SELECTED VARIATIONS OF CREATED THEORIES
Life began.
But beyond the given (life is), agreement isnt.
Four main categories of concern seem to apply here regarding origins (initial as well as ongoing) of life and life forms.
1. Poofogenesis
2. Spontaneogenesis
3. Macromutation (saltation)
4. Evolution
a. conventional (mainstream)
b. comprehensive creative variational (CCV) [my term]
<end excerpting>
Poofogenesis describes and depicts an origination of life and life-forms without establishing any basis, via a dynamic of matter and time, for such existence. Yet from the inception, the something (life) is profoundly based upon a system of existence, and is itself a complex of interaction and behavior of prior and substrate being.
On the one hand, poofogenesis (such as Genesis) is linguistic abbreviation of the phenomenology of actuality (which is systematology of substrate componential). And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his own kind . . .. (Gen: 1-24) is actually meaningless. The words give us a picture (specifically, a cartoon). But the meaning of life is in the formulation and composition of lifes being. And the essence of life is not the cipher or even the overt visual configuration of life-form. the essence is the essence . . . atoms, molecules, amino acids, genes and chromosomes and proteins, biochemicals, plasmas . . . and such astoundingly complex interaction of these component elements and dimensions of life. So monogenesis presents the ultimate gap in its record of existence and how it came to be . . . . the failure to include the essential, the dynamic, the systematic . . .rather than a mere pictorial of extrapolated state.
On the other hand, monogenesis such as the ultra-fundamentlist belief designated by Luisiana law as Creation-science (Genesis presents the clomplete and only account of origins) . . .puts the Creator of the heavens and earth and all that dwell therein and -on in the capacity of a mere magician. Six days of POOFS. Just outline appearances (with no conception at all that a creature is a composite of such a complex of composite and constituent components and complexes of interaction thereof . . .that the systematology and mechanism and metabolism, etc. is the actual ESSENCE (field?) of creation and the specie-specific status-incarnation but the APPARENCY (quantum?) . . . . . ??
Genesis doesnt consider the creation of all life as a universal substrate of sub-atomic-to-molecular-to-biochemical-to-protein identity (just complexifying). It doesnt even glimpse the transcending linkage of life-forms evidenced by the skeletal chassis shared chordates, pisces through sapiens
Genesis doesnt consider the creation of the neuro-phenomenology whereby one created form of life differs from another in the domain of its awareness, its perceptions, appetites, approaches and avoidances, drives and diversions . . . experiences.
Poofogenesis presents a cartoon strip of forms formulated by magic.
Spontaneogenesis. Where monogenesis has something suddenly created out of nothing, spontaneogenesis starts with something such as the componential or substrate-levels of existence (molecules, primordial soup, rotting matter, infiltration from outer-space, etc.) but assumes that . . . .well, kind of like you can plant a seed and grow a skyscraper.
Spontaneous generation, perhaps the oldest scientific (testable inclusion of cause and effect) theory of the origin of life assumed complex life forms could arise or coagulate (so to speak) from nonliving substance. Mosquitoes and fleas spontaneously generating from putrefying matter. Tadpoles, worms, etc. from mud. Flies from putrefying flesh. Horsehair, left in water, would become horsehair worm. Meal worms from flour. Redi, an Italian physician of the seventeenth century, attacked the theory of spontaneous generation experimentally and left it badly damaged. He exposed meat in containers which were covered with fine mesh cloth. No maggots appeared on the putrefying meat, but flies laid their eggs on the cloth covers, and maggots developed there. The omnipresence of bacteria suggested their spontaneous generation within organisms, a view widely held until Pasteur demonstrated that boiled broth (in which the bacteria had thus been killed) when kept in a closed container yet with air entering via a bent tube which would trap any particulates, remained completely free from subsequent infection.
Cosmozoic theory promotes the idea that spores of life reach earth accidentally from some other part of the universe. Factors of cold and radiation during the transcosmos journey of the spores would be a problem -- except that the cosmozoiscists dont consider the factors. And, of course, this theory is not scientific otherwise in that it just displaces causal explanations in time and place (the how, when and where of elsewhere in the universe) and ships the unexplained to earth.
Spontaneogensis (as opposed to spontaneous generation) would assume that life as a quantum-variance from non-life can occur. This seems to be the case with viruses. . . .viruses are on the border line between the living and the non-living . . . .the existence of these bodies which are intermediate between the living and the nonliving and which have fairly simple chemical properties suggests the possibility that something like a free-living virus may have been produced by chemical evolution under the influence of the unique condition which prevailed when the earth was a young planet . . .mutation could then lead to formation of gene-aggregates . . . could be regarded as independently existing chromosomes . .. But where the spontaneous transition from organic chemicals to organism has to have occurred at some point in existence, to assume that an advanced life-form state )(specie even extremely miniscule and primitive) could suddenly come to be without a systematology of causation (program such as genetic- transition-sequence) and the componential of structure such as complexifying proteins . . . is like expecting to place a grain of sand upon a mound of fertilizer and spontaneously generating a mountain. or the seed and not just the skyscraper but the whole city!!)
Here is that poofgenic essence-gap in a different context. the creature is not so in its essence. It is a coalescence and composite and dynamic. the creature is designated as such, and appears to be a unit-state-thing. But, like a machine, the machinery of an organism has to have its parts and have them put together according to the blueprint and the expertise of the manufacturing means or the thing wont even be, let alone function!!
So spontaneogenesis may represent only poofogenesis of the componential-inadequate. (Quotations and reference information otherwise from Dodson, p. 90 and other -- and Johnsons, various.)
Macromutation. Saltations (or systemic macro mutations, as they are often called today)( are believed to be theoretically impossible by most scientists, and for good reason. Living creatures are extremely intricate assemblies of interrelated parts, and the parts themselves are also complex. It is impossible to imagine how the parts could change in unison as a result of a chance mutation. Kind of like turning on a light switch wired to only one bulb but having half the lights in the house go on . . .would be a saltation of illumination. (but is there not some light shed on the subject by the phenomenon of metamorphosis -- as I considered previously?).
But, generally, turning on a mutation which, by essentially universal scientific assumption, can only effect a specific variation(through the circuitry of protein synthesis determined thereby) cannot manufacture modification otherwise.
That variations of life occur which are greater than nuance change is obvious. one descriptive term for the obverse of metamorphosis is monstrosity. it could be proposed that there can be benign monstrosity which would survive or even enhance survival for the individual. Birth defect from chemical or mechanical gestational environment or event might accoun for this sort of womb-as-cocoon of Tran genetic metamorphosis phenomenon. But that implicit assumption, Transgentic , for the macro mutational individual would probably preclude the gentic dimension of change in the infrastructural essenc eof same. And thus the variation, no matter its manifest differential from the norm, no matter even its advantage to the bene-freak (bene -- as in beneficial) would not be heritable, could not be passed on into the lineage of inheritance, into the continuum of being.
But could there be (especially could there have been) mutations of gene-sums, gene-multiples, even gene-exponentials, not systemically the reverse of the great extinctions of life, which occurred due to external catastrophe such as meteor or climate or such . . . ..but obversely comparable in the domain of existential fluctuation? The gradualism of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being by which Darwin incorporated into organism theory Lyells uniformitarians (eon-slow constancy of geologic dynamics -- as opposed to catastrophism ) is not questioned here. And the issue is not necessarily punctuated equilibria wherein the rate of individual micro-mutations is revved for the moment or more.
Here, Im considering multi-mutation as saltation. This phenomenon could provide the constellation of variances of a quantum change of specie form or format by the interrelationship and synthesis of, actually, a matrix of mutations effects thus composing, as it were, the concert of components and parts requisite for macromutancy.
Now to get a fish whose forefish all only swam . . . .to utilize its fins and maybe body-motion too in order to walk on the land (and we wont get into the fish that develop/evolve lungs here) . .. . this would mean that the constellation of brain cells, neurology, muscles, operating fins, wriggle and such . . . plus a factor processing in- and out-of-water vision and objectives of vision . . . .all this in one fell swoop of even factorial mutation seems impossible rather
than merely miraculous.
And this new model would have to be programmed into the blueprint of the critter (the DNA) so that it could be reproduced in the progeny thereof.
What alternatives might there be to the photogenic in the macro mutant?
Could there be the case of the acquired characteristic of modification of latent, inheritable, ability? Swimming fish gets stranded as tie goes out. Gets desperate. Tries to swim but theres no water. But as it persists, the various gesticulations and gyrations propel it along the muck until it reaches water. And what began as a chance co-incidence of circumstance and genetic potential become s behavioral discovery!! Thus the latent ability becomes the variant of behavior of neurophysiology (thence learning or mimicry or patterning proliferating the new characteristic from the individual throughout the proximate specie and then beyond.
So far poofogenesis is picturing based on a missing link of all else?
spontaneogenesis is alchemy as evoloution
macro mutation is growing mechanical devices or tall buildings
or instantaneous sequentiation of mutation multiplicity (or more?)
or is behavioral actualization of cumulative latencies . . . . .
Evolution. To the general public, Charles Darwin is just about universally associated with evolution to the exclusion of anyone and everything else. And it cant be denied that Darwin was the one who took evolution public. After his book, Origin of the Species, was published in 1859, the subject entered the popular domain as well as the realm of science officially, though perhaps not as a science immediately.
But since early in the twentieth century at least, essentially Darwinian evolution has been accepted by most everyone of intelligence, even those himself or evolution itself. And it has been significantly substantiated by various sciences such as paleontology, anthropology, hematology, embryology, physiology, geology, genetics, and more . . . . individually to some etent, and in coordination and combination of data (the neoDarwinian synthesis -- the synthesis of the various scientific fields and domains listed just above).
But there have been vehement and litigious dissenters. Since the 1920s anti-evolution statutes and the Scopes Trial (it was against the law to teach evolution in public schools), ongoing even into this year. Fundamentalist religious orientations misdirected attempts to maintain some kind of ethic and meaning in what public education provides (a value of and ethic for humanity above chance) have been involved in contesting the teaching of evolution as sole causal fact. As well, though, there are the rabid realms of rightist extremists who would love a double-overthrow (both Roe v. Wade and even the original Separation Of Church And State) so that their creation science can be imposed on all: that the only documentation of existence, especially the creation of existence, is contained in the words of the Bible, especially in Genesis.
Life began.
But beyond the given (life is), agreement isnt.
Four main categories of concern seem to apply here regarding origins (initial as well as ongoing) of life and life forms.
1. Poofogenesis
2. Spontaneogenesis
3. Macromutation (saltation)
4. Evolution
a. conventional (mainstream)
b. comprehensive creative variational (CCV) [my term]
<end excerpting>
Poofogenesis describes and depicts an origination of life and life-forms without establishing any basis, via a dynamic of matter and time, for such existence. Yet from the inception, the something (life) is profoundly based upon a system of existence, and is itself a complex of interaction and behavior of prior and substrate being.
On the one hand, poofogenesis (such as Genesis) is linguistic abbreviation of the phenomenology of actuality (which is systematology of substrate componential). And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his own kind . . .. (Gen: 1-24) is actually meaningless. The words give us a picture (specifically, a cartoon). But the meaning of life is in the formulation and composition of lifes being. And the essence of life is not the cipher or even the overt visual configuration of life-form. the essence is the essence . . . atoms, molecules, amino acids, genes and chromosomes and proteins, biochemicals, plasmas . . . and such astoundingly complex interaction of these component elements and dimensions of life. So monogenesis presents the ultimate gap in its record of existence and how it came to be . . . . the failure to include the essential, the dynamic, the systematic . . .rather than a mere pictorial of extrapolated state.
On the other hand, monogenesis such as the ultra-fundamentlist belief designated by Luisiana law as Creation-science (Genesis presents the clomplete and only account of origins) . . .puts the Creator of the heavens and earth and all that dwell therein and -on in the capacity of a mere magician. Six days of POOFS. Just outline appearances (with no conception at all that a creature is a composite of such a complex of composite and constituent components and complexes of interaction thereof . . .that the systematology and mechanism and metabolism, etc. is the actual ESSENCE (field?) of creation and the specie-specific status-incarnation but the APPARENCY (quantum?) . . . . . ??
Genesis doesnt consider the creation of all life as a universal substrate of sub-atomic-to-molecular-to-biochemical-to-protein identity (just complexifying). It doesnt even glimpse the transcending linkage of life-forms evidenced by the skeletal chassis shared chordates, pisces through sapiens
Genesis doesnt consider the creation of the neuro-phenomenology whereby one created form of life differs from another in the domain of its awareness, its perceptions, appetites, approaches and avoidances, drives and diversions . . . experiences.
Poofogenesis presents a cartoon strip of forms formulated by magic.
Spontaneogenesis. Where monogenesis has something suddenly created out of nothing, spontaneogenesis starts with something such as the componential or substrate-levels of existence (molecules, primordial soup, rotting matter, infiltration from outer-space, etc.) but assumes that . . . .well, kind of like you can plant a seed and grow a skyscraper.
Spontaneous generation, perhaps the oldest scientific (testable inclusion of cause and effect) theory of the origin of life assumed complex life forms could arise or coagulate (so to speak) from nonliving substance. Mosquitoes and fleas spontaneously generating from putrefying matter. Tadpoles, worms, etc. from mud. Flies from putrefying flesh. Horsehair, left in water, would become horsehair worm. Meal worms from flour. Redi, an Italian physician of the seventeenth century, attacked the theory of spontaneous generation experimentally and left it badly damaged. He exposed meat in containers which were covered with fine mesh cloth. No maggots appeared on the putrefying meat, but flies laid their eggs on the cloth covers, and maggots developed there. The omnipresence of bacteria suggested their spontaneous generation within organisms, a view widely held until Pasteur demonstrated that boiled broth (in which the bacteria had thus been killed) when kept in a closed container yet with air entering via a bent tube which would trap any particulates, remained completely free from subsequent infection.
Cosmozoic theory promotes the idea that spores of life reach earth accidentally from some other part of the universe. Factors of cold and radiation during the transcosmos journey of the spores would be a problem -- except that the cosmozoiscists dont consider the factors. And, of course, this theory is not scientific otherwise in that it just displaces causal explanations in time and place (the how, when and where of elsewhere in the universe) and ships the unexplained to earth.
Spontaneogensis (as opposed to spontaneous generation) would assume that life as a quantum-variance from non-life can occur. This seems to be the case with viruses. . . .viruses are on the border line between the living and the non-living . . . .the existence of these bodies which are intermediate between the living and the nonliving and which have fairly simple chemical properties suggests the possibility that something like a free-living virus may have been produced by chemical evolution under the influence of the unique condition which prevailed when the earth was a young planet . . .mutation could then lead to formation of gene-aggregates . . . could be regarded as independently existing chromosomes . .. But where the spontaneous transition from organic chemicals to organism has to have occurred at some point in existence, to assume that an advanced life-form state )(specie even extremely miniscule and primitive) could suddenly come to be without a systematology of causation (program such as genetic- transition-sequence) and the componential of structure such as complexifying proteins . . . is like expecting to place a grain of sand upon a mound of fertilizer and spontaneously generating a mountain. or the seed and not just the skyscraper but the whole city!!)
Here is that poofgenic essence-gap in a different context. the creature is not so in its essence. It is a coalescence and composite and dynamic. the creature is designated as such, and appears to be a unit-state-thing. But, like a machine, the machinery of an organism has to have its parts and have them put together according to the blueprint and the expertise of the manufacturing means or the thing wont even be, let alone function!!
So spontaneogenesis may represent only poofogenesis of the componential-inadequate. (Quotations and reference information otherwise from Dodson, p. 90 and other -- and Johnsons, various.)
Macromutation. Saltations (or systemic macro mutations, as they are often called today)( are believed to be theoretically impossible by most scientists, and for good reason. Living creatures are extremely intricate assemblies of interrelated parts, and the parts themselves are also complex. It is impossible to imagine how the parts could change in unison as a result of a chance mutation. Kind of like turning on a light switch wired to only one bulb but having half the lights in the house go on . . .would be a saltation of illumination. (but is there not some light shed on the subject by the phenomenon of metamorphosis -- as I considered previously?).
But, generally, turning on a mutation which, by essentially universal scientific assumption, can only effect a specific variation(through the circuitry of protein synthesis determined thereby) cannot manufacture modification otherwise.
That variations of life occur which are greater than nuance change is obvious. one descriptive term for the obverse of metamorphosis is monstrosity. it could be proposed that there can be benign monstrosity which would survive or even enhance survival for the individual. Birth defect from chemical or mechanical gestational environment or event might accoun for this sort of womb-as-cocoon of Tran genetic metamorphosis phenomenon. But that implicit assumption, Transgentic , for the macro mutational individual would probably preclude the gentic dimension of change in the infrastructural essenc eof same. And thus the variation, no matter its manifest differential from the norm, no matter even its advantage to the bene-freak (bene -- as in beneficial) would not be heritable, could not be passed on into the lineage of inheritance, into the continuum of being.
But could there be (especially could there have been) mutations of gene-sums, gene-multiples, even gene-exponentials, not systemically the reverse of the great extinctions of life, which occurred due to external catastrophe such as meteor or climate or such . . . ..but obversely comparable in the domain of existential fluctuation? The gradualism of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being by which Darwin incorporated into organism theory Lyells uniformitarians (eon-slow constancy of geologic dynamics -- as opposed to catastrophism ) is not questioned here. And the issue is not necessarily punctuated equilibria wherein the rate of individual micro-mutations is revved for the moment or more.
Here, Im considering multi-mutation as saltation. This phenomenon could provide the constellation of variances of a quantum change of specie form or format by the interrelationship and synthesis of, actually, a matrix of mutations effects thus composing, as it were, the concert of components and parts requisite for macromutancy.
Now to get a fish whose forefish all only swam . . . .to utilize its fins and maybe body-motion too in order to walk on the land (and we wont get into the fish that develop/evolve lungs here) . .. . this would mean that the constellation of brain cells, neurology, muscles, operating fins, wriggle and such . . . plus a factor processing in- and out-of-water vision and objectives of vision . . . .all this in one fell swoop of even factorial mutation seems impossible rather
than merely miraculous.
And this new model would have to be programmed into the blueprint of the critter (the DNA) so that it could be reproduced in the progeny thereof.
What alternatives might there be to the photogenic in the macro mutant?
Could there be the case of the acquired characteristic of modification of latent, inheritable, ability? Swimming fish gets stranded as tie goes out. Gets desperate. Tries to swim but theres no water. But as it persists, the various gesticulations and gyrations propel it along the muck until it reaches water. And what began as a chance co-incidence of circumstance and genetic potential become s behavioral discovery!! Thus the latent ability becomes the variant of behavior of neurophysiology (thence learning or mimicry or patterning proliferating the new characteristic from the individual throughout the proximate specie and then beyond.
So far poofogenesis is picturing based on a missing link of all else?
spontaneogenesis is alchemy as evoloution
macro mutation is growing mechanical devices or tall buildings
or instantaneous sequentiation of mutation multiplicity (or more?)
or is behavioral actualization of cumulative latencies . . . . .
Evolution. To the general public, Charles Darwin is just about universally associated with evolution to the exclusion of anyone and everything else. And it cant be denied that Darwin was the one who took evolution public. After his book, Origin of the Species, was published in 1859, the subject entered the popular domain as well as the realm of science officially, though perhaps not as a science immediately.
But since early in the twentieth century at least, essentially Darwinian evolution has been accepted by most everyone of intelligence, even those himself or evolution itself. And it has been significantly substantiated by various sciences such as paleontology, anthropology, hematology, embryology, physiology, geology, genetics, and more . . . . individually to some etent, and in coordination and combination of data (the neoDarwinian synthesis -- the synthesis of the various scientific fields and domains listed just above).
But there have been vehement and litigious dissenters. Since the 1920s anti-evolution statutes and the Scopes Trial (it was against the law to teach evolution in public schools), ongoing even into this year. Fundamentalist religious orientations misdirected attempts to maintain some kind of ethic and meaning in what public education provides (a value of and ethic for humanity above chance) have been involved in contesting the teaching of evolution as sole causal fact. As well, though, there are the rabid realms of rightist extremists who would love a double-overthrow (both Roe v. Wade and even the original Separation Of Church And State) so that their creation science can be imposed on all: that the only documentation of existence, especially the creation of existence, is contained in the words of the Bible, especially in Genesis.
