PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Never forget it is through you that the survival of the human race shall come. You are to be the channel through which the true nature of existence is offered to humanity.
TINNY: I'm just a child.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If you here other than you are you could not have been chosen. How do you feel about the responsibility you hold?
TINNY: I accept all things as they are.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give some examples of the envolutionary process at different levels of material existence?
TINNY: I'll explain the process at two levels, the molecular and the biological. The essentials of the process are the same at both lower and higher levels of material development. These examples would be considered as representative, not exact.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'll be interested to hear envolution explained in relation to molecular development.
TINNY: Before there was molecular development, material existence manifested at its most complex was in the form of various atomic structures; hydrogen, helium, and all the other elements created by the fusion process in the first generation stars. After those different atoms were formed they first existed as separate entities. As those atoms acted in accord with their essential nature they altered the environment in such a way which allowed a new level of material existence to be manifested. That new level of material existence was expressed by the various atomic forms being able to join with other types of atomic forms. The atoms, no longer limited to existence as separate entities, created atomic multiples, referred to as molecules. As does all material existence, molecules progressed along a path of development from the simple to the complex.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the most simple molecular form?
TINNY: The simplest of the molecules are those made up of metal atoms joining only with others of their own kind. Molecules of this type can be called monatomic. All atoms consist of protons in the nucleus and electrons surrounding that nucleus. In the case of those most simple molecules the metallic bond between atoms leaves the electrons free to travel through the material structure of the monatomic molecule. All basic metals are formed from monatomic molecular bonds. It is the property of freedom that type of bond gives electrons which allows metals to conduct electric current. Even though all simple molecules of that type are made up of only one type of atom, it is here we can easily see how the increasing complexity of material form allows expression of an increasing number of qualities and characteristics. Atoms bonded in those simple monatomic molecules show properties which do not exist in single atoms. New characteristics emerge such as the aforementioned conductivity, and malleability, the quality of being able to be shaped.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which molecular form comes next?
TINNY: The next more complex molecular form is the type where one kind of atom unites with another kind of atom. Salts are an example of that simple type of compound molecule. A common salt is the molecule made up of one atom of sodium (Na) and one atom of chlorine (Cl), the chemical formula being NaCl, sodium chloride. In that type of molecule the atoms are held together by electrical attraction. That type of molecular bonding is called ionic. In ionic bonds the electrons do not travel freely but are confined to a local area where the attraction is distributed between a number of atoms in such a way that no common electron is firmly linked to only one other atom. The simple compound molecules of that type include not only salts but also many acids and bases. Because those molecules do not have individual binding between their atoms they often tend to be soluble, which means they will easily dissolve.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And what is the next more complex molecular form?
TINNY: The next most complex molecular form has a type of bond that does not depend on electrical attraction, but on sharing. That type of bond is called covalent and involves the combining of atoms sharing several electrons. In that molecular form electrons are linked always to the specific atoms which make up each molecule. Many molecules of that type consist of atoms of hydrogen and carbon in various covalent relationships. Those covalent compounds of hydrogen and carbon are called hydrocarbons. Because the covalent bonded molecule has a rather permanent bond between the atoms of the molecule, they exhibit a certain permanence. For this reason many hydrocarbons are not soluble, they do not dissolve in water. Hydrocarbons take such forms as oils, petrol, cooking gas, plus the most simple early hydrocarbons such as methane (CH4), a gas in the primeval atmosphere.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would seem there would be no more ways which individual atoms could be bound together but those three.
TINNY: That's true, there are no more ways which individual atoms could be bound together; but there are more complex forms of molecules.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can that be?
TINNY: The next stage of molecular complexity could be called compounds of compounds. Molecules of that type involving hydrocarbons are often called organic molecules.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Now that the molecules are not just combinations of individual atoms, but combinations of groupings of different atoms, there would have been a great increase in the number of possible molecules which could form.
TINNY: At that stage of molecular development there were hundreds of thousands of different organic molecules possible. Those increasingly complex molecular forms allowed new limits of material expression within the essential constraints of quantum factors.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That increasingly complex progression of material form allows greater and greater freedom of expression. All of those different molecular forms were inherent within the potential of the subatomic particles in the very early universe, but they couldn't be expressed until material existence had developed to a certain level of complexity.
TINNY: A natural unfolding.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there still other types of molecular forms?
TINNY: A few more. A further development in molecular form was the chain molecule, which may contain hundreds of thousands of identical links, each link being made up of a number of atoms in combination. Molecules of that type are called polymers and express the new characteristic of being able to grow in length by drawing energy from the environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say those molecules can grow.
TINNY: In a very simple way polymer molecules take on that new characteristic similar to the growth process of living organisms.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You're not saying polymers are alive, are you?
TINNY: I am not saying they are biological organisms.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did you just evade my question?
TINNY: Life is a continuous process which is manifested at every level of material development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let's get back to the different molecular forms which have been developing. What comes after the polymers, those chained molecules made of identical links of combinations of atoms?
TINNY: The next development in the increasing complexity of molecular forms, which went beyond the simple polymers, were chains of identical links with side chains coming off those identical links.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are the side chains off the identical links all the same?
TINNY: No, those side chains can be made up of many different combinations of atoms.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do molecules of that type have any common name?
TINNY: Proteins are an example of that type of molecule.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Proteins are the basic building blocks of all biological organisms.
TINNY: That's right. Protein molecules make up the structures of biological organisms, and perform the functions of biological organisms.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give me some examples of what you mean when you say those protein molecules make up the structures of, and perform the functions of biological organisms?
TINNY: Structures made of protein molecules include hair, skin, scales, feathers, all the organs of the body, and many others. The functions include respiration, digestion, and reproduction among many others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do those protein molecules look like?
TINNY: The side chains provide the means to twist the main chain into a spiral, called a helix. The side chains may also hook up to other links on the chain giving the molecules an elaborate spatial structure.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would that do?
TINNY: The particular spatial structure determines the properties and functions the protein molecule may express. For example, the haemoglobin molecule in the blood makes a container which picks up oxygen in the lungs and transports it to the various parts of the body.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What new characteristics does the protein molecule add beyond those of previous levels?
TINNY: The simple polymer molecules of the previous stage added the characteristic of growth. The protein molecules add a simple form of animation, a mobility beyond the random motion of previous stages.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there many different types of protein molecules?
TINNY: The number of possible types is yet unknown, but that number would be immense. Human beings alone require some fifty thousand different proteins.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any level of molecular complexity beyond the protein?
TINNY: The most complex level of molecular form is made up of two long chain molecules with their side chains linking the main bodies of the two chains along their length.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are those molecules called?
TINNY: Deoxyribonucleic acid is an example of that most complex molecular form.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's a very difficult name to say.
TINNY: That's probably why it's usually shortened to DNA.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's better. What new characteristic does the DNA molecule express?
TINNY: The DNA molecule is able to store information.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does it do that?
TINNY: The information is encoded by the particular sequence of the atomic structures along the length of the double spiral of the molecular chain.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What information does the DNA carry?
TINNY: It carries all the information needed to create and organise the proteins which make up the bodies of living organisms out of the available raw materials, the necessary basic atoms. It also carries all the information to organise and control the functions of the living organism.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That would be a lot of information.
TINNY: If it was all written out in words the information carried by the human DNA molecule would fill several thousand books.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How big is one of those DNA molecules?
TINNY: Too small to see.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It's amazing something so small could contain so much.
TINNY: Most amazing.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: After that explanation the process of envolution at the molecular level is much more clear.
TINNY: As atoms group together in increasing numbers and in increasing complexity their physical forms manifest an increasingly greater range of molecular characteristics.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The characteristics of the highest of those molecular forms are very similar to the characteristics of biological organisms.
TINNY: I suppose now you'll want me to explain biological development according to the concept of envolution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I do, but first I feel there is something you want to ask me.
TINNY: There is. I have been wondering about it all the time we were discussing molecular development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is it?
TINNY: You said I was the channel through which the true nature of existence is offered to humanity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's right.
TINNY: It's hard for me to believe that there are no others who know these things we have been talking about.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is true others know of these things, although the numbers who do are small. Even among those who know these things, the knowledge is most often imperfect.
TINNY: But my knowledge isn't perfect either.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: True, but it always happens this way.
TINNY: What always happens this way?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: At times of great change in the progression of human consciousness the one who is chosen as the channel always exists among many others who know the new knowledge but imperfectly, and a few others who know almost all the same new truths.
TINNY: What sets the one chosen as the channel of new knowledge apart from all others?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps no more than the particular moment in time.
TINNY: So the chosen one is not special?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is the message that is special, not the messenger.
TINNY: How is the messenger chosen?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The messenger is chosen in accord with the natural order of things. The development of consciousness envolves until at each level a limit is reached whereby the energy of new knowledge stretches the boundaries of that level in preparation to burst forth, reaching heights previously unknown. At that point, as the energies of new knowledge infuse the population, one being becomes the focal point. The impact of new knowledge culminates at that focal point, a whole rising beyond the sum of the parts.
TINNY: So the messenger becomes the vessel which first contains the whole.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And opens the gateway to a level of existence previously unattainable.
TINNY: Do all other beings then follow the messenger along that path?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All who follow the chosen one go nowhere.
TINNY: The chosen ones have always been followed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is for that reason the promise of the message has never been fulfilled.
TINNY: Who then should be followed?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: No one should be followed. It is the message that must be followed, not the messenger.
TINNY: What should the chosen one do?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Follow the path opened by the message.
TINNY: No more than that?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: No more than that.
TINNY: So I'm not special?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Only for yourself, for no other reason.
TINNY: Good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Have those answers satisfied you?
TINNY: They have. I'm ready now to explain biological development according to the concept of envolution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where will you begin?
TINNY: I'll begin with the earliest forms of animal life, although there are great similarities to plant life. Plant life goes through a very similar series of progressive steps from simple one-celled organisms to very complex plants of a higher order, the flowering plants. Since it is the animal line of development which progresses to the human level, that line of development will best serve to indicate the essential aspects of the envolutionary process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You said once that plants might have developed before animals. Does that mean that animals came from plants?
TINNY: No, but that question is similar to another much asked question, ''Did human beings come from the apes?'' The answer to that question is ''no''. The truth is that apes and human beings share a common ancestor. It would be equally incorrect to say that animal life came from plant life, although plants and animals also share a common ancestor.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the common ancestor of both plant and animal life?
TINNY: The complex molecules must be seen as the ancestors of both plant and animal life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That gives a very different meaning to the word ancestor doesn't it?
TINNY: Yes, but not quite so different as other earlier ancestors we discussed such as stars, atoms, and light.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any proof that the various forms of animal life are related to human beings?
TINNY: Very strong evidence exists. The evidence I find most compelling are the comparisons which have been made between the genes of humans and various animals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you say genes what are you actually referring to?
TINNY: Genes are the messages held by the DNA molecules in the cell's nucleus; these being the instructions which tell how the living organism is to form.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is found when animal DNA is compared with human DNA?
TINNY: You must remember that the total message on the DNA molecule is very long, containing many million different atoms in some special order. That being the case, if the message is the same in two different forms of life it would be virtually impossible for those identical message segments to be due to chance. Anyway, what we find is that large segments of the DNA molecule are identical in all forms of animal life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And are animal DNA molecules also similar to human DNA molecules?
TINNY: Yes, the closer the relationship the more and longer are the identical segments on the DNA molecule.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which of all the animals shares the greatest amount of identical DNA segments with human beings?
TINNY: The chimpanzee.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does the DNA of other animals compare with human DNA?
TINNY: The DNA of dogs is further removed than apes, ducks further than dogs, snakes further than ducks, frogs further than snakes, snails further than frogs, and amoebas further than snails.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is what would be expected if the developmental process from the simple one-celled organisms to the so very complex human being was truly the way the envolutionary progression occurred.
TINNY: It is, isn't it.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you give me some idea how much of the DNA molecule is identical between a chimpanzee and a human being?
TINNY: Almost all. The differences in message segments on the DNA molecules between human and chimpanzee are only a few per cent.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So chimpanzees are very close relatives.
TINNY: Compared to all other animals they certainly are.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Doesn't it bother you at all to realise how closely you are related to the various apes?
TINNY: Not at all. I'm very proud of the relationship I have with all other living things.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even plants?
TINNY: Certainly. I once hugged a tree and felt great love for it as another living being that shares the planet with me. Just because plants are very distant relatives doesn't lessen their importance. When things are right in the world we will live in harmony together. We owe our very lives to plants. It was the plants which made the earth a place where human beings could come into existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Tell me once again what the essential difference is between plant life and animal life.
TINNY: I will give you three main differences, but then I want to discuss the question further.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's fine. I always want you to fully express yourself. Never let my questions limit you.
TINNY: The three main differences would be that plants breathe carbon dioxide (CO2), and animals breathe oxygen; plants take their energy directly from the environment, and animals take their energy indirectly by eating other organisms which have stored energy; and plants either have virtually no mobility or their mobility is without direction, such as floating in water or air, while animals possess direct or voluntary motion.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those are very big differences.
TINNY: They are, but I don't feel those differences make plants and animals separate forms of life. All biological existence should be seen as a varied but united family.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That united family of life is seldom seen.
TINNY: That's what I was saying earlier about the impact of the old worldview which saw all things as separate from each other, while the reality is that all existence is one unified whole.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is it you are saying about the relationship of plants and animals?
TINNY: As the complex molecules moved from physical existence to biological existence both plant and animal organisms came into being. Plants and animals, manifesting many similar characteristics of life early in their pattern of development, took different paths as they both aspired to the one goal that is sought by all material existence; that goal being the perfected manifestation of all positive characteristics. That same branching of the developing life forms has occurred many times since then. It was that earliest branching of life between plants and animals which now shows the greatest difference of expression, but that is only because that particular branching was the earliest division of developing biological life. It does not make the difference between plants and animals of special significance.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You mentioned that plants and animals manifest many similar characteristics; what are some of those?
TINNY: If I give a very brief overview of plant development you will see some of those similar characteristics. The earliest plants were one-celled organisms which then progressed to become organisms consisting of many almost identical cells. Each of those cells possessed a DNA molecule which determined the physical structure of that particular plant. The multi-celled plants became organisms with differentiated cells performing varied functions and creating structures such as stems and leaves. This cell differentiation became more specialised as different plant organs developed; among those were the reproductive organs which produced new embryo plants. Plants then developed circulatory systems to make sure that the new specialised organs received sufficient nourishment. Another development was the segmented cellular formations which allowed plants to grow to great heights. This, by the way, could be seen as cells forming in chains like the chains of molecules in polymers. Plants next became seed bearing which allowed a greater spread and mixing of their genetic material; and finally a very sophisticated form of sexual reproduction developed in the most modern representative of the plant kingdom, flowering plants.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This DNA you say plants possess, is it also similar to human DNA?
TINNY: The structure, the atoms, and molecular groups which make up plant DNA are identical to the DNA of humans and all animals. The messages carried by plant DNA are quite different though.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do comparisons between plant DNA and human DNA show we are related?
TINNY: There is no doubt. Not only is the basic DNA structure identical, but there are enough identical message segments to leave no doubt that plants are our distant relatives.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see why you say plant life and animal life are just two different expressions of the one fundamental type, biological life, The similarities are much greater, and of a more basic nature, than the differences.
TINNY: Just as it is easy to feel love toward the more developed forms of animal life, such as cats, horses, and dolphins who are so beautiful, it is easy to feel love toward the more developed forms of plant life, like trees and flowers who are also very beautiful.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think now would be a good time to begin telling me in some detail the process of animal envolution.
TINNY: The first level of animal life is the one-celled organism. Amoeba and protozoa are examples of one-celled animal life. Those one-celled organisms are all capable of purposeful movement and digestion.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are all one-celled animal life forms equal in their development?
TINNY: No, the progressive process of envolution continued during and long after the period in which all biological life on the planet was unicellular. The range of one-celled organisms goes from the simplest which is little more than a cell body filled with undifferentiated protoplasm containing a nucleus, to one-celled organisms so sophisticated in their make-up that the cell-body contains rudimentary organs which become fully expressed only much later in the developmental process.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did those quite complex one-celled organisms develop later than the simple one-celled animal life forms?
TINNY: That's correct. Those one-celled organisms, which show rudimentary organs, envolved much later than the first one-celled organisms which had a very simple structural make-up.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So each level of physical existence does not just exist to allow higher forms to develop, but also keeps progressing itself.
TINNY: That's what I was saying about plant life. Not only was the earliest plant life necessary to allow all animal life to develop, but it also continued progressing within the limits of plant nature. The one-celled animal organisms were necessary to allow all higher animal forms to develop, but also continued progressing within the limits of one-celled animal nature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Every once in a while something you say helps my understanding of the whole to fall into place. What you have just said about each level providing a platform for higher life forms to take off from, and at the same time going through further progressive development according to its own nature, really clarifies for me the totality of the process called envolution.
TINNY: Every bit of matter in the universe, regardless of its particular level of development, has as its most essential nature the responsibility of striving to achieve perfection in every aspect. We see that attempt to achieve perfection as the progressive development of matter from the simple to the complex, constantly expressing a greater range of characteristics. When one looks only at any given segment of that process the final goal cannot easily be seen, but from an observation of the process of envolution as a whole, purpose and final goal are obvious.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What came after the one-celled animal organisms?
TINNY: Next came multi-celled organisms made up of large numbers of almost identical cells. There was a little bit of cell differentiation, but not much. Sea sponges are a common form of that multicellular level of animal life. They have no specialised organs or tissues. Their whole structure, inside and out, is almost identical.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There seems to be a similarity between atoms and cells. First either single atoms or single cells existed. At the next higher level of development large numbers of single identical atoms formed monatomic bonds, uniting together in a new molecular form, and large numbers of single identical cells formed bonds uniting together into a new multicellular organism.
TINNY: It won't be the last similarity you see between molecular development and biological development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those repeated patterns of development are not what would be expected if all material development occurred by chance.
TINNY: Considering the complexities behind those repeated patterns of development, the probability of those processes being random is just about zero.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And that's why you say there is a purpose and a direction to the process of envolution.
TINNY: I say there is a purpose and direction to life because I have experienced a oneness with all existence, but knowing about such things as the repeated patterns of material development gives strong objective support to my inner experience.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you need to have your inner experience verified by objective external information?
TINNY: At my level of conscious development I still do. It aids me to know the truth when I can see the same reality when looking within or without.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have said there is no essential difference between that which is inside and that which is outside because all is one. All is linked to and part of the unified existence.
TINNY: That's exactly why I find it such powerful evidence when the internal and external view show the same truth. At the present human level of conscious development our perceptions are so imperfect that we may misperceive what we see either internally or externally. If our senses were perfect we could know perfect truth whether we looked within or without, for we would see only the one essential reality. Since we have limits at this point in our development the best way to know truth is when the inner, subjective view and outer, objective view coincide.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see. What followed the multi-celled animal forms?
TINNY: The next stage of animal life developed a single specialised organ, the stomach. The multicellular organism formed itself around a hollow chamber, within which cells specialised in the digestion of food.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What type of animal form occurs within that stage?
TINNY: The sea anemone is a good example. Jellyfish are another example. In the case of jellyfish they also use the same hollow chamber to propel themselves.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What animal forms develop after those single organ life forms?
TINNY: It is a logical progression; first one-celled organisms, then multi-celled organisms. Next single organ life forms, then multi-organed animals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the next stage has a combination of organs?
TINNY: That's right. Within that next stage we find the development of virtually all organs which higher animal forms possess.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What organs are those?
TINNY: The heart, liver, sex organs, and others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do all the different animals which make up that multi-organed stage of development possess all those organs?
TINNY: No, just as within the single celled stage, there was a great deal of development within the multi-organed stage, from the very simple to the quite complex. The different organs are manifested in varying degrees in the diverse animal life forms which make up that stage of development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Name some animals which are at this multi-organed stage of development.
TINNY: Snails, clams, starfish, squid, and the octopus are a few well known members of that early multi-organed stage of development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What comes next?
TINNY: The next stage of development was an interesting one. At that stage organisms became arranged in chainlike segments. The organs then occurred in some sort of order unlike the previous stage where the organs occurred at varied positions within the body. At that new level of development the organs occurred with the mouth, and some specialised sense organs being located at the top, in the head. Next, in descending order, come the heart, stomach and liver, with the sex organs located at the bottom end. That ordered sequence of organs allows them to perform their functions more effectively.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are some examples of that segmented stage of animal existence?
TINNY: A couple of common examples are earthworms and leeches.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Once again a new stage of development of animal life seems familiar. Wasn't there a molecular form that was similar to those segmented biological life forms?
TINNY: Going back once again to molecular development, first there were single atoms, then groups of identical atoms, then groups of different atoms, then groups of grouped atoms, then chains of groups of atoms. This could be related to animal life forms during their progressive development as single cells, then groups of identical cells, then cells specialising and forming a single organ, then groups of organs, then a chain of segments containing organs.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wasn't it in the next molecular stage of development when side chains occurred off the segments of the main chain?
TINNY: It was.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does the next stage of animal development, after the segmented forms, have any characteristic at all similar to the side chains off the main chain as in protein molecules?
TINNY: There is indeed a similarity. The next stage of animal development was the arthropods. That name, arthropod, refers to their having segmented legs. Those legs grew from the body segments. Legs of that type are segmented side chains, attached to a segmented main body.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's an amazing similarity isn't it?
TINNY: Is it ever.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are some examples of animals with segmented body parts and segmented legs?
TINNY: There are hundreds of thousands of different types. That stage of development includes all insects, spiders, crabs, centipedes, millipedes, and many others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: After all that development what comes next?
TINNY: The next major step in the developmental process was the central nervous system, which extended along the animal's back and was encased in a protective bony spine.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What kinds of animals possess that new characteristic?
TINNY: Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do all forms of life from fish to human beings have a central nervous system?
TINNY: Every one of them. The central nervous system was the last of the major stages of animal development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about all the differences which occur during the development of animal life from fish to mammals?
TINNY: They would be better under stood as progressive changes within a stage rather than as new stages. Although for the sake of consistency it is acceptable to refer to fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals as different stages of biological development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why do the differences appear to be so much greater at the higher stages of animal life than at the lower stages?
TINNY: At the lowest stages the range of change that may take place is very limited, so what appears as very little change may have a great effect. At the highest levels the range of change that may take place is almost unlimited, so what appears as a great change may have a relatively small effect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The similarities between molecular development and biological development at every level prior to that final one are obvious and powerful; but what similarity exists between the highest level of molecular development, the DNA molecule, and the central nervous system in the higher animals?
TINNY: I think you probably know the answer to that by now. The DNA molecule provides a means by which to store information and pass it on to future generations. The central nervous system fulfils an identical function; it allows information to be stored and passed on to future generations.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The final link in the reasoning.
TINNY: From that connection comes all sorts of insights about consciousness and the future of the process of envolution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You see very clearly.
TINNY: All that I see seems obvious. How could I not see those truths?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Because of who you are you could not fail to see truth.
TINNY: I won't go into detail about the path of development from fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to birds, and then to mammals, since that progression is quite well known.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There is no need to. I have a much better understanding of the process of envolution now you have explained the developmental sequence which biological life underwent.
TINNY: Should I go on with further explanation of envolution now?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I am anxious to hear more, but first let me ask several questions.
TINNY: O.K.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was development a slow gradual shift or a sudden leap from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles, and from reptiles to mammals?
TINNY: Development within any stage is a slow process through a series of small steps; but the progressive development from one stage of life to the next takes place through a sudden leap.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: For example, within the developmental stage of fish there will only be slow progressive development; but between the fish and the amphibian, development is quite sudden.
TINNY: The reason the developmental process works in that manner is because each time any new stage of biological life is reached a rapid expansion of numbers and diversification of types takes place. During that period all the possibilities which are intrinsic to that particular stage of biological life are explored, those which could be manifested, given the environmental circumstances, are expressed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As soon as a new stage of life comes into existence that new form has within it certain possible characteristics which have never been expressed before. Out of that range of possibilities the only ones which will ever actually be expressed are those which can exist given the limits of the environment.
TINNY: After a new stage of life tries out all the different possibilities it settles down to an increasingly successful and specialised relationship with the environment. The changes which take place become smaller and less radical as stability is reached. At that point the now stable stage of biological life becomes less able to accept new changes in its environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What happens then?
TINNY: Since there is purpose in the overall development of the physical universe an increasing pressure arises to fulfill that purpose as the progressive development within any particular stage slows down. It is that increasing pressure which eventually bursts forth in a sudden quantum leap to a new and distinctive pattern of material organisation, becoming a new stage of biological life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which, I suppose, then tries out all its new possibilities, develops stable, successful new forms of life within which an increasing pressure develops leading to another breakthrough to the next higher stage of material development.
TINNY: There exist endless cycles of physical progression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that physical progression still taking place or is the human level of existence the end of that process?
TINNY: The process is still going on, but at the human level it is of a different nature. Some time ago, perhaps about fifty thousand years, biological envolution changed its basic character. Progression is no longer based on changes in the overall physical form, but has become a process of changes in consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You mean changes within the human level of development now occur as new stages of consciousness. Is that mental rather than physical envolution?
TINNY: What I will be saying to you later is that mental and physical envolution are the same process. The changes in consciousness are accompanied by physical change, but the differences have little immediate effect on overall physical form.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If you say that envolution at the human level takes place more in consciousness than in physical form, what is the mechanism by which that change takes place? Are changes in consciousness genetically determined by the messages on DNA molecules in the same way that changes in physical form were?
TINNY: The concept of genetic factors which determine the characteristics of any form of life must be broadened. As long as development is mainly of physical form the genetic influence is predominantly from the DNA molecule. When development becomes mainly of consciousness the genetic influence is predominantly from social and cultural factors.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you proposing that social and cultural factors be accepted as being genetic influences?
TINNY: Social and cultural factors are every bit as much a genetic influence as the DNA molecule.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can they be? The DNA molecule is an internal mechanism, but social and cultural influences are external?
TINNY: I could answer just by saying that in the correct understanding of reality there is no difference between the internal and the external since all existence is a unified whole.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you'll give a better answer, won't you?
TINNY: I wouldn't call it a better answer, but I will describe the process a different way. Human consciousness is a result of the particular complex organisation of physical material which makes up the brain. It is the message in the human DNA molecule which determines all the physical characteristics that make up the brain. The human brain has as part of its function all the aspects of consciousness. The brain can perceive and store all sorts of information. It can then use that information in an almost unlimited number of ways. All of those qualities are determined by the messages on the human DNA molecule; but all of those abilities, controlled by internal genetic factors, come to nothing by themselves. To manifest human level consciousness it is necessary for the brain, by means of the body, to interact with its external environment. It is the external influences, particularly social and cultural factors, which predominantly determine the nature of any individual human being's consciousness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That all sounds quite reasonable, but why do you call those social and cultural factors a genetic influence? They are the influences of the interactions with the present environment, while the DNA molecule stores information from past generations and uses that information to control the development of new beings.
TINNY: What you just described as the genetic qualities of the DNA molecule are exactly the qualities of social and cultural influences. The social and cultural aspects of human existence are the way we store information from the past generations. It is those social and cultural factors which utilise the wide range of information learned and stored from past generations to influence the development of new beings.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I suppose you'll go into that explanation in more detail when we discuss at length the development of human consciousness.
TINNY: I will, but for now I'll go on with the explanation of the process of envolution. Although I have been emphasising envolution at the higher levels of material existence it is important to realise that envolution is a continuous process from the beginning of the physical universe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Everything of a material nature is part of that process of envolution, isn't it?
TINNY: Absolutely all things in the physical universe are involved in that process. It is not only material objects which are involved in that process. All things, even those which are not clearly material, can be traced back along a direct line of development to the very beginning of the physical universe; all the way back to that formative light, the initial electromagnetic energy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is easy to see how you can say all forms of plant and animal life can be traced in an unbroken line back to the beginning of the universe, you explained that very well according to the theory of envolution; but since you say that everything in the physical universe can be traced back to the beginning of the universe, it is not so easy to understand how non-living things envolved. For example, would you say the path of development of a chair could be traced back to the beginning of the physical universe according to the theory of envolution?
TINNY: The envolution of a chair from the beginning of the universe can be seen just as easily as the envolution of animal life. Basically the envolution of a chair goes back to the beginning of the universe because the subatomic particles which make up the material of any chair came into existence at the beginning of the physical universe.
