Is DNA the TOTAL Instruction Set for a Lifeform?

Materialist science is desparate to prove that everything is just within their reach in terms of inheritance, especially the reductinist camp.

Lamarckism is the ability to acquire new genes or characteristics during life and pass them on to the offspring. When we are considering hard Evolutionary Theory at a cellular level, Horizontal Gene Transfer conforms to that definition whilst Darwinism is a term generally applied in a scientific context as the rejection of this possibility.

Cellular growth and differentiation is controlled by an electromagnetic template and causality has been confirmed.

The "theoretical justification" of Darwinism over Lamarkism is that Darwinism explains things while Lamarkism does not. Children of pirates don't inherit peg-legs.

And you have put your finger on the problems of the electromagnetic template. There is no way to explain it 'scientifically'.

In achondroplasia, the body is not capable of 'filling' its inherited (?), natural form and so a new map is formed. The same with the pirates leg. Yet shape is inherited.

And it does not conform to the chemical anatomical model of life. There is nowhere that it can be stored in physical terms, let alone inherited. Science has no grasp on it and so it does its best to forget about it. Medicine really would prefer to forget it for so many reasons.

Until science does find hard answers to these questions, it must admit to pragmatic, working hypotheses such as our individual shape is coded in the mind and god knows how it is inherited.

This is not New Age hippy pseudo-science.

The research was conducted between the wars as a result of that wondeerful human invention the landmine. The medical profession was presented with a concerning number of amputations for which they obviously sought a cure.One question was why a limb could grow the first time but was unable to regrow a second time. The second question was that some species, most notably certain lizards, are able to regrow a limb, a tail, which requires the ability of cells to be directed into differentiating into the correct cell types in the correct places.The electromagnetic field was empirically measured in both cases. It was found that the lizard was capable of maintaining this Em field during the time of growth and that the cells literally grew into it. Unfortunately in terms of a human amputation, the field collapsed before significant growth had occurred.Causality was proven by placing an disruptive electromagnetic field into the cage of the lizard. There was no regrowth.

The achondroplasia gene does not 'create' the original template. The template adapts to it as it does to any fact which impedes its being 'filled'. The effect of the inability of the long bones to grow is akin to that of external factors changing the ability of the body to fulfill that shape, such as malnutrition, the Japanese banding girls feet, African tribes that use metal rings to elongate the neck or banding the head to make it grow pointed before the growth plates close.This can be seen more clearly in congenital short stature caused by a failure of growth hormone, so called Peter Pan Dwarfism. The short stature or shape is not congenitally coded into the defective gene. Growth hormone suppliments allow the body to assume its predestined shape.Similarly the PKU gene does not code for organic brain damage but the protein error that causes that organic brain damage is.Wherever it has been possible to remedy the problems that a protein abnormality causes, the organism becomes normal without any change taking place to the gene itself. Hence, there is no causality for the characteristic being coded into the gene but a consequence of the protein abnormailty preventing normality from being expressed.

I would suggest firstly that you have a look at the history of science if you believe that evidence can disappear from the mainstream only to be rediscovered later. It has happeneed from Copernicus to String Theory and of course including Mendel's work. During that time it is generally only carried in the oral tradition ....

Change the genes, change the development?I think that I have adequately proved that in similar cases, a simple correction of the protein abnormality leads to normal development and shape. Development and shape are normal in the presence of the abnormal gene. QED, in these cases, the gene does not code for shape. It is a consequence of the protein that the gene creates.

A century after Copernicus published the evidence for the earth only 10 academics beleived it (Encarta)Mendel's work was rediscovered forty years after having been published in an obscure journal of plant hybridizationThe modern basis of M-Theory failed peer review and did not resurface for 10 year 8The Elegant Universse, Michael Greene)

No takers for a rational discussion then on the very important subject of inheritance, what is in chromosomal DNA and other possible forms of inheritance?etc...See original message for rest of text... --Admin