TED Community » Derek Payne

More About Me

I'm passionate about

I am passionate about ,how the design in nature was possible. My research proves the source was from the species and not from a spiritual source.

An idea worth spreading

What is: is there for a reason. When life first began, it was with the sequence of night and day, therefore both had an equal part to play in our survival. We can go on forever assuming this and assuming that but until we have researched and found the reason for the former, we are never going to have the reality that explains the whole. The reality is out there.

Talk to me about

I have said it all.

People don't know that I'm good at

Thinking (maybe)

My TED Story

Like I have mentioned, I have 35yrs of reseaching the mind. When I started, I was not leaning either way, believer or none believer. I am now a firm none believer. I do now believe the design in nature comes from the life that is evolving and not from a spiritual source. I also know that all the unexplained comes from that same source. (us).

Comments

• TEDCred score: +3.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Conversation: Complex design.

  Jul 14 2011: Hello Zein, sorry I have not answered sooner; I haven't been too well. Dawkins says that to have a complex design means to have a more complex designer. His theory is; evolution is random and cannot have a designer, meaning God of course. I am an atheist but I disagree with him, I believe you can have one without the other. It's finding the means that nature has, to pass on that information to the process of evolution. Think; if there is a design where is the best place to look to find where it's coming from, it surely must be the species? I am not refferring to environmental mutations, it goes much deeper than that. My research goes into new territory; being new, I am getting a lot of negative response. It's my fault I should never attempted to try out new ideas on the web and I shall be more prepared next time. Hope this explains why I disagree with Dawkins. I have decided to withdraw from this debate because of the reasons I have given. Thank you for your imput.

• A reply on Conversation: Complex design.

  Jun 23 2011: Hello Alex; I sense an element of frustration, please bear with me. The evidence of a dormant beginning I have started to register and have had 100% success up to now. Whether I am right or wrong will not be decided at this moment, there is a lot more evidence to gather. The dormancy that I refer to is the dormancy that science assumes was the first life-form. It's all about matching that dormancy with life today. I have consulted an advanced biologist, in fact he is a friend whom I met at the writer's club. When you mention selective instinct for survival, I agree totally. The difference with the virus is; it means attaching to a living host. There are theories that this came about because there probably was two kinds of virus. The way science goes about trying to convince itself as well as others, leaves me in no doubt that there could be another answer. No need for you to answer Alex and thank you for your imput, I do appreciate it.

• A reply on Conversation: Creationism. Why? and thoughts..

  Jun 23 2011: Hi Jim. You are right of course, maximised diversity is a safety valve put in by nature. Might I add, it also serves the intelligent life with the food of intelligence; stimulation.

• A reply on Conversation: Complex design.

  Jun 22 2011: Hi Simon thanks for your imput, it was appreciated. What I was trying to do was explain how intelligence evolved, which had so much to do with the mutations, but of course that is like looking for the missing link. That is why it caused so much controversy. In a nutshell, I was trying to explain the dormancy that existed at the beginning of life and how it is still with us today. That being so, means that evolution is by design, If it was random; the dormancy would not be there. Thanks again Simon.

• A reply on Conversation: Complex design.

  Jun 22 2011: Hi Alex. I have mislead you. My appoligies. I agree with your description, mutations are random, but what I was trying to get across was the intelligence factor, that crept in from who knows where. When I said physical, I had wrongly tried to emphasize the impact that intelligence made to evolution. What I was trying to explain about the dormancy was; if that dormancy is still with us, then evolution is by design and not random as suggested. I have researched this part of my work and at this point I am sure you would not agree with me if I told you. This is purely because it is a new way to go. There is one question I would like answered; is there proof of a primitve, let's say virus, having no other but the instinct for survival or is it just a theory. You say that emotions are a human construct, but my studies involved a lot of species with various levels of emotion, the higher the level, the more intelligent the species. Alex I hope there is solid proof regarding the fact that life could not have begun from nerve lacking systems, I can't see how science can predict with any confidence, that which they cannot see. Sorry if you think I am stubborn, but I have experienced so many mistakes made by science, it's like politics, you can't believe a word they say. Sorry again for misleading you, I put it down to my lack of education and my age.

• A reply on Conversation: Complex design.

  Jun 20 2011: Hello Alex. Science says that evolution is random, but it is only a theory until proved so, random explains everything and tells us nothing. Environment is only the trigger, its what pulls the trigger that is the most important. I do agree that there are random mutations though. Mutations are not just the survival of the fittest. this scenario comes more prominent after mutations have created a variety of different species. It is not always the fittest that survive, it can also be the weakest. (Physically that is.)The apes are good example where intelligence reigns supreme. When danger threatens, they gather together holding sticks and stones accompanied by the most threatening noise. It strikes fear into most predators. About the dormancy; science and logic dictate that the first life was a dormant one. The virus perhaps. This being so, then traits from that first life-form must have been inherited by all its decendents, all life on earth. When we dream most of what we see can be traced to our everyday experiences. Then there are dreams that happen now and again where there is no possible explanation. Could this be the dormancy that all life has inherited? These dreams are hidden in our subconscious and all life has a subconscious, where else could it keep its memory? Without memory life would not know what to eat and where to find it, life could not exist. All life has a subconscious so all life must possess this dormancy, It has been said that bacteria has no subconscious with which I agree. But all life even bacteria or the virus have the instinct for survival or there would have been no beginning. This one emotion would have started to evolve to all the emotions we have today. This dormancy must be as important today as it was all those billions of years ago. We all know it is there, Science hides it head in the sand, I think I know the reason why. They dare not speak its name.

• A reply on Conversation: Complex design.

  Jun 20 2011: Hi Matt. I feel I must apologise for misleading you, it was not done purposely. Somewhere along the road our paths met for a fleeting moment. The path I am on cannot be observed under a microscope, at least not yet, but who knows in the future? I admire your knowledge of biology and know you speak the truth, I agree with what you say. I am to old and thick to challenge you in this field anyway. Let me leave you with this last insight to where I am coming from. An individual learns a trade then decides to change to another type of work. That trade will still be with them whenever its use is needed. However when that individual dies, all that they have learned, dies with them. (Remember the dormancy that connects us all.) When an individual dies within a species, the species does not die. In the absence of divine help, the species can only rely on the individuals to supply that information for it to evolve, it can only do this if it can retain that information. (Memory, remember the virus, perhaps the beginning of memory.) I know you are going to jump in here and say environment, but environment is only the trigger, its what pulls the trigger that I am seeking. Ability without some kind of guidance would spiral out of control.

• A reply on Conversation: Complex design.

  Jun 19 2011: Hi Alex. What you say is spot on. Intelligence would grow under pressure to survive. Before all that could happen there would have to be a genetic change to allow intelligence to develop more. The secret is in the memory, animals further down the evolutionary scale than ourselves have less memory and so are less intelligent.

• A reply on Conversation: Complex design.

  Jun 19 2011: Hi Matt. Deleteriuos genes perish while adapted genes prevail. Of course they do! I have no broblem with that. I am on about a completly new ball game which you ignore, why I don't know. I am trying to convey the why's and how's that caused intelligence to evolve. How would adapted genes be able to do this? You seem to be avoiding answering the purpose of the reign of the dinosaur. You also avoid saying anything about the dormancy that all life possesses. The virus is a dormant form of life, consists as you know of RNA or DNA. Because it can only replicate by attaching to a living body it is presumed dead by science. (This is for the benefit of the readers, you already know this.) The virus can survive in extreme heat, extreme cold and even in a vacuum. This dormancy, that you did not comment on, is connected to all life, the virus perhaps could be our ancestor from when life first began. Could you confirm or deny that this is possible, with a proper explanation. You may not think so, but I am genuinely interested in your answer. I am aware that the virus as far as we know has no subconscious, but it does possess one emotion. The need to survive. Without this there would be no beginning.

• A reply on Conversation: Complex design.

  Jun 19 2011: Matt, I have looked up "The Blind Watchmaker." Dawkins cannot get away with random when he comes up against a brick wall. Random only feeds that what he doesn't believe in. How silly can you get. You mention genes replicating; Answer me, how do those genes know what design is needed to allow the species to survive. Survival of the fittest only produces a symmetrical copy of the original only maybe stronger adapted, but only adapted to the same environment. Most of the time during the billions of years, the mutations have also required a change in DNA. Survival of what? produces this change. Random means no purpose and so no thinking. That's not for me. You also say that my ideas are uniformed nasissism, what is it when science and yourself use the word random because you have no other way to go, you have stopped thinking. You say "Distinct possibility." when referring to the possibility of intelligent life not resurfacing after an extinction. This only proves you are basing some of your iknowledge on theories and I am sorry, but theories have to be challenged, otherwise the world would still be flat. I am sure you will agree with the next observation; science and logic dictate that the first life-form must have been a dormant one. If this is so, all life on earth must have inherited some traits from that ancestor. All life has a subcoscious, otherwise it would have nowhere to store its memory. How would it know what to eat and where to find it. When we dream, most of what we dream can be explained by our every day experiences, but occasionally there comes a dream that defies any explanation. Is this the dormancy we have all inherited? All life has this dormancy because all life has a subconscious. This dormancy must be as important today as it was billions of years ago. The secret of intelligence; is it in there somewhere? Much more to come. (Fact.)