Sunday, August 19, 2012

HIGGS AND CREATION



                                              

                                                HIGGS


The scientific community was abuzz in July about the discovery of evidence in support of the existence,   however brief, of something called a 'Higgs Boson.' This evidence emerged from the 'CERN' particle accelerator which is capable of flinging subatomic particles at enormous speeds along a seventeen mile track and then colliding them, one with the other.  Scientists at the CERN are able to record every millisecond of these collisions and see the traces of particles as they radiate outward from this explosion.  The evidence indicating the momentary presence of the Higgs, is a pattern of electrons appearing one tiny, tiny millisecond after one of these explosions, suggesting that there is a large particle at the center of this accumulation of electrons. This is especially gratifying to the scientific community because it portends to give an explanation for the origin of mass.  The standard theory at this point had offered explanations for the formation of a whole variety of subatomic particles, but could not explain how some of these acquired mass and some did not.


To explain the origin of mass, particle physicist Thomas Higgs postulates a Higgs field which is an unobservable field of energy which pervades the universe and which collided with the weightless, massless particles of the Big Bang, a millisecond after they exploded out of the Big Bang and which coalesced into particles, 'Higgs Bosons,' which imparted mass to some of these previously massless particles.  So part of the excitement of the scientific community is that this observation of electrons, suggestive of the existence of a Higgs Boson, gives support to this theory that gives an explanation for the origin of weight and mass in the universe.


In this post I will be proposing a completely different way of understanding this discovery. Please note that I am not refuting observations; how can you argue with an observation?  I am taking issue with the context in which these observations are understood and the deductions that are made from them.


First let me say a word about the 'God' particle which is a monicker that the Higgs Boson has picked up along the way.  The Higgs Boson does not explain creation.  To understand creation I go not to the Bible or any holy book, but to that great spiritual sage Noah Webster.  Webster's dictionary defines creation as making something from nothing.  Science deals with measurable, observable reality, which for physicists is particles, or seeming particles, and waves.  Science will never get to creation because creation is unobservable, since it starts with nothing.  Science always starts with something, some condition of matter or energy, and attempts to explain how that something reacts with another something to produce a change.  Scientists can lead us back, either in their observations or their theories, to perhaps energy that precedes matter, but they will never lead us back to nothing.  In the case of the Higgs Boson we are talking about an interaction between a whole array of precisely formed massless particles colliding with a Higgs Field which coalesces into precisely the right size particles to interact with these massless particles. This of course begs the question of how did all these perfectly formed massless particles happen to be there; how did this Higgs Field which forms precisely the right size boson particles happen to be there, and what was the Big Bang anyway?


There is a bias, a deep set and almost impenetrable bias, in science to not see intelligence as a causal factor.  The thinking is that if we can explain all the mechanics of the physical universe and of life, then we have eliminated the need for any notion of God or a transcendent intelligence.  First of all, I will say with absolute confidence that we will never explain through any scientific system of measurement and observation, all the mechanics of either the inanimate universe or life. And that is because so much of both of these, not only in their origin but in their moment to moment activity as well, are the result of forces and intelligence which cannot be either directly measured or directly observed (the effects of some of these forces and intelligence I will mention later in this post).  Yet even if we could explain everything why would that eliminate the notion of a formative intelligence?  If you took a course in Apple Computers and upon completion of this course, you understood every mechanism, every mechanical detail of MacBooks, iPhones and iPads, would you then conclude from that that Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak did not exist? And Apple Products have the complexity of tiddlywinks when compared to the dazzling complexity and precision involved in the formation of the physical universe; or the growth and development of a human being from one fertilized ovum.


In these huge particle accelerators the assumption is that when we collide subatomic particles with enough impact to pulverize at least some of the particles that make up neutrons and protons, that we are recreating somewhat the conditions of the Big Bang that supposedly started the physical universe.  It is unknown, and I think will remain unknown, as to whether the universe began with the Big Bang, or whether the Big Bang marked the end of a contractive cycle of the universe and the beginning of an expansive cycle, cycles that may have been repeated many, many, perhaps an infinite number of times, and each cycle taking place over many billions of years.  Going back to Webster's definition of creation, as something from nothing, if the universe began with an explosion, what was it that was exploding?  And whatever that was, how did that get there?  Certainly, if it was an explosion, it was a very different kind of explosion than anything that is within our human experience.  The physical universe is expanding, at a very fast rate.  It is this expansion that is the main proof of a Big Bang Theory in the first place.  The physical universe is expanding, however, on a curved plane, something like the surface of an expanding balloon.  When something explodes on our planet, for instance, we can trace the path of the exploded material back to the source of the explosion, since all the material radiates out from the center, which was the site of the explosion.  Yet if the entire material, physical plane is expanding equally, at the same rate, like the surface of a balloon, then you cannot trace back the site of the Big Bang on this same plane.  Going back to the balloon analogy, the source of the expansion would not be on the surface of the balloon, but at the center of the balloon.  So, the source of the expanding plane of the material, physical universe, since everything is expanding equally must lie not in this physical, material plane, but in another plane, a plane that is beyond or beneath our observable, physical plane.  Since we have no idea what a non-physical explosion could be (what would be exploding?) then the best we can say, for the moment, is that the universe, or at least this current cycle of it, is expansive, and that this expansion began with an event that did not take place in this physical, material plane.


The interaction between the Higgs Field and the expanding massless particles sounds more like the aftermath of a bifurcation, which may or may not be caused by an explosion.  A bifurcation is the splitting into two separate parts of that which was once one part.  It may not have much relevance to this discussion, but it is interesting to note that the creation stories of so many ancient religions begin with a bifurcation.  The Taoists believe that Infinity bifurcates into yin and yang. Many versions of the Bible start with, "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth," also mentioning over and over that God is One, and considering that the earth as a planet was not created until the third 'day,' then  'Earth' in this first biblical sentence must be referring to an earth force.  With this in mind,  "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth," and "Infinity bifurcates into yin and yang," may actually mean exactly the same thing.  This bifurcation into two opposing forces which then create, between them, the universe, is repeated in the creation stories of many religions.  These opposing forces are referred to as yin and yang, light and dark, In and Yo, Vata and KaphaTawa and Takpella, father heaven and mother earth, Shiva and Shakti, etc.


A deeper understanding of yin and yang provides a different, and I think more accurate and simpler way of understanding what is going on at Cern, and of the seeming particle that the scientists there now describe as a 'Higgs Boson.'  I also understand that there are different traditions of Taoism and what I am referring to as 'yang' many people refer to as 'yin' and vice versa.  These are just names and have no real relevance to this discussion.  There is an expansive force, which I am calling yin, and a contractive force, which I am calling yang.  All things move in a spiral (the moon circles the earth while following the earth's orbit, thereby describing a spiral; the earth circles the sun while following the sun's obit around the center of the Milk Way Galaxy, thereby describing another spiral,  electrons circle the nucleus of an atom and as the atom moves the path of the electron, too, describes a spiral, etc.). A spiral is a circle moving forward.  Yin force is the circular component of the spiral, or the centrifugal force, and yang force is the linear, forward component, or the centripetal force. Yin and yang cannot exist on this physical plane by themselves.  Yin, by itself, would disperse at infinite speed and instantly become unobservable.  Yang would contract to the point of disappearance and also leave the physical plane.  It is important to note, which I will explain more later, that although yin and yang by themselves would disappear from the physical plane, they would still continue to exist, just not in a way that we can observe them directly; not in space and time.


Yin and yang combine to form our physical, material universe.  Everything in our observable universe is composed of yin and yang in various combinations, and ONLY yin and yang.  Yin and yang combine to form all the measurable energy and observable matter in the universe. The search for the ultimate particle, then, ends in futility.  There is no real 'solid' particle; there is no real material base to the universe.  At first it was thought that the basis of reality was in the solidity of objects.  There it is.  You can kick it, jump on it, stand on it.  You can't get realer than that.  Then it was discovered that this solidity was really composed of tiny atoms connected by energy fields to other tiny atoms, and although these energy fields were impermeable, the real solidity was within the tiny atom.  Later it was discovered that the tiny atom was itself composed of much tinier particles called protons and neutrons separated by large distances (in relation to the size of the particles themselves) from the much tinier electron. Still later came the realization that protons and neutrons are really energy fields as well,  connecting even much tinier particles like quarks, bosons, leptons and gluons, and these must  provide the ultimate solidity of the physical universe.  Yet even these tiniest of particles are, in turn, themselves, energy fields of yin and yang in a tight embrace.  For a particle to have shape it must have a yang element holding the yin element in check so that it doesn't break the bounds of its shape and disperse; and for a particle to have dimension, it must have a yin element, which spreads out from the central yang element, and keeps the yang element from contracting into itself and disappearing.


Modern physicists talk about electro-magnetism, gravity, the strong force, the weak force, dark energy and mass.  They are all various manifestations of yin and yang.  Why is the strong force, which binds the various elements within the neutron and proton, so much stronger than the electro-magnetic force?  It is not so much stronger.  They are both the same force.  It is just that in the initial bifurcation, which these huge particle accelerators recreate to a degree by smashing sub atomic particles together, yin and yang are, for the tiniest millisecond, separated.  Then they combine.  The way they combine is a result of a numerical distribution pattern that underlies the structure of the physical universe and that modern scientists are beginning to unravel.  Not being a scientist, nor a mathematician, I will not go into these distributions any more than to say that it is a pattern that is utterly brilliant and utterly intentional,  because without this complex and perfectly precise pattern, this numerical dispersion of yin and yang energy which forms all the sub-atomic particles of the nucleus and the electron cloud around the nucleus; without the utter precision of these couplings; sub-atomic particles, then atoms and the entire physical universe could not be formed.


Yin and yang knit together into these subatomic particles, so that the yin and the yang are balanced or very close to being balanced within the particle. The somewhat positively charged subatomic particles (with a small surplus of yang) are then perfectly balanced with the somewhat negatively charged particles (with a small surplus of yin) within the neutron, and balanced slightly to the positive yang side within the proton. Completing that balance is the cloud of mostly yin energy that is pulled into and then surrounds the atomic nucleus, whose particle is the electron.  The protons and neutrons create and maintain a shape, which means that they have achieved a balance, or very close to a balance of yin and yang.  The yin cloud that makes balance with the neutron and proton is almost all yin energy, which balances the slight positive over balance in the nucleus of the atom, but yin and yang to a much greater degree are bound together within the subatomic particles of the neutron and proton.  Quarks are little bindings of yin and yang pulling and pushing against each other with enormous force; achieving stability, but within the quark, it is a highly charged, highly animated interlocking field of opposing forces. When we manage to split an atom and some or all of its subatomic particles,  we release much more yang and yin energy than we see in the interplay between electrons and positively charged atoms, but that is not a different energy, it is just a lot more of it.


To say that yin and yang attract each other is too simplistic.  Yang draws yin into it to make balance.    Once balance is achieved, yin is no longer attracted.  This is a dynamic balance.  Yin still tries to expand but is held back by the yang force.  Yang still tries to continue to contract but is held back by the yin force. That is why the electron cloud does not press up against the nucleus, but is suspended some distance away.  The electron cloud is centrifugal; as it spins, it wants to spin off from the nucleus and head out to infinity, but it is pulled back into it's orbit by the centripedal force of the somewhat more positive balance of the nucleus.  So in all particles, even the most stable, there is a dynamic tension between forces.  And in all matter there are combinations of yin and yang within combinations of yin and yang, in enormously intricate patterns of bound and opposing forces.  Also, strong yang attracts weaker yang, even when it is part of a balanced object. Yang seeks to become more powerful even as it seeks to contract.  Like a weightlifter who seeks to get stronger by contracting his muscles, yang seeks to both get stronger, by attracting more yang to it, and seeks to contract even further. The strongest accumulation of yang energy on our planet is at the center of the earth. It pulls all smaller objects that contain yang (which would be all objects, particles and waves) to it.  In turn, the yang earth's core is pulled into the more yang center of the sun and the center of our sun is pulled in toward the still stronger yang center of our galaxy.



When the particle accelerator smashes together these subatomic particles, it is done, at least at CERN, with enough force to separate within these particles some of the yin energy from the yang energy.  Higgs talks about massless particles passing through a ubiquitous energy field and acquiring 'mass' as they do so.  The energy field that he is talking about is the yang energy that the collision has liberated.  It was locked into and emerges from the particle itself. The particles are not acquiring 'mass' as if that is something separate from energy; they are acquiring yang energy.  The proof of the 'existence' of the Higgs Boson are trace elements of rings of electrons and the assumption is that there is a concrete, physical particle, within that ring.  But what there is, is just yang energy, which attracts those electrons to it to make balance.  There is no ubiquitous, but unobservable and unmeasurable Higgs Field that somehow coalesces into massive bosons. Mass, or the illusion of mass and weight, is caused by yang energy, which congeals rather than disperses and is pulled toward the center of the earth.  In our universe yang is either all bound to yin energy within atoms, or exists in a pure state for tiny fractions of a split second after very powerful explosion such as are created in the CERN accelerator or on the surface of stars, only to almost instantaneously reform with yin energy liberated by the same explosions into new sub-atomic particles and then atoms. At the non-physical center of our universe where the Big Bang took place,  pure yang exists (as it does in  much smaller strength at the center of black holes)  and is the central pull that impedes the expansion of the entire physical universe. This is the 'dark' energy that physicists speak of.


Also, Higgs talks about massless particles.  There are no such things.  A particle is considered massless when it travels at the speed of light, but the speed of light is the fastest rate that a thing can travel and still be a thing.  That means, if it is a particle, or a wave that is capable of forming a particle, there must be enough yang energy there, which would create a minimal amount of congealing, contractive yang force  to keep the particle or the wave from dispersing.  This minimal amount of yang is what keeps the particle or wave moving at light speed rather than at infinite speed.  It is also the reason that light bends toward stars and to the center of galaxies.  That small amount of yang, or mass, if you prefer, is pulled toward these powerful accumulations of yang and the light waves, as they pass near big stars and the center of galaxies, abandon their straight trajectories and bend toward them.  If there were no yang energy at all, if it were pure yin, it would stop being a 'thing,' stop being either a particle or a wave and move right out of space and time, moving at infinite speed which means that it would be incomprehensibly fast and absolutely still at the same time (since it would take exactly no time for it to travel the universe and return to the same point), and it would be, at the same time, both everywhere, since it would disperse at infinite speed through the entire universe, and nowhere, since it is no longer a thing and does not occupy time or space.  Also, if light speed is the fastest speed that information can move linearly; in the field of pure yin, since there is no thing to impede velocity and no separation because there is no thing to separate one part from the other,  information would be total and instantaneous.  I'll talk more about this pure yin field later, but for now let me say that it is what we call heaven or God or the god head or cosmic consciousness, and although it defies our understanding, we can experience a bit of it, because we are part of it.  We are consciousness, which is a little piece, even though consciousness is not really divisible, of this pure yin universe, and when we are able to separate ourselves, even momentarily (through prayer, through chanting, through meditation, etc.),  from this material world of attraction and desires, we begin to experience, to get a taste of what it means to be a part of the boundless, unbroken oneness of Infinity.


Remember, pure yin and pure yang cannot be seen, so what is seen at CERN is the first formation of particles and waves after the separation.  Electrons are seen.  Light waves and electro-magnetic waves are combinations of yin and yang, but they are the smallest possible amount of yang combining with almost pure yin.  The amount of yang in light and electricity is just enough to keep it together and travel at light speed. There are only particles of light (photons) and particles of electro-magnetic energy (electrons) when we observe them.  It is the yang force provided by our focus, by our observation, that adds enough yang for these waves to particularize.  Since our bodies and brains, all the equipment through which we experience the world, is also composed of yin and yang, it makes sense to talk of these opposing forces in terms of our own experience.  When I say focus is yangizing, we can refer back to our own experience of having people focus on us.  This focus brings a yang energy.  If you are comfortable with it, and know what to do when people are focussed on you, then it can bring extra energy and focus to whatever it is that you are doing.  If you are not prepared, and have no clear channel through which to focus that extra energy, it turns in on itself and you experience it as stage fright or anxiety and that extra, unchanneled energy interferes with whatever it is that you are trying to accomplish. Even one on one observation, or eye contact is yangizing.  Have you ever been looking at someone and they, while looking back at you, fall asleep?  You may have, but it is unusual.  It sometimes happens when someone is inebriated, has taken some kind of narcotic sleep medication or is extremely exhausted for one reason or another.  It is unusual enough for it to stick in your memory and to talk about it, "You know we were looking at each other last night and you just fell asleep, right in front of me."  Usually, even if we are very close with someone, even if we are in an embrace, we turn our focus away from the othere person's eyes when we want to sleep.  If you are angry at another person, direct eye contact will focus and heighten that anger. If you are afraid of another person, direct eye contact will heighten and focus that fear.  If you are attracted to another person, direct eye contact will heighten and focus that attraction.  If you feel love for another person, direct eye contact will focus and heighten that love. Focus is yangizing.  It stimulates the sympathetic nervous system and when you are falling asleep you want the parasympathetic nervous system to take over.   In the same way, focus, whether we are focusing directly or through the instrument of a machine, like a camera or recording device, adds a yang element to whatever it is that is being recorded.  That is why light and electro-magnetism act as waves when they are not recorded, and particles when they are.


The reason yang energy is confused with mass, is that powerful accumulations of yang pull smaller accumulations toward it.  The strongest accumulation of yang on this planet is at the center of the earth, so all objects with  yang energy (which is all objects) are pulled to this center.  In the same way the yang center of the earth is pulled toward the much stronger yang center of the sun which is pulled toward the still stronger yang center of the Milky Way Galaxy which is pulled, along with the center of all the other galaxies to the non-physical pure yang core which is at the non-physical center of the physical universe. The pull toward the center of the earth is what we experience and measure as weight and mass, even though there is no real solidity involved.  And this pull by yang energy, which takes up no space and cannot be seen except as it manifests in combination with yin, is what physicists refer to as gravity.


What about pure yang? To help understand it,  here is a Wikipedia quote about the origin of the Big Bang,

"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know."


In a shrinking universe, as the power (but not necessarily the size) of yang increases, it pulls all matter toward it.  As I said before, all matter is really opposing energy fields achieving stability by neutralizing each other. As more and more matter is pulled into this yang vortex, these particles of matter collapse; the space between atoms collapses, the space between the electron cloud and the nucleus collapses, the space between the subatomic particles within the nucleus collapses, and the subatomic particles collapse, yielding pure yin and pure yang.  Normally yang is at the center and yin is on the outer edge of a particle, but in this accumulating mass, you have enormous yang in the center, but also enormous yin trapped by newly arriving  yang and ever contracting matter being drawn in on top of it.  At a certain point, the pressure of the outer yang pushing in on all that yin and the yin pushing out against the oncoming yang,  creates an enormous explosion.  Yin and yang both go shooting out.  Yet there is still a lot of yang left behind. Most of the yin energy continues out at infinite speed.   A little yang attaches to some of the yin expanding force to form waves and larger amounts of yang attach to the yin force to form particles, as we have discussed above.  These particles continue to travel outward from the force of this explosion at an enormous rate, but still restrained somewhat in its expansion by the yang force that remains at the site of the explosion.  This matter moving away from the yang center and, while still expanding, forming larger and larger accumulations of matter as more powerful accumulations of yang pull smaller accumulation of yin and yang  to them; all this becomes the curved plane of the universe, expanding rapidly in all directions but still held back somewhat by the yang pull left at the center of this universe, the, now, non-physical site of the explosion. This yang center, which is the yang residue of the Big Bang, although it is not on the physical plane, still exerts it's influence, it's pull on all the physical matter of the universe.  This is the 'dark force' that slows down the expansion of our universe. Viewed in this way, our entire physical universe is, in a sense, a black hole.  It is expanding, but the expansion is held back from Infinity, from breaking through the physical, material plane, by the pulling force of yang at the center.


I want to make one more point about yin and yang before we move on. In addition to helping us understand the workings of the inanimate world, yin and yang can also help us understand our experience, because our bodies and brains through which we experience the world are also composed of yin and yang.  We experience this conflict between yin and yang as, I think, the core element of our personalities.  The yang element within us, wants to become stronger, to pull more people into our sway, to be noticed, to distinguish ourselves, to attract all the things that we desire in this physical universe to us, and to possess and have power over those things that we desire.  The yin element wants to disperse, to be free, to lose our sense of separation by bonding with other people, with causes, with groups and with activities that we love. We long to be unburdened by the grip of personal desires and freely give and disperse to others whatever energy and love that we have.   The ultimate yang fantasy is to dominate and control and the ultimate yin fantasy is to love and support.


And again, we try to seek balance with the yin and yang within us.  Some of us compartmentalize.  We dominate at work and serve at home, or serve at work and dominate at home.  Some of us manage to help people but still demand that we do it on an equal footing.  Rare is the leader who is yang enough to draw a lot of people to him or her and yin enough to use that power not to dominate or exploit but to really serve the people that are drawn to that strength.  This issue of trying to find a healthful balance of the yin and yang forces within us is, I think, central to our mental health and even underlies the Freudian issues that many in our society are so obsessed with. The thrust of many, if not all religious teachings, is to abandon our selfish desires, our covetousness, our attachment to the material world so that we can be liberated from it and become, or return to, our true nature which is the boundless, loving, spaciousness of Infinity.  Just as the yang center of the physical universe holds matter and energy back from infinite speed and the transition from separate waves and particles to oneness, so the yang nature within us and our attachment to the material world holds us back from the infinite love and expansion that we are truly part of.  I am not proselytizing.  Our world is so interesting because we have the full array of sinners and saints, of yang obsessed sociopaths and yin obsessed saints and everything in between. For most of us, even if we realize that the things of this physical world are transitional and illusional, our fellow beings, not their bodies or their possessions, but their true spiritual essences, are not.  And we recognize a responsibility to those other beings in our life and find enough yang in ourselves to gather enough strength and enough of a material base, enough order and responsibility, reliability and security, enough focus, in order to be able to have a relaxed, open, mutually receptive, enjoyable yin relationship with them and serve and support them.


If I am right, and the building blocks of the universe are not solid particles, but opposing forces, then there is no real solidity to the material world.  If the universe does not begin with a particle or a wave that just happened to be there and just happened to go through an utterly amazing and almost endless and accidental series of collisions, obeying the strictest and most precise set of laws that also just happened to be there; if the building blocks of the universe are really these opposing forces and not matter at all, then what are these forces?  What are yin and yang?  The same question could be asked of any force, no matter what you call it.  What is gravity?  We have a pretty good idea of what it does, of it's effect on matter and energy, but take away the things that it is effecting, and what is it?  What is the essence of yin, of yang, of gravity or of any force?  Again, not what it does, but what it is.


If I say that forces are not physical that may seem like a strange statement.  They are certainly powerful.  We know of these forces because we see their effect on matter and energy. How, you may ask, can a force be powerful, but not physical?  Actually, all forces are not, in and of themselves, physical.  If you don't like the words yin and yang, but prefer gravity and electromagnetism, or, if you are of another persuasion and prefer the words heaven and earth, or holy spirit, we only know that these forces are there because of their effect on matter and energy. What is gravity? We can try to say what it does, can even develop formulas that will predict what it will do, but what is it actually? Well, it's inviolable and consistent, so we call it a law, the law of gravity. Yet we cannot see it directly.  There is nothing, no thing, that falls on you to push you down when you jump off a building. A positively charged atom will attract an electron, but why? What is the physical nature of the attraction, itself?   Well, negatively charged particles move to positively charged particles. Yes, but why?  To make balance.  But why are these particles trying to make balance?  Again, these forces are inviolable and predictable.  We can say a lot of things about how they behave, but nothing about what they really are. And that is because they are laws.


A man made law begins with an idea in the mind of the law maker  about how to have a society that works more to the satisfaction of the lawmaker (and hopefully, but not neccessarily, to the greater satisfaction of everyone else). We, humans, can't create forces, so we create laws and create ways of enforcing those laws.  There is no real force coming out of a red traffic light that compels people to stop, but the law is enforced by police and traffic tickets and we, generally, accept it because it helps us get safely to where we want to go. Natural forces need no outside enforcement.  The word 'law' and the word 'force' can be used interchangeably when describing natural forces.  There is the law of gravity and the force of gravity; the laws of electromagnetism and the force of electromagnetism.  When a scientist  thinks he or she understands how a force works they describe it and call that description a law, but they are really the same thing.  Natural laws require no enforcement; they cannot, at least on this physical, material plane, be violated.  Inanimate objects obey them passively, and when we living creatures behave we cannot violate natural laws so we must metabolize energy or build machines to gather energy, to overcome natural forces in order to do what we want to do, to satisfy our desires.


Yet, despite all this power and inviolability, there is nothing there, no physical, observable thing that you can point to, by itself, that you can call a force.  And what I am saying is that the matter and the energy that these forces are having an effect on are themselves combinations of yin and yang, which are the forces that are effecting them in the first place.  So if the entire physical world is yin and yang, or opposing forces in various combinations, and these forces only materialize in combination, and there is no real physicality to forces, by themselves, then the entire physical material world, has no real, ultimate physicality.  There is the illusion of solidity, the illusion of weight and mass; but really, there is nothing out there.


Before we move on to the next section I should mention something about Occam's Razor.  The Razor is not what it sounds like, a Middle Eastern instrument of torture.  Rather, the Razor is a philosophical/scientific principle which states that  "one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity  can be traded for greater explanatory power."  Please note that in the above argument  four forces have been replaced by two and gravity and mass have been conflated into the same force.  According to the Razor then, that would be: yin/yang 1; current Western scientific theory 0.



                                        CREATION

                                                   
If all the above is true, then we have to alter the definition of creation.  Creation becomes not making something out of nothing, but making the illusion of something out of nothing. If the universe begins not with energy or a particle, but with a force, in fact, with two opposing forces, and the only thing one can say about these forces, themselves, is that they are laws, and the origin of laws is an idea in the mind of the lawmaker, then creation begins not with a thing but with an idea.  And we have to ask ourselves, how can an idea come out of nothing, and what kind of an idea was it that put this whole universe in motion.

From our materialist perspective we think that there can be no intelligence and therefore no ideas without a brain; that intelligence and ideas are the result of the brain.  In fact, many of us think that we are our brains; that are brains are doing all the thinking and experiencing for us and we, if we exist at all separate from our brains, are just the passive responders of whatever our brains are telling us to do or think.  If that is so, then how can there be an idea without a brain?  How can there be any intelligence without a brain, and a human size brain at that?  The way that we judge intelligence, though, is the extent to which a person seems to understand the amazing complexity of the world in which he or she lives.  Biologists attempt to understand the amazing complexity and organization of our biological equipment, our bodies and brains, that we have been given; physicists and chemists try to understand the complexity of the workings of the inanimate world, and artists try to understand the non-physical world of our experience.  So we are in what seems to me the paradoxical position of evaluating intelligence in terms of the degree to which people understand life and the world around them, but grant no intelligence to the actual world whose complexity we are struggling to understand.


We are not our brains. The brain is our computer.  We use the brain to record our thoughts and organize our experience. But the brain, as amazingly complex and intricate as it is,  is just wiring. The brain does not experience anything.  The brain is recording our thoughts.  The electrical impulses racing through our brains do not know that they are recording our thoughts; the neurons that transmit these electrons do not know that they are recording our thoughts;  and there is no such unitary entity as 'the brain' that knows that it is recording our thoughts.  The only unitary entity associated with your brain and your body is you, all the rest is equipment, which is there to passively and unconsciously serve you. This last statement is not true.  I just don't want any scientific/materialists to go running for the hills before they finish reading this post.  Actually there is another unitary entity associated with your body, a unitary entity without which you could not use your body to do anything that you want to do and could not experience anything through your body, in other words, without which your body and brain would be completely useless.  That other unitary entity is the cosmic consciousness, a.k.a. God.  Now that I fessed up, now that I used the G word, please at least stick around long enough for me to try to  explain what I mean.


The brain does not know that it is recording our thoughts.  The brain is the place in our bodies where electrical signals, millions of them at every moment, move from one place to another. They move through neurons, or nerve cells, which are the wiring for these signals.  Suppose you and I were talking on the phone. For argument's sake let's say this is a land line, although the argument would hold no matter what medium the electrical signals were passing through. When you and I are talking on this land line, a series of electrical signals are passing through the wires that connect us.  Without those signals passing through the wire, we could not have our long distance conversation, but are those signals the same thing as our conversation? Do the electrical impulses know that they are transmitting a conversation? Does the wire know? Do the electrical impulses or the wire care what is said, or if anything is said? Of course not. The conversation is taking place between two beings, you and me, and what is being said becomes a conversation because I am saying what I want you to hear and you are saying what you want me to hear and we are both hearing each other and, hopefully, having the experience that each other wanted us to have when we said the things that we said.  So the conversation begins with desire, the desire to communicate certain things and ends with an experience, the experience that each of us has when we hear what the other person has to say.  Everything in between, the electrical impulses, the wires, the phone dial, the muscular contractions and expansions of our jaw and tongue muscles, the vibrations of our vocal chords and ear drums, are all the equipment that we use to enable us to have this communication, but it is us, the two of us, who are actually having the conversation; who are initiating the talk, based on what it is that we want to say, and who hear what the other person is saying which allows us to have a certain experience.  The conversation, just like all human behavior, in fact just like the behavior of all living beings, begins with desire and ends with experience.  The material world, including our brains, our musculature, our nervous system, our technology, our machines, and whatever equipment we use, is merely the intermediary between our desires and our experience, both of which are not in the material world; both of which come from no-thing.  We are part of no-thing.  Desires connect us to the material world of things so that we can have the experience that we want to have; and that experience we also experience in no-thing.  And again, you can point to the brain and say, "But this is the part of the brain where we experience seeing, and this is the part of the brain where we experience memory, and this is the part of the brain where we experience hearing," etc.  Not true.  That is the part of the brain where neurons fire when we see, remember and hear, but the only thing that is firing is a flow of electrons, in fact, exactly the same flow of electrons at the same voltage that is flowing in every part of my brain as is flowing in every part of  your brain.  Although you cannot see, hear, smell, taste, touch or measure my experience directly, and I cannot see, hear, smell, taste or touch your experience, I will assume that your experience is as rich as mine and includes an incredible variety of colors and smells and tastes and touches and body sensations and sounds and feelings, all of which are related to a stream of electrons racing through our brains;  but our experience is as different from that stream of electrons  as the signals passing through the phone wire are different from our actual conversation.


When I said earlier that yin, devoid of any yang, moves at infinite speed and is everywhere and nowhere at the same time and has all information simultaneously, these things are impossible to fully grasp intellectually. Yet think about this:  When you desire to do something, and I know that sometimes we are not sure of what we want to do and we hesitate; but when we decide what it is we want to do and initiate the first action to fulfill that desire, which may mean making a phone call, going to the gym, looking something up on our computers, whatever that first step is; to initiate that first action requires, biologically, the firing of the precise pattern of thousands upon thousands, perhaps millions of the one hundred billion neurons in your brain. Now these firing neurons set off a chain of many millions of other firing neurons which result in many millions of minute chemical and muscular processes.  I am not talking about the whole chain of reactions.  I am talking about the first set, the initiating neurons that  begin the chain of reactions.  From the time you decide to embark on that first step to the firing of those precise one million neurons, precise because it is only that exact pattern of initiating neurons when fired that will allow you to behave in the way you want to behave; how much time does it take to figure out that precise pattern?  Do you think you are figuring it out? It takes no time.  It is instantaneous and, no, you are not figuring it out.  It is the product of a transcendent intelligence.  Here is a quote from another post in this blog called Intelligent Universe,


".... at every moment of your existence, you are desiring to do things and somehow your brain is firing the exact combinations of thousands and millions of neurons that will make that desired behavior possible.  Now please think about this. This is one of those things that is so integral to our existence that we take it for granted; but imagine a piano with one hundred billion keys, one key for each of the neurons in your brain . If each key were a half inch wide, that would be a piano that is eight million miles long. Now at every moment the precise combination of thousands or millions of these one hundred billion neuron keys must be played in order to allow you to do what ever it is that you want to do. A highly skilled pianist can look at a sheet of music and hit the right keys a small fraction of a second after reading the score; these, in the most complicated music, may be four or five or even six simultaneous keys out of the 88 keys of a piano. But where could we find a pianist that could hit a precise million neuron keys out of a hundred billion, and do that instantaneously at the same time as reading the 'score' of our desires? and do that continuously, at every moment of our waking existence? Where indeed? We can find such a Transcendent Pianist at the core of every living being on this planet."


When you throw a crumb into the air and a seagull stops in mid air and adjusts the direction of its flight, its angle, elevation and speed, coordinates all the muscles in its wings and talons and beak that are required to catch that crumb, and initiates the firing of the precise millions of neurons that allows it to do all that, how much time does that take and how much intelligence does that require? Again, it takes no time and it takes a transcendent intelligence.  What equipment is there that translates the patterns of firing neurons in your brain into the shapes and colors and sounds and touches and smells and feelings that we actually experience? Again there is no equipment, and again it takes no time.  The experience and the neuron firing happen simultaneously.


In the cytoplasm of a human egg there are thousands, probably millions of protein molecules that are arranged in the precise place so that if that egg gets fertilized, and the egg begins to mitotically divide into thousands and then millions and then billions of cells, and all of these cells fold, twist, turn in on each other, go through a whole series of convolutions and involutions:  these cells, all stemming from that one original cell and now each containing the precise combination of protein molecules that will stimulate the firing of the precise genes  that will turn into the thousands of different types of cells that will divide and differentiate into not only the actual fetus, but into the placenta, the yolk sac, the amniotic membrane, the chorion, the embryonic villi that attach to the uterus and the entire temporary system of intra-uterine feeding and eliminating and blood supplying to that embryo until it develops the systems to do it on its own. And all of this differentiation results from the placement of the right gene firing proteins and the right gene suppressing proteins in the cytoplasm of the original egg.  Also, there are no visible filaments or structures in the egg cytoplasm to hold these protein molecules in place.  Are we to believe that this placement happens with no intelligence, no foresight, just the happy outcome of a fortuitous series of molecular collisions? And you think it's hard to believe in an omnipresent God, in a creator, in a transcendent intelligence? It's so much harder not to.


There are many other examples of transcendent intelligence that I mention in other posts in this blog, an intelligence that we don't even notice and completely take for granted in our every day lives. The 'no-thing' that we live in is an infinite ocean of consciousness, intelligence, love and information without limit.  And we, at our core, who we really are, is part of that 'no-thing.'  We are not 'that' but 'that which experiences that', we are not a 'that' but a 'that which.'  We are context, not content.  We are the background, not the foreground of our experience.  So, how can an idea come out of 'no-thing'?  In fact, all ideas come out of no-thing.  Our own ideas come out of the little piece of 'no-thing' that is who we are, and natural ideas come out of the 'cosmic' no-thing that binds the entire universe together.


Not everybody receives the same ideas.  We receive the ideas that we want to receive and that we can make sense of and are ready to receive.   When Einstein was in Berlin he was bothered by the seeming contradictions between Newtonian mechanics and the laws of electromagnetism. He was obsessed about this problem and would go to sleep thinking about it.  Finally, the idea of special relativity came to him.  Meanwhile, down the block in Berlin, Schultz the butcher was thinking about how to improve his sales for the approaching Christmas holiday.  He was obsessed by it and went to sleep thinking about it.  Finally, the idea of moving the hams to the front of the display case and the flank steak to the rear of the display case (since so many people in Berlin have ham for Christmas) came to him.  The theory of special relativity did not come to Schultz because he wasn't looking for it and he wasn't prepared to receive it or understand it if it came; and the idea of replacing the flank steaks with the hams did not occur to Einstein because he wasn't looking for it and wouldn't understand what to do with it if it did come. When we focus on a specific problem and think about it deeply, then an idea comes to us.  And where does it come from?  From 'no-thing' which has all the answers, but can only provide them when you want them and are ready to receive and understand them.


So, what kind of an idea was it that put this whole universe together?  What was this idea trying to accomplish? The idea for creating a physical universe came out of no-thing which is beyond space and time, so the following probably doesn't make any sense in terms of Infinity which is simultaneous and not sequential.  But for argument's sake, if there were any sequence at all, the idea to have living beings had to either precede or arrive simultaneously with the idea for a physical universe.  And I say this knowing full well that, on this planet at least, life forms followed matter by several billion years.


To make my point, I would like to talk about codes. Computer code consists of just two signals, a high frequency signal and a low frequency signal.  Who ever got the idea of using this code had to think of it as a way of communicating information and had to have some idea of the kind of equipment, or machinery that could read this code.  Computer code was not invented just so that people could stare at endless lists of 1's and 0's.  So, the idea of computer code would not have occurred unless someone lived in a world where people had a written language, had a desire to communicate ideas to one and other, and where there were machines or equipment already existing that were similar to, or could be modified to produce and then read or be responsive to this code.  Take pixels.  Now whoever received the idea for pixels had to already have been looking for a way to transmit pictures that people could see.  He or she didn't invent pixels just to have pixels.  If the pixels just existed as separate random dots of color, why would anyone want to look at them? The idea for pixels must have included the idea that these points of color could be joined and blended together so they would appear as an unbroken picture.  That means that the inventor of pixels must have had some knowledge of the capabilities of the human eye and the intelligence of the human observor.  Certainly in the land of the blind, pixels would not have been created. The idea of pixels would never have occured.  The idea of braille might occur, because the inventor understood his or her own ability to distinguish touches, and the ability of other people in this world to distinguish touches and the ability of these touchers to communicate with each other using words.  Without words and without touch sensations, even in the world of the blind, the idea of braille would never have occurred.  And, of course, the same thing is true for letters and numbers. In a society of grunters, the idea of an alphabet would never occur, and unless there were people who had thoughts about the quantities of the things in the world around them, the idea for a system of numbers would never have occurred.


Before we get back to yin and yang and atoms, I would like to mention one more code, the genetic code. This code, which is absolutely basic to life and has been there since the very first life form, is a code consisting of four nucleic acid molecules arranged in long, long rows in every living cell.  Nucleic acids are coded so that in a gene, every three successive nucleic acid molecules, or nucleotides, in this chain is coded for a specific amino acid.  This chain of nucleic acids is translated into a chain of amino acids which become the proteins which are the main ingredients, the building blocks, of every organ, enzyme and structure of your body. Now there are some people that believe that the genetic code formed by itself, by the merry outcome of a fortuitous accidental accumulation of molecules and sends the information it is coded for also, by itself. That is the equivalent, exactly, of computer code forming its own applications by the high and low frequencies getting together and arranging themselves into Apple Computers and all their applications (so maybe Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak never really did exist and the high and low frequencies write the codes and build the applications by themselves, probably in Santa's workshop from where Santa delivers Apple Computers and iPhones by reindeer to the rooftops of every Mac store); it would be the equivalent of letters writing their own novels and numbers writing  their own equations.  To go even further, the idea of the genetic code, just like the other ideas above could not have occurred unless there was a corresponding idea for constructing the utterly precise and technical equipment to read that code and the equally precise technical equipment to translate that code into amino acids and, also, please don't forget, a way of folding that chain of amino acids, often with the addition of fats and sugars, in an absolutely precise way so that the protein molecule (each one of which is an utterly high precision and high tech machine) can do it's work.  Also included in this idea had to be an idea, a system, for delivering the manufactured protein to the exact spot in the organism where it needs to be, often along with, simultaneously, other proteins that it must combine with to get the exact material that is needed for building that particular part of the body, and an idea for the amazingly complex and exquisitely accurate timing system so that proteins in the growing body and enzymes in the completed body get to where they need to get to at the exact time that they need to get there; and often, as in many thousands of times every day in adult life, and many billions of times every day during the growth and development of the embryo, these needs are urgent. Oh, yes, and let's not forget that this genetic system must include a way, which has not and probably will never be discovered by science, of shaping these protein materials into the organs and organelles and structures of a growing fetus, because the genetic code, as amazing as it is, only provides the materials for the construction of bodies.  Each gene is an idea  for a new structure, or part of a new structure and has to include, although not perhaps on the physical plane, the blueprint for the shape that these protein molecules will be arranged in once they arrive at the construction site. If it is an idea for a new gene for an existing organism, that plan must also include a way of  altering the entire genetic firing pattern of the receiving organism, a plan for re-apportioning space in the brain of the receiving organism so that there will be room for the regulation and control of this new structure, as well as genetic changes that will bring about other changes in the shape and contours of the receiving organism so that it can maintain balance and equilibrium.  Some times this is too much of a change for an existing organism to receive; sometimes the organism must be guided through a whole series of smaller, subtler changes before the idea in its most advanced form can be introduced.  This is not so that Infinity can go through a learning process, but so that the organism can be gradually altered and prepared to ultimately be ready to receive the genetic idea that was there from the beginning. So if you are still a member of that hopefully shrinking group of shallow thinkers who still cling to Victorian Darwinian ideas and still think that life appeared, by itself, from the oh so fortunate random accumulation of molecules, I hope this information puts the final nail in that pathetic coffin.


Now let's get back to yin and yang. Yin and yang are like the three dimensional pixels of the physical universe, or the high and low frequencies of computer code.  The idea of yin and yang had to include the idea that they would come together in different amounts and different ratios to make a variety of balanced or somewhat balanced combinations that we call particles and waves, and that some of these particles would join together to make a variety of atoms. With the slightest difference in yin/yang ratios we get the whole range of waves which provides us with, among other things, all the sounds and colors that we see and hear. Atoms are organized into a coded system too, so that by adding or subtracting protons, neutrons and electrons, and always identically structured protons, neutrons and electrons, we get the entire variety of elemental materials that our world is made of,  either by these elements themselves, or in combination with other elements.  This includes everything that we breathe, drink, eat, make shelter with, clothe ourselves with, the entire panoply of stuff that surrounds us and that our bodies are made from, all originating in combinations of these three atomic particles: protons, neutrons and electrons (which are, in turn, arrangements of yin and yang).  These elemental materials, either by themselves or in various combinations with other elemental materials, are either light or heavy, soft or hard, edible or inedible, beautiful or ugly, permeable or impermeable, fragrant or smelly or odorless, in fact, every adjective that was ever uttered  to describe a physical environment  was motivated by these various arrangements of protons, neutrons and electrons. Yet without living beings to relate to and to experience these materials, they no longer have any of these qualities. It's like instead of having a whole world of fabulous computer applications, there is just endless lines of 1's and 0's.  Instead of having novels and poetry and plays there are just meaningless repetitions of twenty-six letters.  Instead of having algebra, and physics and accounting, there are just endless rows of the same ten numerical symbols.  Without living beings, with nothing to experience it, the universe is just endless combinations of electrons, protons, neutrons and waves of different frequencies.  In a world where there is no life, and I don't mean Mars or the sun which we living beings observe and study and write poems about, but no living beings what so ever, then there are not only no adjectives, but there are no nouns, beyond electron, proton, neutron, and different frequencies of waves, and all of these moving at different speeds and accumulated in large masses or small masses.  There are no mountains, planets, stars, nebulae, rivers, oceans, deserts all of which are words that we use to describe how we perceive these collections of electrons, protons and neutrons. And there are not even the words 'electrons, protons and neutrons,' because there is no one to ascribe a name to them.


There is no other conclusion but that this system of creating matter, solidity, weight, sound, light and radiation, or the illusion of all of these, was for the use and enjoyment of living beings that would need these elements to survive, and that would have the ability to experience and ascribe meaning to this world. Now it took, at least on our planet, a long time for life to arrive, but no-thing, or the cosmic consciousness or God does not operate in time.  There is no schedule, no rush, no restlessness.  If the world is set in motion by the interplay of yin and yang, then it must run its course until we have a planet and then a planet warm enough and cool enough to support microbial life, and an environment that is not constantly being bombarded by meteors, and the stabilization of the magnetic field which is somehow, but no one knows exactly how, related to the stable positioning of organelles within cells and the stable positioning of protein molecules in eggs, and we needed over a billion years of microbes to convert a carbon dioxide rich environment to an oxygen rich environment, and we needed ice ages and underwater heating vents, etc., etc., to move minerals to the surface of the water so there would be phosphorous to build bones and skeletal creatures; and the more you study it, the more you realize that, without violating any natural laws, everything had to happen at the rate it happened in order for there to be life and then in order for there to be more complex life.  And the rate of the arrival of all these life forms was not contingent on living beings 'learning' to be better survivors, or genes 'learning' to be better survivors (whatever that could possibly mean), but was contingent on the earth and all the environmental conditions of the earth being ready to receive from the cosmic consciousness, from no- thing, from God, the next more complex idea to move evolution forward.  And this idea had absolutely nothing to do with survival, or being a better survivor. The first life forms, microbes, arrived here four billion years ago at the moment when conditions permitted that  idea to survive here, when this planet was ready to receive that idea.  And that same microbe still survives today, outnumbering us advanced metazoans at least a billion to one.  Survival had absolutely nothing to do with it.  More advanced life forms arrived here the moment that conditions on this planet allowed them to be here; the moment that the idea for them could be safely materialized by rearranging and adding nucleotides to create new genes which provided the construction materials for the new ideas for new shapes and new organs and new ways of surviving which the environment could now support.  But all these ideas, communicated through the medium of genes, were there from the very beginning and had to await the development of the inanimate environment, including changes in climate and stability and polarity and chemical content of the waters and land, and the gradual development of organisms so that they could receive more and more complex organizations of genes and still survive. These ideas were not waiting for genes, or organisms or species to 'learn' anything; they were waiting for the earth and the organisms that inhabited it, to be ready to receive them.


I said before that consciousness is really indivisible; that we live in an ocean of consciousness.  The idea for living beings is an idea for separating consciousness, or, really, giving the illusion of a separate consciousness. Each living being sees or senses the world through the filter of its own desires and own sensory equipment. Each living being sees a different world.  Each individual within a species sees a somewhat different world than other members of its species, and each species sees a very different world from other species.  Through sexual reproduction and the system whereby an individual inherits a set of genes from each parent and then those sets are mixed in the new offspring, there is variation among the species.  This variation is a brilliant idea for making each species more capable of surviving environmental threats, but it also, and even more importantly, provides an interesting life for each individual.  A species is a group of living beings that understand each other because they experience the world in basically the same way.  Yet because each individual member of a species is at least somewhat different from every other member, no two members understand each other completely.  That way we can be curious about one another; we can surprise one another;  we can play and learn and improvise with one and other; and life becomes interesting.  If members of a species were so different from each other that there was no basic understanding, we would die of loneliness.  If members of a species were identical, we would die of boredom.


So each of us comes here from Infinity and commits to a specific genome, a specific environment, a specific family, a specific history and a specific set of desires; and we experience the world through this unique filter. All this gives us the illusion that we are a separate consciousness, but if we look not at the contents of consciousness, not at what we desire, and who we know and what are thoughts are and what are values are, but at the consciousness itself, at that which has those desires, that which knows that knowledge, that which thinks those thoughts, then we realize  that consciousness, that true self is the same true self for you as it is for me as it is for all living beings, and consciousness really is non-local, really is indivisible.


Infinity, God or the cosmic consciousness takes care of our survival.  At every moment there are thousands of processes going on in each of the one hundred trillion cells in your body.  All of these quadrillion processes are absolutely precise and specific and coordinated to guarantee your survival.  We also inherit a series of biological desires.  These desires insure that our biological needs are met, even though we have no real knowledge of what those needs are.  We just eat when we're hungry, drink when we're thirsty, sleep when we're tired, continue doing that which gives us pleasure, stop doing that which gives us pain, and somehow all our needs are met and we survive (thank you!).  We also have other desires, which I mentioned before and that have to do with our yin/yang nature.  When we desire something, whatever it is, then Infinity/God, is the transcendental pianist that fires the neuron keys that initiates a cascade of amazing, microscopic responses that allows us to do it. But life has been designed to be a learning process.  God doesn't tell you what to do, but allows you to do whatever you want to  do and learn from your mistakes.  Yes, eventually you will get back to oneness; you will leave this world of opposing forces and desires, but as I said, Infinity/God is not in space/time.  There's no rush, no worry.  If you come back for another go round in this physical/material world, it's because you have something more to learn.  But again, no rush.  Learning is fun and we have all the time in the world.


As always, your comments are most welcome.















Thursday, June 28, 2012

NURSING MOTHERS AND THE 'EVOLUTION' OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAITS

In a book I was reading recently, which was in most respects a very sensible and insightful look into human relationships, I read the following:


As any nursing mother can tell you, the amount of milk you produce is affected by how relaxed you feel, which is related to the release of the hormone oxytocin in the brain. So natural selection would favor a female who could quickly soothe herself and calm down after feeling stressed. Her ability to remain composed could enhance her children's chances of survival by optimizing the amount of nutrition they received. But in the male natural selection would reward the opposite response. For these early operative hunters, maintaining vigilance was a key survival skill. So males whose adrenaline kicked in quite readily and who did not calm down so easily were more likely to survive and procreate.

These kind of 'evolutionary' explanations for our behavior are ubiquitous in our culture. They are automatically accepted as 'science' without inspiring the least bit of critical thinking which would quickly and inevitably lead to the conclusion that they are utter nonsense.

Let's imagine what our species or any mammalian species would be like prior to when this 'natural selection' occurred. Did we have mothers that were too vigilant to nurse their babies and fathers that were too 'composed' to protect their family from attack?  If the babies went un-nursed and the family went unprotected, how did they survive during those supposed thousands upon thousands, perhaps millions, of years while this natural selection took place? Let's take nursing itself. How many generations of a species would there have to be before there were the necessary accidental genetic mutations for a mother to 'learn' how to nurse, or for an infant to 'learn' how to suckle. How many generations could there possibly be if these things weren't known right from the inception of any mammalian species?  When a mother's mammary gland is too full she experiences discomfort and the desire to nurse and expel that milk. How many generations did it take for this 'trait' to be naturally selected from random mutations?  How many generations did it take, once that desire to expel the accumulated milk was established, to figure out that she should expel it into the mouth of her crying, bleating, barking, mooing child?  How many generations did it take for the child to 'evolve' the feeling of hunger?  How many more generations did it take for the child to figure out that that hunger would be satisfied by suckling on  it's mother's mammary gland? How many more generations did it take before the child 'learned' (and I keep putting 'learned' in quotes because there is no understanding, but simply an assumption, as to how anyone learns anything from genetic mutations, how genes carry any learning of behavior at all for a living being) to cry or bleat or bark or moo, sounds which are necessary to alert the mother that her child is hungry and needs to nurse? How many generations would survive before these things were figured out?  Or did the desire to nurse and the desire to suckle and the knowledge of how to nurse and how to suckle and the ability on the child's part to alert the mother that it needs to nurse, all have to be there from the beginning, all have to be simultaneously present in the enormously complex and wonderful system of nursing and suckling, an utterly brilliant idea which included all the necessary genes and the unfathomably elaborate timing sequences to fire the myriads of genes in exact proper sequence to deliver all the building materials (proteins, sugars and fats) necessary to construct all these wonderful, functional organs, and the equally elaborate delivery system to get all these manufactured materials to the exact spot in the body where the mammary glands and the mouths with the ability to suckle and the neurons to connect these to the brain and the non-physical attachment of the desire to nurse and the desire to suckle to nerve endings stimulated in the mother's swelling mammary glands and in the child's empty stomach, and the energy blueprint for all these newly manufactured proteins in the developing fetus and the developing maturing woman that allows all these gathering protein molecules to be shaped into the precise shapes and shapes within shapes that allow nursing breasts and suckling mouths and swallowing gullets to function; all of it and so much more that is simply beyond our understanding, all had to arrive simultaneously with the inception of this brilliant idea, this brilliant system of nursing and suckling.

Scientists are now discovering how the milk of any mammalian species is the perfect food for its young.  Recent research shows how absolutely perfect, in every aspect, this milk is.  So, is this again the result of 'natural selection'?  Did mammalian species start out with 'bad' milk, perhaps poisonous milk?  Why not?  In a random world, why wouldn't some of the many toxins that a mother expels every day find it's way into the milk she is producing?  Or, if not poisonous, was it unhealthful, somehow damaging to the health of the child?  Again, how many generations of any species would survive unless the milk was the perfect food for the child from the inception of that species?

Every organ in the body that requires behavior on our part to function, is connected to a desire. So much has been written about the so-called evolution of the eye. But the eye is nothing more than an electric camera, albeit an incredibly sophisticated one. The eye does not see. You see. And to be able to see whatever it is that you want to look at, you have to be able to focus your eyes in a specific direction when you have the desire to look at something. So the eye is an amazingly elaborate device, but it can only be used in conjunction with a living being that wants to look at something and that has the ability to focus the eye in the direction that it wants to look. Could you possibly imagine the human eye, or any eye, arriving on this planet in any species, without the requisite desire to look at things and the ability to focus that eye in the direction that that being wants to look? A stomach, for it to be of any use, must be connected to a being that experiences the desire for food (hunger) , and that has the know-how to be able to locate, move to and ingest the food it desires. The eye, the desire to look at things and the ability to focus the eye; and the stomach, the desire for food and the ability to locate, move to and ingest that food, had to arrive simultaneously, not one by one, each separated by a long period of random mutations and natural selection. Do you really think that animals were provided randomly with mammary glands, eyes and stomachs, and then gradually, over thousands of generations, the ability to use these organs evolved? This is absurd. Mammalian young have to be nursed in every generation or else they would not survive for more than a week. Not just mammals, but all life forms, even microbes,  must arrive here with a desire to eat (hunger) and the ability to locate and move to the sources of food that they need when they experience that hunger.

There is no sequence of genetic mutations that could possibly lead from a light sensitive membrane to a human eye while all the while sustaining a long, continuous line of generations of living creatures that would be the recipients of these mutations. That would be like building an atomic bomb by gradually adding on tiny pieces to a fire cracker and at every stage, with the addition of every piece, have a functional incendiary device.  Not only are all the parts of an advanced organ synchronous with each other but they have to be intimately connected to a whole system of nerves and muscles that connect that organ to the brain and that allow that organ to be used when it is 'desired' to be used by the being that occupies that body. And that system of desires, although related to certain nerves and nerve endings, is not 'identical' with those nerves or nerve endings, but is an entire system of desires that exist on a non-physical plane, that we experience at every moment but that we cannot observe or measure directly.

Scientists are limited to their observation of the physical, measurable universe.  With that limitation they overlook ideas, desires, consciousness, they even overlook 'you,' yourself,  which is the real 'stuff' of life, even though it is non-physical, unobservable stuff.  Scientists look at genes and see the physical part of the gene which is a string of nucleic acids which codes for a string of amino acids and then they make the ridiculous deduction from this that all the amazing and amazingly intricate shapes of organs and organelles and living bodies themselves, and all the behavior and desires and consciousness connected to these living bodies is the 'result' of random, accidental changes in strings of nucleic acids.  This is such obvious silliness.  The genetic code is not the 'cause' of traits and behavior.  The genetic code is a code which, like any other code, is a means of communicating ideas.  What scientists observe is the physical genetic system whereby the raw materials to materialize these ideas are manufactured.  Scientists are also beginning to observe, but not directly, the timing patterns, many times more complicated than the genome itself, by which these materials are manufactured at precisely the right moment that they are needed in the body and in the growing organism; and they are also able to observe the fantastically complex delivery systems whereby these manufactured materials are moved to the microscopically precise place in the body where they are needed.  What they cannot observe is the idea which then shapes these materials into intricate designs and which connects this creation to a whole system of nerves and brain function and desires and consciousness which allows this new creation to be used when desired.  And all of this obviously happens simultaneously with the introduction of the new idea and all its components; not piece meal, tiny bit by tiny bit until many, many thousands of generations later it is able to be of any use.


The conclusion that living beings, just like elaborate machines, are the result of an accumulation of ideas and not an accumulation of random copying accidents of nucleic acids, is not only the obvious result of clear thinking but is also the obvious result of looking at geological evidence; all of which points to the 'sudden' arrival of microbes, of oxygen metabolizing life forms, of eukaryotic cells, of all the basic body types we find today, not gradually over many thousands and millions of generations of failed replication accidents, but as soon as conditions on this planet allowed for the survival of these more advanced life forms (a cooler, more oxygenated environment, a stable magnetic field, the arrival of phosphorous and other essential elements to the surface of the planet, etc.).


We have inherited a system, a brilliant system, of having two sets of genes and in the process of sexual reproduction these sets of genes of the mother and the father are mixed so that each new generation has a unique set of 'healthy' genes, which yields variety in each species and with it an enhanced ability for that species to survive various environmental threats.  No one in their right mind argues with this. It is also true that we produce enzymes every day that help us digest food and that protect us from  harmful microscopic invaders and that mutations, or copying accidents (if they are indeed 'accidents') can confer upon an already constructed, functional, living being an advantage to be able to digest a previously unknown food source or neutralize a previously unknown pathogen.  There is no room for disagreement here, except as to whether these 'mutations' are accidental or purposeful.   But regarding the creation of living bodies, the construction and design of living bodies, with their impossibly complex and precise construction processes and there almost endless synchronicity and their beautiful and amazingly functional shapes and shapes within shapes and shapes within shapes within shapes; the idea that all this brilliance and creativity, the arrival, the inception, the invention, of all that is miraculous in living beings comes from genetic copying 'mistakes' is obviously ludicrous if you can just for a moment put aside all the Darwinian cliches that we have blindly accepted in modern culture and look at the problem clearly.


As always, your comments are welcome.


Tuesday, January 10, 2012

THE LIMITS OF BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH





First let me say that I, along with everyone else in their right mind, am a huge fan of biological research. What we are discovering about some of the mechanics of the body and the awesome detail and precision of those mechanics is fascinating and will surely lead to vast improvements in the way we are able, not to cure illness because we are never able to do that, but to better assist the body in curing itself. These discoveries, however, are based more on the use of modern optics and the dilligence of modern researchers. Very little is based on wisdom or insight. Ridiculously inflated exaagerations of what we have done, what we have discovered and predictions of what we will discover in the near future are either conscious attempts to delude, or are based on the self-delusion of the researchers themselves who do not really understand fully what is required to create what they are observing and/or who cling to a Victorian Darwinian framework which falls laughably short of being able to explain either past or present living phenomena with any depth of understanding.

Here is a quote from biologist John K. Young, who teaches at Howard University and does research on the cerebellum. I have singled him out not for his achievements in the field, he is perhaps better known as a teacher and popularizer of modern biology, but because his statements, like the following, are typical of the kinds of assumptions and belief systems that most main stream biologists operate from:


"Cells originate in the cells of the embryo. How do they differentiate from embryonic stem cells into muscle, heart, nerve and epithelial cells? How do they transform into this great variety of shape and functions?

Up until recently biology has only been able to describe how these things happen. We could see these things happening and could describe them, but we really didn't understand what was going on. Until recently biology has been a descriptive type of science, in which we give names to things but it hasn't been a really mechanistic science because we didn't know the basic mechanisms that drive these changes.

Biology in the last fifteen to twenty years has changed from a descriptive science to more of a mechanistic science. Now we are beginning to understand the nuts and bolts of life and we are beginning to understand what specific signals trigger to cause these mature cells to originate. So this makes it a very exciting time for biologists."


This, of course, is not the first time that biologists have claimed that we are at the very core, at the nuts and bolts, of life. When Watson and Crick discovered the double helix formation of the DNA molecule and when further discoveries determined that the arrangement of nucleotides along the DNA double helix determines an organism's different traits, we were then supposedly at the very 'center' of life. What Professor Young is referring to is the discovery of the functioning of protein molecules and their role in the stimulation of genes and in the operational work of the living cell and is describing these protein molecules as the 'nuts and bolts' of life.'


Modern biological research can be broken down into two broad categories. One is research on genes and one is research on proteins and the interconnection between the two. Let's first talk about genes.


The genes themselves are nucleic acids. They consist of long strings of four different nucleotides: Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine, which themselves are relatively simple molecules. The arrangements of these four nucleotide molecules into different patterns is what causes an amazing variety of results because they are "CODED." Now what they are coded for can be argued. Obviously on a physical level they are coded for amino acids. Each arrangement of three different nucleotides (ACC, CGT or GTT for instance) codes for a specific amino acid. And when these arrangements are strung together in a certain order, they are coded for whole long strings of amino acids so that, when that code, through a whole series of utterly precise and amazingly complex processes (accomplished by the coordinated efforts of many perfectly engineered molecular machines called proteins) , is transcribed onto an MRNA molecule (about 2000 different protein molecules called transcription regulating factors and composing almost 8% of the entire genome, are involved in this transcription process alone), and then the transcribed mRNA molecule is transported from the nucleus of the cell through another entire series of utterly precise and amazingly complex series of processes (accomplished by another array of perfectly engineered molecular protein machines) to a ribosome organelle where it, through another series of utterly precise and amazingly complex processes (also accomplished by another set of perfectly engineered molecular protein machines), is translated from a string of nucleotides to a string of amino acid molecules, and when that string of amino acid molecules, through another series of utterly precise and amazingly complex processes (once again accomplished by still another set of perfectly engineered molecular protein machines) is transported to the rough endoplasmic reticulum and the Golgi apparatus where it is, through yet another series of utterly precise and amazingly complex processes, folded into the utterly precise and amazingly complex shapes of a protein molecule and carbohydrates or sugars are added in yet another series of utterly precise and amazingly complex processes (all accomplished by, you guessed it, yet another array of perfectly engineered molecular protein machines) so that the protein molecule is then complete and is then, through still another set of utterly precise and amazingly complex processes (accomplished by you know what), transported to the exact spot within the cell or the exact spot outside of the cell where it is needed to carry out its intended function. The timing of all these processes, started by the stimulation of certain protein molecules which results in the firing of certain gene sequences, is also amazingly complicated and precise, because the proteins manufactured by these genetic firings must be used when needed, and those needs are often urgent, and these proteins are often used as amalgams of two or three or several proteins that all have to be manufactured and arrive at that spot in the body where they all need to be at the exact coordinated time. All of these processes are happening many, many times simultaneously in each of the one hundred trillion cells in your body and they require, among other things, the stimulation of the exact set of base pairs of nucleotides of the three billion nucleotides in each of the one hundred trillion cells that will fire the precise gene sequence needed at that moment.


For the moment you will just have to accept the fact that all these processes are utterly precise and amazingly complex, although I will discuss later on a few examples of that precision. Yet you may safely assume their precision and complexity since it is these very processes that are being studied in molecular biology and organic chemistry departments in universities and research centers all over the world, and Nobel Prizes are given out regularly to any enormously diligent researcher who has spent many years making any kind of headway in further understanding the mechanics of these processes.


So you can say that the genes are just coded for amino acids; but when fired (actually not even when they are fired but from the moment that they 'need' to be fired) a whole series of processes, as I mentioned above, is engendered, and they also, and of huge importance in the construction of bodies and the continually changing shape of bodies and the continually changing shape of cells within the body, they produce in conjunction with the synchronous firing of many, many other genes, by manufacturing many thousands and millions of other protein molecules, a specific shape, be that the shape of an organ, a tissue, an organelle within a cell or the shape of the amalgamized combination of the proteins themselves. This shape, although engendered by the gene sequence and obviously connected to the gene sequence, has no visible, observable connection to the gene sequence. In other words, certain combinations of genes result in certain shapes, but how those shapes are formed is a mystery. All biologists can observe is how the building materials of these different shapes arrive at a certain location and when they arrive; but the shaping of an organ or an organelle, just like the shaping and reshaping of the embryonic cell mass through gestation, can be observed only in its results. In other words we can see organic molecules shaping themselves (but of course they are not doing it by themselves) into a variety of precise and wonderful shapes (wonderful because it is these very shapes that makes humans recognizable as humans and fruit flies recognizable as fruit flies) but the mechanics of how those things are being shaped, the 'shaper', or even the blue print for these shapes, is never observed.


So, although the genes can be observed to code for amino acids and in the proper sequences, to code for proteins; the firing of genes, but really beginning with the 'need' to fire certain genes, engenders a whole series of amazing processes, the mechanics of some which can be seen, and the mechanics of some of which cannot be seen. In this essay I will show how these unobservable processes are inherently unobservable, and will never be 'discovered' by the continued diligent observations of whole armies of research biologists. Also, I will show how the context in which these freshly discovered biological phenomena are viewed (not the phenomena themselves, but the context in which they are viewed) as accidental outcomes of a random and unintelligent process, is ludicrous for any number of reasons, and is clung to with the same stubbornness and rigid tenacity that the most ardent religious fundamentalists cling to any belief, regardless of all evidence to the contrary.


For now, I just want to say this about the genes and the genetic code: It's a code. It's a code! IT'S A CODE! IT'S A CODE!! IT'S A CODE!!!!! What is a code? Letters are codes. Numbers are codes. The high and low frequencies used in digital devices and computers is a code. Codes are means of transmitting ideas. The ideas do not belong to the code. The ideas belong to the transmitter of the code. In other words, when you read a novel, you don't imagine that the ideas of the novel were conceived by the letters that make up the words, do you? When you study mathematical equations, you don't imagine that the idea communicated by the equation was thought up by the numbers in the equation. And you certainly don't think that the high and low frequencies of computer code created, by themselves, Apple Computers and applications, do you? So how in the world do we come up with this idea that a code, a genetic code, does anything but communicate ideas from the being, or Being who originally conceived of the ideas being communicated through the code and originally conceived of the code as a way of communicating these ideas.

Also, for a code to be functional it must have a reader of the code. Letter codes and number codes were created long after there were human brains and human eyes to read these codes. But if we are talking about the beginning of life; if life did indeed begin with a code, then it had to also begin with the equipment necessary to read that code. The equipment required to read the code is the entire system of transcription and translation involving mRNA and tRNA nucleotides, involving scores of precisely engineered proteins with the ability to locate the needed code, with a precise signaling system that sets the entire operation in motion when a particular protein is needed, involves the copying of the code on to the mRNA, the transport of the mRNA to the precise area where it can be translated into a string of amino acids, the precise mechanisms for folding those amino acids into a functional protein, and an elaborate timing system so that the proteins manufactured will be manufactured in a sequence that will result in a synchronized and elaborately integrated organism and not just in a random pile of proteins.

If archaeologists examining an ancient ruin made the discovery that those scratches on the walls of a building were actually a code, that discovery would elevate the archaeologists' perception of the advancement and level of intelligence of the culture that once lived in that ruin. It is only modern scientists, so inculcated with Victorian Darwinian notions, that would use the discovery of a code as proof that intelligence does NOT exist in the formation of life. The basic difference between the modern scientific perception and the traditional, spiritual perception is that modern scientists believe that life and later intelligence, came about through the random interactions of matter; while the traditional, spiritual perception is that all things begin with intelligence out of which comes matter and later life forms. Intelligence, desire and will are all non-physical things, but associated in our world with physical bodies; yet they precede physical bodies, precede all of matter, and it is out of intelligence, desire and will that matter and later life forms were created. The tortured explanations of how matter began, ignoring the fact that a whole series of precise and brilliantly callibrated laws had to be in place before anything, even the Big Bang could have occurred; and the tortured explanations of how life formed from matter, explanations which run contrary to all discoveries of geologists and everything we know about environmental conditions as they were at the beginning of life on this planet (see my post 'EVOLUTION'); and the tortured explanations of how oxygen metabolizing organisms could have 'evolved' from photosynthetic organisms; and the tortured explanations of how complexly organized eukaryotic cells with whole internal systems of organelles could have 'evolved' from relatively much simpler 'prokaryotic' cells; and all the nonsense about pre-biotic pools of organic material that supposedly lay unmolested on this planet for millions upon millions of years enduring intense volcanic activity, unbearable heat and the continual bombardment of meteors; while organic molecules randomly and accidentally accumulated, a process taking, supposedly, many, many millions of years, to form the first life form, or the first molecule determined to replicate itself and desirous of replicating itself, when there is absolutely no evidence to support any of this or even a reasonable conjecture as to how any of this could have possibly happenned; all of this can be seen as a desperate attempt to continue to cling to the idea that life evolved without intelligence, or design; and what is most ludicrous is that these Victorian Darwinian ideas are clung to in the face of the discovery of the astonishing intricacy and complexity of life at the very 'simplest' level, even within a single cell; none of which could have possibly evolved by a random, hit and miss series of interactions of mindless molecules, as neo-Darwinin evolutionists would have it. To the contrary, all the evidence regarding organic materials on this planet is that they first appeared four billion or more years ago, not in tide pools of organic material, but already organized into microbes which, exactly like today's microbes, had a genetic system of transcribing and translating nucleic acids into amino acids, a system of folding proteins, a system of digestion, a system of elimination, a system of metabolism, a system of growth and reproduction, and a sensory system of responding to their environment. And that was at the very beginning, at the inception of life on this planet, or at least on the surface of this planet, which occurred exactly at the time when the temperature of the Earth had cooled down enough for there to be non-boiling water at its surface. And even hundreds of millions of years before that, there were hyperthermophilic bacteria living at or above the boiling point of water in thermal vents way below the surface of the water. These microbes could thrive in this super-hot environment because of the extra bonding of their protein molecules. So how in the world could these hyperthermophilic bacteria accumulate from random pieces of organic material when any of those pieces would break down in such an environment as fast as you could boil an egg?


And let me say that the reason I can say so emphatically that none of the amazing complexity and precision of cellular life could have possibly evolved through the supposed random hit or miss process of genetic misfires, is that any biological organism, no matter how 'simple' lives as the result of literally countless, minute and utterly precise biological processes. These are processes that are essential to life. There is no genetic code, no transcription, no translation, no folding of a protein molecule, no gestation, no growth, no mitotic division, unless thousands upon thousands of processes are simultaneously undergone with perfect synchronicity and precision. The supposed hit and miss process of evolution, (occurring supposedly whenever there is a one in one hundred million times miscopying of one nucleotide which is one part of thousands of nucleotides which make up the code for one gene), happens within the context of living organisms, but any 'misses' at the basic cellular level would mean death. Everything must proceed by hits not by misses. There could be no organisms that were trying billions of times to get transcription right. If they didn't get it right the first time, there would be no organism. There is no long line of organisms still working out 'translation.' Again, if translation didn't happen right the first time, involving awesome complexity and precision, then that blob of organic matter would never have become anything other than a blob of organic matter.


Here is Professor Young again, "Now we are beginning to understand the nuts and bolts of life and we are beginning to understand what specific signals trigger to cause these mature cells to originate."


The signals Young is referring to are certain protein molecules that have the ability to re-enter the nucleus of the cell (all proteins are manufactured outside of the nucleus) and once back within the nucleus, are able to stimulate the firing of certain genes or whole sets of genes. What I want to distinguish here is the understanding of what signals cause something and the understanding of what is going on at a deeper level. I know what signals are needed to operate my washing machine. I can put the dial at thirty minutes, can put it at the beginning of the soak cycle and then press another button to turn it on. Does that mean that I understand my washing machine? Of course not. The proof is that when the machine needs a repair, I must call a repair person whose knowledge of the machine far exceeds mine. This person understands the mechanics far more deeply than I do. Still, when I need a new washing machine, I must contact yet another person. The repair person may know how to get my original machine to function better, but he does not know how to manufacture a new machine from raw materials. Now if we are talking about a biological entity and not a washing machine, we are talking about an entity (and this may be a whole organism, a cell, an organ, a tissue, or an organelle within a cell) which undergoes enormous change within it's own span of existence. Those changes may not just be the normal ones of growing, maturing and aging, in and of themselves miraculous and miraculously complex, but they may often include the most dramatic changes of shape, size and function, which would be akin to my washing machine changing into a Mack truck, or my cell phone changing into a personal computer. What person would I call if I wanted my washing machine to grow or to metamorphazise into a truck, or to reproduce, because I felt like hearing the soothing rumble of three or four tiny washing machines in my house? Where would I find the person with that know how? So, although biologists are identifying the signals that trigger the genes that allow such amazing transformations and the construction of new biological entities, all of which is amazing, that does not mean, AT ALL, that we really understand these amazing transformations, or that we even have an inkling of understanding as to what is really going on.


Now let's talk about proteins. We usually think of proteins in relation to the food we eat, and we think of it in slabs: breasts of chicken, sides of beef, filets of fish, etc. But biologists understand that proteins function in the body on the molecular level. The number of protein molecules in the body is unfathomable. There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of them in each of the one hundred trillion cells of the body and countless numbers of them in our blood and digestive fluids.


So here are some facts about protein molecules: No protein molecule (and no protein) was ever made except within a living organism by the process of genetic transcription and translation. Each protein molecule is not merely a chain of amino acids, but is folded into a particular and absolutely precise shape, often along with sugars and fats (also precisely shaped), which shape along with a precise pattern of positive and negative charges, allows the protein molecule to function. And each protein molecule is manufactured in the body to fulfill, and is designed to fulfill, a particular function. Now even though these molecules are microscopic, many of them are enormously complex. Protein molecules are each microscopic machines, and often very complicated, and always absolutely precise machines as well. Some of them function as pumps, as messengers, as escorts, as filters, as freight cars, as guards, as medical alert teams, and scores of other functions. Now you may think I am exaggerating and anthropomorphising the role of these molecules. If you think that please study anything about protein molecules. Again, their intricacy, precision, and complexity cannot be exxaggerated. And again, these molecules could not possibly have originally evolved in a hit or miss process of Darwinian evolution.

Here I have to make a distinction between the two main ways that proteins are used in the body. Proteins are used in the actual construction and continual reconstruction of the body, and proteins are used as enzymes for the daily functioning of the body to aid in such things as digestion, excretion and protection against invasion into the blood stream of harmful microbes. Scientists have seen over and over again how a 'mistake' in the genetic firing (which may or may not be a mistake at all) can cause an improvement of digestion, the ability to digest a new food source, or the ability to eliminate a new pathogen thereby protecting the body from harm. In this way, 'mistakes' in genetic firing create more resilience within a species to survive severe changes in available food sources and in the ability to survive attacks by new pathogens. These occasional 'mistakes' which are actually part of a brilliant system which makes an entire species more adaptable, is the reason that research scientists have conjectured that whole species, whole new body types, can be created eventually through an accumulation of these tiny mistakes.


Nothing could be further from the truth. Regarding the proteins involved in the structure of the body and the continual restructuring of the body as it grows, ages and as structural cells die and need to be replaced, any miss in the genetic copying of the proteins for these structures, any mistake in the transcription or translation of these genes, or in the folding of these proteins, would result in a change of shape and/or charge which would make that protein non-functional or less functional and would result in either the severe impediment to or the culmination of that organism's existence. I should note that I am not talking about the healthy mixing of genes in sexual reproduction where the offspring receives a healthy combination of two sets of healthy genes. And I am not talking about the mingling of traits that results from this genetic mixing, all of which is an utterly brilliant system for creating variety within a species and making each species more adaptable as a whole. I am talking about a 'mistake' in the genetic copying of a gene so that one of the amino acids that compose the gene is the wrong amino acid. All of these mistakes, with one exception that I will explain, causes a diminishment in the functioning of an organism if not in its death. The one exception that neo-Darwinists will harp on is the genetic 'mistake' that causes sickle cell anemia. The sickle cell mutation is common in parts of Africa where malaria is present. Inheriting a sickle cell mutation from one of the parent's genes confers resistance to malaria, so that people that have that one sickle cell gene survive at a higher rate than people that don't in malaria infested areas. Yet sickle cell is a sickness, is really a deterioration of the hemoglobin protein molecule which distributes oxygen throughout the body. People who inherit two sickle cell genes, from both parents, will have severe anemia and die in childhood. People that inherit one gene will have only a mild case of anemia and will also have only a mild case of malaria, since the malaria parasite, which operates by invading the red blood cells, is trapped within the sickled and damaged hemoglobin molecules so that the damaged hemoglobin molecule and the offending parasite are eliminated from the body. So this is one case, THE one case, where a mutation , call it 'accidental if you will, gives a survival advantage to an advanced species in a malarial area, even though it, actually, damages the normal functioning of our oxygen distribution system by damaging, not improving, the functioning of hemoglobin molecules.



And again, we are not talking, at all, about species changing or any kind of evolution. A person with sickle cell is still a person. They have not changed into a new species. They will not supplant the human race. In fact, no so called advanced species has supplanted any so called inferior species. Life on this planet began with single celled microbes and remained exclusively single celled microbes for two billion years, fully half the length of time of all life on this planet. More advanced species have certainly not supplanted microbes. In fact the 'simple' microbe, which is not simple at all, still outnumber multi-celled species by billions and trillions to one. So for two billion years there was no evolution of life on this planet, in the sense of one species 'evolving' into another. There was adaptation. Microbes, with amazing versatility, adapted to every change of heat and cold, of dryness and moisture, of changes in the chemical contents of the oceans, etc. Scientists have long known that all these amazing adaptations could not have been accomplished by the one in one hundred million 'accidental' mutation theory of neo-Darwinists. Complex changes require not just one but whole series of mutations that must happen in an absolutely precise order and must occur to precisely that one organism that has been the recipient of every step of that mutational series up to that point. And this imagined series of mutations, the chances of which are utterly and impossibly minuscule, needed to have happened not in 'endless' time, but in the context of the urgent situation of microbes being threatened by a predator, a toxin or a sudden change in environment for which they had no genetic defense.

What was discovered is that these 'primitive' microorganisms engage in something called gene swapping. What happens is that when one microorganism possesses the genetic material that enables it to manufacture an enzyme which confers resistance to a certain threat (and there is no plausible evolutionary explanation as to how that microorganism managed to have that ability in the first place), it will replicate copies of that genetic material and find another microorganism in danger of annihilation and donate this genetic material by growing pilli, or pores, which connect from one organism to another so that the endangered microorganism receives not just the enzyme, but the genetic material that will allow it to manufacture that enzyme for the rest of its life. Is there a more sophisticated survival mechanism in all of life? For this to happen it must require recognition on the part of the donor organism or the donee organism or both, of exactly what genetic material is needed; then that genetic material must be replicated in the donor and then with enormous precision the ducts or pilli must be grown to transfer this material from one organism to the other. If you can't imagine single celled microorganisms having that kind of recognition, which is a reasonable assumption since we (human beings) do not come close to having any such recognition ourselves (we just discovered that there was such a thing as genetic material about sixty years ago), then what being or Being or intelligence was there that had that recognition and was able to create such a fantastic mechanism? I remind you that this most sophisticated survival device appeared three to four billion years ago at the very beginning of so-called evolution. Please explain to me how gene swapping could have slowly 'evolved' over many, many millions of years of replication mistakes, and, even if that were possible, how could it, once evolved, function at all without a transcendent intelligence; and if not the transcendent intelligence of the microbe, than whose transcendent intelligence must be involved?


One of the things that Professor Young tries to explain in his book is how we now know how the various cells in the body are shaped. There are thousands of different types of cells in the body, all originating from seemingly identical embryonic stem cells. He attributes the shape of cells and the shape of the nucleus of cells (nuclear shapes vary widely among cells) to a system of filaments. There are nuclear filaments that maintain the shape of the cell nucleus and there are cytoplasmic filaments that maintain the shape of the entire cell. These various filaments are made from a variety of different proteins causing differences in rigidity, strength and suppleness. They are also positioned differently in different cells. But the filaments do not create the shape of the cell. They maintain the shape of the cell. In the same way that the girders of a building support the building's shape. When you are looking to design a building you hire an architect; you don't hire a girder.



Each different type of cell has a different task to accomplish in the body, and each of these has a special kind of nucleus whose shape and arrangement of genetic material is designed specifically to efficiently accomplish that purpose. Professor Young writes,


"Sperm cell nuclei are very much smaller and more arrow like in shape than most nuclei, which is in accord with their function of swimming as streamlined rockets through the fluids of the reproductive tract. They also possess a type of B lamin (lamins are proteins that compose the nuclear filaments) that is not found in any other cell. If an ordinary cell is forced to produce sperm cell laminas, its nucleus will become deformed to resemble the pointed morphology of a sperm cell nucleus."

So this is very interesting. The gene for the B lamin protein specific to the sperm cell is the code for the string of amino acids that, when delivered and folded and manufactured, will become the B lamin protein that compose the nuclear filaments of the sperm cell nucleus. But it is also, somehow, connected to a shape, the arrow like shape of the sperm nuclei. And researchers have seen this over and over again; that by isolating the protein molecule that can re-enter the nucleus and fire up a certain gene or isolating a protein molecule that can also re-enter the nucleus and block the firing of a certain gene, then that cell becomes damaged in a specific variety of ways; and by studying this damage in the weakened cell or organism that has been the recipient of such protein triggers injected into a cell that wouldn't normally produce that gene, or blocking the firing of genes that would normally be produced, and by surveying this biological destruction, biologists can pinpoint what protein molecules cause the firing of what specific genes and the suppression of which specific genes, and they can note the specific function of the proteins that that gene manufactures. In the above case we can note that there is some connection between the B lamin protein which makes up the nuclear filaments of the nucleus of a sperm cell and the arrow like shape of that sperm cell. And we know this by injecting the protein trigger for the B-lamin gene into a cell other than a sperm cell. The nucleus of that cell starts to acquire an arrow-like shape before it dies, because, of course, that cell cannot function appropriately with that kind of shape. That cell, whatever it is, has a nucleus whose shape and the location of the entry and exit pores of that nucleus and the arrangement of the genetic material within that nucleus are all designed precisely to allow that nucleus to serve the functioning of that cell in the most utterly precise and specific way. So any tinkering on a genetic level, by causing the firing of genes that wouldn't naturally fire in that cell, or at that moment in the life cycle of that cell, or the suppression of genes that would naturally fire at that moment in the life time of that cell, will seriously damage the efficiency of that cell, which damage is the very thing that biologists observe to forward their understanding of which proteins, after re-entering the nucleus, triggers the firing of which genes and what function does each of the proteins operating outside of the nucleus within the cytoplasm of the cell actually accomplish.


So in this case, and many other cases, genes are found to be connected not only to the manufacture of a certain protein but they are also connected to the generation of a certain shape. Let's look at the transformation of a lymphocyte into a plasma cell. Lymphocytes and plasma cells are part of the immune system of the body. When a foreign molecule (an antigen) is presented in precisely the right way by an antigen presenting cell to a lymphocyte, the lymphocyte is stimulated into metamorphasizing into a plasma cell. Professor Young again,


"The lymphocyte begins life as a small cell with a marginal amount of cytoplasm; as it turns into a plasma cell, the volume of the cytoplasm expands considerably and becomes filled with massive amounts of rough endoplasmic reticulum (rER) and Golgi stacks.

This is appropriate for the function of the plasma cell. Plasma cells secrete prodigious amounts of protein (180,000 molecules per hour!) at about six times the rate of other secretory cells like fibroblasts. In order to secrete so much protein, plasma cells must make appropriate adjustments to their protein-making machinery."



This is all written, of course, in the usual manner of biologists, from the unexamined perspective that the cells are doing all of this on their own. There is no conscious entity called a plasma cell that knows it is going to need to secrete a lot more protein and knows that it must make appropriate adjustments to its protein-making machinery. The cell is not saying to itself, "Gee, there's this antigen here, so I better snap to it and start producing 180,000 protein molecules every hour to combat this antigen and remove it from our system. Let's see, hmmm! I guess I'll start growing a whole bunch more cytoplasm and I'm going to need a lot of rER and Golgi stacks. Golly! I'd better get busy!"

The cell is, of course, thinking no such thing. It is not thinking at all. It could care less whether that antigen invades the body or not; whether it remains a lymphocyte or turns into a plasma cell. The cell is a mindless cog in an utterly brilliant mechanical system. You can either think that this system gradually and accidentally evolved (but that is hard to imagine, because in the millions of years of this so-called evolution, these antigens would have been having themselves a field day in this unprotected organism which wouldn't survive a day without a functional immune system) or you can think that it was, along with everything else in the body, a brilliant IDEA. And it was an idea that came from a being or Being who cared that those antigens not take over your body; that cared that your body survived, because that being cared that you continue to have the kind of experience that you have been having when that Being provided that body for you in the first place. Certainly the 'body' doesn't care if you are able to fight off an invasion of antigens; and the cells and all the almost infinite number of mechanical parts of your body don't care either. They are all synchronous parts of a fantastically elaborate machine that has been designed and synchronized to provide you with a certain experience, an experience of being alive and conscious in a particular way which is a function of the very design and synchronicity of this body. You, yourself, may care about whether or not you are invaded, but you certainly lack the knowledge to do anything about it, and probably don't even know about it until it's too late. The body and brain which are both matter, don't care, because there is nothing in matter that cares. The only other thing left that could possibly care, that could invest energy and intelligence into this process, is the creator, architect and builder of your body who has designed every part of it so that you can have a continuous experience, and the richest possible experience, including seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, thinking, and so that you are able to want things and are able to do, in the great, great majority of cases, the things that you want to do, and you are able to figure out, ultimately, what this life is about and who you, apart from all this fantastic apparatus that you have received, really are.


But I digress. What happens mechanically in the transformation of a lymphocyte into a plasma cell is fantastically complicated, but I will try to give you a shortened version that you may be able to read without getting a headache. In response to the antigen, the lymphocyte starts producing immunoglobulin proteins at an elevated rate. Before they become proteins, however, these chains of transcribed and translated amino acids must be folded into their proper shape. This folding takes place in the rER and is aided, of course, by a number of proteins. There is a whole category of proteins that are called 'chaperone' molecules which aid in this folding process. Some of the amino acid components of the protein are hydrophobic, or water-averse. These must be chaperoned, or protected, from the watery cytoplasm during the folding process until they are safely enfolded into the inner part of the protein molecule and surrounded by hydrophilic amino acids that are not water sensitive. When too many unfolded chains of amino acids arrive in the rER there is another protein called BIP which will bind with these hydrophobic parts of the chain to protect them until chaperone proteins are available. If the rER gets too backed up, then the BIP protein binding sites get saturated which causes the BIP to dissociate from a protein on the rER membrane called inositol requiring enzyme 1 (IRE1). These liberated IRE1 protein molecules can then join with each other and are able to remove a 26 nucleotide long intron loop (intron loops are extra nucleotides attached to a gene that are usually removed within the nucleus) attached to the mRNA for another protein called the X-box binding protein (XBP). The removal of this intron loop allows the XBP to function.


Are you still with me? XBP is a DNA-binding transcription regulating factor. " When it binds to DNA, it binds to a type of DNA sequence called the X-box and stimulates the transcription of at least two dozen genes for proteins that are required for assembling the rER (these include Sec61, signal sequence receptor, signal peptide protease, signal recognition particle, a number of chaperone proteins, etc.) This leads to the synthesis of all the components of the rER and an expansion of the rER that is needed for the secretion of so much protein." (Professor Young, again).




Please bear with me. There is still more. "The XBP protein is not the only one required for the transformation of a lymphocyte into a plasma cell. BLIMP is another transcription regulating protein..... that suppresses the activation of about 250 genes that are active in lymphocytes.....So BLIMP is turned on to suppress the features of B-lymphocytes, and then XBP is turned on to activate the features of plasma cells."

This same sort of process, where one transcription factor protein that stimulates a whole host of genes and another transcription factor that suppresses a whole host of genes is probably the same basic mechanism used in many other cell transformations. The pancreas begins as a conglomeration of simple duct cells, for instance, which are later transformed into the much larger and much more active pancreatic acinar cells.

So this is another example, like the one of the gene for the B lamin proteins for sperm nuclei, which is associated with an arrow-like shape; here we have a whole host of genes manufacturing a whole host of proteins, all the materials necessary for the manufacture of rER and the Golgi apparatus, both of which are the biological equivalent of extremely precise and advanced electronic manufacturing equipment, all programmed to arrive at the right location and in the right order, but, again, how are all these materials assembled to achieve the precise shape, and integration of shapes, to make the new rER and the new Golgi apparatus functional? When the XBP binds with DNA, "This leads to the synthesis of all the components of the rER," as Professor Young says, but how are all these components, comparable to the components of an enormously complex piece of electronic equipment, assembled? How are all these various shapes and shapes within shapes achieved?


Professor Young also talks about the replacement of damaged cells. Embryonic cells divide mitotically, but as cells become more specialized they lose their ability to undergo mitosis. If those cells become damaged or just worn out with age, they must be replaced. Adult stem cells in the bone marrow, in connective tissue and in many other places in the body can be stimulated to migrate to the scene of an injury and by the same methods as above, by the stimulation of sets of genes accomplished by the release of growth factor proteins, these stem cells can quickly take on, in fact become, identical copies of the cells they are replacing. In the case of wounds in the skin, a clot is quickly formed consisting of blood platelets and clotting proteins. Platelets also transmit platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) into the surrounding tissues. This, combined with other growth factors, allows the surrounding fibroblast cells which had been incapable of mitosis, to now mitotically divide. Again, all these explanations describe the proteins involved and the genes involved but say nothing about shape. How is it that in minor injuries, after all the new cells arrive, whether from adult stem cells or from the mitotic division of neighboring cells, that the wounded area achieves the identical shape that it had before the wound? How does the bone or the muscle or the skin surface knit together so perfectly that it is impossible to tell that there was any injury there in the first place? What is the borderline, the contour of the outer edge of that bone or muscle, or the outer edge of an organ or an organelle, or the outer edge of the entire body, for that matter, made of? How are these precise shapes being achieved over and over again? We know the mechanics of how the material gets manufactured but how is it shaped?



Now let's discuss what is perhaps the most baffling of all biological subjects, which Professor Young deals with at some length: the differentiation into all the various cells and all the various shapes of the human body from what is initially a seemingly undifferentiated mass of embryonic stem cells, in fact, from one embryonic stem cell, which is the single fertilized oocyte which, through a fantastic series of multiplications and differentiations becomes your entire body.
Here we are approaching a mystery that is so awesome that even Professor Young is forced to look up from his microscope and use a little poetry. He writes about an almost 'invisible blue print' in the cytoplasm of the egg that divides the egg into special parts. This is a blueprint of protein molecules which have the ability to re-enter the nucleus and cause the firing of certain genes or certain sets of genes, or the supression of certain genes or sets of genes. And it is this firing of certain sets of genes as opposed to others that causes the change in the shape of the cell and the nucleus and the organelles and the function of that cell.

Let's talk about this 'invisible blueprint.' First of all, the blueprint is composed of a specific arrangement of protein molecules. Those protein molecules had to be manufactured by the firing of genes in the egg prior to fertilization. What caused the firing of the genes that created the blueprint molecules? They had to be fired by a whole timing sequence which is in itself a blueprint, but a blueprint for the blueprint, if you will. That initiating blueprint, the sequence of what genes to fire and when to fire them, is not visible; it cannot be observed, and yet it must exist, and exist with absolute precision and specificity. So where is it? I will say it is in the mind of God. If you have another idea, or a more politically correct way of saying it, then I welcome it. Please let me know. Then, the protein molecules have to be held in place and in an absolutely precise place in the supposedly free floating cytoplasm of the egg. How is this done? Where are the filaments or the system of charges that hold such a structure in place? Perhaps we will find that system of charges, but what is the origin of this system? Again, I must say in the mind of God; and again I invite your interpretation. The arrangement of that blueprint has to be absolutely precise. How does each protein molecule know exactly where to go? How do the genes of the egg know exactly which genes to fire and in what sequence to produce this blue print of protein molecules? Was there yet another set of protein molecules that caused the firing of the genes that manufactured the blue print molecules? Was there a blueprint for the firing of the genes that cause the firing of the genes for the other blueprint? How far back can we go? And how is this blueprint for the blueprint held in place? All these molecules are in the supposedly free floating cytoplasm of the egg; and yet the egg is about to undergo a whole series of rapid mitotic multiplications and a whole series of folds and twists and undulations. So included in the design of this blue print which mysteriously arrives and which mysteriously holds its position, is the foreknowledge of all the twists and turns and multiplications that these embryonic cells will undergo; otherwise how would it know that that particular protein molecule in that first egg will wind up in the right position to stimulate the genes to create nerve cells or muscle cells or epithelial cells? And not just those broad categories of cells, but each of the two thousand specific types of cells that exist within these broad categories, which must be the precisely right cell to occupy each of the one hundred trillion cell positions of the human body. And to further complicate things, this initiating single cell, this fertilized oocyte, will divide and differentiate into not only the actual fetus, but into the placenta, the yolk sac, the amniotic membrane, the chorion, the embryonic villi that attach to the uterus and the entire temporary system of intra-uterine feeding and eliminating and blood supplying to that embryo until it develops the systems to do it on its own. And all of this differentiation, according to one theory, results from the placement of the right gene firing proteins and the right gene suppressing proteins in the cytoplasm of the original egg. Are we to believe that this placement happens with no intelligence, no foresight, just the happy outcome of a fortuitous series of molecular collisions? And you think it's hard to believe in God, in a creator, in a transcendental intelligence? It's so much harder not to.


And let's talk about the twists and turns and undulations of the whole embryonic mass. Each species undergoes a different set of turns and convolutions. How is this done? We are not talking about anything that happens within cells. We are talking about the shaping of the entire mass of cells. Of course that is the same thing with each organ, tissue, organelle and feauture of the body. It is not shaped from within the cell. It is not the result of genes which merely create the material that is being shaped. And it is the shape, as much if not more, than the quality of the materials, that makes the whole thing functional; and that distinguishes one species from another. There can be no other conclusion than that all these shapes are ideas and that the genes are there to supply all the physical materials needed to fulfill this shape, the contours of which already exist on some plane of energy that we have not yet detected, and these proteins engendered by genes along with sugars and fats, fill out a shape that already exists on some subtle level, in that mysterious border area between the physical and the non-physical, and is the result of a functional idea which may include new materials, or the re-combining of already existing materials, both of which include the alteration of genes or the alteration of the firing patterns of genes, and which includes shape, and shapes within that shape. And this shaping does not directly involve the genes, but is really the 'invisible blue print' which creates the contours of every cell, every organelle, every organ, every tissue and every feature of the body.

Here are some words from Richard Dawkins, one of the world's foremost front men for Darwinian thinking, who was at least at one time an extremely strident, professional atheist (one may conclude from some of his recent statements that he is now an agnostic, but he would never admit to this),

"At the end of a virtuoso origami performance; after numerous foldings-in, pushings-out, bulgings and stretchings of layers of cells; after much dynamically orchestrated differential growth of parts of the embryo at the expense of other parts; after differentiation into hundreds of chemically and physically specialized kinds of cells; when the total number of cells has reached into the trillions, the final product is a baby."

Look carefully at this statement. This professional atheist who declares a physical, observable cause for everything, makes no mention of any cause at all for all of the fantastic gymnastics, all the 'foldings, pushing's-out, bulgings and stretchings,' which are the very things that form the embryo, that allow those human shapes of human faces and arms and feet, the very things that absolutely thrill us, the parents, when we are able to glimpse them through sonograms and other devices, the very thing that makes humans humans, and chickens chickens, because every species has their own particular method of foldings and bulgings and stretchings that result in a particular species. Are the genes doing this? Is any chemical within the embryonic mass doing this? How could it? This is the entire embryonic mass moving through these 'contortions' as a whole. Certainly the genes are related to these foldings. An oocyte containing the human genome undergoes one kind of folding process; an oocyte containing a chicken genome undergoes another, quite different, folding process. But how can you say that the genome in either case is "causing" that particular type of folding. That would be like saying that the wheat and the salt at the Synder's Pretzel Factory is causing it to be folded into a pretzel; or that the metal and plastic and rubber at the Toyota Factory is causing it to become a Prius. It is true that when a new shipment of wheat and salt arrives, a whole series of activities involving loaders and unloaders and sifters and mixers and bakers and ovens and packagers is begun, but all of that activity really began with an idea in the mind of either old man Snyder or one, or several, of his designers. They are the true cause of this activity. And, of course, the same thing would be true at the Toyota factory, or any factory, even the living factory. These are all the products of ideas, and in living beings, the products of fantastically complicated, transcendentally brilliant ideas. And with living bodies, as with all creation, man-made or natural, we never see ideas directly, we just see the physical manifestations of them.

Every one reading this blog has a body, but you are not your body. Your body is your equipment. You experience the world through this body and you fulfill your desires through this body. You are not observable, neither with the naked eye or with any sort of biological equipment. You are the ground of your experience. You are consciousness; you are context, not content. You are the background within which all your experience takes place. Biology is not the study of life; it is the study of the fantastically complex and brilliantly synchronized equipment through which you experience the world in a particular way and manifest desires in a particular way. Biologists can see neither your desires nor your experience, only the physical body and brain which are the intermediaries between desire and experience. The fantastic system of genes and proteins and the signaling between the two, explains how all the materials needed for the body to survive and to respond to the desires of the being that occupies that body, are manifested. In the case of the so-called 'unconscious' processes, they are initiated not by genes, not by the firing of genes, but prior to that, by the desire of the creator to keep our bodies functioning. In the case of conscious behavior, these processes are initiated by our desires which instantaneously fire the exact combination of neurons which will set in motion a whole process of muscular contractions, of genetic firings, of protein molecular activity, which will allow us to pursue those desires. And what we desire is a certain kind of experience, for ourselves or for others: to experience feeling filled when we experience hunger; feeling satisfied when we experience thirst; feeling well rested when we experience exhaustion; feeling acknowledged when we experience being disregarded. The initiator of this activity, God's desires and our desires, and the result of this activity, our experience and God's experience, is something that is beyond the province of biology which studies the physical plane, which is the intermediary between desire and experience.

By studying living bodies, which are the intermediate phase, biologists will never get to the real cause or initiator of biological activity, or the true result of biological activity. They can only assist us in helping us, through our bodies, to get our desires met. This is a huge contribution and biologists and their research should be honored for it. When society goes astray is when we promote biologists to be 'life' experts and think that because of their years of research and their understanding of various aspects of our equipment, that they are then in a position to pontificate about life itself, about consciousness, about desire, and about the origin and meaning of life. You are life, you are boundless and unobservable, you are ultimately unchangeable and limitless, you are an intrinsic and inseparable part of the cosmic consciousness of the entire universe. Don't let anyone, even if they have won Nobel Prizes in biology, tell you otherwise.


Your comments are always welcome.