Evidence for God from Science

KBCid wrote: 1) You can't precisely replicate 3 dimensional structures of matter without a spatiotemporal control system
2) You can't have evolution without a spatiotemporal control system
3) You can't form a spatiotemporal control system by chance
4) The living system requires a spatiotemporal system of control in order to persist

1) I mentioned crystals as evidence of 3d replication and you explained how it was not controlled, you can't have it both ways. Evolution does not demand precise, it demands imperfection in the replication process.
2) Correct, evolutionary theory is applicable to life, it doesn't explain how we got from no life to life
3)Why not
4)I agree

Proinsias wrote:

KBCid wrote: 1) You can't precisely replicate 3 dimensional structures of matter without a spatiotemporal control system
2) You can't have evolution without a spatiotemporal control system
3) You can't form a spatiotemporal control system by chance
4) The living system requires a spatiotemporal system of control in order to persist

1) I mentioned crystals as evidence of 3d replication and you explained how it was not controlled, you can't have it both ways. Evolution does not demand precise, it demands imperfection in the replication process.
2) Correct, evolutionary theory is applicable to life, it doesn't explain how we got from no life to life
3)Why not
4)I agree

Dude.

1) You're missing the point. The point is that crystals are simple in comparison and are shaped through natural phenomena, while life itself and the system of DNA and cells is too complex to have a natural origin.
2) Seems agreed that evolution requires the control system in place.
3) Many control systems of such are formed by man, and there's been no evidence of something so complex having a natural occurrence. In saying "why not", you basically are ignoring your point on #2. You say that evolution can't get us from no life to life, yet you ask "why not" on a mechanism that must be in place for evolution to even function in the first place?
4) This part doesn't seem realistically deniable.

KBCid wrote: 1) You can't precisely replicate 3 dimensional structures of matter without a spatiotemporal control system
2) You can't have evolution without a spatiotemporal control system
3) You can't form a spatiotemporal control system by chance
4) The living system requires a spatiotemporal system of control in order to persist

Proinsias wrote:1) I mentioned crystals as evidence of 3d replication and you explained how it was not controlled, you can't have it both ways. Evolution does not demand precise, it demands imperfection in the replication process.

Actually it does demand precision. If you can't precisely replicate variation then evolution cannot occur. Think about it... if a variation cannot become fixed in a population then evolution cannot theoretically occur and the only way to do that is to be able to precisely replicate a change.
Crystals as have been pointed out have an inherent property that defines why they form the structures that they do. They have an inherent control.
The chemistries that make up life do not posess an inherent positional control. They must be controlled from outside themselves.
So there is no having it two ways here. It is either or and it is simple physics to show why crytals can't evolve. They can't precisely replicate a change.

Proinsias wrote:2) Correct, evolutionary theory is applicable to life, it doesn't explain how we got from no life to life.

Since you can't have evolution without a spatiotemporal control system it means that such an irreducibly complex system had to not only come into existence first, it also has to persist for each replication event. HAve you considered what would be minimally required to make such a systematic function?

Proinsias wrote:3)Why not

Because of the minimal number of interacting components necessary for function. the system is irreducibly complex

Proinsias wrote:4)I agree

indeed the observable evidence is hard to deny.

Proinsias wrote: 1) I mentioned crystals as evidence of 3d replication and you explained how it was not controlled, you can't have it both ways. Evolution does not demand precise, it demands imperfection in the replication process.

FlawedIntellect wrote:Dude.
1) You're missing the point. The point is that crystals are simple in comparison and are shaped through natural phenomena, while life itself and the system of DNA and cells is too complex to have a natural origin.

There is a further point about crystal formation that most do not realise. If you want to evolve from variation then you need to be able to reliably replicate the changes. Crystalline structures cannot do this. Error can occur in a crystalline structure as it forms but it can't replicate the error in a systematic way since each building block has an inherent control guiding its positioning. So ultimately the spatiotemporal control system is required to be able to replicate variation.

FlawedIntellect:

I don't think I'm missing the point, I just don't agree with it. If 'nature' can turn out solar systems, galaxies, super clusters, crystals and so forth I don't really feel the need to attribute biology to an intelligent engineer, but each to their own. By that logic astrolabes proved ID a long time ago, no need to keep up with the frontiers of biology and chemistry.

KBCid:

I appreciate that crystals and organisms are not analogous. In my opinion 3d spacial positioning & replication was around before the advent of what we would classify as biological life on earth. The modification of existing replicating systems or the appearance of novel replication systems does not for me demand a divine explanation any more than the earth spinning round the sun. As you have asserted many times this appears to be new territory for biologists and most don't really seem to have much of an understanding of this mysterious attribute prevalent in organisms, thinking back to molecular biology classes much of the tertiary structures of protein 3 dimensional formation was covered with a 'we don't know how this works'.
You mentioned earlier that "Replication of 3 dimensional formations of matter cannot occur without control" and go on to highlight that where there is a control system we should infer a designer. I'm just wondering why you feel the need to pin hopes on the frontiers of biology coming to the same conclusion and aren't concentrating on the blindingly obvious and well understood examples of precise 3d spacial replication already available. If what you say is true then crystals necessitate the inference of a designer, no need to complicate the problem by bringing up systems no one understands or can explain as yet.

Proinsias wrote:KBCid:
I appreciate that crystals and organisms are not analogous. In my opinion 3d spatial positioning & replication was around before the advent of what we would classify as biological life on earth.

I understand that people can have opinions and this all good but there was a reason for the scientific revolution. People used to have opinions about how lightning occured or whether the earth was flat or whether the earth was the center of the universe. Scientific understanding is what corrected opinions with a proper basis of understanding. In order to have a foundation for your opinion you would have to have some evidence that nature could in fact form such things. As far as I know there is no such evidence to refer to for a foundation. So what you have is a belief, a belief that is the equivalent to any creationist out there.

Proinsias wrote:The modification of existing replicating systems or the appearance of novel replication systems does not for me demand a divine explanation any more than the earth spinning round the sun.

The mechanical evidence doesn't demand a devine explanation either, it simply demands an intelligt cause. I chose God as the designer I wanted based on other considerations entirely. I would ask how you know that nature can form such a system without intelligent intervention?

Proinsias wrote:As you have asserted many times this appears to be new territory for biologists and most don't really seem to have much of an understanding of this mysterious attribute prevalent in organisms, thinking back to molecular biology classes much of the tertiary structures of protein 3 dimensional formation was covered with a 'we don't know how this works'.

Indeed they still don't really know how it occurs. What has changed is that the evidence has now entered the realm of mechanical understanding. Specifically system mechanics. This area of understanding is driven by physics, I don't need to guess at what is occuring. I know. The only things left for biologists to determine is just how complex the system is arranged in order to implement the the requirements of the system.

Proinsias wrote:You mentioned earlier that "Replication of 3 dimensional formations of matter cannot occur without control" and go on to highlight that where there is a control system we should infer a designer.

Because systematic outside control of 3D spatial positioning of matter has been the exclusive realm of intelligent design. Science is predicated on taking observable evidences in the here and now to infer from and since no system of this form has ever been observed to be formed naturally then there is not much choice in the matter. You are certainly welcome to reference such an occurance by natural causes if you wish to assert that nature has the possibility.

Proinsias wrote:I'm just wondering why you feel the need to pin hopes on the frontiers of biology coming to the same conclusion and aren't concentrating on the blindingly obvious and well understood examples of precise 3d spacial replication already available.

Unfortunately you have no "blindingly obvious and well understood examples of precise 3d spacial replication already available" except by intelligent design. As noted above you are welcome to provide a reference for your assertion.

Proinsias wrote:If what you say is true then crystals necessitate the inference of a designer, no need to complicate the problem by bringing up systems no one understands or can explain as yet.

If you read what I have said about crystalline formation then you would know that it has no requirement for an outside cause. Crystalline structures are formed by the inherent properties of the matter that forms them. This method of formation has been understood by physics for quite some time. There is also one further point that needs repeating on crystalline structures. They can't precisely replicate structural errors. You can't evolve something that can't replicate changes in structure. Evolution requires that variation be heritable.

If I were you I would look a bit closer at what would be required in order to control 3 dimensional positioning of matter before you accept a belief that such can occur by chance.

I'm aware of the scientific revolution. The reason I mentioned that 3d precise spacial position & replication was around before life on earth, in the form of crystals, being my 'opinion' is that I'm aware there are posters on this board who disagree with much of the conclusions the scientific revolution has come to - evolution being responsible for the variety of life observed, the universe being billions of years old, etc. I can't claim with certainty that crystals were around before life because as far back as I can remember there has been life and crystals.

I stand corrected, what I should have said was that I don't see the need for a divine OR intelligent cause, again this may be due to my background in biology which is leading me to the same conclusions as the biologists in the papers you have cited - not a hint of intelligent cause to be found.

I don't need to guess at what is occuring. I know.

I imagine the biology dept will be eager to hear from you, unless of course you don't know what is occurring and are simply going to explain things in terms of how an engineer would go about designing a similar sort of system and what the basic requirement would be in your opinion for the matter to be moving in the way observed.

Unfortunately you have no "blindingly obvious and well understood examples of precise 3d spacial replication already available" except by intelligent design. As noted above you are welcome to provide a reference for your assertion.

I do! crystals. You've said it's well understood.

Because systematic outside control of 3D spatial positioning of matter has been the exclusive realm of intelligent design. Science is predicated on taking observable evidences in the here and now to infer from and since no system of this form has ever been observed to be formed naturally then there is not much choice in the matter. You are certainly welcome to reference such an occurance by natural causes if you wish to assert that nature has the possibility.

Outside control? This is news to me. From what I understand the cell is basic biological unit of reproduction, an e-coli will reproduce without a control system outside regulating it as will two humans - I appreciate it will require certain environmental conditions to be met to do this. Could you elaborate on what you mean by systematic outside control? I was under the impression you were arguing for an internal control system from which you are inferring an outside agent who put it there.

If you read what I have said about crystalline formation then you would know that it has no requirement for an outside cause. Crystalline structures are formed by the inherent properties of the matter that forms them. This method of formation has been understood by physics for quite some time. There is also one further point that needs repeating on crystalline structures. They can't precisely replicate structural errors. You can't evolve something that can't replicate changes in structure. Evolution requires that variation be heritable.

The goal posts are shifting. Precise 3d spacial positioning and replication seems no longer proof of an intelligent designer. I'm aware crystal don't evolve, what I've seen you argue for many pages is the precise 3d spacial positioning & replication infers an intelligent designer and then explain how certain 3d spacial positioning and replicating systems don't infer a designer as they are well understood. To me it seem that precise 3d spacial temporal control systems we don't really understand are proof of an intelligent designer - not a fan of the phrase but 'god of gaps' springs to mind. Yeah there are 3d spacial positioning systems which replicate, but the proof of the designer is in the ones we don't understand yet?

Browsing over the evolution & ID thread I see that you are of the opinion scientific testing of your idea will be a snap, I'm keen to see what you come up with. If evolution managed to convince 97% or whatever of biologists without being scientifically testable then there is about to a major change in biology soon. Personally I'm eager for a biology revolution, it would be wonderful to see someone do for biology what Einstein done for physics. If you'll allow me a little poetic licence Darwin is comparable to Newton in giving a common language to his field, Einstein came along and showed that despite that language being utilitarian within certain parameters it broke down when pushed beyond them and gave us problems we're still working on, biology in comparison still seems a little smug that everything is explainable within Darwin's basic framework, the framework is constantly being adjusted but I Iook forward to the carpet being pulled from beneath its feet.

If 'nature' can turn out solar systems, galaxies, super clusters, crystals and so forth I don't really feel the need to attribute biology to an intelligent engineer, but each to their own. By that logic astrolabes proved ID a long time ago, no need to keep up with the frontiers of biology and chemistry.

Pro,
That is just fundementally flawed. Do you know what nature is? You are treating nature as if it is the divine entitiy.
Do you really think 'nature' just turns out such things? Please show us any empirical data, or operational science to demonstrate that there is some nature doing such things.
what you are doing here is committing the fallacy of reification. You are ascribing qualities (intelligent engineering) of God to nature, and then denying the engineer in the same breath. The Bible calls that supressing the truth in unrighteousness. Repent from that nonsense. Hey, no need for a God, we have "NATURE". (oohhs and aahhs in the background)

I imagine the biology dept will be eager to hear from you, unless of course you don't know what is occurring and are simply going to explain things in terms of how an engineer would go about designing a similar sort of system and what the basic requirement would be in your opinion for the matter to be moving in the way observed.

This is the exact kind of arrogance that is the problem.

I don't know what nature is. Which makes defining what is unnatural, supernatural, etc rather difficult. Some people seeing God and some not seems pretty natural to me.

I'm just curious as to why KBCid seems to think these sort of things are not evidence worthy of pursing in the quest to prove an intelligent cause and is instead concentrating on things we don't understand. I'm not averse to treating nature as a divine entity. It seems to me that these things appear, I'm not sure why. If we can create astrolabes that resemble the solar system or observe crystals, why rely on what we what we don't understand, like the processes involved in tertiary protein structure, and not work with things that we do understand.

I can see these things, I don't know why they happen. Saying it's due to an outside intelligent cause is a leap I'm not able to take at the moment. I'm not saying there is no need for God, it's the idea that the gap between chemistry and biology is obviously bridged by an intelligent agent intervening. If you don't see the need for the divine in seeing a snowflake on your window or in the love you feel for those close to you why would you see it in a gap between chemistry and biology.

Arrogance shouldn't be an issue if KBCid lives up to claims of a testable theory that unlike evolution is based on claims that are easily demonstrated and can be reproduced. Arrogance was a big issue for Eugene Dubois when he was promoting evolution and looking for missing links, from the view of the scientific community, which at the time was based in creationism, he won.

From the other thread:

Actually the line of reasoning I am proposing will be testable by the scientific method for ID.

I'm all ears....

Proinsias wrote:I'm aware of the scientific revolution. The reason I mentioned that 3d precise spacial position & replication was around before life on earth, in the form of crystals, being my 'opinion' is that I'm aware there are posters on this board who disagree with much of the conclusions the scientific revolution has come to - evolution being responsible for the variety of life observed, the universe being billions of years old, etc. I can't claim with certainty that crystals were around before life because as far back as I can remember there has been life and crystals.

Crytals will exist as long as there is matter that can interact. Crytalline structure is entirely understood by physics.
Crystals in nature don't replicate they grow by tiling
The living system in no manner resembles crystalline structuring
Beliefs that try to span beyond scientific inquiry are religious concerns and Of course the topic here is biology and 3d spatial positioning so there is no reason to venture beyond inference from observable evidences.

Mechanosensitive mechanisms in transcriptional regulation
In the past, most work has focused on how transcriptional regulation results from the complex interplay between chemical cues, adhesion signals, transcription factors and their co-regulators during development. However, chemical signaling alone is not sufficient to explain how three-dimensional (3D) tissues and organs are constructed and maintained through the spatiotemporal control of transcriptional activities. Accumulated evidence indicates that mechanical cues, which include physical forces (e.g. tension, compression or shear stress), alterations in extracellular matrix (ECM) mechanics and changes in cell shape, are transmitted to the nucleus directly or indirectly to orchestrate transcriptional activities that are crucial for embryogenesis and organogenesis. In this Commentary, we review how the mechanical control of gene transcription contributes to the maintenance of pluripotency, determination of cell fate, pattern formation and organogenesis, as well as how it is involved in the control of cell and tissue function throughout embryogenesis and adult life. A deeper understanding of these mechanosensitive transcriptional control mechanisms should lead to new approaches to tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22797927

Physical geometry. The very thing that gives life its abilities and allows it success in existence is only eclipsed by how physical geometry can persist through replication. Matter is some how controlled so that when it is arranged into a living system it can pass on its 3 dimensional form.
What does it take to replicate 3 dimensional forms of matter that have no inherent formational cause such as crystals or snowflakes.

Proinsias wrote:I stand corrected, what I should have said was that I don't see the need for a divine OR intelligent cause, again this may be due to my background in biology which is leading me to the same conclusions as the biologists in the papers you have cited - not a hint of intelligent cause to be found.

The scientists in the papers referenced don't typically offer a conclusion since they don't yet know or understand how the control is occuring. However, if you wish to assert that you agree with everyone who hypothesizes that nature can cause everything without having evidence to back the concept then I am sure there are many in and outside of biology that have the same 'belief'.

KBCid wrote:I don't need to guess at what is occuring. I know.

Proinsias wrote:I imagine the biology dept will be eager to hear from you, unless of course you don't know what is occurring and are simply going to explain things in terms of how an engineer would go about designing a similar sort of system and what the basic requirement would be in your opinion for the matter to be moving in the way observed.

I would think they would be eager as well.
So why would explaining mechanical action in a physical system of matter not explain the observable evidence in the living system via the physics that engineering works with? Does the matter in the living system work on different laws of physics than the rest of the universe? and lets be sure you understand here that physics is not my own personal opinion. As I have noted a number of times now "define" how matter can be spatially and temporally controlled if it doesn't posess the inherent properties of matter in crystalline structures.
This should be simple to explain right? it is simply matter and the laws of physics.

KBCid wrote:Unfortunately you have no "blindingly obvious and well understood examples of precise 3d spacial replication already available" except by intelligent design. As noted above you are welcome to provide a reference for your assertion.

Proinsias wrote:I do! crystals. You've said it's well understood.

Provide the reference to crystals in nature that replicate and don't form by accretion.

KBCid wrote:Because systematic outside control of 3D spatial positioning of matter has been the exclusive realm of intelligent design. Science is predicated on taking observable evidences in the here and now to infer from and since no system of this form has ever been observed to be formed naturally then there is not much choice in the matter. You are certainly welcome to reference such an occurance by natural causes if you wish to assert that nature has the possibility.

Proinsias wrote:Outside control? This is news to me. From what I understand the cell is basic biological unit of reproduction, an e-coli will reproduce without a control system outside regulating it as will two humans - I appreciate it will require certain environmental conditions to be met to do this. Could you elaborate on what you mean by systematic outside control? I was under the impression you were arguing for an internal control system from which you are inferring an outside agent who put it there.

A cell certainly is a "biological unit of reproduction" and a 'cell' is formed by the precise arrangement of matter in 3 dimensions. A cell controls the movement of the materials it makes both spatially and temporally in order to replicate. It is a mechanistic system designed to allow life to persist and replicate.

KBCid wrote:If you read what I have said about crystalline formation then you would know that it has no requirement for an outside cause. Crystalline structures are formed by the inherent properties of the matter that forms them. This method of formation has been understood by physics for quite some time. There is also one further point that needs repeating on crystalline structures. They can't precisely replicate structural errors. You can't evolve something that can't accurately replicate changes in structure. Evolution requires that variation be heritable.

Proinsias wrote:The goal posts are shifting. Precise 3d spacial positioning and replication seems no longer proof of an intelligent designer.

Nope haven't moved posts a bit.
Precise 3d spacial positioning of matter that is not inherent within the matter such as crytalline structures requires a systematic control that has only been observed to occur by design. The living system does not form structures by accretion it displays the ability to spatiotemporally control the matter it is made of into arrangements that are never observed in accretion formation.

Proinsias wrote:I'm aware crystal don't evolve, what I've seen you argue for many pages is the precise 3d spacial positioning & replication infers an intelligent designer and then explain how certain 3d spacial positioning and replicating systems don't infer a designer as they are well understood. To me it seem that precise 3d spacial temporal control systems we don't really understand are proof of an intelligent designer - not a fan of the phrase but 'god of gaps' springs to mind. Yeah there are 3d spacial positioning systems which replicate, but the proof of the designer is in the ones we don't understand yet?

There are no 3d spacial positioning systems which replicate naturally although you appear to infer that crystals do even though it is plainly understood that crystals form by accretion.

"While replication of chemical sequences through crystal growth has continued to be of interest because of its simplicity and potential compatibility with a wide variety of chemistries, such replication has never been demonstrated.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6405.full.pdf+html

Proinsias wrote:Browsing over the evolution & ID thread I see that you are of the opinion scientific testing of your idea will be a snap, I'm keen to see what you come up with. If evolution managed to convince 97% or whatever of biologists without being scientifically testable then there is about to a major change in biology soon. Personally I'm eager for a biology revolution, it would be wonderful to see someone do for biology what Einstein done for physics. If you'll allow me a little poetic licence Darwin is comparable to Newton in giving a common language to his field, Einstein came along and showed that despite that language being utilitarian within certain parameters it broke down when pushed beyond them and gave us problems we're still working on, biology in comparison still seems a little smug that everything is explainable within Darwin's basic framework, the framework is constantly being adjusted but I Iook forward to the carpet being pulled from beneath its feet.

The defining of the players involved in implementing the system will eventually be elucidated. This is typical reverse engineering strategy. We can do the same thing with a car motor. What will be a stumbling block for biology is to figure out how such a system could be built in a stepwise manner prior to having the functionality required to stepwise build it. A system that can control the arrangement of matter in 3 dimensions must of necessity have an initial 3 dimensional structure that can be replicated and in order to precisely replicate it requires a spatiotemporal control system already functioning.

Proinsias wrote:

KBCid wrote:Actually the line of reasoning I am proposing will be testable by the scientific method for ID.

I'm all ears....

System engineering will provide the testable answer. once all the players involved in the system are defined then it should be a simple test to see what is minimally required to provide the function observed. It is common knowlege that a motor which is a systematic arrangement of matter that provides a function has certain minimal requirements to attain its function. We can't logically assume that such an arrangement can occur by chance. Similarly evolutionary function requires the existence of a replicating system that can precisely replicate 3 dimensional structures of matter before it can have an effect. Evolution is an effect produced by the functioning of a precision replication system which can accurately replicate variations.
The fact is that most of the scientific testing to provide precision movement in 3 dimensions has already been performed. The laws of physics define how matter can be moved in 3 dimensional space so there won't be much work involved in defining how biological formation perform the same function.

Moderator, is it possible to make this thread a sticky.
I have a feeling this area will lead the new paradigm in the origin of life.

KBCid, why don't you try to find a biologist, or some more qualified experts to work on this paper with? At the very least, you could try to investigate the necessary and sufficient requirements for 3d-spatial positioning. Perhaps work with a chemist or biochemist as well, get a team together, and do the research?

Beanybag wrote:KBCid, why don't you try to find a biologist, or some more qualified experts to work on this paper with? At the very least, you could try to investigate the necessary and sufficient requirements for 3d-spatial positioning. Perhaps work with a chemist or biochemist as well, get a team together, and do the research?

What makes a biologist more qualified then me when it comes to physics? How many control systems do biologists construct?
I do already have two biologists that are in collaboration with me on this subject and another engineer and we are defining ways to make empirical tests. It simply will take time to implement since there isn't tons of money being given out to help disprove the evolutionary theory.

The one thing you should consider is that these people are on board with the concept based entirely on the logic of the physics of the systems mechanics which they could not find a logical way around and they tried for months to find a week point without success. The great thng from my POV is that it was physics that does the convincing and not simply an opinion from a nobody.

It will be interesting when this becomes more mainstream to see how evo's will try to overcome the laws of physics to keep their hypothesis relevant. Even with this short time online there has been no realistic argument that can be applied against it. Of course I spent a year on the subject with 4 months of that in collaboration to ensure that I didn't overlook something.

So no worries, my homework is done and the right people are in collaboration to take it forward. All I have to do now is help with researching the historical work already performed and lend a mechanical hand as needed when they run into any sticky points. Physics is a wonderfull thing.

There has already been some aspects of the concept brought forth last year...

Society for Developmental Biology Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, July 2011
Gene Regulatory Networks in Embryos Depend on Pre-existing Spatial Coordinates
Abstract #347
Jonathan Wells
Discovery Institute, 208 Columbia Street, Seattle, WA 98104
The development of metazoan embryos requires the precise spatial deployment of specific cellular functions. This deployment depends on gene regulatory networks (GRNs), which operate downstream of initial spatial inputs (E. H. Davidson, Nature 468 [2010]: 911). Those initial inputs depend, in turn, on pre-existing spatial coordinate systems...

“Ultimately, the beginning of spatial information in the embryo often traces back to asymmetrically distributed molecules deposited in the egg during its production in the ovary that initiate the formation of the two main axes of the embryo (so the egg did come before the chicken).”


William E. Theurkauf & Tulle I. Hazelrigg, “In vivo analyses of cytoplasmic transport and cytoskeletal organization during Drosophila oogenesis: characterization of a multi-step anterior localization pathway,” Development 125 (1998): 3655-3666.
Kevin M. Forrest & Elizabeth R. Gavis, “Live Imaging of Endogenous RNA Reveals a Diffusion and Entrapment Mechanism for nanos mRNA Localization in Drosophila,” Current Biology 13 (2003): 1159-1168.
Uwe Irion & Daniel St. Johnston, “Bicoid RNA localization requires specific binding of an endosomal sorting complex,” Nature 445 (2007): 554-558.
Musa M. Mhlanga, et al., “In vivo colocalisation of oskar mRNA and trans-acting proteins revealed by quantitative imaging of the Drosophila oocyte,” PLoS One 4 (2009): e6241.

“Composition of cellular organelles and their membranes is constant from one generation to the next. This latter property of organelles, when considered with the fact that membranes do not form de novo, has led to the proposal that cell membranes and their constituent proteins have
temporal continuity ...
...Realizing that genetic memory is one dimensional, along a DNA molecule, whereas spatial memory is likely to be two-dimensional, along membrane surfaces, and three-dimensional within the cellular interior, it is probable that spatial memory is more complicated and diverse than genetic memory.”
Robert O. Poyton, “Memory and Membranes: Expression of Genetic and Spatial Memory During the Assembly of Organelle Macrocompartments,” Modern Cell Biology 2 (1983): 15-72.
According to Poyton’s hypothesis, although the molecules in a membrane pattern may be encoded by DNA, the membrane pattern itself pre-exists their synthesis.

EVOLUTIONARY IMPLICATIONS
Evolutionary developmental biology needs a more adequate explanation for the sources of spatial asymmetries—including membrane patterns— in the zygote.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ad&id=7751

Does this sound a bit familiar?

KBCid:

Fair enough, I'll drop the crystal analogy and stick to biology in future.

I look forward to the proposed experiments for testing.

I appreciate evolutionary theory does not account for the prerequisites required by evolution, and that biology in general is struggling with how we got from chemistry to biology.

May I ask if you have an objection to the idea of the evolutionary model? In that regardless of how we got to the point of biological organisms reproducing via selection and mutation, is it a reasonable explanation as to not the origin but the variety of life we see around us?

Personally I'm not convinced that the current evolutionary model of base pair changes & the environment are the main factors in variety of life. I think we may have missed something big, I think Davidson's papers about chromosomal rearrangement from back in the 70's chime in with doubts that I had talking to my professor after evolutionary lectures years ago and still linger. Unfortunately Davidson's papers are speculation, base pair changes and environment are something that can be controlled and is something I can prove to myself in a petri dish.

It will be interesting when this becomes more mainstream to see how evo's will try to overcome the laws of physics to keep their hypothesis relevant.

It will be very interesting if this becomes more mainstream, I don't think evo's will have a problem though as it doesn't really concern them. Your research seems focused on pre-evolution, or how matter got to the stage it can evolve.

The idea of inherent control is also confusing me. From what I gather explainable phenomena = inherent, and unexplained phenomena = external, intelligent influence.

The engineering side puzzles me. I made a bicarb & vinegar volcano in the garden with my daughter today which took some thinking and planning, it didn't make me think all volcanoes take thinking and planning. It seems to me that you look at biological phenomena and think that as an intelligent engineer you could do something similar and thus there must be an intelligent engineer behind it all.