Friday, May 29, 2009
THE REAL ORIGIN OF SPECIES
THE REAL ORIGIN OF SPECIES
— BIODEVELOPMENT —
(pronounced noble-arn-jillo kerra-mar-liss)
Member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Member of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Please! Darwin was a man, not a god—and, as the evidence in this dissertation proves, not even much of a scientist. The Beagle was a nineteenth-century sailing-ship, not a temple—and not an electron microscope or even Mendel's garden. The Galapogos Islands are just islands, not holy ground—and certainly not a biomolecular laboratory. Darwinism was only a small step in science, part step and part misstep, but it has been turned into a synthetic religion with a howling priesthood ready to assassinate anyone who declines to grovel before it. Darwinian priests who have read this far will already be reaching for their Kalashnikovs.
A sample of the worst of Darwin-worship appeared in an article in Science magazine in early 2009. On page 740, volume 323, the writer said that On the Origin of Species was the greatest book ever written. Tell that to Shakespeare. Tell it to Tolstoy. Tell it Einstein's superlative book on relativity. Tell it long shelves of other great books. And while you are at it tell it to Superman, Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck.
To arrive at the right conclusion you must have the fundamentals right; you must have all the basic facts. And you must adhere to the fundamental dictum in logic: 'If, if and only if the premises are true and the reasoning is true will the conclusion be true.' Otherwise you will fall foul of the corollary: 'If the premises are not true, or the reasoning is not true, the conclusion cannot possibly be true.' Darwin did not have all the basic facts, so he could not have true premises; therefore his reasoning, however powerful, could not arrive at true conclusions. He saw some recent externals and some of the fossil record, he added a wildly extrapolated guess from a glance at artificial selection, then leapt to a conclusion that does not fit the facts. He saw that the biosphere changes and progresses, which is a fact (and very obvious); he presumed a common ancestor, which was a good guess, and we now know that that too is a fact; but in trying to see the connection he went awry, because he had no idea of what was happening at molecular and cellular level. He did not know about Mendel, and he could not possibly have known about such things as epigenetics, paramutation, protein dynamics and signalling, and genetic networks. When the blind lead the blind they all fall into the ditch. Darwin led biological science into the ditch where it has lain in blind adoration and abject worship for a hundred and fifty years. What is called evolution is a fact, but Darwinism is only a theory, and a wrong one. It is time to get back on the path of observed truth and leave Darwin in the ditch where he belongs. Bury him in it, and forget his blunder.
Too many scientists do not see what they are seeing. They look down their microscopes and see Darwin smiling up at them—but he is never there. They write myths, legends and elaborate fictions, which they call scientific papers, and they fondly imagine Darwin praising them because they buttress his edifice—but it is all whitewashed chaff and chopped straw. They are like the old astronomers who believed the earth was the centre of the universe, then had to invent weird theories to explain the odd movements of the stars and planets. Galileo swept all that aside, because he built his assertions on observed truth and logic, not on received notions propped up by hubris. The best theories, the only ones that can truly be called scientific, are those that fully explain themselves. No tacked-on explanations to deal with anomalies are needed; fudges are not required. Darwinism is full of them.
Science is logical because the universe is a logical place; it has a logical foundation and structure. Therefore any scientific theory, if it is to be recognised as established truth, must also have a logical foundation and structure. If it is to fit the universe it must only have true premises, true reasoning and true conclusions.
The atom is a logical device. There are over a hundred kinds, each with its own variation on the fundamental logic. Chemistry is therefore a branch of logic—physical logic, the logic of matter (or the logic of energy, given that E=mC2 and thus that matter is cooled-down energy). The word chemistry comes from alchemy, which means 'a mingling.' Chemistry is the logic of mingling. Take atoms of substance A (premise A), mingle them with (reason them with) atoms of substance B (premise B), and thus arrive at substance C (the conclusion).
The atom is a logical device with logical processing power. Different atoms have different processing power, by virtue of their kind and the environment they are placed in—such as what they are mingled with. The molecule is a superlogical device, the biological molecule a hyperlogical device. The power of molecules is derived from the power and arrangement of their atomic components, their shape and how they are networked. The most powerful biomolecules, DNA in particular, have astonishing logical power. It is far beyond us to discover everything they can do, let alone how and why they work, and it will remain that way. Femtosecond glimpses and PCR arrays are like looking at a few frames of a movie on full zoom. They cannot tell us more than a femto-droplet of the story. We are like the four blind men who bumped into an elephant, but we are only peeping at the tips of a few hairs. The detailed social lives and histories of elephants are beyond our ken.
When we look through the microscope into a cell or a bacteria or a virus what do we see? Certainly not Darwin. We see molecules. Smart molecules. Very smart molecules. Molecules so smart that they can nonchalantly defeat all the ingenuity of medical science. Molecules so smart that they communicate, work together, store incredible amounts of data, copy themselves, and make endless variations of themselves and whatever else they choose. DNA can justly be described as a combination of all the computers, all the telephone exchanges, all the software houses, all the chip-foundries, all the disks, all the RAM, all the bio-labs and all the libraries and databases on earth. It is an extraordinarily sophisticated processing machine.
To make one molecule of it, take a hundred million common atoms—carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and phosphorus—combine them in a particular way and you have in one package a processor of staggering power. A hundred million common atoms, cleverly arranged into something uncommonly clever, which beavers away all day and every day doing whatever it does, however it does it, why ever it does it. One tiny part of its monumental cleverness is that it has scrunched its huge, 2-metre-long self down to a microscopic dot that fits into the nucleus of a eukaryotic cell with room to spare. It also sends messages to other smart molecules. Very smart messages, not piddling binary emails on TCP/IP. It sends libraries of intelligent encyclopaedic blueprints out to clever nano-factories, which build on atomic/molecular assembly-lines all the devices needed for life, double-checking them to make sure they are right and correcting or destroying mistakes. Those devices then cleverly arrange themselves into their proper functional shapes in a fraction of a second or at most a few seconds. Thousands of different molecular devices roll off the molecular production-lines in the right proportions all day and every day, are swiftly folded correctly, then jointly go about the business of life. Their cleverness is proved by the fact that our best supercomputers must run non-stop for a year just to figure out how to do that final folding for only one of them.
Intelligent, comprehensive, infinitely variable molecular messages flow between molecules, sub-cellular structures, cells and organs. Molecular emails, molecular letters, molecular books, molecular encyclopaedias and molecular libraries that contain the processed knowledge of the aeons. Messages so sophisticated and complex that we cannot figure them out. Even seemingly dumb bacteria, with their interspecies quorum-sensing governments have smarter democratic decision-making and action than any national or international body that we hubristic humans have ever conceived.
Yet all the brainwashed can see is Darwin. Dumb Darwin. Dilettantish, thick-as-a-brick Darwin. There was more intelligence in a single cell of his body than in all the Darwin-blind 'science' that has followed him. His acolytes are like Linus in Peanuts. Darwin is their security-blanket. So long as they can sit on their wee botties sucking their wee Darwinian thumbs and clutching their comfy Darwinian blankets they are happy. They exist in the dogmatic bubble of their Darwinian delusion.
And it is some delusion. It says the organism by some means undergoes small random changes, and natural selection ensures that the successful ones survive, and by such incremental changes over a long period the species improves, and other species arise from it. And the whole thing is driven by the struggle for life and the survival of the fittest. Yeah! Tinkerbell lives! All you have to do is wish. 'When you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are...!' Even a nineteenth-century fool on a dog of a sailing-ship could wish, and—hey presto!—there would suddenly be enough time in the history of the earth for enough random changes, and enough generations, and enough hit-and-missery to get from molecules in a primeval puddle to homo sapiens. Utter bunkum! There has not been time, even in the 13.7-billion-year history of the universe, to accomplish that. For it all just to have happened is not natural selection; it is infinitely impossible selection.
No, there has to be something driving the process to enable it to progress fast enough to fit the years available, and that progress has to be non-random otherwise there would be an infinite number of possibilities to work through, which would overwhelm 'natural selection.' There also has to be something working against the teensy-weensy problem of entropy. Because the development of life is a movement from chaos to order, to ever-increasing order and complexity. To achieve that, and to prevent the whole shebang from going the other way—even to get out of the primeval puddle in the first place—there has to be something powerful at work. By definition the only thing that works against disorder is logical order. So look down the microscope! What do we see? Zillions of very smart molecules, working together. Aha!
Consider again the fundamentals of what we see. The atom is a logical device. It has certain logical power, depending on which type it is, which ones it is in contact with, and other environmental parameters such as temperature, pressure, light, concentration, orientation, proximity, radiation. A molecule is a superlogical device. Its logical power is far greater than that of its component atoms, and far greater than the sum of their powers. It has infinite possibilities and thus infinite levels of power. Biomolecules are hyperlogical devices with huge logical power, processing power, and intelligence; and when working together in intelligent networks are capable of staggering feats of processing. Certain combinations of atoms make especially powerful logical processors: DNA in particular. Some elements make better biomolecular components than others—carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus, for example.
But DNA not only has stupendous processing power in real time, it also processes in multi-generational time, because it stores the results of its processing and passes them to the next generation. It thus can process across vast stretches of time, across the centuries, across the millennia, across the aeons. The biocomputer, the biological metacomputer, the bio-logical metacomputer with DNA at its core, runs open-endedly. Its processing is not interrupted by the death of the organism. It can carry on till a job is done. To use a computer term, it can run long batch jobs. Thus 'evolution' proceeds in developmental leaps. The processing has arrived at a viable conclusion and the results have been implemented—behold, the new 'printout'! Long periods are needed, because although the processing power is huge it is small compared with what has to be computed. Getting from the primeval puddle to humanity, even to a stromatolite and on to the amoeba, is no small task.
We humans are handicapped in trying to see what DNA can do because we cannot see the long-term processing, only its effect. We are also blinded and misled by our vanity. And by 'scientific' dogma. We were similarly misled by vanity when we discovered that signals go through the brain at about the speed of sound. We sneered at that as slow compared with the signalling speed in our wunnerful computers. Then we realised the staggering amount of processing going on, and that the 'slow' speed was part of the processing—that 1016 clever neural interconnects per second was a tad better than hundreds of MIPS in a PC, even thousands in a supercomputer.
In the late 1970s I was MIS manager in a major power utility in my native New Zealand. Our computer system was a local-area network, which was then a new idea in computing (invented by the Texan company that had supplied our system), so it was one of only a handful in the country. It had a very useful facility. Any node could be commanded to 'roll out', whereupon it would halt processing and dump to disk the contents of its memory—the data, the registers, which programs were running, where they were up to, etc—every aspect of its processing at that moment. When that 'roll-file' was rolled back into that machine, even another machine in another country, it would carry on from where the processing had halted. DNA does something similar at a much higher level. It can store where it is up to, pass it on to the next generation, then carry on processing. Age after age the processing continues. The species is thus intelligently improved.
DNA also experiments. It shuffles bits of itself here and there, it tries things and keeps what works. It does not have to build an organism to see what works then let 'natural selection' weed out the rubbish and also-rans. The experimentation is done in the processing, in the molecular modelling, before it is manifested in the organism. DNA is the core of a molecular laboratory. And sitting on top of its own huge intelligence and processing power is the intracellular network-processing of proteins and cellular components, then on top of that is the intercellular processing in multicellular organisms, making an increasingly able, increasingly powerful logical system as it processes and progresses through time and space.
DNA not only records and hands on the structure and functioning of an organism, it also records and hands on the knowledge of how to use them. Birds know how to fly, which is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do; although they have never seen one being built they know how to build nests in the same way that their mothers did; and even when isolated they still end up singing the right song for their species.
One cell is an extraordinarily powerful processor. The power of the trillions in our bodies is mind-boggling. Let that processing power run non-stop, dividing up the task, a bit in each generation, for decades, centuries, millennia and aeons, experimenting, self-modifying and improving, and you not only get leaps as tasks arrive at conclusions you will also get branching as new logical paths are opened up and logic builds on logic. New logical branches are developed that become new species. A major branch was from monocellular organisms to the multicellular. But that is a perfectly logical extension in a logical processing system, because it greatly increases its processing power and capability. Computing progressed from single machines to networks for the same reason.
The tree of life does not grow and branch by random changes and natural selection and the struggle for life and the survival of the fittest, then out the top comes the best outcome. All that nonsense can be disproved in three words: George W. Bush. Or one word: Congress. No, it is development by logical processing, logical progression, intelligent selection, the striving for better and more varied life, and logical-intelligent survival. Obviously, there is an element of natural selection, but that serves only to assist the fine-tuning. It is not the primary driver. It tunes pigeons, or bacteria, or cheetahs, it does not work out how to make them. They are made by logical progression. And 'natural' selection is actually a subset of logical selection, because it is the logical reaction of a logical and intelligent system to external happenstance and intelligent internal mechanisms. If logical progression comes up with a more successful organism, which then has more offspring, that is a logical outcome, but it comes after the main event. It is consequence not cause, post hoc not propter hoc; it is not the driver. The driver is logical processing, logical progression and intelligent selection.
Darwin was of course labouring under a considerable disadvantage. His electron microscope was on the blink because Faraday had not got round to inventing electricity properly yet. So poor old Charlie had to make do by joining pigeon-breeders' clubs. Which told him how to breed pigeons. But he must have nodded off in his famous armchair when he was writing up his notes, because he suddenly fancied that that was also how to breed different species. But, Mr Darwin, you can breed pigeons till you are black in the face, you can do it for millions of years, billions even, and all you will ever get is pigeons, or some variation on birds. You will never get an elephant. Or a monkey. Or a bean-sprout. Or a shrub. Or a George W. Bush. Not even a virus.
For Darwin‘s random changes to produce a new species, even to make a significant genetic change in an existing one, they have to have a string of lucky breaks that beggar belief into a state that makes global debt look like a yocto-penny. First the changes have to happen (by some mysterious means—a cosmic ray in the gonads?), and they have to be both dominant and compatible, which is not very likely, or, far less likely, recessive and the same, and they have to win the egg-and-sperm race and be passed on, then they have to be dominant/duplicate-recessive all over again, and be reproduced often enough to be take hold and be preferred, and because they need out-cross partners to avoid inbreeding their offspring into extinction, the same process needs to be happening—quite by the same staggering series of chances—in other individuals at the same time in the same generation. So at very least the same cosmic ray has to hit the gonads of the mate of the first mutant. But if mutations are random they are more likely to be bad ones, so Darwinism is saying that if by some mega-fluke one change happens to be a good one, and if by another mega-fluke it manages to survive, and if by some giga-fluke it happens at the same time in more than one individual in the same organism, and if by some tera-fluke several individuals who get the same change happen to meet and mate, and if by some peta-fluke they produce enough offspring to perpetuate the change, and if by some exa-fluke that happens often enough, you will get a good change established. What a yotta baloney! And all of that might make only one improved protein, one organic improvement, or whatever. To get a raft of random changes all happening at once, co-ordinating properly, and working together correctly would make exa- and yotta-flukes look like 50:50 chances. Just to work your way from one species to another would take so many tiny iterations that there would not be enough years in the existence of the earth to manage it. And to get from the primeval puddle to the president would need all the years since the Big Bang, multiplied by something so big that assembling a googol would look like adding up on your fingers. That‘s your queue, Tinkerbell! Dance!
On page 15 of the New York Academy of Sciences Magazine for winter 2009, under the general heading Darwin's Descendants, in a sub-article headed The Open Universe, Stuart Kauffman, Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences and Physics and Astronomy at the University of Calgary, says: 'Consider first the set of all possible proteins with a length of 200 amino acids. Since there are 20 kinds of amino acids, there are 20200 such proteins. Now consider that the universe is 1017 seconds old and has about 1080 particles in it. It is easy to calculate that, were the universe doing nothing on the Planck timescale of 10-43 seconds but making proteins length 200, it would take 1039 times the current lifetime of the universe to make all these proteins just once.' 'This means that once we are above the level of complexity of atoms, where all possible atoms exist in the universe, the universe is on a unique trajectory. We will never make all possible proteins, complex molecules, organs, organisms, social systems. The universe is indefinitely "upward" in complexity. More, when the space of the possible is vastly larger than the space of the actual, history enters.'
Therefore there must be a much faster mechanism, one that works in a non-random way, one works at the same level as cellular production and reproduction. For that, we must look for the mechanism of change in the only place it could be—the biological mechanism of life. We must look to the intelligent workings of the cell. So it is not history that enters. It is logic. Logical progression enters. Intelligent selection enters. Otherwise the infinite space of the possible makes absolutely impossible even a modest amount of increasing complexity. The number of random events needed to make productive ones in an ever more complex universe becomes impossible. Darwinism defies mathematical possibility. It is therefore nonsense.
We have been doing artificial selection for a tens of thousands of years. But we have never produced a new species. We have made endless variation on existing ones, we have bred faster horses, heavier beefstock, more gilded goldfish, better wheat, but we have not produced a single new species. The closest we came, and even those are only variations, is hybrids—which are sterile. We cannot produce a new species with artificial selection. We can only do it, if we ever get the knowledge and skill, by changing the logical processing happening at biomolecular level—we must invoke logical progression and intelligent selection.
Natural selection is not like artificial selection. It cannot be like it. It is not even close. If you want to breed a fast racehorse you get a fast mare and couple it with a fast stallion. You artificially put them together. But out in the wild they have to get together by chance. If they fail to, their speedy genes will not be dominant when they mate, so horses will never get faster. But they did. That might simply have been because they enjoyed running fast, a preferred behaviour that modified the processing and development of their genes. And faster horses mated with faster horses, not so much because the faster ones escaped predators and became numerically dominant, but because they were together, because they chose to be with those of their own speed. So the selection was intelligent, at molecular and genetic level, and at organismic level.
Although what is called evolution is a fact, that is not a word that fits the science because it means 'to unroll, to disclose'—like unrolling a scroll to reveal what is written. Ironically, 'creation' fits perfectly, because its etymology is 'to make, to increase.' And that is what is happening. The intelligent molecules, sub-cellular devices and cells are making life, striving for ever better life, changing it, increasing its diversity, and the power and range of its expression. But because both words are loaded with so much vituperative baggage I shall use 'biodevelopment,' which is both accurate and neutral. Likewise 'developed', unlike 'evolved,' is an accurate representation of the facts, because that is what is happening. Genetic changes do not evolve. They are developed by logical processing, logical progression and intelligent selection. The process is active, not reactive/passive. An organism develops a new characteristic like a scientist doing a dissertation; it does not evolve like a politician in a party swamp. Changes are developed logically and intelligently; they are not blind reactions to chance occurrences, cosmic accidents, or whatever.If there are reactions they are are logical and intelligent—the biomolecular machinery is forever trying new structures and different logical pathways and keeping the successful ones.
Darwinism says the evolutionary experiments are done in the flesh, and what is successful stays. Biodevelopment says they are done at molecular level, and what is proved successful is produced in the flesh. Darwinism is random, blind, hit-and-miss. Biodevelopment is focused, logical and intelligent. Darwinism is dumbly reactive. Biodevelopment is intelligently active. The universe of life is does not revolve round the mythical Darwinian dartboard. It revolves round real logic and real intelligence. There has not been enough time in the universe to try unlimited organic and organismic possibilities and keep the successful ones, but by adding logical processing the way-points can be reached without actually trying any organism. Then the only ones that will be tried are the ones that will have a good chance of success. Logic filters out the rubbish, just as the brain filters out mental rubbish as we sleep—processing, rejecting the poor results, keeping the good, making new links. Therefore what happens as we sleep is a compressed artefact of the biodevelopment process. It is what you would logically expect to be happening in an organism made and shaped by logical progression and intelligent selection.
'Evolution' is a fact, although biodevelopment is a far better word, but whatever you call it it is an undeniable fact. And I have direct, real-time, empirical, hands-on experiential proof of molecule-to-organism evolution. So no one can tell me it is bunkum. It is a verifiable fact, a repeatable process, one that has now been repeated so many times that even though the empirical evidence is incontrovertible its repeatability puts it beyond the strangest quark of doubt. And it has been peer-reviewed countless times.
About sixty years ago two New Zealanders developed, independently, small packets of intelligent molecules in sophisticated private laboratories. By chance they met, and merged their packets. The results were astounding (but were never published in any scientific literature, because the developers did not realise the significance of their work). First the joint packet formed a living, single-celled organism, capable of absorbing molecular nutrients. That cell (to be a tad anthropomorphic) pondered for a time on life, the universe and everything, then, being nutritionally secure, made a decision. It grew, then split, and became a two-celled organism. That, it decided, was fun, so it repeated the process, and thus became a four-celled organism. By repeating that growing-and-splitting process it was not long before it was having a ball. After time it had become an organism that looked like an immature fish (it had gill-slits), then it looked somewhat like a proto-chicken, and in just three months it looked like a miniature human being. Six months later I was born, with trillions of cells, all neatly differentiated and organised into organs (which Mozart rightly called 'the king of instruments'). In short, I myself have experienced, at high speed, what had been developed and perfected over billions of years by logical molecular processing and progression and intelligent selection. I had developed from molecules to man. But instead of starting in a puddle, which is not the best environment if you are making the choice with logical intelligence, I used my mother's belly. It was much cosier, and less in danger of being slurped up by passing cows. Which in New Zealand, where there are tens of millions of cows, is something every Chicken Licken fears. Mothers, however, are seldom slurped up. That would be illogical, and cows are too intelligent.
This process has I understand become a cottage industry, going on all over the world. Two-person laboratories are repeating it, peer-reviewed by aunts and uncles, everywhere. Unfortunately, some elements of it have become mere entertainment, on a par with going to the movies and eating a muffin—but the Law of Unintended Consequences dictates that not every outcome of it is as intelligent as its fundamentals...
If it takes a supercomputer running flat-out for a year to work out protein-folding for just one protein, it should not surprise us that molecular and cellular processors took decades, centuries, millennia or aeons to calculate complex organic and organismic changes, and work out sophisticated logical solutions. Complex processing tasks take a lot longer than simple ones, so biodevelopment processing took a long time to work out how to make a large, complex organism like us. It took a lot less time to work out how to make a virus, a bacterium, an amoeba, etc. But once the process had been worked out, and more intelligent components had been built, it could be repeated at high speed, so now it can get from molecules to a man in nine months flat.
So everyone of us is living proof of biodevelopment. That is how we live: we learn, we progress. We begin as a collection of molecules, then logically progress to a single cell, then its logical biomolecular machinery progresses to multiple cells and organs, which logically grow to completion, then we progress by the learning process of life. We learn to adapt to new circumstances, as do our molecules, our genes and our cells.
The molecular component of our lives is of course vital—literally. And there is constant communication from that most basic level to the level of conscious thought and action. For example, essential to the proper functioning and inter-relationship of biomolecules are the water molecules in which they are immersed and which dance round them like so many worker-bees. When the proportion of water falls below the optimum the message goes up the line—and we head for the tap. The woolly-bear caterpillar (Grammia incorrupta—obviously not a politician) deliberately eats plants loaded with toxic pyrrolizidine alkaloids because they help it overcome infestation with the larvae of parasitic tachinid flies. It thus medicates itself. Its biomolecules have worked out what they need and send the message up to its brain. Then there are the pregnant women get cravings, even for handfuls of earth, so it is reasonable to assume that the molecular workforce is short of trace-elements and needs a fundamental fast fix. That up/down relationship is also true in over-arching ways—we are self-programming at organismic level because we are self-programming at biomolecular level.
There is also much other empirical proof of biodevelopment, because nature is full of proof, and it is not surprising to see a steady stream of it is emerging from the scientific literature—albeit unacknowledged. The thinking that finally led to this dissertation began long ago, but as I at last began to put it together many studies that support it were published. The first two appeared in Science magazine in early 2009. Other supporting studies soon flowed in and piled on the proof. But the distorting power of those antique Darwinian spectacles ensured that none were seen for what they were.
In a study published in Science volume 323, February 6 2009 at page 746, titled Is Genetic Evolution Predictable? David L. Stern and Virginie Orgozogo said (page 750): 'Although mutations are thought to occur randomly in the genome, the distribution of mutations that cause biological diversity appears to be highly non-random.' 'Gene function, gene structure, and the roles of genes and gene products in genetic networks all influence whether particular mutations will contribute to phenotypic evolution.'
I doubt that they would have said 'appears' if the Darwinian blindspot did not exist, but those mutations are indeed not random. They are the deliberate results of logical processing, logical progression, feedback/feedforward loops to and from the genome and intelligent selection as the organism strives for a better life; they are the results of constant experiment at all levels—the biomolecular, the genetic, the organic and the organismic. We have a feedback/feedforward relationship between the fundamental, molecular-cellular intelligence and the organismic intelligence. The need or desire of the organism, being what it wants/needs for a better life, alters genetic processing and ultimately genetic structure and function. Underlining that point at about the same time in a study published in Nature, Philip Goulder, an Oxford University immunologist, said, 'HIV is extremely adept at adapting to the immune response in human populations that are most effective at controlling it' [emphasis added]. HIV has changed, it has processed a new result, it has intelligently selected a more effective existence for itself.
In a study published in Science volume 323, issue 5918, February 27 2009 at page 1201, titled RNA Polymerase IV Functions in Paramutation in Zea mays, Erhard et alia said in their conclusions (page 1204): 'Our results point to a largely unknown facet of RNA metabolism by which homologous chromosomes can interact to affect gene regulation and heritable epigenetic change. Given that Rmr6 is required for both paramutation and normal maize development, its identification as ZmRPD1 illustrates that Pol IV plays a broader role in the biology of domesticated maize than in the eudicot Arabidopsis.' 'This finding establishes a long-anticipated link between paramutation, developmental gene control, and heterochromatin function.' 'Identification of other genes influenced by rmr6 mutations thus promotes new avenues for understanding these fundamental differences in plant development strategies and the role of paramutation in normal gene function.'
The on-line summary of that study clarified the point: 'Paramutation is a non-Mendelian inheritance of traits caused by epigenetic modifications in the genome that can be passed on to the next generation. Erhard et al. (p. 1201) revealed that the Rmr6 gene in maize, which is required for the maintenance and establishment of paramutation, is an RNA polymerase (Pol IV) that is also involved in epigenetic silencing in another plant, Arabidopsis thaliana. Unexpectedly, Pol IV did not synthesize RNA, but appeared to have a genome-wide effect, possibly mediated by competition with other polymerases.'
It is ironic that an article intended to help celebrate Darwin's 200th birthday (for which he could not be present in a socially acceptable form) and the 150th anniversary of his Origin of Species should have proved him dead wrong.
Harmon et alia, in Evolutionary diversification in stickleback affects ecosystem functioning, Nature 2009; DOI: 10.1038/nature07974, found that organisms change their environment. Differences in the organism engineer changes in their environment to assist their achieving a better quality of life, another aspect of the intelligent feed-forward/feedback mechanism.
On the 13th of May 2009, under the headline Old Genes Can Learn New Tricks, Horned Beetles Show, ScienceDaily reported research by Moczek and Rose at Indiana University Bloomington that had been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), which challenged a popular view among evolutionary biologists that fundamental genes do not acquire new functions.
'They found', reported ScienceDaily, 'that two ancient genes were "co-opted" to help build a new trait in beetles: the fancy antlers that give horned beetles their name. The genes, Distal-less and homothorax, touch most aspects of insect larval development, and had therefore been considered off-limits to the evolution of new traits. In the two horned beetle species that Moczek and Rose studied, the genetic sequences of Distal-less and homothorax were hardly different, suggesting that the two genes have retained their unique identities because of selective pressures not to change. What changed was not the genes themselves, but when and where they are turned on.'
The report said the two genes are so old that most insects have them. They are categorised as 'upstream' regulatory genes because they influence a wide variety of genetic processes in insect cells, such as the development of legs, antennae and wings. In the horned beetle they are likely to have hundreds to thousands of downstream targets. A tenuous consensus among evolutionary biologists was that such genes—upon which so many different and important processes depend—could not be easily modified, because any modification would affect countless aspects of the insect's development, any one of which could be bad for the individual insect, reducing its fitness relative to its peers. Moczek and Rose's PNAS paper confirmed one aspect of that: the genes were sequenced and found to be highly conserved, or unchanged, not only among the individuals of each beetle species they examined, but also between two species, Onthophagus taurus (Italy) and Onthophagus binodis (South Africa), whose lineages diverged about 24 million years ago. But they found that Distal-less and homothorax are used by both species in the development of beetle horns. Distal-less affects the development of thorax horns (which form just behind the head) and head horns; homothorax influences only the development of the thorax horn. 'The evolution of novel features does not require the evolution of novel genes,' said Moczek. 'A lot of innovation can grow from within the organism's genetic toolbox.'
Moczek and Rose found that all developmental genes are candidates for such recruitment, not just the genes whose development functions are considered non-essential or limited in their effects. Moczek said the PNAS paper may compel evolutionary biologists to revisit pleiotropy, the foundational concept of one gene influencing many traits. 'It may be that our understanding of pleiotropy is too simplistic,' she said. 'Now that we know fundamental development genes can acquire new and diverse functions with relative ease, pleiotropy may not be nearly as constraining as we have thought.'
Why should it be? Those molecules are smart. And if the Darwinian colouring and mindset is removed from that report its language is pure biodevelopment.
An article in Science volume 324 on at page 28, one of the series marking The Year of Darwin, titled On the Origin of Flowering Plants, said Darwin's ' "abominable mystery" threw a wrench into his theory of evolution. How did flowering plants diversify and spread so rapidly across the globe? ...some 300,000 species of angiosperms alive today shape most terrestrial landscapes and much of human life and culture. And yet this takeover, which took place about 100 million years ago, apparently happened in a blink of geological time, just a few tens of millions of years.' 'The father of evolution couldn't quite fathom it. Darwin had an "abhorrence that evolution could be both rapid and potentially even saltational," [said] William Friedman in the January American Journal of Botany'.
There is no mystery. What seems mysterious is only an artefact of Darwinism. But the dogma is so entrenched, so hardened, and the religion so pummelled into students at scientific madrasahs all over the world, it cannot be seen that the impenetrable wall is actually a veiled highway. People with a blindspot cannot see much, or far...
It is ironic that that article in Science on the origin of flowering plants clings stubbornly to Darwinism, while at the same time using the language of biodevelopment. Take this excerpt on page 31: 'Some think the answer lies in genes: duplications that gave the angiosperm genome opportunities to try out new floral patterns, new chemical attractants, an so forth. This flexibility enabled angiosperms to exploit new niches and set them up for long-term evolutionary success. "My own view is that in the past we have looked for one feature," says Peter Crane, now at the University of Chicago in Illinois. "Now we are realising that this huge diversity is probably the result of one innovation piled on top of another innovation." '
'Try out', 'flexibility', 'exploit', 'long-term success', 'innovation piled on top of innovation'....!?
As Winston Churchill said: 'Men often stumble across the truth, but most of them manage to pick themselves up and carry on as if nothing has happened. And Sherlock Holmes said: 'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbably, must be the truth.' In this case it is not improbable, it is just unpalatable to hardened scientific dogma. Darwin may have abhorred 'saltation', but to paraphrase Galileo: 'It leaps.' If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Even if some guy who lived a hundred and fifty years ago thumped his straw pulpit and said it was an elephant.
Then there is what Sherlock Holmes's friend Watson might have written up as The Case of the Red-eyed Fruit-flies. No, not Drosophilia that rose early to catch a flight to Honolulu; a strain of Drosophila melanogaster that have white eyes. But, as ScienceDaily reported on April 13 2009, 'if the surrounding temperature of the embryos, which are normally nurtured at 25°C, is briefly raised to 37°C, the flies hatch with red eyes. If they are crossed with white-eyed flies the following generations are partly red-eyed, without further temperature treatment, even though only white-eyed flies should be expected according to the rules of genetics.' That is saltation on steroids— Abominable!—Darwin would have been shocked to the core.
'Researchers in a group led by Renato Paro, professor for Biosystems at the Department of Biosystems Science and Engineering, crossed the flies for six generations. They were able to prove that the temperature treatment changes the eye colour of that specific strain of fly, and that the treated individual flies pass on the change to their offspring over several generations.' 'Environmental factors, which change the characteristics of an individual and are then passed on to its offspring, do not really fit Darwin's theory of evolution. According to his theory, evolution is the result of the population and not the single individual.'
But Professor Paro still says Darwin is rock-solid. No, it leaps, it leaps!
Hard on the heels of that was the announcement on ScienceDaily of a 'New nucleotide in DNA that could revolutionise epigenetics.' To adenine, thymine, guanine, cytosine and 5-methylcytosine we must now add 5-hydroxymethylcytosine. 'This is another mechanism for regulation of gene expression and nuclear structure that no one had had any insight into,' says Nathaniel Heintz, at whose Laboratory of Molecular Biology at The Rockefeller University the discovery was made. 'The results are discrete and crystalline and clear; there is no uncertainty. I think this finding will electrify the field of epigenetics. (Skirmantas Kriaucionis and Nathaniel Heintz, The Nuclear DNA Base 5-hydroxymethylcytosine is Present in Purkinje Neurons and the Brain, Science, 2009, DOI 10.1126/science.1169786).
And electrocute Darwin.
There was more fatal electricity, also on ScienceDaily, in the study of the parasite Trypanosoma brucei, which causes African sleeping sickness, and 'behaves like a thief donning a disguise. Every time the host's immune cells get close to destroying the parasite, it escapes detection by rearranging its DNA, using double-stranded breaks, and thus changing its appearance' (Boothroyd, Dreesen, et alia, A yeast-endonuclease-generated DNA break induces antigenic switching in Trypanosoma brucei. Nature, April 15, 2009 DOI: 10.1038/nature07982). As Dreesen points out, the same system is used by the antibody-producing cells, the B lymphocytes, 'to chop up and rearrange their DNA in order to destroy the virtually limitless number of foreign invaders that can infect us.' That is the scientific method working at molecular level.
Zaborin et alia in Red death in Caenorhabditis elgans caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 (10.1073/pnas.0813199106) found that a shortage of phosphate shifted P. aeruginosa from indolent coloniser to lethal pathogen when present in the intestinal tract of a stressed host.' A corresponding author of the study, John Alverdy, who is professor of surgery at the University of Chicago Medical Centre, said, 'It's almost as if the bacterium sense when to strike. That should come as no surprise, since bacteria are smart, having been around for two billion years.' He explained that bacteria seek phosphate as an important nutrient. And rather than try to look for it in the bloodstream of critically-ill patients where they would encounter armies of antibiotics and disease-fighting white blood cells, they find it inside organ tissues. That process damages and sometimes kills their hosts.
In Science volume 324, page 407, Meijsing et alia in DNA Binding Site Sequence Directs Glucocorticoid Receptor Structure and Activity summarise: 'Genes are not simply turned on or off, but instead their expression is fine-tuned to meet the needs of a cell. How genes are modulated precisely is not well understood.... We therefore propose that DNA is a sequence-specific allosteric ligand of glucocorticoid- receptor that tailors the activity of the receptor toward specific target genes.' The paper begins: 'Allosteric mechanisms have evolved to modulate protein function. Allostery can enable a protein to integrate and respond to multiple signals.'
Apart from the 'evolved' what was being described is logical intelligence at work. Allosteric action is an expression of intelligent processing, not the blind result of blind 'evolution.'
Also in Science volume 324, at page 346, Côté and Vuori describe 'precise and sequential intercellular signalling events' which direct an immune cell towards its target. 'Neutrophils are highly motile cells of the human immune system that specialise in clearing pathogens from infected tissue. Achievement of this task is no small feat. A neutrophil must relentlessly track its moving target (such as a bacterium) in a full-speed race, abruptly changing direction as needed before closing in on its prey. All this requires that the neutrophils sense very small amounts of chemicals, known as chemoattractants, which are released by the escaping pathogens.'
In Science volume 322, at pages 1644 & 1718, Aller et alia report on the functioning of P-glycoprotein (P-gp), 'a transmembrane transporter protein, which detoxifies cells by exporting hundreds of chemically unrelated toxins.' 'P-gp has unusually broad poly-specificity, recognising hundreds of compounds as small as 330 daltons up to 4000 daltons. Thus [it] has been likened to a molecular "hydrophobic vacuum-cleaner", pulling substrates from the membrane'.
A molecular pump. And a very smart one. It 'recognises.'
In Science volume 324, at page 509, Justman et alia in Tuning the Activation Threshold of a Kinase Network by Nested Feedback Loops, begin by saying, 'To respond to environmental cues appropriately, biological systems establish precise response thresholds.' They end with (page 512), 'A striking number of biological networks contain nested feedback loops, suggesting that this may be a general mechanism for modulating biological responsiveness. If multiple stimuli act on components of linked feedback loops, cells may tune their responsiveness to respond appropriately to their environment.'
That could be dismissed as anthropomorphic language, as much of the evidence presented here, but over and over again in the literature we find terms that describe intelligent functioning. Not intelligent in the sense that we use it of ourselves of course, but when entities have the ability to discern, decide and act they cannot be called anything but intelligent. The word comes from inter, between or among, and legere, to gather, to pick out, to read, and that is what myriads of biomolecules are doing both individually and in concert. Our organismic intelligence is higher, naturally, because it is built on a vast intelligent substrate of countless intelligent building-blocks, but to dismiss all that as blind is blind arrogance. Intelligence is built on logic, and higher intelligence is built on lower.
A study by Voytek and Joyce at The Scripps Research Institute, reported by ScienceDaily on the 30th of April 2009, of an artificial ecosystem in a test tube where molecules 'evolve' to exploit distinct ecological niches, was hailed as the microscopic equivalent of the Galapagos Islands and 'proof' of Darwin. It is actually proof of biodevelopment, because it shows logical processing, logical progression and intelligent selection working at molecular level at high speed. The study used molecules rather than living species because it allows 'the forces of evolution' to work over the course of days, with a trillion molecules in a test tube replicating every few minutes. But, due to the Darwinian mindset, the changes in molecules were ascribed to chance.
Joyce has been experimenting for several years with an enzymatic RNA molecule that can continuously 'evolve' in the test tube. Two years ago, Voytek developed a second, unrelated enzymatic RNA molecule with the same ability. The two RNAs were put in the same pot, forcing them to compete for common resources. The key resource, the 'food', was a supply of molecules that were needed for each RNA's replication. They only replicate if they have catalysed attachment of themselves to the food molecules. 'As long as they have ample food they replicate, and as they replicate they mutate.'
When Voytek and Joyce set the two RNA molecules head-to-head competing for a single food source, they found that the one better adapted to use it won; the less fit one vanished. Then they placed both in a pot with five food sources, none of which they had previously encountered. At first each RNA could use all five types, but none were used well. But after hundreds of generations the two adapted to use a different food. Their preferences were mutually exclusive—each molecule highly preferred its own food source and shunned the other's. And they developed different approaches to achieving their ends. One became super-efficient at gobbling up its food, a hundred times faster than the other; the other produced three times more progeny per generation. [Journal reference: Sarah B. Voytek and Gerald F. Joyce. Niche partitioning in the coevolution of 2 distinct RNA enzymes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Online April 28, 2009].
Other researchers have reported biomolecules adapting their actions in response to their experiments. They have therefore seen adaptative intelligence in real time, at biomolecular level. But they still believe Darwin.
Research by Barraclough et alia published in PLoS Biology and reported by ScienceDaily on the 20th of March 2007, challenged the assumption that sexual reproduction is necessary for organisms to diversify. The study focused on bdelloid rotifers, tiny asexual creatures that multiply by producing eggs that are genetic clones of the mother (there are no males). Fossil records and molecular data show that they have existed for over 40 million years without sexually reproducing, but the evidence of DNA-sequencing and jaw-shape shows that they have developed distinct species by adapting to differences in their environment.
'One remarkable example is of two species living in close proximity on the body of another animal, a water louse,' said Barraclough. 'One lives around its legs, the other on its chest, yet they have diverged in body size and jaw shape to occupy these distinct ecological niches. Our results show that, over millions of years, natural selection has caused divergence into distinct entities equivalent to the species found in sexual organisms.'
As the report said, the assumption that differences could only arise via random mutations in the cloning process was proved wrong, because the study showed 'that the differences are not random and are the result of "divergent selection", a process well known to cause the origin of species in sexual organisms.'
'These really are amazing creatures,' said Barraclough, 'whose very existence calls into question scientific understanding, because it is generally thought that asexual creatures die out quickly, but these have been around for millions of years. Our proof that natural selection has driven their divergence into distinct species is another example of these minuscule creatures surprising scientists—and their ability to survive and adapt to change certainly raises interesting questions about our understanding of evolutionary processes.'
The simple answer to those 'interesting questions' is that Darwinism is wrong. 'Divergent selection' is actually intelligent selection dressed in Darwinian drag; and it far better explains why they actively alter to fit different niches. To say it happened by chance mutations is poppycock.
A feature on protein dynamics in Science volume 324 on page 197ff was introduced under the heading Proteins in Motion. The text showed that it should have been headed Proteins in Intelligent Motion (but even with the observed truth staring it in the face one article in the feature still tried to force-fit it to Darwin—the triumph of dogmatic hypothesis over the facts). The introduction on page 197 said: 'The view that has emerged is that of an intricate ballet: individual proteins are in constant motion, sampling an ensemble of different conformations and perhaps changing interactive partners as they play their part in a particular biological process.' 'As progress continues in identifying proteomes and mapping interaction networks, the challenge is also to understand the molecular-level protein dynamics that allow proteins to act as receivers, switches, relays and facilitate communication from the subcellular level through to the cell and tissue levels.' That is a very good description of intelligence at work.
Then at page 199: 'Transmission of signals between cells, within cells, and from the extracellular environment to the cellular interior is essential to life.' And at page 208: 'It is now appreciated that tissue-development is executed through conserved decision-making modules that operate on multiple-length scales from the molecular and the subcellular level through to the cell and tissue level, and that these regulatory mechanisms specify cell and tissue fate by modifying the context of cellular signalling and gene-expression.'
Signalling is an irrefutable manifestation of intelligence. And 'specify', 'modify', 'execute', 'regulatory', 'decision-making' are all terms of intelligence. What is being described in all the research cited is self-programming, communicating, self-improving molecules.
Behaviour can alter the processing of a gene, so it is reasonable to say that it can learn from being repeatedly commanded to process that way, then that the DNA will change its genetic structure to make the modification dominant. It will thus be successfully inheritable, and because concurrence is a logical by-product of logical processing and logical progression, the same changes will be happening in other individuals in that species, so the modification can be reproduced and multiply. Thus epigenetic changes lead to logical processing and intelligent selection, which generate genetic changes and logical progression advances. If it were not so, that feedback mechanism would have no carry-forward in the very system that is built on it and of it. That would not be logical. If epigenetic changes do not generate genetic changes their effect would be only transient. They could have no effect on that species. Nature is not that stupid and wasteful. Those epigenetic changes are the testing of changes; the ones that give the organism a better life become genetic changes and spread.
This dissertation was finished but for the final polishing—so the previous paragraph and the one below about whale's flippers had been written—when on top of all the evidence already gathered here another hundred hefty nails were banged into the coffin of Darwinian lunacy, with a report on ScienceDaily on the 21st of May 2009 headed Epigenetics: 100 Reasons To Change The Way We Think about Epigenetics, which heralded a study to be published in the July issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology by Jablonka et alia titled Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: Prevalence, Mechanisms, and Implications for the Study of Heredity and Evolution, 2009; 84 (2): 131 DOI: 10.1086/598822.
'For years,' said ScienceDaily, 'genes have been considered the one and only way biological traits could be passed down through generations of organisms. Not any more. The article in The Quarterly Review of Biology lists over a hundred well-documented cases of epigenetic inheritance between generations of organisms, and suggests that non-DNA inheritance happens much more often than scientists previously thought.'
' "The analysis of these data shows that epigenetic inheritance is ubiquitous," write Eva Jablonka and Gal Raz, both of Tel-Aviv University in Israel. Their article outlines inherited epigenetic variation in bacteria, protists, fungi, plants, and animals. These findings "represent the tip of a very large iceberg." '
One study they cited showed higher rates of heart-disease and diabetes in the children and grandchildren of people who were malnourished in adolescence. The source of the variation in subsequent generations was not DNA. The new traits were carried on by epigenetic inheritance. The authors said the evidence for epigenetic inheritance has profound implications for the study of evolution: 'Incorporating epigenetic inheritance into evolutionary theory extends the scope of evolutionary thinking and leads to notions of heredity and evolution that incorporate development.'
Consider the nodules along the leading edge of a whale's flipper. To us they look like an ugly mistake, but it turns out that they make the flipper more efficient because they improve the way water flows over it. We were the ones who were wrong, because we like neatness, so we smooth the leading edges of aircraft wings, rudders and keels. How were those bumps worked out? How many whales would you have to go through, using only random changes and natural selection, to get that small feature right? More than ever could have existed, particularly when there is a mind-boggling array of related improvements to be worked out. But by intelligent processing, by sensing water pressure, by adjustment and experiment and inter-cellular communications and encoding the results in DNA you could get to the most efficient flipper much faster. Natural selection would then have something to work and might vary or fine-tune the result, but it could not be the primary force.
In animal behaviour, in our own behaviour, we constantly see logical progression and intelligent selection. Some intelligent, some not so intelligent, but it is still selection using intelligence. The way we live and move and have our being in our passions and our pursuits is constant evidence for logical progression, intelligent selection and the striving for better and more diverse life. We love logical progression and intelligent selection because we are built of it. We love logical trial-and-error, logical experiment and discovery till we arrive at something better because we are built of it. We love striving ever upward, individually and collectively, because we are built of it. We love making life better and better by intelligent selection because we are built of it. We love ever more powerful arguments, built of ever more logical premises and processes, because we are built of them. We do not like deviations from the logical truth because it is a fundamental betrayal of what we are. The constant striving for better life by logical progression and intelligent selection is our temporal history because it is our biological history.
Logical progression and intelligent selection is also the scientific method, which is why we love it too. Science is therefore the natural function of all life. It is part of the biodevelopment process. The scientific method is the manifestation of how we are made. We work this way because we are this way. Input, processing and output. Gather the data, process it and produce new output. Test it. If it is valid it survives.
Colonel Hunt, who led the British expedition in which the New Zealander Edmund Hillary conquered Mount Everest, was asked why. 'Because it is there,' he said. He was wrong. He wanted to climb it because life is a climber, and he was alive. If it had not been there he would have wanted to build it. Architects build skyscrapers.
It is a logical universe. Atoms, molecules, then biomolecules, viruses, bacteria, all the way up to us, is a logical progression. Matter and energy are logical. They behave in logical ways. They process space-time, they process in space-time, they manifest space-time, they create change by logical progression and intelligent selection. It is therefore logical that biodevelopment should be a logical process and a consequence of the underlying logic of the universe. Life is a logical consequence of how the universe works. Given a universe with this micro and macro structure, life was inevitable. In a large enough universe there will logically be at least one place where circumstances will enable that logic to produce that consequence. And we who are made of it and have it in high measure can apprehend the logic of atoms, molecules, life, the universe.
'I am part of all that I have met,
Yet all experience is an arch where through
Gleams that untravelled world whose margin fades
Forever and forever when I move.'
—fromUlysses by Tennyson.
Natural selection does not explain the artist starving in his garret, bent on achieving great art. It does not explain the scientist struggling on against the establishment to prove what no one knew till he thought of it—such as Galileo. It does not explain exploration or art or science or medicine. Logical progression does.
If we and our societies really were built of natural selection we would cheerfully bump off the halt, the lame and the blind. But we don't, because that is not the logic of life, which seeks to preserve it, to make it better, individually and collectively.
Ironically, Darwin's On the Origin of Species did not spring into being by natural selection. It was the result of logical progression—exploration, observation, analysis, thinking, perfecting. He is the proof, not of natural selection but of logical progression—except that his logic went ape because he did not have enough data so his premises were false. He saw only the external premise, he did not see the internal driver even though he was a living manifestation of it. He saw the reaction but not the action. His was the perverted logic of cancer not the benign logic of life.
Darwin was not only ignorant of Mendel and blind to mathematical impossibilities he also failed to see the fundamental importance of learning capacity. Organisms can learn to live in whatever circumstances they find themselves. That capacity is in everything from biomolecules to man. We change: we develop. Intelligence must be taken into account—molecular intelligence, organic intelligence and organismic intelligence. But he ignored it (he was probably doing his research in the mirror). For him it was adaptation by blind chance and natural selection, which over many generations will improve the organism or change it to a new one. But the behaviour of the organism, even a tiny one, is driven by intelligence, by exercise of logic, from the molecular to the most cerebral. The behaviour is adapted through learning and that feeds back to genetic expression and modification. It is not natural selection, it is intelligent selection—the organism participates in the improvement of its species relative to its environment. All organisms are chameleons from base to apex.
Darwinism says the organism adapts to the environment, so over millions of years you will get a different organism. But although behavioural adaptation to environmental changes is a fact of life, to postulate that over long periods of time environmental pressure will generate new species ignores the fact that environmental changes are not stable over long periods. It ignores the vastly different timescales of 'evolutionary' changes and environmental changes. Those 'evolutionary pressures' change on a far shorter timescale than organismic changes. Therefore they cannot be their cause. For them to have any effect they would have to be constant, and therefore stable, for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. That has never happened in the entire history of the earth. Darwinism is therefore logically impossible on that count too.
The biological mechanism is not driven by external environmental pressure. It is driven by its own needs relative to the environment. The environment is the internal plus the external, and the internal is the primary pressure. It is not passive reaction to outside influence, it is active internal reaction to itself in concert with the external in the process of striving for a better life. It is intelligent reaction to the environment, both the physical and the biosphere, the internal and the external—including reaction to other species, in which the same processing is also going on. Darwin saw none of that. New species do emerge, but he saw nothing but chance and natural selection invoked by external forces. He saw only reactive adaptation. He did not see active, intelligent, external exploration and adaptation, under logical constraints, ever striving for betterment. He was not thinking logically; he was blind to logical progression and intelligent selection invoked by internal processing power.
Another major problem with Darwinism is that it is impossible to select from nothing. Therefore there must first be a population to work on and select from. Darwinism is reductionist, it must reduce before it can expand, so it needs something to reduce from. Biodevelopment is progressive, logically progressive, and intelligently expansive. The tree of life is logically expansive; therefore it cannot owe its existence to Darwin. Darwinism could never get above the ground. Or even get any meaningful roots below ground. Only biodevelopment can be a tree of life, only it can grow and branch, because only it is progressive: logically progressing by logical processing and intelligent selection. Itis a tree. Darwinism is chaotic, random, all over the place; it is not a tree; it cannot be one.
Only logical progression explains why there is a tree. Ever more complex layers of logic, and thus ever more logical branches lead to increasing diversity and increasing complexity, just as atomic logic leads to the greater diversity and complexity of molecular logic, which leads to the vastly greater diversity and complexity of biomolecular logic, which leads to the infinitely greater diversity and complexity or cellular logic. Molecular and biomolecular logic is built on atomic logic; cellular logic is built on molecular and biomolecular logic; multicellular logic is built on cellular logic; organic logic is built on multicellular logic; organismic logic is built on that. Unitary logic is the foundation of collective logic, which is the foundation of ever more collective logic, and so on.
If you are still unconvinced, consider the scientific method. We build laboratories and research facilities all over the world, selecting the places by lottery and the designs by the random doodlings of chimpanzees, and by a miracle we get facilities that vary from the sophisticated to basement-workshops. We fill them with people taken randomly off the street, we set them to work in any way that happens to come to mind, and tell them to make discoveries. Once every few million years they make one, and if there just happens to be someone on hand with enough sense to recognise it as a discovery it is taken up and copied all over the world. Every scientist, of course, knows this method and religiously sticks to it. That is the admirable process of random activity and selection which has by extraordinary chance brought us to the scientific prowess of the twenty-first century. Along the way we also happened upon medicine, engineering, electronics, space-travel, etc., etc.
Bunkum! What we actually do is narrow the field of exploration by training people in science, setting them to work by external or internal impulses in a logical, focused way in well-equipped establishments, intelligently selecting and perfecting solutions that work and are proved. We logically and intelligently explore, we logically and intelligently experiment, we logically and intelligently select, we prove, we establish scientific fact, and we use that as the basis for further logical exploration and intelligent selection. The more we discover the more fields of exploration and discovery we find. Thus science branches, and sub-branches, and sub-sub-branches by an endless process of logical progression and intelligent selection. The long history of science illustrates the same logical processing, logical progression, intelligent selection and ever-burgeoning diversity that has brought about our own existence. Once one man could know all the science. Then as more and more of the logic of the universe was discovered there was more and more specialisation, more and more branches of science were developed and more and more species of scientist, by logical progression and intelligent selection.
The development of language is another good analogy. A new word or expression is invented by intelligence. Others may choose to use it. It may be further developed. Thus logical entities, by communicating, develop new ways of expressing themselves and what is accepted by intelligent selection survives.
We get speciation in organisms in the same way, by logical progression and intelligent selection over a long period. There are many logical paths that can deal with the infinite array of circumstances, even with the same circumstances. Therefore there are many species. Speciation is the logical consequence of logical processing, logical progression and intelligent selection. It is like cellular division. One becomes two by logical progression, then four, and eight, and so one. Logical paths, dividing and dividing and dividing. That is speciation. It is plainly a logical process. It is therefore a fatuous denial of the facts to say that it happens by blind chance followed by 'natural selection'—which is just a fancy name for a fluke of survival that cannot be credible.
T-cells do not try every combination possible till they come up with the one that zaps the bad stuff. If they worked that way we would be dead before they had finished. Not even if there were zillions of them, communicating (they would have to so as to avoid all trying the same thing), dealing with zillions of bad guys, we would be doomed. No, they use intelligence; they try only what seems most likely until they come up with the solution, then they scale up the necessary manufacture.
Biodiversity is a fundamental consequence of biodevelopment. Better life is impossible without it, therefore the striving for better life must include it. Life's endless variation is therefore a logical necessity, which it logically fulfils by logical progression, thus making a very neat feedback loop. The more biodiversity, the more successful the biosphere. It is logical processing and intelligent selection striving for a better life, individually and in total. (Therefore the sixth wave of extinction that we have brought about with our illogical planet-destroying actions is anti-biodevelopment and will do us immeasurable harm. We are reversing biodevelopment at an ever faster rate. Sadly, we have not yet developed enough intelligence to behave very logically.)
There is also the processing that occurs in a species due to its interaction with other ones. The same fundamental processing reacts to variations in another organism made of the same logical processing. Therefore biodiversity rises at an exponential rate. Very crudely speaking, 'group-think.' Parallel processing.
There is a vast amount of molecular processing going on all the time—logical processing at molecular level, figuring out better ways of doing things, and different ways of doing things, and encoding the results in DNA and other molecules. That is the fundamental of speciation—exploratory logical processing making and recording discoveries. Self-programming is part of life. We know that, but because of Darwin we ignore it. 'Men often stumble over the truth, but most of them manage to pick themselves up and carry on as if nothing has happened.'
On page 317, volume 324, of Science under the headline 'Darwin's Egg' there is a photograph of a cracked egg collected by 'the great man'—cracked because he put it into a box that was too small. That is a nice bit of unintentional humour and acid comment; for in publishing his foolish theory Darwin certainly laid an egg, and it was cracked because he was careless about packaging it in something that it fitted—like the facts.
If we really were working at random to make discoveries and allowing only those that by 'natural' selection were found to work, there would not be enough time in the universe, let alone human existence, to discover anything, let alone anything of significance—even if we managed to exist in the first place. To rely on that method would be insanity. It is equally insane to say that if you give random changes and 'natural selection' enough years you will arrive at human beings. So why do scientists worship Darwin? It is monstrous that that looney fiction, that pseudo-scientific, unmathematical, illogical propaganda has been allowed to survive for a hundred and fifty years. That is not survival of the fittest. It is anti-logical, unintelligent artificial selection, a damnable tumour. It should be excised from human knowledge ASAP.
In excising Darwinism we should also excise its terminology and replace it with true terms—with 'biodevelopment', 'logical progression', 'logical processing', 'logical progression', 'intelligent selection', and 'developed'. We should say genes process and produce, not express; we should say they develop not mutate, which has overtones of changes, often untoward, caused by outside influences. In short, we should replace with active words the passive/reactive ones. As Winston Churchill said, 'We build our houses then our houses build us'—and it is the same with words. The words we use, the words we choose, shape our thinking and our views. We must remove the blinkers of Darwinian language if we are to excise every cell of his cancerous 'discovery.'
If Darwin had never lived and we had to work out the origin of species from what we see down our microscopes, what would we postulate? Darwinian evolution or biodevelopment? Random changes and natural selection, or logical processing, logical progression and intelligent selection? But Darwin gets in the way, hence the weird fudges. For instance, evolutionists once said the eye evolved in stages from less sophisticated ones. Now they say the same gene is expressed in different—i.e., better—ways. But that is logical progression and intelligent selection at work, not evolution. Darwin always gets in the way. He blinds our eyes and blocks our ears. We say superbugs outwit our antibiotics, but do not hear what we are saying—that the bugs are smart. They are showing us logical processing and intelligent selection at work, but we do not see it. Of course, part of the reason we resist calling them smart is human vanity. We dislike thinking we can be outsmarted by a molecule. But we can. And just as well. Otherwise we would not exist. Even simple chemistry has greater logical power than we can fathom. And biochemistry has a power and intelligence far, far above it. So we see the logical progression, we work out the logic of things, we see the constant improvement, we see the order, yet because of the Darwinian Black Hole from which no light emerges we call it random. Pure chance. Even though simple maths says there has not been enough time in the universe to have tried all the possibilities out of the infinite number of random events needed to find the ones needed to produce us. That cannot be shouted often enough at the Darwinian faithful: random evolution cannot be fast enough, therefore it has to be non-random development. 'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.' It is high time we scuttled the Beagle.
To summarise, before taking a different track through the same material and coming to a close, organisms cannot develop within a species or branch into new species in Darwinism, because a factor must be genetically dominant and close enough to be compatible before it can be passed on, and therefore recessive changes cannot be, unless by some super-miracle they happen to be duplicated in two animals at the same time. But Darwinism says a new factor happens by some random mutation, which is likely only in a single organism in a species, then it says, against reason and against Mendel, that if the new factor is successful it will be passed on. How? It does not exist in any other organism in that species, therefore it cannot be dominant in the sense of over-riding a gene for the same feature in the partner, and therefore inheritance by sexual reproduction is impossible. Therefore at least two individuals would have to change at about the same time, and mate, and both would have to have the new factor dominant,‘ both genetically and statistically; then the offspring would need to find mates, so the new factor has to arise in at least four individuals, and they would have to find each other, and the offspring would have to mate in such a way that the new factor is passed on, without inbreeding—which makes the chances against it astronomical. Therefore the development of sexual reproduction was the end of the line for Darwinian evolution, even if it had managed to get going in the first place. But logical progression, logical processing and intelligent selection, the striving for better life and greater diversity, sails on for ever. You can only get selection if you can first get reproduction. Darwinism cannot get reproduction. And its selection mechanism is so improbable and time-consuming as to be impossible.
Darwinism is based on random changes, but they may not be good ones. Whether they are or not will be determined only by the success of the new individuals, which means many generations are needed to prove them—generations that are highly improbable. There has to be a progression, otherwise the whole thing vanishes down the gurgler of entropy. Logic alone provides the necessary impetus.
The reproductive obstacles therefore add immeasurably to the already insurmountable obstacle of there not being enough time in the history of the universe for Darwinism to produce human beings. Logical progression and intelligent selection have no such problem, because the same processing is going on in more than one individual; therefore at mating there is a good logical chance that they can both contribute the same result to the offspring, and the need to rely on in-breeding is eliminated. Only if changes are not random, only if they come about by intelligent processing, could they be present in both parents at the same time and available for reproduction. Genetic dominance is a logical consequence of logical progression and intelligent selection. Blind chance has little hope of being anything but recessive, and without genetic dominance there can never be statistical dominance.
Thus life in all its splendour and diversity is not produced by natural selection; it is produced by intelligent selection. The process is not evolution, a passive process driven from without. It is biodevelopment, an intelligent process driven from within. It is not random changes under the passivity of chance, and what by chance survives stays. It is the logical consequence of logical progression. Logical, many-branched progression. That is how we are and how we live. Logical progression, via logical processing and intelligent selection. The activity of logic, then what logically can survive is produced, and what logically survives stays. It is not the struggle for life. It is living and the striving for better life (or better existence at molecular level if biomolecules are not to be considered alive). It is not survival of the fittest. It is the making of the logical, which will survive, and the survival of the logical, the survival of what works. And that biomolecular and cellular processing is being run across the generations, because genetic DNA is being passed down, so the logical processing and intelligent selection, the logical progression, can and do continue through vast stretches of time. Natural selection can only tinker with what that process produces. It can vary species, but it cannot make them, because it works from the outside in and they work from the inside out. For Darwin it was all chance and external. He was ignorant of, or ignored, the internal, although he manifested it all his life.
As we have seen it is only in biodevelopment is the reproduction of new genetic coding possible—the same logical processing is happening simultaneously in many organisms in a species by the logically predictable coincidence of their logical processing (quantum entanglement? dark matter/energy interaction? something undiscovered?). But with Darwin's random mechanism the changes can only be one-offs they are most unlikely to go anywhere. On top of that, the cosmic accident that changed an allele, or somehow constructed a new gene or combination of genes, must also make that characteristic dominant. Then the organism in which that happenstance took place must reproduce, and in such a way that the new characteristic is passed on, then the offspring must reproduce in like manner, and must multiply enough to become statistically dominant. Thus for Darwinism to work the series of chances that must occur for a new characteristic to reproduce, survive and multiply puts it beyond normal possibility. Only a miracle would overcome the odds needed for it just to reproduce. It would take a super-miracle for it to happen the infinite number of times needed to get from molecules to civilisation. Therefore Darwinists believe in miracles—indeed in miracles beyond miracles, so Darwinism is the incontrovertible proof for the existence of God... ;-)
Which introduces an important, even fundamental, aspect of the Darwin continuum. When his theory was published in 1859 there immediately erupted round it a vituperative argument between science and religion— i.e., that there is a fundamental mismatch between them, that one cancels out the other. The same argument can surround biodevelopment. That is silly. If both science and religion are true there is no mismatch. Therefore the only argument is about the truth. It cannot be about proof, or, more accurately, absolute proof, because absolute proof of anything is impossible. We cannot absolutely prove the existence of anything, let alone reason from it. Therefore the only proof available to us is relative. Relative proof is the awareness of communication. If we can communicate with something using our senses, and are aware of that, we have relative proof of its existence. Absolute proof comes down to faith. We have faith that we are what we are and know what we know. The only difference between us is that we have different levels and ranges of communication and awareness, and therefore different apprehensions of relative proof. To the man in the street the Higgs boson means nothing; to the physicist it is a penetrable mystery whose elucidation depends only on funding. But the man in the street may know far more than the physicist about other things. They apprehend different parts of the truth, and should therefore treat each other courteously. In saying that, I am not saying, as many foolishly do, that truth varies—that it is whatever you think it is, that it varies with perception. No, truth is invariable. But apprehension of it varies, therefore verbal fisticuffs are not helpful. Warfare only gets in the way of science. And a good scientist will never dismiss any theory till the disproof is irrefutable.
The question of the ultimate source of the intelligence in biodevelopment is one that microscopes cannot answer. But it does not matter. When we are conversing with an intelligent human being we do not ask, we do not need to ask, where his intelligence came from. We just accept it, and rejoice in it.
What is undeniable is the laboratory apprehension that what we see through the microscope is intelligence. Whether there is behind that intelligence what Edwin Arlington Robinson called 'that First Intelligence' is for a different apprehension, in which a microscope is useless. But both camps can, each in their own way, for their own reasons and out of their own awareness, say with the anonymous poet:
'In and out of things that seem are dancing things that are.'
But regardless of that debate, we as scientists and human beings are required to be faithful observers and reporters of the dance, not acolytes of a presumptive leader of the orchestra. Let us therefore cease the blind worship of a man born two hundred years ago and return to science. Otherwise we are not keeping faith with what we are and how we are made. We are not being true to what is down the microscope; we are not being true to the truth; we are not being true the fundamentals of the universe; we are not being true to the truth of nature and the truth of our own nature. Logical progression is the fundamental of our being, of our humanity, of our civilisation. When we betray it we cease to progress. We revert to the cancer of regression.