[nastavak]
Intelligent Design
Darwinism has received a lot of criticism in the last decade since although Darwinism has been around since 1859, it is still unable to answer many questions related to the evolution of the species. For one thing Darwinism is unable to explain is the explosion of sudden new life forms that appeared some 530 million years ago on this planet. The abundant new higher life forms that came into existence with a higher level of biological complexity than previous life forms, required all sorts of new proteins and corresponding genes in a relatively very short time span. The explosion can hardly be explained by a spontaneous increase in the number of natural mutations of genes. It is also hard to imagine how a complete new species develops from its predecessor, since it requires an abundant amount of coherent spontaneous mutations taking place all at the same time to create all the new features of a new specie. It is also hard to conceive that nature was able to create such biological complex systems such as the eye by merely tinkering about a bit with the codons of the DNA molecule. All biological systems such as the organs, the immune system and the senses are far too complex to have come into existence by mere chance alone. The problem with these complex biological systems is that they did not gradually develop over many ‘prototypes’; these prototypes are missing in the fossil records all together.
Many new biological functions such as eyesight were spontaneous creative inventions in the evolutionary process. When more and more fossils were found in the quest to find the missing links in the fossil records, paradoxically more and more evidence was being collected that evolution took place in quantum leaps of species such as from invertebrates to vertebrates.
The development of new species requires the involvement of many new biological functions coherently at same time. For new species such as birds to emerge it is not enough to just develop feathers, it also requires lightweight bone and muscle structures. If a mutant only developed feathers, these mutants would not render a biological advantage and natural selection would eventually eliminate the new life form. We humans supposedly stem from the apes, but evolutionists were never able to really prove these assumptions.
Mathematician Fred Hoyle came up with a beautiful and credible analogy to proof that evolution can hardly be considered a lucky roulette game. He used the analogy of the three dimensional puzzle called the Rubik cube. Each face of the Rubik cube is constructed from a matrix of 9 smaller cubes per face. Each of the three layers in the face of the Rubik cube can be pivoted around both a vertical and a horizontal axis. When the puzzle is solved, all the Rubik cube’s faces will have the same colour.
Suppose we give a Rubik cube to a blind man and ask him to solve the puzzle. Hoyle calculated that the blind man requires an expected 5 x 1018 turns to solve the puzzle. Suppose he makes one turn per second then it will take him 5 x 1018 seconds = 126 billion years to complete the puzzle by chance. This is longer than the age of our universe! Now suppose we help the blind man by advising him on a yes or no for each turn he is attempting, then the puzzle can be solved in only 120 turns requiring 2 minutes to solve the puzzle.
To solve the Rubik cube we only need to align 9 * 6 = 54 smaller cubes, however to solve the puzzle of life, it requires 3.1 billion nucleotides to be perfectly aligned in the DNA strings!
Now do we still believe that evolution was the work of a blind man?
Cambridge University Professor of evolutionary biology Simon Conway Morris believes that there must be a divine cause for our evolution. His unorthodox view of a divine cause is not very popular among his colleagues. Although he does not believe that man is the splendid accident of evolution, he makes it crystal clear that he doesn’t adhere to the vision of creationists whose only truth it is that God created the world in seven days. He brings up some new and very interesting arguments. According to Morris evolution has come up with the same solution to problems many times. For instance the camera like solution of the eye has been ‘invented’ at least 6 times by completely different species that did not pass this solution on by means of exchanging genes. Simon Conway Morris shows that there are abundant examples in nature of identical convergences of biological functions, identical solutions that emerged completely independently within different species. He says that environmental factors such as oxygen, water sunlight and gravity probably narrow the possible solutions down to only a few restricted solutions. So if there is convergence in the development of biological functions, it means these convergences were no coincidence.
(5)
Another difficult question for Darwinists to explain is the sudden leap in intelligence and consciousness that occurred to the Neanderthals some 35.000 years ago. From hunting, cave living Neanderthals they made this enormous cultural and intelligent progress. By tool making, farming and animal keeping, mankind for the first time in evolution made life a lot more comfortable, now that chasing animals in the wild was no longer the only option.
One of the most important pillars of Darwinism is that gene mutations take place irrespective of external changes in the environment. The reason why the adapted species survives the changes in the environment is because they are ‘coincidentally’ better equipped to survive. Natural selection takes care that these better-equipped mutants will survive; this selection process is called the survival of the fittest.
Dr. Bruce Lipton however disagrees with this axiom of Darwinism completely and says that cells themselves have the ability to perfectly rewrite their own DNA when the external environment demands it.
Harvard geneticist John Kearns delivered proof for Dr Lipton’s hypothesis in 1988. He placed bacteria that could not digest milk sugar (lactose) in an environment that only contained lactose, so it was their only possible source for food. Instead of dying off these bacteria were able to reprogram their DNA such that they were able to survive and feed on the lactose. So here’s another source claiming that DNA reprogramming is possible!
(6)
The last thing in Darwin’s theory that may become extinct is most likely Darwinism itself, the scientific criticism is growing and alternative evolution theories are emerging. The most radical opponents to Darwinism are the creationists who simply believe in the literal text of Genesis in the Bible and fiercely debate that it was God who created Adam and Eve and all other life on Earth some eight thousands years ago (MY OBS: 6000 AGO, NOT 8000). Of course this simplistic rather fundamentalist blind belief in the Bible cannot be taken serious as the fossil records contradict it altogether.
In 1995 however a new more serious evolution theory emerged the ‘Íntelligent Design’ theory. The founder of the Intelligent Design theory is Michael Behe who launched his evolution theory in a publication titled ‘Darwin’s Black Box’.
The Intelligent Design theory states that life on Earth is the result of an intelligent design instead of by an unguided process of trial and error. The Intelligent Design theory adherents, unlike the creationists, acknowledge that life on Earth developed in both stages of gradual progress of small adaptive changes followed by spurts of evolutional leaps that can only be explained as the result of and intelligent design. (MY OBS: SEEMS SOMETHING SIMILAR AS CHATASTROPHISTS EXCEPT FOR A PART OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN)
Quantum physicist Amit Goswami is his book ‘The visionary window’ believes that the quantum leaps in the development of species may be explained by quantum science. A number of quantum scientists have created the foundation for what they call quantum evolution.
The basic idea of quantum evolution is that gene mutations take place in the quantum state and not in the classical state of Newtonian physics. Quantum super positions of gene mutations do not manifest immediately in the phenotype of the organisms but accumulate in the gene pool of the species over millions of years. Goswami mentions that morphic genetic fields could be the storage space for these quantum mutations that take place within the species.
Quantum mutations allow for an endless number of possible gene combinations taking place at the same time. Only changes in the genome of a new life form that makes biologically more sense eventually collapse from the quantum state to the classical state. He mentions that consciousness must be involved to trigger the collapse of the quantum state before the new specie emerges.
Quantum evolution could explain why transitional life forms were never found in the fossil records, since the transitional life forms only virtually existed in the quantum realm and came into existence in quantum leaps. After new species have come into existence, nature uses the natural selection process to select those genes that are available in the gene pool of the new specie that best fits the environment. However these adaptive changes of the specie to new environmental situations have always been available in the collective gene pool. So quantum evolution embraces Darwinism in the sense that it believes that the natural selection mechanism is a pressure that allows for species to adapt in the metastasis period in between quantum leaps of new species.
Unlike Darwinism believing that there is no purpose in evolution, Goswami’s theory states that there is a discernable direction in evolution from simple to more complex life forms. He believes that the consciousness choice for the collapse of the quantum potential of genes to create new species is in accord with a greater plan.
A fundamental question indeed is why did life on Earth develop from primitive single unconscious cellular life to complex human beings that eventually became self-aware? What could be the purpose of self-awareness if evolution is only about Darwin’s survival strategies of selfish genes?
(7)
The new discoveries outlined in this book of an intelligent all pervasive cosmic energy that is omnipresent in the universe and that also serves as a recording medium for information such that it can act as the storage device for morphic genetic fields of DNA preserving the genetic information of species, seems to contradict Darwinism and lends credit for the Intelligent Design and quantum evolution theories.
Also the physics of chaos theory seems to support the Intelligent Design theory of Michael Behe. The fractal attractors of chaos theory raise the philosophical question if there is purpose in the universe. Are we pulled towards a final goal? Is evolution a pulling process towards a finite end point somewhere in the future or are random mutations by chance in Darwinism still pushing us? Chaos theory seems to favor the first option.
Recapitulation
DNA’s purpose is not to serve solely as a chemical memory device for the reproduction of proteins. Russian research has revealed that we underestimated the intelligence of DNA as it acts like a bio computer and is able to store and process biological information of the metabolisms that take place in our body as well as genetic information. Most astonishing, the codon sequences of DNA can be reprogrammed by coherent frequency sources such as modulated laser light, radio waves and human emotions.
We have just started to discover the gateway functions of DNA to information fields, the bridge to what Rupert Sheldrake called the morphic genetic fields of life. (MY OBS: HM SHELDRAKE CALLED THIS MORPHOGENETIC FIELD AND DID NOT REFER TO GENES, BUT TO CREATION, CHANGE, ADAPTATION, TRANSFORMATION AND SIMILAR) Morphic genetic fields may be the true driving force behind biological evolution as opposed to the random mutations of the genes by chance and the natural selection process that was proposed by Darwin.
These new discoveries show how little we still actually know about DNA.
Notwithstanding the fact that we apparently still have a very limited knowledge of DNA in the West that is accepted by mainstream science, we nevertheless took the liberty to start playing around and modify the genome of crops and organisms as we please. These enterprises could be very hazardous to the biosphere and the very survival of life on Earth since restructuring of the DNA molecule destroys the wave characteristics of the DNA that took nature millions of years to perfect.
Until we can speak the language of DNA, we should not seek to rewrite the book of life; I think we have been led astray and are on a dangerous road.
http://5352d6aa.cable.casema.nl - Enigmen Home /izgleda da nije više aktivna/
Generated: 5 October, 2005, 03:37