vesica attractor; fossil evidence of gaia egg

[metatron]

I apologize for my writing skill, or lack there of. I have started taking classes at night in order to improve, so I can translate this information into a presentable text. This is why I am seeking feedback. I do not mind constructive criticism but some of the feedback seems to have no purpose at all.

 

This is something I take seriously and I do need help. writing is not my best skill I tend to think in dynamics rather than words. I am use to expressing my self though sculpture or paintings, so English is my second language in a way. My computer skills or not good either so be patient about the picture, but my understanding of this planet is as good as it gets.

 

This came from many years in the field and serious study. New discoveries are not always made by people that are already theorist. I am an engineer that studies nature though the lens of system science. I am not yet accustom to expressing this in the written word but I urge you to look closely at what I am proposing, and check it on a logical bases. This artifact exists, a picture is not going to help until I have begun to get across what it represents. Keep in mind, much of the information is beyond present theory.

 

I feel responsible as the discover of this artifact to bring this information to light, and am convinced it will add to our understanding of how life came into existences . Remember new discoveries are found in the strata not in a book that is already written... or on the internet. Do not confuse the map with the territory, which is vastly unexplored and…. unexplained.

 

Thanks for the feedback and the support, Christopher Humphrey

 

 

Ophiolite: There are no intermediaries in the fossil record between simple body plans to complex. This is a hard fact, that I was not aware of until I took a closer look at the fossil record.

 

 

 

 

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory".

 

Darwin, C. (1859)

The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition)

Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p.292 292

 

"Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations."

 

Gould, S. J. and Eldredge, N., 1988

"Species selection: its range and power"

Scientific correspondence in Nature, Vol. 334, p. 19

Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors.

 

Eldredge, N., 1989

Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks

McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22

 

The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before families. This is not to say that each higher taxon originated before species (each phylum, class, or order contained at least one species, genus, family, etc. upon appearance), but the higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.

 

Erwin, D., Valentine, J., and Sepkoski, J. (1988)

"A Comparative Study of Diversification Events"

Evolution, vol. 41, p. 1183

[Hellbender]

Newtonian, I believe Hellbender, Mokele and ATinyMonkey have decided Metatron's posts are crap. [if I've misinterpreted their posts I am certain they will correct me.']

 

I have not dismissed metatrons posts as crap, although some would believe this is uncharacteristic of me. I just want metatron to explain it in simpler terms, because after a few sentences, it becomes a mishmosh of wierdness and vague terms. I would also like a picture of this "gaia egg" and a short explanation of exactly how it puts such a large hole in current evolution theory. Explaining why metatron's alleged big discovery has not made news yet (as it should have) or been studied by any mainstream scientists would also be nice. I am a skeptic, but I am not skeptical of anything supported by evidence, if it exists.

[metatron]

I have not dismissed metatrons posts as crap, although some would believe this is uncharacteristic of me. I just want metatron to explain it in simpler terms, because after a few sentences, it becomes a mishmosh of wierdness and vague terms. I would also like a picture of this "gaia egg" and a short explanation of exactly how[/i'] it puts such a large hole in current evolution theory. Explaining why metatron's alleged big discovery has not made news yet (as it should have) or been studied by any mainstream scientists would also be nice. I am a skeptic, but I am not skeptical of anything supported by evidence, if it exists.

 

 

Evolution is not shaped like a tree but more like a galaxy. A galaxy is formed after an implosion of the central blackhole. Complex life formed the same way. Because life is based on a wave function.

 

As for as a picture, be pateint do some reading in systems science. The web of life : A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems

by FRITJOF CAPRA

[metatron]

Newtonian' date=' I believe Hellbender, Mokele and ATinyMonkey have decided Metatron's posts are crap. [if I've misinterpreted their posts I am certain they will correct me.'] I have not yet reached that conclusion.

But as I think I noted earlier either his posts are crap or he really needs to work at expressing himself more clearly. I see nothing wrong in pointing this out to him.

Now, I asked a very clear question (re-the Burgess Shale's) which he seemed unable to answer. Here is why that was, in my view, an important question.

If I understand Metatron's concept it is that the sudden explosion of complex life with hard skeleton's is explained by some heirarchical phenomenom related to a specific fossil find.

But all that is predicated on the Cambrian explosion being sudden. The Burgess Shale preserves the remains of a complex ecology of complex animals with soft parts. His 'hard' fossil is, by their evidence, unecessary. This is what I want him to explain.

I am still waiting.

 

 

The assumption that {I think} you are still holding on to, is that one phyla evolved and branched into other phyla.

What I am stating is the individual phyla emerged separately and suddenly from attractors. The vesica attractors only accounts for the higher taxon that appeared during the Cambrian. The simple multi-celled life are only related to the complex life in that the both emerged directly from a microbial substrate.

 

They are not, however related by a linage of developing body plans. This is the conclusion that I came to after deciphering the artifact.

When I checked the present scientific text, it not only confirmed that conclusion,{by tying together lose ends in our present understanding the development of complex morphology} but answered many other questions that I had not even considered asking.

[metatron]

I think I may have an analogy that can better illustrate this model, and explain the phases { vesica attractor }

Here’s a little known fact……… one of the very first mediums that man developed to communicate with was light waves…… no kidding!

A hundred thousand years before fiber optic cable man developed whites in his eyes so they could signal to one another thoughts……. by the subtle nuances expressed by the shape and intensity in these flashes of light. The eyes became the windows to the soul.

Then as we all know we harnessed sound waves to communicate even more complex thoughts in language.

 

We then did something completely fundamental to evolution and at the same time astonishing, we developed a way to capture and contained these waves!

A simple clay tablet captured the sound and light of the universe into words.

This manifested space held a world between worlds. This is the essences of the vesica attractor.

 

A shared space for information to pass between two separate fields. An overlapping area of information focused into a central stable point.

This point than emanates its own wave function to any that can read it. Today right at this very moment you are looking deeply into a vesica attractor. This computer is the direct result of that clay tablet.

You are probably asking yourself that’s real interesting but what’s it got to do with your fossil find and your convoluted theory on evolution!

 

Everything, this is the same process that created life itself, but instead of people being connected, the universe was connecting itself to itself the separate fields were the elemental particles representing by myriads of tiny vesica attractors [cells] emerging from the elemental quantum soup. The other field is the macrocosm of stars planets black holes all emanating a spectrum of waves. I believe light waves probably initiated the formation of the first photosynthetic cells.

This is not what my manuscript deals with specifically, but I have been clear that life forms around a wave function.

 

What my paper deals with specifically is a complex assemblages of eukaryote cells that form around water waves and oolitic spheres. These waves are still pulsing at this very moment as you breath in, and breath out, as your heart beats to this rhythm of a primordial ocean. This is a contained wave trapped in a circuit captured by billions of tiny vesica attractor in the form of a cellular matrix that also crystallized and capture the universe of light sound and memory.

We not only capture and contain these waves, they are the fundamental forces that created us and sustains us.

We are emanating connecting points, between the universe within and the universe all around us........ We are the universes clay tablet.

[Sayonara]

I apologize for my writing skill, or lack there of. I have started taking classes at night in order to improve, so I can translate this information into a presentable text. This is why I am seeking feedback. I do not mind constructive criticism but some of the feedback seems to have no purpose at all.

You might find this book particularly useful while you're working on this theory:

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0004990005/qid=1113251420/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-3613420-1917758?v=glance&s=books

 

It's very good.

[metatron]

You might find this book particularly useful while you're working on this theory:

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0004990005/qid=1113251420/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-3613420-1917758?v=glance&s=books

 

It's very good.

Hi, Sayonara³

It look's like something I need, along with a upgraded pc and soft-ware ect. This is what is keeping me from posting pictures,

 

Thank's Metatron

[Hellbender]

The assumption that {I think} you are still holding on to, is that one phyla evolved and branched into other phyla.

 

its more than just an assumption.

 

What I am stating is the individual phyla emerged separately and suddenly from attractors. The vesica attractors only accounts for the higher taxon that appeared during the Cambrian. The simple multi-celled life are only related to the complex life in that the both emerged directly from a microbial substrate.

 

ok, I will ask again; what is a "vesica attractor" and where are they?

 

They however are not related by a linage of developing body plans. This is the conclusion that I came to after deciphering the artifact.

 

How did an artifact start life as we know it? Do you believe these artifacts were placed here by aliens? (no, I am not being sarcastic)

 

When I checked the present scientific text, it not only confirmed that conclusion,{by tying together lose ends in our present understanding the development of complex morphology} but answered many other questions that I had not even considered asking.

 

What loose ends are you talking about here?

[metatron]

Originally Posted by metatron

The assumption that {I think} you are still holding on to, is that one phyla evolved and branched into other phyla.

 

 

 

its more than just an assumption.

 

"The number of intermediate varieties' date=' which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory".

 

Darwin, C. (1859)

The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition)

Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p.292 292

 

QUOTE=Hellbender']ok, I will ask again; what is a "vesica attractor" and where are they?

 

Refer to manuscipt or previous post,...... Please

[metatron]

Hellbender,This May help,

I do not agree with some of Chien's proposals,[iDst} but he is pointing out in the section of this interview, the gaps in the the fossil record of the development of complex morphology,..... during the cambrian explosion.

 

 

Chien: A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now.

 

Stephen J. Gould, [a Harvard University evolutionary biologist], has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more and more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversedwe have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.

 

RI: What information is the public hearing or not hearing about the Cambrian explosion?

 

Chien: The general impression people get is that we began with micro-organisms, then came lowly animals that don't amount to much, and then came the birds, mammals and man. Scientists were looking at a very small branch of the whole animal kingdom, and they saw more complexity and advanced features in that group. But it turns out that this concept does not apply to the entire spectrum of animals or to the appearance or creation of different groups. Take all the different body plans of roundworms, flatworms, coral, jellyfish and whateverall those appeared at the very first instant.

 

Most textbooks will show a live tree of evolution with the groups evolving through a long period of time. If you take that tree and chop off 99 percent of it, [what is left] is closer to reality; it's the true beginning of every group of animals, all represented at the very beginning.

 

Since the Cambrian period, we have only die-off and no new groups coming about, ever. There's only one little exception citedthe group known as bryozoans, which are found in the fossil record a little later. However, most people think we just haven't found it yet; that group was probably also present in the Cambrian explosion.

 

Also, the animal explosion caught people's attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.

 

RI: In the December 1995 issue of Time magazine in the article "When Life Exploded" the writer implied that there was nothing to get worked up aboutthe theory of evolution was not in any danger.

 

Chien: The scientists come out and say, "Oh yes, we've heard this before and it's very similar to the Burgess Shale," and so forth, but the Burgess Shale story was not told for many years. The Burgess Shale was first found by Charles Walcott in 1909why was the story not reported to the public until the late 1980's?

 

At the very beginning I thought it was a problem for them; they couldn't figure out what was going on because they found something that bears no resemblance to the present animal groups and phyla. Walcott originally tried to shoehorn those groups into existing ones, but [his attempt] was never satisfactory.

 

It was puzzling for a while because they refused to see that in the beginning there could be more complexity than we have now. What they are seeing are phyla that do not exist nowthat's more than 50 phyla compared to the 38 we have now. (Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while, but then the consensus became 50-plus.) But the point is, they saw something they didn't know what to do with; that's the scientifically honest position they're placed in. Later on, as they began to understand things are not the same as Darwinian expectations, they started shutting up.

 

RI: Now that the information is coming out, what are they saying?

 

Chien: We really don't have much of an explanation yet, although there are a few biological and environmental theories that have been kicked around. Stephen Gould was quoted by Phil Johnson [in Darwin on Trial] as saying that things like [the Cambrian explosion] are the trade secret of paleontology, and not many people know about it. And that includes Gould's own crusade for punctuated equilibrium as well.

 

I know of some people who teach evolution but do not mention Stephen Jay Gould or punctuated equilibrium. They know about it, but they are of the old school and can't accept it. So there's a lot of politics involved in this, even among themselves.

 

RI: Does the drift of evidence in the Cambrian Explosion lean toward speeded-up evolution?

 

Chien: There are two major camps on this explosion business. One is the good old Darwinian explanation that we simply haven't found the intermediates. For those who tend to think that way, they say the Cambrian period was just the best time to preserve a lot of fossils, and they refer to it as a "fossil explosion." They hope that by looking more they might find some evidence of evolution, or they simply say (like Gould), "Well, we'll never find it. Fossils are hard to form in the first place." This is called "artifact theory."

 

But a lot of younger scientists are turning to new ideas. The first idea put out was the oxygen theory. They say that maybe in Cambrian times the oxygen level in the atmosphere and in the oceans suddenly arose to a critical level which could support larger-sized animals. That theory is pretty much shut down because there should be geological evidence for a sudden increase in oxygen.

 

There are other theories, too, like that of Berkeley professor James Valentine. He is now working on something new that relates to Jonathan Wells' work. (Wells is the Berkeley biologist who spoke at the Mere Creation conference.) In developmental biologythe study of embryo developmentthere's been a big discovery of something called Hox genes. They are regulatory genes, and they turn on and off sequencesthe development of the eye and so on.

 

Valentine infers that primitive organisms accumulated enough Hox genes to suddenly make a different body plan. So he's trying to correlate Cambrian explosion with the development or accumulation of Hox genes. But I think there are many theoretical difficulties he's facing.

 

John Wells has the idea that Hox genes won't do it. He claims that Hox genes are only switches. You can put the switch on different systems and it just turns on and offyou're not getting new information out of Hox genes.

 

RI: So when they ask you about it, what do you say?

 

Chien: Well, it depends who is asking. In scientific dialogue I think I can be very honest with whatever present findings we have. We can all discuss objective data, but pretty soon we find out that whatever conclusion each draws is far from what the evidence says. In other words, I think every theory is still more belief than scientific fact. I wouldn't use scientific findings as evidence to support Biblical creation. All science does is begin to tell us what happened 540 million years ago, and we have just little bits and pieces. However, I think we can use the evidence to strongly show that Darwinian gradual evolution did not happen.

[metatron]

Originally Posted by Metatron;

"They are not, however related by a linage of developing body plans. This is the conclusion that I came to after deciphering the artifact.

When I checked the present scientific text, it not only confirmed that conclusion,{by tying together lose ends in our present understanding the development of complex morphology} but answered many other questions that I had not even considered asking."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Hellbender;

 

"ok, I will ask again; what is a "vesica attractor" and where are they?

 

How did an artifact start life as we know it? Do you believe these artifacts were placed here by aliens? (no, I am not being sarcastic)

What loose ends are you talking about here?" \Quote

 

 

 

 

These attractors formed from water waves, oolites, cyanobacterial filaments, and eukaryote cells, Prior to the cambrian explosion.

 

As for why these vesica attractors are not still forming. I would say that the pristine conditions that formed these nurseries would disappear after the Cambrian explosion . The metazoans would have changed the environment drastically and permanently.

 

An analogy of the Genetic controls in the formation of the original body plans might be compared to how snow fakes crystallize from the underlying order of the water molecule.

 

As the oolitic mass shrinks....A crystallization of genetic probabilities emerge from a medium of cohesive networks, forming self reflexive circuits of tension.{ see tensegrity }

 

This is what I am referring to as a {descending order of iteration matrices that self organize the cellular structure}Tensigrity combined with fluid dynamics, builds the architectural framework first.

 

This wave of tension descends to the cellular level. The extracellular matrix will begin to form bonds with the intracellular matrix inside the individual cell.

 

[This intracellular matrix controls gene switching]

 

This resonance results in a synchronization and amplification of genetic responses resulting in network of connections in the architecture of the emerging organism, enabling the individual cell though it's own intracellular matrix to respond to this outer matrix.

This crystallization of the recursive dynamic structure might well result in an "algorithmic self-assembly" of genetic probabilities.

 

This may be a solution to some lose ends in our present understanding the development of complex morphology. The answer it appears is the architectural framework formed first, from wave dynamics working from the outside inward, while the interior design of genetics, worked from the inside out. Presently most research is focused solely on genomic controls in the formation of complex morphology. The answer it appears is that nature hired its architect first {wave dynamics} its interior designer second, {genetic probabilities} Just as we would in building a structure.

 

 

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

"Now, I asked a very clear question (re-the Burgess Shale's) which he seemed unable to answer. Here is why that was, in my view, an important question.

If I understand Metatron's concept it is that the sudden explosion of complex life with hard skeleton's is explained by some heirarchical phenomenom related to a specific fossil find.

But all that is predicated on the Cambrian explosion being sudden. The Burgess Shale preserves the remains of a complex ecology of complex animals with soft parts. His 'hard' fossil is, by their evidence, unecessary. This is what I want him to explain.

I am still waiting."Quote

 

 

 

Darwinian models do not address major gaps in our understanding of the development of complex morphology.

 

My model not only fills these gaps. Morphology itself, viewed objectively, can be seen as an artifact of this developmental process,

Anatomically, as well as viewed from the record of metazoan paleontology.

The following is just one example.

 

A quote from The Cambrian Big Bang;

'' Furthermore the postulation of exclusively soft-bodied ancestor for hard-bodied Cambrian organism seems implausible on anatomical grounds many phyla such as brachiopods and arthropods could have not evolved their soft parts first and then added shells later, since their survival depends in large part upon their ability to protect their soft parts from hostile environmental forces. Instead soft and hard parts had to arise together.

 

As Valentine notes in the case of brachiopods, “the brachiopod bauplane cannot function without a durable skeleton.” To admit that hard-bodied parts in the Cambrian animals had not yet evolved. As Chen and Zhou explain: [A]nimals such as brachiopods and most echinoderms and mollusks cannot exists without mineralized skeletons. Arthropods bear jointed appendages and likewise require a hard, organic or mineralized skeleton. Therefore the existence of these organisms in the distant past should be recorded either by fossil tracks and trails or remains of skeletons. The observations that such fossils are absent in the Precambrian strata proves that these phyla arose in the Cambrian.

[Kygron]

metatron, I wanted to comment on your writing style. It seems to me that you're mixing your analogies into your descriptions, especially in the original postings. You're then compounding analogies by using one to explain another.

 

I realize that you may not be doing this intentionally. You've spent so much time with this work that no doubt you're invented new ways of looking at it. Then you're come up with analogy for a new viewpoint. THEN you've changed the viewpoint, changing the analogy in the proccess! When you describe it you're forced to explain each layer of analogy until your text correctly represents your mental impression. Unfortunatly, your audience gets lost in the representation and therefore misses the content.

 

Another problem is that you've got yourself into a mindset that reflects the novelty of your subject matter. You're used to thinking about how one thing relates to another, and you end up jumping around in your descriptions as if your audience understands the connection. You're used to things forming around the central attractor, so you write descriptions that form around your main ideas, without enough emphesis on the main ideas themselves (beating around the bush).

 

My conclusion is that while you may have many new and interesting ideas, you've trained yourself to think in a way that helps the theory, but hurts your description of it. In order to comunicate with people who don't share your frame of mind, you'll need to set yourself into THIER frame of mind. I'm not too sure of the best way to do this. Perhaps since you're practicing writing anyway, you could practice writing about TRADITIONAL subjects without adding any of your new ideas. Compare that with a textbook and when the styles are simmilar, you can move on to writing your ideas in our style.

 

(I must admit I may suffer from a simmilar failing, so I hope this explaination is helpfull and readable!)

[metatron]

metatron' date=' I wanted to comment on your writing style. It seems to me that you're mixing your analogies into your descriptions, especially in the original postings. You're then compounding analogies by using one to explain another.

 

I realize that you may not be doing this intentionally. You've spent so much time with this work that no doubt you're invented new ways of looking at it. Then you're come up with analogy for a new viewpoint. THEN you've changed the viewpoint, changing the analogy in the proccess! When you describe it you're forced to explain each layer of analogy until your text correctly represents your mental impression. Unfortunatly, your audience gets lost in the representation and therefore misses the content.

 

Another problem is that you've got yourself into a mindset that reflects the novelty of your subject matter. You're used to thinking about how one thing relates to another, and you end up jumping around in your descriptions as if your audience understands the connection. You're used to things forming around the central attractor, so you write descriptions that form around your main ideas, without enough emphesis on the main ideas themselves (beating around the bush).

 

My conclusion is that while you may have many new and interesting ideas, you've trained yourself to think in a way that helps the theory, but hurts your description of it. In order to comunicate with people who don't share your frame of mind, you'll need to set yourself into THIER frame of mind. I'm not too sure of the best way to do this. Perhaps since you're practicing writing anyway, you could practice writing about TRADITIONAL subjects without adding any of your new ideas. Compare that with a textbook and when the styles are simmilar, you can move on to writing your ideas in our style.

 

(I must admit I may suffer from a simmilar failing, so I hope this explaination is helpfull and readable!)[/quote']

 

Your correct, I have been focused on letting this dynamic take me to its own context of order, but I have not given the consideration to my readers who where not along for the ride. There also exist a major gap in science today with the traditional reductionist view and systems view. I fall deeply into the latter. But this is not to much of a concern to me. I am certain the model is correct on the basic dynamics and components.

 

Complex life formed around a wave function, This is the dynamic, and this is the components, and this is how it they came together and interacted to form complex life.

 

What I am presently attempting, is to garner specific feedback in order to form the text into a translatable whole. your feed back has been helpful especially {"You're used to things forming around the central attractor, so you write descriptions that form around your main ideas, without enough emphasis on the main ideas themselves (beating around the bush)."} I will try to find a way to not beat around the bush as much but this is necessary to a degree.

I picked up this habit from one of my mentors. This beating around the bush is a way that allows a discovery to be rediscovered by others. The information can only be gained in the context of a praxis. In solving the convoluted situation or information. One has to change the way he or she sees the world. Only then can we change our view in the face of new information. The riddle is solved, the landscape changes because our internal system has been altered. These praxis are necessary if one is presenting information that is counter to past assumptions.

 

If I where to just present the information without some “beating around the bush “ I would cheat nature and you by forcing a narrow view point. I am not saying I am being cryptic porpously, it is just a habit that allows me too expand on information before condensing it. The information is correct, and there is internal context within the text but it is not necessarily in any particular format.

 

This is the very early stage in the condensing of the material and anyone that wants to help can, and in doing so I hope it will also open view points that I could have not considered on my own. If I narrow this information to early I will not allow these possibilities to occur. This system will form its own watershed of connecting points to the world Just as it did in the beginning.

 

Thank you for the well thought-out post.

 

 

 

Praxis is a complex activity by which individuals create culture and society, and become critically conscious human beings. Praxis comprises a cycle of action-reflection-action which is central to liberatory education. Characteristics of praxis include self-determination (as opposed to coercion), intentionality (as opposed to reaction), creativity (as opposed to homogeneity), and rationality (as opposed to chance).

 

 

 

 

 

..to (in)form buildings with thematic meaning, they must convey a gestalt, the whole must be more than the sum of the parts, and there must also be an ambiguity and paradox immanent within that gestalt, as a tension. (And quoting Heckscher on composition...) It is the taut composition which contains contrapuntal relationships, equal combinations, inflected fragments, and acknowledged duality's. It is the unity which maintains, but only just maintains, a control over the clashing elements which compose it. Chaos is very near, its nearness, but its avoidance, gives ...force" Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, 1966

[Aardvark]

"The number of intermediate varieties' date=' which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory".

 

Darwin, C. (1859)

The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition)

Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p.292 292

[/quote']

 

Metatron, relying on an out of context quote from 'The origin of the species' as the basis for your ideas is pretty poor. It shows you up as a fool.

 

For a start evolutionary theory has moved on in the last 150 years. Its is not a religion that is dgmatically based on any 'holy' book.

 

Also, if you bothered to read on past that out of context quote you would see that Darwin clearly addresses the poverty of the fossil record. He states that there would be large numbers of intermediate life forms, but that as fossilisation is such a rare occurance (as we know it is) large numbers will not survive in the fossil record.

 

The poverty of the fossil record is not an argument against evolution.

 

Please go away, get an education, then when you have something to actually contribute to the discussion come back. Discussing phantom artifacts without any proof or evidence of there existence doesn't hack it. Photos, references, pictures, any form of independent coroborration. Otherwise what you are stating is invalid and useless.

[metatron]

Metatron' date=' relying on an out of context quote from 'The origin of the species' as the basis for your ideas is pretty poor. It shows you up as a fool.

 

For a start evolutionary theory has moved on in the last 150 years. Its is not a religion that is dgmatically based on any 'holy' book.

 

Also, if you bothered to read on past that out of context quote you would see that Darwin clearly addresses the poverty of the fossil record. He states that there would be large numbers of intermediate life forms, but that as fossilisation is such a rare occurance (as we know it is) large numbers will not survive in the fossil record.

 

The poverty of the fossil record is not an argument against evolution.

 

Please go away, get an education, then when you have something to actually contribute to the discussion come back. Discussing phantom artifacts without any proof or evidence of there existence doesn't hack it. Photos, references, pictures, any form of independent coroborration. Otherwise what you are stating is invalid and useless.[/quote']

 

Name calling and accusations are not in necessary : read my entire post and address it on a whole, if you have evidence that invalidates this model present it. I have been studying science and evolution longer than you have been alive, along with many other subjects. I admit I do have an out of the box view point,but....... this combined with this fossil discovery enabled me to utilize this knowledge in a way that allowed me to find an alternative perspective.

 

Some people are threatened by new ideas and instead of thinking they become defensive and lash out . This is not the kind of behavior informed individuals exhibit. I have found the more educated an individual is, the more receptive they are to this new model.

[Aardvark]

I have been studying science and evolution longer than you have been alive, along with many other subjects.

 

Your studies seem to have been remarkably unfruitful.

Depending on out of context quotes from 'the origin of species' is at best foolish, at worse deliberately dishonest.

 

I admit I do have an out of the box view point,but....... this combined with this fossil discovery enabled me to utilize this knowledge in a way that allowed me to find an alternative perspective.

 

The problem with your 'alternative perspective' is that it is backed up by no evidence whatsoever.

 

 

Some people are threatened by new ideas and instead of thinking they become defensive and lash out . This is not the kind of behavior informed individuals exhibit.

 

You may find that people will be more receptive to your 'new ideas' if you bother to present any evidence at all.

 

Informed individuals require evidence to accept ideas. They treat with rightful contempt people and ideas with no empirical backing.

 

I have found the more educated an individual is, the more receptive they are to this new model.

 

I seriously doubt that.

 

Educated people require proof, not pseudo intellectual drivel. The more educated the individual the easier it is to see through you obscuratism.

 

If you want to be taken seriously then provide some proof.

 

Otherwise all you have are baseless assertions. If you really are as scholarly as you claim then you will realise that baseless assertions have no scientific value.

 

Show your evidence or stop wasting peoples time.

[metatron]

Dishonesty is misrepresenting my post by suggesting they were out of context.

Darwin assumed transitional fossils would be rare and postulated that these gaps would be filled in with new fossil discoveries, yet after 150 years these gaps have not been filled. He also postulated; "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory".

 

The two views are not contradictory , he was just stating that his model was subject to new evidence. He was making sure that people understood that fact, because he was a great scientist, and understood that all scientific models are only stepping stones to understanding, not dogma to be defended by well….you’ve defined yourself fairly well.

Here are a few other quotes that can be checked for contextual meaning I suggest you start work early they are all saying the same thing Darwin said and they have been saying it for a very long time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.

 

Denton, Michael (1986)

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

Bethesda, Maryland, Adler & Adler, Pub., p.162

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the years passed after the Darwinian revolution, and as evolution became more and more consolidated into dogma, the gestalt of continuity imposed itself on every facet of biology. The discontinuities of nature could no longer be perceived. (p. 74)

 

Denton, Michael (1986)

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

Bethesda, Maryland, Adler & Adler, Pub.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change--over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.

 

Eldredge, N., 1995

Reinventing Darwin

Wiley, New York, p. 95

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors.

 

Eldredge, N., 1989

Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks

McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22

 

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are faced more with a great leap of faith -- that gradual, progressive adaptive change underlies the general pattern of evolutionary change we see in the rocks -- than any hard evidence.

 

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I. (1982)

The Myths of Human Evolution

Columbia University Press, p. 57

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history -- not the artifact of a poor fossil record.

 

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I. (1982)

The Myths of Human Evolution

Columbia University Press, p. 59

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change.

 

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I. (1982)

The Myths of Human Evolution

Columbia University Press, p. 163

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before families. This is not to say that each higher taxon originated before species (each phylum, class, or order contained at least one species, genus, family, etc. upon appearance), but the higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.

 

Erwin, D., Valentine, J., and Sepkoski, J. (1988)

"A Comparative Study of Diversification Events"

Evolution, vol. 41, p. 1183

 

 

 

------

"Moreover, within the slowly evolving series, like the famous horse series, the decisive steps are abrupt and without transition."

 

Goldschmidt, Richard B. (1952)

"Evolution, As Viewed By One Geneticist"

American Scientist, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 84-94

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

 

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

 

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.

 

Gould, S.J. (1977)

"Evolution's Erratic Pace"

Natural History, vol. 86, May

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Writing on Darwin's decision to portray evolution as a gradual and stately process, Gould states, "I do not know why Darwin chose to follow Lyell and the gradualists so strictly, but I am certain of one thing: preference for one view or the other had nothing to do with superior perception of empirical information. On this question, nature spoke (and continues to speak) ambiguously and multifariously. Cultural and methodological preferences had as much influence upon any decision as the actual data."

 

...

 

"... in defending gradualism as a nearly universal tempo, Darwin had to use Lyell's most characteristic method of argument -- he had to reject literal appearance and common sense for an underlying "reality." (Contrary to popular myths, Darwin and Lyell were not the heroes of true science, defending objectivity against the the theological fantasies of such "catastrophists" as Cuvier and Buckland. Catastrophists were as committed to science as any gradualist; in fact, they adopted the more "objective" view that one should believe what one sees and not interpolate missing bits of a gradual record into a literal tale of rapid change."

 

...

 

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

 

The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.

 

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing the its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks.

 

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

 

...

 

Comment: Gould goes on to explain that Darwinian process do not require slow gradual change and that a model of punctuated equilibrium can explain the pattern of sudden appearance and stasis in the fossil record. "Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change." The problem is complicated, however, by the fact that species diversity is the one feature conspiculously absent upon the appearance of most phyla. See Valentine, J., and Erwin, D. (1985) "Interpreting Great Developmental Experiments: The Fossil Record", Development as an Evolutionary Process.

 

...

 

"The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

 

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

 

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'."

 

Gould, S.J. (1977)

"Evolution's Erratic Pace"

Natural History, vol. 86, May

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gould honestly admits that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is not supported by the fossil evidence and "is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy."

 

Gould, S. J. (1980)

"Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"

Paleobiology, 6(1), p. 120

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[T]he absence of fossil evidence for intermediate stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.

 

Gould, S.J., 1982

"Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"

Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin

Maynard Smith, J. (editor)

W. H. Freeman and Co. in association with Nature, p. 140

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations.

 

Gould, S. J. and Eldredge, N., 1988

"Species selection: its range and power"

Scientific correspondence in Nature, Vol. 334, p. 19

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record."

 

Kemp, Tom (1985)

"A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record"

New Scientist, Vol. 108, No. 1485, December 5, 1985), p. 66

(Dr. Tom Kemp is Curator of Zoological Collections at the Oxford University Museum.)

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it (Lewin, 1988).

Lewin then asked the all important question:

 

"Why, in subsequent periods of great evolutionary activity when countless species, genera, and families arose, have there been no new animal body plans produced, no new phyla?"

 

Lewin, R. (1988)

Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism ... and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record.

 

Mayr, E., 1991

One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, p. 138

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. ... The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories.

 

Mayr, E., 1982

The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance

The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, p. 524

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[W]e have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multicellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups.

 

McGowan, C., 1984

In the Beginning... A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists are Wrong

Prometheus Books, p. 95

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that palaeontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny.

 

Paul, C. R. C., 1989

"Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates"

Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (editors),

Evolution and the Fossil Record

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C., 1989, p. 105

 

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[G]aps between higher taxonomic levels are general and large.

 

Raff, R. A. and Kaufman, T. C., 1991

Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change

Indiana University Press, p. 35

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."

 

Science

July 17, 1981, p. 289

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The known fossil record is not, and has never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured. ... 'The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.' ... their story has been suppressed.

 

Stanley, S. M., 1981

The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species

Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, N.Y., p. 71

 

If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukariotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."

 

Bengston, Stefan (1990)

Nature 345:765

 

Simpson, G. G. (1944)

Tempo and Mode in Evolution

Columbia University Press, New York, p. 105, 107

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly, and are not led up to by gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences"

 

Simpson, George Gaylord (1953)

The Major Features of Evolution

New York: Columbia University Press, p. 360

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[F]or more than a century biologists have portrayed the evolution of life as a gradual unfolding ... Today the fossil record ... is forcing us to revise this conventional view.

Stanley, S. M., 1981

The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species

Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, N.Y., p.3

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[T]he fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity -- of gradual transitions from one kind of animal or plant to another of quite different form.

 

Stanley, S. M., 1981

The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species

Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, N.Y., p. 40

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the time of Darwin, paleontologists have found themselves confronted with evidence that conflicts with gradualism, yet the message of the fossil record has been ignored. This strange circumstance constitutes a remarkable chapter in the history of science, and one that gives students of the fossil record cause for concern.

 

Stanley, S. M., 1981

The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species

Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, N.Y., p. 101

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.

 

Wesson, R., 1991

Beyond Natural Selection

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 45

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[T]he origin of no innovation of large evolutionary significance is known.

 

Wesson, R., 1991

Beyond Natural Selection

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 45

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[L]arge evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any.

 

Wesson, R., 1991

Beyond Natural Selection

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 206

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taxa recognized as orders during the (Precambrian-Cambrian) transition chiefly appear without connection to an ancestral clade via a fossil intermediate. This situation is in fact true of most invertebrate orders during the remaining Phanerozoic as well. There are no chains of taxa leading gradually from an ancestral condition to the new ordinal body type. Orders thus appear as rather distinctive subdivisions of classes rather than as being segments in some sort of morphological continuum.

Valentine, J.W., Awramik, S.M., Signor, P.W., and Sadler, P.M. (1991)

"The Biological Explosion at the Precambrian-Cambrian Boundary"

Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 25, Max K. Hecht, editor, Plenum Press, New York and London, p.284

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valentine and Erwin review hypotheses as to the mode of origin of animal body plans for consistency with the fossil evidence. They conclude that both Darwinian gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are inadequate to account for the appearance of invertebrate body plans and their major modifications:

 

"The models we consider are of three sorts: those that extrapolate processes of speciation to account for higher taxa via divergence, those that invoke selection among species, and those that emphasize that many higher taxa originated as novel lineages in their own right, not only as a consequence of species-level processes. It is in this latter class of model that we believe the record favors." (Valentine and Erwin, 1985, p. 71)

 

If large populations have gradually evolved there should be unmistakable evidence in the fossil record, yet it is simply not found.

 

"... many of the large populations should have been preserved, yet we simply do not find them. Small populations are called for, then, but there are difficulties here also. The populations must remain small (and undetected) and evolve steadily and consistently toward the body plan that comprises the basis of a new phylum (or class). This is asking a lot. Deleterious mutations would tend to accumulate in small populations to form genetic loads that selection might not be able to handle. Stable intermediate adaptive modes cannot be invoked as a regular feature, since we are then again faced with the problem of just where their remains are. We might imagine vast arrays of such small populations fanning continually and incessantly into adaptive space. Vast arrays should have produced at least some fossil remains also. Perhaps an even greater difficulty is the requirement that these arrays of lineages change along a rather straight and true course --- morphological side trips or detours of any frequency should lengthen the time of origin of higher taxa beyond what appears to be available. Why should an opportunistic, tinkering process set on such a course and hold it for so long successfully among so many lineages?

 

We conclude that the extrapolation of microevolutionary rates to explain the origin of new body plans is possible, but does not accord with the primary evidence." (Valentine and Erwin, 1985, pp. 95, 96)

 

The model of punctuated equilibrium or species selection attempts to account for the lack of evidence by relying primarily on the evolution of small isolated populations which would have a diminished chance of leaving a fossil record. This scenario has its difficulties, however, as Valentine and Erwin point out:

 

"The required rapidity of the change implies either a few large steps or many and exceedingly rapid smaller ones. Large steps are tantamount to saltations and raise the problems of fitness barriers; small steps must be numerous and entail the problems discussed under microevolution. The periods of stasis raise the possibility that the lineage would enter the fossil record, and we reiterate that we can identify none of the postulated intermediate forms. Finally, the large numbers of species that must be generated so as to form a pool from which the successful lineage is selected are nowhere to be found. We conclude that the probability that species selection is a general solution to the origin of higher taxa is not great, and that neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans." (p. 96)

 

Valentine, J., and Erwin, D. (1985)

"Interpreting Great Developmental Experiments: The Fossil Record"

Development as an Evolutionary Process

Rudolf A. Raff and Elizabeth C. Raff, Editors

Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York, pp. 71, 95, 96

[metatron]

This is one of the stepping stones emerging from systems science that connects to my new model.

 

That is based on a fossil

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Landscape of Possibility: A Dynamic Systems Perspective on Archetype and Change

 

http://cogprints.org/1084/00/Jap_9.html

 

 

Maxson J. McDowell

 

Imagine a sand-dune rippled by the wind. The dune is an emergent, self-organized structure. Its surface organizes itself according to information contained within the wind, its velocity, for instance, and its direction. That information is translated into a particular set of ripples by the constraints of the dune's height and shape (equivalent to the gross anatomy of the brain) and by the constraints of an individual grain of sand (equivalent to the anatomy and physiology of a neuron). Once the ripples have been established they influence the subsequent movement of air over the surface of the dune. In the same way, once the fine structure of the brain has been established it controls the subsequent flow of sensory information.

 

 

 

Genes and Self-Organization

 

A more general argument concerns the machinery of inheritance. I have only about 100,000 different genes while a bacterium has 3 to 5,000 genes (Alberts et. al., 1994, pp. 339-340). But my anatomy is astronomically more complex than that of a bacterium. It has been estimated that the human body contains about 5x1025 bits of information in the arrangement of its molecules while the human genome contains less than 109 bits of information. Again the disparity is of astronomical proportions. These numbers prove that my genes must be used economically. They must code for processes which enable my structure to evolve, but they are too few to form a "blueprint", or image, of my final structure (Calow 1976, pp. 101-103; Elman et. al., 1998, p. 319). My body's structure, therefore, must be emergent. An emergent structure is layered in distinct, successive levels of complexity; each level self-organizes with minimal guidance from the genes. Self-organization is directed by the inherent properties of the component parts (what fits with what). It is also directed by the inherent tendency of a dynamic system to assume an ordered form. I will say more about this later. Finally self-organization is directed by information from the environment (Elman et. al., 1998, pp. 319-323).

 

 

Dynamic Systems

A triangle is static, but a dynamic system also has such pre-existing possibilities. Think of a mountain stream. It is a dynamic system because it only exists while energy flows through it, in this case the water's kinetic energy. Sometimes the stream forms a whirlpool. Sometimes it assumes the serpentine form. The latter is seen most clearly in an aerial photograph of a river delta. Both forms are pre-existing possibilities, characteristic of rivers and streams everywhere. Even the stream of stars in a galaxy sometimes forms a whirlpool (Hildebrandt and Tromba 1996, pp. 12-13). A stream organizes itself, but the ways it can do so are constrained: only certain pre-determined forms are possible.

 

Like a mountain stream, a living creature is also a dynamic system. It too exists only while energy flows through it, either from food if it is an animal, or from the sun if it is a plant. Like the evolution of a mountain stream, evolution in biology is self-organized: it is directed by no outside agent and it leads to emergent levels of order (Holland 1998, pp 225-231). Like a mountain stream, a living creature evolves forms which are pre-existing possibilities.The snake is an example. Not all snakes are related: at different times, several different groups of reptiles evolved the snake body-form (Zug 1993, p. 119) as an adaptation for moving through narrow spaces. A snake-like body-form also occurs in fish (the eel) and in mammals (the ferret). Amongst invertebrates roundworms, earthworms, and centipedes have a similar body-form. The first worm-like fossils, of animals about a meter long, appear in the Precambrian era, about 700 million years ago (Kauffman 1995, pp. 158-161). Thus the body-form of the snake is a pre-existing possibility which waits to be discovered by evolution.

 

 

 

"I said earlier that my body's structure is layered in a hierarchy of successive levels of complexity. Within each layer, complex order self-organizes from simpler components. In a rigorous analysis Holland (1998, pp. 225-231) has shown that each layer is itself a higher-order dynamic system. Thus molecules form a cell and cells form an organ. Immune cells, for example, form a functioning immune system and nerve cells form a functioning brain. Organs, in turn, form an organism. We have already seen that organisms, in their turn, form an ecosystem. These layered higher-order dynamic systems are the basis for emergence in life. Because the personality is an emergent living structure, it is very likely that it too represents a layer within this hierarchy, that is, it too belongs to a higher-order dynamic system."|Quote

 

 

My model follows these systems just described,

 

and can be observed though the lens of the The vesica attractor

 

.....and not only followed this self-organizing system but also filled these gaps in Morphology. Infact, As I have stated before.... when viewed objectively, Morphology itself, can be seen as an artifact of this developmental process,

Anatomically, as well as viewed from the record of metazoan paleontology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

An analogy of the Genetic controls in the formation of the original body plans might be compared to how snow fakes crystallize from the underlying order of the water molecule.

 

As the oolitic mass shrinks....A crystallization of genetic probabilities emerge from a medium of cohesive networks, forming self reflexive circuits of tension.{ see tensegrity }

 

This is what I am referring to as a {descending order of iteration matrices that self organize the cellular structure}Tensigrity combined with fluid dynamics, builds the architectural framework first.

 

This wave of tension descends to the cellular level. The extracellular matrix will begin to form bonds with the intracellular matrix inside the individual cell.

 

[This intracellular matrix controls gene switching]

 

This resonance results in a synchronization and amplification of genetic responses resulting in network of connections in the architecture of the emerging organism, enabling the individual cell though it's own intracellular matrix to respond to this outer matrix.

This crystallization of the recursive dynamic structure might well result in an "algorithmic self-assembly" of genetic probabilities.

 

This may be a solution to some lose ends in our present understanding the development of complex morphology. The answer it appears is the architectural framework formed first, from wave dynamics working from the outside inward, while the interior design of genetics, worked from the inside out. Presently most research is focused solely on genomic controls in the formation of complex morphology. The answer it appears is that nature hired its architect first {wave dynamics} its interior designer second, {genetic probabilities} Just as we would in building a structure.

 

You may be interested to know that the heart is an artifact of this process. The heart as you probably know is an attractor. Coincidentally this fact my be perfect for proving this theory.

[Mokele]

If you're going to insist on continual mental mastrubation of this sort, could you have the decency to use a tissue, rather than spilling it all over the board?

 

Mokele

[metatron]

Images of the artifact can now be veiwed at

 

http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=2128032952

[metatron]

Chapter13

A Blindfolded Watchmaker:

The Arrival of the Fittest

David L. Wilcox

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter13.html

 

quote:

 

1. Life's origin. The origin of life requires the initial encoding of specified blueprints, a non-Darwinian process. Specification involves arbitrary definitions for the "letters" used to write the "messages." How then did specified complexity (blueprints and their described products/"machines") arise from any amount of nonspecified complexity (complex machines, but no blueprints)? Are we really making progress in explaining the source of the genetic code? "The holy grail is to combine information content with replication" (Orgel in Amato, 1992). That is, we need a machine that can write down its own specifications (Thaxton, 1984).

 

 

2. Origin of the first animals (Cambrian era). The Cambrian explosion illustrates the abrupt formulation of body-plan constraints (Erwin, et al. 1987). But how within 25 million years (impalas have remained unchanged longer than that) could the full complexity of 70plus metazoan phylum level body-plans arise, and be individuated with error-checking developmental cybernetic controls from protozoans? Remember that protozoans do not have encoded genetic information for morphology due to cellular interaction. How can code that does not yet exist be mutated? Further, given the appearance of new code, how are phylum level morphological "norms" generated, capable of holding for the remainder of the Phanerozoic? As David Jablonski put it, "The most dramatic kinds of evolutionary novelty, major innovations, are among the least understood components of the evolutionary process" (Lewin, 1988).

 

3. Species stasis. Species show morphological stasis in the face of high levels of selectable diversity (Stanley, 1979 & 1985). But what sort of genetic anchor can hold constant a species' morphological mean and variance for several million years (Michaux, 1989), when enough genetic diversity exists in such species to allow laboratory selection to cause a ten-fold movement of that morphological mean? Are current models of the informational organization of the genome adequate to explain this? This difficulty is reinforced by the still greater morphological stasis shown by the body-plans of the higher levels of the taxonomic system, a stasis that seems to shape, direct, and constrain lower level change in an almost " archetypic " manner. This is hardly the neo-Darwinian prediction....quote

 

 

 

 

Archetypal life forms

Curiously the fossil record shows a top down hierarchical pattern of appearance in which major structural themes of body plans or [bauplans] emerge before minor variations on those themes.

The vesica attractor enables an archetype to form around a preexisting possibility for order. Form will follow both Internal structures and environmental dynamics. These two basins of order represent the factors involved in determining the bauplan that emerges from the vesica attractor

[ Example] archetypal forms developing in the high energy tidal zone will manifest mobile, dynamic, heart based bauplans.

Whereas an archetype forming in the stable depths will manifest a static configuration around a basin of internal structure.

The original archetypes would not have had time to be based on genetic adaptation but rather on geometrical patterns inherent in preexisting possibilities.

From these basic configurations, genetics could then use time to develop variations on these “Eternal true forms” That emerged quickly and directly from the vesica attractor.

This scenario fits the fossil record, as well as current genome research that suggests the phyla arose separately, simultaneously and abruptly from a ''common primordial pond" of genetics and this artifact shows clearly and precisely how.

The embryonic structure appears to have ruptured a developing chamber. This chamber could no longer contain pressure so the system collapsed. Fortunately for science this was well timed to preserve a window into a miracle of transformation, any further along the oolites would have completed the transformation into shell, any sooner the structure would not have developed into the complex geometrical form.

This form contains an extraordinary set of patterns when interpreted exposes a link between two worlds. Allowing a special insight into both.

 

 

Punctuated Equilibrium

Archetypal life forms were born on the cusp of two worlds. I believe the purpose of this is to establish an informational feed back loop anchored at a central Source.

From this evolutionary still point genetic novelty could be collected and recombined so new species can be created.

 

This renewing cycle of information from a separate bank of selective genetics could also keep the system far from equilibrium.

 

This feedback loop cycles between two states, one of stability, and one of renewal.

 

 

The Archetypal life forms would inherit an carbon\silicon based information gathering and storage system, {oolitic core} thus acting as the central, sustainable, creative, pool for the phyla.

 

This is the best of both worlds... Unlimited life span in their own self-replicating systems, and access to creative adaptive change from its progeny.

If this model proves to be correct, it begs an obvious and fascinating question..... Where are these original archetypes now?

[metatron]

Vesica attractor; Gastrapoda

Images of the artifact can now be veiwed at;

 

http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=2128032952

[Mokele]

Images of the artifact can now be veiwed at

 

http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=2128032952

 

Dude, I've seen more remarkable rocks in gravel driveways. Your "evidence" is about as convincing as an ethics lecture by Tom DeLay.

 

Mokele

[metatron]

Hey now that hurt, I hate Tom Delay!!

[Aardvark]

Metatron,

 

Those posts are tragic.

 

You really think a bunch of out of context quotes with no back up of reasoning, logic or evidence helps make your case?

 

In case you hadn't noticed most of the quotes are refering to the development of evolutionary theory called 'punctuated equilibrium' which is not a challenge to evolutionary theory, only a development and refinement.

 

But seeing as how you have been studying these matters since before i was born you'll already know that, right?

 

As for your photo of a piece of gravel.

 

 

That's your evidence?