Written by Vincent Scholze

“Atoms cannot form materials by simple addition or ordering. A mysterious independence encloses them and binds them together; our mind meets it with a rebuff, but has to make way for it in the end.” (P. Teilhard de Chardin, 1955 – translated)

1. Introduction

The material aspects of an organism, the abstractions, are mostly seen as the only aspects. The deeper one gets into material systems, the more often one realises the complexity of matter. By abstraction, science can understand the material aspects and analyse them very accurately, but solutions in a larger connection are often hard to find. Modern biology only looks at the material systems (quantity) and tries to find solutions only there. But we have to realise once that not everything can be solved this way. Science has the aim to contribute to the knowledge of life and the world around us. In this context it is absurd to gain that knowledge only through material aspects of systems. Why should we deny the unexplored realms if we don’t even know what or how they can contribute to our scientific research?

It can be assumed that we only know a small fraction about the organisation within cells, genetics and the morphology of organisms. Modern scientists seem to have the idea that if they get deep enough into the material aspects of systems, they eventually will know the principles behind al these biological phenomenons. But we have to keep in mind that there can be other aspects and other ways. There might even be aspects of life that we can’t even imagine. By studying abstractions more and more in detail, we might keep on floating on the surface, while we want to dive deeper and deeper into material systems to reveal the principles behind it. So this is the time to start thinking about the future of science and other possibilities that maybe can give us a more clear and total vision on our subjects of research.

The English scientist Rupert Sheldrake tried to get to this and came up with a new theory: the hypothesis of formative causation. From the point of view of this hypothesis I analysed my own subject of research and I shall try to illustrate Sheldrake’s theory with the results of this analysis.
This paper can be regarded as an example of an alternative view that we could use in science in order to try to understand more about the principles of life.

2. The hypothesis of formative causation:

The morphology of organisms turns out to be very strictly determined. Until now, science regards this as the result of the “switching on and off” of certain genes or groups of genes. According to neo-Darwinism, all organisms have their morphology due to genetic changes that happen by coincidence, followed by natural selection. Organisms keep the genes that give them a better chance to survive.

But even from this point of view there are many questions about the origin of the characteristic morphology of an organism that remain unanswered. In the first place, it is unclear why just one certain shape arises from an embryo. This phenomenon cannot be explained by the growth or expansion of a shape that already exists in the early stages of the embryo.

There is also an unanswered question about the fact that many developing organisms are capable of regulation; in other words, if a part of a developing system is removed (or a part is added), the system will continue to develop until its more or less normal shape is achieved. Many experiments point out that developing organisms strive after a morphological aim, and that they have a certain quality that directs them to that aim. With this quality, many organisms are capable of reaching their morphological aim, even if parts of their system are removed and the normal development is disturbed.

A third question is a question about regeneration. Organisms are capable of repairing or replacing damaged parts of their system by regeneration. Sheldrake (1981) gives also the well-known example of the cutting of an earthworm into several pieces: each piece can develop itself into a full-grown earthworm.

Looking at the accurate determination of morphology and the questions on this subject, Sheldrake came to his hypothesis of formative causation (Sheldrake, 1981). A summary of its basic principles is given here as an intermezzo.

Intermezzo

Apart from energetic causes known in physics, and apart from the causes that are the results of energetic fields, there is another type of cause responsible for the shapes of all material morphic units (sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, crystals, quasi-crystalline aggregates, organelles, cells, tissues, organs and organisms). The shape includes not only the outlines of the outer surface, but also the inner structure. This causation, the formative causation, creates a spatial order by changes that are caused by energetic causes. The formative causation itself is not energetic and is not a result of any fields known in physics.

The formative causation depends on morphogenetic fields, structures that have a morphogenetic effect on material systems. Each type of morphic unit has its own characteristic morphogenetic field. During the morphogenesis of a certain morphic unit, one or more of its characteristic parts are included in or surrounded by the morphogenetic field of the whole morphic unit. This field includes the virtual shape of the morphic unit that is established as soon as the correct parts come within its area of effect and are placed at the places that fits them.

During the cycle of cell growth and the division of cells, and during the development of the differentiated construction of multicellular organisms, a succession of morphic events takes place under the influence of a series of morphogenetic fields.

The characteristic shape of a certain morphic unit is determined by the shapes of preceding systems, that affect it through space and time, under a process that is called morphic resonance. This effect takes place through the morphogenetic field and is dependent on the three-dimensional shape of the vibration pattern of the system. Morphic resonance is, regarding its specificness, analogous to energetic resonance, but neither can it be explained in terms of a known type of resonance, nor is there a transmission of energy involved.

All similar systems from the past affect a next system through morphic resonance. It is assumed that this effect is not going down due to space and time. However, the relative effect of a certain system is going down if the number of similar systems, that contribute to the morphic resonance, increases.

The morphogenetic fields of morphic units influence the morphogenesis, because they affect the morphogenetic fields of their composing parts. So the fields of tissues influence the fields of cells, and the fields of cells influence the fields of organelles, etc. This action is based on the influence of chances from a higher level on the chances from a lower level, so it is in fact determined by coincidence.

When the final shape of a morphic unit is established, the continuous affect of the morphic resonance of similar preceding shapes will stabilise and maintain it. If a shape keeps on existing, its morphic resonance will contain a contribution of its own stages from the past. As the system looks more like its own stages from the past, this morphic resonance shall be exactly tuned and can be of great importance to maintain the identity of the system.

The hypothesis of formative causation tries to give an explanation for repeating of shapes, but it doesn’t explain the origin of the first example of a certain shape. This unique event can be ascribed to coincidence or metaphysical source.

Sheldrake gives a few examples of experiments that can test his theory. One of these is an experiment with plants: one takes a new variety of a self-fertilising crop (the plants are genetically similar and they are not cross-fertilised with other varieties yet) and one divides the seeds into two groups. The two groups are sown and grown at two completely different locations, X and Y, and their morphological characters should be recorded exactly. Some of the seeds of the original stock should be saved at a low temperature. After that one should grow a large quantity of plants at location Y. Then a few seeds, mixed with some of the saved seeds, should be sown at location X. Their morphogenesis could be influenced by the morphic resonance with the large numbers of genetically similar plants grown at location Y. They should be more similar with the Y-type morphology than the original X-type plants. If this shall be the result of the experiment, then it is a positive evidence for the hypothesis of formative causation, because it is not explainable in terms of mechanism (Sheldrake, 1981).

3. Nematodes

Nematodes are small transparent roundworms and the length of the terrestrial species varies from 0.5 to 10 mm. Among the metazoa, they form the group with the most individuals; from every five multicellular animals there are four that belong to the class of the Nematoda. Nematodes are active when they are in an environment with enough water (above the wilting level of plants). One cannot imagine a substrate where they not live in. Nematodes occur in soil, on and in the bottom of any kind of lake, river or sea, in plants, in animals and in fact everywhere where organic matter is decomposed (Bongers, 1994).

Within the class of Nematoda there are many families, and one of them is the family Rhabditidae. This family consists of bacteria-feeding nematodes and some species are associated with certain insects, rodents or specific habitats. Rhabditidae is a vexed family, because the species are hard to discriminate on morphological characters. Almost every taxonomist who works with Rhabditidae has another classification. There are two taxonomists who have extreme classifications. The Hungarian taxonomist Andrássy divides the family into 7 subfamilies and 24 genera (Andrássy, 1976). In the other extreme is Sudhaus, a German taxonomist, who divides the family of Rhabditidae into 4 genera and 18 subgenera (Sudhaus, 1976). This illustrates how difficult it can be to classify the species within the Rhabditidae on morphological characters and to get a consensus about it. In this paper the classification of Sudhaus (1976) will be used, with the name of the subgenus between brackets.

A characteristic of the Rhabditidae is the mouth cavity, which is like a tube.  Males have a so-called bursa (copulatrix). This is an organ that can hold the female during copulation. The spicules are the male copulatory organs which are an important character for identification. The position of the vulva is an important character of females.

4. Phylogenetic studies on Rhabditidae (Nematoda)

Morphology-based phylogenetic studies on Rhabditidae (Nematoda)
As it is said before, it is hard to discriminate Rhabditidae species on morphological characters. Phylogenetic studies can clear some difficulties, but some remain. Some species that are morphological different, within the Rhabditidae these differences are huge.

A question that is difficult to answer is which morphological characters are primitive (plesiomorphous) and which morphological characters are derived from those during the course of evolution (apomorphous). It is good to remind that the pattern and the process of evolution are different things: the pattern expresses itself in different shapes, that are created by the process. Morphological characters which are used for identification (patterns) are mostly plesiomorphous, while phylogeny (processes) is based on apomorphous characters (Sudhaus, pers. comm.). It can happen that these two types of characters are mixed. If that happens, mistakes can be made if convergence or divergence of species has occurred.

The stem species of the Rhabditidae is regarded as a nematode with closed lips, a long and slender mouth cavity and a conical-shaped tail (Osche, 1952). This is hypothetical, because no fossil records have been found (yet). Though, it is interesting to see that the larvae of all species in the family Rhabditidae show these morphological characters. Even when the adults have totally different morphological characters, the larvae still show the same morphological characters. For example the difference in mouth cavity between a larva and an adult can be immense.

DNA-based phylogenetic studies on Rhabditidae (Nematoda)
The development of molecular techniques made it possible to analyse DNA at a routine base. To study the evolution of morphology better, it is important to develop a molecular phylogeny that is independent of morphology (Fitch et al., 1995). Fitch et al. (1995) carried out a molecular analysis of a number of species that represent together six subgenera of the Rhabditidae. With the discovered 18S rDNA-sequences they constructed a possible phylogeny which has more similarities with the phylogeny of Sudhaus (1976, 1980, 1993; Sudhaus & Kühne, 1989; Sudhaus & Hooper, 1994) than with the classification of Andrássy (1976).

Morphology and DNA

The phylogeny of Fitch et al. (1995) has a similarity with the phylogeny of Sudhaus (1976, 1980, 1993; Sudhaus & Kühne, 1989; Sudhaus & Hooper, 1994). The subgenera Pelodera and Teratorhabditis have the same pattern. Of course, to get more insight into the principles of evolution, other (closely related) subgenera have to be analysed.

The most studied nematode on DNA level is Caenorhabditis elegans (Maupas, 1899). Fitch et al. (1995) analysed a few species of the subgenus Caenorhabditis. They found out that nematodes that are very similar in morphology can have a difference on the molecular level that is five times bigger than the difference between different classes of fourfooted vertebrates on the same molecule (for instance the difference between crocodiles and mice) (Fitch & Thomas, 1997).

5. Morphogenesis and evolution

Let’s get back to the hypothesis of formative causation and assume this is correct, in order to create some links. What role can it play in the process of evolution? First I like to give a definition of the process of evolution: the expression through morphology of inner functions which are enveloped in morphogenetic fields, this in order to fulfil a certain niche. The morphology, physiology, etc. can be regarded as the expression, the pattern of evolution.

So morphogenesis is a process within the process of evolution by which the patterns of evolution reveal themselves. Morphogenetic fields could direct the morphic units to accomplish the morphogenesis. Morphic units are continuous linked together since the origin of the earth. The aim seems to have a process of growth in itself, but is this only physical? The morphogenetic fields have a non-material nature, just like the formative causation. The process of growth should also have a metaphysical aspect in itself then. Based on the assumption that every morphic unit has a metaphysical aspect in itself, the process of evolution could also contain a metaphysical aspect. This metaphysical aspect could be labelled as consciousness; so far human beings can be regarded as an example of a process of growth during the past many million years. Morphic units can link together then, not only to grow physically, but also to grow in consciousness.

As consciousness can grow, more inputs could be added to the morphogenetic fields that direct this consciousness directly and indirectly. These morphogenetic fields direct also the morphogenesis via the morphic units. Then the growth of consciousness could also lead slowly to changes in morphology, which gives feedback on the consciousness via experiences (like behaviour), in a certain niche. In the interactions between morphogenetic fields, morphology and consciousness, also external stimuli from the niche are involved (see fig. 7). Both morphology and consciousness have a certain way of selection in themselves, and so they evolve together – they depend on each other.

With a closer look through the metaphysical eye, a glimpse can be seen of the actual formative causation, the main principle behind the morphogenetic fields. It is reasonable to look what is behind the consciousness, as we want to serve science to the maximum. Regarding the human being as an example again, the origin of the morphogenetic fields can be entitled as the soul. The soul is defined as: the immaterial side of an organism that processes conscious experience and controls action through morphogenetic fields. In the context of the assumed theory the soul should then affect the evolution of both morphology and consciousness.
Sheldrake (1981) gives an example of European Cuckoo’s:

The young Cuckoo’s are being hatched and fed by birds of another species, so they never see their own parents as they grow up. At the end of summer the adults (parents) go to a region in the South of Africa where they stay during winter. About one month later the young Cuckoo’s meet each other and together they fly also to the South of Africa where they unite with their parents.

It is reasonable to say that the young Cuckoo’s recognise each other and find their parents by their instinct. But what is instinct? Determined by genes or not, the information could be in the morphogenetic field of the Cuckoo’s. These birds could have a common morphogenetic field, with their close relatives or with all the European Cuckoo’s. This is the same principle on which atoms can form molecules, but the atoms keep their own identity. When the experiment with the plants, as mentioned earlier, gives a positive result for the hypothesis of formative causation, it could be said that those plants have a common morphogenetic field.

6. Conclusions

Regarding the phylogenetic studies on the Rhabditidae, both morphological and molecular, one can wonder if morphology is only determined by genes. It has to be taken into account that we hardly know anything about the nature and action of genes. It is uncertain if more insight about this can be acquired via a mechanical view or approach. A number of genes have to be involved in morphogenesis, but morphogenetic fields could make genetic aberrations or unexplained patterns more understandable. The involved genes are a possible way to a certain morphology, but they don’t act independently. Morphogenetic fields could affect also other morphic units than DNA molecules. Consciousness can also play an important role in the process of morphogenesis, via complex interactions and feedback on the morphogenetic fields. This could also lead to a cause of the earlier mentioned convergence and divergence of shapes.
A conspicuous character of Rhabditidae is the similarity of the larvae. In the context of the hypothesis of formative causation the morphogenetic field of the stem species of the Rhabditidae can affect all its descendants. The resonance of this field could cause that the larvae already have a certain start position in the evolution process. Also can be concluded that if there is a purposeful growth behind morphology, morphogenetic fields do not depend on chance, like Sheldrake (1981) assumed, and so their shape is not coincidental.
There should be done more research on the morphology and genetics of nematodes to test the hypothesis of formative causation. Maybe it can provide us with a stable theory (at least for nematodes) that helps us to understand these phenomenons. Until that time the only thing we can do, is to be open for alternative visions and methods in order to be fair, and to serve the actual aim of science at our best. Maybe this paper will give some inspiration, as an example to open our minds and to explore other possibilities.

REFERENCES

Andrássy, I., 1976, Evolution as a basis for the systematization of nematodes, Pitman Publishing, London.

Bongers, T., 1994, De nematoden van Nederland, 2nd edition, KNNV-uitgave nr. 46.

Fitch, D. H. A., B. Bugaj-Gaweda & S. W. Emmons, 1995, 18S ribosomal RNA gene phylogeny for some Rhabditidae related to Caenorhabditis, Molecular Biology and Evolution 12: 346-359.

Fitch, D. H. A. & W. K. Thomas, 1997, Evolution, C. elegans II, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New York: 815-850.

Osche, G., 1952, Systematik und Phylogenie der Gattung Rhabditis (Nematoda), Zoologische Jahrbücher für Systematik 81: 190-280.

Sheldrake, A. R. 1981, A New Science of Life, Tarcher, Los Angeles.

Sudhaus, W. 1976, Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Phylogenie, Systematik, Ökologie, Biologie und Ethologie der Rhabditidae (Nematoda), Zoologica (Stuttgart) 43 (125):1-229.

Sudhaus, W., 1980, Systematisch-phylogenetische und biologisch-ökologische Unter-suchungen an Rhabditis- (Poikilolaimus-) Arten als Beitrag zu Rassenbildung und parallelevolution bei Nematoden, Zoologische Jahrbücher für Systematik 107: 287-343.

Sudhaus, W., 1993, Die mittels symbiontischer Bakterien entomopathogenen Nematoden-Gattungen Heterorhabditis und Steinernema sind keine Schwestertaxa, Verh. Deutsch. Zool. Ges. 86: 146.

Sudhaus, W. & D. J. Hooper, 1994, Rhabditis (Oscheius) guentheri sp. n. – an unusual species with reduced posterior ovary – with observations on the Dolichura and Insectivora groups (Nematoda: Rhabditidae), Nematologica 40: 508-533.

Sudhaus, W. & R. Kühne, 1989, Nematodes associated with Psychodidae: Description of Rhabditis berolina sp. n. and redescription of R. dubia Bovien, 1937 (Nematoda: Rhabditidae) – with biological and ecological notes, and a phylogenetic discussion, Nematologica 35: 305-320.

Teilhard de Chardin, P. 1955, Le Phénomène humain, Éditions du Seuil, Paris.