The Perrott-Warrick Lecture by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (February 9th. 2011): the Evolution of Telepathy and testing telepathy using mobile phones

Abstract: Field observations have suggested that wolves and other wild animals may communicate telepathically over many miles, and surveys have shown that about 50% of dog owners and about 30% of cat owners believe that their pets may respond to their thoughts or silent commands. Among humans, apparent telepathy is most commonly reported between members of families and between close friends and colleagues. Experimental investigations of telepathy in animals and people suggest that telepathy may be a natural means of communication between members of animal and human groups. Human telepathy is still evolving in the context of modern technologies, including the internet, emails, SMS messages and telephones. Dr. Sheldrake will show how anyone can explore their own abilities in automated telepathy tests using mobile phones.

Interview with Robert Perry about A Course in Miracles, synchronicities, coincidences, life's purpose, God and Jesus of Nazareth

This is an interview with author and researcher Robert Perry. I thank Robert for kindly accepting the interview. Enjoy.

1-Robert, tell us something about your background.

I grew up in Southern California and in my teens became interested in thinking about big questions, mostly about how the mind works and, eventually, what is its ultimate nature. I was trying to develop my own system to explain these things, based on introspection and logic. I hoped for a career as a kind of philosophical psychologist, rather naively ignoring the fact that this sort of thing had been out of vogue for a very long time! I got my degree in psychology in college and planned to go on and get a PhD, but my spiritual interests, which had developed in the meantime, intervened.

2-Why did you get interested in A Course in Miracles (ACIM)?

In my late teens, I had been active in my Lutheran church, but realized I had no rational basis for believing what I did. So I became interested in questions of spiritual truth. I explored the areas that so many of us have—mysticism, comparative religion, parapsychology, near-death experiences—and concluded that whenever a person got an experiential glimpse of something beyond the physical, he or she saw roughly the same worldview. Even though there were differences in what was glimpsed, the similarities in the basic view of reality really grabbed me, as I had never been taught anything remotely like this. I decided that either this view of reality was true or it had been hardwired into our brains by evolution. For various reasons I decided it was not an illusion produced by the brain, and my spiritual journey began.

A few years into this, I heard about A Course in Miracles, which my friends eventually bought for me for my twenty-first birthday. The Course both attracted and repulsed me. It alternately reinforced and went against the pictures of spiritual truth I had built up from other sources. Also, my spiritual roots were in the truth being glimpsed in many places, so focusing on one teaching felt like spiritual bigotry to me. However, over a period of several years, the Course slowly drew me in. Its reasoning convinced me, and I increasingly turned to its practical methods, simply because they worked better for me. I finally decided that it was my path.

During this time, I was asked to teach at a local Course in Miracles center, and the act of teaching the Course was also a factor in convincing me. Teaching at that center then led to being invited to speak elsewhere and to write articles for Course newsletters. One thing led to another and I eventually realized this was my career, and reluctantly let go of my dreams of being a philosophical psychologist.

3-Can you explain to us which are the essential teachings of ACIM?

The Course’s teachings are rooted in a certain view of reality. When it uses the word “reality,” it means a spiritual realm that is fundamentally different from this world. This spiritual realm is a kind of fusion of the pure oneness we associate with Eastern mysticism and the more personal elements found in Christian theology. In this timeless realm, we exist in perfect oneness with an unconditionally loving God.

However, in the distant past, we chose to separate from God, and this choice was projected outward and became the physical universe, which the Course sees as the outer picture of the wish to be separate. Thus, although this sounds very odd to our modern scientific sensibilities, the Course sees the universe as a psychological illusion, and also as ultimately life-denying. It is not an individual illusion; it is dreamt up by the countless minds of all living things. So it is a collective dream, and a rather vast and long-lasting one, but it is still just a dream, and ultimately just a tiny blip in the infinite minds of God’s children.

This all sounds very abstract and far from our daily concerns, but it is the basis for the Course’s practical message. We tend to see suffering as coming at us from the outside. The world doesn’t treat us very lovingly, and this, we think, is the problem. The Course, however, sees the daily attacks launched on us as illusory, as the outer projection of a hidden aggression within our own minds. We have identified with a false, attacking nature, and this is the real problem. Each day, we watch a stream of judgmental thoughts and uncaring behavior go forth from us, and this convinces us that we have hopelessly defiled our original purity. As a result, we unconsciously believe we deserve all the merciless treatment we get from the world. The Course says that all weeping is really weeping for our own lost innocence.

The way out of this deep-seated guilt is forgiveness. This is how we get back in touch with our original loving nature; we let go of the grudges that stand in the way of love. This is a different forgiveness, though, than the usual idea, in which we acknowledge that someone “sinned” but forgive them anyway. In the Course, forgiveness is a change in perception, in which we realize that our anger was based on a false view and so was never justified. We now see that attacking behavior, being part of an illusory world, has no power over us. We also realize that the attacking figure we see is not that person’s real nature, and so we look past it to a divine innocence and worth that remain unchanged. With these realizations, anger no longer makes sense.

As we become more forgiving, we devote ourselves to extending love to others. Through caring behavior we give them the message that their errors haven’t damaged their divine worth. This heals their unconscious guilt, and it also heals us. As we see genuine, selfless love go forth from us, we finally become convinced that we too must still be as pure as we were in the beginning with God. When this conviction becomes total, we wake up from the dream of this world, open our eyes, so to speak, in Heaven, and realize we have been there all along.

4-Has ACIM any practical applications?

The whole Course is geared toward practical change. Its second volume, the Workbook, trains a student in the Course’s spiritual discipline, which ultimately encloses one’s day in spiritual practice. This practice first aims at establishing a peaceful state of mind in the morning, primarily through meditation, and this then becomes the foundation for having a very different kind of day. During this day, we use other forms of spiritual practice for renewing the peaceful state we established in the morning, and also for protecting it from the various upsets that inevitably occur. We also are trained to frequently ask for inner guidance, which in my experience leads to much wiser and saner decisions.

5-Which is the concept of God in ACIM? Does it correspond to the concept of God in monotheistic religions like Christianity?

I think the Course’s view of God is one of the most beautiful things in it. I believe most of us sense that a God Who gets angry and punitive looks suspiciously like the projection of the human ego. On the other hand, an impersonal God Who is pure consciousness has always struck me as somehow less than a person. The Course manages to combine the best of both views, both the personal Creator and the impersonal Ground of being. In the Course’s view, God has the attributes of a person, in that He (again, the masculine pronoun is just a cultural convention) has a Mind, a Will, Thoughts, and even feelings. But in contrast to how we see a person, He is infinite, which means He is not bounded by a body or a form of any kind. And so those attributes I mentioned are also unbounded. Thus, His Thoughts are not fleeting little wisps but are instead eternal, limitless realities. And His Will is a power that has no second, nothing to stand in its way. It can only be gone against in the realm of illusions.

Also, because God is an infinite Person, He has none of the pettiness or divisiveness of the human ego. As a result, the judgmental, unloving, punitive side of the traditional God is completely absent. Therefore, this God is unbelievably loving and caring. The Course likens this Love at one point to the most loving mother imaginable: “He loves you as a mother loves her child; her only one, the only love she has, her all-in-all, extension of herself, as much a part of her as breath itself.” Yet even this earthly parallel, as extreme as it is, falls far short of the reality of God’s Love, for the Course claims that, strictly speaking, “there is no parallel in your experience of the world.”

Like the Christian God, the Course’s God does create. But He only creates spiritual beings who are like Himself and one with Him. He did not create the physical world. In a characteristically bold passage, the Course reviews the painful and unloving attributes of this world and says, “You but accuse Him of insanity, to think He made a world where such things seem to have reality. He is not mad. Yet only madness makes a world like this.”

6-Critics often ask a crucial question: which is the evidence supporting the belief that the words of psychologist Helen Schuman are the actual and true words, teachings and messages of Jesus? How do you respond to such critical question?

As you say, this is obviously a crucial question. In looking at the evidence, we encounter an initial problem, in that this Jesus does not at all fit the traditional image. He does not present himself as a savior who asks for belief in his saving acts and divine status. Rather, he comes across as a teacher who is trying to bring about a radical shift in perception. This is not the Jesus we grew up with, but oddly enough, this does fit the Jesus being uncovered by modern historical scholarship. This quote is from leading scholar Marcus Borg: “Rather strikingly, the most certain thing we know about Jesus according to the current scholarly consensus is that he was a teller of stories and a speaker of great one-liners whose purpose was the transformation of perception. At the center of his message was an invitation to see differently.” Any Course student who reads that quote would immediately feel hit between the eyes.

What New Testament scholars are uncovering is a radically different perception of the world that is contained in the most historically authentic of the gospel teachings. In the view of many scholars, this radical view is best contained in what is often called the Sayings Gospel Q, a hypothetical gospel which scholars believe was the source of much of the teaching in Matthew and Luke, and the main source of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount. It is our oldest record of the Jesus tradition. The teachings in Q often sound incredibly Course-like. For example, here is one: “Love your enemies and pray for those persecuting you, so that you may become sons of your Father, for he raises his sun on bad and good and rains on the just and unjust.” Here, because God does not discriminate in his love between the good and bad, we shouldn’t either, to the point of loving the “bad” in our lives in the same way we love the “good.” This is such a different view than the traditional, yet it’s in striking agreement with the Course. (For those interested, I have contributed a chapter on these teachings in Q to an academic collection.)

In addition to these parallels with the historical Jesus, I see the author of the Course as an incomparable genius. That is obviously a subjective assessment, yet I believe that over time the Course will come to be generally recognized as a unique masterpiece. Its originality, wisdom, practicality, insight, and artistry really set it apart. Therefore, although there are many thinkers I have great respect for, my experience of the Course’s author is that he is on a whole different level. I have come to expect a level of mastery from him that I would be stunned to find in anyone else. This, as you might imagine, contributes to my sense that this really is Jesus.

If anyone is interested, I’ve explained at greater length my reasons for thinking the Course was written by Jesus in an article titled, “What if Jesus Really Did Write this?”

7-In your opinion, who was really Jesus of Nazareth?

If you look at our oldest and most historically reliable sayings from Jesus, he is virtually anonymous. He is simply the speaker of these teachings. And along with that, there is the implication that he has himself realized these teachings. Thus, just as he asks us to “enter” God’s kingdom, a state in which we live under God’s unconditional love and care and are immune to the brutalities of this world, so he himself seems to have entered this state. And just as he asks us to be an agent of the kingdom in this world, in which we bring to others its miraculous love, care and freedom, so that is what he did.

However, in the early decades after his death, you can see the focus slowly switch to Jesus himself and his exalted status and importance. I think this is a natural human tendency, but it was the beginning, I believe, of Christianity veering dramatically away from Jesus’ own focus.

Personally, I believe that Jesus had a unique grasp on the process of salvation, the process of transforming our minds and our world. I think countless teachers have penetrated this great question to one degree or another, and we should be grateful to all of them. However, I think that Jesus’ lofty vision of an unconditionally loving God and the radical implications of that for a transformed inner state, transformed relationships, and a transformed society, has immense significance for our world.

8-Do you think Jesus' Resurrection is (probably) a fact?

I actually do. I think the evidence for it is surprisingly good, and should not be dismissed on the grounds that such a thing is impossible. I have found value in the arguments of conservative scholars on this, whose work I otherwise disagree with. I have especially been influenced by the testimony of Paul in this regard, who within a few years of Jesus’ death spoke with those who were there and witnessed the risen Jesus. And I have also been heavily influenced by the Shroud of Turin, the evidence for which is actually quite remarkable, notwithstanding the (now discredited) 1988 carbon dating.

However, once we decide the resurrection happened, we confront the most important question: What did it mean? If we interpret it in light of later Christianity, it becomes proof of the divinity of Jesus. I believe that instead, though, we should interpret it in light of Jesus’ own teachings. And in fact, it looks like something straight out of those teachings. Jesus constantly spoke about being in the kingdom, a state in which a person is immune to the assaults of the world because he is wrapped in God’s love and care. And isn’t that what we see in the resurrection? I view the resurrection, therefore, as what has been called a “parabolic act,” a lived-out parable, in which Jesus demonstrated an extreme version of what it means to be in the kingdom.

9-What do you think of Jesus' disciples having experienced or "seen" Jesus, after his death? Do you think it has any natural explanation (like hallucinations), or some kind of paranormal or even supernatural explanation is more probable to be true?

In light of my last answer, it’s obvious that I opt for some sort of paranormal explanation. First, I think the evidence argues for an empty tomb. Then there is the fact of multiple sightings involving a number of people, including many people at once—Paul mentions five hundred at once. There is also the fact that his followers had no prior expectation of one person resurrecting—the resurrection was believed to be a collective event. Finally, there is the profound conviction those experiences imparted—they gave the disciples the strength to go out and preach and die for their faith. When you put all of these things together, I think the best explanation is that his followers saw something we would consider real.

10-You have researched and written about synchronicities and coincidences. You have argued for the probable existence of what you call "signs" or, more technically, Conjunctions of Meaningfully Parallel Events (CMPEs). Can you tell us how do you define CMPEs, and what objective criteria do you use to discern them from accidental or random coincidences?

In a typical synchronicity, you have two events that come together and just happen to share a striking similarity. The classic example is Carl Jung’s scarab, in which a patient was telling him a dream about a golden scarab, and then Jung heard a golden scarab beetle tapping at the window. You have two events—the telling of the dream and the arrival of the beetle—that share a single striking similarity: a golden scarab.

A CMPE is really an extreme version of this, which makes them much harder to explain away as random. You still have two events that come together in time. But rather than sharing one similarity, they share a long list of similarities. I call these parallels, and in a CMPE the two events will on average share about nine parallels. Further, these parallels will come together to tell a coherent story. And this story is a commentary on a situation of concern in one’s life. This situation will usually be quite relevant for the person at the moment, and it will typically be the focus of at least one of the events.

As you can see, this is a fairly specific phenomenon. And it’s quite a bit more specific and detailed than this bare-bones definition suggests. As such, real examples of it instantly stand out from garden variety synchronicities; they are a distinct breed. To measure this distinctness, I have devised a ten-item scale that assesses a possible CMPE along the lines of ten expected characteristics, and we are using that scale to measure the possible CMPEs we have collected in a recent pilot study we did.

It will help if I can give a brief example of a CMPE (which I relate in more detail on my blog). It’s fairly trivial but it’s easy to tell. Last summer my wife Nicola got out the red canister vacuum cleaner from the closet under the stairs and was vacuuming. Our daughter Miranda, who was then four years old and who has a lot of fears, expressed the fear that she would be sucked up. So Nicola spent some time explaining to her that wouldn’t happen and demonstrating what the vacuum could and couldn’t suck up.

A few minutes later, Nicola read Miranda a bedtime story, picked at random from a brand new book of fifty stories. In this story, there is also a family of little string people who live unnoticed on the floor in a house. This story also involves a red canister vacuum that is stored in the closet under the stairs. And it also has the little daughter in the (string) family express fear that she will get sucked up. Finally, her parent (in this case, her father) reassures her that that won’t happen. As you can probably see, rather than just one parallel between the events, there is a whole series of them. Also, the CMPE is about a relevant situation in our lives—how to deal with Miranda’s fears. Its advice is to do what the parents in the events did: patiently explain and ideally (as Nicola did) give a demonstration, showing that there’s nothing to fear.

11-Is there any scientific evidence in favor of the existence of CMPEs? Are they scientifically replicable phenomena?

Our pilot study was a first step in gathering scientific evidence about this phenomenon. We had seventeen participants, who we then educated in the model. They were instructed for a four-month period to look out for CMPEs and send in what they thought were examples. In the end, we collected sixteen genuine CMPEs and twenty-three failed ones. So we did find this phenomenon happening in the lives of our participants, and this is an initial suggestion of CMPEs being a real phenomenon that is genuinely happening out there in the world.

So the phenomenon can be investigated scientifically, and that is starting. At the same time, there are a couple hurdles to get over. One is that you cannot produce these things in a lab and you therefore have to rely on people’s testimony, something that skeptics are reluctant to do in a paranormal area like this. On the positive side, though, many CMPEs involve written or recorded events, like a newspaper article, a TV show, or an email. And sometimes you even have two written events that are time-stamped as well, like two emails showing up at the same time. So in those cases, you don’t have to rely on anyone’s subjective narrative.

The other difficulty is that processing a CMPE obviously has an element of subjectivity to it. However, what I have found is that those who have long experience with the phenomenon will independently handle the same CMPE in basically the same ways. For instance, I have tried this several times with the act of interpreting the meaning of a particular CMPE. I have interpreted it and then have given the basic information to a friend of mine to independently interpret. He and I regularly come up with roughly the same interpretation. I include a couple examples of this in my book so you can see for yourself. So this hurdle can be overcome. Right now, however, there are only a very few people who are qualified, and getting more such people will take time.

My hope, of course, is that scientific investigation of this phenomenon will continue and slowly build. I think it can make important contributions to our understanding of the world.

12-Is there any actual or plausible proposed mechanism to account for CMPEs?

Let me first say that this, in my mind, is a distinctly secondary concern. My main concern is that we have this phenomenon, one that seems to be a real, naturally-occurring phenomenon, so let’s investigate it.

Having said that, I do devote the final chapter of my book to this question. I explore a number of possible mechanisms, and settle on God, or something God-like, as the best fit for the evidence at this time. I realize this makes people immediately think that this whole thing was driven by a religious agenda from the start, but it really didn’t happen that way, and so I’d like to briefly tell the story of how I’ve ended up at the God explanation.

When CMPEs first started happening to me thirty-five years ago, I wasn’t particularly concerned with where they came from. In the back of my mind, I just pictured some sort of impersonal mechanism that somehow had access to the blueprint for my life. However, as I processed hundreds of these things over many years, this sense slowly grew in me that I was being spoken to. The fact is that CMPEs seem designed as a communication. Their basic structure is that they highlight a situation we’re concerned about and comment on it. And their commentary tends to be very wise, very far-seeing, and extremely consistent over time. Significantly, this consistency holds when different people have CMPEs about the same situation. As an example, in 2009, four CMPEs came over a two-week period. Two happened to me in Arizona. One happened to a friend in Georgia. And another happened to another friend in Missouri. And all four expressed the same specific and completely novel idea. This naturally gives the impression that these CMPEs were not generated by something confined to the individuals involved.

So over time, it just felt to me like some kind of mind was communicating with me, a mind that transcended the individual. For a number of reasons, some of which I’ve just mentioned, this mind has a God-like quality to it. So I found myself thinking more and more in terms of God. But what really cemented that in me was that the signs themselves started communicating that view. In fact, they were quite clear on it while I was still edging in that direction. For instance, they repeatedly said I should devote the last chapter of the book to this idea. And then when I did, I had a huge CMPE about it. While I was polishing that last chapter, a friend, who didn’t know I was working on anything like that, sent me an article from a Christian theologian who was sharing his own experience of feeling spoken to by God. The parallels between my chapter and this article were stunning—I counted over thirty. It was one of the most impressive CMPEs I’ve ever had. I tell the story in the book’s epilogue.

So that’s a brief account of how I got to this position. But as I said, my main concern is with the phenomenon itself, not with where it comes from.

13-Can CMPEs be useful to predict the future? And if it's the case, does it conflict with free will?

I have a chapter in my book on this topic. Only the occasional CMPE will offer a flat prediction. Most of them are conditional: “If you do this, this will happen.” When they do offer straight predictions, I have found them to be pretty impressive. For instance, they repeatedly predicted what was coming in regard to the Course in Miracles copyright controversy that happened in the 90’s. They also told me things about my youngest daughter years before she was born. And this is not hindsight; these are things that I had written down ahead of time. However, they are definitely not infallible in this regard. I tell the story of a prediction in the book that fell flat on its face.

I don’t think their predictive ability conflicts with free will. I personally think the future is pretty malleable because of our choices. And this may explain why some of the predictions of CMPEs are either wrong or exaggerated. For instance, with the one I mentioned above that was clearly wrong, the signs made that prediction years ahead of time and then stopped talking about it, which is unusual for them. That made me wonder if perhaps the winds had shifted and that future was no longer slated to happen. Whether or not that was the story in this case, I do suspect that the future is a matter of probability, not certainty.

14-Do CMPEs provide evidence for God's existence and, if it is the case, do they tell us something specific, original and reliable about God and life's purpose?

As I said earlier, I think they are evidence for something God-like, something that transcends the individual and that can weave seemingly random events into intelligent patterns that offer wise, helpful commentary for our lives. To my mind, this is a new class of evidence in relation to God. We have always had internal spiritual experiences, but part of the value of CMPEs is that they consist of publicly observable events. We also have the anthropic principle, where the basic physics of the universe seems oddly fine-tuned for life, but of course, CMPEs are a very different kind of evidence than that. So I think they have something new to contribute to the question of God’s existence.

What do CMPEs tell us about God? Speaking personally, and assuming for the moment that they do come from God, CMPEs give me the sense that God is truly present in my life. Because of the wide range of topics they address, I get the feeling that God is concerned with literally everything in my life and that all of it is suffused with purpose. CMPEs push for constructive, forward movement in all areas of our lives, as if every area is meant to contribute to some larger goal. However, three areas stand out the most: Our relationships, our inner development, and our life purpose. CMPEs seem especially concerned with forward movement in those areas.

15-Do you think there is good evidence for the existence of an afterlife? Can CMPEs tell us something about it?

I think there is very solid evidence for the existence of an afterlife, but I see that as coming from phenomena other than CMPEs. I can’t think of any direct contribution they could make to that issue. That being said, Bruce Greyson, one of the main researchers of near-death experiences since the beginning, said in his review of my book, “Perry’s model for making sense of CMPEs may be applicable as well to validating NDEs.”

16-Does the existence of CMPEs conflict with contemporary evolutionary theory, which suggests that no objective purpose in life and nature exist at all?
I’ve pondered this for a long time. I am no biologist, but from what I know, you don’t need a supernatural force to explain evolution. I find the process proposed by biologists as believable in part because it seems so similar to how a lot of things work on earth—the strongest and cleverest survive and propagate, and the other guys get wiped out. I don’t think you need God to explain that. In fact, I personally don’t want to make God the author of evolution, because it is a brutal and bloody business. It is essentially amoral. No matter how good and worthy you are, if I am strong enough to crush you and yours, my genes will carry the future and your line will be finished. Do we want a God that sets up a system like that? At that point, God is like the emperor presiding over the gladiator games at the Coliseum.

However, even if evolution would still proceed without any higher influence, that is not to say that God is not a player in the process and does not exert influence at key junctures. That is much like what I believe I see happening with CMPEs. Life goes along. People jostle for position, and the ones with the sharpest elbows tend to win the day. But every now and then, amidst the mess, events come together in ways that seem like a visitation from above. That’s what I see in ordinary life, so who knows, maybe evolution works that way, too.

17-Do you think that being aware of the existence CMPEs in our lives can be useful to our everyday life (e.g. to solve problems) and, more importantly, for our spiritual evolution?

In my life, they have been literally invaluable, for concerns ranging from mundane problems to loftier issues like spiritual development, and from specific decisions to long-term directions. I have no way of calculating what I owe to their counsel. They paint a picture of my life, both in details and in the broad strokes, and I try to follow that picture as my blueprint. Both my wife and I rely on them quite heavily, simply because they have earned our trust over time. And while I think we currently are in a unique position in regard to them, I have seen many others experience tremendous benefit from them as well.

18-What suggestions and tips would you give to our readers in order to help them to identify CMPEs in their own lives?

Probably my main tip would be to read the book and do the exercises in the backs of the early chapters. It takes a while to get used to the model. It’s a new concept, and new concepts need lots of explanation and examples before they stick.

In lieu of that, my advice is to watch for what I call the “Huh, that’s weird” reaction. When two similar events happen to bump into each other, something in our mind usually registers that. We think, “Well, that was odd.” But then we typically dismiss that reaction, and not long after, forget the whole thing. It vanishes from memory.

The key is to focus in on that reaction, and then to look carefully at the actual similarity between the two events. There will generally be one or two striking similarities, or you wouldn’t have had that “huh” reaction. But the crucial test is whether you can then notice additional parallels beyond that. You should expect to see a whole “cloud” of less noticeable, more general parallels surrounding the more specific and obvious ones you noticed at first. When you see that combination—striking specific parallels surrounded by more general ones—chances are you have a real CMPE.

19-In addition to your books, what other books on these and related topics would you like to recommend to the readers?

I recommend the work of Marcus Borg in relation to the historical Jesus, especially Jesus: A New Vision, and also the work of the Jesus Seminar, especially in The Five Gospels, Profiles of Jesus, and The Gospel of Jesus: According to the Jesus Seminar. I also recommend the work of James Robinson in regard to the Sayings Gospel Q, especially The Gospel of Jesus: In Search of the Original Good News. For a more academic exploration of Q, see John Kloppenborg’s work, for instance, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections, and also James Robinson’s Jesus: According to the Earliest Witness. On the resurrection, I recommend debates between William Lane Craig and liberal scholars, such as Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?: A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan (even though on other topics I side with the liberals). In regard to CMPEs, my book is the first exploration of this topic, but I hope not the last. In regard to A Course in Miracles, I unfortunately can only recommend work by myself, Greg Mackie, and Allen Watson, all of whom come out of the Circle of Atonement, just because a tradition that emphasizes careful, non-dogmatic fidelity to the words of the Course has not yet developed.

20-Would you like to add something else to end the interview?

It has actually been a real pleasure to be able to talk about the things that matter most to me. I have never had the opportunity to talk about A Course in Miracles, the historical Jesus, and CMPEs all at once. So I have truly appreciated the opportunity you’ve afforded me here. Thank you very much.

Links of interest:

-Robert's website.

-Website "Circle of Atonement" (dedicated to A Course in Miracles)

Interview with scientific researcher of the afterlife Michael Roll on the secular case for survival of consciousness

This is an interview with atheist Michael Roll, a scientific researcher of the afterlife and survival of consciousness. I thank Michael for kindly accepting this interview. Enjoy.

1-Michael, tell us something about your background.

My mother had made a careful study of life after death, coming across the work of Arthur Findlay. His first book 'On The Edge of the Etheric'. She named me after him - Michael Findlay Roll. She was always able to give me the antidote to the terrible religious poison that the state in England demands is pumped into every child at school. I will always remember at the age of five, after my first day at school, rushing home to tell my mother about this "wonderful" saviour god called Christ who is going to forgive me for every rotten thing I do on Earth. Mother hit the roof, I had never seen her so angry. What she said next stayed with me for the rest of my life. "You are personally responsible and liable for every thought and action during your stay on Earth. There is no invisible Big Daddy in the sky called god. This crazy god business as been invented by priests to keep them in power and the masses in fear, ignorance and servitude." I found that this was spot on as I read Arthur Findlay's masterpiece later in life - "The Curse of Ignorance".

2-Why did you get interested in the afterlife and the evidence for survival?

After reading 'On the Edge of the Etheric' at the age of 16. I realised then that I had been told a pack of lies by my teachers including the science teachers. We are only dealing with natural and normal forces in the universe, that nothing is supernatural or paranormal. If something happens then it must come within the laws of physics - the definition of physics is natural philosophy.

In 1874 when Sir William Crookes published the results of his experiments with the materialisation medium Florence Cook in the Quarterly Journal of Science this was the greatest scientific breakthrough in the history of mankind. Crookes had discovered by repeatable experiments under laboratory conditions that there are people all around us who are normally just out of range of our five physical senses. People who are exactly the same as when they were on Earth, for the most part just as thick as when they were on Earth. Most definately not to be worshipped or kowtowed to or taken too much notice of. I am of course being brutal just to make a point. Most people in the etheric wavelengths are nice, just the same as most people on Earth are. Sadly this great discovery was ignored and science took the wrong path, hence the vicious attacks on Sir William Crookes and Sir Oliver Lodge.

This is from almost the whole of the scientific establishment and all priests. Never forget what the pope said to Professor Stephen Hawking, "I don't care what you do in science just as long as you never encroach on my subject, life after death."

This is what Hawking reported during a live televised press conference on his return from meeting the pope. I was watching.

3-Have you had some first-hand personal experiences with survival phenomena (e.g. mediumship)?

This happened in 1983 when I went to Leicester and took part in an experiment with a materialisation medium called Rita Goold. Full reports are on my website www.cfpf.org.uk Look up The Cleaver Report. The journalist Alan Cleaver had been there before me and carried out the excellent scientific exercise that Sir William Crookes was unable to do with the materialised Katie King. Cleaver reunited the materialised Helen Duncan with her daughter Gena Brealey who was still on Earth. I was also reunited with my "dead" father giving me the crushing personal proof that we all survive the death of our physical bodies. I am only interested in this type of mediumship where all five of our senses are working and the people who materialise are just as solid and as natural as we are. They speak in the same voice that they had on Earth. For example, a Dutch lady took part in a Rita Goold experiment and was reunited with her "dead" son and mother. They spoke in fluent Dutch.

4-As an atheist, have you ever considered the possibility that the evidence for survival provides some kind of evidence against atheism?

It says in my dictionary that an atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a deity. I don't believe in anything. I accept survival because it has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt, just the same as I accept that the world is round and not flat. We have discovered people all around us who once lived on Earth. People that our ancestors mistook for angels, devils, gods or worst of all, big daddy god himself. Some of these people in the etheric part of the universe come through to gullible Spiritualists and pretend that they are God. This is exactly what must have happened in the past.

5-Which is the best scientific evidence for the afterlife?

What I have described above.

6-William Crookes was a prominent and first-rate scientist who researched mediumship phenomena too. However, even among a few spiritualists or people sympathetic for the afterlife, there are skeptics who question Crookes' research with Florence Cook for several reasons: 1-In at least two occasions, sitters grabbed a materialized spirit in one of Florence Cook's séances and found it to be Florence herself. 2-Cook had an association with Rosina Showers, who was a fake medium. 3-In the photos taken by William Crookes, they never clearly show Florence Cook and Katie King together. Moreover, in the only photo that supposedly shows both of them, Florence's face is covered by a shawl. Critics argue that this evidence cast doubts on Florence's mediumship and hence on Crookes's positive scientific conclusions about her. What do you think of such criticisms? How do you respond to them?

Sir William Crookes and materialized spirit Katie King

As I have said above. You have to balance the case for Crookes against those who are desperate to destroy him. We are up against people who are professionals, fighting for their very existence as credible academics. On British television for example nobody is allowed to talk about life after death in a serious scientific manner. Therefore nobody is allowed to even balance the vicious attacks on Sir William Crookes like Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University did on a radio broadcast with the American Jeff Rense - www.rense.com I have done 12 broadcasts with Jeff. Some are in his archives. However, the supporters of Crookes have the Internet, something that Crookes, Lodge and Findlay could only just dream about.

7-What do you think of Arthur Findlay and his mediumship research?

Wonderful, this is what set me on the right course. Findlay materialised at the Rita Goold experiment in 1984 and gave me a hug, saying that he was working with me all the time. I replied that I knew this as I was not clever enough. I left school at 16 only just able to read and write. My brain was not clogged up, Findlay had a blank canvas to work on. I switched off at school, just doing enough to read and write. How do I know this was Arthur Findlay? No proof but surely my father who also materialised would not be mixed up with frauds.

8-What do you think of the contemporary materialization mediumship of David Thompson?

I have not witnessed his mediumship. Can only go on what Victor Zammit says. He is adamant that Thompson's mediumship is reuniting people on Earth with their "dead" loved ones. This includes Victor's wife Wendy. Victor tells me that he does not think Thompson is yet as advanced as Rita Goold was in 1983. She was ready for the scientists to go in with the infra-red cameras. There can be no breakthrough until we can get another materialisation medium to work with a scientific team like Florence Cook did in 1874. Don't forget these vital experiments were repeated by other scientific teams - Prof. Charles Richet (1923) A French team. Prof. Schrenck Notzing (1923) A German team. Dr. Glen Hamilton (1942) A Canadian team. Dr. W.J. Crawford (1918) An Irish team. Please note that the scientist I introduced to the Rita Goold experiment in 1983 was unable to complete his experiments and was therefore unable to report such a revolutionany thing. See the letters from Professor Archie Roy on my website: Correspondence section in date order 1983.

9-Do you think the scientific evidence for reincarnation is good?

Never come across reincarnation in my studies. Never heard a medium say, "Sorry, you can't make contact with him/her as they have gone back to Earth." See the book The Case Against Reincarnation by James Webster on my website. The aim is to let people all over the world know that we all survive the death of our physical bodies and that we are responsible and liable for what we do on Earth. We must not go off on any tangents, keep out of the psychic jungle at all costs.

10-According to your research, the phenomena of "ghosts" or "apparitions" is a real one? Do ghosts exist?

I am sure that sometimes people in the etheric wavelengths can impinge on Earth.

11-Do you think near-death experience provide good evidence for the afterlife?

Evidence, yes. Only a materialisation medium can provide the crushing scientific proof of survival.

12-A controversial line of evidence for survival is Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) and Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC). Do you think research in these fields provide good evidence for survival?

The few examples I have heard have not been very good.

13-What do you think of the so-called "organized skeptics" (Randi, CSICOP, etc.) and their radical opposition to the evidence for survival?

Victor Zammit covers this very well on his website.

14-Do you think that the evidence for survival conflicts with contemporary science, specially neuroscience and evolutionary biology?

Not half, orthodox scientific teaching starts from the false base that the mind and brain are the same, that death is the end of everything. Wobetide any scientist who dares to support Crookes and Lodge, their careers would be destroyed. Hence the success of Randi and his ilk who always have total command of the means of mass communication with nobody allowed to even hint at a balance. Go to the website of the Nobel Laureate for Physics Professor B.D. Josephson. He destroyes Randi and his pals on a BBC Radio 4 broadcast. We can attack Randi on the radio because I took the Radio Authority to the European Court of Human Rights and won. You can listen to this broadcast on his website. Josephson is still not allowed to do the same thing in our "free" country on British television.

15-According to your extensive research, can you summarize what happens when we die?

This is just hearsay but it sure sounds exciting if we have led a good life on Earth. Bloody awful if we have left a bomb in a crowded pub. We are immediately reunited with our loved ones who have gone before us. The priests know this hence their desperate efforts to destroy what we are saying. They are stuck with resting in peace in the ground waiting for the Second Comming of their saviour god.

16-What books would you like to recommend about the scientific evidence for survival?

"The trick is to read the right books." Carl Sagan. Vital to keep away from the psychic jungle. Just stick to Arthur Findlay, Crookes and Lodge.

17-Do you want to add something else to end the interview?

Never believe anything, check the facts very carefully. Watch out for experts. Once you have read Findlay you can then mark all the work on the subject.

Links of interest:

-Michael Roll's website.

-Michael Roll's videos (see this link and this one)

-Arthur Findley's online e-book On the edge of the etheric

-Audio of the BBC programme with Brian Josephson, James Randi and others.

Sam Harris and the everything has a cause straw man: More atheistic fallacies and misdirections in philosophy of religion

Atheist Sam Harris, who's one of the so-called "new atheists", has a degree in philosophy; hence, we would expect from such person to have the intellectual competence to present the arguments for God's existence (to which he disagrees with) in his best, strongest formulation, in order to show that, if they fail, then there are no good reasons to think that God exists. (However, even some professional philosophers, provided they're atheists and naturalists, have not the basic philosophical competence to present arguments for God's existence in their best formulation, as I've demostrated in this post and in this one).

In his book "Letters to a Christian Nation", Harris attacks the cosmological argument in this way: "The argument runs more or less like this: everything has a cause; space and time exist; space and time must, therefore, have been caused by something that stands outside of space and time; and the only thing that trascends space and time, and yet retains the power to create, is God... As many critics of religion have pointed out , the notion of a creator poses an inmediate problem of an infinite regress. If God created the universe, what caused God? To say that God, by definition, is uncreated simply begs the question" (p.72-73. Emphasis in blue added)

It's astonishing to discover how such straw man argument (very common in popular atheistic literature) is convincing for so many atheists. In fact, some years ago, after surveying a number of atheistic books and realizing that many of them contain such straw man and the silly "What caused God?" objection (presented as a powerful objection against the cosmological argument), I concluded that something is seriously wrong with the cognitive faculties of hard-core atheistic materialists and naturalists. The "What caused God?" objection was instrumental to my realization and conviction that atheistic materialists and metaphysical naturalists are deeply irrational and their intellectual faculties are seriously, permanently and irreversibly impaired.

People like these cannot think rationally. They have fixed ideas and delusions (specially about God and religion). They're literally irrational. Therefore, we cannot trust in their cognitive faculties.

Currently, I'm researching for the causes of such consistent irrationality, and I hope in the future to publish in my blog some preliminary conclusions about it. So, stay tuned...

Let's to examine Harris's straw man argument in more detail:

Instead of quoting actual defenders of the cosmological argument, Harris appeals to the standard atheistic straw man, arguing that the cosmological argument (which runs "more or less" like this) begins from the premise "Everything has a cause".

Now, it's important to know that no philosophical defender of the cosmological argument has ever argued that "everything has a cause" as a premise of the cosmological argument. As has written professional philosopher Edward Feser "In fact, not one of the best-known defenders of the Cosmological Argument in the history of philosophy ever gave this stupid “everything has a cause” argument—not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Thomas Aquinas, not John Duns Scotus, not G.W. Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. And not anyone else either, as far as I know. Perhaps... you think that when trying to refute some of history’s greatest minds, a good strategy would be to attack an argument none of them ever defended." (emphasis in blue added).

After creating the straw man, Harris predictably asks: Then, what caused God? This question is supposed to be a excellent objection to the cosmological argument. But this question is based on the atheistic straw man mentioned above.

However, when the straw is removed from the argument, and the premise of the argument is correctly stated (Evertyhing that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause), then the stupid "What caused God?" objection dissapears, since the premise doesn't assume anything about God's beginning or not beginning to exist (moreover, God is supposed to be eternal, and hence without a beginning of existence since, if he exists, he exists necessarily, which one of his basic classical attributes). This point is explained by contemporary defender of the cosmological argument, William Lane Craig:

If Harris were an actual philosopher, he would know that he's committing a straw man fallacy.

That a "philosopher" like Harris cannot formulate the argument in its corrrect, actual formulation is strong evidence of his philosophical incompetence (and it's suggestive of intellectual dishonesty too).

Note, by the way, that Harris' incompetence has obscurantist consequences: His incompetence prevents that readers of his books learn the actual cosmological argument, and can objectively assess it in its correct formulation. He's not educating them, but misleading them into false arguments that no sophisticated theist has ever defended.

Harris is not interested in educating the public; he's interested in the destruction of theism, as part of his personal ideological agenda in defense of atheism.

Honest truth-seekers, including atheist truth-seekers, will feel annoyed by such incompetence and won't take authors like that seriously. Authors like that don't deserve intellectual respect. They're sophists, propagandists, ideologues, not serious thinkers nor honest truth-seekers.

This is why honest truth-seekers (atheists and theists alike) should protest against such obscurantism and sophistry. We have "to fight" (with purely intellectual means) this kind of continuous and repeated atheistic intellectual fraud and misleading propaganda.

If God exists or not, is not the issue here; the issue is the intellectual responsability of the books' authors to present the arguments they're criticizing in their actual formulation. They have the responsability of educating the public with the TRUTH, not with fallacies and misrepresentations.

As serious readers, we cannot ask for less.

PS.
The fact that Harris' books are best-sellers, and are widely read and celebrated by many atheists, confirm my hypothesis that hard-core atheists are irrational: they simply have not the intellectual ability, the proper cognitive faculties and rationality to detect Harris' fallacies, and this is why they tend to swallow them entirely.

If my hypothesis is correct, and hard-core atheistic materialists/naturalists are irrational, then they'll tend to agree with Harris's irrationalities and fallacies. And this is exactly what we find.

Maximo Sandin and the emergent New Biology. A spanish agnostic biologist proposes an alternative scientific theory of evolution

Contemporary debates about evolution are framed in terms of a dilemma: Either you swallow Darwinism and its crude and simplistic explanations (in which "natural selection" is the secular equivalent to an omnipotent "Creator", for example, of all biological species and the rich variety of life forms, of human morality, of our cognitive faculties, of rationality, of consciousness, of life, of religious beliefs, or even of the universe itself. A clear faith-based position.) , or you accept some version of Intelligent Design. Rarely, if ever, the debate between darwinians and ID supporters is purely scientific. In most cases, the debate is philosophical and ultimately "religious" (this is caused, in part, by the hard-core atheist's irrational obsessions with God and religion. This atheistic insanity explains why, whenever you pose some criticism, argument or doubt against Darwinism, the obsessive and irrational atheist assumes that you're a religious fundamentalist and hence the atheist will accuse you of "creationist", even if you're an agnostic or even an atheist with honest doubts about Darwinism. This atheistic irrationalism, obsession, delusion and insanity is clearly obscurantist because it prevents any fruitful scientific debate about Darwinism, and this is why there is not point in trying to rationally and objectively discuss these matters with hard-core Darwinian atheistic dogmatists, propagandists, irrationalists and other ideologues).

But there are scientific reasons to think that the above dilemma is a false one. In the following article, you can read a paper by a leading biologist from Spain named Maximo Sandin, who's probably the leading scientific critic of Darwinism in Europe. (Unfortunately, most of Sandin's brilliant scientific work is not available in English). He's an agnostic, who has not interest in religious (e.g. atheists vs. creationists) debates. His main interest and concern is the scientific status of biology, and how the most recent empirical findings not only argueably refute Darwinism, but that strongly suggests new explanatory mechanisms for the evolutionary process and therefore creates the need for the formulation of a new scientific theory of evolution.

Read Sandin's paper carefully, objectively and rigurously. Share this paper with biologists or students of biology and other professional scientists and students in related biological and social sciences, and discuss with them Sandin's scientific arguments and evidence. Then, draw your own conclusions.

BIOLOGY: AN OLD PERSPECTIVE
Máximo Sandín, Departamento de Biología, 1.996
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.

The currently predominant scientific vision of the world originated in the "scientific revolution" begun in the XVI and XVII centuries by Copernicus, Galileo and Newton's theories. The technical and economic boom that produced the subsequent industrial revolution drove science towards a mechanistic, utilitarian approach to nature, the purpose of which was (and still is) to predict and control the studied phenomena. Until then, the close contact with nature inherent to Western and other cultures' lifestyles had engendered an "ecological" vision of "Mother Earth". Scientific perception of the world was aimed at understanding the meaning of natural phenomena (in a religious or philosophical context) rather than trying to dominate them.

New knowledge from physics and ecology has highlighted the failure (and peril) of man's attempt to control nature, and suggests a need to return to an "old way of looking" at the world.

BIOLOGY: AN OLD PERSPECTIVE

Students of science history will not be surprised to find that "objective" scientific observations can easily be a reflection of the observer's own mental framework. This culturally determined "way of thinking" derives from the combination of more or less accidental historical circumstances that shape the beliefs of a specific society at a given time, along with personal circumstances shaped by the subject's own experience and training. It is what the science philosopher Thomas Kuhn called the "Paradigm", which is not a scientific theory or hypothesis, but a way of looking at the world which is influenced by scientific observation and experience, and also by the observer's cultural prejudice.

Scientific interpretation of nature, especially of the origin and relationships between living beings, is perhaps one the disciplines that has most clearly evidenced this "cultural dependency", most probably due to an unconscious, a posteriori attempt by the scientist to find or rather justify man's place in nature in accordance with the most profound, deeply rooted beliefs of his social and cultural context.

Not even the greatest minds of history have freed themselves from this trap. Aristotle's hierarchical concept of the animal world and different peoples can be explained by the fact that he was a member of the aristocracy and hence a slave owner.

The theory of cataclysms and successive creations used by Cuvier to explain the obvious sudden changes in the fauna between geological strata had clear religious connotations in addition to the influence of his contemporary revolutionary spirit. There are hundreds of similar examples familiar to us, and thousands more...

So, what about the present concept of the living world?

The theory of evolution, the central idea to the description of the origin and relationships amongst living beings and between them and their environment, is apparently solidly based on Darwin's 1869 work, "The Origin of the Species by Natural Selection". The influence of the predominant contemporary economic and social theories by Malthus and Spencer is obvious. Thus, if we at least admit the possibility that certain cultural influences or prejudices about the scientific perspective on the world, a brief reference to the current context is also pertinent.

From an historical perspective, the present situation is none other than the culmination, and perhaps the start of the crisis, of the economic and social model that began at the time of Darwin's theory. The consolidation and sophistication of the two models have certain similarities.
When the free market economy was expanding at the start of this century, the empirical basis provided by the mathematical theory of population genetics for the description and prediction of biological variation facilitated the reorganisation and consolidation of the Darwinian theory in academic circles. Under the name of the Synthetic Theory, it claims that the micro-evolutionary processes of random mutation that generate variability and random genetic drift are harnessed by natural selection or intraspecific competition, thereby acting as the driving force for change and evolution.

Let us try to withdraw from the time context (to do so from the cultural environment is harder) and try to contextualise the present paradigm. Although the synthetic theory has sufficient explanatory capacity and potential for experimental verification to explain the observable variability in present living beings, it is much less appropriate for explaining how this point has been reached. Even Darwin himself was unconvinced, writing, "Why, if the species have descended from other species through undetectably minute graduations, do we not see everywhere innumerable forms of transition? Why is the whole of Nature not in confusion instead of the species, as we see them, being well defined?"

If his theory was true "The number of intermediate and transitory stages between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great." In other words, there should be evidence of the transition between the different animal phyla (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals), although this is obviously not the case. Moreover, the larger the amount of data available, the greater the evidence of the lack of a gradual transition between groups (Fig. 1). Darwin himself acknowledged that this was "the most obvious and serious objection that could be raised against my theory."

As in so many other cases, however, the disciples turn out to be more radical defenders of the master's theory than their master himself: the modern defenders of natural selection (the clearly predominant body of thought in the scientific world) claim that by working gradually through intraspecific competition on random mutations, natural selection is not only an acceptable explanation of present biological variation, but is moreover the only possible mechanism to explain it.

One extremely belligerent (and apparently successful) exponent of this attitude, the prestigious zoologist R. Dawkins (1), finds no difficulty in explaining the appearance of new complex structures in living creatures as the result of the accumulation of random mutations shaped by natural selection. He does not hesitate to use this mechanism to describe the appearance of the eye, for example, in spite of its complex structure and cerebral connections and its controversial evolution: "One per cent vision is better than total blindness, 6% is better than 5%, and so on upwards in a gradual, continuous series." This simplistic way of "explaining" the appearance of complex new organs and structures is quite common in texts on evolution, despite its obvious weakness, since otherwise they could not be explained in terms of natural selection acting gradually on random mutations as a mechanism for change.

Nevertheless, the lack of any creative role by this process can even be seen in the experiments that purport to confirm it: the famous example of "industrial melanism" in the peppered moth (Fig. 2) shows that natural selection can only explain variations within the limits of a certain species. In 1973, the French biologist Pierre Grassé (L'Evolution du Vivant" wrote that proof of Darwinian evolution "...Is merely the observation of demographic factors, local fluctuations of genotypes and of geographic distributions. The observed species have often remained practically unchanged for hundreds of years!" This phenomenon is familiar to palaeontologists. It has led S.J. Gould and N. Eldredge (2) to formulate the theory of "punctuated equilibrium", according to which most species appear suddenly in the fossil records and remain with few or no changes until their disappearance or sudden transformation into a different species that arrives fully formed (Fig. 3).

Proof of this (previously described by Cuvier in the XVIII century) should lead us to think that the way one species is transformed into another might indicate that there is something other than the gradual change mechanism postulated by the synthetic theory. On the contrary, however, Gould and Eldredge's interpretation does not leave the slightest room for such a possibility. They claim that these new species are formed quickly "in a geological context", but always through the action of natural selection on gradual changes.

Evidence for this phenomenon might have prompted Darwin to propose an alternative mechanism to explain these sudden changes. But it is too late. The Paradigm is too well entrenched.

One perhaps simple but nevertheless pertinent example can be found in modern cities. For the average citizen of industrialised countries, bound to the tough working conditions of a competitive society based on production and consumption, every individual is a potential competitor, customer or employee (this may also be extrapolated to international relations). This is precisely the "scientific" vision set out by Dawkins (3) in his "selfish gene" theory, based of course on the "objective" observation of relations between organisms, which is supported by a considerable number of biologists.

Of course this is an extreme example of neo-Darwinian tendencies, and has obvious ideological connotations. Not all scientists accept such radical socio-biological views. The majority, however, when subjected to the paradigm of natural selection as the driving force of change and competition as its main resource, try to justify the growing body of evidence for genetic variability in organisms, increasingly inexplicable in terms of natural selection, by pointing to a growing proportion of neutral mutations and random microevolutionary phenomena (4).

THE "SAMURAI" BIOLOGISTS

The apparent inability to accept that the fundamental problem, the origin of these divergent and often contradictory explanations, might be the cultural approach used in the to analysis, does not prevent this phenomenon from arising in scientists from other cultures.

One of the best-known Japanese biologists is Mooto Kimura. His "neutralist" theory of evolution is based on "orthodox" criteria and methods, (i.e., acceptable to western science), as he is an expert in population genetics. Nevertheless, his conclusions appear to question the Darwinian model. He claims that the majority of DNA mutations are neutral, i.e., they do not give the organism a real advantage in the "struggle for survival". Naturally, as a specialist in population genetics, he has been able to test the action of natural selection, although he does not believe that it has the "creative" importance attributed to it by Darwinists.

Another highly prestigious Japanese biologist, practically unknown in the West, is less influenced by the "orthodox" methodology. Kinji Imanishi (University of Kyoto), who has been studying evolution since 1941, claims that Darwinism errs in overemphasising the individual, when in fact the group is the real entity. Nature encourages continuity, mutual relationships and stability. He believes that the basic concept is "coexistence" and not the Darwinian "competition principle". Change is progressive and co-ordinated in cells, organisms and in populations. In evolution, all individuals of a species change at the same time when the moment arrives. It is a "maturing" process, not a random mechanical change in a few genes.

The most interesting feature of this vision, which is the closest match to the fossil record evidence, is that the author acknowledges its cultural component- an attitude hard to imagine in "orthodox" scientists: "Darwin lives in the West and Imanishi in the East", he writes. Western culture exalts individualism; life is competition, while Eastern philosophy/religion is impregnated with a sense of solidarity, the preponderance of the society over the individual.

In "Darwin amongst the Samurai" (Mundo Científico, vol.6, nº 4), the French biologist Pierre Thuillier discusses Imanishi's theory: "Hence, the anti-Darwinist theory can freely develop a "poetic vision" that has the basic advantage of appealing to the Japanese public. Ultimately, the harmonious nature described by Imanishi plays a "compensatory" role. When the Japanese experience harsh competition in their everyday lives, the evolutionary utopia offered to them gives them a reason to believe in a better world."

Apart from this questionable interpretation of Japanese society (a lot could be said about how such competition is organised, its social integration and its results), it is striking that he justifies the origin of a scientific theory on both its cultural context and the "tastes" of its audience. The author does not, however, suggest a similar phenomenon in the "Western" theory, as from his cultural perspective, "It is proven that intraspecific competition is manifested in 90% of the cases studied". He goes on, "Have Kimura and Imanishi been carried away , so to speak, by the same cultural wave?" Thuillier claims that, "Imanishi brings us back to an old, still unresolved problem: the integration of Western science [i.e., Science] by an outside culture." ( the present author's italics). Outside cultures (outside what?), however, may have "useful" aspects. Thuillier discusses Werner Heisenberg's opinion about the Japanese physicists Tomonaga and Yukawa: "For example, the great contribution by Japan to quantum mechanics since the last war may indicate a certain relationship between traditional Eastern philosophical ideas and the philosophical contents of the quantum theory. It may be easier to adapt to the quantum concept of reality when one has not yet been subjected to the simplistic materialism that still reigns in Europe in the final decades of this century." For Thuillier, this cultural way of looking at matter (the Paradigm) seems valid when describing some aspects of reality but not others, as he concludes: "The difference is that Yukawa turned to physics and in 1949 was awarded the Nobel Prize, while Imanishi, who continued to reject the "bellicose philosophy of neo-Darwinian evolution, chose to challenge it with anti-western evolutionism."

It thus seems that matter,reality, differs according to one's scientific discipline.... Or perhaps it might be that the differences depend on who is doing the studying.

Let us briefly return to quantum physicists who seem to have disengaged themselves from their cultural context to some extent (their obvious advantage is that their study matter is abstract tand thus avoids socio-economic nuances). What is the "philosophical component" of their theory that suggests such kinship with Asian traditions?

Put simply (with apologies to Dr. Heisenberg), there are three outstanding aspects: put in "accessible" terms, the first is that subatomic particles, the ultimate components of matter, are not "individual entities" (particles in a material sense), but only exist in terms of their relationship with the rest. The second is that energy/matter, produced by these "systems of particles" is organised into discontinuous "quanta" from the level of elementary particles up to the Universe. These systems are formed by lower level systems that interact in such a way that "the whole is more than the sum of its parts", called "Holons" by the physicist A. Koestler.

The third and perhaps hardest feature to "visualise" is that the elementary particles, electrons, have the dual quality of being particle and wave at the same time opposing and at the same time complementary conditions, and thus their essence cannot be described at a given moment other than in terms of probability.

QUANTUM NATURE

These three concepts all differ from the mechanistic, materialist view of reality described by Heiseberg, but are accepted by the scientific community as if they were scientifically demonstrable facts, (i.e., empirically and experimentally), in spite of being hard to "visualise" materially. If, however, we focus on our "visual field", an intermediate space between subatomic particles and the Universe, we might have a "direct experience". Can these concepts be applied to the living world by applying the freedom of the physicist's mind?

Let us consider the first two points. Although the trend or inevitable necessity in biology for specialisation leads to the study of very restricted aspects of living beings (at times to a surprising extent), it seems clear that the concept of the "independent organism" has little real value. Ecology explains that living beings organise themselves through intense exchanges with their surroundings, which in turn are organised as a dynamic, highly integrated ecosystem. The sum of these ecosystems also makes up system of living and non-living forms at different levels, amongst which there are interrelationships and interdependencies. Finally, the whole biosphere constitutes an enormous dynamic, self-regulating ecosystem.

At lower levels, the organisms themselves are open systems composed of units that are grouped into organs that work in co-ordination with others, and which at the same time are formed by cells- highly complex systems that include mechanisms to transform energy, information and regulation networks, the generation of internal and external structures.... All of these levels have the common quality that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, none of which can survive if not in harmony with the rest. Not even genes can be regarded as individual entities, since their activity (and existence) depends on the co-ordinated interaction of many regulatory proteins, histones, RNA and even other individual or grouped genes that must be synchronised. In other words, biological processes seen in overall terms are in effect systems that integrate different levels and work in harmony, as a whole according to the "eastern-quantum" perspective.

Of course the relationships between each component could be described more prosaically (more "objectively" in our perspective) in terms of struggle or competition: a way of describing biological phenomena such as the selection of males for mating, food gathering, the immune processes and even the mechanisms for genetic regulation, which can be defined in terms of "competition between histones and the transcription factors" (5). This interpretation of struggle or competition may, however, have an element of observer input which, when the specific fact is analysed, might understate its significance or function in the more global context of its relational system and the final results.

BACTERIA: "QUANTAL LIFE"

One spectacular example of such a dual interpretation is a phenomenon that I consider crucial to biological processes- the origin of the eukaryotic cell and hence the first component systems of living beings.

The mystery of the formation of the first cell, a complex and exquisitely interweaving of processes that is so hard to explain from an orthodox perspective (6) as a result of gradual, more or less random chemical processes, has been explained by Margulis and Sagan so soundly that it is considered to be one of the few scientifically proven evolutionary processes. The insertion of a Prochoron bacterium, or aerobic bacteria like Paracoccus or Rhodopseudomonas , into another (Fig. 4) seems clearly (morphologically and functionally) to have been the origin of chloroplasts and mitochondria, essential organelles of eukaryotic cells. It can also be verified by deciphering and comparing the DNA of these organelles with the above-mentioned bacteria, revealing surprising similarities that are indicative of a faithful conservation of these DNA sequences from their origin. The authors also claim to have observed the symbiotic origin of eukaryotic cell organelles in the derivation of cellular microtubules from spirochaetes.

The orthodox interpretation of this extraordinary process is that it is a case of phagocytosis (i.e., one "bacteria industry" or "bacteria bank" devouring or assimilating another) conferring a selective advantage , or a case of parasitism (by which one benefits at the other's expense).

From a different perspective, i.e., from outside the paradigm of competition as the driving force of evolution, it can be described as the integration or co-operation of two or more systems, the result of which something more than the sum of its constituent parts: Bacteria are systems, totalities, what physicists call Holons and, although seemingly strange, this integrity ensures their sudden appearance, given that totalities, like quanta in physics, cannot appear gradually. This different perspective might encourage a search for the meaning within the phenomenon- its teleological content (which is not in itself negative or ascientific, but merely a possibility), and allow the deduction or induction of the results or consequences of such co-operation.

This concept (or something similar) has been used in a rigorous study of the phenomenon by Margulis, who defends bacteria against their "excessively maligned" traditional role ("What is Life? Simon and Schuster, 1995) as merely the source of illness, overlooking their vital role in the origin of eukaryotic cells and a wide variety of important functions within the dynamic relationship between the "living" and "nonliving" worlds. It is generally accepted that in the origins, the extraction of carbon dioxide from the primitive atmosphere and the generation of an atmosphere with a high oxygen content was largely due to the activity of photosynthetic bacteria and subsequently of unicellular algae, their first descendants.

Moreover, present-day bacterial functions may differ greatly from the pathological character usually ascribed to them. Some fix nitrogen in poor soils and facilitate plant life which would otherwise be impossible, others produce fermentation and make substances assimilable and useful to complex organisms which could not be exploited without such prior activity. Some do their work in herbivore intestines, some in humans, while others transform elements that are toxic to other organisms such as nitrogen, sulphur and carbon compounds into organic matter that can be absorbed by plants.

The neo-Darwinian explanation of these necessary processes for life might "simply" be that the bacteria have adapted to a lifestyle that coincidentally is useful for life itself. However, there is further process (guided mutation) which disturbs the defenders of the orthodox theory, as it may well "waken the ghosts of Lamarckian evolution", although it might also shed light on the matter. It has been found (8) that when certain bacteria are presented with a food source they cannot use, they mutate (in this case two independent mutations which alone would be of no use) that facilitate the assimilation. The probability of this simultaneous event happening spontaneously is virtually nil. It is thus a response to the environmental conditions, and hence a postadaptive mutation.

In other words, as Margulis indicates, they are not merely pathogenic agents but a basic component of life. They obviously have a pathogenic character, but one might consider that this is so when an external phenomenon disrupts the harmony (or, if that sounds too "eastern" or unscientific, the balance) by which biological phenomena occur in nature. In an ecological sense, is there a "bad guy" in the food chain?

THE VIRUS: MESSENGER OF DEATH - MESSENGER OF LIFE?

Speaking of "bad guys", there are other "critters" that do not seem to fit into this "harmonious" vision of the terrestrial ecosystem. Judging by the social repercussions echoed in the scientific and general media, the virus has apparently become the worst enemy of the human race.

In scientific terms, the way they invade cells, their self-organisational ability, their origin and place in nature, etc., are still a mystery despite their detailed study and our knowledge of many of their genetic sequences (Fig. 5).

These beings on the boundary between the living and non-living worlds have no real existence except within other organisms. Outside, they cannot be regarded as "live" organisms. They are simply a DNA or RNA molecule wrapped in a protein capsule of a sometimes surprisingly geometric shape. The way that these "inert" bodies inject their genetic material into the host cell is also surprising, but more astonishing still is that with their genetic material they feed in the enzymatic machinery that makes it possible to cut and merge the host cell's DNA with their own, entering the host cell where they can stay inactive or begin to translate their own genetic information. In some cases this information allows new viruses to be constructed using the cellular machinery until the cell is destroyed and others are infected. This is their pathological quality. Others, however, merely feed their genetic information into the rest of the cellular DNA (Fig. 6).

The biological significance of this integration process may be familiar to the reader: it is a means by which two genetic units (two systems) can combine into a single larger unit. How does this fit into the evolutionary context? This feature makes the virus worthy of consideration as a potential mechanism for the input of complex DNA sequences into animal and plant genomes. By taking the unconventional path, i.e., instead of trying to fit the data to a preconceived body of ideas that explain evolution, we shall look at the data afresh and then see what plan they suggest.

Variable amounts of DNA known as "endogenous viruses" have been found in animal and plant genomes. Most of the different types are thought to be derived from exogenous viruses that infected the species in the past and have become endogenous by insertion into germ cells. Thousands of sequences of viral origin are being discovered that actively participate in the function of distinct tissues. Some of these sequences can be regarded as true genetic fossils; "ancient" proviruses that have undergone multiple mutation although they can still be linked to some present retroviruses. Others occur in the form of mobile or transposable elements (TE)- DNA sequences capable of moving and inserting themselves or their copies into new locations in the genome.

The meaning of the presence and activity of all these viral elements in animal and plant genomes can be deduced from their effects. Through their reinsertion, the mobile elements can provoke chromosomal reorganisation and, above all, changes in gene expression and regulation, with important evolutionary consequences. A retrotransponson has been described that is responsible for the modification-amplification of the expression of the genes involved in amylase secretion. In mammals it is only secreted in the pancreas, but in humans it is also secreted by the salivary lands, thus extending the range of food that can be ingested- a clear adaptive advantage. Other retrotransposons are involved in the regulation of genes linked to hystocompatibility (9), and to the expression in tissues of human, mammal, invertebrate and plant alphaglobines (10, 11, 12, 13).

This explains the lack of correspondence in attempts to link the morphological evolution of closely related species to the rates of amino acid change in proteins: it may have taken place primarily by means of changes in the regulation of genetic activity rather than through changes in amino acid sequences.

Recent discoveries are even more spectacular (and informative) about the activity of endogenous viruses: in some cases, endogenous retroviruses can carry genes from the somatic to the germ line. In a recent study, Rothenfluh demonstrates the existence of a genetic transmission mechanism of the acquired immunological memory of lymphocytes to the germ line, thus constituting a strictly Lamarckian mechanism. In other cases, the retroviral sequences are expressed directly: nearly 1% of the 10,5000 completely known genetic sequences expressed in 37 animal tissues correspond to endogenous retroviruses and are expressed as a constituent part of the brain, placenta, embryo, lung, etc. (Genome Directory, Sept. 1995).

Finally, another important form of activity from an evolutionary-mythological perspective has been discovered in HIV-1 retroviral antigens, expressed in human placenta trophoblast cells. This important task contributes to the morphological differentiation of these cells.

Data from a well-studied organism in developmental genetics can provide clues to the obvious evolutionary significance of this phenomenon, as well as in terms of the control of cell proliferation: 15 retroviral sequences have been identified in Drosphila embryos, whose purpose is the spatial and temporal control of the development of different tissues (12).

An expanding body of this type of information can be found in recent (and doubtlessly future) scientific publications on molecular biology, virology, genetics, etc.

A VERY OLD NEW MODEL

Returning to the previous theme, what might this type of information mean from an evolutionary perspective? In the above context, it provides a reasonable answer to several unresolved problems for the Synthetic Theory:

Firstly, it demonstrates the existence of a mechanism by which the new genetic information may be fed into genomes by the integration of a complete system- a mechanism that is much more plausible than the mutation-disorganisation of a closely interconnected cellular system. Secondly, it may explain the appearance of these new sequences (Goldsmith's "macromutations, se Box 2), in a sufficient number of individuals to facilitate their survival as a species. And thirdly, the sudden changes associated with this phenomenon would prove the existence of the saltationist phenomena observed in the fossil record.

Defenders of the conventional evolution theory would not hesitate to reject these three general aspects, but if we avoid the theoretical or philosophical implications and focus on the rationalist, Cartesian methodology -the only one in our cultural context of any use for a scientific analysis of reality, we can seek possible proof for these three suppositions.

Abundant molecular information solidly backs the first aspect: one significant example is the extremely conservative nature of ancestral sequences that can be traced from bacteria up to higher organisms. They can be followed from the regulatory sequences of genetic activity such as the TBP (the "universal protein"), through cellular proteins, up to cellular structures such as microtubules. This astonishing pattern is often mentioned but rarely given any importance. However, it would obviously not happen if evolution were to happen by small random mutations that had diversified the DNA from the bacterial origin up to the present organisms.

This is not a mere hypothesis or interpretation. The changes and chronology of genetic sequences by integration have recently been documented: sequence analysis of genes related to the expression of amylase in human salivary glands suggests that the retrotransposon responsible for amplifying its expression may have been inserted 45 million years ago (the palaeontologically established point of separation between prosimians and anthropods (9). Furthermore, the retrotransponsible element L-1.2, the first to be identified in the human DNA in chromosome 22, has been located in the same place in chimpanzees and gorillas (15), suggesting that it has been at the same genome location for at least 6 million years.

Spectacular results have been obtained recently in the study of large tax, although they do not lead to any evolutionary interpretation as they are inexplicable from the official paradigm. A considerable difference between the retroviral "populations" of reptiles and those of birds and mammals has been demonstrated (16).

Does this have an explanation from our perspective?

Other, less demonstrable but no less indicative proof can be added to this list. Several aspects of embryonic development have been interpreted lucidly by Charline and Devilliers (17) in an evolutionary context. They claim that the biological variation of the Synthetic Theory, which states that genes are treated in calculations of evolutionary genetics as being independent from each other, "is an unsustainable reductionist position. Not all genetic combinations are actually feasible. There is a small number of genotype combinations for each organisational plan." The genome now appears to be "a system organised into hierarchical and interconnected functional levels." The gene ceases to be a free agent , and becomes "a member of a society whose correction mechanisms restrict its potential for variation within a range of the possible and the impossible". The stability of these paths, however, would not imply that they were unalterable. natural selection has clearly worked in living beings, but only on specific characters in the final stages of embryonic development, whose inflexibility diminishes as the initial "almost immutable" stages such as those that determine the overall organisation are superseded by phases that are more "open" to minor changes.

The action of retroviral sequences involved in cellular differentiation is perfectly plausible in this embryonic mechanics of "hierarchised and interconnected functional levels", as this is a means of feeding into a closely knit system the sequences (the system) necessary for the expression of a new tissue (or even an organ) with a large number of equally interconnected processes that this requires.

Strange as it may seem, the experts in ontolonogenetic development are not surprised. They conclude their article by asking, "Have these intermediate forms, so often lost and missed, always existed? Are they not in many cases simply the fruit of imagination impregnated by the necessity of continuous series?" The conclusion from the rigorous analysis of embryonic processes and their role in evolutionary change is clear: "The discontinuity (of the fossil record) may not be contingent- linked to gaps in the record-, but rather fundamental, which can be attributed the evolutionary mechanics."

What is really disturbing about this more than plausible evolutionary mechanism, however, is that it inevitably implies that the viral sequences which most probably have been involved in the evolution process must have contained a priori complex sequences with a biologically consistent expression. Naturally one may think that their current expression may have been acquired "randomly" after their insertion, but certain anatomic facts help to choose one of the two alternatives.

"Mosaic evolution", normally used as an example of gradual change (Fig. 7), is usually explained very vaguely in palaeontology texts. Often used examples are the "mammal-like reptiles" from the Permian and Archaeopterix (268 and 150 M.y.a., respectively). However, these examples not only give the impression of a gradual change, but also of large-scale reorganisations that involve simultaneously interrelated sets of tissues and organs (for a deeper analysis, see "Lamarck y los Mensajeros" by the present author).

Perhaps the most important information in this sense stems from a much more surprising and controversial evolutionary process. "Adaptive convergence" has been defined from the neo-Darwinian perspective as proof "of the incredible ability of natural selection to collect good designs" (1), i.e., incredible similarities produced by random (and individual) mutations that survive and dominate as a result of similar selection pressure. This claim, however, is based more on a firm belief than on scientifically proven facts. How can these random, independent mutations explain the surprisingly close resemblance in the general morphology of species from different sub-classes of mammals that branched in the Early Jurassic (200 M. y.a.) and have evolved separately since then, e.g., marsupials and placentals? Morphologically similar versions of wolves, cats, moles, flying squirrels, anteaters have arisen in Australia (Fig. 8). Is the same morphology necessary to move across the ground and feed? Is it imposed directly by habitat, which on the other hand is not absolutely identical on every continent? Why could the randomly produced organisational plan not have led to the existence of a chickephant, for example?

The present or past existence of complex genetic sequences that led to these "general designs" may seem mysterious, but on clear reflection, it would be even more fantastic if they had been reached via processes that are accepted as logical by the conventional evolution theory. Whatever the case, for orientation purposes we may recall a mammalian order in the early Palaeocene (66 M.y.a.), the Creodonts, which left no "direct" descendants, i.e., they bear no relation to their present counterparts although their remains prove that their anatomies "resembled" ferrets, cats, wolverines or dogs.

Similar phenomena have also been observed in insects and plants. Taken together, these arguments probably cannot even establish the plausibility of this process, so we shall make a final effort using the arisal of the eye, an incredibly complex and efficient structure with simultaneous essential neuronal complements, which has been the subject of fierce debate. Some sequences even belong to retroelements involved in the formation and function of the crystalline lens (18). The existence and structural similarity of the eye in many phylogenetically distinct lines has obliged acceptance of the surprising idea that because it is an efficient model, it may have arisen several times in the (fantastic) random process of evolution. Pausing for thought along the rationalist method, this multiple development would be statistically equivalent to the probability of a gorilla (or in its absence an action movie star) bashing away at random at a typewriter and producing Don Quixote several times over. In spite of the range of "environment pressures" , however, it is surprising to see the close resemblance of, for example, vertebrate and octopus eyes.

All of these data lead us to propose an alternative concept or model which Darwin himself would probably have accepted as a clarification of his doubts. It is an old model that shares the concepts of Cuvier and Lamarck who, incidentally, can be found at the deepest roots of Darwin's work.

In effect, "intermediate stages" cannot be seen in the fossil record, nor even in living species, because they probably never existed. We have also seen that the inheritance of acquired genetic characteristics is possible, and even the horizontal transmission of these genetic sequences amongst species in different phyla is possible (19).

Furthermore, we would also accept the evidence of data that shed light on an old debate: whether selection equals (or implies) adaptation but not evolution. The truth is in fact completely the opposite. Moreover, even if one accepts the "non-creative" but conservationist role of natural selection, it is still impossible to adduce a fundamental role to all-powerful chance, in the light of two striking facts that have been disputed since the onset of the Darwinian theory: the response of organisms to natural selection and the perfect adaptations to the environmental conditions (in many cases so sophisticated that Darwinian biologists tend to use Lamarckian expressions, "The branchii grow longer or increase their area in order to extract oxygen more efficiently in deep water", etc.). The complexity of processes involving many adaptations makes their appearance extremely difficult to justify as a random action of small individual mutations and their subsequent slow expansion through the population by means of mechanisms proposed in population genetics.

There are, however, mechanisms that seem to justify "mutations" as a response to the environment, making these two phenomena more reasonable. Recently (20) non-pathogenic viruses have been found to undergo multiple mutations that render them virulent as a consequence of dietary deficiency in the host.

The Coxsackievirus is a family of two types- A and B. Their infection of humans induces pathologies in only 10% of cases, some of which have been well documented experimentally. In mice, for example, the CVB3 and CBV4 viruses produce inflammations of the myocardia and pancreas respectively.

When mice were inoculated with a non-viral strain of Coxsackievirus 3 (CV3/O), a selenium-deficient diet was found to produce a single, extremely virulent type of CVA3 in different mice 10 days after inoculation. Their genomes revealed that they had undergone 6 nucleotide changes at the same 6 positions. Studies of different nucleotide changes in the CVB3 genome confirm that there is a small number of changes linked to this virulent trait, i.e., not just any change will do.

The paper interprets this obvious response to environmental stress through several independent mutations (reminiscent of what we have seen in bacteria) in a way that is driven by the obligation (perhaps unwitting) to not transgress the orthodox interpretation, i.e., the paradigm. It claims that there were multiple random mutations and what was found in the different mice was the result of selection that had led the different viruses to precisely the same mutations.

This interpretation is hard to defend. It is a further example of the way that scientists "tend to see what they have been trained to see, and cease to see what they know should not be there" (Kuhn). Subjecting the data to the paradigm of competition as the driving force of change impedes one's view of the obvious, and leads to interpretations that are at times so complicated that they verge on the miraculous in explaining much simpler phenomena (albeit no less mysterious to our mental schemes- Fig. 9).

The aggressive vision of nature criticised by Imanishi sometimes turns scientific language into something reminiscent of military terminology. We are at war against the virus, at war against bacteria, against insects... But perhaps, as has often been the case in human history, we have provoked them beforehand. The difference is that in this case, there might be no winners.

However, by distancing ourselves from this viewpoint, well-reasoned explanations can be found to the evolutionary predicaments arising from such strained and often contradictory interpretations.

Viral integration provides a mechanism to explain the saltationist phenomena (obvious in the fossil record), speciation and even rapid response to the environment. Evidence of post-adaptive mutations in virus (also seen in bacteria and yeast) and the ability of the virus to integrate and then leave the genomes of living beings, explains horizontal transmission between different species, and even between different phyla. The latest discoveries of these surprising phenomena suggest that the whole concept of nature may have to be reworked. It is not a matter of starting over again (the methodology and specialisation have amply proven their efficiency), but rather changing the way of interpreting the information which, as we have seen, lead to different answers.

And these answers in turn make us ask new questions:

Might this response by the virus to environment stress explain the existence of sources of "emerging viruses" in populations subjected by the economic system to harsh misery and famine? When humanity lived in harmony with nature, we must have lived in a reasonable balance with micro-organisms (which does not mean that we were free of illness), and the permanent famine we see now at different points of the planet were then only sporadic events.

Are "scientific" manipulation such as the production of vaccines using ape blood, or xerotransplants (using the tissue of other animals) perhaps feeding specific viral sequences into humans from animals that might have terrible repercussions?

Are treatments using broad spectrum antiretroviruses on AIDS (or simply seropositive) patients damaging retroviral sequences that normally work in different organs, accelerating their death?

And finally, might "oncogenes" not simply be sequences of a viral origin, whose purpose is to work during embryonic growth to produce the cellular differentiation and proliferation of a specific tissue (an interesting clue is the extreme cellular specificity of the virus)? Might tumour proliferation be "simply" an activity of these sequences at an unfortunate moment, either due to environmental factors, of renowned influence in viral activation such as radiation, foreign chemical substances or dietary habits or deficiencies?(21).

The answer to these questions (and their practical consequences) does not imply that the "Paradigm" needs to be questioned, but it does highlight the need for a change of attitude in scientific and philosophical vision of natural phenomena. There may well be a great deal of truth in the harmonious concept proposed by Imanishi: the ideas of concerted change and maturing (Lamarck's trend towards complexity). This also indicates that a process may be underway that is still beyond the scope of our scientific and technical ability which are, in fact, a result of our way of thinking. Because what is definitely beyond doubt is the enormous danger (especially for humanity) of senseless attempts to manipulate biological processes which we really do not understand.

We do not dominate or control nature, although we are convinced that we do. We can only attack it, and we cannot predict its response, the way it will regain its balance. Unfortunately, this is not a metaphor but a fact that "ignorant natives" the world over have discovered and suffered: our science, our culture with its reductionist and mercantile attitude has focused too much on studying trees and the profit that can be made from them, which is precisely what has prevented us from discovering the beauty and harmony of the forest.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Dawkins, R. 1986. "The blind watchmaker". Longmans. London.
2. Elredge, N. & Gould, S.J. 1972. "Models in Paleobiology". T.J.M. Schopf (ed.)
W.M. Freeman.
3. Dawkins, R. 1975. "The selfish gene". Oxford University Press.
4. Charlesworth, B.; Sniegowski, P. & Stpan, W. 1994. "The evolutionary dynamics
of repetitive DNA in eukaryots". Nature. Vol. 371, 215-220.
5. Chouard, T. & Yaniv, M. 1994. "El control de la expresión de los genes". Mundo
Científico. Vol. 4. Nº 149.
6. Gesteland, R.F. & Atkins, J.F. 1993. "The RNA World". Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory Press.
7. Margulis, L. & Sagan, D. 1985. "El origen de las células eucariotas". Mundo
Científico. Vol. 5. Nº 46.
8. Rennie, J. 1993. "Los nuevos giros del ADN". Investigación y Ciencia. Nº 200.
9. Robins, D. & Samuelson, L. 1993. En "Transposable Elements and Evolution".
McDonald, J. (ed). Kluwer.
10. Kim, J.; Yu, C.; Bailey, A.; Hardison, R. & Shen, C. 1989. Nucleic Acid Res. 17,
5687-5701.
11. Marendez, C. & Johnson, L. 1990. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA. 87, 2531-2535.
12. Dnig, D. & Lipshitz, H.D. 1994. "Spatially regulated expression of retrovirus-like
transposons during Drosophila melanogaster embryogenesis". Genetical Research. 64:
3.
13. Mc.Donald, J. & Cuticchiaba, J. 1993. En "Transposable Elements and
Evolution". McDonald, J. (ed). Kluwer.
14. Lyden, T.W.; Johnson, P.M.; Mwenda, J.M.; Rote, N.S. 1995. "Expresion of
endogenous HIV-1 crossreactive antigens within normal extravillous trophoblast cells".
Journal of Reproductive Inmunology, 28, 3.
15. Dombroski, B.A.; Mathias, S.L.; Nanthakumar, E.J.; Scott, A.F. & Kazazian,
M.M.Jr. 1991. "Isolation of the L1 gene responsible for a retrotransposition event in
man". Am. J. Hum. Genet. 49, 403.
16. Tristem, M.; Myles, T. & Hill, T. 1995. "A highly divergent retroviral secuence
in the tuatarc (Sphenodon)". Virology, 210: 1.
17. Devillers, Ch.; Charline, J. & Laurin, B. 1990. "En defensa de una embriología
evolutiva". Mundo Científico, vol. 10, nº 105.
18. Brosius, J. & Gould, S.J. 1992. "On 'genenomenclature': a comprehensive (and
respectful) taxonomy for pseudogenes and other 'junk DNA'". Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 89:
10706-10710.
19. García, J.; Bayascas, J.R.; Marfany, G.; Muñoz, A.; Casali, A.; Baguna, J. &
Salo, E. 1995. "High copy number of highly similar mariner-like transposons in
planarian (Platyhelminthe): evidence for a trans-phyla horizontal transfer". Molecular
Biology and Evolution, 12: 3.
20. Gauntt, Ch. & Tracy, S. 1995. "Deficient diet evokes nasty heart virus". Nature
Medicine. Vol. 1. Nº 5.
21. Seifarth, W.; Sklandy, M.; Kriegschneider, F.; Reichert, A.; Mehlmann, R. &
Leibmosch, C. 1995. "Retrovirus-like particles released from the human breast cancer
line T47-D display tipe B- and C- related endogenous retroviral secuences". Journal of
Virology. 69: 10.

Box 1:

The selfish gene hypothesis or theory can be regarded as the philosophical culmination of liberal economic Darwinism taken to a mechanistic, reductionist extreme.

At present it is widely accepted by many biologists, especially geneticists and biochemists, who regard it as a good model to explain the variability of genetic sequences in different animal and plant genomes.

The theory claims that the real unit of evolution is neither the species nor the individual, but the individual gene or DNA segment which is virtually eternal once it has gained "supremacy" amongst populations. Organisms are only a vehicle, a survival machine for the genes.

According to Dawkins, all animal behaviour is guided by the following principle: "For every survival machine, every other survival machine is an obstacle to overcome or a resource to be exploited".

Criticism of this warped vision of nature includes the fact that this theory has become part of the British neo-Nazi party ideology. But it is not necessary to seek out radical ideological connotations. The theory is actually the basic idea underlying the business and social relations of our "free market economy".

Box 2

In the 1940's, the German geneticist R. Goldshmidt was the first scientist to propose a genetic explanation for the saltationist phenomena found in the fossil record. He found that ordinary and isolated mutations in Drosophila were too small to be extrapolated to macroevolution. There had to be "macromutations", i.e., mutations with an instantaneous effect that had a great influence on the viability of the individuals. The reaction by "orthodox" scientists was cruel. They claimed that the results of these "macromutations", which they sarcastically called "monsters with a future" or "hopeless monsters" would have no partners to mate with, and would thus have no place in evolution.

Nevertheless, viral integration not only makes "macromutations" feasible, but also the simultaneous appearance of a considerable number of "monsters with a future".

Figure legends

Figure 1

The comparison of basic components in today's major taxa (DNA, RNA, cellular proteins and even hormones") provides increasing support for the existence of these gaps in the fossil record. The phylogenetic relationships deduced from them are "lateral kinship", not descent.

Figure 2

"Industrial melanism" of the peppered moth is a classic example of direct observation of natural selection, and is commonly used in texts on evolution. When light-barked birch trees and building facades in England were darkened by industrial pollution at the start of the century, the dark moths became more abundant than the pale forms because predatory birds found them harder to see. When the pollution was reduced, the pale varieties became predominant again, i.e., only the proportions of each colour changed.

Figure 3

The presence of "living fossils" is usually attributed to the stability of the marine habitat, but this stability cannot explain the sudden disappearances and transformations that are seen in both the marine and terrestrial environment.

Figure 4

Research is bringing to light a growing number of bacteria which enter another and actively participate in their life cycle. The truly astonishing aspect is that this cannot be described as a case of phagocytosis or parasitism. It is real symbiosis which is transmitted by inheritance in many cases, i.e., the symbiotic association is maintained during reproduction.

Figure 5

The usual explanation for the origin of the virus is a fragmentation of genetic material, which "somehow" escaped from the original cell. This explanation might be comforting to a mechanistic mind, but neither its strange properties nor its appearance are so. the illustration shows a T-type phage. The electron microscope photograph shows a l -type phage "landing" on a bacteria. While those who have studied biology are familiar with the image and know (?) its origin, the traditionalists try to convince their "profane" audience that it is "merely" a piece of DNA that "escaped" from a cell.

Figure 6

The biological cycle of the virus, first seen in bacteria and then in eukaryotic cells, has two alternatives: in the lytic phase (A), the virus injects a DNA or RNA molecule which takes on a circular form and replicates by a rotation that generates a long DNA chain with several copies of viral genes. Each copy controls the synthesis and assembly of the proteins in the virus capsule using cellular material. In an hour, the host cell lyses (self-destructs), freeing some 100 viruses which can infect others. In other cases, depending on currently poorly known conditions, the lysogenic phase (B) arises. The viral DNA enters a point of the cellular DNA (specific to each virus) where it codifies its own genetic information and replicated in each cell division. Under these conditions, the latent virus ("protovirus") can be maintained indefinitely, although it
sustains its ability to produce a lytic cycle, multiplying itself anew. This process can be induced experimentally by exposing the cell to UV or X rays, or chemical compounds.

Once the cell is infected, the RNA or retro-viruses are transcribed to DNA by means of an enzyme: reverse transcription.

While the DNA has an extremely stable behaviour (it can reproduce more than 100 million times without a single nucleotide error in its chains), RNA viruses change (mutate) some 100,000 times faster than DNA viruses. The basic cause is that reverse transcription "does not know how to correct" the errors in the copy, and hence often feed "imprecise" nucleotides into the transcribed DNA. Considering the extreme stability of the DNA (heightened in the cell by the extraordinary mechanism of enzima.