DNA is a genetic program?

However, a mechanistic world view denies animism in all its forms, it denies the existence of the soul and any organizing principle of non-material. Therefore, the mechanistic must have some sort of pre-training. In the late nineteenth century, the theory of the German biologist August Weismann on germ plasma revived the idea of pre-training, and the theory of Weismann put "decisive", which were supposedly growing body within the embryo. This idea is the predecessor of the current idea of genetic programming, which is another resurgence of pre-training in a modern way.

As we shall see, this model does not work very well. It is assumed that the genetic program is identical to the DNA, the chemical genetics. Genetic information is encoded in the DNA and this code forms the genetic program. But such a leap requires that the DNA designed properties that have not in fact. We know what DNA does: it codes to create proteins, it encodes the sequence of amino acids that form proteins. However, there is a difference between the codes for a protein structure - a chemical constituent of the body - and planning the development of a whole organism that is the difference between making bricks and building a house out of bricks. The bricks are needed to build the house. If you have defective bricks, the house is defective. But the planning of the house is not contained in the bricks, or the wires, or on piers, or cement.

By analogy, the DNA encodes only for materials of which the body is constructed: the enzymes, structural proteins and so on. There is no evidence that it also codes for the design, shape, body morphology. To see this more clearly, think of your arms and legs. The shape of the arms and legs is different, it is obvious that they have a different format. Yet the chemistry of the arms and legs is identical. The muscles are the same, the nerve cells are the same, the skin cells are the same and the DNA is the same in all cells of the arms and legs. In fact, DNA is the same in all body cells. DNA alone can not explain the difference in the way, something more is needed to explain how.

In the current mechanistic biology, it is assumed that this is usually dependent on the so-called "complex patterns of physical-chemical interaction is not fully understood." Thus the current mechanistic theory is not an explanation, but a mere promise of explanation. This is what Sir Karl Popper has called "a promising mechanism"; This involves listing promissory notes against future explanations are not yet available. Thus, it is not an objective argument, is merely an assertion based on faith. 

WHAT ARE FIELDS MORPHIC?

The question of biological development, morphogenesis, is actually quite open and is the subject of much debate within biology. An alternative approach to the mechanistic / reductionist, which is in vogue since 1920, is the idea of morphogenetic fields (modeling the way). In this model, the body that are growing are shaped by fields that are both within and around them, fields containing the shape of the body. This is closer to the Aristotelian tradition than any of the other traditional approaches. As the oak tree grows, the 'acorn' is associated with a field of oak, an invisible organizing structure that organizes the development of oak, looks like a cast of oak, in which the body is developing grows.

A fact that led to the development of this theory is the remarkable ability organisms have to repair damage. If you cut an oak into pieces, each little piece, properly treated, can grow up to become a new tree. So from a small piece, you can get an integer. Machines do not do so, they do not have this power to stay whole if you remove parts of them.Butchers a computer and all you have is a broken computer. He does not regenerate in a portion of computadorezinhos. But if you chop a flatworm into small pieces, each piece can grow as new flatworm. Another analogy is that of the magnet (magnet). If you cut a magnet into pieces you will surely have a lot of small magnets, each with a magnetic field completely. This is a holistic property that fields have that mechanical systems have unless they are associated with fields. A Another example is the hologram, in which any part contains the whole. A hologram is based on interference patterns within the electromagnetic field. The fields thus have a holistic property which was very attractive to biologists who developed this concept of morphogenetic fields.

Each species has its own fields, and within each organism there are fields within fields. Within each of us is the field of the body as a whole; fields to the arms and legs and fields for kidneys and liver, and within are fields for the different tissues inside these organs, and then fields for the cells and camps for subcellular structures, and fields to the molecules and so on. There is a whole series of fields within fields. The essence of the hypothesis I am proposing is that these fields, which are already widely accepted in biology, have a kind built-in memory that derives from earlier forms of a similar species. The liver field is shaped by previous forms of liver and the oak tree field by the forms and organization of oak trees before. Through the fields, by a process called morphic resonance, the influence of such on the similar, there is a connection between fields similar. This means that the structure of the field has a cumulative memory, based on what happened to the species in the past. This idea applies not only to living organisms, but also to protein molecules, crystals, and even atoms. In the realm of crystals, for example, the theory would have to form a crystal takes depends on its characteristic morphic field. Morphic field is a broader term which includes the fields of both how behavior; henceforth I shall use the term morphic field rather than morphogenetic. 

CHEMICAL WORKERS BARBUDOS

If you manufacture a new component and crystallizes, there will be a morphic field for him a first time. Therefore, it can be very difficult to crystallize, you have to wait for a morphic field emerged. The second time, however, even if you do this somewhere else in the world, there will be an influence of the first crystallization, and crystallization should be a little easier. The third time there will be an influence of the first and second, and so on. There will be a cumulative effect from previous crystals, so should become increasingly easy to crystallize crystallize as you more frequently. And indeed, this is precisely what happens. Chemicals (working materials) synthetic discover new components are usually very difficult to crystallize. As time passes, these components often become easier to crystallize in all parts of the world. The conventional explanation is that this is due to fragments of crystals that are pre-loaded with laboratory laboratory under the noses of chemical migrants. When no chemical migrant was present, it is assumed that the fragments were scattered by the atmosphere as if they were microscopic particles of dust.

Maybe the workers actually carry chemical fragments in their beards, and dust particles may actually be blown into the atmosphere. However, if the rate of crystallization is measured under strictly controlled conditions in sealed vessels in different parts of the world must still be observed rate accelerated crystallization. This experiment has not been done.But an experience related to this involving rates of chemical reactions of new synthetic processes being considered at the time by a major chemical company in Britain, because if such things happen, they must have very important implications for the chemical industry. 

A NEW SCIENCE OF LIFE

There are a number of experiments that can be done in the sphere of biological form and the development of form.Correspondingly, the same principles apply to the behavior, forms of behavior and patterns of behavior. Consider the hypothesis that if you train rats to learn a new trick in Santa Barbara, then rats around the world should be able to learn to do the same trick more quickly, only because the rats learned to Santa Barbara. This new standard will be learning, as it was in the collective memory of rats - the morphic field of rats, which can tune into other mice, only because they are rats and just because they are in similar circumstances, by morphic resonance. This may seem somewhat unlikely, the more this kind of thing can not happen as much.

Among the vast number of documents in the archives on experiments in the psychology of the mice, there are a number of examples of experiences in which people actually monitored rates of learning with respect to time and found increases mysterious. In my book, A New Science of Life, I describe one of these series of experiments which extended over a period of fifty years. Started in Harvard and conducted in Scotland and Australia, experience has shown that rats increased their rate of learning in more than ten times. This was a mass effect - not only a statistically significant peripheral. This improved rate of learning occurs in learning situations similar changes in these three separate places and in all rats of the strain, not only in mice offspring of parents trained.

There are other examples of spontaneous distribution of new habits in animals and birds that provide at least circumstantial evidence for the theory of morphic resonance. The best documented of all is the behavior of a species of deep blue, a bird that is common throughout Britain. Fresh milk is still provided at the door of homes every morning in the country. Until about 1950 the lids of milk bottles were made of cardboard. In 1921, in South Ampton, a strange phenomenon was observed. In the morning when people came to get their milk bottles, these ballots were punched around the bottom of the bottle, cream and top of the bottle was gone. A closer look revealed that this was being done by the Bluebirds, who landed at the top the bottle, withdrew the cardboard with their beaks and then drank the cream. Many tragic cases were found, in which many Bluebirds were discovered with their heads drowned in milk! This incident caused considerable interest, that such an event happening elsewhere in the country, 50 sometimes 100 miles away. When the phenomenon of bluebird appeared, began to spread locally, presumably by imitation. However, the Bluebirds are creatures very homemade and usually do not travel more than four or five miles. Therefore, the dissemination of behavior over greater distances could only be accounted for in terms of an independent discovery of the habit. The habit of bluebird was mapped throughout Britain until 1947, when it became more or less universal. The people who did the study came to the conclusion that the habit should have been "invented" independently at least some fifty times. More than that, the rate of distribution of habit accelerated as time went on. In other parts of Europe where milk bottles are distributed in the doorway, such as Scandinavia and the Netherlands, the habit also built during the thirties and spread in a similar manner. Here is an example of a pattern behavior that was spread in a way that seemed to accelerate with time, and could provide an example of morphic resonance.

But there is an even stronger evidence for morphic resonance. Due to the German occupation in the Netherlands, the distribution of milk was discontinued in the years 1939-40. The distribution of milk was not incorporated until 1948.Since Bluebirds usually live only 2 to 3 years, there was probably no Bluebirds live in 1948 they had been alive the last time that the milk had been distributed. Yet when the milk supply was resumed in 1948, the opening of milk bottles by Bluebirds spread rapidly in locations far removed from the Netherlands, and so fast that even in a year or two, the habit was once more universal. The behavior spread much more quickly and independently came much more frequently the second time than the first. This example demonstrates the evolutionary distribution of a new habit that is probably not genetic, but depends on a kind of collective memory that is due to morphic resonance.

What I am suggesting is that heredity depends not only on DNA, which enables organizations to build the building materials correct chemical - the protein - but also of morphic resonance. Heredity is thus two aspects: one is the genetic inheritance, which is responsible for the inheritance of proteins through control of DNA in protein synthesis and the second is a form of inheritance based on morphic fields and morphic resonance, which is not genetic which is inherited from the former members (past) of species. This latter form of inheritance deals with the organization of form and behavior.