45 thoughts on “Bioelectrics”

1. During morphogenesis the bioelectric pattern precedes gene expression and without any alterations to the genome the manipulation of this pattern can alter form in multiple ways. The bioelectric signals control the genes.

   This looks very familiar. You have linked to this video before. We discussed this topic and I patiently explained to you that the bio-electric pattern was set up by the tissue-specific expression of ion channels and gap junctions which is ultimately under control of developmental genes. The researchers of the Levin lab manipulate those bio-electric patterns with drugs that block ion channel function, or they use genetic mutants, or they make cells overexpress ion channel and gap junction genes by transduction with a viral vector. All of this is explained in the video.

   It appears you have inadvertently forgotten to mention all this. Perhaps you did not recall our previous exchange, but maybe you remember making this claim though?

   I enjoy getting feedback and constructive criticism. I find that dialog with people like you who I know disagree with most of what I write is a great way to stimulate my thinking. My wife often suggests that I should go and do a degree, but I think I would find that too restrictive.

   Could you please explain to me how “stimulating your thinking” is consonant with never discussing the arguments supporting the competing mainstream explanations, never being able to articulate the details of your alternative explanations, never spontaneously mentioning, addressing or even remembering previous criticisms and never accommodating previous corrections?

2. From Jerry Coyne’s blog:

   A new article from The Lancet reports the synthesis of an antibiotic that not only kills all drug-resistant bacteria that have been tested (in vitro or in vivo in mice), but also seems impervious to being rendered ineffective by the evolution of bacteria. If this works out in humans, it would be a terrific advance in medicine: an antibiotic that can be used on people whose infections aren’t treatable because the bacteria are drug-resistant (this is common in TB, for instance), but also an antibiotic that seems to be impervious to the evolution of bacterial resistance. It’s also easy to synthesize using organic chemistry, and can be easily tweaked in its structure just in case some bacteria eventually do develop resistance….

   The discovery was serendipitous. The U.S. Army had a pressing need to charge cell phones while in the field — essential for soldier survival. Because bacteria are miniature power plants, compounds were designed by Bazan’s group to harness bacterial energy as a “‘microbial”’ battery. Later the idea arose to re-purpose these compounds as potential antibiotics.

   “When asked to determine if the chemical compounds could serve as antibiotics, we thought they would be highly toxic to human cells similar to bleach,” said Mahan, the project lead investigator. “Most were toxic — but one was not — and it could kill every bacterial pathogen we tested.”

   Of course, bioelectrics are nothing new. But that’s an interesting discovery.

3. Corneel:
   CharlieM: During morphogenesis the bioelectric pattern precedes gene expression and without any alterations to the genome the manipulation of this pattern can alter form in multiple ways. The bioelectric signals control the genes.

   Corneel: This looks very familiar. You have linked to this video before. We discussed this topic and I patiently explained to you that the bio-electric pattern was set up by the tissue-specific expression of ion channels and gap junctions which is ultimately under control of developmental genes. The researchers of the Levin lab manipulate those bio-electric patterns with drugs that block ion channel function, or they use genetic mutants, or they make cells overexpress ion channel and gap junction genes by transduction with a viral vector. All of this is explained in the video.

   It appears you have inadvertently forgotten to mention all this. Perhaps you did not recall our previous exchange, but maybe you remember making this claim though?

   Yes, I know we’ve discussed this before, but I thought that this research throws up so many questions that it would be good to give it its own thread.

   Of course it’s obvious that suites of genes are required to produce ion channels. Previously you implied that the bioelectric fields were somehow controlled by the genes, but you didn’t go into any detail about how the genes cooperated to achieve this. In that link you also stated:

   Corneel: I’ll just repeat the following mantra in the hope that one day it sticks: DNA gets transmitted to the offspring. Ion channels are not.

   This is not correct. In organisms such as ourselves the oocyte, complete with its ion channels and all the rest are transformed into the zygote upon fertilization. There are ion channels which are also transmitted. The cell is continuously within an electric field throughout its journey towards fertilization and beyond.

   And in the case of planaria it is demonstrably not true. Here it becomes much more interesting. According to Levin, planaria largely reproduce by fission followed by regeneration. This means that they escape the Weismann barrier. Somatic mutations are propagated through the generations. They acquire mutations over time resulting in very messy genomes. They are mixoploid, which means that not all of their cells have the same genome. And so despite hundreds of millions of years gathering mutations they show 100% anatomical fidelity. There is a paradox in that their morphology is extremely stable while their genomes are anything but stable.

   In the article “First complete genome assembly of planarian flatworm reveals treasure trove on the function and evolution of genes”, they say:

   The assembly reveals a genome that contains novel giant repeat elements, new flatworm-specific genes, but also the absence of other genes that were so far thought to be absolutely essential for keeping an animal alive.

   They are hoping that this research will give them some answers, but if it doesn’t make things any clearer, it has certainly thrown up many interesting questions.

4. Corneel:
   CharlieM: I enjoy getting feedback and constructive criticism. I find that dialog with people like you who I know disagree with most of what I write is a great way to stimulate my thinking. My wife often suggests that I should go and do a degree, but I think I would find that too restrictive.

   Corneel: Could you please explain to me how “stimulating your thinking” is consonant with never discussing the arguments supporting the competing mainstream explanations, never being able to articulate the details of your alternative explanations, never spontaneously mentioning, addressing or even remembering previous criticisms and never accommodating previous corrections?

   Perhaps much of what you see as corrections, I see as faulty reasoning. For example your above implication that it is only bare DNA that gets transmitted from parent to offspring.

   Here are some more thoughts from the video to mull over.

   Levin: Where does shape come from?…you might be tempted to say the genome. And so the genome certainly produces the cellular hardware that you need to create this. So the genome gives you all the protein sequences but the genome doesn’t directly say anything about this kind of order. It’s simply not there in that way. And so we really need to understand how do cell groups know what to make and when to stop? It’s a collective intelligence problem in the sense that all these cell are active agents that do various things. And the result of their activity is to self-assemble this amazing organism…This central question of where anatomical order comes from and how do we control it is the key I think to really profound changes in how we do medicine.

   There is a difficulty with existing paradigm in which gene networks produce proteins which stick together giving rise to specified form. At most this will give rise to a teratoma. As Levin says, “It’s not enough to have the building blocks, you have to specify how they get together. To build functional tissue and organs the organism needs to know which genes to tweak. This is extremely difficult to unravel and according to Levin, it is what’s holding back modern medicine.

   When they jumbled up the facial features of a frog in early development, the creature still managed to develop into a frog with a relatively normal face. This indicates that it is the final pattern of the face that determines the path the cells take no matter how novel a path they take. It’s all very well to say that this is laid down in the genes, but what actual evidence does anyone have for making such a claim? Levin claims to be witnessing collective intelligence. Gene expression and cellular movements are controlled by the dynamic electric fields. If the organism is likened to an orchestral performance, the genes are responsible for producing the materials from which the instruments are made. And I believe the electric field can be compared to the combination of sounds which we enjoy as music.

   The genes make it possible to build the various tissues, and the overarching formative fields give shape to those tissues. This makes the difference between a teratoma and a functional organism.

5. Flint:
   From Jerry Coyne’s blog:

   Of course, bioelectrics are nothing new. But that’s an interesting discovery.

   Yes, very interesting. I wonder how our beneficial bacteria will cope with such antibiotics. And how long before some form of extra-super bacterium will find a way round the problem presented to it. We should never underestimate bacteria, and life in general for persistence in the face of threats of destruction.

6. CharlieM: In that link you also stated:

   Corneel: I’ll just repeat the following mantra in the hope that one day it sticks: DNA gets transmitted to the offspring. Ion channels are not.

   Charlie: This is not correct. In organisms such as ourselves the oocyte, complete with its ion channels and all the rest are transformed into the zygote upon fertilization. There are ion channels which are also transmitted. The cell is continuously within an electric field throughout its journey towards fertilization and beyond.

   Yes, that is what you said last time:

   Ion channels are surely transmitted. An egg does not suddenly lose its membrane if it becomes fertilized by a sperm. In fact the barrier between mother and offspring may not be as impermeable as you might think.

   So, I suppose I will have to reply again with:

   Let me remind you again of the Hershey-Chase experiment and the Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment.

   and then you can riposte again:

   The only thing that these experiments demonstrated was that the means by which the materials needed to build tissues was passed on through DNA and not proteins. DNA is used to produce the material in the form of proteins. If it was primal in producing form then it would need to be different in each cell type.

   I am spotting a groundhog here. Do you understand what I meant when I said that you are “never spontaneously mentioning, addressing or even remembering previous criticisms”?

7. CharlieM: Perhaps much of what you see as corrections, I see as faulty reasoning.

   This is indubitably true, but this also happens in the occasional cases that you do concede that a correction was valid:

   I may have overstated the case but I was making the point that their intention was to change the electrical gradients through manipulating the ion channels and gap junctions.

   However, there is nothing in your OP that betrays that you accomodated this rectification. Instead, you boldly claim:

   During morphogenesis the bioelectric pattern precedes gene expression and without any alterations to the genome the manipulation of this pattern can alter form in multiple ways. The bioelectric signals control the genes.

   In the context of how the people at the Levin lab performed these experiments and in the knowledge that “it’s obvious that suites of genes are required to produce ion channels” the statements above are highly misleading.

8. CharlieM: Yes, very interesting. I wonder how our beneficial bacteria will cope with such antibiotics. And how long before some form of extra-super bacterium will find a way round the problem presented to it. We should never underestimate bacteria, and life in general for persistence in the face of threats of destruction.

   My bad, I should have linked to the Lancet article. So here it is:

   Lancet article

9. Corneel: I am spotting a groundhog here. Do you understand what I meant when I said that you are “never spontaneously mentioning, addressing or even remembering previous criticisms”?

   Let’s see if we can outdo the “ChatGPT narrates TSZ” thread. 🙂

   I believe DNA to the source of the information which gets transmitted and is used to produce a consistency of material and tissues down through the generations? But that is not all that is transferred. Surely you agree that whole cells are transmitted from parent to offspring? Within this process DNA is a very necessary and important component, but, let me stress, a component that can do nothing in isolation.

   The point is that the continuation of the generations and inheritance requires a coordinated system of transmission requiring at minimum whole cells. To believe that new bodies can be constructed from DNA alone is like thinking all that is necessary to construct machines are isolated hands floating in space.

   Your serve. 🙂

10. CharlieM:
    The point is that the continuation of the generations and inheritance requires a coordinated system of transmission requiring at minimum whole cells. To believe that new bodies can be constructed from DNA alone is like thinking all that is necessary to construct machines are isolated hands floating in space.

    I am by no means a biologist, and I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Yes, sperm and egg are cells. And those cells contain the complete instruction set for growing a new individual. Sure, to build something you need more than an instruction set, you need raw materials. You know, things like iron and calcium and carbon and hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and phosphorus and various trace elements. As I understand it, the DNA directly and indirectly uses these elements to construct various sorts of cells. The cells themselves contain the instructions to replicate and grow. A biologist could tell me a lot more, of course.

    But it has never been my understanding that the way the sperm and egg combine to start the development process, is to actually hijack fully formed adult cells wholesale from the mother as the building materials. Aren’t there supposed to be stem cells involved?

11. Corneel:
    CharlieM: During morphogenesis the bioelectric pattern precedes gene expression and without any alterations to the genome the manipulation of this pattern can alter form in multiple ways. The bioelectric signals control the genes.

    Corneel: In the context of how the people at the Levin lab performed these experiments and in the knowledge that “it’s obvious that suites of genes are required to produce ion channels” the statements above are highly misleading.

    I don’t see why it’s misleading. Levin compares the genome to a computer’s hardware, and the bioelectric activity to the software. Using the same hardware (genome) the software (bioelectric fields) can arrange the material to create form, and it can do so using alternative pathways if required.

    In some experiments they use mutations to disrupt the normal course of development and then, using drugs, they can open or close specific ion channels mimicking the effects of bioelectric fields. Through this technique they can manipulate form and obtain results such as producing two-headed planaria or positioning functional eyes in the tails of fish. The form building isn’t achieved by disrupting the genome, it is achieved by careful manipulation of ion channels.

12. Flint,

    Thanks. I’ll read it later.

13. Flint:
    CharlieM: The point is that the continuation of the generations and inheritance requires a coordinated system of transmission requiring at minimum whole cells. To believe that new bodies can be constructed from DNA alone is like thinking all that is necessary to construct machines are isolated hands floating in space.

    Flint: I am by no means a biologist, and I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Yes, sperm and egg are cells. And those cells contain the complete instruction set for growing a new individual. Sure, to build something you need more than an instruction set, you need raw materials. You know, things like iron and calcium and carbon and hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and phosphorus and various trace elements. As I understand it, the DNA directly and indirectly uses these elements to construct various sorts of cells. The cells themselves contain the instructions to replicate and grow. A biologist could tell me a lot more, of course.

    But it has never been my understanding that the way the sperm and egg combine to start the development process, is to actually hijack fully formed adult cells wholesale from the mother as the building materials. Aren’t there supposed to be stem cells involved?

    I’m not saying any other cells are highjacked. The fertilized egg is a whole cell and it was a whole cell before fertilization. This whole functional cell is as basic and simple as we have been since our conception. What gets transferred from our mothers (and fathers) is not bare DNA, it is a functioning cell.

    If you understand what Levin is saying, the DNA is not a complete instruction set in how to form an organism. It is the means by which bodily tissues and structures can be built. But without the creative bio-electrics no more that a teratoma like object that has no intrinsic form.

    The DNA on its own can do nothing. The cellular system as a whole is the functional unit.

14. CharlieM: Let’s see if we can outdo the “ChatGPT narrates TSZ” thread.

    For the love of God, let’s not.

    CharlieM: Your serve.

    You have side-stepped my question. Still, I think it would be good for you to ponder why, with all this stimulating your thinking going on, your contributions are on repeat. Hopefully it “throws up many questions”.

    CharlieM: I believe DNA […] isolated hands floating in space.

    I am not sure what is the point of this comment TBH. It doesn’t describe my position, because I don’t believe that organismal development requires only DNA and it doesn’t describe your position either, because all the nonsense about formative fields and archetypes is lacking. Apart from that, it’s pretty inoffensive. So what were you trying to accomplish here?

    CharlieM: I don’t see why it’s misleading.

    No, I suppose you really don´t. To the unwary onlooker that paragraph strongly suggests that the setting up of the bio-electric pattern is itself not dependent on gene expression and that bioelectric signals control all gene expression during development. Both of these suggestions are false. I take it that you agree?

15. In a nice bit of serendipitous timing I have just read an article by Sally Adee in the 25 Feb 2023 edition of New Scientist.

    “You Are Electric”

    …how do the cells in a developing embryo know where to go to make a body, rendering all those fingers and beaks and fins in the proper place and dimensions? Since the 1960s,researchers have suspected that strange electrical pulses within fertilized eggs are important to their development. This conviction only deepened with advances in genetics. Decades of research into genomes have turned up little that could account for key aspects of an organism’s shape. You will find plenty of genes coding for specifics such as height or the colour of hair, skin and eyes. But nothing tells you how many eyes. There is no gene for ‘two eyeballs, and would you mind popping them on the front of the head”. The same is true for your legs, arms and ears. The genome alone can’t configure the placement of any of these features.

    When she says, “genes coding for specifics such as height”, Adee may be giving the impression that everything has been solved in our understanding of causal chains between genes and height. This is far from the case. From this article

    The GIANT* investigators, numbering in the hundreds, shared and analyzed data from the genomes of 253,288 people. They checked about two million common genetic variants (those that showed up in at least 5 percent of their subjects). From this pool, they pinned down 697 (in 424 gene regions) as being related to height, the largest number to date associated with any trait or disease.

    (*Genetic Investigation of Anthropometric Traits Consortium)

    These are genes that are linked to height. This doesn’t clarify how these genes are activated or silenced within the complexities of human growth. There is no mention of the part bioelectrics plays in the process. .

    Continuing with Agee’s article, we are informed that as the embryo develops the stem cells assumed various resting potentials depending on which specialized cells they are destined to become.

    Yet these shifts in voltage weren’t just maps, they were instructions. Subsequent experiments revealed that they turned on the genes that got to work to create an animal’s physical template. Messing with the electrical patterns disrupted the function of the ion channels and pumps that are crucial to maintaining the characteristic voltage of each cell type during development, resulting in radical physiological changes. Correcting the errant voltages during development fixed the problem.

    And of course all cells have ion channels, including sperm and eggs. From pubmed

    The multi-faceted approach being used to unravel sperm ion channel function and regulation is yielding valuable information about the finely orchestrated events that lead to sperm activation, induction of the acrosome reaction, and in the end to the miracle of life.

    Fertilization is not just a simple shuffling of DNA. An electrically active sperm head combines with an electrically active egg to produce an electrically active zygote. And we know that electrical activity affects genome activity. So why assume that, in the production and maintenance of complex adults such as we are, the creativity resides in the genome. Bioelectric activity is a prominent feature throughout gamete production, conception, growth and development.

16. Corneel:
    “CharlieM: Let’s see if we can outdo the “ChatGPT narrates TSZ” thread.”

    Corneel: For the love of God, let’s not.

    I’m counting on you not letting that happen. 😉 I don’t think I measure up to the stamina they are showing over there. 🙂

17. Corneel: You have side-stepped my question. Still, I think it would be good for you to ponder why, with all this stimulating your thinking going on, your contributions are on repeat. Hopefully it “throws up many questions”.

    I understand what you are saying. But there’s not much I can do if answers I give are not to your satisfaction.

    CharlieM: I believe DNA […] isolated hands floating in space.

    Corneel: I am not sure what is the point of this comment TBH. It doesn’t describe my position, because I don’t believe that organismal development requires only DNA and it doesn’t describe your position either, because all the nonsense about formative fields and archetypes is lacking. Apart from that, it’s pretty inoffensive. So what were you trying to accomplish here?

    Why do you dismiss as nonsense, without question, any talk of formative fields?

    In my opinion the dynamic bioelectric field are the measurable effects of non-perceived formative fields that are at root in creating form. Physical organisms are the result of the polarity of peripheral field forces and material growth originating in genetic activity. The former provides the structural form and the latter provides the structural material.

    CharlieM: I don’t see why it’s misleading.

    Corneel: No, I suppose you really don´t. To the unwary onlooker that paragraph strongly suggests that the setting up of the bio-electric pattern is itself not dependent on gene expression and that bioelectric signals control all gene expression during development. Both of these suggestions are false. I take it that you agree?

    There is no point in the origin and development of any organism where either bioelectrical activity or genetic activity is absent. They are both continuously present. Up to recent times the orthodox view has expended all its energy in trying to prove that creativity comes from within the genome and it has ignored any suggestion of it originating from any other direction.

    In my opinion it is one-sided in that it has disregarded the fundamental polarity of nature. And your remarks are an example of this. In your opinion the fields have their source in the genome, no question. Do you ever question the belief that the DNA contains all the information needed to create an organism?

18. CharlieM: I understand what you are saying. But there’s not much I can do if answers I give are not to your satisfaction.

    Heh, I don’t think you understand what I am saying. Perhaps this will help: When you said that “this research throws up so many questions”, did you mean that YOU now have many questions? If so, I have a very hard time finding them.

    CharlieM: Why do you dismiss as nonsense, without question, any talk of formative fields?

    I don´t dismiss them without question. In fact, I asked many questions about them last time we discussed formative fields but the answers you gave me were not to my satisfaction.

    CharlieM: In my opinion the dynamic bioelectric field are the measurable effects of non-perceived formative fields that are at root in creating form. Physical organisms are the result of the polarity of peripheral field forces and material growth originating in genetic activity. The former provides the structural form and the latter provides the structural material.

    Yeah, I distinctly remember repeatedly asking: “please explain how the formative fields set up the correct species-specific bio-electric pattern in an embryo.” You mumbled something non-specific about attractors governing bioelectric fields. Sadly, that explanation ignores the role of ion channels and gap junctions, which remain inconveniently physical entities. How do the non-physical (?) formative fields nudge the ion channels in the correct positions, I wonder?

    Do you understand what I meant when I said that you never discuss the arguments supporting the competing mainstream explanations and are never able to articulate the details of your alternative explanations?

    CharlieM: Up to recent times the orthodox view has expended all its energy in trying to prove that creativity comes from within the genome and it has ignored any suggestion of it originating from any other direction.
    In my opinion it is one-sided in that it has disregarded the fundamental polarity of nature. And your remarks are an example of this. In your opinion the fields have their source in the genome, no question. Do you ever question the belief that the DNA contains all the information needed to create an organism?

    I am pretty sure that I have never claimed something vague like “DNA contains all the information needed to create an organism”. Also, I am positive that I never expended energy “trying to prove that creativity comes from within the genome ” because I have absolutely no idea what that even means.

    If you want to knock over any more straw men then be my guest, but it is rather silly when you accuse them of being one-sided in their opinions.

19. The review, Bioelectric signaling coordinating patterning decisions during embryologists concludes:

    Bioelectric signaling acts as another layer of control during development that is both essential and integrated with the genomic components of embryogenesis. The examples presented above provide evidence for physiological signals, such as membrane voltage potentials, connecting the environment of cells to the genetic and biochemical cascades required for correct pattern formation. However, despite knowing a lot about ionic currents and how they function, we are just beginning to elucidate how bioelectric signaling works in concert with transcription pathways to modulate cell behavior. Despite recent findings, several questions still need to be addressed in order to advance this field including: how are cells able to compare bioelectric states across distances, and how is the input stemming from bioelectrical signals, chemical gradients, and physical forces able to direct the formation of complex structures. Also, in addition to connecting ion fluxes with specific downstream events, understanding the differences and similarities between multiple ion channel species remains to be elucidated. Gaining a better understanding of how bioelectricity directs cell behavior may provide novel insights to developing therapeutics to treat, and maybe someday prevent human disease.

    Regarding directing cell behaviour, we should remember what Levin said in the video: “The bioelectric pattern…shows up before the genes are turned on to regionalize the face.”

    Dynamic bioelectric patterning is observed at many levels, from cells, to tissues, to organisms.

20. CharlieM: Regarding directing cell behaviour, we should remember what Levin said in the video: “The bioelectric pattern…shows up before the genes are turned on to regionalize the face.”

    Wow, that throws up so many questions for those with a “formative fields”-centric view, like for example: “I wonder where all of the ion pumps and ion channels come from that set up the bioelectric pattern when no genes have been turned on yet” and “Could it be that Michael Levin didn’t mean all genes but just those involved in craniofacial development and that a lot of regulated gene expression has already taken place?” and “Why aren’t formative fields mentioned at all in his talk and papers? Doesn’t he like formative fields?” and “Omygosh. What if formative fields aren’t required at all during development? “

21. Corneel:
    “CharlieM: I understand what you are saying. But there’s not much I can do if answers I give are not to your satisfaction.”

    Corneel: Heh, I don’t think you understand what I am saying. Perhaps this will help: When you said that “this research throws up so many questions”, did you mean that YOU now have many questions? If so, I have a very hard time finding them.

    It should throw up many questions to you, me and everyone who thinks about these things. Think about the ‘law’ which states that life comes from life, what grounds do have for criticizing this? Or that the lowest form of a reproducing, living entity is the cell equipped with all of its functioning components, semi-permeable membranes, channels, pumps, DNA replicating systems, molecular ‘motors’, organelles and the rest. What criticisms or questions about this do you have? To me this opens up a multitude of questions I would like to find answers to. And the genome provides only a very limited set of answers.

    “CharlieM: Why do you dismiss as nonsense, without question, any talk of formative fields?”

    Corneel: I don´t dismiss them without question. In fact, I asked many questions about them last time we discussed formative fields but the answers you gave me were not to my satisfaction.

    What about Michael Levin’s research on the formative nature of bioelectric fields? Do you regard this as nonsense?

    CharlieM: In my opinion the dynamic bioelectric field are the measurable effects of non-perceived formative fields that are at root in creating form. Physical organisms are the result of the polarity of peripheral field forces and material growth originating in genetic activity. The former provides the structural form and the latter provides the structural material.

    Corneel: Yeah, I distinctly remember repeatedly asking: “please explain how the formative fields set up the correct species-specific bio-electric pattern in an embryo.” You mumbled something non-specific about attractors governing bioelectric fields. Sadly, that explanation ignores the role of ion channels and gap junctions, which remain inconveniently physical entities. How do the non-physical (?) formative fields nudge the ion channels in the correct positions, I wonder?

    Levin has demonstrated how bioelectric fields direct the facial features of a frog at the level of the organism. It is proposed that the features of an individual cell are directed in a similar manner at the cellular level. Fertilized eggs come into being with ion channels already in place. There are continuous adjustments to the potential differences across membranes taking place as the zygote is formed. And during cell division all the coordinated activity required in this fission of the cell involves processes which control the activation of appropriate genes.

    Corneel: Do you understand what I meant when I said that you never discuss the arguments supporting the competing mainstream explanations and are never able to articulate the details of your alternative explanations?

    If you try to understand what Goethe was saying when he explained that he could actually perceive the archetype, then you might have a better understanding of my position.

    CharlieM: Up to recent times the orthodox view has expended all its energy in trying to prove that creativity comes from within the genome and it has ignored any suggestion of it originating from any other direction.
    In my opinion it is one-sided in that it has disregarded the fundamental polarity of nature. And your remarks are an example of this. In your opinion the fields have their source in the genome, no question. Do you ever question the belief that the DNA contains all the information needed to create an organism?

    Corneel: I am pretty sure that I have never claimed something vague like “DNA contains all the information needed to create an organism”. Also, I am positive that I never expended energy “trying to prove that creativity comes from within the genome ” because I have absolutely no idea what that even means.

    If you want to knock over any more straw men then be my guest, but it is rather silly when you accuse them of being one-sided in their opinions.

    If not in the DNA then where does the information come from that can turn the single-celled zygote into and multicellular human or frog, considering the same genome is copied with great fidelity in all the somatic cells? The orchestration of the development of an organism is controlled at a level above that of the genome.

22. CharlieM: It should throw up many questions to you, me and everyone who thinks about these things.

    It should indeed. But something tells me that instead you imagine Levin’s work to be particularly problematic for other people:

    Levin’s work brings up a lot of difficult questions for those who hold a gene centred view of development and evolution.

    However, it pleases me to learn that you have changed your mind since then:

    CharlieM: To me this opens up a multitude of questions I would like to find answers to.

    Capital. Why don’t you share a few of them here?

    CharlieM: And the genome provides only a very limited set of answers.

    Please also share those “answers” so we can examine them for soundness.

    CharlieM: What about Michael Levin’s research on the formative nature of bioelectric fields? Do you regard this as nonsense?

    That seems solid research to me. Let me also applaud you for looking into that review paper. I appreciate that you are willing to look beyond the world of youtube vids.
    However, neither the Levin video nor the Trends review makes any mention of formative fields, archetypes or the etheric life principle. These I regard as nonsense.

    CharlieM: Levin has demonstrated how bioelectric fields direct the facial features of a frog at the level of the organism. It is proposed that the features of an individual cell are directed in a similar manner at the cellular level. Fertilized eggs come into being with ion channels already in place. There are continuous adjustments to the potential differences across membranes taking place as the zygote is formed. And during cell division all the coordinated activity required in this fission of the cell involves processes which control the activation of appropriate genes.

    You appear to have left out formative fields from your explanation of how formative fields set up the correct species-specific bio-electric pattern in an embryo. How embarrassing!

    CharlieM: If you try to understand what Goethe was saying when he explained that he could actually perceive the archetype, then you might have a better understanding of my position.

    In my understanding, your archetype is an ideal structure of which various physical representatives can manifest in the world. You often compare this to the ideal triangle of which all physical triangles are representatives. Goethe named the archetype of all greeny stuff the Urpflanze and took all plants to be reprentatives of it, but you have adopted an embellished version where archetypes are hierarchically nested, so we get a Polytrichum archetype within a bryophyte archetype within a plant archetype within a eukaryote archetype andsoforth. Very creative.

    I do not know what Goethe meant when he said that he could perceive the archetype, but my guess is that the epiphany of discovering homologous structures in plants gave him the impression he was looking at some unifying principle.

    CharlieM: If not in the DNA then where does the information come from that can turn the single-celled zygote into and multicellular human or frog, considering the same genome is copied with great fidelity in all the somatic cells? The orchestration of the development of an organism is controlled at a level above that of the genome.

    That information is in the single-celled zygote, silly. Where else? If you want a more specific answer, I need a more precise definition of “information”.

    Also, it is a bit sad to learn that you still have not picked up on the role of gene regulation during development, after having been lectured on it by nearly everyone with some biological training commenting at TSZ.

23. Corneel:
    “CharlieM: It should throw up many questions to you, me and everyone who thinks about these things.”

    Corneel: It should indeed. But something tells me that instead you imagine Levin’s work to be particularly problematic for other people:

    “CharlieM: Levin’s work brings up a lot of difficult questions for those who hold a gene centred view of development and evolution.”

    Yes, gene expression is marvellously coordinated. Genes are tightly regulated, but what is doing the regulating?

    Corneel: However, it pleases me to learn that you have changed your mind since then:

    “CharlieM: To me this opens up a multitude of questions I would like to find answers to.”

    Corneel: Capital. Why don’t you share a few of them here?

    There are questions such as Levin himself brings up. For instance, when regrowing limbs that have been amputated at various points along their length, how does the organism decide the point at which regeneration should stop?

    What controls the patterns of gene expression in individual cells to achieve higher level forms? I have previously mentioned Levin’s observations of kidney tubule formation using cells which are larger than normal.

    Levin speaks about top down, goal directed, collective intelligence. In what way is this idea compatible with genes being the source of the creation of form?

    And from an article I have quoted above I’ll repeat some of what was written:

    Despite recent findings, several questions still need to be addressed in order to advance this field including: how are cells able to compare bioelectric states across distances, and how is the input stemming from bioelectrical signals, chemical gradients, and physical forces able to direct the formation of complex structures.

    That’s enough questions for the moment

    “CharlieM: And the genome provides only a very limited set of answers.”

    Corneel: Please also share those “answers” so we can examine them for soundness.

    We know how DNA gets transcribed and translated in order to produce polypeptides and proteins.

    We know that the regulation of these processes from above can determine the paths taken in tissue and organ formation.

    In the case with machines such as computers, it takes a lot of coordination and planning to build and operate them, but the whole process can be disrupted by the flick of one switch. It is the same with organism development. As Michael Behe has always stressed, it is much easier to break something than to build it.

    “CharlieM: What about Michael Levin’s research on the formative nature of bioelectric fields? Do you regard this as nonsense?”

    Corneel: That seems solid research to me. Let me also applaud you for looking into that review paper. I appreciate that you are willing to look beyond the world of youtube vids.
    However, neither the Levin video nor the Trends review makes any mention of formative fields, archetypes or the etheric life principle. These I regard as nonsense.

    What is the bioelectric field observed in the facial formation of a frog, if not a formative field?

    As far as I understand him, Levin believes in the orthodox, materialistic view of evolution. But his research does highlight the polarity in evidence between fields and matter.

    “CharlieM: Levin has demonstrated how bioelectric fields direct the facial features of a frog at the level of the organism. It is proposed that the features of an individual cell are directed in a similar manner at the cellular level. Fertilized eggs come into being with ion channels already in place. There are continuous adjustments to the potential differences across membranes taking place as the zygote is formed. And during cell division all the coordinated activity required in this fission of the cell involves processes which control the activation of appropriate genes.”

    Corneel: You appear to have left out formative fields from your explanation of how formative fields set up the correct species-specific bio-electric pattern in an embryo. How embarrassing!

    There are many people who claim to be able to perceive formative fields directly. I do not make such a claim. But as in the case of producing patterns of iron filings in a magnetic field, I believe that the images of bioelectric fields are the perceptible results of more subtle, underlying formative fields.

    “CharlieM: If you try to understand what Goethe was saying when he explained that he could actually perceive the archetype, then you might have a better understanding of my position.”

    Corneel: In my understanding, your archetype is an ideal structure of which various physical representatives can manifest in the world. You often compare this to the ideal triangle of which all physical triangles are representatives. Goethe named the archetype of all greeny stuff the Urpflanze and took all plants to be reprentatives of it, but you have adopted an embellished version where archetypes are hierarchically nested, so we get a Polytrichum archetype within a bryophyte archetype within a plant archetype within a eukaryote archetype andsoforth. Very creative.

    I do not know what Goethe meant when he said that he could perceive the archetype, but my guess is that the epiphany of discovering homologous structures in plants gave him the impression he was looking at some unifying principle.

    Goethe discovered the essential nature in all plants, and it consisted of a process of expansions and contractions which individual plants demonstrated in their own unique ways. This was what he saw as unity in multiplicity. It is through this unifying principle that we recognize all life forms as belonging within specific groups. What I see in front of me as a rose bush is a reality which is is very restricted. My rational mind allows me to ‘see’ the rose in a much more real sense. It is a dynamic, ongoing process of various expansions and contractions from seed to fruit and back to seed again. The life force is concentrated in the seed, less so in the shoots, and all but spent in the petals and fruit, and concentrated again in the new seed.

    “CharlieM: If not in the DNA then where does the information come from that can turn the single-celled zygote into and multicellular human or frog, considering the same genome is copied with great fidelity in all the somatic cells? The orchestration of the development of an organism is controlled at a level above that of the genome.”

    Corneel: That information is in the single-celled zygote, silly. Where else? If you want a more specific answer, I need a more precise definition of “information”.

    The information required to produce proteins is in the DNA, the information that directs the cell to undergo various contortions lies in the bioelectric field of the cell.

    Corneel: Also, it is a bit sad to learn that you still have not picked up on the role of gene regulation during development, after having been lectured on it by nearly everyone with some biological training commenting at TSZ

    I agree that, sure enough, genes are regulated during development. But to repeat my question: what does the regulating?

24. I agree that, sure enough, genes are regulated during development. But to repeat my question: what does the regulating?

    Uh, the genes? My hopelessly uninformed understanding is that there are genes that code for proteins, and genes that code for regulating other genes. That during development genes have “switches” that must turn on and off at very specific times – and that serious deformities occur when this timing is wrong. The control genes are the ones that throw the switches (or actually, as I recall, code for messenger RNA to tell other genes what to do and when.

    I’m sure an actual biologist can provide detail and necessary corrections to this picture, but I’d be very surprised to learn that regulatory genes are themselves somehow controlled by smart magnetic fields or whatever.

25. Let me start with this, as this interests me most:

    CharlieM: What is the bioelectric field observed in the facial formation of a frog, if not a formative field?

    Do I understand correctly that you claim that the bioelectric “field”, which is a simply a pattern in the resting potential of embryonic frog cells which was visualized by voltage-sensitive fluorescent dyes is the same thing as a formative field, which I understand to be an aspect of the (non-material) etheric “body” and which you previously claimed to not be amenable to the senses?

    CharlieM: That’s enough questions for the moment

    These are good questions for sure. But I notice that none of your questions include formative fields, or archetypes or group souls or the etheric life principle, or the peripheral field force or any of the other spiritual concepts you are so passionate about. Why are these missing from your questions? Don’t you want to find out more about them?

    CharlieM: But as in the case of producing patterns of iron filings in a magnetic field, I believe that the images of bioelectric fields are the perceptible results of more subtle, underlying formative fields.

    Well, that is simply wrong. The image of the “electric face” is a visualization of the distribution of resting potential among embryonic cells. This pattern is the result of the regulated movement of charged molecules, like potassium ions and such by ion channels. That is why the people of the Levin group are able to manipulate those patterns with channel blocking drugs or by overexpressing genes coding for those channels. These are all known physical processes, so there is no need to invoke invisible fields.

    CharlieM: My rational mind allows me to ‘see’ the rose in a much more real sense. It is a dynamic, ongoing process of various expansions and contractions from seed to fruit and back to seed again.

    Yes, well. I see things a little differently but I do try to get a correct understanding of your position. I hope one day you will return the favour.

    CharlieM: The information required to produce proteins is in the DNA, the information that directs the cell to undergo various contortions lies in the bioelectric field of the cell.

    Heh, I believe understanding is dawning. Tell me. Which cell do you believe to undergo “various contortions”?

    CharlieM: But his research does highlight the polarity in evidence between fields and matter.

    Haha, I see what you did there. I also enjoy how Michael Levin refers to his research as an “exciting field”.

26. Flint: I’m sure an actual biologist can provide detail and necessary corrections to this picture, but I’d be very surprised to learn that regulatory genes are themselves somehow controlled by smart magnetic fields or whatever.

    For a holist, Charlie spends an excessive amount of time obsessing about what part of the embryo controls what other part.

27. Corneel: For a holist, Charlie spends an excessive amount of time obsessing about what part of the embryo controls what other part.

    By now I think you’ve interacted with Charlie enough to understand why his grasp of biological processes doesn’t seem to improve.

28. Flint:
    CharlieM: I agree that, sure enough, genes are regulated during development. But to repeat my question: what does the regulating?

    Flint: Uh, the genes? My hopelessly uninformed understanding is that there are genes that code for proteins, and genes that code for regulating other genes. That during development genes have “switches” that must turn on and off at very specific times – and that serious deformities occur when this timing is wrong. The control genes are the ones that throw the switches (or actually, as I recall, code for messenger RNA to tell other genes what to do and when.

    I’m sure an actual biologist can provide detail and necessary corrections to this picture, but I’d be very surprised to learn that regulatory genes are themselves somehow controlled by smart magnetic fields or whatever.

    I have emphasized the fact that it is not just DNA that passes from mother to offspring. A maternal transcriptome is an essential presence in the zygote.

    After fertilization, maternal mRNAs are inherited by the zygote from the oocyte. As transcription becomes silent after oocyte growth, these mRNAs are the sole source for active protein translation.

    And:

    After fertilization, maternal factors direct development and trigger zygotic genome activation (ZGA) at the maternal-to-zygotic transition (MZT). In zebrafish, ZGA is required for gastrulation and clearance of maternal messenger RNAs, which is in part regulated by the conserved microRNA miR-430. However, the factors that activate the zygotic program in vertebrates are unknown. Here we show that Nanog, Pou5f1 (also called Oct4) and SoxB1 regulate zygotic gene activation in zebrafish. We identified several hundred genes directly activated by maternal factors, constituting the first wave of zygotic transcription.

    So in relation to the development of an individual, what is found to be upstream of any activation of the zygote’s DNA transcription and translation? We find that maternal transcription factors are already at work.

    A zygote is a complete, active cell with membranes, cytoplasm, organelles, and an ability to self replicate, before it’s own genome is fully utilized.

29. 
    Corneel: Let me start with this, as this interests me most:

    “CharlieM: What is the bioelectric field observed in the facial formation of a frog, if not a formative field?”

    Corneel: Do I understand correctly that you claim that the bioelectric “field”, which is a simply a pattern in the resting potential of embryonic frog cells which was visualized by voltage-sensitive fluorescent dyes is the same thing as a formative field, which I understand to be an aspect of the (non-material) etheric “body” and which you previously claimed to not be amenable to the senses?

    It is not just a pattern in the resting potential of these cells. It is a dynamic movement of intracellular and intercellular potential differences. The dynamic electric field is present whether or no the dye is there to make it visible. Ions are invisible and their presence is known only from their effects. But what is an ion? Is it a particle, a field, both, neither?

    “CharlieM: That’s enough questions for the moment”

    Corneel: These are good questions for sure. But I notice that none of your questions include formative fields, or archetypes or group souls or the etheric life principle, or the peripheral field force or any of the other spiritual concepts you are so passionate about. Why are these missing from your questions? Don’t you want to find out more about them?

    These questions were asked in the hope of finding some common ground. A typical answer I get when I include those topics you listed, is, “nonsense”. So I didn’t feel the need to ask.

    “CharlieM: But as in the case of producing patterns of iron filings in a magnetic field, I believe that the images of bioelectric fields are the perceptible results of more subtle, underlying formative fields.”

    Corneel: Well, that is simply wrong. The image of the “electric face” is a visualization of the distribution of resting potential among embryonic cells. This pattern is the result of the regulated movement of charged molecules, like potassium ions and such by ion channels. That is why the people of the Levin group are able to manipulate those patterns with channel blocking drugs or by overexpressing genes coding for those channels. These are all known physical processes, so there is no need to invoke invisible fields.

    Why do you insist that they are resting potentials? Invisible fields are a fact of life. We are all constantly surrounded by, and living within invisible fields.

    “CharlieM: My rational mind allows me to ‘see’ the rose in a much more real sense. It is a dynamic, ongoing process of various expansions and contractions from seed to fruit and back to seed again.”

    Corneel: Yes, well. I see things a little differently but I do try to get a correct understanding of your position. I hope one day you will return the favour.

    If you could expand on how you see things I might be able to understand your position a little better. What are the differences in the way you see things?

    “CharlieM: The information required to produce proteins is in the DNA, the information that directs the cell to undergo various contortions lies in the bioelectric field of the cell.”

    Corneel: Heh, I believe understanding is dawning. Tell me. Which cell do you believe to undergo “various contortions”?

    For example, any cell undergoing mitosis.

    “CharlieM: But his research does highlight the polarity in evidence between fields and matter.”

    Corneel: Haha, I see what you did there. I also enjoy how Michael Levin refers to his research as an “exciting field”.

    What did I do? I’m being serious. His lab’s work on bioelectric fields does bring into play a neglected area of research. As you say it is an “exciting field”. 🙂

30. Corneel to Flint: For a holist, Charlie spends an excessive amount of time obsessing about what part of the embryo controls what other part.

    I’m not sure you quite understand what a holistic position entails.

    It has everything to do with the relationship of parts. Obviously this cannot be done without studying the parts in detail.

31. Flint to Corneel: By now I think you’ve interacted with Charlie enough to understand why his grasp of biological processes doesn’t seem to improve.

    I’m here to learn. 🙂 And all of you who contribute to threads I post force me into learning. Would I have looked so closely into the work of people like Michael Levin had it not been for my participation here? Probably not.

    If you don’t directly teach me that much, at least you are giving me the inspiration to learn. So all I can say is keep up the good work. 🙂

32. CharlieM: It is not just a pattern in the resting potential of these cells. It is a dynamic movement of intracellular and intercellular potential differences. The dynamic electric field is present whether or no the dye is there to make it visible. Ions are invisible and their presence is known only from their effects. But what is an ion? Is it a particle, a field, both, neither?

    So you do consider the bioelectric pattern that makes up the “electric face” to be a formative field! But in that case formative fields are physical phenomena that can be visualized and measured, right?

    CharlieM: These questions were asked in the hope of finding some common ground.

    You were trying to find common ground in the questions you would like to find answers to? That is a bit peculiar.

    To be honest, I suspected that you hadn’t been posing any challenging questions to yourself and figured that probably you are thinking real hard as you are reading this to come up with some. Am I right or am I being too cynical here? 😉

    CharlieM: Why do you insist that they are resting potentials?

    Because I looked up the original publication associated with the “electric face” and that is what the authors say it is: , the resting membrane voltage or resting potential. The brighter areas in the video of the frog embryo are hyperpolarized (more negative): check the legend in the video*.

    CharlieM: Invisible fields are a fact of life. We are all constantly surrounded by, and living within invisible fields.

    And the reason we know this is because we can measure them and figured out their causes a long time ago. Likewise, we know that patterns in bioelectric fields are the result of the coordinated expression of genes coding for ion channels and gap junctions. This is a known biological phenomenon entirely lacking involvement of archetypes and group souls.

    CharlieM: For example, any cell undergoing mitosis.

    That is wrong as well. The bioelectric “field” of a cell is not directly involved in the decision to start mitosis.

    ETA: woops, in the video it is the other way round.

33. CharlieM: I’m not sure you quite understand what a holistic position entails.

    It has everything to do with the relationship of parts. Obviously this cannot be done without studying the parts in detail.

    Fair enough, but I still think you worry too much about what part is in control. Bet you can’t show me a naked formative field.

34. CharlieM: If you could expand on how you see things I might be able to understand your position a little better. What are the differences in the way you see things?

    How thoughtful of you to ask. For starters, I am perfectly happy to grant an indispensible role for proteins, RNA, ions and other non-DNA molecules in development. So in this respect, I am with you. However, what you need to understand is that the priviliged position of the genome in developmental and evolutionary biology is because of its central position in explaining differences within and between species. That is, most of the heritable variation within and between species can be usefully thought of as originating in allelic variation and it therefore occupies a central role in many models that are succesfully used in medicine, agriculture and biology. Consider for example the use of genome wide association studies (GWAS) in identifying genomic variants that are associated with disease risk. DNA has earned its central role because of pragmatism, not materialism.

    This is also how I approach novel ideas: are they likely to teach us something we do not already know? Theories or models that are highly successful in this feat I consider more likely to be approximations of reality. The ideas that you advance here do not meet that bar, hence my dismissal.

35. Flint: By now I think you’ve interacted with Charlie enough to understand why his grasp of biological processes doesn’t seem to improve.

    There are several factors at play here, I think. But I’ll admit it can be rather frustating: as opposed to certain unnamed parties commenting here, Charlie is a reasonably bright guy who clearly enjoys reading; He just doesn’t absorb the stuff he doesn’t like.

36. Corneel:
    “CharlieM: It is not just a pattern in the resting potential of these cells. It is a dynamic movement of intracellular and intercellular potential differences. The dynamic electric field is present whether or no the dye is there to make it visible. Ions are invisible and their presence is known only from their effects. But what is an ion? Is it a particle, a field, both, neither?”

    Corneel: So you do consider the bioelectric pattern that makes up the “electric face” to be a formative field! But in that case formative fields are physical phenomena that can be visualized and measured, right?

    Yes, electromagnetic fields are classed as physical and they have physical effects which can be measured. But you have jumped from, “some fields are physical, therefore all fields are physical”

    “CharlieM: These questions were asked in the hope of finding some common ground.”

    Corneel: You were trying to find common ground in the questions you would like to find answers to? That is a bit peculiar.

    Why? I’m sure we both agree that the development of multicellular organisms is a very complicated affair. In asking about the origin of this development, I was hoping that you might agree that the starting point of this process does not originate in DNA. And indeed you have implied that you agree with this assessment here.

    Corneel: To be honest, I suspected that you hadn’t been posing any challenging questions to yourself and figured that probably you are thinking real hard as you are reading this to come up with some. Am I right or am I being too cynical here?

    Along with those posed from others, I ask myself challenging questions all the time. And they normally set me off in search of explanations. This can lead me down some tangents which sidetracks me and I quite often have difficulty getting back on track. But I enjoy picking up info along the way. .

    “CharlieM: Why do you insist that they are resting potentials?”

    Corneel: Because I looked up the original publication associated with the “electric face” and that is what the authors say it is: , the resting membrane voltage or resting potential. The brighter areas in the video of the frog embryo are hyperpolarized (more negative): check the legend in the video*.

    Of course you are correct about resting potentials notwithstanding polarity. The dynamism is present in the migration of cells. And that brings up a question. I ask myself about resting potential and how it is maintained. When the cell is stationary, surely there will be a constant flow of ions to maintain balance? And as the cell moves through its environment won’t it need to make adjustments to ion flow as the environment changes? Or does the extracellular environment change that much? These are the sorts of questions that go through my mind.

    And on picking up on my lack of clarity about resting potentials you have helped me in slowly gaining a better understanding of these processes.

    “CharlieM: Invisible fields are a fact of life. We are all constantly surrounded by, and living within invisible fields.”

    Corneel: And the reason we know this is because we can measure them and figured out their causes a long time ago. Likewise, we know that patterns in bioelectric fields are the result of the coordinated expression of genes coding for ion channels and gap junctions. This is a known biological phenomenon entirely lacking involvement of archetypes and group souls.

    You mention coordinated genetic activity. This brings up another question. In what way are they coordinated? That lead me to this article which I will need to look at as it deals with the fate of cells in development.

    “CharlieM: For example, any cell undergoing mitosis.”

    Corneel: That is wrong as well. The bioelectric “field” of a cell is not directly involved in the decision to start mitosis.

    And how do you know that intracellular bioelectric fields are not involved?

    I’ll never get anything done with all these questions popping up in my mind. 🙂

    Corneel: ETA: woops, in the video it is the other way round.

    It makes no difference to your point, which was valid.

37. Corneel:
    “CharlieM: I’m not sure you quite understand what a holistic position entails.

    It has everything to do with the relationship of parts. Obviously this cannot be done without studying the parts in detail.”

    Corneel: Fair enough, but I still think you worry too much about what part is in control. Bet you can’t show me a naked formative field.

    Bet you can’t show me a naked electromagnetic field. Bet you can’t show a hagfish a glorious sunset. That isn’t possible because the hagfish isn’t equipped with the necessary sense organs. The sunset is perceptible to those who have suitable sense organs.

38. CharlieM: Yes, electromagnetic fields are classed as physical and they have physical effects which can be measured. But you have jumped from, “some fields are physical, therefore all fields are physical”

    No, I jumped from “formative fields are physical” to “formative fields are physical”. It wasn’t a very big leap. You are on record saying that formative fields are etheric fields that are not not sense perceptible. This claim you are now contradicting.

    Don’t pull a Nonlin on me, Charlie.

    CharlieM: In asking about the origin of this development, I was hoping that you might agree that the starting point of this process does not originate in DNA. And indeed you have implied that you agree with this assessment here.

    Sure, you can put the starting point anywhere you deem most useful. Sometimes that involves gene expression, sometimes it does not.

    CharlieM: Along with those posed from others, I ask myself challenging questions all the time.

    LOL. It just takes a while before you are ready to share them. Could you, out of the multitude of questions you would like to find answers to, finally list a few that are relevant to your spiritual beliefs?

    CharlieM: And on picking up on my lack of clarity about resting potentials you have helped me in slowly gaining a better understanding of these processes.

    If you like that, you can find a more recent review from Michael Levin here, in Cell no less. It’s quite accessible.

    CharlieM: Corneel: That is wrong as well. The bioelectric “field” of a cell is not directly involved in the decision to start mitosis.

    Charlie: And how do you know that intracellular bioelectric fields are not involved?

    Because, owing to its relevance for cancer research, cell cycle control is extremely well researched and as far as I am aware bioelectric fields do not play a large role in it.

    CharlieM: The sunset is perceptible to those who have suitable sense organs.

    But who is in control of the sunset? Is it the earth and the sun or the magical sunset field? Don’t dismiss it! How do you know sunset fields are not involved?

    ETA: some clarification

39. Corneel:
    “CharlieM: If you could expand on how you see things I might be able to understand your position a little better. What are the differences in the way you see things?”

    Corneel: How thoughtful of you to ask. For starters, I am perfectly happy to grant an indispensible role for proteins, RNA, ions and other non-DNA molecules in development. So in this respect, I am with you. However, what you need to understand is that the priviliged position of the genome in developmental and evolutionary biology is because of its central position in explaining differences within and between species. That is, most of the heritable variation within and between species can be usefully thought of as originating in allelic variation and it therefore occupies a central role in many models that are succesfully used in medicine, agriculture and biology. Consider for example the use of genome wide association studies (GWAS) in identifying genomic variants that are associated with disease risk. DNA has earned its central role because of pragmatism, not materialism.

    This is also how I approach novel ideas: are they likely to teach us something we do not already know? Theories or models that are highly successful in this feat I consider more likely to be approximations of reality. The ideas that you advance here do not meet that bar, hence my dismissal.

    DNA has a privileged position because modern scientists have given it that position. It has been placed on a pedestal. Richard Dawkins has done more than most to encourage this reverence of DNA. There are plenty other biologists who think it is a mistake to allot such a privileged position to DNA.

    Back in 2021, Kantian Naturalist provided links to people and works he recommended for anyone interested in self-organizing systems.

    Following his recommendations I looked into what Robert Rosen had to say. He stressed how unsuitable modern physics is unsuitable for the scientific investigation of biology.

    From here

    In his pursuit of the ontology of natural systems, Robert Rosen argued that an entire body of modern physics is predicated on an ontological framework which he found deeply unsatisfying for understanding biology. More specifically, he said, biological systems defy two defining characteristics of the Newtonian paradigm which has dominated physics and shaped special sciences. These two characteristics are the Turing computability and the classical ontology of states. Generally speaking, the classical ontology of states, Rosen argued, introduces a provisional distinction between organization and underlying matter (entities), only to discard the former as an epiphenomenon reducible to the properties of the latter. Rosen developed a detailed formal theory of relational systems as an alternative to better capture the nature of biological systems.

    Slobodan Perović, Department of Philosophy, University of Belgrade.

    I think that is a good line of argument to follow. Johannes Jaeger gave a talk on various evolutionary perspectives that depart from the mechanistic thinking that concentrates on the interaction of ‘things’. He gives a basic explanation of theories such as process structuralism and developmental systems theory.

    In the talk he mentions James Griesemer, who believes there should be a comparative analysis whereby proponents of alternative theories should get together to discuss each other’s, “strengths, weaknesses and complementarities”, instead of the usual confrontational approach usually taken. I wish there was more of this comparative analysis.

40. Corneel:
    “Flint: By now I think you’ve interacted with Charlie enough to understand why his grasp of biological processes doesn’t seem to improve.”

    Corneel: There are several factors at play here, I think. But I’ll admit it can be rather frustating: as opposed to certain unnamed parties commenting here, Charlie is a reasonably bright guy who clearly enjoys reading; He just doesn’t absorb the stuff he doesn’t like.

    There is hope for us all, as long as we keep talking. 🙂

41. CharlieM: DNA has a privileged position because modern scientists have given it that position. It has been placed on a pedestal. Richard Dawkins has done more than most to encourage this reverence of DNA.

    The subject matter in “The Selfish Gene” was greatly inspired by the work of Bill Hamilton who developed the mathematical framework for inclusive fitness theory. His models strongly emphasized the importance of genetic relatedness in explaining certain cases of altruism and social behaviour in nature. Again, it is the explanatory power that has won biologists over. If you dislike that, then develop better models.

    CharlieM: Kantian Naturalist provided links to people and works he recommended for anyone interested in self-organizing systems.

    Yeah, KN provided some good book tips. I liked reading Peter Godfrey-Smith’s “Metazoa”.

    CharlieM: He gives a basic explanation of theories such as process structuralism and developmental systems theory.

    And I can see why these theories appeal to you. However, once again you are prodding me to read about stuff you find congenial. Since the “Body, Soul and Spirit” thread I am trying to get you to examine some of your own convictions. What weaknesses do you see in those theories you embrace? What arguments do people have for rejecting them? Can you reproduce those arguments in a way that your opponents would accept as a faithful depiction*? If you do not take criticisms seriously then you cannot learn from them.

    * which “reverence of DNA” is NOT

    CharlieM: There is hope for us all, as long as we keep talking.

    Only if we are listening as well.

42. Corneel:
    CharlieM: DNA has a privileged position because modern scientists have given it that position. It has been placed on a pedestal. Richard Dawkins has done more than most to encourage this reverence of DNA.

    Corneel: The subject matter in “The Selfish Gene” was greatly inspired by the work of Bill Hamilton who developed the mathematical framework for inclusive fitness theory. His models strongly emphasized the importance of genetic relatedness in explaining certain cases of altruism and social behaviour in nature. Again, it is the explanatory power that has won biologists over. If you dislike that, then develop better models.

    I watched the video of a talk given by Peter Nonacs – UCLA. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Below is the accompanying intro:

    “Is Kin Selection Dead and Is It Time to Move On in Understanding the Evolution of Cooperation?”

    Hamilton’s theory of inclusive fitness broadly states that whether or not a trait increases in frequency is dependent on both the direct reproductive success of individuals having that trait and the help that such individuals can provide to other trait bearers for their reproduction. The latter portion of inclusive fitness is commonly known as kin selection and has become the dominant paradigm for the evolution of cooperation: I.e., helping genetic relatives reproduce can create a net increase in inclusive fitness even with a substantial loss in direct reproduction. Recently, however, Martin Nowak has argued that the mathematical foundations of inclusive fitness theory are inappropriate for predicting the evolution of cooperation (1). Edward O. Wilson has gone even further and claimed that, “Kin selection is wrong” and a “gimmick” (2). Instead, Wilson proposes cooperation evolves through group selection. Not surprisingly, their claims have drawn considerable criticism (3), with Richard Dawkins going so far as to pronounce that he has “never met anybody apart from Wilson and Nowak who takes it seriously (2).” I will look at both sides of this issue and attempt to separate the scientific concerns from the heated clashes of personalities. At issue appears to be the question of the evolutionary advantages of genetic diversity versus kinship. Both can be advantageous, but they are simultaneously incompatible. Their resolution requires a multi-level approach as nepotism favoring kin can be selected for within groups, but genetic diversity is selected for only across groups.

    I don’t think he makes any arguments against the standard account of the role of genes in general, but he does make many points worth thinking about. For instance he points out areas in which Hamilton’s rule is inappropriate.

    These are:
    1. Accounting for indirect effects – Simplified models do not take account of extra factors which are important.
    2. Non-linearity and synergisms -Living processes very rarely consist of straight forward causal relationships.
    3. Points of view – Judging fitness depends on the perspective of individual agent under consideration.

    I don’t think that the relationship between traits and genes is given enough attention. It seems to me that biologists take it for granted that individual traits can be directly related to genes, and I believe this is a mistake.

    If I had time I would say more about Nonacs’ talk, but I suppose, even if I do find it interesting, it is off topic.

43. CharlieM: “Is Kin Selection Dead and Is It Time to Move On in Understanding the Evolution of Cooperation?”

    LOL. Charlie, did anyone ever tell you that you have phenomenal google skills? Here, let me try that too:

    I read a thought provoking piece by Jennifer Sapio, who works as a teacher and a writer:

    “Waldorf Schools Are Inherently Racist Cults”

    Being able to speak in Steiner’s vocabulary of “astral bodies” and “Ahrimanic forces” was essential to inclusion in the good graces of the faculty body. When I proposed going to social-emotional learning conferences, I was encouraged to go to the courses offered by the Center for Anthroposophy instead. When I suggested that we bring the latest research on a topic like classroom management or child development into the conversation, I was told, “Rudolf Steiner was clairvoyant, and when you find the truth, there’s no improving on it.” There was no room for disagreement or alternate perspectives in a community founded on the value-judgment that Steiner’s ideas about education in 1919 were essentially infallible.

    Well, I guess she “does make many points worth thinking about.”.

    Reading Rudolf Steiner’s philosophical texts is not a requirement for being a member of the parent body, but it was a required part of my work as a teacher at the school.

    In our required readings, I found hateful, illogical, and disgusting concepts about race, Euro-centrism, and vaccines, to name a few. I was told to take what I like and leave the rest. But these were not just ideological differences of opinion; these ideas have practical, logistical, and real effects in our culture.

    I read about Steiner’s “folk souls” — his theories about the hierarchies of human evolution — in order to see in Steiner’s own words what he thinks about the “black and yellow races,” and let me tell you, it’s revolting. He writes that humans are on an evolutionary journey through reincarnation and that as souls are refined and purified, they move “up” from the African to the Asian and finally to the European races:

    These are definitely “some thoughts to mull over”.

    Finally, during the time that I was a part of a Waldorf school, they were repeatedly in the news. Unfortunately, it was because they have been identified as the “worst” school in the state as far as vaccine compliance is concerned, a direct result of Steiner’s belief that childhood illness is part of each human’s “karma.” Thus, Waldorf schools are a magnet for anti-vaxxers, a particularly troubling correlation in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

    That certainly “throws up quite a few questions”.

    Talking of questions. Would you finally be so good to, out of “the multitude of questions you would like to find answers to”, list a few that are relevant to the Steinerian ideas you are promulgating here? Or am I right in presuming that you never ever have asked yourself a single challenging question concerning those spiritual beliefs?

44. Corneel:
    “CharlieM: “Is Kin Selection Dead and Is It Time to Move On in Understanding the Evolution of Cooperation?””

    Corneel: LOL. Charlie, did anyone ever tell you that you have phenomenal google skills? Here, let me try that too:

    I read a thought provoking piece by Jennifer Sapio, who works as a teacher and a writer:

    “Jennifer Sapio: “Waldorf Schools Are Inherently Racist Cults”

    Being able to speak in Steiner’s vocabulary of “astral bodies” and “Ahrimanic forces” was essential to inclusion in the good graces of the faculty body. When I proposed going to social-emotional learning conferences, I was encouraged to go to the courses offered by the Center for Anthroposophy instead. When I suggested that we bring the latest research on a topic like classroom management or child development into the conversation, I was told, “Rudolf Steiner was clairvoyant, and when you find the truth, there’s no improving on it.” There was no room for disagreement or alternate perspectives in a community founded on the value-judgment that Steiner’s ideas about education in 1919 were essentially infallible.”

    Corneel: Well, I guess she “does make many points worth thinking about.”.

    “Jennifer Sapio: Reading Rudolf Steiner’s philosophical texts is not a requirement for being a member of the parent body, but it was a required part of my work as a teacher at the school.

    In our required readings, I found hateful, illogical, and disgusting concepts about race, Euro-centrism, and vaccines, to name a few. I was told to take what I like and leave the rest. But these were not just ideological differences of opinion; these ideas have practical, logistical, and real effects in our culture.

    I read about Steiner’s “folk souls” — his theories about the hierarchies of human evolution — in order to see in Steiner’s own words what he thinks about the “black and yellow races,” and let me tell you, it’s revolting. He writes that humans are on an evolutionary journey through reincarnation and that as souls are refined and purified, they move “up” from the African to the Asian and finally to the European races:”

    Corneel: These are definitely “some thoughts to mull over”.

    “Jennifer Sapio: Finally, during the time that I was a part of a Waldorf school, they were repeatedly in the news. Unfortunately, it was because they have been identified as the “worst” school in the state as far as vaccine compliance is concerned, a direct result of Steiner’s belief that childhood illness is part of each human’s “karma.” Thus, Waldorf schools are a magnet for anti-vaxxers, a particularly troubling correlation in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.”

    Corneel: That certainly “throws up quite a few questions”.

    Talking of questions. Would you finally be so good to, out of “the multitude of questions you would like to find answers to”, list a few that are relevant to the Steinerian ideas you are promulgating here? Or am I right in presuming that you never ever have asked yourself a single challenging question concerning those spiritual beliefs?

    I’ve only had brief, direct contact with one Waldorf school and that was in the UK, so I have only Jennifer Sapio’s account of the school she taught at. Like all schools, there are some worse than others. If the aim of the school deviated from nurturing pupils so that they develop into free-thinking, tolerant, unprejudiced adults who are able to follow their own paths, then I would not condone its methods or even its existence.

    I’ve read a fair few articles critical of Steiner and anthroposophy which raise many questions. This one for instance by the Jewish scholar, Israel Koren. He gives an account of Steiner’s racism which is well researched and virtually beyond dispute.

    All I can say in Steiner’s defense is that he has always tried to promote individualism against any form of nationalism or exclusive racial/folk affinities.

    According to Steiner, evolution is a path out of cultural/national/folk ties towards the “universal human”.

45. CharlieM: If the aim of the school deviated from nurturing pupils so that they develop into free-thinking, tolerant, unprejudiced adults who are able to follow their own paths, then I would not condone its methods or even its existence.

    As usual, your missing the point. I do not question that you are a decent guy. Instead, I was holding up a mirror to you and your discussion style; In response to me mentioning Bill Hamilton (one of the most celebrated evolutionary theorists of all time) as an example of somebody putting models with a gene perspective to good use, you return with a disparaging youtube video by some maverick. That’s not “stimulating your thinking” but just flinging poo. And you do this all of the time. As soon as somebody mentions some idea you don’t like, instead of trying to gain a better understanding, you swiftly google your way to somebody criticizing it, preferably somebody with some anthroposophical leanings.

    CharlieM: I’ve read a fair few articles critical of Steiner and anthroposophy which raise many questions. This one for instance by the Jewish scholar, Israel Koren. He gives an account of Steiner’s racism which is well researched and virtually beyond dispute.

    But you never endorsed Steiner’s racist views, so that is a bit of an easy concession, innit? How about questioning some Steinerian ideas that you do get behind? I have lost count, but this must be either the fifth or the sixth time I am asking.

    CharlieM: All I can say in Steiner’s defense is that he has always tried to promote individualism against any form of nationalism or exclusive racial/folk affinities.

    No need to come to Steiner’s defense: To be perfectly honest, judging from the stuff you made me read I have come to think of him as a bit of a d*ck, so the racism goes perfectly well with that. I just can’t fathom what some bright bloke like you sees in him.