I've been wondering if an informational field (some called it morphic
field) is behind the blueprint of biological growth and repair or if
purely biochemical mechanism is enough to explain ALL biological
process. By informational (morphic) field is meant an additional
extended functionings of the atoms that doesn't rely on quantum
coherence, etc. and effects (see related message "Are Particles
Mini-Black Holes and Terminals of Informational Fields").

Dr. Robert Becker, a pioneer in regeneration and its relationship to


Life" and asked whether some kind of morphogenetic field in-forms the
biological process.

If anyone knows or can point researches that describe in detail or
show mathematical model of how biological and biochemical process
alone can produce a human being from a single fertilized cell with all
the intermediate steps of differentiation into the different tissues,
organs, bones and their right placement and growth. Let me know and
I'll throw away the belief of the possibility of informational fields
in living things.

In the following is a short excerpt of how Dr. Becker got puzzled
about how their placement occurs without morphogenetic field. Since
the book was written in 1985, Many updates have likely occured. So
if you know of any, let me know and I'd give up the belief in the
possibility and necessity of informational field in organizing the
physical expression of living things and instead focus on its main
role as consciousness interface in biological system and emotional
regulators that act on the secondary medium of the brain.

(I know I should post this in the sci.bio newgroups but just posting
it here in case some may know the answer. Besides, physicists or
biophysicists understand morphic field better than biologists)

Quoting Dr. Becker:

"The salaniander, directly descended from the evolutionary prototype
of
all land vertebrates, is a marvelously complex animal, almost as
complicated as a human. Its forelimb is basically the same as ours.
Yet all its interrelated parts grow back in the proper order-the same
interlocking bones and muscles, all the delicate wrist bones, the
coordinated fingers - and they're wired together with the proper nerve
and blood vessel connections.

The sarne day the limb is cut off, debris from dead cells is carried
away in the bloodstream. Then some of the intact tissue begins to die
back a short distance from the wound. During the first two or three
days, cells of the epidermis-the outer layer of skin-begin to
proliferate and migrate inwardly covering the wound surface. The
epidermis then thickens over the apex of the stump into a transparent
tissue called the apical cap. This stage is finished in about a week.

By then, the blastema, the little ball of undifferentiated cells
described by Morgan, has started to appear beneath the apical cap.
This is the "organ" of regeneration, forming on the wound like a
miniature embryo and very similar to the embryonic limb bud that gave
rise to the leg in the first place. Its cells are totipotent, able to
develop into all the different kinds of cells needed to reconstitute
the limb.

The blastema is ready in about two weeks. Even as it's forming, the
cells at its outer edge start dividing rapidly, changing the
blastema's shape to a cone and providing a steady source of raw
material-new cells-for growth* After about three weeks, the blastema
cells at the inner edge begin to differentiate into specialized types
and arrange themselves into tissues, beginning with a cartilage collar
around the old bone shaft. other tissues then form, and the new
limb-beginning with a characteristic paddle shape that will become the
hand-appears as though our of a mist. The elbow and long parts of the
limb coalesce behind the hand, and the regrowth is complete (except
for some slight enlargement) then the four digits reappear after about
eight weeks.

This process, exquisitely beautiful and seemingly simple, is full of
problems for biology. What organizes the growth? What is the control
factor? How does the blastema "know" that it must make a foreleg
instead of a bind leg? (The salamander never makes a mistake.) How
does all the information about the missing parts get to these
undifferentiated cells, telling them what to become, which genes to
activate, what protelns to make, where to position themselves? It's as
if a pile of bricks were to spontaneousl y rearrange itself into a
building, becoming not only walls but windows, light sockets, steel
beams, and furniture in the process.

Answers were sought by transplanting the blastema to other positions
on the animal. The experiments only made matters worse. If the
blastema was moved within five to seven days after it first appeared,
and grafted near the hind leg, it grew into a second hind leg, even
though it came from an amputated foreleg. Well, that was okay. The
body could be divided into "spheres of influence- or "organizational
territories," each of which contained information on the local
anatomy. A blastema put into a hind-limb territory naturally became a
hind limb. This was an attractive theory, but unfounded. Exactly what
did this territory consist of? No one knew. To make matters worse, it
was then found that transplantation of a slightly older blastema from
a foreleg stump to a hind-limb area produced a foreleg. The young
blastema knew where it was; the older one knew where it had been!
Somehow this pinhead of primitive cells with absolutely no
distinguishing characteristics contained enough information t o build
a complete foreleg, no matter where it was placed. How? We still don't
know.

One attempt at an answer was the idea of a morphogenetic field,
advanced by Paul Weiss in the 1930s and developed by H. V. Bronsted in
the 1950s. Morphogenesis means "origin of form," and the field idea
was simply an attempt to get closer to the control factor by
reformulating the problem."

---------
end quote
(Note: a similar "morphogenetic field" thesis has been put
up by Sheldrake see
http://www.psych.uni-goettingen.de/h...hicfields.html

'Morphic resonance is a term coined by Rupert Sheldrake for what he thinks
is "the basis of memory in nature....the idea of mysterious telepathy-type
interconnections between organisms and of collective memories within
species."'

http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html

IOW, it's all a load of crap. With all the vocabulary abuse going on,
nobody has produced a measurable "morphic field" in the laboratory, or
demonstrated the interaction of such a field with any observable object.

To paraphrase Tom Lehrer, parapsychology "is like a sewer, what you get out
of it depends on what you put into it."


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Different groups use different terms. So let us not be limited by
Sheldrake stuff, etc. If someone hates Sheldrake, it doesn't mean his
stuff represents the rest. Just like if someone hates Watson, it
doesn't mean his DNA Model is incorrect. We must study it for what
it is, without terms or siding with groups.

In China and elsewhere, there are many experiments on Qi.. or an
energetic aspect of this non_local informational field. The following
is one such experiment. There are other experiments elsewhere. We must
create such experiments too to settle the matter (but many physicists
don't bother to start any because they don't even believe it makes
any sense... so how can they disprove it when they won't do the
experiments in the first place).

http://www.accessv.com/~yuan/yansci/...Qigong_JSE.pdf

Frankly, I've never even *heard* of Sheldrake (or Becker, for that matter)
before your post. What I object to is the use of novel terms such as
"morphic field" without a clear definition - preferably one I can take to
the bench and use to make measurements. Science is, after all, dependent on
objective, repeatible measurements of the interactions of different aspects
of observable reality.

"Morphic" means "shape." A "morphic field" is a phrase that does not refer
to something I can clearly identify. You and Sheldrake have failed to tell
us exactly *what* a "morphic field" is. Until you do, your words must fall
on uncomprehending ears.

Even more fundamental to science than the empirical refereeing of disputes
is the need for clear, unambiguous communication.

So, the "morphic field" is a broader idea, of which the mystical Asian
concept of Qi (or chi, as us old-timers know it) is but an energetic aspect.
That adds exactly *zero* information to the definition of a "morphic field."

To define something, you must do one of only a limited number of things: you
can tell us what set of concepts it belongs to, and what distinguishes it
from other members of the set, you can tell us how to correctly identify it
(and not misidentify something else) when we see it, or you can identify
every concept that is a subset of it.

Extraordinary (and face it, your "morphic field" is not part of ordinary
physics, so it falls within the domain of "extraordinary") claims require
extraordinary evidence.

Established physics is under no obligation to disprove the existence of your
"morphic field." If you want to have physicists discuss it with you
(presumably that is why you posted here) then it is YOUR responsibility to
prove to us that it exists. It would be sufficient to define some method of
measuring it that is quantitative, reproducible, and unambiguous.


A rather lengthy paper, which I will review over the weekend. I can already
tell I will have some comments for you.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

It's not our job to educate you. If you want evidence on the
non-existence of your silly little theory get off your ass and look for
it - there is a tonne so it won't be hard. Here's a tip - google for
"developmental biology". You may also want to ask biologists, not
physicist, about stuff like this - but you & I both know what would
happen if you posted this crap on sci.bio, or any other bio newsgroup.
A few minor points:

1) There is no electricity within most organisms (electric eels aside).
This is a popular misconception. Instead of having electricity (as
defined as moving flows of electrons), living organisms have
electro-chemical gradients. What this translates to is our bodies have
the capability of concentrating ions in specific compartments within the
cell. For example, hydrogen ions are concentrated within mitochondria
where they are used to power a "pump" which generates ATP, our bodies
power supply. Free electrons simply are not present in our bodies -
they are always contained within a molecular carrier (such as NADPH),
where they cannot cause damage.

2) The field of developmental biology (which studies how an egg forms
into a mature organisms) has a complete understanding of how some
simpler animals develop - notably C. elegans and Drosophila. These
scientists also have a good understanding of the mechanisms which
underlie the development of more complex animals, such as mice and
humans, although there are still some holes. All evidence present to
date show that the genes which lie within our DNA, and the proteins
those genes encode, are sufficient for the development of all living
organisms.

3) The process by which salamanders regrow limbs is completely
understood. The process by which salamanders grow limbs is the same
process used by embryos to develop limbs for the first time. The genes
responsible for this process, as well as the metabolic processes which
allow it to occur, have all been well described. They will be described
in detain in any introductory developmental biology textbook, something
which you (or Dr. Becker) have obviously never read.

4) If you want to understand how these processes work, you will need to


sequences, and very little knowledge about the genes involved in
development. Today Dr. Becker is still dead wrong, and as evidence
against him we have the entire gnomes for several species, and a
near-complete understanding of the genetic and biochemical processes
involved in animal development.

Here's some starting material. Try reading it before you come back and
spout off some more nonsense:

The interactive fly (genetics and development of Drosophila):
http://sdb.bio.purdue.edu/fly/aimain/1aahome.htm
Drosophila Genome & Development: http://www.fruitfly.org/
C. Elegans Genome & Development: http://elegans.swmed.edu/
Mouse Development Atlas: http://genex.hgu.mrc.ac.uk/

Good textbooks:
Developmental Biology Text (introductory): Developmental Biology, 7th
edition. By S. Gilbert.
Genetics text (has some developmental genetics): Genes VII. By B. Lewin
Basic Biology (which you obviously need): Biology, 6th Edition. By N.
Campbell.
Basic Biochemistry (ditto): Mathews Biochemistry

Bryan

Becker I'd heard of. At the time I was living in Syracuse,
there was a researcher at Upstate Medical Center who
claimed some success with using electrical fields
to encourage regeneration of limbs in mammals (rats?)
I'm pretty sure that's Becker.

This thread triggers a dim memory that he did have some
somewhat wacko ideas about the physics behind what he
was doing. But MDs are usually biology majors, the kind
of people who tried as undergrads to avoid physics as
much as possible. There's no requirement that you need
to have an understanding of physics in order to be a
good MD.

- Randy

Ok. I'll read them. If you are right. Then it means purely genetic
protein sequences and biochemical process are sufficient to build up
the entire physical form and knowing which location to go and
producing
the complete form of the physical body. I wonder if there is a
simulation where this can be seen as the morphing would be cool. This
means the non_local informational field is purely for purpose of
anchoring higher energies that hold the soul matrix to the body via
the "chakras". I always wonder why the soul matrix is seen by
seers to bind to the developing fetus during the third month. During
the
third month, the embryo has differentiated and grown into a fetus with
organs already in place. This means the "chakras" which are connected
to
the organs are what serve as interface to the "soul" or hyper space
memory unit. Without the organs, the embryo can't bind a soul. So an
embryo is only technically a human being during the third month and
abortion can be had during the first two months as well as acquiring
of stem cells and destroying the embryo. Now I want to focus on how
the organs or chakras can serve as anchoring interface for the "soul".
Could it be in the frequency of the bioetheric programming of the
organs or contained within its informational field? Now I know your
fingers are itching to hit the reply button and write more mean stuff
to
things that doesn't make sense to you. But if you have experiences on
the mechanics of consciousness like manipulating chakras and dealing
with Qi. You'd know what I'm talking about. But thanks for pointing
out


(I'm presently debating with others in another group who insist the
form needs the morphogeneticl field for form building and I'm arguing
the genetic material has enough information to build the entire
form...
but what I can't explain is how the cells can differentiate and
maintain
its growth and know which part of the physical body to go... like what
organizes the entire genes in its expression from one cell to billions
of cells with right placement and functioning. I expect the books you
mention to answer them. If they don't I'll make you eat the books.
Hahah.. just kidding. Anyway. If they explain the process in details
then the only purpose of the informational field is to bind the "soul"
to the body and this will be the details that will be worked out in
the coming cutting edge science of the latter part of this century of
in the 22nd century. c
Bryan Heit <bjheit@NOSPAM.ucalgary.ca> wrote in message news:<bntvc5$mks$1@nserve1.acs.ucalgary.ca>...

Just a brief comment in continuation to the above. I realized
you misinterprete the nature of my inquiries. I'm inquiring about
Morphogenesis (the development of the Form & Structure specifically
and not inquiring about how the genes give the cells its functions,
etc.). Morphogenesis is defined somewhere...

"Morphogenesis is one of the major outstanding problems in the
biological sciences. It concerns the fundamental question of how
biological form and structure are generated."

I found out I had one of the books you mentioned. The 1300 page Genes
VI by Lewin. I read it some years ago, and reviewing it a while ago
I didn't find any details about differentiation or morphogenesis.
It just gave details about genes and their expression in developed
body. Morphogenesis is still being researched as of current. Some
state physicists need to work on it because it requires difficult
mathematics to model. Some stating it doesn't require their assistance.

Anyway. Searching over the net, I didn't found very detail facts about
it except in some bionet newgroup dialogue. There seems to be many
theories about how it occurs.

One theory says:

"a region at one end (of the embryo) starts producing a chemical
signal. This signal diffuses down the length of the embryo, producing
a gradient. Different genes get triggered at different concentrations
of that chemical, setting off the processes which differentiate
the cells."

another theory says:

"The argument is that DNA does not, and need not, encode complete
information about the detailed morphology of every cell in the
body; all that is needed is to specify the correct seeds and let
the natural dynamics build up the structure which follows"

and still another argument says it needs mathematical model of
structure and the reaction diffusion model....

and of course the morphic field theorists....

Anyway. This is really a biology related topic and shouldn't have
posted it here. I'll inquire this elsewhere. Thanks for the assistance
anyway.

c