What causes genetic mutation in a species?
I was searching the Internet trying to find out what causes genetic mutation in species and could not find anything definitive. I had an insight about it the other day, that the change happens energetically in the existing life form, then the form metamorphoses from the new energetic instruction (DNA mutation), making the physical change immediately vs. slow change over time passed through generations. If this is so, it explains why there is not found species in archeology or paleontology, which show the link between the new species. As the form itself metamorphoses there is no evidence of gradual DNA change left behind in the preserved bodies. Could it be that mutation happens due to the morphogenetic field gaining momentum to make a change to species, because the species in question is becoming threatened in their survival due to changing outside conditions? It might even be that the species as a whole needs to make a change because it is destroying itself. Once the morphogenetic changes are imminent, then it would happen that many in the same species pool would start to change around the same time. I can imagine if the life form can reproduce it would then pass on this news species variation to subsequent offspring. I guess the current mindset of researchers investigating this mystery is to look at the physical forms and try to figure out what causes genetic variation from there. This way of looking – at the past – is pervasive today, but there is another way to look.
So why do some individuals in a species change and others not? I guess that if the individual consciousness of the species in question is receptive to change, then this life form would be one affected by the morphogenetic field, and that this is the main factor that makes the mutation – individual receptivity. Now I see that the ‘creator element’ is key to making major changes in a species physical attributes. This is so obvious to me that it’s true, yet I can’t prove it. I’ve heard that there are different morphogenetic fields for each species and that they only affect that species. It makes more sense to me that it’s one field. Any change in outside conditions of any species will affect all other species. From a species viewpoint, one is receptive to the accumulated energy field of that species as one can tune into it. So a rat’s consciousness can tap into the portion of the field relevant to it’s species. Small changes take place over time among individuals of a species, of which these changes are accumulated into the morphogenetic field and can be shared by all. A big change in the species will come when the species as a whole is threatened in it’s ability to survive, so fur might appear if it’s too cold, or a longer tongue in a moth is grown to sip nectar, or one might grow legs to exit from the water, etc.
We have paleontological evidence that our ape ancestors have made these kinds of changes in the past: big differences in the prehistoric human skeletons with no graduation of change found between the different species of humans. Paleontologists still search for the missing link today – now I know they won’t find it. I believe this is also true for dogs. Dogs have an incredible amount of variation as a species, yet they don’t find dog remains that show the gradual changes. This ‘absence of evidence’ proves for me that sudden change is what creates new species. The species of humans today are threatened as a whole in their survival. Does that mean that we might be due very soon for a DNA mutation? I know that we have a tendency to get fixed in our ideas and beliefs and comfortable with what is, but do we honestly believe that we humans will stay the same forever despite the evidence of our past? Then I wonder what features might a new human need to have to be able to survive in the current world of today?