God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen

R

Robert Jameson

Registered Senior Member
I have recently written a book that presents a model for what might be the origin of life on earth and our reason for being. The Book is called “God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen” and is available free as an ebook from www.e-publishingaustralia.com I will be happy to post sections of God Gametes to this forum for you to read and critique.


Synopsis

The model presented in “God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen” assumes our universe is part of a multiverse. In his book “Before the Beginning” Sir Martin Rees (British Astronomer Royal) postulates the existence of other universes but God Gametes would simply say that there does not appear to be one of anything else; so why one universe? There is also the history. We started out thinking there was one earth and one sun only to find out that our earth was one of many planets and the sun merely a star. People then assumed that there was only one galaxy to find that our galaxy is one of billions. We now of course assume that there is only one universe?

From this point the God Gametes argues:

1. If there is always more than one of everything there is more than one universe.
2. If there are other universes then they would have life as does ours.
3. If they have life then it is cyclical as is all life.
4. If it is cyclical then it reproduces as does all life.

The model in God Gametes then assumes that the multiverse is hierarchical with the older and more complex universes on top and the younger and less complex below. Again this conforms to what we know to be true of reproductive systems. For example we can say that animals have two levels of the hierarchy (adults and their reproductive gametes) with the adult form living longer and being more complex than its reproductive cells.

We argue that each level of the multiverse is the reproductive system of the level above. Universes are assumed to have gender; female universes made of matter and male universes anti-matter. The Planet of the Butterfly Queen (earth) is made of matter and is the reproductive system of a single female of our parent species on the next higher level of the multiverse. Our human consciousness is the male reproductive cell she hosts from our companion antimatter planet.

This concept might be better understood if we look at it another way. We could say that planet earth has been colonised by the parent species on the next higher level of the multiverse for the purpose of reproduction. God Gametes takes a fictional look at our parent species on that higher level to find they are far more complex creatures than us but their universe is older and will soon run out of fuel, to then die. Parent species know that to preserve their life and the billions of years of heritage they created, they must reproduce on a lower multiverse level.

Our model takes a provocative look at Darwinism challenging the belief that our universe, the forces that hold it together and the intelligent life that we know exists on at least one planet, could be the result of a random process. It is argued that natural selection could never have created life and even if it had, could not have driven the evolution of greater complexity. We believe the formula for complex body parts and the motivation to evolve them is sourced from our parent species on that higher multiverse level.

God Gametes points to creation having a purpose, claiming that life and matter did not arise by accident and that our rapid evolution from ape to homo sapiens was driven by the need to host the male reproductive cells of our parent species. Human consciousness is attempting to fertilize a female egg and our goal in life is to become a new member of the parent species and be elevated to that higher multiverse level.
 
Last edited:
heyya Robert Jameson :)
in light of your topic i hope that to offer a welcome does not come from a egocentric materialistic intravertive retardation... ? :)

that aside ...
i am curiouse as to the nature of reproduction in the wholeness
of what examples we already have "factualised" in conformist science.

might it be then that we would move to such an acknoledgement
that we are all hermaphrodite in spiritual containment?

thus to render ones self to sexualality is as much progresion as it is learning in a "true" nature ?

? to progres to sexual disfunction in nature of advancement to render essence of self in light of god?
thus ... ?
discomfort in use of the term A-sexual to be more a materialistic moderator?
i'l leave it at that for now incase your opinions/thoughts/discoveries might be extensive in text volume.

keen to know what you think?

groove on :)
 
Thanks for your reply to my post ripleforth. I like egocentric, materialistic, intravertive retardationist people?

>>> I am curious as to the nature of reproduction in the wholeness of what examples we already have "factualised" in conformist science. <<<

The main thrust of the God Gametes theory is that our universe is part of a multiverse, that the multiverse is hierarchal, with each level being the reproductive system of the level above. You can think of it as a tree on one level of the hierarchy with the seeds falling to the level below. If a seed is lucky to germinate and grow into a tree then we can think of it as being elevated to a higher level of the hierarchy.

Is this conformist science? Not really. I do not think it is possible to relate theories about the creation of the universe to conformist science. What the God Gametes model attempts to do is to present a theory and relate it to what we know to be true. By doing this we can sometimes strengthen ideas that appear credible, and discredit others that do not appear to conform as well to what we know to be true.

>>> might it be then that we would move to such an acknoledgement that we are all hermaphrodite in spiritual containment? <<<

God Gametes believes that all life on earth (including our human bodies) are part of the reproductive system of a female member of our parent species. Life on earth has evolved greater complexity for the purpose of hosting our human consciousness; (each human consciousness being the male reproductive cell of a male member of the parent species). This of course means that we all have a body sourced from a female (Mother Queen) and a consciousness from a male (Father King). This would of course explain why many people have difficulty relating their true gender with the gender of their body.

>>> … to render essence of self in light of god? <<<

I am not sure if I am addressing your point here. But we can again look at how we reproduce on earth and relate this to the God Gametes model. When we produce offspring we pass on genes to our progeny that will hopefully pick up a genetic code that is adaptable to the environment in which our species must survive – and with luck will disregard genes that are non-adaptive. So let us now think of our parent species as something we have traditionally imagined as a God/Creator. Rather than a human genome the God Gametes postulates an “external gene pool” (or EGP) containing the genetic code for all life on earth. This means that our species has had to firstly evolve in a way that it can carry out the reproductive function of the parent species (i.e. to host a consciousness which you will recall is the reproductive cell of the Father King). But now our species has evolved a consciousness it appears we are part of a process in which some form of natural selection will produce new members of the parent species that are adaptable to the external environment in which they must survive.

So you have asked if we “ … render essence of self in light of god?” God Gametes would suggest we have evolved and behave in a way that maximises our parent species’ chance of successfully reproducing.

>>> I'll leave it at that for now incase your opinions/thoughts/discoveries might be extensive in text volume. <<<

The God Gametes is over 168,000 words and can be downloaded free at www.epublishingaustralia.com but much of the work presented is supporting evidence of the basic theory. The God Gametes concept is somewhat radical and can be a little difficult to grasp but the section “Visiting the Planet of the Butterfly Queen” (in Chapter 1.) presents the model in a fictional setting and is very readable.
 
heyya Robert Jameson
>>> … to render essence of self in light of god? <<<
as opposed to the opersite, in spiritual materialism is the perrameter of what i was asking.

groove on :)
 
You either believe that 100,000,000 stars in 100,000,000 galaxies popped into existence from nowhere or you believe that it was created. Fred Hoyle said the universe was a “put up job”. He said that believing that it could all happen with enough time and enough throws of the dice is like believing that a tornado passing over a junk yard could assemble a 747. This is a very good analogy but it still falls short of what would be needed to create a universe from nothing. Hoyle’s analogy assumes the presence of a junkyard and a tornado; (i.e. it takes as given the presence of matter and energy). But even if we take as given the matter and energy, and assume the tornado could assemble a 747, then there are still some problems with the throwing the dice scenario. An incredibly lucky accident will only give you a 747; not life. We have known the formula for life for nearly 50 years but no-one has created life in the laboratory. Was this just a bit more luck? Or to return to Hoyle’s analogy; did the 747 suddenly take off by itself? Did it start to reproduce and adapt to an ever-changing environment?

If we are bold enough to suggest that something must have created it then that something is what most people would refer to as a God. Once people conceptualised a God then various religious movements came into being attempting to answer the big questions; Who created it? How does it work? What is it doing? Modern day scientists will mostly scoff at the early attempts by theologians to answer these questions. And the marriage of science and theology was not helped by the fact that for centuries successful religious movements enjoyed official sanction and many scientists who questioned their beliefs were persecuted. But unless science can answer these questions (and it can’t) then the presence of a God can not be dismissed.

My ebook (God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen which can be downloaded free at www.e-publishingaustralia.com) does not attempt to answer “Who created it?” It takes what little we know about “how it works” to put forward a theory on “What it is doing?”

The God Gametes theory presents a model that attempts to explain the reason why life on earth has evolved greater complexity and our species a consciousness. There are many ways the theory could be accommodated but the model presented in this book assumes our universe is part of a multiverse. The multiverse is taken to be hierarchal with the oldest and most complex universes on top; grading down to younger and less complex living systems. Life on each level of the multiverse is assumed to be the reproductive system of the level above.

Robert Jameson
 
quote...
scientists who questioned their beliefs were persecuted
--
not to mention killed or tortured to madness!
the later being the prefered of modern day!

Quote...
But unless science can answer these questions (and it can’t) then the presence of a God can not be dismissed.
--
but what do we percieve as science?
most scientists are prejudice and lean to one side of the equation which will over look the bassis of the scientific mold!
e.g "we the christian/jewish/whatever else decide that god exists
but magic is not real!
what a load of pre-tilted clap trap!
and...
"only our god can make miracles, and if your god can then your god is the devil"!
again... what a load of clap trap!
the modern I.D for this would be i love my job but i hate doing work for the result.
hence... if only i could find a way to not have to do the work and still get a result.
AND... only AFTER they have passed through the "Yes men" front door mold.

Quote...
Life on each level of the multiverse is assumed to be the reproductive system of the level above.
--
if this were to be a factual consequence of a power of unlimited creation ability... ?
what it is doing(what it does) is in fact what it is!

hence a closed model of semi "skeptical" bounderies of what is allowed to exist and what is not.
hence pre-disposition of perceptional abilities linked to a theory of relative interaction.
blah blah blah...
the comfortable cosey cusioned walls of ??? not sure what to say past that
in case it sounds insulting or rude or anything close to that which it is not meant to be!
just being as strait to the point as pssible.
i am not saying you are wrong or implying that i am right i am mearly stating my current opinion, which could change at the drop of a hat (with new convincing evidence based on my ability to percieve it), so to speak.
:)
what ya reckon?

ps how is the butterfly queen?
getting just enough but not too much chocolate i hope? :)

pps i have seen and experienced far too much in my life to date to not believe in the "super naturalley percieved" things in life.
most of which the churchs do not accept as reality!

I DO FEEL OBLIGED to point out one huge fact of the nature of what your model suggests to me...
and that is that if we were in some form part of the tower of
spirituality in learning then we ARE responsible for keeping the whole thing standing and not from total or gradual collapse.


groove on :)
 
>>> how is the butterfly queen?
getting just enough but not too much chocolate i hope? <<<

Thanks for your reply ripleforth. Sorry about this long post but hay; we are trying to understand the meaning of life here so did you think it was going to be easy?

The God Gametes theory does not believe that our universe could have come into existence from nothing. This is not logically or scientifically tenable. It is true that postulating the presence of a God is unscientific and is something that can never be proven. It is however reasonable to argue that because we have properties such as life, energy and matter then these things must have been created. For the only way we know that we can get life, energy and matter in our universe is from something that has these properties of life, energy and matter.

There are two sections in the God Gametes that address the issue of how our universe may have come into existence. It may be a little difficult to grasp this concept on the first reading but Figure 1. (The Multiverse Hierarchy) page 49 of God Gametes and the section (Visiting the Planet of the Butterfly Queen) commencing on page 53 may help the picture fall into place.

The section that follows is from Chapter 3 page 166 of God Gametes and can be downloaded free from www.e-publishingaustralia.com


Arrow of Time:

We have also looked at the suggestion that time may run the other way in our companion universe. This is a speculative point and not an essential part of the God Gametes theory but an antimatter-universe in which time runs backwards is theoretically possible and would appear to restore the symmetry lacking from properties of both time and matter.
Again, a difficult concept to grasp. As mentioned earlier the reversal of time means we die before we are born but this of course is impossible to rationalise in an objective way. But science fiction writers are not the only ones to take this notion seriously for below are quotes from a number of recognised authorities to lend credibility to linking the God Gametes theory to the reversal of time:

(See God Gametes for quotes from Sir Fred Hoyle, The Universe: Past and Present Reflections, John Wheeler, http://www.bigear.org/vol1no4/wheeler.htm, T. S. Eliot, Hand-Shaking Across Time and Sir Martin Rees, Before the Beginning)

This means that the life cycle of our matter universe would be one in which time ran forward from the big bang in a space that is expanding. When our universe starts to contract, time starts to run backwards with living creatures devolving complexity.

We can now have another look at a God Gametes model in which matter-universes emerge from a big bang to expand in size, with life maturing and time running in a forward direction. At the point of maximum expansion, gravitation will force them to contract with the arrow of time turning around. Living creatures will then get younger and devolve complexity with all matter eventually being consumed in a big crunch. Companion-antimatter-universes would be born at the point of maximum expansion and contract with time running backwards. They would start their life fully matured with life devolving until the arrow of time turned around. Antimatter-universes would then start to mature, their life cycle being complete when again fully expended.
This gives perfect symmetry between matter and antimatter, expansion and contraction, evolution and devolution and forward and backward directions of time. For example, when a universe is born the matter part will start from a big bang, expand, evolve and have its arrow of time running forward. The antimatter-universe starts its life at the same time the matter part, fully expanded and mature, so will contract, devolve and have the arrow of time running backwards. But at the point of turnaround the matter-universe starts to contract and devolve with time running backwards. The antimatter-universe will then expand and evolve with time running forward. Whatever the matter-universe is doing, its companion is doing the opposite.

The God Gametes theory also offers perfect symmetry between the life cycles of matter and antimatter-universes and the reproductive roles of males and females. Father King creates antimatter-universes that have just died in a heat death. They were fully matured and all the energy in stars depleted. Mature galaxies get younger and stars that have burned out get brighter. Life of all living creatures starts with their death and finishes with conception. And antimatter people host the reproductive cell of Father King. Again, this is a difficult concept to grasp but it may start to make more sense when you read the next few paragraphs.
Consciousness cells are released from their antimatter bodies before they return to their mothers’ womb and are transferred to the matter-universe where time is running the other way. They become the consciousness of human babies starting their lives on a matter-planet. The cycle is completed when one of them fertilises Mother Queen’s egg and new progeny is sent back to the parent universe.
In this scenario the elevation of intelligent life to a higher level of the multiverse will happen when a matter-universe is expanding and its antimatter-companion contracting.
Continuing to fit this concept of time reversal to the God Gametes model, antimatter-planets can only reproduce to a lower level when the arrow of time turns around. At the point of turnaround the antimatter-universe will start to expand with time running forward while the matter-universe contracts with time running backwards.
In another reversal all intelligent life forms on matter-planets would cease to host the reproductive cells of Father King but instead their consciousness would be the egg of Mother Queen.
Life on the antimatter-universe starts to evolve complexity at the same time intelligent living creatures on matter-planets are getting younger. The reproductive cells of Mother Queen are released from their bodies as they approach birth. These consciousness cells are transferred to the companion-antimatter-planet where time is running in a forward direction. They are then hosted by antimatter life evolving greater complexity. Eventually Father King will fertilise one of Mother Queen’s consciousness cells and a new antimatter-universe is created on a lower level of the multiverse.
In our Mini Model, Butterfly King took eggs of Butterfly Queen back to his antimatter-planet when he knew their universe was dying. Maybe though it was just about to start a different phase of the reproductive cycle. It is possible that the matter-universe had reached a point where life could evolve no further and living creatures on the antimatter-planet had devolved to a stage where no intelligent life existed. Both Planet of Butterfly Queen and its companion planet would then need to wait for the arrow of time to change direction. After the turn-around, time on the (antimatter) Planet of Butterfly King starts to run in a forward direction and living creatures will evolve complexity. At the same time, life on Planet of Butterfly Queen would start to run backwards. Little people who previously hosted sperm cells of Father King are now hosting reproductive eggs of Mother Queen. As they got younger their consciousness would be released from their bodies and transfer to the antimatter-companion-planet where time is running forward. Reproductive eggs from Mother Queen would be hosted by evolving species on the antimatter-planet and as these antimatter people became more mature it is likely some would be fertilised by sperm cells of Butterfly King thereby making possible the reproduction of matter and antimatter-universes on a lower level of the multiverse.

It needs to be stressed again that no one knows if there is a multiverse in which the arrow of time can change direction. Such properties are not essential to the model we have presented but can easily be accommodated. It is interesting however that both the model we use here and the concept of time reversal, are in conformity.
The God Gametes argument is only that life on earth is part of the reproductive system of a parent species, not from earth. But both our model and the concept of time reversal outlined by Hoyle and others seem to recognise universal laws that relate to consciousness. They are also accommodating of symmetrical systems and processes that are cyclical. Many scholars who have addressed this issue speculated that antimatter and the backward arrow of time might be located in other geometric dimensions.
The above model outlines a hierarchical multiverse with life on each step being the reproductive system of the level above. It requires a life force connecting the different levels of the hierarchy and is complementary to the force field theories currently being developed by a number of recognised authorities on this subject. More importantly though, the God Gametes theory provides a purpose for life and a rationale for many of life’s mysteries that Darwinism and conventional science failed to explain.
 
heyya Robert Jameson
part'Quote
and is complementary to the force field theories currently being developed by a number of recognised authorities on this subject.
===
what a great job/career that must be!
sounds very interesting and very rewarding.
:)
groove on
:)
 
Why the emphasis on DNA. The genetic code was discovered by Watson and Crick in 1953 but we still can not create life in the laboratory. The recent genome project found that humans only have about the same number of genes as a mouse and just a few more than the vinegar fly. Isn’t it about time we came to realise that it is not DNA (or its method of assortment) that is the source of life and consciousness.

It is the other way round. Life and consciousness is universal and it drives the coding of DNA and the evolution of greater complexity. This may sound a little crazy and is certainly a departure from conventional wisdom but there is little doubt that consciousness is universal. For example quantum particles react to observation. The following is a quote from my ebook; The God Gametes Theory at www.ebookmall.com

“Einstein spent many years trying to explain the paradoxical nature of quantum particles. In 1935 he, along with colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen devised an experiment proposed to bypass what by that time was referred to as ‘quantum uncertainty’. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment attempted to measure both the position and momentum of one particle by the use of an accomplice particle. What they suggested is best visualised by imagining two billiard balls. When ball one strikes ball two the momentum of ball two is determined by force exerted on it by ball one.
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen then suggested experiments should be conducted applying this procedure to quantum particles. If particle one strikes particle two, it should be possible to calculate the momentum of particle ‘two’ from energy exerted on it by ‘one’. By measuring the position of particle two it was known that its momentum would be interrupted. This however would not matter because the momentum of particle two could be calculated by measurements taken from ‘one’. In this way it was hoped that both the position and momentum of ‘two’ would be known and the veil of quantum uncertainty, lifted.
There was much at stake for Einstein in this experiment. Firstly he believed in ‘objective reality’; that a particle must have both position and momentum even if far away and cannot be observed directly. His second problem was that particle ‘two’, in theory, could be light-years from particle ‘one’. If a measurement taken on particle ‘one’ would disrupt ‘two’, this would demonstrate faster-than-light signalling. Einstein’s theory of relativity claimed that nothing could travel faster-than-light and the issue could not be resolved in 1935 because the technology required for making such precise measurements had at that time, not been developed.
In the 1960s John Bell of the Centre for European Nuclear Research (CERN) found experiments could be carried out that discriminated between Einstein’s position and the opposing argument put by Niels Bohr. Bell found there were certain experimental predictions that could not be met if the Bohr arguments, supportive of quantum uncertainty, were correct.
The different theories were then encoded in a mathematical statement known as Bell’s Inequality. An experiment was now needed to prove or disprove the claim that separated quantum particles could communicate in an unconventional way. It would need to ensure there was not enough time for signals to pass between particles at the speed of light or less. The technology to do this was not yet available in the 1960s but in 1982 Alain Aspect conducted a series of experiments proving for the first time that quantum uncertainty cannot be bypassed.
In other words, Einstein was wrong and Niels Bohr was right.
These experiments are most famous for establishing beyond doubt that quantum particles do not have properties that can be defined by commonsense physics. More importantly for our model though, they have shown it is possible for two quantum particles to communicate with each other instantly, when theoretically, they could be light-years apart.”
 
Speciation

All humans are descended from a population of a few thousand people who lived in Africa over 100,000 years ago. From there they spread out to all continents and have adapted to vastly different environmental conditions. Some creatures however, (such as the Indonesian leafhopper) while living in similar environmental conditions and remaining morhpologically identical have evolved a different species. Our species underwent extremely rapid evolution in vastly different geographical and climatic conditions but remained a single species. This can not be explained by Darwinian evolution but is consistent with the God Gametes theory that argues we source life from our parent species on the next higher level of the multiverse.

For an interesting interpretation on why this happened read my book “God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen” which can be downloaded free at www.e-publishingaustralia.com

Robert Jameson
 
heyya Robert Jameson

do you believe that the human species has been geneticly modified by another civilisation seperate to the theory of
natural trickle down effect from a parent species?

is in not great that such theoretical study can be undertaken in an open format with no threat of death or imprisonment as i am sure would have hung over the head of such people like 'Darwin'.

it is nice to see the concept of the free world spreading in a true form of artistic freedom without the disfunction of anarchy being touted as a virtue-companion to free throught!

maybe just maybe...
you will see the truths within your work before the creeds seek arhmagedon as a selfish means to self admonish.
...lets us hope if the story of G.W.Bush being a "born again" christian are not party to the nihalistic macinations of psychological disfunction which so richly preceeds their
("CREED"-bornagain-christians) social interface.
# note: i use the word born again christian to refer to the "sub group or creed that exists in side the genral collective of christianity/{born again}=(action).
IT IS NOT MY INTERPRETATION FOR NATURE TO SEEK GENOCIDE
TO CREATE BALLANCE.
unless it is the only avenue left to seek continuety of energy production.

groove on :)

peace light truth love
the path to that we hold above
 
Originally posted by Robert Jameson
Why the emphasis on DNA. The genetic code was discovered by Watson and Crick in 1953
Click to expand...

FYI, Watson and Crick postulated that the *structure* of the DNA molecule was helical in 1953, based on an image generated by an electron microscope which showed the molecule as a circle. they guessed that they were looking down on the molecule, similarly to how a baseball bat appears to be a circle if you you straight down the barrel.

About 1954 a Fresh Bio-chemist got a better image of the DNA molecule from a 45 degree angle, and it indeed showed that DNA is helical in structure.


The structure, not the genetic code, was discovered in '53. Just a clarification.
 
heyya :)

tec-nic-aley...
public science has not yet "discoverd" the dna structure, to be
recognised like one would a road map.
understanding what does what and how and when.

so they say.
i must wonder how this will be percieved given the amount of hardcore selective breeding done by humans for soo many thousands of years.

i would not want to be the one to have to graph it all!
i hate graph work formulas!

im almost certain that all the results will be slanted for years :D
LOL
gotta laugh though
and then they will use the figures like unemployment figures
-completely falsafied to maintain unsustainable life sucking profit
to molly codle all those geneticly intherior rich people.
should make some great comedy for ten years or so.

while some clinics suck out millions of dollars from the rich people who want to geneticly clean thier unborn children.

can't wait to see the circus acts!

groove on all :)
 
Convergent Evolution

The following quote is from the conclusion of Chapter 16 (Convergent Evolution) of God Gametes which can be downloaded free at www.e-publishingaustralia.com.

A crocodile is more closely related to a bird than a lizard. British fishmongers will sometimes substitute dogfish for salmon to unsuspecting customers because they look and taste identical. A salmon however is more closely related to a horse than a dogfish.21
The two different species of Indonesian leafhoppers that came to the notice of Darwin are morphologically identical. It is difficult for even an experienced observer with an electron microscope to tell them apart for the only noticeable difference is their mating call. They stridulate at different frequencies with different timing and have vocalizations at opposite ends of the vocal scale. In the wild these leafhoppers will only recognise their own mating calls. Darwin argued that they did not interbreed because their territories did not overlap but intensive farming practices in Indonesia have resulted in the two species sharing a common geographical area. They can be encouraged to interbreed in laboratory conditions when denied access to their own species but no hybrid has ever been found in the wild.22
We must wonder then why human lineage has not speciated. Using Single Nucleotide Polymorphism or what is called the SNP map it is possible to show that today’s entire human population originated from 50,000 to 100,000 people who lived in Africa 100,000 years ago.23 On the one hand we have Indonesian leafhoppers morphologically identical and share the same geographical area evolved into different species that do not interbreed. On the other, our species has exploited the extremes in geographical conditions and climate and the separate regions we populated have produced noticeable differences in morphology but only one species. And it is obvious that humans from separate geographical areas when brought into contact are seldom reluctant to interbreed.
It is likely the 50,000 to 100,000 people living in Africa 100,000 years ago from whom we have all descended are not the same species as modern man. Or to put it another way, if we had one of these individuals alive today we would most likely not be able to produce offspring with him. It is thought they were a by now extinct forerunner of modern man who migrated to the different continents during the ice ages. Yet if this is true it is all the more remarkable that an earlier ancestor to our species could evolve on different continents, in vastly different geographical and climatic conditions, producing the same formula for modern man.
Darwinism cannot explain this convergent (or parallel) evolution. Even if the environmental conditions were identical it is still impossible for a number of separated geographical areas to all hit on the same genetic formula for our species.
God Gametes theory does not claim to know why unrelated species tend to converge on the same trades, the same skills and adopt similarities in external morphologies. Our argument is simply that there is an external life force common to all life on planet earth. Naturally if all life has a common source, the convergence of unrelated species is possible. The extent to which species have adopted similarity of function and similarity of design would not be possible if the only force driving convergence were the random process of natural selection.

21. Tudge, Colin. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/tudge.html
22. Ford, Brian J. Genes – The Fight for Life, Sterling Publishing Co. Inc. 1999. p 209.
23. McMillan, Fiona. www.abc.net.au/science
 
I like any theory that builds on what is known as long as it doesn't contradict anything that is known. I can't see how this contradicts anything(maybe it does, I don't know) that is known so I think its pretty cool:)
I have my own theories like this. Lots actually. I always keep in mind though that there is a good chance they are all a load of shit;)
 
heyya :)

i was just thinking that since there are plants that are several thousand of years old, it only seems to make sence that there must be animals that are several if not hundreds of thousands of years old :D

how many species of animals do we not know how old they are?

and to what extent would religouse egocentrisim repel such theory?

are you talking about the syrians when you refer to africa?

groove on all :)
 
Originally posted by ripleofdeath
heyya :)

i was just thinking that since there are plants that are several thousand of years old, it only seems to make sence that there must be animals that are several if not hundreds of thousands of years old :D
how many species of animals do we not know how old they are?
Click to expand...
I can assure you that all species are older than 'thousands of years old'.
Humans are one of the youngest species in the world and we are about 400 000 years old.
Alot of shark species are over a hundred MILLION years old.
Most species are at least millions of years old.
 
Convergent Evolution

The following are extracts from Chapter 16 of God Gametes at www.e-publishingaustralia.com that discusses convergent evolution. If species source their design from an external gene pool from a parent species on the next higher level of a multiverse then this would explain convergent evolution. The focus of the extract below is on Richard Dawkins’ claim that convergent evolution reinforces the argument for natural selection.


Darwinists claim that convergence is due to two or more species adapting to the same environmental conditions: (The Blind Watchmaker page 95)

“The basic rationale is that, if a design is good enough to evolve once, the same design principle is good enough to evolve twice, from different starting points, in different parts of the animal kingdom.”1


Dollo’s Law

Dawkins addresses the undeniable truth that randomly based systems are highly unlikely to follow the same path twice. This is Dollo’s Law. If we look at a system of evolution driven by mutation and natural selection and take into consideration the infinite number of design options available, it becomes a statistical impossibility that the same evolutionary pathway could be followed twice: (The Blind Watchmaker page 94)

“For just the same reason, it is vanishingly improbable that exactly the same evolutionary pathway should ever be travelled twice. And it would seem similarly improbable, for the same statistical reasons, that two lines of evolution should converge on exactly the same end point from different starting points.
It is all the more striking a testimony to the power of natural selection, therefore, that numerous examples can be found in real nature, in which independent lines of evolution appear to have converged, from very different starting points, on what looks very like the same endpoint.”2


The 13-yr. and 17-yr. Periodical Cicada

Dawkins uses the 13-year and 17-year periodical cicadas as another example of convergent evolution. These remarkable creatures have a juvenile feeding stage lasting 13 or 17 years. Adults emerge at almost exactly the same time after spending 13 or 17 years underground to live in their mature stage for only a few weeks before dying. The interesting thing about periodical cicadas is that there is not a 13-year species and a 17-year species. There are in fact three and each has a different race of 13-year and 17-year cicadas, the intermediate years of 14, 15 and 16 having been avoided by all three.10 Dawkins noted that 13 and 17 are both prime numbers (cannot be divided evenly). He then speculates about the possibility of a predator that could make life difficult for cicadas that did not have 13 or 17-year life cycles. For example, a species that swarmed every 7 years could make life difficult for a 14-year cicada but Dawkins is unaware of the existence of such a creature: (The Blind Watchmaker page 100)

“The idea is that a race of animals that regularly erupts in plagues gains the benefit of alternately 'swamping' and starving its enemies, predators or parasites. And if these plagues are carefully timed to occur a prime number of years apart, it makes it that much more difficult for the enemies to synchronize their own life cycles. If the cicadas erupted every 14 years, for instance, they could be exploited by a parasite species with a 7-year life cycle.”11


The theory that cicadas swamp and then starve their enemy is a notion applicable to all insects that plague. For example, most of us are familiar with a grasshopper (or locust), easy pickings for birds that mostly keep their numbers in check. When locusts plague however their normal predators are ineffectual and they cause much damage for their synchronizing the emergence of a whole new generation makes it possible for many more to survive. The birds feeding on them have a feast when they first appear but are quickly replete so take little interest in the bulk of the plague.
But it is difficult to see how this strategy relates to the cicada’s choice of prime numbers. What is being suggested by Dawkins is that a predator or parasite can also synchronise their life cycles to make it possible to exploit plagues not occurring at 13 or 17 year intervals. The first thing we should note is that it would be impossible for birds to increase their population at the same rate as insects. There would also be little point in a predator increasing its population to take advantage of a plague, for the new generation would soon starve once the swarm had passed and this is presumably why Dawkins suggests the unknown enemy is most likely a parasite. Parasites can increase their population rapidly and could exploit an insect plague.
Let us imagine there is a parasite with a 7-year life cycle that attempts to exploit a 14-year cicada. The parasite discovers the precise time of the cicada eruption and synchronises its own reproductive cycle to take advantage of the next cicada plague. When the cicadas erupt, a new generation of the parasite matures at exactly the right time to feast on the swarm. The problem for this strategy is that when the parasite erupts again in 7 years, the cicada is still in its juvenile stage and the parasite’s next generation will starve. The cicada will starve the second generation of any parasite or predator with a life cycle shorter than its own regardless of whether it is a prime number or not.
But it is undeniable that a 14-year parasite would be very successful at exploiting a 14-year cicada. Every time the cicada erupts, a new generation of parasite would arrive to take advantage of the abundant food supply. So does this explain why the cicada may have moved from a 14-year to a 13-year life cycle? Of course not. The parasite can exploit a 13-year life cycle in exactly the same way. The problem for Dawkins’ theory is that a prime number can be divided by itself as can every number. This means a parasite that can extend its life cycle to the same number of years as its target can exploit 12, 14, 15, 16 and 18 year life cycles (non-prime numbers) just as easily as 13 and 17 years.
It is unlikely therefore that this hypothetical predator has forced cicadas to abandon composite numbers and adopt 13 and 17 year cycles. Dawkins has simply assumed that this convergence has been driven by the need for environmental adaptation but cannot find anything present in the environment to substantiate it. There seems little point in presenting 13 and 17-year cicadas as supporting convergent evolution without knowing why they converge. This appears to be saying we do not know why these remarkable creatures converge but because the Darwinist theory of evolution says convergence must be related to environmental adaptation, we think it has something to do with their environment. Dawkins has looked for the answer and found what he wanted but his suggested reason for this convergence is incorrect and does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution.
 
These are amazing creatures....
I used to get up before sunrise when I was a child and catch them climbing up a tree.
I would take them inside and let them attach to a screen window and "Hatch"

They are friendly little critters, but they make a lot of noise when a bird gets ahold of them....
They scream untill the bird's "feeding" silences their cries forever.

There are three kinds I have seen.....
-A one inch long variety, dark green in color....I never saw one of these untill recently.
-A two inch long variety, dark green and black.
And a three inch variety, light brown with yellow and white trim.
The last one tends to sing in the hot afternoon, from small trees and shrubs in the country.
The two inch green ones, sing more in the evening from taller trees and cities don't seem to bother them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top