For several years now I’ve been involved in one way or another, with discussions and/or debates relating to the issue of Evolution versus Creationism. I had found myself moving away from traditional Darwinian evolution towards Creationism as a result of several influencers. The most important influencer has been the development of epigenetics.
Epigenetics refers to the dynamic state of the DNA molecule in terms of what is expressed and suppressed. Only a finite proportion of available genetic potential inherent in the DNA molecule is expressed in the form of cellular structure and function in the course of our lifetimes. However, as was shown so eloquently by Bruce Lipton, our diets and habits can de-suppress certain segments of our DNA and suppress others such that our cells, tissues and indeed our bodies may change in terms of structure and function. More recently it has been shown that cognitive function as well as emotion can influence the levels of inflammatory mediators which themselves also influence what is expressed or suppressed by the DNA molecule. This is of critical importance because by altering genetic expression at the DNA level, it can be passed on to our offspring!
The second major influencer has been the confirmation that timeless and spaceless ‘fields’ exist within an energy dimension such that physical entities appear to be entangled within a nonlocality dimension. Simply, resonating information is instantaneously transmitted between two or more entities, independent of separation in time and space. This was elegantly applied by Rupert Sheldrake who postulated the existence of Morphogenetic Fields – energy fields which organized animate and inanimate physicality. Experimentally he showed that if you taught rats a certain behaviour in one location, rats of a similar strain in another location, at a later date, would learn the behavior a lot quicker. He demonstrated a similar dynamic with the creation of crystal formation. Following formation in one location, they would form much more rapidly in another place at a later date.
This can all be illustrated by the following example: Assume that there are fish in a pond which is rapidly drying out. A random mutation develops in a small number of fish who as a result, have grown primitive internal lungs. As the water level drops to critical levels which can no longer sustain ‘normal’ fish, they die off. However those that have the primitive lungs, survive to become the new species of amphibians. This is classical Darwinian evolution. However, factoring in the new influencers, this scenario is no longer correct. Let’s go back to our drying pond and re-postulate: As the water level drops, there is less oxygen. This triggers mediators which cause epigenetic changes in the fish DNA resulting in the growth of primitive lungs. The changes are also influenced by information existing in the nonlocality field reflecting a similar experience of other fish in another place at another time who grew primitive lungs. Therefore there is nothing random about the mutation. The epigenetics is purposefully driven
Extrapolating this to the human experience spanning the ages, both in time and space, it becomes apparent that there are multiple influencers which have continued to prevail and which affect us as a species. We have always and continue to contribute our unique individual imprints to the timeless-spaceless nonlocality dimension and are in turn, affected and influenced by it. Elegant studies have shown conclusively that our very consciousness contributes to the co-creation of physicality from the multi-potentiality of the energy dimension (In physics terms - collapsing the wave from superposition into the base state) .
And so my hard-line response to the traditional Evolutionist Camp is that there is no factual evidence to support the hypothesis that life emerged fortuitously and spontaneously out of the primordial soup (abiogenesis). There is also no evidence to support the contention that the process of natural selection alone is the determinant of the evolution of the species. Yet those subscribing to these views have manipulated theory and hypothesis into fact - that life as we know it arose fortuitously from the primordial soup and evolved on the basis of mutation and natural selection alone to give rise to present life forms and the supportive ecosystem.
When facts are corrupted through unsubstantiated extrapolation, untruths evolve. In this way objective scientific validation is replaced with subjective belief. Individuals that support and drive these non-validated beliefs take on the archetype not dissimilar to that of religious fanatics. The traits include the biased selection of information to support their beliefs; a judgemental (disparaging) attitude towards those not in agreement with their evolutionary beliefs; a cynicism often degenerating into ridicule with bullying tactics directed at anyone expressing intelligent design themes.
There is no place for this destructive emotional archetype in the pursuit of scientific validation. The real fact of the matter at this point in time is that the debate remains wide open in terms of abiogenesis and evolution on the one hand and intelligent design (Creationism) with prevailing influencers on the other. Best to keep the retarding influence of religious fanatics out of the equation wherever they are and stay with unbiased facts, logic, mutual respect and unfettered debate.
Copyright reserved - Ian Weinberg 2017"
The ‘experts’ are in a modelling muddle. My respon ...
We have arrived at the defining moment of the evol ...
You have no groups that fit your search