Identity Verified Thinker in Technology / Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning
Doug Marman
Doug Marman
Doug Marman: Technologist; Co-founder of a start-up on artificial intelligence; Chief Technology Officer of a $1.7B division of General Electric; Inventor with more than thirty patents. Marman has written, lectured, and lead classes on the exploration of consciousness for more than forty years.


This Blog has no active categories.

From Yahoo Finance News

Jul. 26, 2016 5:23 pm
Categories: Archives, News

The Fundamental Building Block of Life Is Not DNA, It's a Relationship, According to a New Scientific Study

RIDGEFIELD, Wash., July 26, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- All origin-of-life theories have a problem: explaining the gap between chemistry and living cells. A new paper by Doug Marman and Alan Rayner offers a solution by posing that the source of life isn't DNA, proteins, or any other kind of substance, but the relationship between a life form and its environment. This is consistent with quantum physics, where entangled relationships between particles produce states that can't be reduced. This creates a bridge between particles and organisms.

"It sounds strange that a relationship would be fundamental," said Marman. "But quantum theory shows that fundamental particles need relationships to exist in this world. No particle is an island; they are also wave-like. Every biologist knows that the same thing is true for living things: they need their habitat to survive. If we accept this relationship as fundamental, it changes the story of the origin of life and what it means to be alive."

For example, a cell can survive for a while if its DNA is removed. But DNA is inert, a mere chemical compound, on its own. Therefore, DNA is involved in the process of life only when it's in the right environment, a living cell. The same thing is true for the proteins and enzymes in a cell.

"It's a theory that challenges some fundamental assumptions most scientists have been holding," says Jonathan Reams, associate professor at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, who has been following the discussion between Marman and Rayner that led to their study. "They are at the early stages of exploring the implications of the theory, but what I think many will find interesting is that their insights offer new possibilities for how to address many challenges in society today. I would encourage readers to imagine how they could use this theory in their own work and life."

About the Authors:

Doug Marman is author of the recently published book: Lenses of Perception: A Surprising New Look at the Origin of Life, the Laws of Nature, and Our Universe. He was Chief Technology Officer of a $1.7B division of General Electric, co-founder of an artificial intelligence business, and inventor with over 30 patents.

Alan Rayner is a biological scientist, a former Reader in Biology at the University of Bath, and the author of seven academic books. Since spring 2000, he has been pioneering 'natural inclusionality,' a new philosophy of ecological and evolutionary diversity and sustainability, based on how we naturally live in the world.

Mike Sutton
August 9, 2016 at 1:26 am
Relationships with environment

This is interesting and a useful way to look at DNA in perspective. And, the key to understanding the interaction between environment and life is evolution - particularly since a lot of the environment is in fact organic life itself.

The originator of macroevolution by natural slection, Patrick Matthew (1831) wrote about what he coined the "natural process of selection" and explained as evolution by natural selection with regard to what he called a "power of occupancy". Matthew used this bombshell idea to explain that a tree might in fact grow better outside its "natural" environment (the soil and climate in which it is found in nature) but is prevented from doing so by other tree species that would overwhelm it through having a "greater power of occupancy".

Darwin and Wallace would later replicate Matthew's original prior-published ideas - including replicating his original explanatory analogies - and claim them as their own. To date their deceptions have a greater power of occupancy in the literature than veracity because Darwin's and Wallace's newly discovered lies about the prior-readership of Mathew;'s book are being strangled by a hostile environment known as The Darwin Industry.

The evidence to support this is in my latest peer reviewed article:

Thinker's Post
Doug Marman
August 20, 2016 at 3:34 pm


Matthew's comment about the 'power of occupancy' is interesting. I would like to read his full explanation of this. Do you have a link, or can you provide a longer quote, that shows how he described this?

I read through your article and found it interesting as well. I've seen some of your previous articles showing how Matthew's comments played a stronger role than we thought in influencing Darwin. So, I have been following the discussion.

I also looked through your article hoping to find Mathew's comment about the power of occupancy, but didn't see it there.

Thanks for writing.


Mike Sutton
August 21, 2016 at 5:09 am

Hi Doug

To answer your question, I created images from the five pages of Matthew's (1831) book that use the term "power of occupancy" and wrote a brief blog that mentions some of the context and who else noticed Matthew's original ideas on this one important concept before Darwin and Wallace replicated it - and so much more - and claimed it as their own, using the now newly proven fallacious excuse that no naturalist read Matthew's book before they replicated it.

The blog post on 'power of occupancy' is here .

It seems that after two years of writing about the facts of who really did read Matthew's book pre Darwin's and Wallace's supposedly independent conceptions of the same orignal ideas is finally attracting the support of other scientists

Biologist Dr Arlin Stoltzfus e.g. Here

Psychologist Prof.Mark Griffiths: Here

I have just started to read The Paradigm Shifters: :Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin, I wonder if you have read it?

Mike Sutton
August 21, 2016 at 5:37 am


I wonder what your opinion is William Dempster's claim that Matthew was the first to conceive the notion of DNA. The relevant material is here: Here

Latest Ebooks