Everything else is hypothetical and unproven, especially HOAX genes coding for our shape.
They're "hox" genes, not "HOAX" genes, and what about them do you think is unproven?
Which of course kills many of the theoretical justifications of Darwinism over Lamarckism.
The "theoretical justification" of Darwinism over Lamarkism is that Darwinism explains things while Lamarkism does not. Children of pirates don't inherit peg-legs. There's apparently a small amount of "acquired" traits that can be passed on from a parent to an offspring via DNA methylation, but that's more akin to chemical signalling between individuals at a time when it's particularly convenient to do so than to Lamark's notion of the inheritance of acquired traits. Inherited methylation patterns typically don't continue past the first generation.
There is no way that our individual shape is in DNA.
It's "in DNA" the way the shape of a cake is encoded in the recipe for a cake. The morphology of any organism is a direct consequence of its DNA, but just like a recipe contains no homologue of a cake, DNA contains little in the way of any direct homologue to morphology.
Correct me if I am wrong but I remember the original declaration being that it was the position of the Hox genes in the genome that was associated with changes of very basic proportions of shape like spine to limb length. There was no mention of differences in the content of the gene and hence no difference in the protein that it coded. And no causality was proven, only association.
Like nearly everything you've said in this thread, this is nonsense. Hox genes were never so declared and this was never representative scientific thought on the subject. It's just more of your pseudoscientific make-believe.
I would be most appreciative of references relating to your case if I am misinformed on this matter and promise to regard any information that you provide in an objective and open-minded way, even changing and expanding my understanding.
At the level of biological knowledge you evince - none at all, basically - you could do worse than start with the Wikipedia article:
The third, evidence based element of phantom limb syndrome is numerous cases of continuing perception where the limb was. Patients are still able to tell when 'the limb is touched' and it depends on 'the position of the limb'.
Sorry, no. There are no medical cases where any amputee has been able to sense actual contact with an amputated limb. The "continued perception" is solely an artifact of the persistent motorneural activity in the brain corresponding with the motor control of the amputated limb. Electromagnetic fields have not ever been involved and there's no "evidence-based element" in that regard.
In the words of the consultant anaesthesiologist who first told me of this 'We don't talk about this because it brings the anatomical chemical model into serious doubt.'
Since there's no such thing as the "anatomical chemical model" aside from your own invention, I highly doubt that any person actually said these words to you. Just one more thing you're making up, most likely.
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.
No, it was not. This is make-believe, not something that really happened. And it's not how regeneration happens in lizards.
It is still passed from consultant to junior doctor in the oral tradition of medicine, at least in the UK.
"Oral tradition"? Surely you must be joking. Some senior doctor is having a laugh at your expense, or else somebody has tried to sell you something.
The idea that a grown, adult person would take seriously scientific claims passed down by "oral tradition" is, perhaps, the funniest thing I've read all week. Thanks for providing a laugh, if not anything else of any merit.
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.
Completely wrong. Genes determine the primary sequence of proteins, which determines their structure. Structure of proteins determines functions. The fact that you can frequently supplement the body with "correct" proteins to overcome a genetic disease doesn't eliminate as causal the body's own defective genes. In fact it proves that genetic diseases are, in fact, caused by genes that encode mal-formed proteins.
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.
You seem to be making two claims at once - the first, that there's all this unknown evidence for electromorphological fields that is completely lost to science; and two, that all this "lost" evidence isn't lost at all because you know all about it (but can't provide any of it.) Which is it?
It has happeneed from Copernicus to String Theory and of course including Mendel's work.
Well, but as you've just shown none of these are actually examples of "lost" scientific evidence surviving by oral tradition. Mendel's work survived in print, not by being passed down by oral tradition. Copernicus's work De revolutionibus orbium coelestium survives in manuscript form to this day. String theory has always been in print.
Something is an "oral tradition" when it is passed verbally, in spoken form, between generational individuals (usually without being written down except, perhaps, towards the end.) In absolutely none of the three cases you've put forth was there an "oral tradition" of anything.
I am unsure how you jump from Hox genes being important in the embyological ordering of segments, which is pretty much what I said, to such details of shape as inheriting the recognisable facial features of your parents.
The evidence that it is true is what causes me to make that leap. "Faith" has nothing to do with it, but faith is what is required to believe in electromorphological fields on no other basis but that a senior doctor told you they existed.
It came up on account of his having a patient who demonstrated this phenomena.
There was no patient who demonstrated this "phenomena", was there?
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?
There are plenty of takers for rational discussion, here. Anytime you'd like to be a part of it, you just have to stop making things up.
it makes the person unable to listen or understand arguments that contradict their personal experience.
So when are you going to listen or understand our arguments that contradict your personal experience? You asked for a source of information about hox genes. It was provided. Was that something you were going to respond to, or just pretend never happened?