Gershon: Der kluge Bauch (2001)


Ein neuer Artikel auf

Gershon: Der kluge Bauch (2001)


Schlagwörter: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Antworten to “Gershon: Der kluge Bauch (2001)”

  1. Ted Holden Says:

    From my book “Information and the Flow of Information In our Universe”, dealing with the question of the kinds of taxonomic charts which evolutionists claim as evidence of the evolution of all living creatures in our world from a single-celled organism:

    The insistence upon interpreting the structure of such diagrams as having arisen from evolutionary development over immense time spans is a pure prejudice. The question is, is there any sort of a BETTER explanation for the phylogenic/cladistic diagrams? The answer is a resounding YES, there is in fact a VASTLY better explanation and it’s the kind of thing which would never occur to an evolutionary biologist.

    We know that our entire living world is based on a supremely complex information system (DNA/RNA) and that this sort of information is ACTIONABLE..

    That says that when seeking an explanation for the familiar phylogenic/cladistic diagrams, we should be seeking analogies from our own normal and most advanced means of processing information and the analogy you really want is that of the Object Oriented programming and software design paradigm. The OO paradigm is the ultimate product of our own efforts to devise rational information handling schemes over the space of the computer age and you should assume that God or anybody else with major talent facing a similar situation would use similar methods.

    This minimizes work and prevents unnecessarily duplicated effort. Classes amount to user-defined data types and objects amount to individual instantiations of particular classes. In a flight simulator program for instance, there will be a base class for a generic airplane and subclasses for different makes and models of airplanes. The base class contains data and method functions for the 85% of airplane objects which are the same across types and the subclasses define the 15% which differs.

    Our living world appears to be analogous to a pure object-oriented language like C# or SmallTalk in which there is one ultimate base-class for everything, and not to a hybrid language like C++.

    This is a general paradigm for a designed living world; it clearly does not resemble any version of evolution and no notion of anything being physically ancestral to anything else is necessary, the only thing involving any sort of an ancestral relationship is information. A base class in such a system could be pure virtual, with no instances of the base class itself ever having existed. The same is true in OO programming. Humans and hominids for instance would appear to be separate sub-classes of some common base class, adapted to different conditions on two different kinds of worlds.

    Aside from the OO paradigm, however, there is another possible analogy from the realm of software design which I had not considered and which may provide a major clue as to the difference between humans and the Neanderthal; evidence of this one actually turns up in what appears to be a major study recently:

    “How can creatures as different in body and mind as present-day humans and their extinct Neanderthal cousins be 99.84 percent identical genetically?

    Four years after scientists discovered that the two species‘ genomes differ by a fraction of a percent, geneticists said on Thursday they have an explanation: the cellular equivalent of „on“/“off“ switches that determine whether DNA is activated or not.

    Hundreds of Neanderthals‘ genes were turned off while the identical genes in today’s humans are turned on, the international team announced in a paper published online in Science. They also found that hundreds of other genes were turned on in Neanderthals, but are off in people living today.

    Among the hundreds: genes that control the shape of limbs and the function of the brain, traits where modern humans and Neanderthals differ most.

    „People are fundamentally interested in what makes us human, in what makes us different from Neanderthals,“ said Sarah Tishkoff, an expert in human evolution at the University of Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the new study. Discovering the differences in gene activation is „an amazing technical feat,“ she said, and goes a long way to answering that riddle.

    The discovery also underlines the power of those on/off patterns. Together, they add up to what is called the human epigenome, to distinguish it from the human genome. The genome is the sequence of 3 billion molecules that constitute all of a person’s DNA while the epigenome is which bits of DNA are turned on or off even as the molecular sequence remains unchanged.”

    In other words, humans and hominids were basically the same creature, only configured differently for different kinds of worlds. Humans with their relatively tiny eyes, lack of a decent sense of smell and/or decent night vision, lack of fur and general aquatic adaptations (as per Elaine Morgan), were configured for the world they originated on as per “Cosmos in Collision”, McLachlan/Holden; and the hominids were configured for this world and its conditions some 50,000 years ago and on back.

    The analogy in this case is with the Customer-Relations Management (CRM) software scheme used by SalesForce ( in which all of their myriad Fortune 1000 clients use the same database tables and the same software, only configured to their own needs and applications. That is, 95% or more of the work of setting SalesForce up for a given client consists of configuration and not programming. For those situations in which programming is yet required, they provide a version of Java with database-handling extensions which they call “Ajax”.

    I would still believe that the analogy with the OO software paradigm accounts for the major distinctions which you see in the “tree of life”, i.e. for the difference between birds and mammals, between horses and cats etc. But this configuration scheme could account for a lot if not all of the microevolutionary differences which we observe.

    on facebook:

    Ted Holden

  2. Peter Nasselstein Says:

    Das war der letzte Teil. Ich könnte so in alle Ewigkeit fortfahren und den mechano-mystischen Wahnsinn nie ausschöpfen können. Hier ein beliebiger Ausschnitt aus der Entwicklung der Orgonomie in Deutschland:

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Abmelden / Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s

%d Bloggern gefällt das: