- To get a grasp of the complexity of the human body, realize that your body is made of 60 - 90 trillion cells. Each cell is its own ecosystem with highly complex functions including cell energy production, waste removal, cell membrane function, the nucleus command control center, and so on.
Your body manufactures 10 million red blood cells every hour. It has a capacity to heal damaged tissues almost everywhere. Your skin and intestines are being slowly replaced with new cells every minute. Your immune system is incredibly complex and highly capable, representing the most advanced system of nanotechnology that modern science has ever witnessed.
On top of all this, you are born with innate behaviors and the ability to develop, all on your own, the behavioral skills to walk, talk, focus your eyes, digest foods, eliminate waste, sweat, breathe and much more. Meanwhile, your body accomplishes billions of chemical reactions every second without you even knowing it. Somehow, every cell, organ and organ system in your body knows what to do to keep you alive and functioning.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042260_genetics_myths_Human_Genom...
Sadly, the author does not understand the first thing about biology or biologists. I know exactly zero biologists who believe that DNA represents a "blue print" for an organism. That view may have been popular when the heritibility of DNA was first discovered many decades ago, but it is no longer in the main stream, and hasn't been for some time. The human genome project has shed light on the nature of some diseases, but none but the most dogmatic thinkers ever thought it would yield the secret of life. There is so much more complexity to heritibility than DNA. It would be silly for me to try to go into it in a short comment section, but suffice it to say that the set of biomolecules expressed in the mammals (and apes/humans in particular) is vastly more complex than that of a worm or an insect, despite the fact that our sheer number of protein coding genes is not strikingly different. Do we know everything about development? No, of course not. That is why there is still research in this field. But so is the way of the creationist (and you don't have to be a young Earth, Bible thumper to be a creationist): Ask if "science" can explain everything. If the answer is "no", then all is wrong and only God (or whatever substitute, e.g. "consciousness") can be correct.
Can you direct me to this research please? I didn't see any references to God and the definition of consciousness is vastly different from the Biblical God. Science recognises invisible fields like magnetism so I don't see much of jump from there to an all prevading energy (since we all came form the same Big Bang) aka consciousness. Remember the double slit experiment? Where an observer (consciousness) appears to affect the physical experiment? It's an interesting one and I'm not suggesting that this proves an interaction of awareness and matter. But I do think it's an interest theory, just like the Big Bang is a theory. Sometimes science seems to forget that some of the discoveries that are widely accepted and taken for granted are still theories. In this article I didn't think they were proving the existence of a creator but rather they were pointing out that there's a new theory out there that might solve this problem for this problem. If we discredit it straight away as a creationist theory, aren't we doing ourselves a disfavour to science? I'm agnostic, I don't really care for the existence or non-existence of an all pervading consciousness but I'm open minded. What I do recognise is that humans are trying to define the world through our own senses, which we all agree are very limited in the universal context. Perhaps the answer is beyond this limitation? Just sayin'.Do we know everything about development? No, of course not. That is why there is still research in this field.
But so is the way of the creationist (and you don't have to be a young Earth, Bible thumper to be a creationist): Ask if "science" can explain everything. If the answer is "no", then all is wrong and only God (or whatever substitute, e.g. "consciousness") can be correct.
Morphic fields are not new, nor worth paying attention to. The first edition of Sheldrake's book was published in 1981. People took him seriously enough to try to reproduce his experiments, and could not. After 30 years of nothing, you might as well go looking for the philosophers' stone. Very Kantian, but if you're postulating theories about thing-in-itself that aren't observable in the thing-as-perceived you aren't doing science anymore.In this article I didn't think they were proving the existence of a creator but rather they were pointing out that there's a new theory out there that might solve this problem for this problem. If we discredit it straight away as a creationist theory, aren't we doing ourselves a disfavour to science?
What I do recognise is that humans are trying to define the world through our own senses, which we all agree are very limited in the universal context. Perhaps the answer is beyond this limitation? Just sayin'.
The author clearly does not understand information theory or recursion. But that doesn't mean that he is wrong that heritibility is more than just DNA. That is a well established fact, but he seems to want it to be the accepted conventional wisdom so that he can challenge it. He would be better served trying to keep up with the modern literature than attacking a ghost.