Why Flowering Plants?

In June, 2012 I attended a lecture by Sir Peter Crane, Dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and Professor of Botany, held at the cozy Montalto conference center on the scenic grounds of Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello in Charlottesville, Virginia. After the lecture, I asked Sir Peter—a leader whose work centers on the diversity of plant life, including its origin and fossil history, current status, conservation and use—what question, above any other, remains an unsolved mystery. My motive was to discover a new application for the Noetitek™ system toward making a contribution to the field of botany. His response: “Why are there flowering plants?” The answer to that question has eluded scientists for more than a hundred years. 

After the Montalto lecture I began expanding my familiarity with the field of botany and with Sir Peter’s scientific posture. A presentation he made at Cambridge University in 2009 confirms for me my alignment with the spirit and intent of his mission regarding environmental conservation. His core message was: “Speed and magnitude of current environmental change is unprecedented in human history. Understanding and managing the biotic components of this change must be informed by evolutionary thinking and will have important consequences for human well-being.” 

Dr. Crane espouses Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Mainstream science adheres religiously to this theory and to the paradigm surrounding it. Not all scientists agree; however the pressure to believe in Darwinism is practically insurmountable. For example, despite the fact that Dr. Rupert Sheldrake is a highly regarded biologist employing properly controlled experiments and is renowned for his Morphic Resonance hypothesis, his TEDx talk on science dogma was banned by faceless (cowardly) powers of the New Inquisition—shame on TED. Considering that my theorizing is far more comparable to Sheldrake’s than Darwin’s, I am pre-banning my work from that forum. 

What is my theory? Since the inception of this blog more than four years ago, fifteen posts have wholly or partly addressed Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. The first was “Evolving Beyond Darwin,” (May, 2009) which served to state my basic position—based on my work in developing and applying the Noetitek™ system over more than fifteen years at that point—and to initiate a public dialogue. The following month, I shared more about the core of my theory in: “New View on Evolution.” Since that time, I have produced thirteen further posts that include information about my thoughts on Darwin’s theory. The posts are listed in the latest related to this subject: “Analysis: ‘The Red Queen’.” Or, simply type “Darwin” in the blog’s search box. 

Enough scientific evidence exists to negate Darwin’s pseudo-scientific theory. And, ironically, Sheldrake’s scientific theorizing is less appealing than the evidence he has gathered to support it. I have great respect for Sheldrake, a true scientist by virtue of his attitude and approach, but he postulates that the Laws of Nature are “evolving habits” whereas the Noetitek System™ reveals that three dimensions of Consciousness manifest life-forms for the purpose of emotional, cognitive, and sensory experiencing. Consciousness is free to make any changes at any time to adjust its experience to suit its desires. There is no “missing link” to show a Darwinian step from non-flowering to flowering plants. Flowers are not produced by either laws or habits of Nature. 

So, returning to the question: “Why are there flowering plants?” the answer is: because, like everything that is, was, and ever will be, flowers express a desire initiated in the uppermost dimensions of Space-Time-Mind enacted via a set of basic principles that may be thought of as creational ideas or vibrational building blocks. And if humankind have been on Earth for hundreds of millions of years (see the July, 2013 post: “Lost Continent Found”), an ancient race of humans may have played an active role in creating flowering plants and shaping their development much the way that world-class botanists such as Peter R. Crane advocate the protection and intelligent management of plant life today.

[See also: “Multidimensionality and Turbulence Theory” (May, 2009) and “Corridors of Consciousness” (October, 2011)].

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Why Flowering Plants?”

  1. Valiant Says:

    It’s interesting to see that the material in your “Lost Continent Found” post and this post express interlocking radical ideas.

  2. PluribusOne™ Says:

    And each presents the opportunity to help evidence the truth of the other as well as our more fundamental “Theory of Everything.” Based on our theorizing, flowering plants came onto the planet before the continent of Atlantis came into its own after breaking away from what is now South America. In our theory, Atlantis later became North Africa. Therefore, we should be able to find fossils of flowering plants in North Africa that match those found in South America.

    Fossils of flowering plants have been found in South America—e.g., Patagonia, in 2010—so no issue there, to my knowledge. An archeological expedition to North Africa to seek matching fossils appears needed. I would start in the northwest region, Morocco.

  3. Sandi Says:

    What hard evidence exists to support the wild idea that human beings have been here for hundreds of millions of years?

  4. PluribusOne™ Says:

    Many “anomalous” archeological discoveries indicate that this is true. You might want to research the matter in depth before forming an opinion. Start with these books: Human Devolution, by Michael A. Cremo and Forbidden Archeology, by Cremo and Richard L. Thompson. I am not endorsing these sources, but because they are designed for mass markets they are readable texts and make for a good place to begin (or to weigh against any university training you might have in archeology).

  5. Stark Raven Says:

    What’s the difference between your principles of nature and scientific laws of nature?

  6. PluribusOne™ Says:

    Metaphysical creational principles underlie the observed phenomena that scientists have attempted to conceptualize as laws of Nature. “Habits of Nature” is a better understanding, but it still implies relatively unconscious and progressive expansion whereas Omniverse is conscious, intentional, and turbulent—and non-local expansion is an illusion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s