What is it that makes Dynamic Evolution superior to Darwinian Evolution? By far the majority of questions raised by readers of Dynamic Evolution involve a difficulty in understanding the concept of “dependencies.” These are explained in the book using a diagram of a Cube, known as the Plexus: a 3-dimensional virtual object that conceptualises all the objects and components, including the laws and forces, of the universe, of nature, and of the world around us, and demonstrates how each one has a specific place to occupy within the overall arrangement.
Although this explanation may take some time and effort to grasp, it is well worth it. The theories propounded by Darwin in the 19th century and carried forward by popular undercurrents in academic circles ever since, are commonly believed to be the domain of the intelligent. Laymen, the general populous, are inclined to believe that acceptance of Darwin is synonymous with greater mental abilities. Joe Public, “lacking” the intelligence as proponents of Darwin claim, takes the easier path to acceptance and popularity.
Dynamic Evolution endeavors to redress the balance. But its concepts, it seems, are not so easy to grasp. It is only after some time spent studying the ideas embodied in the theory, that its true value is appreciated.
The most helpful study you can embark on is to grasp the concept of dependencies. This study is vital to a complete understanding of the key ideas of Dynamic Evolution.
A study of dependencies within The Plexus can be facilitated using the example of the human body. For instance, would you not agree that the body’s blood vessels are dependent on the heart? Without the heart to pump blood through the arteries, veins, and capillaries of the body, what use would they be? But this dependency, as the book explains, extends further. The heart itself possesses its own network of blood vessels. Its muscles and other tissues require a regular blood supply to satisfy their complex nutritional requirements. Cells must be fed, repaired, regenerated, disposed of when they die, and replaced by new cells. All of these functions require many of the “machines of the Plexus,” the microscopic devices that are created by, and that live inside, each cell.
Thus our study of dependencies reaches a new, smaller level (like the smaller cubes-within-cubes pictured in the diagram at the top of this article) . Each of these machines now forms a dependency in relation to the components of the heart. If any single machine is missing, then damage, degradation, or complete collapse of the heart is a natural consequence. But the dependencies find a new, even smaller, level. For each of these microscopic machines are made from components manufactured within the cell; and not just the cells of the heart, because cells that live in other body organs, sometimes some distance away, provide the components that the heart needs.
The complexity of this labyrinthine network of dependencies reaches new levels when you consider that the heart is one of the first of the body parts to develop within the womb. Was this the first organ to evolve by Darwinian principles? If so, what was its purpose at this time? And how did it survive alone without its multitude of dependencies? Expanding this study further: which evolved first, the brain, or the network of nerve fibers and fibrous tissue? If the brain evolved first, what use were its many regions specifically mapped for areas of the body that as yet had not evolved, such as processing information from the major organs and from muscles and other systems such as the digestive system, and the lymphatic, pulmonary, circulatory, respiratory, immune, skeletal, excretory, urinary, endocrine, and reproductive systems?
As nerve tissue also requires a blood supply, which evolved first, blood vessels or nerve fibers? If nerve fibers, how were they fed? If blood vessels, how did vital information travel through the body? Did major organs such as the liver evolve before the other organs and chambers of the body that have multiple dependencies on such major organs; if so, what purpose or function would they perform at this point? If organs that have many dependents evolved at a later time, how would their dependents be able to function? If they managed to function without these dependencies, what use would the organs be that had yet to evolve?
Which evolved first, the skeleton or the blood vessels? If bone came first, how is it that there are specific channels in some bones perfectly suited, even specifically mapped, for blood vessels? If blood vessels came first, how would large creatures become ambulant without a firm skeletal structure? If they somehow managed to achieve ambulance without a skeleton, why and how would bones have ever evolved?
Thus, the argument for dependencies provides one of the most compelling reasons to abandon the Darwinian premise that considerable time, and massive amounts of luck, were involved in the development of the human body. It does not take a great deal of imagination to picture the “labyrinthine network of dependencies” that the above discussion invokes in the mind when considering all of the body’s systems (muscular, digestive, lymphatic, pulmonary, circulatory, respiratory, immune, skeletal, excretory, urinary, endocrine, and reproductive) and their respective organs and cellular structures and substructures. The resulting latticework map that would thus be drawn between the multitude of dependents and dependencies would rival the neural network of the human brain!
The principles of Dynamic Evolution offer the only answer that fits the available facts as we know them today.