doing some proper science.
Dean Radin (pictured) is arguably at the forefront of ESP research and is mentioned by Sheldrake. He and others have tried to make a science out of PSI research by introducing rigorous controls and by attempting to remove bias by the introduction of random number generators.
The problem with random number generators however is that there is no guarantee that they are in fact ‘random’. Many are based upon some assumed random process from nature such as radio-active decay but The Shnoll Effect shows that these figures depend upon planetary alignments such as eclipses and the page Neutrinos, eclipses and plagues gives the mechanism as variations in the solar neutrino stream.
One experiment from Radin showed an apparent ability of subjects to introduce a bias into the double slit experiment by thought alone. The choice of slit for a particle to go through had a slight bias that was different from a control experiment.
Dean commissioned some statisticians to repeat the experiment and to comment on the results, [here]. Wallacczek, and Stillfried were unable to produce the results . In addition to this they tried the experiment again but this time with no test subjects at all. They found that they still got a positive result, a difference in bias between the two setups, even with no ESP attempted!
The authors offer various explanations for why this might be, including: “For example, the detection method may manifest a sensitivity to (as-yet) unknown physical factors which are beyond the ability of the particular method to reveal, track, and identify“
So variations in the neutrino stream could conceivably be influential in the irreproducibility and could even be the cause of the effects manifest in the first place.
Despite their best efforts then, ESP researchers may be discovering, not paranormal abilities, but subtle physical influences unknown to most scientists.
2. Matter is unconscious Whether or not this is true depends upon precisely what is meant by ‘unconscious’ but the page The origins of life presents an argument that there is effectively a world parallel to the physical that might be called etheric and consists of an informational field which organises and animates all physical matter.
Assumptions that there is ‘something else’ need to re-examined now, as it is entirely possible that with the recent discoveries by Meyl, we have everything we need in order to explain all of the observations and measurements that we can make of the world.
No sensible discussion on consciousness can take place until we have a reasonable definition or characterisation of: consciousnes
5. Nature is purposeless and evolution is without direction The standard view of evolution is one of small random variations of DNA leading to small random variations of phenotype which are then selected for, with propitious variant surviving to reproduce.
Keith Baverstock
Now quite apart from the fact that DNA has very little to do with inheritance (The DNA delusion), the way that neo-Darwinism is phrased somewhat skips the fact that all development must be according to the laws of physics and must involve rather stable patterns of molecular arrangement or we are finished before we have even started.
The interpolation of DNA and some imaginary transcriptional mechanism has conceptually de-coupled the evolutionary process from any physical law or principle and reduced it to theoretical randomness whilst at the same time giving the impression that almost any end product is possible. In reality though, the construction of a human being must obey some quite restrictive conditions and must be stable to perturbations at all stages of development and evolution.
The ‘direction’ of evolution therefore is towards ever more efficient ways of transducing solar energy into functional shapes and units: Evolution and entropy. Organisms use the laws of thermodynamics to their evolutionary advantage instead of fighting against them, as explained by Baverstock and Rönkkö:
“In summary, we propose that the life process is based not on genetic variation, but on the second law of thermodynamics .. and the principle of least action, as proposed for thermodynamically open systems by De Maupertuis (Ville et al. 2008), which at the most fundamental level say the same thing. Together they constitute a supreme law of physics..” – Baverstock and Rönkkö
“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
9. ‘Mind’ is inside the head Yes. Various people have postulated various levels of exotica including a whole extra dimension to house all our memories, but a magnetic scalar-wave network seems sufficient to describe consciousness.
The impression that our thoughts and visions are ‘out there’ is a clever and necessary illusion created by the structure of our cognitive system. (see video above).
The brain maintains spatial awareness by constructing a (literal) internal space with the ‘self’ at the centre. The outside world is big but the brain is small so the internal space is wrapped around in a nested torus system so as to fit it all in.
“The Regularities of Nature are essentially habitual”– Rupert Sheldrake The field equations of the Theory of Objectivity are fixed but will organise into stable and adaptive control systems at a very early stage and hence manifest as higher ‘laws’ which may well have become ‘habitual’ over a million years of evolution.
Habituation, then , is not at the roots of the laws of physics but an emergent feature of them.
R.S. gives an example of the growth of certain crystal structures which once seemed impossible but now are routine. It seems to be assumed that crystals are formed by the random banging together of molecules which fall into some natural alignment because of their regular shape but if we hypothesise for one moment that there exists a hidden field that induces organisational forces on the molecules then the situation becomes clearer.
Existing crystals lead to an attendant magnetic field which is the entity that acts as the nucleating structure, not the molecules themselves, promoting further growth. Changes in geophysical factors such as the Earth’s magnetic field or variations in neutrino stream operate on this field directly and thence on the the physical molecules indirectly, to produce the changes in the patterns observed.
The experiments of Giorgio Piccardi clearly show time variations of measurable parameters in both biological and chemical processes.
Things which seem both variable and fundamental at the same time are certainly not fundamental but ’emergent’. This is the main reason behind the Science Delusion itself:, that downstream effects have been mistaken for root causes and and variables taken for constants:
“The Science Delusion is the belief that science already understands the fundamental nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in” – Rupert Sheldrake
The HART group gives some interesting arguments as to why they are rejecting the idea that viruses do not exist. One is a flawed statistical argument and others are observations of genome sequences. None of this explains the epidemiology. This page shows why they are wrong and suggests an alternative model for influenza outbreaks.
The statistical argument is listed at number 1 and is tackled first. The screenshot below is from their website
Note that it is number 1 on their list.
Not everybody got sick as part of an outbreak and that number of people is considered “significant“
People who shared the same environment got sick at the same time – consider then an environmental cause or trigger
The majority of sufferers were part of an “outbreak” i.e. an event where many people got sick.
If an outbreak is defined as a large number of people getting sick at the same time then it isn’t surprising, given the population distribution in a city, that the majority of sick people got sick as part of an outbreak.
Shown here is a city grid of equal sized squares where some squares are densely populated and others not so. This sort of situation is ideal for studying epidemiology if only decent data were available. We can look at how many people in each cell got ill and try to correlate it with population density.
First imagine that some non-infectious pathogen is introduced into some of the cells on a completely random basis. Think of toxic gas being released, 5G death rays maybe or some sort of bio-energy beamed down from space.
We would see then that the chance of a cell showing disease in any of its residents is unrelated to the population of the cell so that a sparsely populated cell is as likely to show disease as one containing many occupants.
In this case then, disease would be correlated to location and since the release of a toxin into a densely populated cell would result in many people being sick we would see in the overall population that the majority of sick people would necessarily come from cells where there were many other sick people.
This is really just saying that the majority of people in a city come from population-dense areas.
This much is obvious. It is also precisely what is described in point 1 of the HART group’s statement above. They even attribute the illness to “having shared the same environment” as opposed to “having been with other sick people“.
Now let us fantasise about infection. If this were possible then we would expect that infection would spread more effectively in densely populated areas. We would also expect an increased likelihood of seeing disease in these areas as there are many more people to introduce the pathogen into the grid square from elsewhere.
Statistical analysis should then show a correlation between cell population and the occurrence of disease in that cell. Recall that in the first case, cells get affected at random and there was no correlation with population density; a 5G death tower does not know how many people there are living nearby.
There is the possibility then that an infection model can be proved or disproved merely by looking at some statistics.
If only somebody had thought to collect some data..
Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) was an astronomer and statistician who looked at the epidemiology of flu by studying incidence of the disease in English public (boarding) schools. Some pupils will board at the school and be in contact with each other 24-7 whilst others will go home at weekends or evenings. [paper]
All these schools have children of the same age groups, eat similar food, are subjected to the same harsh exercise regimen and engage in stereotypical social contact. Schools themselves are organised into ‘houses’ and dormitories, giving a controlled structure to the possible transmission routes.
These are ideal conditions to study incidence of influenza. Hoyle looked at epidemiological patterns as described above and found that, for example, a dormitory full of boys was as likely to demonstrate influenza as a solitary boy sleeping at home with his parents.
Hoyle believed in viruses but still concluded:
Person to person transmission is ruled out as a significant cause of the disease.
The overwhelming cause of the disease comes from ‘elsewhere’.
Low level outbreaks occur completely at random and unconnected to each other.
Larger outbreaks occur in geographical clusters which vary in size from a whole school and its environs to a single dormitory or part thereof.
A virus is ruled out as the actual cause.
Viruses are manufactured within the body in response to an external trigger.
The external trigger is some kind of ‘virion’ that comes from outer space.
[The results do not indicate food poisoning or collective detox.]
The chart below shows that population influenza is best modelled by a simple gaussian distribution with a mean around winter solstice and a 90% interval of only a few weeks.
Observations must be explained and the ‘viral model’ does not explain the epidemiology.
The members of the HART group know this and know that transmission studies have failed, but are still sticking to their model because: “The virus model explains all of the above in a way that no other proposed model can (yet).“
Other individuals have complained of a lack of a better alternative and that viruses are ‘still the best explanation‘ for what they are seeing.
Again, from the HART group: “Scientists form a model that best explains the majority of the evidence. ” So we need to explain the epidemiology.
A statistical model:
Seasonal incidence: Outside of the tropics, populations will succumb to influenza in the two weeks either side of winter solstice
Latitudinal patterns: Finer grained structure is seen along lines of similar latitude (Hoyle and others)
Local outbreaks are delineated by location and are distributed at random
No mechanism is suggested here but we have achieved:
Prediction of timing: over 95% of cases will be in midwinter although how many seems to vary a bit.
Characterisation of outbreaks as being somehow related to location (we can’t even say environment).
Better interpretation of epidemiology: The assumption that clustering implies contagion is incorrect and has been dangerously misleading.
Scope for further research: What is there that is special about certain latitudes and locations?
A model that actually fits the observed data: Other models based upon the flawed assumption of transmission have failed spectacularly.
This seems like a good basis for a model as being grounded in observed reality. We can refine it later and look for biological mechanisms to explain these patterns but the foundation should be as described above.
The HART group, by contrast seem to want to plunge straight in with assumed bio-molecular causes and to worry about the facts of disease later on. This is the wrong way round to do science: the ‘majority of the evidence‘ needs explaining.
The group is asking the virus sceptics to explain various molecular and genomic phenomena. These all sound very interesting but they do not of themselves constitute disease and have not been shown to cause any disease.
Towards a mechanism
The model described above is purely statistical in nature and may well make useful predictions but it gives us no ‘understanding’ and describes no biological mechanism whereby disease might be caused by seasonal change.
Seasonal incidence: This is so precise that the only possible way that this can be achieved by resonant entrainment to some seasonal influence, either daylight hours or maybe the Earth’s magnetic field.
Latitudinal coincidence: This again suggests the Earth’s magnetic field is involved.
Local outbreaks: Tricky. Hoyle suggests virions from outer space, I will suggest cosmic ray showers or eddies (vortices) in the Earth’s magnetic field, but I am certainly open to alternatives.
What else is it that we need to explain?
The HART group is asking to explain things like a unique RNA sequence found in people who appeared to have similar symptoms, Now nobody goes to their doctor complaining about a unique RNA sequence. We don’t need to explain this, we need to explain the symptoms.
The symptoms, even by mainstream accounts, are caused by an altered bio-regulatory state. This state (erroneously referred to as the ‘immune response’) consists of an an orchestrated sequence of events leading to symptoms that include sweating, muscle aches, elevated temperature and lasts usually five days before returning to normal.
I don’t say ‘returning to homeostasis’ because this state is managed by the body itself and is perfectly stable although not sustainable.
It is this state that causes distress and constitutes what we call ‘disease’.
For this process to fit within our model then, we are looking for some way that it is produced as a direct result of the seasonal rhythms and without the intermediary of a viral particle.
This is the research to be done. It sits firmly within the purview of bio-regulatory medicine and not so much virology or genetics.
Top-down causality is common in biology and is implemented via means of attractor systems which interpret external stimuli to effect change at the cellular and even molecular level. Attractors can be highly sensitive to rhythmic input. It is quite conceivable that people in similar physiological states can produce RNA with similar sequences.
Now since most disease is just assumed to be viral in nature it follows that most disease research is performed by virologists who are really geneticists and think almost exclusively in terms of bottom-up causality, that is to say, that a small piece of RNA has the ability to destabilise a system that demonstrates organisation and robustness to perturbation at all levels.
The idea of an attractor is not something that would readily spring to mind to one trained in biology but it is essential for the understanding of living systems. Attractors are the key to top-down causality, providing an interpretive interface between the organism and its environment.
Influenza is just a sudden phase change in an attractor state triggered by some external input. Genetic events are the end point of attractor activity, not the primal cause.
Why do symptoms differ between individuals?
This is behaviour typical of chaotic attractors. Paths will converge to the attractor but diverge on the attractor so no two people will demonstrate identical disease progression. Attractor phase states are general patterns which are not precisely definable or predictable. Attempts to refine diagnosis by increasing accuracy or number of measurements will just cause confusion as there is no meaning in these details.
Since each individual is on their own specific attractor path and in their own ‘state’ at midwinter, it is now expected that not everybody will get ill at solstice. This is natural behaviour for attractors. We would expect that there is a component of disease risk that is actually independent of other health factors; an element of ‘randomness’.
Attractor states are highly stable, making routine treatment somewhere between difficult and impossible. Phase changes can be sudden and apparently non-causal, resulting in what are usually described as ‘miracle’ cures. So miracles do happen and we now have a scientific explanation for them.
From Mae-Wan Ho
Attractors present a problem from the point of view of determinism . Their behaviour is stable and predictable insofar as they will reliably produce meaningful biological patterns that result in a robustly functioning organism. However, this behaviour is not predictable from examination of their parts and not predictable from any finite history of that behaviour. This is a hammer blow for traditional reductionist science; there will always be something incalculable and unknowable where biological systems are concerned.
Summary:
The data comes first, the explanation comes later
The mechanism of genetics is interesting but does not cause flu
Influenza is a disturbance of organisation – not cellular damage
Top down causation is provided for by attractor patterns
The presence of attractors implies a ‘cloud of unknowing’
One of the mysteries of life is the question of how organic forms seem to absorb energy and information from the environment and sequester it permanently in an orderly fashion. This is seemingly in contravention of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is often interpreted as predicting a general decrease of order in the Universe.
Scientists studying biology from this perspective almost unanimously claim that the body somehow maintains itself ‘far from thermodynamic equilibrium’, meaning that there is something special about living systems that allows them to maintain large reserves of energy and information which is not dissipated but is stored in an organised fashion in either chemical or physical processes and made available for use, as and when needed.
Keith Baverstock interprets thermodynamics and entropy in terms of their original formulation, not as an increase in disorder but rather as a movement towards a ‘least energy’ solution. This represents a de facto tendency towards an equilibrium state which Baverstock claims is now a selectable property in a Darwinian-style evolutionary process.
As an example, first consider a glass of water. The water retains its shape despite lots of Brownian motion of the molecules, owing to the fact that it is constrained within the glass. Now up-end the glass on a flat surface and lift to allow the water to flow freely. The water will fall and spread. This will be initially via gravity but will continue as Brownian motion causes the pool to spread as a statistical average of the sum of the motions of the molecules.
Now since the vibrations of the molecules are assumed to be random, there is a small theoretical chance that they all just happen to collect back together into a small pool and even draw themselves up into a glass shape. In practice though, this doesn’t happen and the water will adopt a configuration that is statistically most likely and energetically most economical; a puddle.
Now place a dry bath sponge in the middle of the puddle. The water will be drawn up against gravity and will be held suspended by capillary action. Furthermore, the shape of the water is not disordered or even tending to disorder. Instead the opposite is true; order is maintained and even increases.
No extra energy has been put into the system and energy is actually dissipated by sound waves as the water bubbles up inside the sponge. So ‘order’ here is accompanied by an energy loss as opposed to an increase, an output rather than an input. A ‘least energy’ state is achieved and maintained as an equilibrium state.
This state is not just a ‘least energy’ state but also a ‘most likely’ state from a statistical point of view.
What has this to do with evolution? Evolution is observed to proceed via a pattern of punctuated equilibrium whereby a relatively stable phenotype will occasionally be subject to a dramatic change to produce a new species before settling down again for a few hundred thousand years.
The outward form and function of animals are controlled by an internal attractor pattern and it a sudden phase change in the attractor that gives rise to new species. Once a new species has been established, minor changes in the attractor can give rise to good or bad traits for natural selection to fine tune the species to its environment.
So now let us imagine that our sponges are in a hot environment which will tend to dry them out, thus killing them and preventing reproduction and the continuation of their lineage. Sponges who manage to adopt a shape that enables the absorption and retention of the most water will have an added Darwinian advantage.
So what exactly is being selected for?
Fitness– the ability to not dry out. Enabled by..
Function – The ability to retain water. Created by ..
Form – an outward shape propitious for the retention of water. Created via ..
A physical ‘least energy’ solution for the relationship between sponge and water.
It is this last property which is the most basic, necessary and fundamental but also the one that is never mentioned by evolutionary theorists.
Organisms are not just fine-tuned to their environment but will also need to refine their own internal developmental patterns in order to achieve optimum performance.
It is no good looking at the fossil record and simply assuming that the environmental conditions were what ‘created’ a particular feature. It must be physically possible and even likely that that feature could come into being. You cannot select for something that has not yet evolved or that is unfeasibly improbable.
Therefore form must precede function and its development is thereby de-coupled from the selection of that form. The outward shape of an organism is not created by the future function or even fitness within the environment, but by the laws of physics that allowed it to happen and the laws of statistics that made it likely that it would happen.
The current theory of random mutations of DNA causing ‘traits’ in an unspecified way gives the impression that almost anything is possible and that certain features will inevitably arise if the need is great enough. Some texts will even present selection itself as a ‘driver’ of evolution, putting the cart before the horse and invoking a ‘final cause’ without regard for the mechanics of how this is achieved.
The idea that development is so incremental that it is practically parallel with selection is just nonsensical sophistry, akin to a conjuror telling you that you are seeing one thing happening when something completely different is going on right before your very eyes.
“The laws of physics must be obeyed” – Konstantin Meyl.
New species then, arise from sudden phase changes in the evolutionary attractor (see: Evolution and Inheritance) and once a species has been established, small perturbations to the attractor will tend towards a low energy solution via natural selection. The species is being ‘optimised’ to its environment. Least energy solutions are the most stable and energy efficient ways of maintaining an organism and both stability and efficiency are certainly necessary and propitious qualities as far as survival of the species is concerned.
Least energy states are probably so stable as to be irreversible. Evolutionary change has stopped and the only way to progress is for another significant phase change from the attractor.
“In summary, we propose that the life process is based not on genetic variation, but on the second law of thermodynamics .. and the principle of least action, as proposed for thermodynamically open systems by De Maupertuis (Ville et al. 2008), which at the most fundamental level say the same thing. Together they constitute a supreme law of physics..” – Baverstock and Rönkkö
Miroslav Hill (1929-2018) performed an experiment whereby cellular cultures were subjected to toxins and were seen to develop resistance to these toxins over several generations. To his surprise he found that sibling cells in a separate culture also developed some resistance to the toxin even though they had never been exposed to it.
The results were interpreted by Hill as a result of some sort quantum entanglement between sibling cell cultures enabling a distant correlation of information between the two.
The experiment is cited by Rupert Sheldrake as evidence of a more generalised morphogenetic field connecting all biological life over separation in both time and space.
A cell line was established (see above) with the white circles representing untreated healthy cultures and the grey circles representing the children of healthy cells that were separated off on a regular basis and poisoned with thioguanine. To start with the cultures either died or a cytopathic effect was observed.
After a few generations however the cultures demonstrated extended lifespans indicating that some beneficial adaptation had taken place. Note from the diagram though, that these cultures are not descended from already poisoned cultures but from healthy cultures that have never seen the poison and were kept separated from the other cultures by means of sealed containers and a distance of several metres.
The experiment was repeated with similar results using different toxins and again using high temperatures as a stressor.
The inference drawn was that the stressed cultures are adapting to the toxins and somehow influencing the main healthy cell-line as shown.
In the diagram, the time sequence is preserved to show that the grey cells are children of the white circles and are communicating with their co-existent sibling cultures (again in white).
How is this influence taking place? Hill suggests that the two sets of cells are displaying quantum entanglement so that when something happens to one culture, a response is seen in the sibling culture. He doesn’t like the idea of a physical signal travelling between the two: “If one tried to explain the adaptive response in terms of signals, the signals would have to travel from the exposed to the unexposed cultures. The results are instead discussed in terms of adaptive states and the non-separability of cellular states due to quantum entanglement of cells“.
Quantum entanglement is preferred over information transfer as an explanation because nothing really ‘travels’ from one point to another and so it doesn’t matter how far apart the two samples are or what physical obstacles are in between them; these things are irrelevant. We have, in addition, the fact that only sibling cells seem to be affected suggesting an existing ‘connection’ of some sort between the two cultures.
Rupert Sheldrake gives a slightly different interpretation (shown) which is that the poisoned cultures are communicating with each other through time and space so that each new test culture is also receiving information from a previously poisoned culture (see above) . The culture has been discarded but the memory of the adaptation persists in some universal field and is passed on via morphic resonance.
A similar experiment is described on the somewhat eccentric Chronodon website as shown in the diagram below where four related cell lines were created with A1 and A2 being sibling cultures and B1 and B2 also being siblings but only distantly related to A1 and A2.
The B2 culture was given a weekly dose of non-lethal levels of tetracycline in an attempt to build up resistance.
Each week samples were taken from all four cultures and given a lethal dose of the drug (shown in red). The results (in orange) show lethality in the control cultures A1 and A2 but marked resistance in the B2 culture and also in its sibling culture, B1.
Genetic mutations were observed to increase with exposure to toxins. The chart below shows the mutations found in response to poisoning (red), a similar but less marked response in the sibling culture (blue) and almost no mutations in the control sample.
The two responses are clearly related .. but how?
Mutation rates should be unaltered in the B1 cells but they seem to be influenced by their siblings even though the experimenters again took care to eliminate chemical or electromagnetic signals by the use of sealed jars separated by a distance of some distance.
“The inescapable conclusion seems to be that a signal was passed from the stressed populations specifically to their sibling population, which contained closer kin than the control population. Thus, the signal appears kin specific. The signal is also mysterious as it can cross solid barriers over a distance of at least one metre for perhaps up to twelve hours or more after the populations have been separated – twelve hours corresponding to the period of sub-lethal stress.“
No definite conclusion is reached but quantum entanglement is again discussed.
Bio-photon emission is thought by some to be responsible for many distant cellular interactions including the mirror cytopathic effect but both teams in the experiments above were careful to rule out the role of this type of radiation in the effects seen, so we have a completely new candidate for transmission of biological information.
Moreover, the effects seen here are not of a destructive nature, they do not lead to a deterioration of cellular structure but rather an increased adaptability. We are not seeing a mere interference with cellular communication or a disruption of cellular order but instead the reliable transmission of genuine biological information that:
Produces a predictable and beneficial effect
Modifies both behaviour and genetic structure
Increases survivability
Is quantifiable via the number of genetic mutations
Is inheritable
Is therefore significant from an evolutionary viewpoint
In other words we have evolution not by random mutation and selection but by mutation that is directly caused by the environment and adaptive to that environment. Information (a toxin) has been introduced into the cell, has been interpreted and a meaningful response has been formulated, implemented and communicated to relatives.
Time for a genuine bio-field? Both authors are suggesting a quantum connection to explain not only the communication at a distance but the apparently targeted nature of the information. It seems that not all cultures are the recipients of the information but only those that are close relatives.
This is difficult to explain in terms of current knowledge so clearly some ‘out of the box’ thinking is needed.
Quantum entanglement however is on a particle by particle basis so it would seem that this mechanism assumes a bottom up approach to cellular functioning whereas there is a lot of evidence suggesting that top-down causality is more likely. In other words, the individual particles are guided by some global organisational principal rather than that organisation being composed of the separate activities of independent particles. Baverstock
Quantum entanglement seemingly implies that the necessary information can be transferred on a molecule-by-molecule basis and that the activity of each molecule performs the same function in the sibling culture as it did in the original. So again we have the idea that biology is merely the sum of its own atoms.
What really needs to be communicated or shared between siblings is a package of dynamic network information, a modification or update to the cellular operating system. How this is going to happen is highly unclear but it is this sort of thing that will eventually be recognised as the mechanism necessary for evolutionary inheritance and the continuity of species.
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?
