Chris Montoya, David Montoya and Graeme Mackay
Science does not exist without the scientist as religion does not exist without the believer. Both endeavors are human constructions and as such both methods of knowing are inextricably bound in a quagmire of self-interest, emotion and faith. A better understanding of the psychology behind how and why humans are driven to create primary theories of existence, ostensibly apart from organized religion, is critical to future scientific progress concerning origins. In this paper primary views concerning ontogeny, phylogeny and cosmology are examined. It is argued that building primary theories with an eye on the transdisciplinary perspective highlights distortions caused by sub-conscious mechanisms. Finally, in contrast to popular thought, bringing subconscious distortions into conscious appreciation demonstrates that science and religion are currently in alignment with respect to these three primary views of origin.
Until someone builds a time machine mankind will never know how things really began. With this is mind, primary theories of everything as creative endeavors may be seen as symptoms of “mental illness”, a modern form of ancient Greek mythology where Sisyphus was eternally tasked by the gods to perform an impossible endeavor. 1 At what point does a theory become a driving force to create justification for psychopathology? Manifestations of the pathology can range from the neurotic to psychotic breaks from reality as the stricken repress, distort, deny and rationalize in a veiled attempt to make social reality intelligible from their egocentric perspectives. 2 The more intelligent the patient the more rational the theory appears and the more the contagion spreads. 3 Many exceptionally creative scientists and artists have had these predispositions. In the 18th century Hegel labeled all God reverencing scientists as irrational. Real or imagined threats, such as these, cause the mind to respond with fear. Fear in the predisposed mind releases defense mechanisms to protect the ego, but in addition these same mechanisms also distort reality invisibly, in light of the “creative illness.” 4 In rational-emotive therapy individuals become aware of subconscious distortions. This awareness will facilitate and delimit areas of agreement between scientific and Judeo-Christian religious worldviews at three levels of transdisciplinary harmonization. A soft fusion at the level of ontogeny, a moderate fusion at the level of phylogeny and a hard fusion at the level of cosmology will be discussed. Further and armed with the knowledge of “creative scientific illnesses” we will, from a different parallax, re-evaluate Darwin’s Theory of evolution exploring the eclectic nature of our reality in light of our apparent human cognitive and emotional limitations.
Theories of Origin – A Soft Fusion (Ontogeny)
Theories of human ontogeny consider both the biological-genetic as well as the socio-cultural aspects of development. Religion appears neutral or in agreement with the various aspects with some exceptions. We will use the “fact” of when human life begins as an apparent exception between the perspectives, to highlight subconscious distortions that are a hindrance to scientific and religious harmonization. In the current world-view, pro-life vs. pro-choice is seen as a battle between religion and science. Pro-lifers are represented as irrational and religious claiming human life begins at conception, whereas, pro-choicers are represented as scientific rational thinkers choosing not to suppose when human life begins. Is this an accurate representation of the world or is it merely a psychological distortion? Viewing the conflict from statistics, another discipline, may bring reality into focus. The religious belief as to when human life begins is limited to a restricted number of “non-scientific cognitive frames,” and although pro-lifers claim life begins at conception the exact time is not Biblically defined. Rational scientists, on the other hand, whose data appear to be invariant across a number of different “cognitive frames” are also blindsided. Contrary to the current worldview, university level Lifespan Development textbooks across North America define the human life span as beginning at conception and ending at death. 5 Human lifespan appears, at least on the surface, to be a simple, rational and adequate definition. From conception lifespan data are then collected, collated and tallied. This methodology appears straightforward and may seem to be a proper way for developmental sciences to operate. Ego defense mechanisms, however, create unconscious pitfalls that cause developmental scientists from the best universities to misreport the leading cause of death in Canada. In 2001, heart disease caused 74,824 deaths followed closely by cancer at 65,205 deaths. Abortion occurs post conception and claimed over 112,000 Canadian lives in 2001. 6 The subconscious distortion in this case may take the form of not wanting to be stigmatized for saying that North Americans kill more humans than are taken naturally or to be threatened by the label “irrational” for merely appearing to support a religious perspective. Data like 4 out of 10 women in North America have had an abortion come from the religious right. Isn’t this correct? Or is data data? With some distortions revealed, a new worldview emerges. Developmental science and religion are ostensibly reporting the same findings. Life begins at conception and any other line that is drawn after we receive our genetic code is arbitrary. Yet the current worldview does not reflect this. Even today if you ask well-read people about abortion and when human life begins the prominent reply one hears is Roe vs. Wade. Yet Roe vs. Wade considered a privacy issue not an ontogeny issue. Once we as intellectuals can see past the ego defense distortions, a unity of conscious thought leads us to a general confluence where a soft transdisciplinary fusion is possible. Soft fusion is basic face validity: a nominal agreement “metaphorically” that life begins at conception.
Theories of Origin – A Moderate Fusion (Phylogeny)
Theories of phylogeny span from God created the species (Creationist), to something created the species (Intelligent Design) to Darwin (Evolution). The current worldview concerning Charles Darwin, we feel, is best stated in the words of the Oxford University Press, “Darwin…argued for a material, not divine, origin of the species.” 7 As recently as June 2005 the Harris Poll released information stating that 55% of North Americans believe that Creationism, Intelligent Design Theory, and Darwinian Evolution should all be taught together in public schools under the rubric of science. 8 Have scientists and theologians accurately defined the various phylogenic positions? Defense mechanisms at the personal level and groupthink at the psychosocial transpersonal level have again caused considerable distortion.
Specifically, in the Origin of the Species, in the chapter titled Recapitulation and Conclusion, Darwin clearly writes, “Therefore I would infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator…To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes.” Darwin concluded in the last paragraph of the Origin of the Species, “There is grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one…” Breathed life into of course, given Darwin’s Christian roots comes from the God of Genesis where
God reportedly did just that when creating humans. Darwin takes poetic liberties as to the style and timing. Darwin further writes in his Difficulties in Theory Chapter, “Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?”
Darwin was a deist creationist at the writing of his theory of evolution. In the current worldview, evolution stands on the shoulders of Darwin. Therefore, what is currently taught around the world is Intelligent Design. High school, College and University instructors should feel free then to teach “Traditional Darwinian Evolution” not as it has been misconstrued through fear-based subconscious mechanisms and groupthink, as Godless, but as the intelligent design science it was written to be. Eleven years after the publication of The Origin of the Species Darwin, before his death, published The Descent of Man. It was in this latter work Darwin again reiterated, “the idea of a Creator and Ruler of the Universe had been answered in the affirmative.” 9 Yet again the current worldview does not reflect this.
Although both Darwinian Evolution and Christianity demonstrate convergent validity, in that both narratives appear under one rubric of intelligent design, more is needed for a statistically based moderate transdisciplinary fusion. Given 15 items in any storyline there would be over 1 trillion ways of combining them into your creation story. Fifteen ways to choose the first element, times fourteen ways to choose the second element, times thirteen ways to choose the third element, etc. If there were only one correct order the odds would be 1 trillion to one that you would randomly select the right order. The Bible narrative and scientific narrative demonstrate an excellent 4th dimensional alignment: One, before the Big Bang God set things up for explosion/expansion. 10 Two, God says let there be light and bang! Three, light escapes from the event horizon. Four, the heavenly firmament forms i.e. the disk of the Milky Way forms. 11 Five, the Earth cools and water appears. Six, life appears first in water. Seven, life appears next on land. Eight, plant life appears first. 12 Nine, animal life appears next. Ten, birds appear next. Eleven, mammals appear next. Twelve man appears last.13 Thirteen, man was naked first, then was clothed in animal skins. Fourteen, man was first a farmer. Fifteen, man was then a keeper of animals. 14 There is a definite and ordinal transgression of boundaries and knowledge coherence. 15 Once ego defense mechanisms and groupthink are exposed by psychological insight, scientists can envision the invisible: a general overarching confluence between phylogeny and a Creation narrative forming a moderate transdisciplinary fusion.
Theories of Origin (Cosmology)
Theories of cosmology ostensibly span from Einstein and the Big Bang to a steady state universe. Hypotheses concerning quantum foam, string theory and various other theories of everything are being published. On the street, however, the worldview revolves around the big bang, the cosmological constant and whether there will be a big crunch or continued expansion. Since the Big Bang Theory became dominant and displaced the constant state theory of the universe most cosmologists believe that if there was a beginning then there had to be a beginner, starter or Creator. The secularists apparently had lost the battle of God in cosmology because they could not get around the mathematics of Einstein. Math, in addition to humor, it seems is a way around unconscious defense mechanisms. Some day quantum physics may be joined mathematically to concepts in general relativity in a grand theory of everything. 16 However, even with a theory of everything, the paradox over God cosmology, general relativity and quantum physics will continue. Cosmology and religion are currently sharing a common narrative: because there was a start, there was a Creator or starter of the cosmos.
A Hard Transdisciplinary Fusion of Primary Theories of Origin
For an elegant fusion to occur at this level a basic tenet must be that there was truth in the Bible and there was factual probabilistic accuracy in the physical sciences. In addition, convergent validity with an exact mathematically defined interval or ratio interface between disciplines was required. 17 Specifically, what occurred was a point-by-point temporal linking of the Creation narrative with hard scientific data concerning the temporal unfolding of the universe. The authorized King James Edition (Ben Asher text) of the Bible was used. 18 Only the descriptions of days 3, 4, 5, 6 and 13 of Creation were used from the Bible because they could be literally linked to cosmological, geologic, fossil and historical data. Older, time tested scientific paleontology compilations were used for the correlation. Days in the Bible narrative were linked to scientific observations in the following fashion. From Genesis the span of the 3rd day was mapped onto scientific data from the creation of the solid planet to the appearance of seed bearing plants termed angiosperms. The span of day three was calculated as 4.46 billon years by subtracting 4.6 billion years (oldest estimated age of the earth) from 136 million years, the approximate arrival date of true seed-bearing plants. In a similar fashion on day 4 God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide day from night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years.” This epoch has been estimated scientifically as the time it took for our atmosphere to turn from opaque, to translucent, to transparent. This span took approximately 1 billion years spanning from 1.75 billion years ago to 750 million years ago. 19 In a similar fashion on day 5 God said, “Let the waters bring forth abundant moving creatures.” Day 5 then spanned all the way to birds. From a scientific perspective this span included early jellyfish-like creatures termed coelenterates to the first birds. This span took approximately 305,000,000 years. The dates spanned from 500 million years ago to 195 million years ago. In a similar fashion on day 6 God created modern mammals and cattle were mentioned. Modern mammals came on the scene 53,000,000 years ago. (It is important to note that archaic mammals and water mammals were created earlier). Day 6 ended with the appearance of man. The earliest hominids with tools (Homo Habilis) appeared approximately 3 million years ago in Africa (although more recent evidence could place it earlier). The time span for day 6 therefore was approximately 50,000,000 years. 20
Using a different methodology, on day 13 fourteen hundred years BC, Moses wrote, “For a thousand years in Thy sight are as yesterday…” The inspired time dilation circa day 13 therefore was 1000 years to one day. The time span of day 13 was 1000 years (Psalm 90:4). In fourth-dimensional curvilinear calculations of the appropriate day, the day selected was the one where the date falls closest to the midpoint of the span on graph 1.
The original five data points were plotted in standard psychophysical log-linear formats. 21 The data points were then analyzed using a Pearson Product Moment Correlation. A t-test to assess the significance of the correlation coefficient was calculated. Finally, the linear regression of Y on X for un-grouped data was calculated for the original five data points.
The correlation from the hard fusion of the 5 plotted points was r = – .9969. The temporal correlation was significant t (3) = -21.9, p < .001. The interpolated line is described by the linear equation: Y’ = – .7567(x) + 15.34. It is apparent that temporal duration, as psychophysically described from a transdisciplinary perspective, correlating cosmological, geologic, fossil and historic records with the Bible narrative is curvilinear and predictable. Figure 1 graphically illustrates that the epochs present themselves in 6.66 overarching triplets. The length of all the other non-data point days was extrapolated from the linear regression (See Figure 2). It is also clear that our universal time, compared to our distant hypothetical observer, is decelerating (see Figure 2). The length of each of the 5 epochs is predictably shorter on each of the original 5 selected days following Creation. 22 Of some interdisciplinary interest is the fact that in the Brahma religion the first heart beat of the earth (day after its creation) was approximately 4 ½ billion years in length, which matches our data. 23 In addition, the Mayan calendar, which started around the time of the ten commandments (J. Eric S. Thompson determined that 0.0.0.0.0 Mayan Time corresponded to the Julian date 584283, which equaled August 11th, 3114 B.C. in our Gregorian calendar) ends in the same decade that our transdisciplinary data reaches temporal synchrony with our distant hypothetical observer some 5125 years later on December 21st, 2012 A.D. 24
Conclusions about Origins
The books of the Bible are divinely inspired human constructions dealing in faith and truth, whereas the books of science are human constructions dealing in the senses and probabilistic fact. The authors are convinced that theologians and scientists are well-meaning, moral people who diligently search their areas of expertise for meaning and purpose. However, the narratives extrapolated from the truth of the Bible or the hard data of science about our origins, by their very psychological nature, should not be considered immediately logical or consistent. On the other hand, time-tested Biblical interpretations and time-tested scientific theories should be confluent. The negative impact of ego defense mechanisms summated through social psychology at the transpersonal level via the mechanism of groupthink over time can be best detected using a broad transdisciplinary lens. This initial nexus is but a seminal step toward a seamless transition bridging interdisciplinary research into multidisciplinary designs and transdisciplinary awareness: an awareness that both science and religion will require to function in the new millennium.
Applying Transdisciplinary Principles When Comparing Scientifically Based Primary Theories of Origin
Further and penultimate to our purpose, the following question is posited: should our ultimate hypothesis be that there is one single best origin narrative? In addition, are we to assume that origin issues will simply be solved by the continued collection and analysis of data? Or, should we finally admit that there are many nontrivial distinct scientifically based yet equally sound ways of describing origin, whether speaking to the ontogeny, phylogeny or cosmology of the precept. That is to say, given the current numerous theories and narratives can competent seekers of knowledge be anything but eclectic in our questioning, methodologies and visions? To this general purpose we will in a transdisciplinary manner re-evaluate Darwin’s initial observations, this time remaining within the scientific arena to emphasize just one of many potential nontrivial distinct scientifically based alternate ways of describing origin data given the available objective scientific evidence.
Whereas many published articles cite the need for merging disparate areas of scientific investigation via transdisciplinary techniques 25, no articles to date, however, have attempted to lay down specific and simple, statistically-based methodologies for eliminating or modifying extant mono-disciplinary theories into “best fit” transdisciplinary models. Utilizing a transparent and simple transdisciplinary statistically- based method we significantly reduced a number divergent validity problems currently encountered with traditional Darwinian evolution (p< .001). In addition, to align the current interpretation of the fossil record with other disparate scientific communities, mutation as the driving force behind species change was de-emphasized. Instead an emphasis on an over-arching trans-species phenotypic expression proceeding from an infinite variety of similar and competing genetic ancestors was adopted.
A Transdisciplinary View of Darwin’s Grand Theory
Dennett, Dawkins, and Mayr, ostensibly claim that since 1859 the basic precepts, of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, have remained virtually untouched. Much like Freudian Theory, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has existed in a safe mono-disciplinary cocoon. Beyond biology, and indeed, the instant Darwin’s Theory was introduced into a “transdisciplinary” public school system, the war has raged. Battles were fought in the courtrooms, not lecture theatres and journals. Male oriented white scientific communities of the time, still entangled in Christian traditions, saw this war as “good science”. Male domination whether sexual, colonial or scientific, given Darwin’s Victorian roots seemed the order of the day, and the order was religiously followed: An order formed as much out of politics, religion and history as scientific observation and documentation. The question now remains, have we, as a species, learned anything from our past century of behavior? Freud and Darwin would argue an emphatic and resounding no! If mankind were totally controlled by unseen subconscious forces and genetic determinism might not all man-made theories be forever distorted, twisted and yet last for millennia? 26
If there were another lens, however, to view distant scientific vistas, one with a self- correcting filter, allowing for a clearer synthesis and thesis would we employ it? If this new telescopic lens highlighted subconscious and indeed conscious distortions, other more accurate and objective scientific explanations might restructure older so called “special” theories via Popper’s classical disconfirmation philosophy? 27 Transdisciplinarity and its emerging methodologies have the ability to create such a telescopic lens and filter. Based on the concept of meta-theoretical convergent validity, transdisciplinarity is emerging as the current scientific methodology. What this broad new lens has and will continue to reveal is that the data was and is and will always be correct, however, the human process and the human interpretation was, can, and will continue to be flawed. Acknowledging this very human actuality allows for a better objective separation of form from flow from flaw.
Creationist Data from a Victorian
Since Darwin, scientists have, in an inter-disciplinary fashion, actively argued evolved genetic speciation based on fossil evidence. Genetic speciation involves micro and macro-adaptation caused by environmental pressures that change organisms genetically over immense periods of time. When once similar organisms can no longer produce viable offspring, due to genetic differences, a new genetic creature had evolved. Genetic change, via mutation, was the underlying principle of Darwin’s gradualism.
As mentioned previously although Charles Darwin named his book ‘Origin of Species,’ the only statements about the arrival of species concerned the following. In his Origin of the Species, in the chapter titled Recapitulation and Conclusion, Darwin wrote, “Therefore I would infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator… the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes…There is grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one…” As reiterated previously breathed life into given Darwin’s Christian roots comes from the God of Genesis where God reportedly did just that when creating humans. Darwin further writes in his Difficulties in Theory Chapter, “Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?” Then eleven years later, in “The Descent of Man” Darwin stated, “… the idea of a Creator and Ruler of the Universe had been answered in the affirmative.” We argue that Darwin’s Christian- based theory fuels the religious ideal that we, as a species, are somehow swimming up stream against the laws of physical entropy from simple to complex, from manhood toward godhood.
Attempts to eviscerate Darwin’s Original Theory by taking out the Creator gave evolution a statistically untenable random base and left us with concepts like Social Darwinism, the selfish gene and man as a simple “top of the food chain omnivore.” Many social scientists resisted this type of simplistic reductionism. As over 90% of the world’s population believes in God and all major world religions claim Him or Her as theirs, could it be that Darwin in his original premise was correct and what we see is intelligent design? This is a question science will never, and can never, answer because it transcends the limits of our philosophy of science as argued by Popper. Many well-meaning scientists begin their theories starting with a non-observable intelligent designer. By starting origin theories in this fashion, they begin and finish in the metaphysical arena without ever once setting foot into a truly scientific one. In a similar fashion, Darwin’s theory spun a yarn where a simple beginning leads to a complex end. Objectively we simply do not see non-sentient organisms moving towards Darwin’s godhood.
To make his god-building theory work, Darwin believed that environmental influences were coded by somatic cells and transmitted to progeny via germ cells. Mendel’s Laws of Heredity proved Darwin conclusively wrong. Darwin’s theory of change, towards godhood via natural selection, was then to be further supported by De Vries’s unlikely Theory of Mutation. De Vries’s theory assumed that mutations produced progressive change. When mutations, however, consistently produced retrogression, micro-mutations were proposed. Since the lack of intermediate fossils was an insurmountable objection, S. J. Gould and others proposed a “Punctuated Equilibrium Theory” and hopeful monsters emerged. 28 Modern punctuated evolution pressured Darwinian evolution as the fossil record appeared to support punctuated evolution more closely, but the hopeful monster was still moving against the pull of universal entropy toward godhood driven by the artificial engine of natural selection. Moving past evolution’s pseudo-scientific beginnings no current scientist or theologian denies that natural selection improves stock within existing species. We argue, however, that natural selection has never been observed to produce new species.
Some feel that Darwin actually needed God to get things started. After all, what are the odds that life could evolve from inanimate matter randomly on its own? From a multidisciplinary perspective, Hoyle the English astronomer who first coined the term the Big Bang eloquently stated, “The odds of life beginning randomly from innate matter anywhere in the Universe was, 1 chance in 1040,000.” To put it in numbers we can appreciate, if we were to pack the known universe full of electrons the number would only be 10130 electrons. 29 Let’s say we marked one of these electrons. If you were then blind folded and allowed to randomly walk anywhere in our universe looking for the one marked electron, you would have a much better chance of finding it than the odds of life spontaneously generating from inorganic material. So from this physics and mathematics transdisciplinary perspective it is functionally impossible that life could have randomly occurred. This was not Darwin’s fault in the beginning. Darwin created an intelligent design theory but was emotionally powerless to stop what was intellectually happening to his theory.
Darwin in his “The Origin of the Species” argued that all life came from possibly one primordial organism. An organism so formed he argued could be pre-programmed to change given environmental pressures by the hand of the Creator. The idea that one life form could genetically mutate randomly, however, into the abundance of life seen around us is statistically inconceivable given the 4.5 billion year time frame we are working with. Punctuated evolution with its multiple starts is also statistically highly improbable. Take for example the following example from biology.
“A gene group, PAX-6, is a key regulator in the development of eyes in all vertebrates. It’s analog has been found to control the development of the visual systems of mollusks, insects, flatworms, and nemerteans (ribbon worms). These represent 5 of the 6 phyla that have eyes. The molecular similarity is nothing less than astounding. The paired domain of the gene contains 130 amino acids. The match of the amino acids between insects and humans is 94%! Between zebra fish and humans the match is 97%!
Could five genetically separate phyla have evolved these similar genes individually by random chance? There are twenty different amino acids available to fill each of the 130 spaces on the gene. This means there are 20130 or 10170 possible combinations. The number far exceeds the number of particles in the entire universe.
Any combination is possible one time. Getting the same or even similar combinations a second, third, fourth and fifth time is the statistical problem. The likelihood that random mutations would cause the same combination five times is 10170 raised to the fifth power. There is no way this same gene could have evolved independently in each of the five phyla. The gene that controls the development of the eye must have been programmed at a level below the Cambrian. That level is either the amorphous sponge-like Ediacarans or the one-cell protozoa, but neither had eyes. Evolution is not random. In addition, morphological constraint is evident in complex body organs, when very different phyla of animals develop very similar organs to satisfy similar needs. Being different phyla, they have been genetically separated since the inception of multi-cellular life. Hence they had to develop these similar solutions independently. The astounding similarity
between octopus, squid and human eyes makes it so statistically improbable as to be functionally impossible that they evolved from different organs and converged.” 30
Since life as perceived from a multidisciplinary perspective could not have started from one or even 5 mutating phyla what probably happened? There is indeed a more elegant, multi-disciplinary explanation of the fossil evidence than either Darwinian or punctuated evolution and an elegant mathematical procedure to investigate the ability of transdisciplinary theories to describe the extant data. 31
The Migratory Theory of Genetic Fitness a Transdisciplinary Primary Theory of Origin
It is a fact that environmental changes that lead to creating new gene pools have never been scientifically demonstrated in living organisms that leave fossil evidence. According to the philosophy of science laid down by Popper an explanation is needed that does not rely on a genetic change over time that we cannot observe or religious explanations as originally proffered. Such speculative non-observable explanations are pseudoscientific and irrational. So what can we observe? Or more importantly, what do we observe and what explanation can be proffered as the current best-fit scientific model given our new transdisciplinary lens and telescope?
The Migratory Theory of Genetic Fitness (MTGF) is a transdisciplinary model that re-interprets and re-evaluates the current evolutionary account of mankind’s origins. Whereas Darwin argued that all life forms originally evolved from a few or even one primordial genetic code, The Migratory Theory of Genetic Fitness predicts just the opposite. It stands to reason, that when life first appeared, our planet spawned an infinite variety of very similar, 4 base pair, organisms all at once. Some organisms terminated immediately and some patterns never lived at all. There was no one single terrestrial organism that all other life came from, trillions of similar yet distinct patterns began the journey. Following the principle of survival of the fittest, these hardy primordial gene pools are still competing for survival today. Nothing has changed from the beginning of life on our planet but their number, which is ever decreasing via the process of extinction. Over the eons it has been “involution not evolution” that shaped our biosphere. To date no one has demonstrated how life began on Earth, from the inanimate to the animate, and indeed as there could be, yet to be discovered multiple trajectories we may never know. The transdisciplinary approach, however, gives us a broader field of view from which to reach a stable objective and testable consensus. The Migratory Theory of Genetic Fitness, based on the fossil record, is an outwardly observable phenotypic exposition rather than a non-observable unnecessary inward genotypic mutation. The MTGF involves simple mass migrations of many similar genetically stable organisms as climate patterns changed. As global climates slowly oscillated the mass extinction of millions of competing genetically similar organisms was inevitable. The MTGF predicts, in fact, just the opposite of what the current theory of punctuated evolution predicts. Instead of new genetic organisms arising via mutations to their genetic codes in response to varied environmental pressures, (genetic changes that are so statistically improbable “as to be functionally impossible”) the fossil record clearly and plausibly indicates a high degree of phenotypic plasticity coupled with total stunning silence concerning genetic plasticity and mutation.
The current evolutionary approach cannot simply and clearly explain the apparent explosion of life at various epochs. Yet there is a straightforward and extremely parsimonious explanation. The MTGF suggests that the conditions needed to fossilize bones were not available in all areas and at all times on earth. The reason for the “apparent and misinterpreted” sudden explosions of new species in certain temporal epochs was that large groups of similar species migrated into fossil producing areas while adapting to climate change and those that could not phenotypically adapt quickly enough left their fossil traces behind layer after similar but slightly different phenotypic layer. These clear phenotypic variations observed across temporal epochs and rock strata have been misinterpreted as “unobservable” genetic mutations brought on by environmental pressure within a common ancestor leading to phenotypic change. The creation of an unobservable genetically based construct is unnecessary and statistically cumbersome.
In the past, origin scientists have speculated as to what they could not objectively and directly observe and have fit their speculations into a pre-existing theory/model. We feel a better methodology is to objectively and directly observe what is currently occurring and first assume that this was the past pattern and then create a theory model from the data. Following this methodology, currently we do not observe viable “genetically new” (non-man made) species that would leave fossil remains spontaneously occurring today. However, what we continue to observe is genetic erosion occurring through the bio-entropic mechanism of extinction. Using this new more appropriate methodology the MTGF clears up some more of evolution’s external validity and multi-disciplinary problems. The MTGF clearly demonstrates that terrestrial life follows the physics based universal entropy principle. With billions of genetically similar organisms in competition, the principle of survival of the fittest has been eliminating countless unsuccessful but similar organisms for eons. Primordial gene pools have always survived by phenotypic adaptation and migrating into new and better territories. In addition to diversity created by reshuffling via sexual reproduction, environmental stress can also cause major phenotypic changes. For example, asexual eukaryotes (sponges) fuse two haploid cells to create a diploid zygote when stressed. Indeed similar mechanisms may transform cell colonies into aggregates and then into multi-cellular organisms. 32 As is plainly observed, major structural phenotypic adaptation does not have to equal transformation or mutation into “a new genetic species.” As similar more fit species competed more successfully, they made extinct similar less fit organisms. The less fit similar but different organisms left their fossil residue behind layer after layer. The MTGF Theory argues that the terminal extinction trajectories of unsuccessful primordial organisms have been misinterpreted, in evolutionary theory, as a common ancestor branching into distinct new species and that this belief is held firmly in the face of contradictory statistical evidence.
Finally, it is also well documented that most, if not all, genetic mutations are lethal. It makes more sense, therefore, to assume that such lethal combinations were eliminated long ago and that today we are left with only the most genetically fit gene pools. The MTGF predicts that in modern times we will not observe gene pools spontaneously evolving contrary to the universal principle of entropy. All possible genetic combinations were randomly attempted at the beginning of time.
In conclusion then, and not to put too fine a point on it: Darwin in his “The Origin of the Species” argued that all life came from possibly one organism and then mutated into the abundance of life we observe around us today. One life form could not genetically mutate into the abundance of life seen around us today given the 4.5 billion year time frame we are working with. Punctuated evolution with its multiple starts is also statistically highly improbable. The current genetically based theory of evolution is cumbersome, unnecessary and insufficient to explain the current bio-diversity observed on our small planet. The MTGF is a phenotypic theory. Extremes in phenotypic plasticity that result from an interaction between the internal genetic code and the external environment have been overlooked for too long a period.
Transdisciplinary Improvements with the MTGF
There are a number of other a trans-disciplinary improvements with the MTGF. 1. The MTGF theory is immediately and directly testable and therefore refutable within our lifetime. The Darwinian Model would take millions of years to replicate and refute. Putting into practice the “what you can currently observe principle,” the MTGF clearly predicted and demonstrated with current observable data that changes in gravity, pressure, CO2 levels, radiation (indeed anything that induces stress) can create impressive phenotypic structural changes in a variety of genetically stable species within short periods of time. In support of the MTGF, plants and animals raised in outer space with lower gravity change their phenotypic expression in one generation. 33 We have also seen that background radiation can have a profound effect on offspring. 34 In addition, simple pressure changes can have a dramatic effect on the phenotypic expression in plants. 35
2. By not creating unobservable constructs the MTGF, from Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery as a theoretical model, is more parsimonious. The theory does not have to predict things we cannot see. The MTGF simply assumes that what we see today, the extinction level event of 100s of species a year, has been going on from the beginning of time. 3. The MTGF is also helpful at the inter-disciplinary level. For years scientists have found discrepancies in the fossil records i.e. supposed older-appearing fossils occurring after newer ones. Because small pockets of biosphere can be sheltered while others have increased changes, the MTGF would predict different overlapping phenotypic trajectories. Based on abnormal gravitation, gas levels, radiation sources, or even sound vibrations phenotypic expressions could have been prematurely triggered or conversely maintained for many generations. 36 4. The ontogeny replicates phylogeny principle is viewed differently from the MTGF parallax. First we ask the question, could a mutated species still go through these types of developmentally ordinal and appropriate phylogenetic stages? The MTGF model suggests that the ontogeny replicates phylogeny principle is simply a developmental record of the response of a stable gene pool to environmental stressors. Just how plastic a phenotypic response can be, given a stable gene pool and a stressful environment, is unbelievable yet all around us. Imagine identical genes that on one hand give us an aerodynamic butterfly maneuvering in 3 dimensional gaseous space with more precision than a modern helicopter, while on the other hand with identical DNA genes can create a totally different phenotype: the slow moving clumsy terrestrial caterpillar. 5. One of the most astounding pieces of evidence to proceed out of the human genome project is that we seem NOT to need approximately 95% of the genes in our DNA. Dormant junk genes do what exactly? Are our junk genes simply a defense against viral infections or have we burned through 95% of our species iterations? Taking the ontogeny replicates phylogeny principle to a new vista, what if the reverse is also true? Again using the “what you can currently observe principle” Since there is a limited number of divisions for our human cells at the ontogeny level, is there also a limited number of iterations for our entire species? 37 Maybe what killed off the dinosaurs was not an extraterrestrial comet but the simple fact they came to the end of their natural generational iterations.
In conclusion, the MTGF predicts that the phenotypic expression of a unique gene pool is far more plastic than we had ever imagined. In one hundred years of non-random quasi-experimentation we have horses that range in size from 24 inches to over 8 feet, Beefalo and Ligers, midgets and giants. Instead of multiple vague definitions of species as the current evolutionary theory uses, the MTGF has only one definition of a sexually reproducing species. If organisms can produce viable offspring they are from the same seminal gene pool that occurred in primordial times. If they cannot interbreed they are a different primordial species. To wit, primordial species adapt in a highly plastic phenotypic fashion; they do not evolve by genetic mutation. Our purpose in proposing the MTGF was two fold. One was to honor Darwin’s original observations of macro-adaptation, natural selection and extinction and secondly to propose a more elegant trans-disciplinary explanation of the fossil record with Darwin in mind. We feel we have achieved our purpose.
A Simple and Elegant Statistical Comparison between Two Competing Transdisciplinary Theories
We do not have to reinvent the mathematical wheel to consider the transdisciplinary statistical improvements that the MTGF has over Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Disciplines like paleontology, history, scientific philosophy, and statistics as well as Popper’s criterion for theory testing i.e. parsimonious (including simple definitions of things like species), directly testable, directly observable, directly manipulatable etc. can be seen as comparable categories. The scientist/statistician can also easily compare one theory category to another. For example: Yes theory A is more parsimonious than theory B or No theory A is not as directly testable as theory B. A statistic that deals with categories like Chi Square (X2) can be easily adapted. Work by Camilli and Hopkins indicates that X2 for both random and mixed models provides reasonably accurate estimates of Type I error, without correction, for N ≥ 8. 38 The Montoya & Mackay Transdisciplinary Method states that to adequately compare transdisciplinary theories across multi-disciplinary borders you need at least 7 degrees of freedom (N-1 = 7). That is 8 transdisciplinary category areas will be needed for a minimum transdisciplinary comparison. All theories are expected to have at least one transdisciplinary peccadillo. As science deals in probability not truth, we can expect to eventually disconfirm or modify every theory no matter how grand. All scientists are required to criticize their own theory in at least one area compared to other theories that it is being compared with. For example the MTGF gives little to nothing as an explanation of how life began whereas Darwin stated that the “Creator” created everything in the beginning. Using this simply methodology let’s categorically compare Darwin’s Theory and the MTGF. We use 9 category areas.
A Chi Square Categorical Comparison of Two Primary Theories of Origin
Darwin MTGF
Non-Creationist Theory No Yes
More Parsimonious No Yes
In Line with Universal Entropy No Yes
Directly Manipulatable No Yes
Directly Refutable No Yes
Directly Observable No Yes
Life Statistically Probable Yes No
Non-mutation Based Highly Probable No Yes
Simple Definition of Species No Yes
For each theoretical point an advantage (A) i.e. better transdisciplinary fit for example with the philosophy of science directly refutable or disadvantage (D) i.e. a weaker transdisciplinary fit for example with statistics life highly improbable, is awarded to each theory.
∑ (O – E) 2
X2 = _____
E
|
|
Advantage |
Disadvantage |
Margin Totals |
|
Darwin |
1 |
8 |
9 |
|
MTGF |
8 |
1 |
9 |
|
Margin Totals |
9 |
9 |
18 |
Expected cell 1 value 9 x 9 / 18 = 4.5
Expected cell 2 value 9 x 9 / 18 = 4.5
Expected cell 3 value 9 x 9 / 18 = 4.5
Expected cell 4 value 9 x 9 / 18 = 4.5
Observed Expected O – E (O-E) 2 (O – E) 2 / E
|
1 |
4.5 |
-3.5 |
12.25 |
2.722 |
|
8 |
4.5 |
+3.5 |
12.25 |
2.722 |
|
8 |
4.5 |
+3.5 |
12.25 |
2.722 |
|
1 |
4,5 |
-3.5 |
12.25 |
2.722 |
Total X2 (1) = 10.888, p< .001
It is clear that the MTGF provides us with a statistically significant transdisciplinary improvement over Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. This type of straightforward statistical maneuver can be used with soft, moderate or hard fusion comparisons and should become the benchmark for objectively and straightforwardly comparing all transdisciplinary theories in the future.
Other Scientifically Based Non-Darwinian Theories of Evolution: New Directions
The current worldview is that Darwin’s theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the evolution of the animal kingdom. In fact, however, several other theories have been proposed in addition to the MTGF. Professor Stuart Kauffman a proponent of Complexity Theory states, “Darwin’s natural selection captivates us all. But is it right? Better, is it adequate? I believe it is not.” 39 Indeed many aspects of evolution in the animal kingdom can better be explained by Complexity Theory, and this leads Kauffman and others to conclude that Darwin’s Theory is not the correct explanation for the evolution of the animal kingdom. 40 In complete contrast to Darwin’s Theory the Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution, championed by Professor Motoo Kimura, of the National Institute of Genetics in Japan, holds that new mutated genes are neither more or less advantageous than the genes they replace. Variability in species, according to this theory, is not caused by selection but by random drift of mutant genes. This model is as statistically viable as Darwin’s theory but also suffers from the same malaise. 41 The Acquiring Genomes Theory, argued by Margulis and Sagan highlights the fact that “Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or new tissues.” What does lead to new species is termed symbiogenesis. Symbiogenesis according to this theory occurs when one organism absorbs genetic material from another species via a process of incomplete digestion. This new genetic material changes the aggressors genetic code directly e.g. photosynthetic animals. 42 Finally the Impact Theory posits that some extinction level events have nothing to do with genetics at all, but can be due to non-local phenomena. 43 Dr. Professor Nathan Aviezer gives an excellent review of non-Darwinian scientifically based theories in his book Fossils and Faith. 44 In agreement with Kauffman and Kimura, it is patently clear that large portions of Darwin’s Theory of evolution (synthetic or not) are neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the bio-diversity on our planet. Therefore in the future we propose that a transdisciplinary comparison be performed, as outlined in this paper, of all viable “scientifically based” primary theories of how life came to be on Earth. We believe it is only by clearly seeing our past mistakes that our future may be more properly envisioned and prepared for. In the words of Sir Fredrick Hoyle, “The Darwinian Theory is wrong, and the continued adherence to it is an impediment to discovering the correct evolutionary (or involution) theory.” 45 In conclusion, transdisciplinary mathematical methodology, as previously outlined, is our best, and indeed perhaps only hope of quickly and successfully sorting through best-fit primary models of origin.
1 See, e.g., Andreason, N. C. 1987, Creativity and Mental Illness: Prevalence Rates in Writers and Their 1st Degree Relatives, American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1288 – 1292. Jamison, K. R. 1988, Manic Depressive Illness and Accomplishment: Creativity, Leadership and Social Class. In F. K. Goodwin & K. R. Jamison (Eds.), Manic Depressive Illness, Oxford England: Oxford University Press. Prentky, R. 1989, Creativity and psychopathology: Gambling at the seat of
madness, In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook
of Creativity, New York, Plenum. Rothenberg, A. 1990, Creativity and madness: New findings and old stereotypes, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
2 Freud, S. (1901/1960) The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, In J. Strachey
(Ed.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 6,
London, Hogarth.
3 Alcock, J. E. 2005, A Textbook of Social Psychology, 6th edition, Pearson
Prentice Hall, Toronto, p. 404 –410.
4 Ellenberger, H. 1970, The Discovery of the Unconscious, New York, Basic Books.
5 See, e.g., Turner, J., S., and Helms, D., B., 1995, Life Span Development, 5th
Edition, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Toronto, Library of Congress # 93 – 80877, p. 3 and 378. Berger, K. S., 1998, The Developing Person Through the Lifespan, 4th edition, Worth Publishers, New York, p. 65. Santrock, J.W., Mackenzie-Rivers, A., Leung, K. H., and Malcomson, T., 2005,
Lifespan Development, 2nd Canadian edition, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto,
p. 535 – 536.
6 Statistics Canada 2006, http://www40.statcan.ca/cbin/fl/cstprintflag.cgi
Santrock, MacKenzie-Rivers, Leung & Malcomson (2003), Life-Span
Development, 1st Canadian Edition, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto.
7 Darwin, C. 1996, The Origin of the Species, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pages 391 – 396.
8 Harris Poll # 52, 2005, Harris Poll Explores Beliefs about Evolution,
Creationism, and Intelligent Design, Skeptical Inquirer, 29, December 2005,
pages 56 – 58.
9 See e.g., Darwin, C. 1996, The Decent of Man, Great Books, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., Chicago, page 302. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964), p. 82-87.
10 Krauss, L., M., 2001, Atom, An Odyssey from the Big Bang to Life on Earth…and Beyond, Little, Brown and Company, New York, p. 69 – 70 & 279. Silk, J., 2001, The Big Bang, 3rd Edition, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, p. 73, 376,455 & 108.
11 Kane, G., 1995, The Particle Garden, Addison Wesley Publishing Company,
p. 154 – 157.
12 Bold, Harold, C., The Plant Kingdom, 4th edition, 1977, Prentice Hall Inc. Publisher, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Library of Congress, QK48.B59, pages 296 – 297.
13 Orr, Robert, T., Vertebrate Biology, 1976, Saunders Co. Publisher, Library
of Congress QL605 075v, pages 10 – 11.
14 See, e.g., Mcdougall, J., D., 1976, Fission-Track Dating, Scientific
American, 235 (6): p. 114 – 122. Fleming, S., 1977, Dating in Archaeology: A
Guide to Scientific Techniques, St. Martin’s Press, New York. Johnston, F., E.,
and Shelby, H., 1978, Anthropology the Biocultural View, Wm. C. Brown
Company Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa, Library of Congress #77 – 77077, p. 194 –
195. Harris, M., 1980, Culture, People, Nature, An Introduction to General
Anthropolgy, 3rd Edition, Harper and Row Publishers Inc., pages 50 and
102Stashi, E. & Marks, J., 1992, Evolutionary Anthropology, An
Introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archeology, Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich College Publishers, New York, p. 504 – 528. Jones, S., Martin, R., and
Pilbeam, 1994, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, Cambridge
University Press, UK, p. 383 – 385.
15 Lawrence, R.J., and Despres, 2004, C., Futures of Transdisciplinarity, doi,
10.1016/j.futures, Elsevier, wwwsciencedirect.com, Futures 36, p. 397 – 405.
16 See e.g., Freedman, D., 1990, Parallel Universes: The New Reality, From
Harvard’s Wildest Physicist, Discover Magazine, page 52.Kaku, M., 1994,
Hyperspace, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 245. Thorne, K., S., 1994, Black
Holes and Time Warps, Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy, W.W. Norton and
Company, New York, p. 96 – 120 & 483 – 512. Schacter, D. L. 1995, Memory
Distortion: How Minds, Brains, and Societies Reconstruct The Past, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts. Drosnin, M., 1997, The Bible Code,
Simon and Schuster, Rockefeller Center, New York, p. 76 & 123. Greene, B., R.,
Morrison, D., R., & Polchinski, J., 1998, StringTheory, The National Academy of
Sciences, Vol. 95, p. 11039 -11040. Wilson E. O. Consilence the Unity of
Knowledge, 1999, Vintage Edition, Random House. Lidsey, J., E., 2000, The
Bigger Bang, Cambridge University Press, p. 1 – 2. Wheeler, J., C., 2000, Cosmic
Catastrophes, Supernovae, Gamma-Ray Bursts, and Adventures in Hyperspace,
Cambridge University Press, p. 218 – 220. Hawkings, S. W., 2001, The Universe
in a Nutshell, Bantam Books, p. 30 – 33 & 148 – 153. Kaku, Michio, 2001, A
Theory of Everything? A net paper/presentation by a professor of Theoretical
Physics, City College of Yew York. Strogatz, S. 2003, How Order Emerges from
Chaos in SYNC The Universe, Nature and Daily Life, Hyperion Books, New
York.Greene B., 2005, The Fabric of the Cosmos Space Time and the Texture of
Reality, Vintage Books Edition, Random House. The Story of the Great Attractor, University of Illinois,
(HTTP://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/GtAtractor.html). Day M., 2005
17 Furguson, G. and Takane, V. (1989), Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education, 6th edition, New York, McGraw Hill.
18 The Holy Bible, 1935, Self Pronouncing Edition, Conformable
to the 1611 King James Edition, The World Publishing
Company, New York.
19 Schroeder, G.L., 1997, The Science of God, Broadway Books,
Dell Publishing Group Inc., pages 60 & 67.
20 See e.g., Bold, Harold, C., The Plant Kingdom, 4th edition, 1977,
Prentice Hall Inc. Publisher, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
Library of Congress, QK48.B59, pages 296 – 297. Orr, Robert, T., Vertebrate Biology, 1976, Saunders Co. Publisher, Library of Congress QL605 075v, pages 10 – 11. Harland, W., Armstrong, R., Cox, A., Craig, L., Smith, A., Smith, D.
(1989) A Geologic Time Scale, New York, Cambridge University
Press. Jensen, O. 2002-01-13 McGill University,
(HTTP://travesti.eps.McGill.ca/~oliva/terrestial_planets/lecture-4.pdf).
Campbell, N. A., Reece, J. B., Mitchell, L. G., 1999, Biology,
Addison Wesley Longman Inc. New York, Pages 446 – 450.
21 Fechner, G., T., 1860, Elemente der psychophysik, Leipzig: Breitkopf
& Hartel, English Translation of Volume 1 by H. E. Alder, New York, Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1966. Stevens, S. S., 1962, The Surprising Simplicity of Sensory Metrics, American Psychologist, 17, pages 29 – 39.
22 Montoya, C., P., and Mackay, G., 2000, Quantum Logging, a mini-
Lecture, Sponsored by the University College of the Cariboo
Cultural Events Committee. Montoya, C. P. and Mackay, G. 2003/2004,The Unified Primary Perspective, a miniseries connecting science and religion, sponsored by the Office of Chaplain,University College of the Cariboo. Montoya, D. E., Mackay, G., & Montoya C. P., 2005, The Migratory Theory of Genetic Fitness: Re-worked Darwinian Evolution, sponsored by the Office of the Chaplin, Thompson Rivers University.
23 Ashley-Farrand T., 2002, Ancient Power of Sanskrit Mantra and Ceremony, Volumes 1 – 3, 2nd Edition, Saraswati Publications, LLC.
24 See e.g., Mayan Calendrics. Dolphin Software. 48 Shattuck Square #147 Berkeley, CA. 94704. 1989 &1993. Meeus, Jean. Astronomical Tables of the Sun, Moon and Planets. Willmann- Bell Publishers. Richmond, VA. 1983. Michelsen, Neil F. The American Ephemeris for the 21st Century. ACS Publications. San Diego, CA. 1982, 1988. Ridpath, Ian (ed.). Norton’s 2000.0: Star Atlas and Reference Handbook. Longman Group UK Limited. 1989. Schele, Linda and Freidel, David. A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. William Morrow and Company, Inc. New York. 1990. Schele, Linda; Freidel, David; Parker, Joy. Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman’s Path. William Morrow and Company, Inc. New York. 1993. Tedlock, Dennis. The Popol Vuh: The Definitive Edition of the Mayan Book of the Dawn of Life and the Glories of Gods and Kings. Simon & Schuster. New York. 1985.
25 See e.g., Lawrence, J. L. and Despres C., Futures of Transdisciplinarity, 2004, Futures 36, Elsevier, p. 397 – 405. Manfred A. Max-Neef, Foundations of Transdisciplinarity, 2005, Ecological Economics 53, Elsevier, p. 5 – 16. Renato, M. E. Sabbatini and Cardoso S. H., 2002, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol 27, No. 4, I o M Communications Ltd., p. 303 –311. Rapport, D. J., 1998, Transdisciplinarity Education: Where, When, How? Ecosystem Health, Vol. 4, No. 2, Blackwell Science Inc., p. 79 – 80. Horlick-Jones, T. and Sime, J., 2004, Living in the Border: knowledge, risk and Transdisciplinarity, Futures 36, Elsevier, p. 441 – 456. Hamberger, E., 2004, Transdisciplinarity: A Scientific Essential, Annals New York Academy of Sciences, 1028: 487-496. Senghaas, D., 1976, Peace Research and the Analysis of the Causes of Social Violence: Transdisciplinarity, Bulletin of peace Proposals, Vol. 7, No. 1., p. 64 – 70. Valente, T. W., Gallaher, P., and Mouttapa, M., 2004, Using Social Networks to Understand and Prevent Substance Use: A Transdisciplinary Perspective, Substance Use & Misuse, Volume 39, Nos. 10–12, p. 1685-1712.
26 Wald, G., 1954, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, August, pages 19 – 21. Folsome, C., 1979, Life: Origin and Evolution, Scientific American Special Publication, page 38. Dember, W., N. and Warm, J., S., 1979, Psychology of Perception, 2nd Edition, Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, New York, page 25.
Mosedale, F. E., 1979, Philosophy and Science, The Wide Range of Interaction,
Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, page 7.Kolb, B. & Whishaw,
I.Q., 1980, Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology, 1st Edition, W. H.
Freeman and Co. San Francisco, page 16. Quiring, R., Kloter, U., Gehring, W.,
1994, Homology of the eyeless gene in Drosophilia to the small eye gene in mice
and Aniridia in Humans, Science 265:785-789. Fagan, B., M., 1998, People of the
Earth, An Introduction to Pre-history, Lindbar Corporation, New York, pages 40
& 115 – 129. The Undiscovered and Undiscoverable Essence: Species and Religion after Darwin, The Journal of Religion 22: p. 12 – 20, University of Chicago.
27 Popper K. R., 1959, The logic of scientific discovery, New York: Basic
Books.
28 Mendis, L., 1995, Reason’s for Head and Heart, Dr. Lalith Mendis Publisher,
Sri Lanka.
29 Hoyle, F., Wickramasinghe, C., 1981, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creation, ISBN – 0 – 671 – 49263 – 2. Hoyle, F., Wickramasinghe, C.,1986, The Case for Life as a Cosmic Phenomena, Nature, 322: p. 509-511.
30 Quiring, R., Kloter, U., Gehring, W., 1994, Homology of the eyeless gene
in Drosophilia to the small eye gene in mice and Aniridia in Humans, Science
265:785-789. Schroeder, G.L., 1997, The Science of God, Broadway Books,
Dell Publishing Group Inc., pages 60 & 67.
31 Montoya, C. P., Transdisciplinarity, psychology and primary theories of
origin,“Putting Science and Religion in its Place: New Visions of Nature,” An
International Symposium with the University of California Santa Barbara, Ian
Ramsey Centre, St. Anne’s College, University of Oxford, 13th – 16th July 2006.
Montoya, D.E., and Montoya, C.P., The Migratory Theory of Genetic Fitness,
“Putting Science and Religion in its Place: New Visions of Nature,” Ian Ramsey
Centre, St. Anne’s College, University of Oxford, 13th – 16th July 2006. This
original research paper was included in the oral symposium presentation:
Transdisciplinarity, psychology and primary theories of origin, for contrast
purposes and the paper was distributed at the conference.
32 Johnson, G. B., 2000, The Living World, 2nd Edition, McGraw Hill, USA, p. 304 – 307.
33 Paul, A., Schuerger, A.C., Popp, M.P., Richards, J.T., Manak, M.S., and Ferl, R.J., 2004, Hypobaric Biology: Arabidopsis Gene Expression at Low Atmospheric Pressure, Plant Physiology, 134: p. 215-223. McCarthy, S., 2006, Space Farm, The Canadian Foundation for Innovation’s Electronic Magazine, Issue 16, May/June.
34 Berger, K., S., The Developing Person Through the Life Span, 1998, 4th Edition, Worth Publishers, p. 102 – 103.
35 Koichibara, H., 1987, Tomatomation, Unesco Courier, March Issue. Gilmore, E., 1988, Sunflower over Tokyo, Popula, p. 75.
36 Carlson, D., 2000, Sonic Creation Illustrated, Vol. 7, #2, p. 24-31.
37 Sykes, B., A Future Without Men: Adam’s Curse, 2004, Norton and Company, New York, p. 294 – 296.
38 Camilli, G., Hopkins, K. D., 1978, Applicability of Chi Square to 2 X 2 Contingency Tables with Small Expected Cell Frequencies, Psychological Bulletin, 88: p.163 – 167.
39 Kauffman, S. A., 1995, At Home in the Universe: The Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity, Oxford: Oxford university Press, p. vii – viii.
40 Bak, P., Tang, C., and Weisenfeld, K., 1987, Physical Review Letters, vol. 59, p. 381-384.
41 Kimura, M., 1968, Nature, Vol. 217, p. 624-626.
42 Margulis, L., & Sagan, D., 2002, Acquiring Genomes a Theory of the
Origins of the Species, Basic Books, New York.
43 Alvarez, L., & Alvarez, W., 1980, Science, Vol. 208, p. 1095-1108.
44 Aviezer, N., 2001, Fossils & Faith, Understanding Torah and Science, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., Chapter 17, Hoboken, New Jersey, p. 221-238.
45 Hoyle, F., 1999, Mathematics of Evolution, Acorn Enterprises, LLC, Memphis, Tennessee.
Figure Captions
- Figure 1 graphically illustrates the temporal overlap pattern created by applying the literal translation of the Holy Bible to the extant fossil and geologic records. Note at the end of Day 0, approximately 12.5 billion years from the present time, the so called Big Bang occurred. The time of Moses is marked by a four pointed star on Day 13. Finally, we come into temporal synchrony with our distant hypothetical observer 6.66 epochs from the creative process that started long before the big bang.
- Figure 2 graphically illustrates a one to one mapping between the literal Biblical creation narrative and cosmological, geological, fossil and historic records for the planet Earth. This mapping, however, is only understandable when viewed from the parallax of traditional psychophysics and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. The days used in the correlation were days 3, 4, 5, 6 and 13. The interpolated correlation was r = – .9969. This means 99.38% of temporal deceleration is predicted from the number of relativistic epochs since the dawn of creation (t (3) = – 21.9, p < .001).