DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

235 

Article  
 

Dawkins’ Darwinism Part I: Evolution - The Greatest Illusion on 

Earth and the New Quantum Platonic Paradigm 
 

Graham P. Smetham
*
 

 

Abstract 
Many of the claims of Materialist Ultra-Darwinist (MUD) worldview are desperately 

implausible, having about the same credibility as fairy stories. For example, if we accept 

Dawkins claim that the development of new adaptations is very gradual, the ancestor with the 

pouch mutation would still at this initial point be giving birth via egg birth. However we are 

supposed to believe, according to the DUD-MUD account, that there is some subtle slight 

alteration in the direction of pouch birth. Now in order for this slight new mutational 

‘something’, indicating the possibility of the future development of pouch birth, to actually 

get ‘favoured’ it must be advantageous in some way at that point in time. But how could this 

possibly be true? What kind of environment could make the potentiality of pouch birth 

signaled by a non-noticeable mutation, significantly more advantageous than an egg one? The 

egg birth process was presumably working perfectly well otherwise these pouch-mutant 

mammals would have died out before they became fully pouch endowed. What kind of 

mutated mind could possibly believe such a desperately implausible scenario?   The only way 

this scenario could possibly make sense is if there is some kind of quantum evolutionary 

‘look-ahead’ mechanism as suggested by Mensky. 

The only possible explanation which accords with current scientific knowledge is that there is 

a deep level of quantum interconnection between an environment and the ‘design’ of the 

species found in that environment. And such an interconnection has been shown to exist; it is 

called ‘quantum entanglement’. This can happen precisely because the ‘themes’ for all the 

possibilities of life, including organisms and environments, are potential within the Platonic 

quantum fields of potentiality, and when they are expressed and manifested they do so in a 

manner which is, in the main, coherent and consistent, the inhabitants fitting, because of the 

patterning of the internal potentialities, the manifested environments.  When the evidence is 

examined with precision it becomes clear that the MUD worldview is incoherent and a new 

quantum Platonic paradigm must supplant it. 

Keywords: Darwinism, Dawkins, Michael Mensky, Amit Goswami, Intelligent Design, 

evolution, Evo-Devo, random mutation, natural selection, illusion, quantum Platonism, 

quantum interconnection, environment, design. 

 

 

The more examples of the writings of materialist ‘Ultra-Darwinism’ (the ‘new Darwinian 

synthesis’ is also called Neo-Darwinism), which emphasizes the role of ‘random mutation’ 

(RM) and ‘natural selection’ (NS) in its theory of evolution, I read the more astonished I am 

by the childish simple-mindedness of its practitioners. They are able to pen the most 

ridiculous nonsense and yet at the same time remain convinced that they are engaged in 

expounding serious ‘science’. One of the core practitioners of this pseudo-science is, of 

                                                      

* Correspondence: Graham Smetham, http://www.quantumbuddhism.com E-mail: graham.smetham@gmail.com    

http://www.quantumbuddhism.com/
mailto:graham.smetham@gmail.com


DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

236 

course Richard Dawkins so we can dub this form of extreme materialist account of the 

evolutionary process Dawkinsian Ultra-Darwinism, for which we may employ the appropriate 

acronym ‘DUD’.  

A fine example an absurd DUD account is provided by Dawkins’ account of how, in the dim 

mists of time, fish were supposedly forced by environmental circumstances to drag 

themselves with their fins, no doubt gasping for air with their gills if such were possible, from 

one pond, which was drying out,  to another with deeper waters. Here is the relevant passage 

from Dawkins’ book The Greatest Show on Earth: 

My undergraduate imagination at Oxford was fired by the lectures of the prodigiously 

knowledgeable Harold Pusey who, despite his dry and prolonged delivery, had a gift 

for seeing beyond dry bones to the flesh-and-blood animals that had to make a living 

in some departed world. His evocation of what drove some lobe-finned fish to 

develop lungs and legs, which was derived from Romer himself, made memorable 

sense to my student ears, and it still makes sense to me even though it is less 

fashionable among modern palaeontologists than it was in Romer’s time. Romer, and 

Pusey, envisaged annual droughts during which lakes and ponds and streams dried 

up, only to flood again the following year. Fishes that made their living in water could 

benefit from a temporary ability to survive on land, while they dragged themselves 

from a shallow lake or pond that was threatened with imminent desiccation to a 

deeper one in which they could survive until the next wet season. On this view, our 

ancestors didn't so much emerge on to the dry land as use the dry land as a temporary 

bridge to escape back into the water. Many modern animals do the same. Rather 

unfortunately, Romer introduced his theory with a preamble whose purpose was to 

show that the Devonian era was a time of drought. Consequently, when more recent 

evidence undermined this assumption, it seemed to undermine the whole Romer 

theory. He’d have done better to omit the preamble, which was, in any case, overkill. 

As I argued in The Ancestor’s Tale, the theory still works, even if the Devonian was 

less drought-ridden than Romer originally thought.
1
 

The Devonian period, named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first 

studied, is a geologic period of the Paleozoic Era, which literally translates as the “time of 

ancient life” and spans the time period between 544 and 245 million years ago.  The 

Devonian period spans from the end of the Silurian Period, about 416 million years ago, to 

about 360 million years ago. As Dawkins points out, at the end of the Devonian period there 

begins “one of the most famous gaps in the fossil record” which is given the name ‘Romer’s 

Gap’ (after the American palaeontologist Alfred Sherwood Romer) which stretches from the 

end of the Devonian period to the beginning of the Carboniferous period about 340 million 

years ago. After this gap there appears “unequivocal amphibians crawling through the 

swamps” whereas prior to Romer’s Gap there is only evidence of lobe-finned fish (figure 1). 

At the start of the twentieth century fossils of Carboniferous tetrapod (four legged) 

amphibians (figure 2) were found in strata corresponding to a time period after Romer’s Gap.  

The story concocted by Romer was supposed to give an ‘explanation’ of how the transition 

from fully paid up aquatic fish to land-roaming amphibians came about. As we shall see, like 

many DUD ‘explanations’ of this type, Romer’s offering relies upon the reader or listener 

imputing a kind of subtle intentionality where there should be none, although this would be 

stridently resisted by committed DUD’s for whom the story involves nothing beyond 

mindless and random mutations which produce flaws in the mutated offspring. As Dawkins 

states in the preface to his book River Out of Eden:  



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

237 

… when the ricochets of atomic billiards chance to put together an object that has a 

certain, seemingly innocent property, something momentous happens in the universe. 

That property is an ability to self-replicate; that is the object is able to use the 

surrounding materials to make exact copies of itself, including replicas of such minor 

flaws in copying as may occasionally arise.
2
 

In the DUD worldview, of course, it is asserted that such ‘flaws’ in the copying of genetic 

information randomly and adventitiously turn out to be remarkably advantageous in fitting 

into an environment. 

 

Figure 1
(3)  

 

Figure 2
(4)

 

 

In order to follow the following discussion it is necessary to be quite clear on what the DUD 

view of the central evolutionary mechanism of natural selection actually is.  DUD natural 

selection (NS) is a kind of filter theory wherein ‘good’ genes get passed on and ‘bad’ genes 

fall by the wayside: 

Genes do not improve in the using, they are just passed on, unchanged except for 

very rare random errors. It is not success that makes good genes. It is good genes that 

make success, and nothing an individual does during its lifetime has any effect 

whatever upon its genes. Those individuals born with good genes are the most likely 

to grow up to become successful ancestors; therefore good genes are more likely 

than bad to get passed on to the future. Each generation is a filter, a sieve: good 

genes tend to fall through the sieve into the next generation; bad genes tend to end up 

in bodies that die young or without reproducing. Bad genes may pass through the 

sieve for a generation or two, perhaps because they have the luck to share a body 

with good genes. But you need more than luck to navigate successfully through a 

thousand sieves in succession, one sieve under the other. After a thousand successive 

generations, the genes that have made it through are likely to be the good ones.
5
   

When “very rare random errors” occur most must lead to ‘bad’ genes. In fact, no one has ever 

seen a random mutation leading to ‘good’ genes, random mutations we do know about, such 

as those caused by radioactivity, inevitably lead to dreadful results. However according to the 

DUD mythology ‘very very very rare random good errors’ sometimes occur which produce 

adaptations of organisms which are more suited to their environments. It is these ‘good’ genes 

that are passed on to future generations, having been filtered by the environment. According 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

238 

to the DUD worldview as these genes increasingly separate into difference species, they 

eventually give rise to the “long goodbye”: 

From a gene’s point of view, speciation, the origin of new species, is “the long 

goodbye.” After a brief period of partial separation, the two rivers go their separate 

ways forever, or until one or the other dries extinct into the sand. Secure within the 

banks of either river, the water is mixed and remixed by sexual recombination. But 

water never leaps its banks to contaminate the other river. After a species has 

divided, the two sets of genes are no longer companions. They no longer meet in the 

same bodies and they are no longer required to get on well together. There is no 

longer any intercourse between them-and intercourse here means, literally, sexual 

intercourse between their temporary vehicles, their bodies.
6
 

Lineages that are separating eventually, according to the DUD account, become entirely 

different species that cannot interbreed. This notion of what a ‘species’ consists of was put in 

place by the Ernst Mayr, held to be one of the twentieth century’s leading evolutionary 

biologists, despite the fact that he made dogmatic claims, based on fantasy and no evidence, 

which turned out to be entirely wrong, just as Dawkins has done in the past (and continues to 

do). Dawkins assertion concerning the “long goodbye,” which asserts that the genes of 

different species become increasingly dissimilar, is derived from one of Mayr’s dogmatic 

mistaken fantasies, a fantasy that the Evo-Devo (Evolutionary Development) revolution has 

shown to be entirely incorrect.  The Evo-Devo perspective has discovered a remarkable 

identity of gene types underlying all organisms, Dawkins’ notion of “long goodbye,” then, is 

out of date and mistaken.  

The American philosopher and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor gives the following summary 

of the NS (natural selection) ‘adaptationist’ perspective: 

Darwin’s theory of evolution has two parts. One is its familiar historical account of 

our phylogeny; the other is the theory of natural selection, which purports to 

characterise the mechanism not just of the formation of species, but of all 

evolutionary changes in the innate properties of organisms. According to selection 

theory, a creature’s ‘phenotype’ – the inventory of its heritable traits … is an 

adaptation to the demands of its ecological situation. Adaptation is a name for the 

process by which environmental variables select among the creatures in a population 

the ones whose heritable properties are most fit for survival and reproduction. So 

environmental selection for fitness is (perhaps plus or minus a bit) the process par 

excellence that prunes the evolutionary tree.
7
 

In his book What Darwin Got Wrong Fodor (with Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini ) refers to 

these two components as “the genealogy of the species (GS), which is the recognition of the 

historical development of species;  and ‘natural selection’ (NS) which is the mechanism that 

DUD asserts to be fundamental. He gives the diagram shown in figure 3 with the caption:  

A schematic representation of the standard neo-Darwinian model of evolution by 

natural selection. The square on the left represents random genetic mutations, the 

arrow the expression of those mutations as manifest traits (phenotypes), and the 

filters the action of natural selection.
8
 

 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

239 

 

Figure 3
(9)

 

 

This view is entirely in accord with that of Dawkins, who, as we have seen, has also used the 

‘sieving’ metaphor. 

A further important ingredient in the RM+NS DUD worldview is the claim that the process 

takes place gradually, one mutation at a time endowing a tiny advantage over long time 

periods and, furthermore, these tiny gradual transitions occur at the material level of reality. 

This means that as fish took to the land and then began their slow, excruciating evolutionary 

transformation, through various forms on the way to other species, each tiny mutation 

produced an actual animal. A fish’s fins, then, must have extended and transformed into legs, 

millimeter by millimeter, each transformation giving rise to a new animal, an animal with a 

difference from its predecessor that is hardly noticeable.  Here is what Dawkins writes about 

this in The Greatest Show on Earth: 

… every animal is linked to every other animal, say rabbit to leopard, by a chain of 

intermediates, each so similar to the next that every link could in principle made with 

its neighbours in the chain and produce fertile offspring. … On the evolutionary view, 

there really is a series of intermediate animals connecting a rabbit to a leopard, every 

one of whom lived and breathed, every one of whom would have been placed in 

exactly the same species as its immediate neighbours on either side in the long, 

sliding continuum. Indeed, every one of the series was the child of its neighbour on 

one side and the parent of its neighbour on the other. Yet the whole series constitutes 

a continuous bridge from rabbit to leopard … There are similar bridges from rabbit to 

wombat, from leopard to lobster, from every animal or plant to every other. … Take a 

rabbit, any female rabbit (arbitrarily stick to females, for convenience: it makes no 

difference to the argument). Place her mother next to her. Now place the grandmother 

next to the mother and so on back in time, back, back, back through the megayears, a 

seemingly endless line of female rabbits, each one sandwiched between her daughter 

and her mother. We walk along the line of rabbits, backwards in time, examining 

them carefully like an inspecting general. As we pace the line, we’ll eventually notice 

that the ancient rabbits we are passing are just a little bit different from the modern 

rabbits we are used to. But the rate of change will be so slow that we shan't notice the 

trend from generation to generation, just as we can’t see the motion of the hour hand 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

240 

on our watches – and just as we can't see a child growing, we can only see later that 

she has become a teenager, and later still an adult.
10

  

We see, then, that the DUD account of evolution asserts that it is a fully materialized 

phenomenon, each tiny gene mutation giving rise to a tiny difference in a subsequent ‘living, 

breathing’ animal that “swam in the sea, walked or slithered on land, or flew in the air.”  This 

means, of course, that one would expect a plethora of evidence of many ‘intermediates’ or 

‘transitional’ forms. The supposed transition from a lobe-finned fish to early amphibians is 

supposed to be an example of this, although there no evidence of other animals with fin-leg 

protrusions intermediate between the two. 

 

Figure 4
(11)

  

 

At the time Romer was pondering his fishy story, transitional forms from fish to tetrapod 

were absent from the fossil record, but there were supposedly clues elsewhere. One feature of 

Late Devonian geology is the prevalence of red sediments in Europe and North America and 

in 1916 Joseph Barrell suggested that these oxidized sediments were evidence of a harsh 

landscape subject to severe droughts.  He also argued that this severe climate was a major 

driving force in the evolution of air-breathing vertebrates, including tetrapods. This led to 

further elaborations on the idea that Devonian droughts were the driving force for the 

evolution of tetrapods that culminated in 1950s with the “Drying Pond” scenario proposed by 

Romer. In this scenario, tetrapods evolved from lobe-finned fishes driven onto the land by 

drought. As one pool or stream dried out, the fishes ventured onto the parched earth in search 

of other bodies of water. Over time, natural selection was supposed to ‘favour’ those fishes 

who had randomly acquired more limb-like fins, and of course the beginnings of a lung or 

lungs. In such a fashion tetrapods are supposed to have literally evolved from fish out of 

water (figure 4).
 
 

If we leave aside the issue of the fact that the drought scenario is no longer accepted, there is 

one huge problem with this explanation, a problem that, in different guises, can be regularly 

found in DUD explanations and accounts, but is never addressed by DUD practitioners. Even 

if we accept, for sake of argument, the claim that a fish randomly acquired fins which also 

had a bone structure anticipatory of tetrapod limbs, they would also at the same time have to 

had randomly developed breathing apparatus also capable of  dealing with breathing both in 

and out of water.  Somewhat like the lungfish, although the lungfish curls up in mud to use its 

lung, it does not scamper about on the land using its lung. In this case, we would need two 

random mutations, occurring at the same time, both of which radically altered the 

morphology of the fish. This in itself seems implausible, and we should ask ourselves 

whether it is actually likely that one tiny random mutation could modify gills, or add the 

functionality to supplement gills, so that a fish suddenly can function in water and also take 

the odd gulp of air whilst the fish is dragging itself around on land with its fins.   



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

241 

How does a fish that is quite content using its fully efficient gills for breathing in water start 

the operation of acquiring, through the operation of RM+NS, breathing apparatus to suit it for 

land? According to the DUD account, a random mutation occurs and subsequently confers an 

advantage within a particular environment. In this way, the lucky creature endowed with this 

lucky flaw gets favoured.  But what possible advantage could a random mutation which 

confers upon a fully paid up aquatic fish the possibility of breathing on land (if we can accept 

such an absurdity) bestow upon a fish which is never going to go near the land at the time that 

it acquired the mutational transformation. Its new capacity would confer no advantage so 

would not get selected by NS, unless, that is evolution ‘knew’ that fish would need to take to 

the land at some point, but any such look ahead mechanism is denied in the DUD worldview. 

However, this is the kind of ridiculous ‘explanations’ we have to agree to if we accept the 

kind of picture suggested by Romer. And of course, the same can be said of Dawkins who 

modifies Romer’s absurd notion to try and rescue it: 

Unfortunately, Romer quoted the prevailing belief of his day that the Devonian was a 

time of drought, a belief that has more recently been called into question. But I don’t 

think Romer needed his Devonian desiccated. Even at times of no drought, there will 

always be some ponds shallow enough to be in danger of becoming too shallow for 

some particular kind of fish. If ponds three feet deep would have been at risk under 

severe drought conditions, mild drought conditions will render ponds one foot deep at 

risk. It is sufficient for the Romer hypothesis that there some ponds which dry up, and 

therefore some fish could save their lives by migrating. Even if the world of the late 

Devonian was positively waterlogged, one could say this simply increases the number 

of ponds available to dry up, thereby increasing opportunities for saving the life of 

walking fish and the Romer theory… Nevertheless it is my duty to record that the 

theory is now unfashionable. … To be sure, there are plenty of other good reasons for 

a fish to emerge, temporarily or permanently, onto land. Streams and ponds can 

become unusable for reasons other than drying up. They can become choked with 

weeds, in which case, again, a fish that can migrate over land to deeper water might 

benefit. If, as has been suggested contra Romer, we are talking Devonian swamps 

rather than Devonian droughts, swamps provide plenty of opportunities for a fish to 

benefit by walking, or slithering or flip-flopping or otherwise travelling through the 

marshy vegetation, in search of deep water or, indeed, food. This still retains the 

essential Romer idea that our ancestors left the water, not at first to colonise land, but 

to return to water.
12

  

This reworking has retained Romer’s vision that the fish were not making a dash for land, so 

to speak, but rather, “walking, or slithering or flip-flopping or otherwise” from pond to pond. 

Not only this, it accomplishes this by entirely inverting Romer’s speculation. Rather than 

speculating that the fish were desperately slithering about on what would have been a very 

hot land, as their ponds were evaporating, looking for deeper ponds, Dawkins, in order to fix 

the evidence that that undermines that speculation, adopts the contrary speculation that “we 

are talking Devonian swamps rather than Devonian drought.”  

Welcome to the wonderful fantasy world of evolutionary theory, or should we not rather use 

the term ‘evolutionary speculation’. Fantasy and speculation, not science, it is. How else 

would it be possible for exactly contrary explanations be made to fit the same facts of the 

fossil record? Look at some of terminology used by Dawkins: a fish that can migrate over 

land to deeper water might benefit”, “If, as has been suggested contra Romer, we are 

talking…” We shall find that this kind of speculative language is employed liberally in what 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

242 

is claimed to be a watertight ‘science’.  Dawkins’ attempted reworking of Romer, like much 

DUD theory, is nothing more than speculative fantasy in the cause of shoring up the leaks in a 

ridiculous worldview.  At the outset of The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins proclaims:  

…the Darwinian worldview … is the only known theory that could, in principle, 

solve the mystery of our existence.
13

     

As we shall see, such a claim is utterly deluded.  

Whether fleeing dried up ponds or seeking a more spacious residence in Devonian swamps, 

there has to be a first batch of fish that make the evolutionary leap, and that, through the 

magic of natural selection, have ‘acquired’ both fins which operate, however clumsily, on 

land and also suitable breathing apparatus at least to get them to the nearest deeper pond. But, 

as has been previously pointed out, there is absolutely no possibility of NS ‘selecting’ a 

randomly mutated produced lung whilst a fish is in water, and they are hardly likely to take 

an anticipatory gill-full of oxygen and hold their gill-breath. The whole notion is ridiculous, 

absurd and beyond belief. And the fact that putatively intelligent people ever took, and still 

take, such notions seriously is also beyond belief.   

The way in which the DUD worldview promotes its silliness, however, is simply to gloss over 

its incoherencies and absurdities. Thus Dawkins tells us that: 

On this view, our ancestors didn’t so much emerge on to the dry land as use the dry 

land as a temporary bridge to escape back into the water. Many modern animals do 

the same.
14

 

This is the DUD tactic of suggesting that the transition is not that remarkable. The pond with 

deeper water was probably not too far away. Modern animals manage it so there is no reason 

so their ancestors not to have also done so.  This argument is just silly. The fact that some 

modern animals have the capacity to achieve this feat has  no bearing whatsoever on 

accounting for how fish that have never ventured on to land suddenly develop the ability to 

do so. In fact from the point of view of the DUD account the issue is how these modern 

animals came to have the ability. So to claim that the fact that they do have the ability as 

evidence that arriving at the ability is simple, is absurdly circular and misleading. But this 

kind of invalid circular reasoning is often found in DUD modes of unreasoning. No one in the 

DUD camp seems to notice that for the DUD account to work the unfortunate first fish to 

encounter the drying up scenario must have been randomly equipped by RM+NS for the 

encounter with land and air, although there is no possible scenario that can account for how a 

fish acquires the equipment for breathing air whilst its environment is water. The DUD 

worldview is replete with such nonsense.  

At this point, the notion that lungfish might have something to add to the debate might be 

raised. However, although Dawkins tells us that “we land animals are aberrant lungfish”, in 

fact: 

…we are not descended from lungfish or from coelacanths. We share an ancestor 

with lungfish, which looked more like a lungfish than it looked like us.
15

 

Coelacanths are members of an order of fish that includes the oldest known living lineage of 

lobe-finned fish and tetrapods. The fact that we did not descend from lungfish would seem to 

suggest that the fish that, according to the DUD account, we did descend from must have 

scrambled onto land lungless, which would have been a heroic feat in order to grow feet! 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

243 

Lungfish (Dipnoi–figure 5) are a group of lobe-finned fish (Sarcopterygii or sometimes 

Crossopterygii). Lungfish have a “lung” which is a modified swim bladder, which in most 

fish is used for buoyancy in swimming, but in the lungfish also absorbs oxygen and removes 

wastes. Modern lungfish in Africa and South America are able to survive when their pools 

dry up by burrowing into the mud and sealing themselves within a mucous-lined burrow. 

During this time, they breathe air through their swim bladder instead of through their gills, 

and dramatically reduce their metabolic rate. In this condition Lungfish will drown if they are 

kept underwater and not allowed to breathe air! This fact should, one might have thought, 

alerted a moderately intelligent person to the implausibility of the development of the lung 

whilst the supposed ancestor of the lungfish was underwater primarily relying on its gills. As 

we shall see, however, such basic logical capacities seem strangely absent from the DUD 

worldview.   

 

Figure 5
(16) 

 

The existence of lungfish is made much of by some DUDs. In the introduction to The 

Ancestor’s Tale Dawkins primes his readers by claiming that: 

…the emergence of our remote fish ancestors from water to land was a momentous 

step an evolutionary rite of passage. It was undertaken by lobe-finned fish a bit like 

lungfish.
17

  

The implication, of course, is that the lobe-fined fish somehow developed a lung, or proto-

lung, whilst swimming around in the sea and, then in ponds, using its gills to oxygenate itself.  

However, as indicated above such a notion is entirely implausible simply because there is 

absolutely no way that NS would ‘select’ a proto-lung whilst a fish is entirely in water using 

its gills.  

Most lungfish, like the South American lungfish, have gills that are poorly developed. They 

breathe air mostly with their swim bladders. If one of these lungfish couldn’t reach the 

water’s surface, it would drown. The Australian lungfish, however, breathes mostly with its 

gills; it gulps air at the water’s surface only when the water doesn’t have much oxygen in it.  

This indicates that not only would the evolving South American lungfish need the lung to be 

developing although not being used whilst entirely within water, at the same time the gills 

would have to be un-developing, even though there is absolutely no reason for them to do so  

according to the DUD worldview. The only DUD explanation that a DUD perspective can 

offer is that at some point when oxygen in the water was depleted NS produced a proto-lung. 

At the same time it also gave the proto-lungfish instinctual knowledge that this new 

appendage could be used to gulp air.  Presumably the DUD perspective conceives of this 

process leading to the un-development of the gills, although there is no reason for this to 

occur, The Australian lungfish is quite happy using its gills as long as there is enough oxygen 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

244 

in the water. Why would NS wither away the gills so that the lungfish is in danger of 

drowning?  The DUD worldview does not offer precise accounts of many of its claims but 

only speculative ‘just-so’ stories involving lots of speculative “imagination: 

Imagine a set of mutations of increasing magnitude. At one extreme a mutation of 

zero magnitude is by definition exactly as good as the parent’s copy of the gene 

which … must have been as least as good to survive childhood and reproduce. Now 

imagine a random mutation of small magnitude: the leg, say, gets one millimeter 

longer or one millimeter shorter. Assuming that the parental gene is not perfect, a 

mutation that is infinitesimally different from the parental version has a 50 per cent 

chance of being better and 50 per cent chance of being worse …But a very large 

mutation will probably be worse, even if it is in the right direction, because it will 

overshoot. To push to the extreme, imagine an otherwise normal man with thighs 

two metres long.
18

  

Pure, unadulterated speculative imagination with absolutely no evidential backing! 

RationalWiki is a forum for DUD enthusiasts to indulge their lack of significant research by 

posting short diatribes against intelligent design and creationism (rarely distinguished). The 

level of analysis is generally dismal and mostly one finds regurgitation of the mistaken views 

of Dawkins and friends.  A RationalWiki entry on the subject of lungfish begins: 

The lungfish are an example of the kind of life forms that creationists are very quiet 

about. They rant and rave about a lack of intermediate forms between fish and land 

animals, sometimes with ridiculous statements like “I’ve never seen a half-fish half-

cow”. Lungfish are able to breathe with their lung and can live out of water for fairly 

long periods. They also use their lung to give a continuous oxygen supply while they 

sit out the dry period under exposed mudbanks.
19

 

The level of competence in analysis and reasoning is very limited on this forum. Our DUD 

enthusiast claims that: 

The Australian lungfish (N. forsteri) lives in brackish rivers and lakes and still have 

functional gills which supplement their lungs. This shows creationists are wrong 

when they argue that a fish could not survive without gills while its lungs were 

evolving. Fish did not lose their gills till their lungs were fully evolved. Some 

lungfish are more adapted to water and others to land.
20

 

The existence of the Australian lungfish, however, proves no such thing. It just means that 

there is an Australian lungfish that have “functional gills which supplement their lungs.”  The 

conclusion that this proves that fish developed lungs whilst still keeping their gills, and whilst 

living fully in water, is entirely spurious, it proves no such thing. This conclusion is a 

speculation adopted because of a prior commitment to the DUD worldview. It should not take 

a great effort of intellectual insight to figure out that if a random mutation requires an 

advantageous environment in order for it to survive, then a proto-lung in a fish in water is not 

in an advantageous environment. The lung, even if we grant the ridiculous notion of a tiny 

random mutation producing a functioning lung within a fish happily living in water and using 

its gills, would never be “naturally selected” in a water environment.  However, our DUD 

RationalWiki blogger thinks he has proved his or her point: “They’re three fish. With lungs. 

Accept it.” Of course, there is no reason not to “accept it,” but it proves nothing concerning 

the truth of the absurd materialist DUD account of the process of evolution. 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

245 

In another RationalWiki entry, entitled Fish that survive on land, the claim is made that 

Lungfish “breathe through lungs like our lungs.”
21

 However, this is not true. If one looks into 

the opinions expressed by DUD followers one often finds that they do not bother to do any 

research to delve into the truth of issues, they simply accept the simplistic nonsense fed to 

them!  Lungfish  are vertebrates and all vertebrates have a similar underlying plan with brains 

and livers, hearts, intestines and skeletons and so on, but this does not mean that lungfish 

have human-type organs. Although lungfish are unusual among fish in having a kind of lung, 

it does not operate in the same way as a mammal’s lung. A lung in a mammal consists of 

billions of tiny cavities containing air, known as alveoli. In a lungfish, the lung has large air 

sacs and no minute alveoli. Figure 6 shows: 

A scanning electron micrograph of the lung of a young lungfish. The air sacs are 

large, and there are no alveoli. The scale bar is equivalent to 0.2 of a millimetre, so 

the air scales are up to a millimetre wide.
22

 

 

Figure 6
(23)

  

 

The reason that such Darwinian fairy tales are accepted unquestioningly by most DUD 

enthusiasts is that they are already in the grip of an irrational belief in the materialist DUD 

worldview. The obvious flaws in the arguments and presentations simply do not register.  

There are some DUDs, however, who do not have completely blinkered reasoning faculties. 

The following is a response to an incoherent post claiming that the Evo-Devo (Evolutionary-

Development) revolution and the existence of lungfish disproves intelligent design:
24

   

The mere thought that Intelligent Design could even be put forward in this day and 

age is mind boggling to most scientists. But with all due respect, merely citing that 

the transition from water to land was accompanied by the appearance of the 

aldosterone receptor does not explain how this may have occurred based on natural 

selection. Without a mechanism for this process, the evolutionists are telling Kipling 

“Just So Stories” that are no more credible than those of the Intelligent Design 

proponents, which is why the Intelligent Designers maintain credibility with the lay 

public.
25

 

This comment, by someone who is opposed to the Intelligent Design hypothesis, isolates the 

issue precisely. Without a fully elucidated precise account of the mechanisms involved, the 

claims made by DUDs are specious. DUDs, of course, think they have a fully worked out 

mechanism, RM+NS. But they do not, it is a deluded fantasy, a Kipling “Just So Story.”  To 

reiterate, even if one accepts that a random mutation might produce the beginnings of a lung 

in a gill-breathing fish, in a water environment there is no advantage to having a lung so how 

could it possibly be “selected” by NS. DUDs, however, do not worry about plausibility or 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

246 

rationality, despite their pugilistic claims to be the only rational people around, they love their 

‘Just So Stories’: 

The fishes of the early and middle Devonian found themselves forced to choose 

between the invading salt water marshes and the isolated fresh-water pools which 

periodically contracted into stagnant swamps or hard mud flats… The more advanced 

of the fishes, however, in order to survive in the stagnant waters of the continents, 

took to swallowing air and thus invented lungs and prepared the way for the evolution 

of the terrestrial vertebrates.
26

 

Fish that are able to “invent” lungs! 

Far from being an advantage for the DUD case, however, the existence of the lungfish 

actually undermines it for the same reason that we have already discussed. Life arose in the 

sea and the earliest method for obtaining oxygen was by means of gills. So the DUD problem 

remains as to how a lungfish, which according to the DUD worldview must have randomly 

evolved its lung through natural selection, in which the environment is supposed to select 

advantageous mutations through filtration of favorable ‘flaws’, managed to evolve its lung 

without an environment within which the lung was an advantage.   

Dawkins writes on this that: 

Short of rocketing into space, it is hard to imagine a bolder or more life-changing step 

than leaving the water for dry land. The two life-zones are different in so many ways 

that moving from one to the other demands a radical shift in almost all parts of the 

body. Gills that are good at extracting oxygen from water are all but useless in air, 

and lungs are useless in water. Methods of propulsion that are speedy, graceful and 

efficient in water are dangerously clumsy on land, and vice versa. No wonder ‘fish 

out of water’ and ‘like a drowning man’ have both become proverbial phrases.
27

 

Indeed, no wonder, then, that the notion that RM+NS could do the job is blatantly absurd. 

After his speculative inversion of Romer’s speculation Dawkins continues his exposition with 

an overview of the fossil record of the fish’s supposed emergence onto land. First he 

introduces us to the Eusthenopteron (see figure 7 which illustrates the supposed evolutionary 

sequence) which was discovered in a collection of fossils in 1881. This creature, Dawkins 

tells us, seems: 

…to have been a surface-hunting fish and probably didn’t ever come on land, 

notwithstanding some early imaginative reconstructions. Nevertheless it did have 

several anatomical similarities to the amphibians of 50 million years later, including 

its skull bones, its teeth and, above all, its fins. Although they were probably used for 

swimming and not walking, the bones followed the typical pattern of a tetrapod (the 

name given to all land vertebrates). In the forelimb, a single humerus was joined to 

two bones, the radius and ulna, joined to lots of little bones, which we tetrapods 

would call carpals, metacarpals and fingers. And the hind limb shows a similar 

tetrapod-like pattern.
28

 

 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

247 

 

Figure 7
(29)

 

 

 

Figure 8
(30)

 

 

He then outlines the discoveries of the fossils of the various ‘transitional forms’ indicated in 

figure 7.  Ichthyostega (figure 8) was discovered in 1932 in Greenland. This was followed by 

Acanthostega. These two were largely water dwellers and “had lungs and limbs which 

strongly suggest that [they] could cope on land as well as water.”
31

 Panderichthys, Dawkins 

tells us, is an “amphibian like fish” and the final “missing link” was discovered by a team of 

scientists from the University of Pennsylvania who: 

…deliberately thought about where might be the best place to look, and carefully 

chose a rocky area of exactly the right late Devonian age in the Canadian Arctic. 

There they went - and struck zoological gold. Tiktaalik!
32

  

Figure 9 shows an artist’s impression of Tiktaalik. Dawkins says concerning the discovery of 

Tiktaalik: 

If you were to meet a real live Tiktaalik, snout to snout, you might start back as if 

threatened by a crocodile, for that is what its face resembled. A crocodile's head 

on a salamander’s trunk, attached to a fish's rear end and tail. Unlike any fish, 

Tiktaalik had a neck. It could turn its head. In almost every particular, Tiktaalik is 

the perfect missing link - perfect, because it almost exactly splits the difference 

between fish and amphibian, and perfect because it is missing no longer. We have 

the fossil. You can see it, touch it, try to appreciate the age of it…
33

  

So now we are supposed to believe that this is the entire sequence that proves the DUD 

account, a sequence which, according to the DUD worldview, proves the DUD style gradual, 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

248 

incremental evolution through random gene mutations, each mutation producing 

advantageous ‘flaws’,  that are filtered by NS in the direction of moving on to the land.  

Dawkins says of this that “the move from water to land launched a major redesign of every 

aspect of life, from breathing to reproduction…”  But, as we have seen, the redesign of 

breathing required in order for fish originally equipped with only gills to acquire land-

breathing equipment could not have occurred in the manner that the DUD worldview claims 

that it did. 

 

 
Figure 9

(34)
 

 

 

Consider the first creature in the chain, Eusthenopteron, which did not come near the land 

(and if Dawkins were to be wrong about this we can consider the fish previous in the 

sequence which had not yet ventured landwards). This fish was presumably happy enough 

with the operation of its gills for extracting oxygen. Now let’s humour the DUD delusion and 

suppose that some kind of random mutational flaw occurred which produced in its offspring 

some kind of predisposition for breathing air with a lung; this new innovation would need to 

be filtered by the environment so it can be amplified through descendants. But the fish in 

question is happily living in water, does not go near land; so how could the land-breathing 

mutation possibly be ‘selected’ by the supposed natural selection of the water environment, 

where there is no free air. The entire account is nothing more than an absurd fantasy.   

However, it certainly looks as if there is a definite sequence which suggests this type of 

fantasy, which is why the fantasy has had such a devoted following of DUDs (‘DUD’ can 

stand for ‘Dawkinsian Ultra-Darwinism’ or ‘‘Dawkinsian Ultra-Darwinist’, the context 

should indicate which is appropriate). The crucial issue, however, is how we interpret this 

sequence. The DUD worldview is also a MUD worldview, a materialist Ultra-Darwinian 

perspective wherein everything is thought to take place within a fully paid up material world. 

In such a MUD perspective genes are thought of as ultimate material bits of self-enclosed 

independently existing units of stuff, all of which have a kind of informational token glued on 

to them.  As these DNA ‘units’ are passed on through the generations they do not change, nor 

does their glued on bits of information, unless that is, a “very rare random error” occurs.  In 

River Out of Eden Dawkins presents his DUD-MUD vision this way: 

It is tempting to think that when ancestors did successful things, the genes they 

passed on to their children were, as a result, upgraded relative to the genes they had 

received from their parents. Something about their success had rubbed off on their 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

249 

genes. … Wrong, utterly wrong! Genes do not improve in the using, they are just 

passed on, unchanged except for very rare random errors.
35

 

In other words according to the DUD-MUD worldview genes only change in the direction of 

becoming more advantageously flawed. 

 

But this perspective, apart from being unworkable as we have seen, also does not fit in with 

the evidence, unless, that is, one is already genetically predisposed and hard-wired into the 

DUD-MUD worldview.  Consider again the first creature in the chain, Eusthenopteron, which 

did not come near the land. According to Dawkins “it did have several anatomical similarities 

to the amphibians of 50 million years later, including its skull bones, its teeth and, above all, 

its fins.” In other words it seems to have an anatomical structure which anticipates future 

developments which will take place 50 million years in the future. Dawkins and the DUD-

MUD brigade would no doubt ridicule such a notion, but the evidence that there is 

anticipatory structure underlying the process of evolution is now gathering force.   

An example of such an anticipatory morphological structure is given by Simon Conway 

Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology at the University of Cambridge, in his 

excellent work Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe: 

To give one example: the central nervous system of amphioxus is really rather 

simple. It consists of an elongate nerve chord stretching back along the body, 

above the precursor of the vertebral column (our backbone, consisting of a row of 

vertebrae) and a so called brain. The brain can only be described as a 

disappointment. It is little more than an anterior swelling … and has no obvious 

sign in terms of its morphology of even the characteristic threefold division seen 

in the vertebrate brain of hind-, mid-, and fore-sections. Yet the molecular 

evidence, which is also backed up by some exquisitely fine studies of 

microanatomy, suggests that, cryptically, the brain of amphioxus has regions 

equivalent to the tripartite division seen in the vertebrates.  The clear implication 

of this is that folded within the simple brain of amphioxus is what can almost be 

described as a template for the equivalent organ of the vertebrates: in some sense 

amphioxus carries the inherent potential for intelligence.
36

 

This ‘molecular evidence’ indicates the tripartite division within the brain which emerges 

within evolution much later is somehow written into the molecular structures of the simplest 

organisms as a kind of template for future development.  And this molecular anticipatory 

structuring must have a quantum origin, there is nowhere else it can come from, molecular 

arrangements are determined by quantum potentialities. Conway Morris provides convincing 

evidence that the spectacular convergences upon similar ‘solutions’ within evolution also 

suggest internal patterning templates.  And such patterning templates, which have a quantum 

origin, can be also identified with Rupert Sheldrake’s notion of a ‘morphogenetic field’, 

which is a quantum probabilistic field of potentiality which underlies the development of any 

organism. 
 

 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

250 

 

 Figure 10 – The amphioxus animal
(37)

  

 

Having finished his exposition of the DUD-MUD absurdity of the supposed fully 

materialized, millimetre by millimetre, RM+NS transformation of fish into land animals, 

Dawkins adds intellectual insult to intellectual injury by moving on to another DUD-MUD 

absurdity, the supposed trek back to the sea by a group of hippo-like land animals. He writes 

of this in his Greatest Show book:  

…with what seems almost wanton perversity, a good number of thorough-going land 

animals later turned around, abandoned their hard-earned terrestrial retooling, and 

trooped back into the water again. Seals and sea lions have only gone part-way back. 

They show us what the intermediates might have been like, on the way to extreme 

cases such as whales and dugongs.  Whales (including the small whales we call 

dolphins), and dugongs with their close cousins the manatees, ceased to be land 

creatures altogether and reverted to the full marine habits of their remote ancestors. 

They don’t even come ashore to breed. They do, however, still breathe air, having 

never developed anything equivalent to the gills of their earlier marine progenitors.
38

 

Of course, according to the DUD-MUD worldview there should be no reason why RM+NS 

could not have eventually equipped whales and dugongs with gills. And given the fact that it 

must be rather irritating for whales to have keep coming to the surface to get a gasp of air one 

can only wonder at the lack of concern for the full welfare of them on the part of RM-NS. 

But, then again there probably hasn’t been enough time, so the whale is stuck with having to 

come to the surface all the time for a gulp of air!  

 

Dawkins continues: 

Whales were long an enigma, but recently our knowledge of whale evolution has 

become rather rich. Molecular genetic evidence … shows that the closest living 

cousins of whales are hippos, then pigs, then ruminants. Even more surprisingly, the 

molecular evidence shows that hippos are more closely related to whales than they 

are to the cloven-hoofed animals (such as pigs and ruminants) which look much more 

like them. This is another example of the mismatch that can sometimes arise between 

closeness of cousinship and degree of physical resemblance. We noted it above in 

connection with fish that are closer cousins to us than they are to other fish. In that 

case, the anomaly arose because our lineage left the water for the land, and 

consequently surged away in evolution, leaving our close fish cousins, the lungfish 

and coelacanths, resembling our more distant fish cousins because they all stayed in 

the water. Now we meet the same phenomenon again, but in reverse. Hippos stayed, 

at least partly, on land, and so still resemble their more distant land-dwelling cousins, 

the ruminants, while their closer cousins, the whales, took off into the sea and 

changed so drastically that their affinities with hippos escaped all biologists except 

molecular geneticists. As when their remote fishy ancestors originally went in the 

other direction, it was a bit like taking off into space, or at least like launching a 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

251 

balloon, as the ancestors of whales floated free of the constraining burden of gravity 

and severed their moorings to dry land.
39

 

There are two important and connected issues here. The first concerns the nature of the 

relationship between hippos and whales, is it necessarily a fully paid up material relationship, 

with a direct line of material descent, with vast numbers of intermediaries as a nose gradually 

becomes a blowhole, millimetre by millimetre. The second concerns the ‘drastic’ nature of 

the transformation required; could an intelligent person really believe that the extraordinary 

coordinated biological re-engineering could possibly be the result of RM+NS.  

With reference to the first issue we must ask: what are the watertight implications of the 

molecular evidence that “hippos are more closely related to whales than they are to the 

cloven-hoofed animals,” what kind of ‘relationship’ is suggested by the ‘molecular evidence.’ 

Does it indicate that the ‘relationship’ must be one of a direct fully materialised descent 

involving the supposed hippo-like creature’s external breathing apparatus gradually moving 

back, millimetre by excruciating millimetre, over 50 million years or thereabouts,  until it 

migrates to the position of a whale’s blowhole.  The answer is that, whilst this molecular 

evidence is consistent with the unlikely notion, it in no way proves it, just as the fossil 

evidence does not prove it either. Shortly we shall see that there is a much more coherent, and 

must less implausible, account which fits the evidence, including the evidence of quantum 

theory, much more coherently and plausible, if, that is, one is not blinded by a dogmatic 

metaphysical preference for a materialist explanation.  As quantum physicist Amit Goswami 

points out:  

Darwinists make a big case for another intermediate, this time a series of them that 

allegedly arose between land mammals and cetaceans-swimming mammals. In the 

late 1980s and early 1990s, the biologist Phillip Gingerich and collaborators 

uncovered this series. The animal at the midpoint of the series was named 

Ambulocetus natans, “the swimming whale that walks.” The shape of the front and 

hind limbs of the fossil remnant make it quite plausible that the animal could both 

walk and swim. The Darwinists assume that this new trait could come about 

continuously from gradual modification of the land mammal with walking limbs 

only. They forget that swimming requires many other internal modifications 

(including some involving the brain) all acting coherently as a whole, besides just the 

shape of the limbs!
40

 

Goswami’s book Creative Evolution indicates in great detail that the only coherent account 

of evolution which accords with the discoveries of modern science, including quantum 

theory, requires that much of the organization underlying the evolutionary process must take 

place creatively at the quantum level of potentiality and primordial consciousness, which he 

terms the “supramental”: 

In the theory of creative evolution, we accept the new trait as the quantum leap to 

express a new biological function - a new archetype - that of swimming. The 

emergence of the “walking whales” is an instance of fundamental creativity, the leap 

into the supramental realm. The change from these creatures to the earliest cetaceans, 

the archeocetes, occurred through situational creativity working within established 

archetypes, a process of refinement.
41

 

According to the new insights of Evolutionary Developmental biology (Evo-Devo) and 

quantum, theory, the DUD-MUD worldview must be replaced with a new perspective which 

accepts the operation of quantum archetypes, which operate through a quantum ‘implicate’ 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

252 

hierarchical organisation from subtle quantum levels to the material world, in the process of 

evolution. 

Dawkins, however, remains dogmatically insistent upon his discredited DUD-MUD belief 

system.  In his later section in Greatest Show discussing ‘molecular comparisons’ he writes 

that:  

Just as the vertebrate skeleton is invariant across all vertebrates while the individual 

bones differ, and just as the crustacean exoskeleton is invariant across all crustaceans 

while the individual ‘tubes’ vary, so the DNA code is invariant across all living 

creatures, while the individual genes themselves vary. This is a truly astounding fact, 

which shows more clearly than anything else that all living creatures are descended 

from a single ancestor. Not just the genetic code itself, but the whole gene/protein 

system for running life is the same in all animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, archaea and 

viruses. What varies is what is written in the code, not the code itself. And when we 

look comparatively at what is written in the code - the actual genetic sequences in all 

these different creatures - we find the same kind of hierarchical tree of resemblance. 

We find the same family tree - albeit much more thoroughly and convincingly laid 

out - as we did with the vertebrate skeleton, the crustacean skeleton, and indeed the 

whole pattern of anatomical resemblances through all the living kingdoms.
42

 

Here, again, Dawkins leaps to the conclusion that the fact of this hierarchical structure that 

underlies the molecular and genetic structures which organise life means that this 

hierarchical structure must have been fully expressed on a completely material level. And he 

furthermore concludes that there must have been just a “single ancestor.” Presumably he 

thinks of this as a kind of blob-like cell somehow eking out a precarious existence in a 

primeval under sea geezer, or some such.    

But this is not a watertight conclusion by any means, it is a conclusion reached on the basis 

of a prior commitment to the DUD-MUD worldview. Proponents of this worldview, 

Dawkins, Coyne, Dennett and many other DUD-MUDs, claim that there are so many 

interlocking pieces of evidence: fossils, molecular structures, vestigial appendages, 

Cladistics amongst them, that the entire picture put together is irresistible. But this is not the 

case. Each separate area of evidence is evaluated on the basis of the DUD-MUD worldview 

in the first place, and, furthermore, the gaping scientific and philosophical problems and 

absurdities are routinely ignored. 

One of the core tenets of the DUD-MUD worldview was the belief, heartily embraced by 

Dawkins in his early days, that the genes involved in the evolution of different species would 

themselves be different, different species would not have common gene structure.  Thus the 

evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote confidently in the 1960’s that: 

Much that has been learned about gene physiology makes it evident that the search for 

homologous genes is quite futile except in very close relatives. If there is only one 

efficient solution for a certain functional demand, very different gene complexes will 

come up with the same solution, no matter how different the pathway by which it is 

achieved. The saying “Many roads lead to Rome” is as true in evolution as in daily 

affairs. 
43

 

An excellent example of a pronouncement made on the basis of little evidence but a huge 

emotional, intellectual and career investment in the DUD-MUD worldview, an investment 

which can still be found in much ‘scientific’ writing in the DUD-MUD camp.  However, this 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

253 

dogmatic assumption has now been shown by the Evolutionary Development (Evo-Devo) 

revolution in biology to be completely false; as Sean B. Carroll writes in his book Endless 

Forms Most Beautiful: 

The first shots in the Evo Devo revolution revealed that despite their great differences 

in appearance and physiology, all complex animals - flies and flycatchers, dinosaurs 

and trilobites, butterflies and zebras and humans - share a common “tool kit” of 

“master” genes that govern the formation and patterning of their bodies and body 

parts. … The important point to appreciate from the outset is that this discovery 

shattered our previous notions of animal relationships and of what made animals 

different, and opened up a whole new way of looking at evolution.
44

 

This new evidence, evidence which does not support the Darwinian worldview but counts 

against it, suggests a preformed body-plan, existing at the dawn of time, which is activated in 

a multitude of ways. 

The American cognitive scientist and philosopher Jerry Fodor, Professor of Philosophy at 

Rutgers University, in an essay Why Pigs Don’t Fly, has questioned the neo-Darwinian 

assumption of random ‘adaptationism:’  

Everybody thinks evo-devo must be at least part of the truth, since nobody thinks that 

phenotypes are shaped directly by environmental variables. Even the hardest core 

Darwinists agree that environmental effects on a creature’s phenotype are mediated 

by their effects on the creature’s genes: its ‘genome’. Indeed, in the typical case, the 

environment selects a phenotype by selecting a genome that the phenotype expresses. 

Once in place, this sort of reasoning spreads to other endogenous factors. Phenotypic 

structure carries information about genetic structure. And genotypic structure carries 

information about the biochemistry of genes. And the biochemical structure of genes 

carries information about their physical structure. And so on down to quantum 

mechanics for all I know.
45

 

And, as we shall see, it is at the quantum level that body-plans and potentialities for various 

types of creatures and environments must ‘exist’ as potentialities. 

The second issue mentioned with regard to whale evolution is that of the plausibility and 

credibility of the notion that there was a long lineage of creatures, each of them differing to a 

tiny degree to the one before, wherein the two nostrils of the original land animal migrated 

back to become a blowhole whilst at the same time other drastic, dramatic and heroic 

biological transformations took place to enable whales to dive to bone-crushing depths of the 

sea.  Sperm whales are believed to be able to reach 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) and remain 

submerged for 90 minutes.  The sperm whale has adapted to cope with drastic pressure 

changes when diving. A flexible ribcage allows lung collapse, reducing nitrogen intake, and 

metabolism can decrease to conserve oxygen. Myoglobin, which stores oxygen in muscle 

tissue, is much more abundant than in terrestrial animals. The blood has a high red blood cell 

density, which contain oxygen-carrying haemoglobin. The oxygenated blood can be directed 

towards only the brain and other essential organs when oxygen levels deplete.
46

 All of this re-

engineering would have had to have taken place in a co-ordinated manner, supposedly driven 

by RM+NS.  This would mean that small mutations of genes would have to alter, in a tiny, 

tiny manner of course, the entire system of nose/blowhole, ribcage, blood chemistry and so 

on, each altering the entire system in just the right way to allow the animal to dive a 

millimetre, or metre or….(?) deeper! Such a notion is massively implausible. 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

254 

One of the main reasons for diving to the depths that sperm whales dive is to feed on squid, 

so why the hippo like creature decided to try and start diving is a mystery, did they know that 

the squid were down there?  After all the primary reason offered for the supposed return to 

the sea is the abundance of food.  When DUD-MUD just-so tales and fairy stories are 

subjected to rigorous analysis they simply fall apart. 

Dawkins, however, in order to try and counter the obvious implausibility, has adopted the 

tactic of defending by attacking, appealing to his notion that ‘personal incredulity’ is 

inadmissible as a criticism of the DUD-MUD worldview: 

The general lesson we should learn is never use human judgment in assessing such 

matters. Never say, and never take seriously anybody who says: “I cannot believe 

that so-and-so could have evolved by gradual selection.” have dubbed this kind of 

fallacy “the Argument from Personal Incredulity.” Time and time again, it has proved 

the prelude to an intellectual banana-skin experience.
47

  

This is a classic Dawkinsian invalid, absurd and ridiculous statement, and for those capable of 

analysis and clear reasoning there are many such absurdities in the Dawkins’ oeuvre. Doesn’t 

science depend upon “human judgment,” might not someone examine the evidence in detail 

and decide on the basis of rigorous reasoning that: “I cannot believe that so-and-so could have 

evolved by gradual selection.”  The context for this statement is an assertion by an opponent 

that the interrelationship between orchids and the wasps that pollinate them could not have 

evolved incrementally. The orchid mimics features of the female wasps that attract males, this 

includes the sheen of wings, colouring of hairs, “having an opening in the proper place” and 

also the emission of a pheromone. Dawkins launches into a vitriolic irrelevant diatribe about 

how humans, animals and wasps are easy to fool and therefore the mimicry would not need to 

be “perfect” in order to work. In all this he entirely misses the point which is that the 

interdependency of orchid and wasp could not have evolved from a situation of no-

dependency. Without the pollinating wasp the orchid would not have survived, so there could 

never have been a time when a non-wasp-attracting orchid had the good fortune to be 

provided by RM+NS with wasp paraphernalia including the emission of wasp pheromone. 

Dawkins misses the point entirely: 

The argument I am attacking is the one that says: gradual evolution of so and so 

couldn’t have happened, because so-and-so “obviously” has to be perfect and 

complete if it is to work at all.
48

 

However, it is obvious that the interdependency between orchid and wasp must be in place at 

the outset, even if imperfectly, and therefore cannot evolve out of no-dependency. 

Furthermore such interdependencies, wherein members of seemingly completely unrelated 

species are in fact bound within a network of survival dependencies are replete in nature.  

This was made stunningly clear in a recent BBC documentary series Secrets of the Living 

Planet presented by Chris Packham: 

Ten million species live on Planet Earth, Each one is incredible, yet none can live by 

itself. In this series, naturalist Chris Packham reveals the natural world in a way that 

you’ve never seen it before. For him, what is really beautiful about nature is not the 

amazing animals and plants that we share the planet with but the hidden relationships 

between them. These relationships may sound bizarre but without them, no life 

would be possible. Chris reveals: Why a crab in the swamps of Bangladesh needs a 

tiger, why the mighty Brazil nut tree needs a rare orchid and a small rodent, why a 

small gecko in Kenya needs a giraffe, why the North American lynx needs a tiny 

moth caterpillar.
49

 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

255 

Analysis indicates that none of these interrelationships could have evolved gradually and 

incrementally from a state of no-interrelationship, no-dependency.  The natural world must 

have always been characterized by complex interdependency, and such an interdependency 

and fine-tuned interrelationship does not chime well with the notion of a continuous 

mechanism of accumulations of “flaws” in non-interdependent, self-enclosed bits of matter.  

DUD-MUDs, however, are blinded to certain clear facts because of a chronic state of 

‘personal credulity’ which leads them to accept desperately implausible DUD-MUD claims.  

 

Figure 11
(50)

 

 

In his Greatest Show chapter ‘The Tree of Cousinship’ Dawkins waxes lyrically on the 

subject of the underlying homology, or essential sameness of pattern underlying the 

skeletons of all creatures. The details, of course can be very different but at the base of it 

all there is a fundamental prototype skeleton-blueprint or body-plan. Figure 11 shows the 

famous example of Pierre Belon noting the agreement between the skeleton of a pigeon 

and a human in 1555. Dawkins also gives an example of two more closely related animals, 

the giraffe and okapi and he writes that: 

…the pattern of resemblances among the skeletons of modern animals is exactly the 

pattern we should expect if they are all descended from a common ancestor, some of 

them more recently than others. The ancestral skeleton has been gradually modified 

down the ages. Some pairs of animals, for example giraffes and okapis, share a 

recent ancestor. It is not strictly correct to describe a giraffe as a vertically stretched 

okapi for both are modern animals. But it would be a good guess … that the shared 

ancestor looked more like the okapi than the giraffe.
51

 

Dawkins also gives the examples of a Pterodactyl and ‘flying lizard’ (figure 12).  

According to Dawkins this guess is supported by the fossil evidence. This means that he is 

claiming that there is a sequence fossils, starting with the ‘common ancestor’, indicating a 

sequence of giraffe ancestors with a neck getting progressively longer; this claim, 

however, seems to be false.   

 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

256 

 

Figure 12
(52)

  

 

In 2006 researcher Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, an expert on mutation genetics having been a 

researcher for over thirty years, published a long carefully researched paper entitled ‘The 

Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe – What Do We Really Know’. The opening summary 

section of this remarkable document begins:   

1. Ulrich Kutschera made the following statement regarding the origin of the giraffe, 

… “...the evolution of the long-necked giraffe can be reconstructed from fossils.” 

According to today’s best giraffe researchers, all fossil links that could show us the 

gradual evolution of the long-necked giraffe from the short-necked giraffe are 

missing, apart from the insufficiently answered question of causes. Some 

paleontologists postulate a “neck elongation macromutation” to explain the origin of 

the long-necked giraffe. 

2. Richard Dawkins likewise considers - in a striking exception to his usual 

theoretical framework - the origin of the long-necked giraffe through a 

macromutation. This exception would, of course, be entirely superfluous if the 

gradual evolution of the long-necked giraffe could really be reconstructed from 

fossils, especially since he much prefers the gradualist view. Dawkins draws the 

okapi, in relation to the giraffe, nearly twice as large as it really is. In this way, the 

problem of its evolution (the gap between the two forms) appears only about half as 

large. One may well ask if this technique is really useful in the search for truth.
53

 

The italics in the above quote are due to Lönnig. This quote indicates that Dawkins, who rants 

about the necessity for scientific rigor, is at the same time not averse to falsifying the 

evidence, stretching a neck in order to promote the fallacies of the DUD-MUD just so story.  

 

This may seem shocking but it is par for the course in DUD-MUD polemics. I actually came 

across Lönnig’s work after I had scanned and pasted in figure 13a from The Greatest Show I 

was taken aback when I saw his claim and thought I should immediately check it out. I 

therefore found a photo of the giraffe and okapi skeletons which was independent of 

Dawkins’ influence which is shown in figure 13b and it does seem to be the case that 

Dawkins has an elongated view of the okapi’s neck.  The comparison is shown in figures 14a 

and 14b.  Lönnig’s paper was published in 2006 and the source for his example of Dawkins’ 

giraffe-okapi was Dawkins’ book Climbing Mount Improbable which was published in 1996 

and the diagram that Dawkins uses in this book is shown in figure 15. This means that 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

257 

Dawkins has continued the use of this deception for well over fifteen years.  Notice how 

Dawkins’ okapi (figure 15) seems to be actually stretching its neck in order to elongate it!  

 

Lönnig also points out that the correct relative sizes is shown in the silhouettes on the left of 

the man in figure 16. These are taken from the book Animals of the World (1988), 

Bertelsmann Lexikothek. Lönnig writes that: 

On the left side I have placed Dawkins’ illustration for comparison, but with the 

okapi placed on the same level as the giraffe (cf. Dawkins illustration above). In 

between, I have repeated the drawing of the okapi with its real relative size shown 

(silhouette). From Dawkins’ portrayal one gets the impression that the step from 

okapi to long-necked giraffe is slight, and the text reinforces this impression.
54

  

As Lönnig points out, if proponents of intelligent design (ID) were to engage in this kind of 

practice DUD-MUDs would be up in arms, no one in their ranks seems to be bothered by 

Dawkins, and others, resorting to these underhand methods. 

 

 

 

 

Figure 13a
(55)

                                Figure 13b
(56)

 

 

 

 

      Figure 14a – Dawkins’ okapi        Figure 14b – Correct proportions 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

258 

 
Figure 15

(57)
 

 
Figure 16

(58)
 

 

After a detailed and exhaustive examination of the claims, counter-claims and the evidence 

Lönnig concludes that: 

If, however, the general lineages for almost all modern groups of vertebrates are as 

uncertain as in the case of giraffes, then we are dealing with only suggestive 

evolutionary interpretations in most other groups as well, yet without solid scientific 

proof.
59

 

In my article The Giraffe Reveals the Evolutionary Tall Tale I look into Lönnig’s work in 

detail.   

In his discussion of the ‘tree of cousinhood’ Dawkins indicates that any two creatures 

whatsoever, such as the giraffe and okapi, can trace their ancestry back to a ‘common 

ancestor’.  At the start of his Greatest Show book Dawkins calls this the “hairpin thought 

experiment.” Take any two species, the rabbit and the leopard for example. Now start with 

the rabbit, a female one, and start tracing its lineage backwards in time: 

…back in time, back, back, back through the megayears, a seemingly endless line of 

female rabbits, each one sandwiched between her daughter and her mother. We walk 

along the line of rabbits, backwards in time, examining them carefully like an 

inspecting general. As we pace the line, we’ll eventually notice that the ancient 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

259 

rabbits we are passing are just a little bit different from the modern rabbits we are 

used to. But the rate of change will be so slow that we shan’t notice the trend from 

generation to generation, just as we can't see the motion of the hour hand on our 

watches – and just as we can’t see a child growing, we can only see later that she has 

become a teenager, and later still an adult. An additional reason why we don’t notice 

the change in rabbits from one generation to another is that, in any one century the 

variation within the current population will normally be greater than the variation 

between mothers and daughters. … Nevertheless, steadily and imperceptibly, as we 

retreat through time, we shall reach ancestors that look less and less like a rabbit and 

more and more like a shrew (and not very like either). One of these creatures I’ll call 

the hairpin bend … This animal is the most recent common ancestor (in the female 

line, but that is not important) that rabbits share with leopards. We don't know 

exactly what it looked like, but it follows from the evolutionary view that it 

definitely had to exist.
60

 

However, if we take into account the latest quantum discoveries made by science, then 

Dawkins’ claim that this common ancestor of a rabbit and leopard “definitely had to exist” as 

a fully paid up material organic creature can be shown to be wrong.  This assertion may raise 

a few eyebrows; how else could it possibly exist? The answer to this central question is that 

many of the ‘common ancestors’ which Dawkins thinks must definitely have actually roamed 

the planet as fully materialized flesh and blood creatures certainly did not. They were, and 

still are, ‘implicate’ quantum templates of potentiality. 

In his discussion of the ‘tree of cousinship’ Dawkins asks whether there are any alternative 

explanations for the patterns of the evolutionary ‘tree of resemblances’ and refers, in heavily 

disparaging terms, to the pre-Darwinian view that these hierarchical  patterns and 

interrelations reflect “themes in the mind of the designer”: 

He had various ideas for how to make animals. His thoughts ran along a mammal 

theme, and, independently, they ran along an insect theme. Within the mammal 

theme, the designer’s ideas were neatly and hierarchically bisected into sub-themes 

(say, the cloven-hoofed theme) and sub-sub-themes (say, the pig theme). There is a 

strong element of special pleading and wishful thinking about this, and nowadays 

creationists seldom resort to it.
61

  

Dawkins continues by lampooning this proposal in his usual piranha style, using unsubtle 

parody and crude misunderstanding.  In Greatest Show he refers to this view as “The Dead 

Hand of Plato.” Plato, of course, considered that the phenomena of the manifested world were 

merely shadows of the perfect archetypes which resided in an immaterial realm of ideas.  

Dawkins writes of this: 

Biology, according to Mayr, is plagued by its own version of essentialism. … the 

rabbits that we see are wan shadows of the perfect ‘idea’ of rabbit. The ideal 

essential Platonic rabbit, hanging somewhere in conceptual space … Flesh and blood 

rabbits may vary, but their variations are always as flawed deviations from the ideal 

essence of rabbit.
62

  

However, we shall see that, when we replace the notion of a Platonic realm of conceptual 

archetypes with that of the quantum realm of potentiality, the idea that there are animal 

archetypes that are manifested at the material level is close to the truth. The shocking fact, 

given that Dawkins constantly rants about the need to conform to the findings of science, is 

that this notion, when formulated in less archaic form, is far more consistent with modern 

physics that the crude materialism embraced by Dawkins. 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

260 

 

A further startling fact is that this kind of Platonic ‘theme’ perspective, wherein an infinite 

fecund immaterial source of the manifested world manifests a vast variety of plant and animal 

forms based on ‘templates’ which are contained as potential within it, was proposed by 

Darwin’s intellectual opponent, the nineteenth century geologist, glaciologist, and zoologist 

Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz (fig. 6) who correctly criticized Darwin’s (fig. 7) ideas: 

Perhaps one of the most interesting criticisms of evolution by natural selection in 

Darwin’s era came from the Swiss American geologist, glaciologist, and zoologist 

Louis Agassiz, Agassiz didn’t deny that evolution occurs in nature but his idea of 

evolution was that it entailed the preordained unfolding of a plan.
63

 

This means, of course, that Agassiz’s view was actually closer to the truth, as now revealed 

by the Evo-Devo discoveries, than Darwin’s. In a remarkable piece of prescience Agassiz 

wrote: 

It is not that I hold Darwin himself responsible for these troublesome consequences. 

… It is his henchmen who took hold of his theories…
64

 

An insight still very true today!  

Agassiz wrote that: 

However much likeness there is among the animals or plants of the same species, 

there always is in all individuals, even externally, some … differences, more or less 

pronounced, of an individual’s features through which it’s individuality shows up 

clearly. However, as large as these differences may be … the differences don’t 

exceed this that I called, on another occasion, the boundaries of the flexibility, of the 

pliability of the species. Finally, never in the succession of these individuals has one 

been born entirely similar to its parents, nor later have they become one of another 

species ,… The school of Darwin goes beyond facts when it states that these 

individual differences constitute the transitions from one species to another.
65

 

In other words, although Darwin, and Dawkins following him, claimed and claim that 

selective breeding is crucial evidence for evolution by RM+NS, an example of selective 

breeding creating an entirely new species has never been demonstrated.  All that has been 

demonstrated is the latitude of malleability and variability within the ‘template’ of a species.  

It was because of this fact that Agassiz considered that the species were in some sense 

‘created’ as ‘fixed’ elements of life. Agassiz was a staunch creationist who saw a Divine Plan 

everywhere in nature, and he could not reconcile himself to a theory that did not invoke 

design. He defined a species as “a thought of God.” Thus he wrote in his Essay on 

Classification: 

The combination in time and space of all these thoughtful conceptions exhibits not 

only thought, it shows also premeditation, power, wisdom, greatness, prescience, 

omniscience, providence. In one word, all these facts in their natural connection 

proclaim aloud the One God, whom man may know, adore, and love; and Natural 

History must in good time become the analysis of the thoughts of the Creator of the 

Universe …
66

.  

 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

261 

 

Figure 17
(67) 

 

 

 

Figure 18
(68)

 

 

In Agassiz’s time of course the notion of a creator God was for many a natural explanation. 

Today, however, it is not necessary to invoke a ‘creator’, although some may still wish to. 

However, if we wish to stick to the implications of physics then the source of all phenomena 

would seem to be quantum fields: 

Quantum field theory, the tool with which we study particles, is based upon eternal, 

omnipresent objects that can create and destroy those particles. These objects are the 

“fields” of quantum field theory. … quantum fields are objects that permeate 

spacetime … they create or absorb elementary particles … particles can be produced 

or destroyed anywhere at any time.
69

 

These “eternal” quantum fields provide the quantum potentialities for all manifestation.  In 

this context it is worth briefly examining a controversy which was prompted by the claim by 

Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist and Director of the Origins Institute at Arizona State 

University, in his book A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than 

Nothing, that the entire universe could have emerged from ‘nothing.’ By ‘nothing’ what 

Krauss is referring to is quantum field theory. The physicist and philosopher of science David 

Albert rightly took Krauss to task for claiming that quantum fields are ‘nothing’. Albert wrote 

in a New York Times Review of the book:  



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

262 

The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according 

to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists 

(unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this 

theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are 

physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those 

fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have 

nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why 

the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it 

should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the 

first place. Period. Case closed. End of story. … Relativistic-quantum-field-

theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — 

are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-

quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t 

this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and 

ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! 
70

  

In other words Albert is pointing out that it is not the case that the universe emerged from 

‘nothing’ because quantum fields are a kind of ‘physical’ stuff, although  quantum field 

‘physical’ stuff is actually immaterial and consists of quantum potentiality.  Physicist 

Wojciech Zurek refers to quantum field ‘stuff’ as ‘dream stuff’.  

Krauss, wants to use physics to undermine the possibility of any religious or mystical 

perspective. Albert, however, points out that Krauss: 

…complains that “some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine 

‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently 

describe,” and that “now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty 

space as ‘nothing,’ but rather as a ‘quantum vacuum,’ to distinguish it from the 

philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing,’” and he does a good deal of railing 

about “the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern 

philosophy.” But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is 

dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.
71

 

‘Eternal’ quantum fields are quite clearly not ‘nothings’ but are fields of potentiality for 

universes containing sentient beings to come into a derived ‘existence.’ Furthermore, there is 

no reason to rigidly distinguish between theological and philosophical notions and quantum 

vacuums or fields of potentiality, the two can coexist and interpenetrate harmoniously.  That 

is to say quantum field theory can have theological significance. 

In his recent book From Quantum to Cosmos: The Universe Within Neil Turok, director of 

the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, writes concerning Krauss and Dawkins: 

As an example from my own field of cosmology, let me cite Lawrence Krauss’s recent 

book, A Universe from Nothing. In it, he claims that recent observations showing that 

the universe has simple, flat geometry imply that it could have been created out of 

nothing. His argument is, in my view, based upon a technical gaffe, but that is not my 

point here. Through a misrepresentation of the physics, he leaps to the conclusion that 

a creator was not needed. The book includes an afterword by Richard Dawkins, 

hailing Krauss’s argument as the final nail in the coffin for religion. Dawkins closes 

with, “If On The Origin of Species was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism 

[which is what Dawkins calls religion], we may come to see A Universe from Nothing 

as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

263 

says is devastating.” The rhetoric is impressive, but the arguments are shallow. The 

philosopher David Albert - one of today’s deepest thinkers on quantum theory – 

framed his response at the right level, in his recent review of Krauss’s book in the 

New York Times, lamenting that “all that gets offered to us now, by guys like these, in 

books like this, is the pale, small, silly, nerdy accusation that religion is, I don’t know, 

dumb. In comparing Krauss’s and Dawkins’s arguments with the care and 

respectfulness of those presented by Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural 

Religion, all the way back in the eighteenth century, one can’t help feeling the debate 

has gone backwards.
72

  

Albert is correct, books like Krauss’s and those of Dawkins are “silly” in their crude 

embracement of an unscientific materialism in their quest to debunk spiritual perspectives. 

Many of their claims are clearly out of step with the modern discoveries of quantum theory. 

Turok also writes: 

Great mysteries remain. Why did the universe emerge from the big bang with a set of 

physical laws that gave rise to heavy elements and allowed complex chemistry? Why 

did these laws allow for planets to form around stars, with water, organic molecules, 

an atmosphere, and the other requirements for life? Why did the DNA-protein 

machinery, developed and selected for in the evolution of primitive single-cell 

organisms, turn out to be able to code for complex creatures like ourselves? How and 

why did consciousness emerge? At every stage in the history of the universe, there 

was the potential for vastly more than what had been required to reach that stage. 

Today, this is more true than ever. Our understanding of the universe has grown faster 

than anyone could have imagined a century ago, way beyond anything that could be 

explained in terms of past evolutionary advantage. … Might we be the means for the 

universe to gain a consciousness of itself?
73

 

Physicist Sean Carroll also tells us that: 

We are part of the universe which has developed a remarkable ability: we can hold 

an image of the world in our minds. We are matter contemplating itself.
74

 

Here Carroll betrays a materialist leaning in his mistaken notion that it is “matter 

contemplating itself”. If the “world is made of fields”, as he himself says, then ultimately it is 

the immaterial quantum fields which organize themselves in order to manifest and 

contemplate their own internal qualities. Quantum fields, then, must contain the potentialities 

for the appearance of the material world as well as the potential for the arising of conscious 

awareness. The notion that mute and completely unaware ‘matter’ could end up 

contemplating itself is internally contradictory.   

The emerging perspective, then, requires that we understand that consciousness is primary 

and matter derivative, a view which Planck eventually came to: 

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind 

this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix 

of all matter.
75

 

As did Schrödinger: 

Mind has erected the objective outside world … out of its own stuff.
76

  

Goswami describes the new quantum paradigm which embraces consciousness: 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

264 

…in the beginning consciousness includes all possibilities. Ponder what that means. 

Among other things, “all possibilities” must include literally all possibilities, past, 

present, and future. In other words, when every possibility is included, there is no 

scope for the passage of time. To bring time into the equation of the manifest 

universe, consciousness must limit what is possible. The imposition of progressive 

limitation on what is possible is seen as an involution of consciousness. In this way, 

when evolution is viewed from the context of the primacy of consciousness, 

involution must precede it. From a primacy-of-consciousness point of view it is also 

possible to ask, what is the purpose of evolution? Why evolution at all? The answer 

is easy: Evolution is needed for experiencing the possibilities of consciousness in 

manifestation. When consciousness is inseparable from its possibilities, there is only 

one thing, and no experience is possible. As the mathematician G. Spencer Brown 

(1977) pointed out, “we cannot escape the fact that the world we know is constructed 

in order (and in such way as to be able) to see itself, but in order to do so it must cut 

itself up into at least one state that sees, and at least one other state that is seen.
77

 

In other words the first step in the manifestation of the universe as a self-exploring, self-

organising system is the division into a subject-field and an object-field. The subject-field is 

the pole of manifestation which later divides into to multitude of species of sentient beings, 

and the object-field is the pole which will become the environments which are inhabited by 

the various type of sentient beings.  

According to Russian quantum physicist Michael Mensky, consciousness is an interior 

aspect or quality of the quantum field which reflexively operates upon quantum potentialities 

in order to manifest subject-object embodied experiential awarenesses of a multitude of 

types.  For individuated consciousness itself to become manifest from the fundamental 

quantum field as explicit experiential aspects of reality it must bring an experienced world 

into being. Such a world is manifested through the actualisation of the potentialities within 

the universal quantum wavefunction of potentiality and the subsequent selection of primary 

experiential pathways. According to Mensky a crucial question which requires explication is 

why the alternatives which naturally arise are classical.  Mensky gives the following 

account: 

If the picture of the world as it appears in consciousness were far from classical, 

then, due to quantum non-locality, this would be a picture of a world with ‘locally 

unpredictable’ behaviour.  The future of a restricted region in such a world could 

depend on events even in very distant regions.  No strategy of surviving could be 

elaborated in such a world for a localised living being.  Life (of the form we know) 

would be impossible.  On the contrary, a (close to) classical state of the world is 

‘locally predictable’.  The evolution of a restricted region of such a world 

essentially depends only on the events in this region or not too far from it.  

Influence of distant regions is negligible.  Strategy of surviving can be elaborated in 

such a world for a localised living being.
78

 

Entangled quantum phenomena can instantaneously affect each other over vast cosmic 

distances, a quantum feature called ‘non-locality’.  In fact distance does not seem to be an 

issue for this kind of entangled mutual interrelationship.  It follows, therefore, that in a non-

classical, quantum-entangled scenario there would be no environments wherein 

environmental functioning was determined purely by local events. Such environments would 

not be locally coherent and predictable and consequently they could not support coherent life.   



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

265 

Quantum theory indicates that an entangled interconnected field of potentiality unravels its 

own possibilities through an internal mechanism of unfoldment involving consciousness. The 

manifested classical lineaments of a life-supporting manifested reality is fashioned by 

consciousness itself for its own manifestation within embodied sentient beings.  In quantum 

field theory there is a non-substantial quantum field of potentiality and, within the process 

that Mensky envisages, a primitive level of quantum consciousness operates upon this 

entangled and interdependent field, and through this mechanism the field is localised through 

the quantum evolution of the ‘classical’ world of individualised sentience and materiality. 

Mensky indicates that the level of consciousness at which the process begins is: 

…the most primitive, or the most deep, level of consciousness, differing perceiving 

from not perceiving.
79

 

The quantum physicist Wojciech Zurek echoes this emphasis on the primacy of an internal 

quantum ‘epiontic’ perceiving function: 

Measurement – perception – is the place where physics gets personal, where our role 

and our capabilities as observers and agents of change in the universe (and our 

limitations as entities subject to the laws of physics) are tested - or, rather, where we 

get put in our place. … The virtue of the focus on quantum measurement is that it 

puts issues connected with information and existence at the very center. This is 

where they should be.’
80

 

However, many physicists are still having a tough time coming to terms with the notion that 

at its heart the universe is immaterial.  Such views are, of course, ‘Anthropic’ to various 

degrees, the universe must give rise to sentient beings in order to “contemplate itself.” 

Physicist Paul Davies, following John Wheeler, speaks of ‘teleology without teleology’
81

 we 

may perhaps, admittedly tongue in cheek, speak of a ‘God without God!’ 

The Platonic ‘theme’ theory, wherein all organic forms which come into manifestation derive 

from a deep level of potentialities within a mind-like field of energy-consciousness, is 

consistent with the Theory of Everything outlined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard 

Mlodinow (henceforth ‘H&M’) in their book The Grand Design: New Answers to the 

Ultimate Questions of Life (henceforth ‘GD’) and several other important modern quantum 

perspectives. According to H&M: 

Quantum physics tells us that no matter how thorough our observation of the 

present, the (unobserved) past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a 

spectrum of possibilities.  The universe, according to quantum physics, has no 

single past, or history.  The fact that the past takes no definite form means that 

observations you make on a system in the present affect its past.
82

   

Furthermore: 

…the universe doesn’t have just a single history, but every possible history, each 

with its own probability; and our observations of its current state affect its past and 

determine the different histories of the universe, just as the observations of the 

particles in the double-slit experiment affect the particles’ past.
83

  

What H&M are saying here is that all potentialities exist as potentialities at the dawn of time 

and, dramatically, observations made by all sentient beings in the present moment affect those 

potentialities backwards in time.  

 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

266 

And so we come to the astonishing proposal required by modern quantum theory. From the 

timeless point of creation a spontaneous universal quantum creative act projects all possible 

futures into a universal possibility or potentiality space.  At the point of creation everything 

that possibly can happen becomes potential, so at the point of creation all possible future 

histories of the universe come into being as potentialities, although not yet experienced 

realities:  

In this view, the universe appeared spontaneously, starting off in every possible 

way.  Most of these correspond to other universes …. Some people make a great 

mystery of this idea, sometimes called the multiverse concept, but these are just 

different expressions of the Feynman sum over histories.
84

  

Sentient beings, through acts of observation involving consciousness collectively create the 

history of the universe: 

We create history by our observations, rather than history creating us.
85

  

In other words the observers, or what the famous twentieth century physicist John Wheeler 

called ‘observer-participants,’ are able to weed out possible universes, and thereby select 

those which remain in the possibility mix, even backwards in time. Wheeler expressed this:  

Directly opposite to the concept of universe as machine built on law is the vision of 

a world self-synthesized.  On this view, the notes struck out on a piano by the 

observer participants of all times and all places, bits though they are in and by 

themselves, constitute the great wide  world of space and time and things.
86

 

H&M support this dramatic metaphysical perspective in what is perhaps the central chapter in 

The Grand Design entitled ‘Choosing Our Universe’: 

The idea that the universe does not have a unique observer-independent history 

might seem to conflict with certain facts that we know.  There might be one history 

in which the moon is made of Roquefort cheese.  But we have observed that the 

moon is not made of cheese, which is bad news for mice.  Hence histories in which 

the moon is not made of cheese do not contribute to the current state of our 

universe, though they might contribute to others.  This might sound like science 

fiction but it isn’t.
87

  

 
Figure 19 

 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

267 

Figure 19 provides graphic presentation of this quantum Platonic metaphysical view of the 

evolution of the universe.  The process operates over long time scales ‘unconsciously’ 

(although guided by primordial consciousness) before there are sentient beings, or observer-

participants, extant within the universe to take part in the process of universal selection and 

solidification.  Once there is a community of sentient organisms inhabiting the universe then 

their perceptions, which have influence at the quantum level, affect the probabilities which 

have been projected at the moment of the Big Bang.  If we accept the cosmic quantum-

metaphysical story presented by H&M, Wheeler and other significant physicists then at the 

point of creation all possible ‘alternative histories’ are projected into a kind of cosmic 

possibility space, but none of these possibilities are ‘actualized’ as yet. For actualization to 

take place requires the presence of sentient beings to perceive and experience. 

 

In this model we can visualize all the ‘observer-participants’ moving, being born and dying 

but also leaving descendants to maintain the process, through the vast cosmic pool of 

potentialities and as they do so their perceptions alter the probabilities of potentialities both 

backwards and forwards in time.  For instance, at the moment of creation there is a possibility 

(according to H&M) that the moon might end up being made of Roquefort cheese and also a 

possibility that it may end up comprised of Moon-rock, as it is in our current universe.  When 

sentient beings get on the job of filtering through the probabilities through their perceptive 

activities, they somehow ‘choose’ to have a Moon-rock Moon rather than a Roquefort cheese 

Moon.  Thus the possibility of a Roquefort cheese Moon is filtered out of the cosmic mix of 

potentialities whilst the possibility of a Moon-rock Moon is solidified into actuality.  

Goswami refers to the ‘backwards in time’ quantum effect wherein consciousness can 

determine which quantum potentialities become actual at a past point in time.  On a collective 

and cosmic scale this backwards in time effect may operate back into the dim recesses of time 

and thereby provides a mechanism which brings a universe into actuality from a past quantum 

superposition of potentialities ( a ‘superposition’ is the quantum state of multiple quantum 

possibilities which obtains prior to observation). Goswami writes concerning this: 

The lesson of the delayed choice experiment is profound. It solves the measurement 

problem of quantum cosmology - how the universe of possibility can be actualized 

even though no sentient being was present to observe the big bang. The universe 

remains as a superposition of baby universes that evolves in possibility until, in one 

of the possible universes, the possibility of sentience arises; Then quantum 

consciousness/God collapses the possibilities and the evolved first sentient being 

observes itself as separate from its environment, whereupon simultaneously the 

universe manifests retroactively, going backward in time from the moment of 

collapse all the way to the big bang. So it is true that we are here because of the 

universe and its purposive design, but it is also true that the universe is here because 

of us, our power of downward causation in our Godness. There is circularity here, a 

breakdown of logic-quantum collapse manifests not only the observed, but also the 

observer.
88

 

It is important to note here that Goswami’s notion of God is not that of an independent 

designer/creator but, rather, the field of potentialities and the collective consciousness 

acting upon them.  This view is entirely consistent with the H&M perspective.  

This quantum Platonic vision is also contained within the work of several other significant 

physicists, both current and recent. One example is the work of David Bohm which is being 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

268 

carried forward by Paavo Pylkkänen and Basil Hiley. Bohm calls the cosmic possibility soup 

the ‘implicate order’ and the actualized experienced world the ‘explicate order’: 

Bohm calls the implicate order the primary reality, this reality exists ‘folded up’ in 

nature and gradually unfolds as the universe evolves, enabling organization to 

emerge, in this way, the implicate becomes explicate over time.
89

 

In his important book Wholeness and the Implicate Order Bohm gives an overview of his 

perspective as follows: 

Our overall approach has thus brought together questions of the nature of the 

cosmos, of matter in general, of life, and of consciousness. All of these have been 

considered to be projections of a common ground.  This we may call the ground of 

all that is, at least in so far as this may be sensed and known by us, in our present 

phase of unfoldment of consciousness.  Although we may have no detailed 

perception or knowledge of this ground it is still in a certain sense enfolded in our 

consciousness…
90

 

All such quantum Platonic viewpoints, including H&M’s, require consciousness to be a 

primary internal feature of the process of the evolution of the universe and the sentient beings 

within it.  According to Basil Hiley: 

The world is basically organic. The mechanistic part is just an aspect of the deeper 

organic part. That’s not denying mechanism, it’s putting mechanism in its place. … 

Physics is biology at the small scale. Maybe one can be outrageous and say that an 

electron has a proto-consciousness.
91

 

And the notion that physics is small scale biology derives directly from Bohm: 

We can say that human meanings make a contribution to the cosmos, but we can also 

say that the cosmos may be ordered according to a kind of ‘objective’ meaning. New 

meanings may emerge in this over all order. That is we may say that meaning 

penetrates the cosmos, or even what is beyond the cosmos.  For example there are 

current theories in physics that imply that the universe emerged from the ‘big bang’. 

In the earliest phase there were no electrons, protons, neutrons, or other basic 

structures. None of the laws that we know would have had any meaning.   Even 

space and time in their present well-defined form would have had no meaning.  All 

of this emerged from a very different state of affairs.  The proposal is that, as 

happens with human beings, this emergence included the creative unfoldment of 

generalized meaning.
 
 Later, with the evolution of new forms of life, fundamentally 

new steps may have evolved in the creative unfoldment of further meanings.  That is, 

we may say that some evolutionary processes occur which could be traced 

physically, but we cannot really understand them without looking at some deeper 

meaning which was responsible for the changes. The present view of the changes is 

that they are random, with selection of those traits that were suited for survival, but 

that does not explain the complex, subtle structures that actually occurred.
 92

 

It is meaning, awareness, and consciousness that organizes the evolution of sentient beings 

into the hierarchical vast variety of organic forms with various degrees of consciousness. As 

F. David Peat, another researcher developing the ideas of Bohm, points out with reference to 

Bohm’s notion of ‘active information’, which resides at the quantum level: 

…information is that which gives form to energy. (It is the “subtle” energy spoken of 

in Eastern science.) Information would have an objective nature. It would play an 

active role in giving “form” to energy and be responsible for quantum processes. As a 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

269 

“field” of active information it provided a collective, global form for a 

superconductor or superfluid. Information would be copresent as an aspect of 

physical law, but also through what appear to be more subjective elements such as 

meaning and significance. It particular, Information may be responsible for global 

processes in the brain and have a role to play in the nature of consciousness. 

And it is within the quantum fields of ‘active information’ that the quantum ‘templates’ of 

potentiality, which drive the evolutionary process, reside. Such quantum templates can be 

identified with Rupert Sheldrake’s suggestion that organic development is organized by 

quantum ‘morphogenetic fields’: 

…morphogenetic fields are not precisely defined but are probability structures 

that depend on the statistical distribution of previous similar forms.  The 

probability distributions of electronic orbitals described by solutions of the 

Schrödinger equation are examples of such probability structures, and are similar 

in kind to the probability structures of the morphogenetic fields of morphogenetic 

units at higher levels.
93

 

The morphogenetic field which molds any particular morphogenetic unit provides a ‘virtual 

form’ which directs, through some natural mechanism (the inverse quantum Zeno effect) the 

way in which the physical ‘stuff’ is organized.  Organic morphogenesis takes place through a 

hierarchy of levels of developmental pathways, each pathway is called a ‘chreode’.  These 

levels correspond to Bohm’s nested ‘implicate orders’, each succeeding order-level being 

more materialized out of quantum potentiality.   

The development of an organism takes place through the operation of a succession of nested 

morphogenetic fields.  Morphogenetic fields are established over time through a process of 

“morphogenetic resonance” which depends on “patterns and structures of vibration.”
94

  Once 

the morphogenetic structure is established there is a continued action of morphogenetic 

resonance which stabilizes the unit and, furthermore, the stability of the morphogenetic field 

itself depends on the repeated manifestation of the morphogenetic unit it gives rise to, so 

there is an interdependent relationship between the morphogenetic field and its 

morphogenetic unit.  This means that “phenomena become more probable the more often 

they occur.”
95

  This is an important aspect of the evolutionary process, the more often a 

quantum potentiality is materialized the more likely its future materialization becomes.  It is 

this repeated actualization and materialization of quantum potentialities which underlies the 

appearance of evolution. In the early stages only very simple organisms can be actualized, 

but they pave the way for more complex creatures to subsequently emerge from quantum 

potentiality.   

This new quantum Platonic evolutionary perspective concords precisely with H&M’s 

metaphysical perspective. In their penultimate chapter H&M tell us that their view is a form 

of the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP).  Before their discussion of the SAP they briefly 

discuss the WAP (Weak Anthropic Principle). This, they say, is not controversial; the very 

fact that sentient beings exist in this universe clearly means that this universe must be fine-

tuned for sentient life.  If this were not the case then obviously sentient life would not inhabit 

this particular universe. But, according to the H&M quantum Platonic model requires the 

Strong version which: 

…suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints not just on our 

environment but on the possible form and contents of the laws of nature themselves. 

The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

270 

that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life but also the entire 

characteristics of the entire universe, and that is much more difficult to explain.
96

  

And another conclusion which must be drawn from this quantum Platonic account of the 

evolution of the universe, which is driven by the collective consciousness, either explicit or 

implicit, of the sentient beings who eventually end up inhabiting the universe as apparently 

fully paid-up ‘material’ organisms, is that all possible forms of organic creature must be 

potential at the moment of the big bang.  

 

This conclusion is reached by the biologist Adrian Woolfson in his book Life Without Genes: 

In the beginning there was mathematical possibility. At the very inception of the 

universe fifteen billion years ago, a deep infinite-dimensional sea emerged from 

nothingness.  Its colourless waters, green and turquoise blue, glistened in the non-

existent light of the non-existent sun … A strange sea though, this information sea.  

Strange because it was devoid of location …
97

 

Ignoring the apparently endemic misguided notion that a vast realm of experience can 

magically arise from complete absence, Woolfson’s, strangely haunting, suggestion is that 

there must have been some kind of field of potentiality at the inception of the universe.  

Although there was not a fully manifested and experienced reality there was, according to his 

picture, which clearly echoes aspects of the H&M quantum metaphysics, what he calls a 

‘mathematical possibility’. This field is the quantum ‘wavefunction’ of the universe, a 

universal quantum field of potentiality that contains: 

…all possible histories … through which the universe could have evolved to its 

present state…
98

 

In the beginning, of course, the quantum ‘wavefunction’ of the universe would contain all the 

future evolutionary possibilities:  

The information sea is thus a quantum mechanical sea, composed from infinite 

repertoires of entangled quantum descriptions.
99

 

Within this all-encompassing field of potentiality all possibilities for evolutionary mani-

festation are encoded.  From out of the vast entangled web of infinite possibilities for 

manifestation only certain privileged members will actually make it into reality, so to speak:   

An information space of this sort would furnish a complete description of all 

potentially living and unrealizable creatures…
100

  

It therefore follows that there is a sort of design woven into the potentialities for evolution; it 

is a vast complex design of all possible manifestations written into the quantum field of 

potentiality of the universe standing on the very edge of time.  In such a quantum Platonic 

universe the DUD-MUD account of evolution cannot be true, it is pure illusion. 

 

Such is the power of the illusion that Dawkins and other DUD-MUDs are still mesmerized 

and held in its material thrall, so much so they stretch the necks of drawings of okapi, or 

engage in various materialist obfuscations in order to avoid, cover over and dismiss the huge 

absurdities, such as hippo-like creatures walking back into the sea and materially 

transforming into whales, rather than see the illusion for what it is, an illusion generated by 

interactions of immaterial quantum fields of potentiality, a fact which has been established by 

recent events at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The science writer Jim Baggott in his 

recent book Higgs: The Invention and Discovery of the ‘God Particle’ writes: 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

271 

In the Standard Model the concept of mass, as an intrinsic property or measure of an 

amount of substance, has gone. Mass is instead constructed from the energy of the 

interactions that occur between elementary quantum fields and their particles.  The 

Higgs boson is part of the mechanism that explains how all the mass of all the 

particles in the universe is constructed. All the matter in the world might consist of 

quarks and leptons, but it owes its very substance to the energy gained through 

interactions with the Higgs field and the exchange of gluons. Without these 

interactions, matter would be as ephemeral and insubstantial as light itself, and 

nothing would be.
101

 

This makes the entire apparently ‘material’ world an illusion so it certainly renders the DUD-

MUD worldview an illusion. As Baggott further points out: 

It seems logical that there should be some ultimate constituents, some undeniable 

reality that underpins the world we see around us and which lends it form and shape. 

If matter is endlessly divisible, then we would reach a point where the constituents 

themselves become rather ephemeral - to the point of non-existence. Then there 

would be no building blocks, and all we would be left with are interactions between 

indefinable, insubstantial phantoms which give rise to the appearance of substance. 

Unpalatable it may be but, to a large extent, this is precisely what modern physics 

has shown to be true. Mass, we now believe, is not an inherent property or ‘primary’ 

quality of the ultimate building blocks of nature. In fact, there is no such thing as 

mass. Mass is constructed entirely from the energy of interactions involving 

naturally massless elementary particles. The physicists kept dividing, and in the end 

found nothing at all.
102

 

Quantum fields are entirely insubstantial: 

Now, from a philosophical point of view, this is rather big stuff.  Our whole manner 

of speech … rather naturally makes us think that there is some stuff or substance on 

which properties can, in a sense, be glued.  It encourages us to imagine taking a 

particle and removing its properties one by one until we are left with a featureless 

‘thing’ devoid of properties, made from the essential material that had the properties 

in the first place. Philosophers have been debating the correctness of such 

arguments for a long time. Now, it seems, experimental science has come along and 

shown that, at least at the quantum level, the objects we study have no substance to 

them independent of their properties.
103

  

The weight of modern quantum evidence, then, entirely supports a quantum Platonism 

wherein all organic forms are latent, awaiting unfoldment from quantum potentiality, within 

the quantum fields existing eternally as fields of insubstantial potentiality.  

DUD-MUDs, however, breezily assume that none of this affects their theories, thinking that 

they can mistakenly and materialistically theorize away to their hearts content, pretending that 

a non-quantum fully paid up ‘material’ world can still be assumed to exist. However, this is 

not the case. As Stapp points out: 

We live in an idealike world, not a matterlike world.’ The material aspects are 

exhausted in certain mathematical properties, and these mathematical features can 

be understood just as well (and in fact better) as characteristics of an evolving 

idealike structure.  There is, in fact, in the quantum universe no natural place for 

matter.  This conclusion, curiously, is the exact reverse of the circumstances that in 

the classical physical universe there was no natural place for mind.
104

    



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

272 

A point of view required by quantum theory which, again, supports a quantum Platonic 

worldview.  

 

But, even if it were the case that it was appropriate to treat ‘matter’ as ultimate type ‘stuff’, 

we have already seen that DUD-MUD accounts have serious absurdities lying at their heart. It 

is these absurdities which can be avoided by taking the profound implications of modern 

quantum discoveries, as well as the dramatic evidence of Evo-Devo paradigm, into account. 

As biologist and Evo-Devo enthusiast Sean B. Carroll has indicated concerning the situation 

prior to the beginning of the evolution of life: 

 …we know for certain that the full genetic tool kit for body-building was in place, 

but its potential was largely untapped for a considerable length of time. … the 

potential of the tool kit was realized largely through the evolution of switches and 

gene networks and the shifting of Hox zones, in the Cambrian and more recent 

periods.
105

  

The Evo-Devo revolution, which completely rocked the world of evolutionary biology and 

undermined hallowed dogmas of the DUD-MUD worldview, even though many evolutionary 

biologists are desperately trying to contain it within the Darwinian worldview, confirms the 

quantum Platonic perspective in a profound way, for it indicated that the “potential” 

fundamental “full genetic tool kit for body-building” of all potential organisms was in place 

long before organic evolution actually began. This extraordinary discovery fits precisely with 

the quantum evidence that the potentialities for all life were latent in the quantum fields of 

reality.  

This is not to say that there is a fully determinate human, lion, giraffe or kangaroo templates, 

all waiting to be expressed or manifested as is, so to speak, but, rather, all possible basic 

body-plans along with various possibilities for modifications of that fundamental body-plan 

in terms of limbs, organs and sense organs and so on are potential within levels of quantum 

possibility. These are expressed through quantum implicate orders through a mechanism of 

“quantum morphic resonance” within quantum implicate morphogenetic fields. Bohm 

indicated this hierarchical system of implicate orders, from subtle to fully materialized, with 

his notion of a “super-implicate order’: 

… which is a … higher field (the implicate order would be a wavefunction) [which] 

would be a function of the wavefunction, a higher order, a super-wavefunction.  

The super-implicate order makes the implicate order non-linear and organises it into 

relatively stable forms with complex structures.
106

 

These quantum implicate orders can also be identified as Shedrakian “morphogenetic 

fields”: 

The development of multicellular organisms takes place through a series of stages 

controlled by a succession of morphogenetic fields.  At first the embryonic tissues 

develop under the control of primary embryonic fields.  Then … different regions 

come under the influence of secondary fields, in animals those of limbs, eyes, ears 

etc. … Generally speaking, the morphogenesis brought about by the primary fields is 

not spectacular, because it establishes the characteristic differences between cells in 

different regions that enable them to act as the morphogenetic germs of the organ 

fields. Then in the tissues developing under their influence, germs of subsidiary 

fields, fields which control the morphogenesis of structures within the organ as a 

whole…
107

 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

273 

Thus the development of the embryo is controlled by a nested hierarchy of morphogenetic 

fields, which are, according to Sheldrake, ‘quantum probability fields’
108

 akin to Bohm’s 

implicate orders.  This process which underlies the development of an embryo also apples at a 

deeper level to the evolutionary development of a species within quantum implicate levels of 

reality. 

Goswami has pointed out that the fact that much of the evolutionary processing of 

potentialities takes place at quantum implicate immaterial levels explains the lack of 

intermediaries which the DUD-MUD worldview takes great pains to conceal. As the ‘testing 

out’ of possibilities is quantum in nature it follows that a new species can suddenly appear 

during certain creative periods of the history of life, such as the Cambrian ‘explosion’: 

We also need to remember that the radically new, manifest form is not in fact arrived 

at by itself; The corresponding vital blueprint is also available to the unconscious 

processor that is quantum consciousness/God. That blueprint offers a rough guideline 

of what needs to be sought through unconscious processing. … When does 

consciousness choose? Well, before any choice can be made, consciousness needs 

microlevel possibilities to be amplified into macrolevel possibilities. Therefore, 

collapse does not take place at the micro genetic level. An amplification of the micro 

genotype to the macro phenotype first takes place in possibility. I think that this 

amplification involves … chaos dynamics … When there is a match between the 

possibilities for macrophysical form and the morphogeneric blueprint of form, a 

match that Rupert Sheldrake (1981) calls morphic resonance, collapse of the 

possibility waves precipitates, a quantum leap takes place all at once, and 

consciousness has succeeded in making a physical representation (the physical trait 

or organ, the form) of the morphogenetic blueprint and, along with it, a new species 

or even higher taxon. There are no fossil records for the intermediate stages, because 

there are no manifest intermediate stages! It is as simple as that.
109

 

The term ‘collapse’ here refers to the point at which the multitude of possibilities which are 

potential at the quantum level are ‘collapsed’ by the quantum resonant ‘choice’ of the most 

efficient and appropriate one.  This kind of quantum ‘look-ahead’ mechanism is employed by 

the mechanism of photosynthesis where in all possible ‘paths’ for energy transfer are ‘tested’ 

within a quantum superposition and the most efficient one is ‘chosen’: 

Electronic spectroscopy measurements made on a femtosecond (millionths of a 

billionth of a second) time-scale showed these oscillations meeting and interfering 

constructively, forming wavelike motions of energy (superposition states) that can 

explore all potential energy pathways simultaneously and reversibly, meaning they 

can retreat from wrong pathways with no penalty. This finding contradicts the 

classical description of the photosynthetic energy transfer process as one in which 

excitation energy hops from light-capturing pigment molecules to reaction center 

molecules step-by-step down the molecular energy ladder.
110

 

This shows that one of the fundamental mechanisms uses a quantum mechanism in order to 

test, or ‘look ahead’, to find the most efficient pathway. There is an interesting remark by one 

of the team of researchers which indicates the remarkable lack of philosophical insight, or 

even perhaps common sense, in certain areas of discourse, especially evolution, on the part of 

otherwise intelligent people: 

“Nature has had about 2.7 billion years to perfect photosynthesis, so there are huge 

lessons that remain for us to learn,” Engel said. “The results we’re reporting in this 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

274 

latest paper, however, at least give us a new way to think about the design of future 

artificial photosynthesis systems.” 

There is absolutely no evidence that nature has been “perfecting” photosynthesis. 

Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that life would have got going if this mechanism had not 

been functioning effectively when it emerged as part of the process of the development of life.   

It is far more likely that quantum photosynthesis is a mechanism which is part of the inner 

‘intelligence’ of the process of life and the quantum look-ahead mechanism is fundamental. 

This is the view of Michael Mensky who has proposed his Extended Everett Concept (EEC), 

which is an extension of Everett’s ‘many worlds’ wherein consciousness can choose which is 

the most advantageous pathway amongst quantum alternatives: 

There is one more unsolved problem in biology that also could obtain its explanation 

in EEC. This is the problem of morphogenesis. How an embryo is constructed 

starting from a single cell? Where is a plan of the process of constructing it, step by 

step, or how constructing is controlled and directed? …consciousness (the primitive-

level consciousness, or ability to somehow perceive, which is connected with a 

living being from the very beginning) periodically addresses to the quantum world as 

a whole, compare various scenarios of constructing embryo (various 'building plans') 

and then, returning to the usual state, increase probabilities of those scenarios that 

lead to the right construction, Of course, this is only a sketch of a possible 

explanation of the phenomenon, its main idea.
111

 

This is a stunning insight into how the process of Life generates itself from quantum 

potentiality using a mechanism like the quantum ‘look ahead’ mechanism demonstrated 

within photosynthesis. The excitatory intelligence which is organizing the quantum 

potentialities into structures which are capable of channelling the ground energy-awareness 

into the individual individuated consciousnesses of embodied sentient beings is able to ‘feel’ 

its way ahead by addressing the “quantum world as a whole”. The morphogenetic structures 

are already within the quantum ground as potentialities, they need to be actualised through 

repetition into more ‘explicate’, ‘solidified’ or materialised versions.  It should be 

immediately apparent that this insight is entirely consistent and amplificatory with all the 

other versions the quantum Platonic perspective (which is a general term for the notion that 

archetypes reside as potentialities within the quantum realm) covered so far.  

The quantum physicist H. Dieter Zeh has lyrically characterised the emergence, or emanation, 

of the realms of apparent materiality and experience from the quantum realm by quoting the 

Greek philosopher Anaxagoras: 

The things that are in a single world are not parted from one another, not cut away 

with an axe, neither the warm from the cold nor the cold from the warm.  When 

Mind began to set things in motion, separation took place from each thing that was 

being moved, and all that Mind moved was separated.
112

   

The world of separation which is generated by the interactions of quantum fields and the 

movement of mind within quantum fields does not produce an ultimate separation but, rather, 

produces an appearance of a process of experienced reality by unfolding the potentialities 

which are latent within the realm of the ultimate unity of the ultimate field of potentiality. As 

the H&M quantum Platonism indicates, the movement, or observational activities, of a kind 

of universal collective consciousness unfolds the process of ‘reality’ from the potentialities, 

or ‘themes’, which are hidden within the “eternal” quantum fields. It is within these 

immaterial fields of potentiality that the potentialities for all manifestation, including organic 

creatures, are held. And, as H&M say: “This might sound like science fiction but it isn’t.”
113

 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

275 

We can understand how this applies to the elucidation of the proper understanding of the 

apparent phenomenon of evolution by contrasting it with Dawkins’ discussion of ‘the tree of 

cousinship’.  According to Dawkins: 

Every species is a cousin of every other. Any two species are descended from an 

ancestral species, which split in two. For example, the common ancestor of people 

and budgerigars lived about 310 million years ago. The ancestral species split in two, 

and the two strands went their separate ways for the rest of time. I chose human and 

budgie to make it vivid, but that same ancestral species is shared by all mammals on 

one side of that early divide, and all reptiles (zoologically speaking birds are 

reptiles…) on the other side. In the unlikely event that a fossil of this ancestral 

species was ever found it would need a name. Let’s call it Protamnio darwinii. We 

do not know any details about it, and the details don’t matter at all for the argument, 

but we won't go far wrong if we imagine it as a sprawling lizard-like creature, 

scurrying about catching insects.
114

  

He then proceeds to tell the speculative DUD-MUD story, or myth is probably a more 

appropriate word, of how the common ancestor of mammals and reptiles (figure 17 shows an 

artist’s impression of this, figure 18 is an artist’s impression of the putative fact of direct line 

of descent of birds from dinosaurs which is alluded to by Dawkins) divided into two sub-

populations, although at this point you would not be able to tell them apart and they would be 

able to interbreed. Later as the two populations diverge from each other the ability to 

interbreed is supposed to be lost because the genes, according to the DUD-MUD worldview, 

have diverged too much. This is what Dawkins has called the gene’s “long goodbye”.  

The DUD-MUD evolutionary just-so story offered by Dawkins is that some kind of 

geographical barrier divides the two populations, and then subsequently the differences in the 

environment and natural selection, or genetic drift alone, cause the two populations to drift 

further and further apart. This process is termed ‘speciation’. How various terrestrial animals 

have become separated onto different land masses has been a controversial topic since the 

turn of the century, earthquakes opening impassable gorges, change in river courses and over-

water transport were some suggestions. Many thought that over-water transport - which 

requires rafting across large expanses of sea on floating debris - would be a highly 

improbable means of dispersal for animals larger than insects. However, dramatically, the 

event has been seen: 

 
Figure 20

(115) 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

276 

 

 

 
Figure 21

(116)
 

 

 

Raft-riding green iguanas that reached the Caribbean island of Anguilla in the wake 

of a hurricane have provided ecologists with rare proof of one of the most debated 

theories of animal colonization of islands. As Ellen J. Censky from the Carnegie 

Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and colleagues report in the 

8 October edition of Nature, at least 15 green iguanas (Iguana iguana) arrived on the 

eastern beaches of Anguilla on a large mat of logs and uprooted trees, shortly after 

autumn hurricanes in 1995.
117

  

So it would certainly appear that this kind of division of populations can occur. Whether the 

division could, however, separate the two populations into one lot on one side of the sea 

without the putative mutant gene, whilst the hapless seafaring group just happened to all have 

the mutant genes is, however, a moot point. We are ourselves floating in a sea of speculation 

here. Dawkins tells us that “the point about such freak dispersal events that they must be 

common enough to account for speciation, but not too common.”
118

   

Dawkins then proceeds to claim that such a geographic division between evolving branches 

of the common ancestor of sauropsid reptiles and mammals must have occurred: 

The evidence from modern animals gives us every reason to think that something 

like the story I have just told is what happened in the past, for every one of the 

divergences between the ancestry of any animal and any other.
119

   

The evidence from modern animals is, of course, primarily that of selective breeding within 

a species. He then goes on to claim that even with identical environments animals will drift 

apart from each other, “whether by random drift alone, or with the aid of differential natural 

selection”
120

 And because of this, according to Dawkins, our mammal-reptile ancestor 

lineage “drifts” and splits into a mammal lineage and a sauropsid lineage. Dawkins also tells 

his readers that the “details of his little story are pure fiction.”  There is reason to think, 

however, that fictional aspect may permeate the entire scenario.  For in his scenario Dawkins 

seems to go as far has to suggest that undirected “random drift” alone, without “the aid of 

differential natural selection” could achieve this remarkable feat.   

This event is supposed to have taken place about 310 mya (million years ago) so mammals 

were around at the time of the dinosaurs (230 mya to about 65 mya), although until the 

demise of the dinosaurs they were restricted to being “small shrew like animals.”  About 180 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

277 

mya the lineage of the monotremes, the egg-laying mammals which consist of the duck-

billed platypus and echidna, split off.  Then, according to the DUD-MUD fairy tale, about 

140 million years ago
121

 the remaining mammals diverged into two distinct groups, the 

placental mammals (a group that includes humans and most modern mammals) and the 

marsupial mammals (a group that now includes koalas, kangaroos, wombats, and pouched 

mice). These two groups are then supposed to have evolved over millions of years in two 

increasingly different directions. The major divergence, of course, is in their reproductive 

methods. Placental mammals develop inside their mother's womb for an extended period of 

time and their young are born quite alert and are often able to move about within just a few 

hours of birth. Marsupial mammals, on the other hand, give birth to less developed young 

that must crawl up the mother's abdomen to the safety of her pouch. Once inside the pouch, 

they continue their development until ready to move about on their own.   

The fact that there are three very different methods of mammal reproduction which have 

supposed to have evolved gradually, the earliest being the amniotic egg, clearly poses a 

significant issue of just how such a supposedly gradual transition could possibly have taken 

place. It is the modus operandi of DUD-MUD enthusiasts, however, to assume and assert 

that such a gradual transition must have happened because DUD-MUD type evolution must 

have happened.   

Before about one hundred and fifty million years ago, South America, Africa, India, 

Antarctica and Australia were all part of the landmass called Gondwana (the southern major 

landmass at the time, the northern was Laurasia, both of these supposedly split apart from 

the previous landmass called ‘Pangaea’ which they made up) which subsequently broke 

apart to form the various continents. According to the received MUD wisdom as conveyed 

by Dawkins: 

It is generally agreed that marsupials came to Australinea [Dawkins’ term for 

Australia, Tasmania and New Guinea] from South America, via Antarctica. … It is 

not unlikely that all of Australia’s marsupials stem from a single introduction of an 

opossum-like founder animal from South America, via Antarctica.  We don’t know 

exactly when, but it can’t have been much later than 55 million years ago, which is 

approximately when Australia … pulled far enough away from Antarctica to be 

inaccessible to island-hopping mammals. It could have been much earlier… 

Marsupials, then, did not originate in Australia, but America. According to one source: 

About 120 million years ago, the mammalian line ceased laying eggs and began 

bearing live young.  These forms of mammals were the first marsupials, who bore 

their young at a very early stage in their development and transferred them to a 

pouch where modified sweat glands secreted milk.  It is generally accepted that the 

first marsupials arose in North America and spread to South America, then to 

Antarctica and Australia some time before the breakup of Pangaea near the end of 

the Cretaceous period, some 70 million years ago. Others argue that a southern 

continental origin is more probable.
122

 

If we accept the sequence of evolution of mammalian reproduction was egg, then marsupial 

and finally placental birth (although the same argument applies to any sequence), then we 

may ask how we can possibly conceive of such an evolution taking place gradually. Can we 

really conceive of such a radical transformation happening gradually “by random drift alone, 

or with the aid of differential natural selection”
123

.  What are the intermediate stages? There 

are no fossil records to help us out regarding significant stages. 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

278 

At some point we have to imagine an egg-laying mammal suddenly being endowed with a 

mutant ‘pouch-predisposing’ gene, or set of genes, by random mutation. Apparently this 

mutant pouch gene (or set) was extraordinary potent and eventually and cumulatively with 

other random mutations completely transformed the manner in which this group of mammals 

gave birth to their young. According to the Wikipedia entry for marsupials:    

Marsupials’ reproductive systems differ markedly from those of placental 

mammals…. Females have two lateral vaginas, which lead to separate uteri but both 

open externally through the same orifice. A third canal, the median vagina, is used 

for birth. … The males generally have a two-pronged penis, which corresponds to 

the females’ two vaginas. … Pregnant females develop something similar to a yolk 

sac in their wombs, which delivers nutrients to the embryo. Marsupials give birth at a 

very early stage of development (about 4–5 weeks); after birth, newborn marsupials 

crawl up the bodies of their mothers and attach themselves to a nipple, which is 

located on the underside of the mother either inside a pouch called the marsupium or 

open to the environment. To crawl to the nipple and attach to it, the marsupial must 

have well developed forelimbs and facial structures. This is accomplished by 

accelerating forelimb and facial development in marsupials compared to placental 

mammals. As a result, there is decelerated development of such structures as the 

hindlimb and brain. There they remain for a number of weeks, attached to the nipple. 

The offspring are eventually able to leave the marsupium for short periods, returning 

to it for warmth, protection and nourishment.
124

  

But, just as in the case of the hippo to whale fantasy scenario, the complexity of the 

coordinated transformations required, all the while allowing the intermediate forms to 

reproduce, defy imagination. What kind of reproductive process would be exhibited by the 

mid-point intermediate form? How many mutated genes would be needed to transform an 

egg-laying mammal into a marsupial? One gene? A few? A lot of them? How could such a 

radical transformation in one of the central processes of life, the means of its very replication, 

take place via a sequence of small mutations? It is beyond ‘beyond belief’. In this context, 

and in the light of all the blatant incoherencies in the DUD-MUD worldview, “personal 

incredulity”, a response that Dawkins claims should not be applied to the MUD worldview, is 

a mark of sanity.  

Evolution is meant to be a gradual, in fact very gradual, affair. But can one really imagine a 

gradual transformation from egg to marsupial reproduction, or marsupial to placental. What 

are the intermediate steps? DUD-MUDs regularly deride those who ask about the usefulness 

of half an eye, but half a pouch! Or what about a hundredth of a pouch; it would hardly be 

worth being born; only to find one’s allotted residence not ready for occupation!  

Furthermore, according to the theory of natural selection it is not just the gene mutation 

which is responsible for the development of an adaptation, the filtering effect of the 

environment is crucial. But both marsupial and placental modes of birth arose on the 

American continent, within a similar environment. Marsupial reproduction really took hold in 

Australia, but is the environment in Australia radically different to other continents, different 

enough to ‘favour’ getting out of the womb quickly and taking up residence in a pouch. Just 

what kind of environment would ‘favour’ such a radical adjustment of mode of reproduction?   

Is the environment in Australia that different?   

Presumably, if we accept Dawkins claim that the development of new adaptations is very 

gradual, then the ancestor with the pouch mutation would still at this initial point be giving 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

279 

birth via egg birth. However we are supposed to believe, according to the DUD-MUD 

account, that there is some subtle slight alteration in the direction of pouch birth. Now in 

order for this slight new mutational ‘something’, indicating the possibility of the future 

development of pouch birth, to actually get ‘favoured’ it must be advantageous in some way 

at that point in time. But how could this possibly be true? What kind of environment could 

make the potentiality of pouch birth signaled by a non-noticeable mutation, significantly more 

advantageous than an egg one? The egg birth process was presumably working perfectly well 

otherwise these pouch-mutant mammals would have died out before they became fully pouch 

endowed. What kind of mutated mind could possibly believe such a desperately implausible 

scenario?   The only way this scenario could possibly make sense is if there is some kind of 

quantum evolutionary ‘look-ahead’ mechanism as suggested by Mensky.  

In this context it is intriguing to examine some results of a Google search with the question 

“evolutionary environmental advantages of pouch reproduction.”  Someone in the Google list 

asks: 

Can someone please explain the benefits of raising babies in a pouch rather than 

carrying them full-term? 

And the following answer is offered: 

Well, the way of reproduction of the marsupials … is not necessarily better, it is an 

alternative evolution to the placental animals and we have diverged in our mode of 

reproduction about 110 millions ago. Obviously the placenta is much better mode of 

connecting with the baby but there are certain advantages to giving birth to an 

underdeveloped baby and raising it further. This is an excerpt from a very useful article 

in marsupial evolution which I think will be helpful: 

Although the advantages of marsupial vs. placental birth may not be obvious, upon 

further examination several trade-offs become apparent. The placenta is extremely 

beneficial for many reasons, and allows the organism enough advantage to replace its 

marsupial counterpart if introduced into the same area. However, for everything there is 

a trade-off, and the gestation length may represent a direct exchange between what’s 

advantageous for the child as opposed to the mother. In particular circumstances or 

levels of stress, the marsupial reproductive mode may be more beneficial in reducing 

the deaths specifically related to the child-mother union. Carrying a child internally for 

longer periods can have its consequences: principally the death of one frequently 

remains concomitant to that of the other. If one dies the other dies also if carried 

internally, but that is less frequently the case with pouched babies. If the mother is 

killed, a pouched baby can survive whereas birth subsequent to the mother's death never 

occurs regardless of the level of maturity of the fetus. Likewise, if the baby dies during 

gestation, a pouched baby will not sacrifice the life of the mother. Giving birth to 

offspring more fully developed can also have obvious disadvantages. Basically, the 

larger the child at birth; the more difficult the delivery is for the mother. Breech 

positions and such are not an issue for marsupials, but only become problematic for 

mammals with longer gestation periods. At times when survival has become difficult 

and the death rates of mothers and children are high, the marsupial mode of 

reproduction may prevent high mortality rates from affecting the death of the other. 

Under severe environmental stress when giving birth earlier becomes advantageous for 

the success of the population, then the marsupial reproductive mode may be selectable 

from the natural variation that exists within the timing and developmental rates of these 

events.
125

 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

280 

Now this may seem plausible to some degree. But these considerations are not the kind of 

advantages that can be blindly selected by an environment which is supposedly filtering 

immediately a small increment in ‘fitness’ due to a small change in the structure and function 

of an organism. Even if the female egg-laying pouch mutants had small glimmers of pouches, 

two uteruses etc. etc. (which is nonsense) … Need I go on – it’s nonsense.   

 

In fact, if you think about it carefully, the above account is the kind of reasoning an intelligent 

designer would ponder in the process of his or her designing process; the notion that the 

‘blind’ processes hypothesized by DUD-MUD pundits could achieve this ‘fine-tuning’ is, 

well, blind! Another attempt to explain the advantages claims that: 

This is an adaptation that enhances the survival prospects of the kangaroo in 

Australia’s harsh climate. The kangaroo has something called embryonic diapause: 

the mother kangaroo spends most of her adult life pregnant, but in drought times, she 

has the ability to indefinitely “freeze” the development of the young embryo until 

food sources are replenished. Having two vaginas enables the embryo, when ready, 

to pass to the birth canal, or the median vagina while another embryo waits in 

suspended development.  
126

Again, this is not an adaptation which could possibly occur through the DUD-MUD gradual 

process of ‘blind’ natural selection. What possible sequence of tiny, tiny random changes 

could, even with the help of natural selection, possibly change egg reproduction to the 

radically, very radically, different mode of marsupial reproduction with two vaginas and so 

on. Furthermore, how could the ‘selecting’ environment possibly ‘notice’ a tiny, hardly 

noticeable, mutation in the direction of pouch-birth  A quantum ‘look-ahead’ mechanism 

which triggers quantum potentialities, on the other hand, can coherently account for such an 

interconnection between organism and environment.  

In many cases, placental and marsupial mammals physically resemble each other, except for 

the pouch. Dawkins provides the picture shown in figure 19 to illustrate this. Examples are 

the pouched marsupial mouse and the harvest mouse, the marsupial mole and the common 

mole, the marsupial wombat and the marmot, the Tasmanian wolf and the wolf. Dawkins says 

of this: 

I have already mentioned the magnificent marsupial mammal fauna of Australia … 

The relevant point … is the repeated convergences between these marsupials and a 

great variety of opposite numbers among the ‘eutherian’ (i.e. non-marsupial) 

mammals, which dominate the rest of the world. Though far from identical, even in 

superficial characteristics, each marsupial in the illustration … is sufficiently similar 

to its eutherian equivalent – that is the eutherian that most closely practices the same 

‘trade’ – to impress us, but certainly not sufficient to suggest ‘borrowing’ by a 

creator.
127

  

 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

281 

  
Figure 22

(128)
 

 

Why Dawkins thinks he can be “certain” that such convergences do not indicate ‘borrowing’ 

by a creator he does not elucidate. However, contrary to Dawkins’ blind prejudice that 

evolution is ‘blind’, the fact of convergences does indicate the appropriateness of the 

quantum Platonic perspective. 

Because Dawkins is committed to the DUD-MUD worldview he must resist the evidence. His 

assertion that, whilst the remarkable convergences between species might “impress us”, they 

are “certainty not sufficient to suggest ‘borrowing’ by a creator” is aimed at the notion that 

the repeated patterns with the diversity of life are indicative of “themes in the mind of the 

designer”. In true Dawkins style he perversely parodies the suggestion by misrepresenting it: 

To emphasize how odd the idea of a creator sticking rigidly to ‘themes’  is, reflect 

that any sensible human designer is quite happy to borrow an idea from one of his 

inventions, if it would benefit another. Maybe there is a ‘theme’ of aircraft design, 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

282 

which is separate from the ‘theme’ of train design. But a component of a plane, say 

an improved design for the reading lights above the seats, might as well be borrowed 

for use in trains. Why should it not, if it serves the same purpose in both?  … If 

feathers are a good idea within a bird ‘theme’, such that every single bird, without 

exception, has them whether it flies or not, why do literally no mammals have them? 

Why would the designer not borrow that ingenious invention, the feather, for at least 

one bat? The evolutionist’s answer is clear. All birds have inherited feather from 

their distant ancestor, which had feathers. No mammal is descended from that 

ancestor. It’s as simple as that. 
129

 

Dawkins remains committed to a dogmatic insistence on a direct line of fully materialized 

animals passing on genes from generation to generation. In contrast to this DUD-MUD view 

he parodies the ‘design’ view by implying the need for a fully conscious designer putting 

animals together with conscious intent. This, however, is a blatant and silly misrepresentation 

the quantum Platonic perspective, which is that there must be ‘ideal forms’, or ‘templates’, 

existing as potentialities at a subtle quantum transcendent level of the process of reality.  

These forms are activated within deep quantum, ‘unconscious’, levels by a process of 

‘morphic resonance’ and part of this resonance includes the environment. But there is no 

claim that every possible configuration of forms will be activated in the quantum Platonic 

perspective, only a subset need be manifested.  So Dawkins’ criticism is entirely irrelevant.  

At the outset of The Greatest Show on Earth Dawkins appeals to the flawed authority of the 

evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr (who actually opposed Dawkins’ radical gene-centered 

viewpoint), whose work contributed to the conceptual revolution that led to the modern 

evolutionary synthesis of genetics and Darwinian evolution, and to the development of the 

species concept.  Mayr was another biologist given to making wildly incorrect sweeping 

assertions on the basis of flimsy evidence. Mayr, like Dawkins following him, proclaimed as 

a matter of incontrovertible certainty that genes in diverse species must also be completely 

different. Evo-Devo showed that he did not have a clue what he was talking about. The same 

can be said about Mayr’s view that: 

Biology according to Mayr, is plagued by its own version of essentialism. Biological 

essentialism treats tapirs and rabbits, pangolins and dromedaries, as though they 

were triangles, rhombuses, parabolas or dodecahedrons. The rabbits that we see are 

wan shadows of the perfect ‘idea’ of rabbit, the ideal, essential, Platonic rabbit, 

hanging somewhere out in conceptual space along with all the perfect forms of 

geometry. Flesh-and-blood rabbits may vary, but their variations are always to be 

seen as flawed deviations from the ideal essence of rabbit.
130

 

Quantum Platonism indicates that there was, and is, much truth in Plato’s viewpoint, and the 

remarkable convergences clearly indicate the necessary ‘existence’, as potentiality, for 

quantum ‘morphogenetic’ templates underlying all organic life forms. 

The Quantum Platonic perspective can be elucidated by considering the ‘object-oriented’ 

paradigm within computer modeling which constitutes the initial phase of computer systems 

development.  The object of this approach is to be able to design  a computer software system 

in a hierarchical modular fashion in which the system starts at the base as a highly abstract 

module and then descends through levels of ‘object-classes’ of increasing complexity; each 

level adds functionality to the level above.  Thus in figure 20 we see that at the top of a bank 

account class tree there is the most ‘abstract’ class which is just a base level bank account.  

Within this class only the information which is common to all bank accounts can be placed, 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

283 

information which is specific to various types of bank account are contained in the classes on 

lower levels of the tree.   

 

From the Quantum Platonic perspective the first movement within the deepest quantum 

implicate order is that between a potential perceiving being and a potential perceived 

environment. As Mensky says the process begins at: 

…the most primitive, or the most deep, level of consciousness, differing perceiving 

from not perceiving.
131

 

The ‘epiontic’ internal ‘pressure’ of the Life-Operator operates upon the infinite quantum 

potentialities and begins to organise a coherent world of perceivers and perceived 

environments within the implicate quantum levels of potentiality. In this context it is worth 

noting that the DUD-MUD view takes for granted the fact that organisms have a desire to 

survive but has no means for accounting for the origin and internal pressure to produce 

sentient organisms.  From the Quantum Platonic perspective the pressure is internal to the 

quantum realm as the ‘Life-Operator’ which operates to unfold sentient organisms in order to 

produce a world of perception through which, as Neil Turok says, “the universe gains a 

consciousness of itself.”  At this primordial point there is only the mere quantum glimmer, so 

to speak, of a perceiving ‘pole’ and a perceived ‘pole’, there is no content. However quantum 

potentiality hold an infinite world of potentiality for producing all possible modes of 

perception and sensing, all possible modes of organic being.   

  

Returning to the ‘object-oriented’ computer analogy, a further refinement of this hierarchical 

structure which is a vital part of the object-orientation paradigm is the idea of ‘virtual 

members’.  These are members of a class which form part of the overall structure but cannot 

be fully specified within the class because the exact form of the member depends upon the 

implementation of members at a lower level of the hierarchy. So the top level ‘bank account’ 

class might look as shown in figure 20. The personal details of the account holder can be 

‘implemented’ within this level but the ‘virtual’ members will be fully specified at a lower 

level of the object hierarchy.  Thus the ‘virtual’ members specify an ‘abstract’ structure which 

can be implemented in different ways at a later point depending upon the paths taken through 

the lower levels of the hierarchy. 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

284 

          

 Figure 19  

        

    Figure 20 

 

 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

285 

 
                                                

                                                                      Figure 21 

 

 

 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

286 

The findings of the Evo-Devo revolution now indicate that a similar hierarchical modular 

development is fundamental within the evolutionary development of species.  Figure 21 gives 

a flavor of this perspective in a very crude and reduced form (obviously), indicating the 

principle rather than detail. The essential point is that, whereas the previous view of divergent 

‘random’ mutation of material gene units asserted the lack of common structure between 

divergent species it now turns out that in fact there is a common structure, which is clearly 

apparent within the genetic structure underlying all species.  

 

From the Quantum Platonic perspective the ‘family resemblances’ between marsupials and 

placentals, for instance, is due to the fact that the quantum morphogenetic templates of the 

various  animals are prepared within the quantum implicate orders before they are expressed 

materially. As the various ‘template’ animals are organized through ‘morphic resonance’ 

through the increasingly more ‘explicate’ quantum levels, they take on ever more detailed 

‘appearance’ within the quantum implicate realms. Thus at the point indicated by the box 

‘Pre-Eutherian/Marsupial Prototypes’ we can imagine the animal has been quantum-virtually 

‘assembled’ to the point where ‘virtual’ features of sensing and locomotion have been put in 

place (not indicated on the diagram – see figure 22) but a method of reproduction has not yet 

been implemented. There are two methods available within quantum potentiality – marsupial 

and placental – and so the same template animal is ‘expressed’ in two varieties, one with the 

marsupial reproductive method and the other with the placental.  The convergences illustrated 

within the comparison between placental and marsupial animals is exactly what one would 

expect from the Quantum Platonic perspective.  In fact the Quantum Platonic perspective 

accounts for all the remarkable biological convergences found in nature. Furthermore, through 

this quantum implicate layered mechanism, together with the quantum ‘look-ahead’ 

mechanism, each ‘template’ animal and plant eventually gets equipped with features ‘fitted’ to 

its target environment.  

 

Figure 22 
(RCG illustration/Paula C. Rondeau132) 

It would be remiss to leave out a brief discussion of one of the most bizarre creatures extant 

today, the duck bill platypus (figure 22), which is one of the two types of monotreme, the 

earliest split off mammalian lineage. This creature poses significant problems for the DUD-

MUD perspective, despite attempts DUD-MUD to explain away the problems. However, as 

we shall see, this remarkable creature beautifully illustrates the power and appropriateness of 

the Quantum Platonic paradigm.   



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

287 

The platypus has a bizarre physiology, it appears to be a hybrid blend of a bird, beaver, reptile 

and otter, with additional features not found in any of these four. When the naturalist George 

Shaw, Keeper of the Department of Natural History at the British Museum, received a 

specimen from Captain John Hunter at the end of the eighteenth century he remarked that it 

was “impossible not to entertain some doubts as to the genuine nature of the animal, and to 

surmise that there might have been practiced some arts of deception in its structure.”
133

 

The two most remarkable features are the, on first appearance, duck-like bill, which is 

actually a highly sensitive electro-location sensor, detecting miniscule electrical impulses 

generated by its food source of small crustaceans and worms, and, secondly, the fact that it is 

the only mammal which lays eggs. The platypus has webbed feet, similar to those found on 

otters. Unlike an otter, however, the webbing is far more pronounced on the front feet of the 

platypus, which it uses like paddles for swimming. While in the water, the back feet are 

tucked into its body and hardly used at all. It has a beaver-like tail, but whereas a beaver’s tail 

is covered in scales, is flattened, and propels the rodent through the water when swimming, 

the tail of the platypus is covered in fur and is used more in the way a rudder might guide a 

boat. The platypus has two sharp heel spurs behind its hind feet which can pierce skin. Male 

platypuses are able to inject a protein-based extremely potent toxin. 

Platypuses hunt underwater, where they swim gracefully by paddling with their front webbed 

feet and steering with their hind feet and beaver-like tail. Folds of skin cover their eyes and 

ears to prevent water from entering, and the nostrils close with a watertight seal. In this 

posture, a platypus can remain submerged for a minute or two and employ its electro-

sensitive bill to find food. In his book The Ancestor’s Tale is full of admiration for the 

construction and functioning of the platypus’ bill’s electrosensitivity, comparing it to the 

“extra nose grafted onto a Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft” which is the American equivalent 

to AWACS system. The platypus’ bill, he says, “a reconnaissance device, an AWACS 

organ”: 

Platypuses have about 40,000 electrical sensors distributed in longitudinal stripes 

over both surfaces of the bill. … a large proportion of the brain is given over to 

processing the data from these 40,000 sensors. But the plot thickens. In addition to 

the 40,000 electrical sensors, there are about 60,000 mechanical sensors called push 

rods, scattered over the surface of the bill. Pettigrew and his co-workers have found 

nerve cells in the brain that receive inputs from mechanical sensors. And they have 

found other brain cells that respond to both electrical and mechanical sensors (so far 

they have found no brain cells that respond to electrical sensors only). Both kinds of 

cell occupy their correct position on the spatial map of the bill, and they are layered 

in a way that is reminiscent of the human visual brain, where layering assists 

binocular vision. Just as our layered brain combines information from the two eyes to 

construct a stereo percept, the Pettigrew group suggests that the platypus might be 

combining the information from electrical and mechanical sensors in some similarly 

useful way.
134

 

A truly remarkable piece of bio-engineering which, Dawkins tells us, “has evolved far, even 

if other parts of the platypus have not.”
135

    

The significant issue, however, is that of whether this kind of bio-technology could have 

‘evolved’ through the mechanism of RM+NS. Anyone who believes this must also believe 

that a random mutation can produce a fully functioning electrosensitive bill along with the 

appropriate brain ‘wiring’ interconnections to process the information gathered by the 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

288 

complex system of the electrosensitive bill.  Even if this ‘original’ bill was not as complex as 

that possessed by today’s platypuses, the random-mutatedly produced bill would need to be 

complex enough to function as an electrosensitive device capable of indicating location.   

Given the fact that we know that all possible types of sense organ must be potential within 

the primordial quantum ground, such a desperately implausible account seems beyond the 

absurd.  Dawkins points out that other animals have ‘evolved’ similar electrosensitive organs, 

which is supposed to indicate DUD-MUD ‘convergent evolution’. Such convergences, 

however, are much more coherently explained form the quantum Platonic perspective. As 

animals are ‘assembled’ within the implicate levels of quantum potentiality through the 

mechanism of ‘morphic resonance’ they can avail themselves (metaphorically) of organs 

appropriate to the target environment. The quantum ‘look-ahead’ mechanism allows this 

mechanism of ‘fitting’ to function.  This also gives an indication of how the platypus has 

such a diverse and seemingly peculiar set of features which defy DUD-MUD explanation. Its 

features are absolutely well-suited to its environment and mode of life. 

Recently the platypus’ genome was sequenced and the results caused some surprise: 

The creature, considered one of the strangest mammals in the world, has become the 

latest to have its genetic code sequenced, revealing it to be a bizarre mix of mammal, 

bird and reptile, with very complex sexuality. While humans have two sex 

chromosomes, the X and Y, the platypus has 10, with five of each kind.
136

 

This kind of “bizarre mix” is not easily accounted for from a DUD-MUD worldview. 

However, it is entirely to be expected within with the viewpoint of the Quantum Platonic 

paradigm.  

The only possible explanation which accords with recent scientific knowledge for all of the 

above, as well as the remarkable interconnected bio-diverse interdependency found in nature 

in general, is that there is a deep level of quantum interconnection between an environment 

and the ‘design’ of the species found in that environment. And such an interconnection has 

been shown to exist; it is called ‘quantum entanglement’. This can happen precisely because 

the ‘themes’ for all the possibilities of life, including organisms and environments, are 

potential within the Platonic quantum fields of potentiality, and when they are expressed and 

manifested they do so in a manner which is, in the main, coherent and consistent, the 

inhabitants fitting, because of the patterning of the internal potentialities, the manifested 

environments. This is a result of an internal quantum ‘entangled’ interconnection between 

manifested creatures and their containing environments. 

Dawkins, of course, scoffs at such ideas and dogmatically proclaims their erroneous nature: 

Zoologists … are tempted to think of the divide between major groups as a 

momentous event. The reason zoologists may be so misled is that they have been 

brought up in the almost reverential belief that each of the great divisions of the 

animal kingdom is furnished with something deeply unique, often called by the 

German word Bauplan. Although this word just means “blueprint”, it has become a 

recognized technical term … In its technical sense, bauplan is often translated as 

“fundamental body plan.” The use of the word “fundamental” (or, equivalently, the 

self-conscious dropping into German to indicate profundity) is what causes the 

damage. It can lead zoologists to make serious errors.
137

 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

289 

The quantum evidence and the Evo-Devo revolution, however, indicate that it is Dawkins, 

with his stubborn adherence to a discredited materialist metaphysics, who is in the DUD-

MUD grip of “serious errors.”  Both these areas of enquiry suggest the deep importance of the 

quantum ‘existence’ of such body plans as quantum potentialities. And, because of this, it 

now looks entirely likely that each species has its own quantum ‘template,’ or set of templates 

underlying manifestation, which is manifested through the operation of an internal quantum 

‘pressure’ which drives the process of quantum evolution into the manifested ‘material’ 

world.  The DUD-MUD worldview is now revealed as nothing more than an illusion created 

by dogmatic adherence to a thoroughly unscientific materialist metaphysics.  

 

 

                                                      

1
 Dawkins, R. (2010), 165-166 

2
 Dawkins, R. (1995), xi 

3
 http://gareths-biology-assignment.weebly.com/ 

4
 http://gareths-biology-assignment.weebly.com/ 

5
 Dawkins, R. (1995), 3 

6
 Dawkins, R. (1995), 6-7 

7
 Fodor, Jerry – ‘Why Pigs Don’t Fly’, New York Review of Books 

8
 Fodor, J. & Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2011), 23 

9
 Fodor, J. & Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2011) 

10
 Dawkins, R. (2010), 24 

11
 http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/old-order.html 

12
 Dawkins, R. (2010)   

13
 Dawkins (2006a) 

14
 Dawkins, R. (2010), 165 

15
 Dawkins, R. (2010), 164 

16
 http://users.tamuk.edu/kfjab02/Biology/Vertebrate%20Zoology/b3405_ch08.htm 

17
 Dawkins, R. (2005), 5 

18
 Dawkins, R. (2005), 458 

19
 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lungfish#In_a_nutshell 

20
 Ibid. 

21
 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fish_that_survive_on_land#Creationist_responses 

22
 http://www.annekempslungfish.com/what_is_a_lungfish.html 

23
 http://www.annekempslungfish.com/what_is_a_lungfish.html 

24
 http://www.fasebj.org/content/21/8/1623.full 

25
 http://www.fasebj.org/content/21/11/2640.2.full 

26
 Smith, H. (1965) The Evolution of the Kidney. Chasis, Herbert Goldring, William eds. Homer 

William Smith: His Scientific and Literary Achievements, 81 New York University Press New York. 
27

 Dawkins, R. (2010), 161 
28

 Dawkins, R. (2010), 166 
29

 http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/transitional-fossils/fish-to-amphibian 
30

 http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-ichthyostega.html 
31

 Dawkins, R. (2010), 168 
32

 Ibid. 
33

 Dawkins, R. (2010), 169 
34

 http://gareths-biology-assignment.weebly.com/ 
35

 Dawkins, R. (1995) 2-3 
36

 Conway Morris, Simon (2003), 6 
37

 Conway Morris, Simon (2003) 
38

 Dawkins, R. (2010), 169-170 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

290 

                                                                                                                                                                     

39
 Dawkins, R. (2010), 170  

40
 Goswami, A. (2008), 190-191 

41
 Goswami, A. (2008), p 191 

42
 Dawkins, R. (2010), 315 

43
 Carroll, Sean B. (2006), 72 

44
 Carroll, Sean B. (2006), 9 

45
 Fodor, Jerry – ‘Why Pigs Don’t Fly’, New York Review of Books 

46
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_whale#Respiration_and_diving 

47
 Dawkins, R. (1995), 81 

48
 Dawkins, R. (1995), 81-82 

49
 http://www.chrispackham.co.uk/television/major-new-series/secrets-of-our-living-planet 

50
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Belon 

51
 Dawkins, R. (2010) 295-296 

52
 Dawkins, R. (2010) 

53
 Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig (2006) ‘The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe – What Do We Really 

Know’ Part 1, 1 
54

 Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig (2006) ‘The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe – What Do We Really 

Know’ Part 1, 7 
55

 Dawkins, R. (2010), 295 
56

 http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/dining-and-dancing/ 
57

 Dawins - Climbing Mount Improbable (1996) 
58

 Animals of the World (1988) 
59

 Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig (2006) ‘The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe – What Do We Really 

Know’ Part 1, 21 
60

 Dawkins, R. (2010), 24-25 
61

 Dawkins, R. (2010), 296-297 
62

 Dawkins, R. (2010), 22 
63

 Randall, L. ‘Designing Words’ in Brockman, J. (ed.) (2006), 194 
64

 http://www.athro.com/general/atrans.html 
65

 http://www.athro.com/general/atrans.html 
66

 http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html 
67

 http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~alroy/lefa/LAgassiz.html 
68

 http://urbantimes.co/magazine/2011/07/a-darwinian-victory-teaching-of-evolution-accepted-in-

texas/ 
69

 Randall, L. (2006) p158 
70

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-

krauss.html 
71

 Ibid. 
72

 Turok, N. (2013), 247 
73

 Turok, N. (2013), 201 
74

 Carroll, S. (2012), 280-281 
75

 Das Wesen der Materie” (The Nature of Matter), speech at Florence, Italy, 1944 (from Archiv zur 

Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797) 
76

 Schrödinger, E. (1944), What is Life, (13th printing, 2013) Cambridge University Press, 121. 
77

 Goswami, A. (2008), 72-73 
78

 Rosenblum, Bruce and Kuttner, Fred (2006), 179 
79

 Mensky, Michael: ‘Reality in quantum mechanics, Extended Everett Concept, and Consciousness’, 

6 
80

 Schlosshauer, M. (ed.) (2011), 159 
81

 http://www.counterbalance.org/ctns-vo/davie-body.html 
82

 Hawking, Stephen & Mlodinow, Leonard (2010) 82 
83

 Hawking, Stephen & Mlodinow, Leonard (2010) 83 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

291 

                                                                                                                                                                     

84
 Hawking, Stephen & Mlodinow, Leonard (2010) 136 

85
 Hawking, Stephen & Mlodinow, Leonard (2010) 140 

86
 Barrow, John D., Davies, Paul C. W., Harper, Charles L. (eds.) (2004) p577 – Wheeler, J A (1999) 

‘Information, physics, quantum: the search for links.’ In Feynman and Computation: Exploring the 

Limits of Computers, ed. A. J. G. Hey, p309 (314). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. 
87

 Hawking, Stephen & Mlodinow, Leonard (2010), 140 
88

 Goswami, A. (2008), p119 
89

 Michele Caponigro, Xiaojiang Jiang, Ravi Prakesh, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; ‘Entanglement: 

Can We ‘See’ the Implicate Order? Philosophical Speculations’ in NeuroQuantology – September 

2010, Vol 8, Issue 3, 382. 
90

 Bohm, David (2003), 119 
91

 http://www.seekeraftertruth.com/basil-hiley-quantum-physics-and-the-holistic-universe/ 
92

 Bohm, David (2003), 180 
93

 Sheldrake, Rupert (2009), 145 
94

 Sheldrake, Rupert (2009), 144 
95

 Sheldrake, Rupert (2009), Back cover blurb 
96

 Hawking, Stephen & Mlodinow, Leonard (2010), 155 
97

 Woolfson, Adrian (2000), 74 
98

 Barrow, John, D. & Tipler, Frank J. (1986), 105 
99

 Woolfson, Adrian (2000), 83 
100

 Woolfson, Adrian (2000), 76 
101

 Baggott, J. (2012), 221 
102

 Baggott, J. (2012), 2-3 
103

 Allday, Jonathan (2009) p493 
104

 Stapp, Henry (2004) p223 
105

 Carroll, Sean B. (2006) p164 
106

 Bohm, David (2003) p140 
107

 Sheldrake, Rupert (2009) p136 
108

 Sheldrake, Rupert (2009) p104 
109

 Goswami, A. (2008), p182 
110

 http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/PBD-quantum-secrets.html 
111

 Mensky, Michael: ‘Reality in quantum mechanics, Extended Everett Concept, and Consciousness’ 

p12 
112

 Barrow, John D., Davies, Paul C. W., Harper, Charles L. (eds) (2004) p114 – H. Dieter Zeh: ‘The 

wave function: it or bit?’ 
113

 Hawking, Stephen & Mlodinow, Leonard (2010) p140 
114

 Dawkins, R. (2010) p254 
115 http://rhamphotheca.tumblr.com/post/16652899559/deuterosaurus-a-genus-of-the-therapsids-one-of 
 

116 http://news.discovery.com/animals/dinosaurs/birds-dinosaurs-120530.htm 
 

117
 http://www.nature.com/news/1998/981015/full/news981015-3.html 

118
 Dawkins, R. (2010), 258 

119
 Dawkins, R. (2010), 255 

120
 Dawkins, R. (2010), 256 

121
 Dawkins, R. (2005), 230 

122
 http://www.bobpickett.org/evolution_of_mammals.htm 

123
 Dawkins, R. (2010), 256 

124
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsupial 

125
 http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110603230046AAj3r0K 



DNA Decipher Journal | July 2013 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | pp. 235-292  

–
 

 

ISSN: 2159-046X DNA Decipher Journal 
Published by QuantumDream, Inc. 

www.dnadecipher.com 

 

292 

                                                                                                                                                                     

126
 http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_female_kangaroos_have_two_vaginas 

127
 Dawkins, R. (2010) 300-301 

128 Dawkins, R. (2010) 

129
 Dawkins, R. (2010) 297-298 

130
 Dawkins, R. (2010) 22 

131
 Mensky, Michael: ‘Reality in quantum mechanics, Extended Everett Concept, and Consciousness’ 

p6 
132

 http://realtruth.org/articles/110819-005.html 
133

 http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Duckbilled_Platypus/ 
134

 Dawkins, R. (2005), 245 
135

 Dawkins, R. (2005), 242 
136

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/08/genetics.wildlife 
137

 Dawkins, R. (1995), 12