Re: Cartesian body plans

From: George Hammond (
Date: Mon Oct 01 2001 - 17:15:29 EDT

  • Next message: Jonathan Clarke: "Re: Phil Johnson"

    bivalve wrote:
    > >Interestingly, EVERY living thing has a Cartesian (cross shaped) Body Plan, both Humans and Horseshoe Crabs, even Plants. <
    > You may need to explain further to make your point. It is not evident to me how this applies to cylindrical or spherical organisms (worms, sea anemones, Volvox, most bacteria, etc.)
    > Dr. David Campbell

      This is a fascinating discovery, and incidentally it is not really
    original with me. Sir Richard Owen is apparently the first to
    specifically identify it when he published his famous "Archetype"
    in 1847. Clearly the skeleton of the Archetype is 3-Axis Cartesian.
    Owen of course optimistically stated that the (Cartesian) geometry
    was "immune to Evolution" and preordained by God" which immediately
    raised the ire of the Darwinians. Turns out of course he was right
    on both points, however he was o viciously attacked by Huxley
    and others that he had to be rescued by the Throne of England and
    safely ensconced as director of the British Museum to protest him
    from further assaults. As a result, his historic discovery was
    effectively suppressed by the Darwinians, and only now are we
    beginning to discover that Owen, not Darwin, was in fact on the
    trail of the most portentous discovery in Biology.. the scientific
    explanation of God. An effort completely derailed by the Evolutionist
    fanatics for now 150 years. Owen, in his day was England's
    leading Paleontologist and a more popular public figure than Bob
    Hope. He coined the world "Dinosaur" for instance. He was a
    devoutly religious person. I am hopeful that with these new scientific
    advances on the scientific proof of God, that Sir Richard will be
    restored to his rightful place in scientific history, along with
    roux and Lamarck and so many others who were crushed under the
    weight of mindless Darwinism.
      Anyway, the "Law" only applies to multicellular animals, i.e.
    those animals (and plants) formed by Cartesian-Binary cell cleavage.
    So Bacteria, Virii, Amoebas etc. are not under consideration here.
    (at least not yet).
      As for something like a Starfish which doesn't appear to have
    bilateral symmetry, as a biologist you surely must be aware
    that all echinoderms have a larval stage which is bilaterally
    symmetric, so fundamentally, a Starfish is bilaterally symmetric.
    In fact, all of the Chordates and certainly the vertebrates are
    "axially quadrate" in structure. Including worms. As you know,
    of the 9 Animal Phyla, 7 of them are bilaterally symmetric, in
    fact only the 2 lowest Phyla, the "Jellyfish" are not bilateral
    (e.g. radial). However, even radial geometry can be traced back to
    Cartesian Geometry, since the first 3 cleavages even in Radial
    symmetry are Cartesian.
      To make clear what this "Cartesian Geometry" is that we are
    talking about, I refer you to a drawing of the "generalized vertebrate
    Body Plan" taken from a well known textbook:

    Clearly in this diagram, the:

    Medial Septum
    Horizontal Septum
    Transverse Septum

    define the 3-orthogonal Cartesian planes of symmetry of the Vertebrate
    body. This "axial quadrature" exists even in a worm and is traceable
    directly to the first 3 Cartesian cleavages of the Egg in Embryology.

      Likewise for Plants we have the same structure as illustrated
    in the following drawing:

      Finally, I would simply note that am not about to engage in
    any controversial dispute over such a scientific principle. Fact
    is this point is only a small part of a now extensive and comprehensive
    scientific theory of Human Anatomical structure that has led all the
    way to a scientific proof of God. This theory has been partially
    published in the peer reviewed literature (including notably this
    theory of Cartesian Body Plan Structure, Hammond 1994), and the rest
    of the theory is now pending publication in the peer reviewed literature
    and in book form some time this year or early next year. Therefore,
    I am not about to indulge in replying to any in depth controversies on
    the details at this point. In my opinion the result is a foregone
    conclusion and a fait accompli that, now, can only seriously be
    challenged in the peer reviewed literature.
      I appreciate your interest and opinions, as a Biologist however
    since one always has to be on the lookout for picking up new pieces of
    information, even at this advanced stage of the game.

    PS: Please do not email me privately. I regret that I
        cannot entertain private email. I can only respond to
        public statements.


    Be sure to visit my website below
    George Hammond, M.S. Physics

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 17:06:27 EDT