Evolution as Anamnesis: When Biology Remembers Itself

Faith & Science Conversation
1

My light-first discussion went so well, that I thought I should do a dive deep into evolution. As a former national park ranger and natural resource field science teacher, I’ve been developing this conceptually for over 25 years. Essentially, it contains the same equations as light-first cosmology described in my previous thread here, but at the biological scale.

So, what if evolution is simply about organisms biologically “remembering” forms that already exist as latent potential? Under this model, biological change (individual and collective) occurs through “anamnesis,” the progressive unforgetting of dormant possibilities encoded across multiple scales of life, and “amnesia” as developing forms of constraint. The central insight is deceptively simple: organisms carry vast libraries of unexpressed potential. Think of genes silenced, developmental pathways suppressed but never deleted, behavioral regimes passed down culturally rather than genetically. These constitute what I’ve call M_latent (latent memory). Evolution happens when environmental pressures, ecological opportunities, or even aesthetic resonance reactivate this dormant information, crystallizing it into active form (M_active). The mathematical framework describes this as gradient descent through “morphospace”—configurations flowing toward memory density wells like water finding its level (i.e. biological gravity).

Consider the most dramatic example: whales. Fifty million years ago, terrestrial ungulate mammals returned to the ocean and became cetaceans. The Fabric perspective suggests they didn’t randomly mutate into fish-shaped creatures—they reactivated ancient aquatic morphology memory that had been dormant in mammalian genomes since the Devonian, 350 million years prior. The water itself acted as a sculpting agency, threading coherence through their bodies. This explains why multiple independent lineages (seals, manatees, whales) converged on similar solutions: they were all descending the same memory gradient toward optimal aquatic configurations.

The framework introduces several quantifiable concepts. Beauty (B_morph) isn’t just pretty and decoration, it’s a measure of function-to-complexity ratio, serving as an evolutionary compass. High-beauty forms achieve maximum performance with minimum structure. This explains why the golden ratio appears in nautilus shells, why feline predators maintain nearly identical body plans from your cat to tigers, and why orchids evolve toward geometric perfection. Evolution follows beauty gradients because resonant forms represent stable attractors in morphospace.

Ecological resonance (R_eco) treats species not as isolated competitors but as phase-coupled participants in coherent networks. Communities evolve together. Biomes evolve with climate. High-resonance ecosystems like rainforests or coral reefs achieve such optimization that entire biomes become "living fossils,” stable for hundreds of millions of years despite species turnover.

Suppose evolution activates latent memory rather than creating novelty, then where did that memory originate? There are distinct possibilities without requiring commitment to any:

  1. Physical constraint: forms emerge necessarily from thermodynamic laws

  2. Cosmic bootstrapping: the universe recursively generates its own complexity

  3. Eternal Platonic forms: geometric attractors exist pre-temporally in mathematical space

  4. Intelligent design: transcendent intentionality embedding potential into creation.

As a Christian, I feel as though all 4 certainly could apply (with #4 as the ultimate driver).

However, I must add a speculative fifth option: quantum-holographic memory, where all possible forms exist in superposition within light fields, with evolution serving as the “measurement” that collapses potential into actuality. (Break a hologram and what does every shard contain? Could light contain all forms?)

While selection through mutation remain a possibility, it now operates within a broader variety of species sculpting processes: memory gradients, beauty optimization, and ecological resonance.

In the paper linked to below, I provide a case study of the middle ear ossicles which exemplifies the general process: reptilian jaw bones didn’t randomly become mammalian ear bones—they were architecturally repurposed through environmental threading when a new jaw joint freed them to specialize for hearing.

What’s particularly fascinating is the implications extend beyond biology.

- Regenerative medicine might work, not by building tissues, but by reopening access to dormant developmental programs.

- Conservation biology must recognize ancient ecosystems as irreplaceable memory structures, not just collections of replaceable species.

- Human cultural evolution (story, myth, tradition) represents memory accumulation at generational rather than millennial timescales.

- Perhaps most provocatively, the framework introduces agency and intentionality. Organisms aren’t passive victims of blind selection. They’re active participants threading their own coherence through choice, attention, and innovation. Beauty recognition, behavioral creativity, and consciousness itself shape evolutionary trajectories.

This hyper-reframe of evolution opens space for theological interpretations while maintaining complete empirical testability. Evolution is not blind watchmaking but coherence crystallization, it is the cosmos progressively remembering itself through living forms.

2

  • An immediate inquiry: Your idea that organisms “remember” latent forms across scales has me wondering about the directionality of that memory. Are you suggesting that some lineages might advance toward higher levels of coherence that could, in principle, include what we call human consciousness—so that some animals could one day evolve into beings like us (or even some people we know)? Or conversely, does your model imply that the “memory gradient” could run the other way too—that what we think of as individual human identity might, in a future cycle, re-express itself as something like a pet or another species?

    In short, is this memory purely biological and impersonal, or are you hinting at a continuity of personal memory—some kind of trans-species anamnesis?

2 Likes
3

While I do think that organisms remember AND that larger groups like biomes and even planets have some sort of awareness and go through that process, that is a really interesting a side topic which I’m certainly willing to have. I’m using “memory” as broad idea. The acorn is high M_latent. The oak tree is high M_active. The just burned forest is M_latent. The old growth forest is high M_active, where M is memory. I’m using memory rather than “mass” which was one of many points that tended to derail the previous thread about light-first cosmology. Although I think it applies in full to cosmology.

Memory describes what mass is far better than just a blob of matter. Everything is truly a memory of what was (and even will be in a sense). Your face is a memory of your ancestors. The lines in your hands tell a gripping story. And in an evolutionary sense, memory better describes what DNA and behaviors do. They hold stories and some stories ARE potential energy (hidden from sight in the present). This is also true within culture.

All the leaves and branches on a tree are a memory of what happened to that tree since it was a seedling (AND its ancestor trees), whether or not we can tell that story in full or not.

Epigenetics is a strong example of how M_latent can emerge during the lifetime of a creature.

Understanding evolution as “memory dynamics” unlocks a myriad of paths new insight.

1 Like
4

I think the best way to describe evolution in future cycles is to say what I would expect on other planets. I expect other planets similar to ours would be similar to ours. Planetary-scale convergent evolution. Creatures would look very similar with subtle variation. The B (beauty) gradient shows that forms tend to take on the morphology of what works simply, with mathematical elegance. Most Star Wars-type creatures, sad to say, won’t work and won’t exist.

That’s not to say there aren’t other types of intelligent and relational creatures that may be within a different schema.

1 Like
5

Your hypothesis of biological forms (populations) carrying vast libraries of unexpressed potential and ‘remembering’ forms that already exist as latent potential suggests that individuals have in their genes unused portions that are similar to those species that we might classify as ‘more advanced’. If there were such unused DNA ‘libraries’ that are similar in all species within an evolutionary chain, DNA analyses would have revealed them.

If the latent potential is stored in some other form than DNA, what could it be?

2 Likes
6

First problem: This only applies to a few evolutionary developments. Most do not involve returning to environments or forms similar to those of ancestors.

For example:
Bats. Umpty million years ago, terrestrial insectivore mammals returned to the sky and became chiropterans. The Fabric perspective suggests they didn’t randomly mutate into pterodactyl-shaped creatures — they reactivated ancient flight-capable morphology memory that had been dormant in mammalian genomes since … when?

Also, how did the ancestors of whales become terrestrial in the first place? They didn’t have any terrestrial ancestors, so no ancient terrestrial morphological ‘memory’. If whales were reactivating morphological memory, why are their tails horizontal? Why didn’t they also re-evolve gills?

While some evolutionary changes might involve reactivating suppressed genes or pathways, most don’t, and most long-term morphological changes don’t revisit ancestral morphology.

4 Likes
7

The problem is neutral drift. If a gene no longer functions or no longer impacts fitness then it accumulates mutations that do away with its prior function. The human pseudogene responsible for the synthesis of vitamin C is a good example.

So what is the evidence backing this?

What are these similar solutions?

2 Likes
8

I’m not claim that genetic information remains perfectly preserved over hundreds of millions of years. Rather, it proposes that developmental architectures (body plans, regulatory patterns, morphogenetic fields, etc.) retain as potentials that can be reactivated under similar ecological pressures. These patterns are not only specific to genes, but relational configurations of form and function embedded in both species, groups, and broader ecological networks. Species are related as communities. They aren’t only individuals.

Neutral drift and mutation can erase fine-grained details, but higher-order constraints (such as limb positioning, skeletal segmentation, and sensory layout) are remarkably conserved across vertebrates. When mammals returned to aquatic environments, “natural selection” (need a better term) acted not on random morphology, but on a pre-existing developmental landscape biased toward viable, hydrodynamic solutions.

The “similar solutions” seen in whales, seals, and manatees (streamlined bodies, modified forelimbs for propulsion, nostril migration, thickened blubber, and sensory adaptations for underwater perception) reflect convergence toward these deep structural attractors. From a Fabric perspective, this convergence is not coincidence, but resonance: the re-expression of latent architectural memory shaped by shared ancestry and environmental geometry (genetic, epigenetics, behavior, collective dynames, etc.).

9

Those patterns are specific to genes. That’s the issue. No matter how long we expose a mammal to an aquatic environment it will not take on adaptations to aquatic environments without first changing its DNA.

They are conserved because of selection against mutations that change those features. In other words, they are conserved because of a lack of neutral drift.

Those adaptations are different when the specifics are compared, and the differences in DNA are what we would expect from their phylogeny. For example, the DNA of pinnipeds is closer to fellow terrestrial carnivores than they are dolphins.

2 Likes
10

Seals and manatees didn’t undergo nostril migration like whales and dolphins did. Nor do manatees (AFAIK) use echo-location.

The convergences that do exist are not considered coincidence under evolution either, but the result of similar environmental selection pressure.

But the main issue is this: what shared ancestry is the memory of? With each other? Then there’s no ancestral state with those characteristics. With fish? Fish don’t have blubber, blowholes or forelimbs. With lobe-finned fish? They don’t have blubber of blowholes either, and have a different limb configuration.

What shared ancestors are they converging to the memory of?

2 Likes
11

Latent memory isn’t a full recording of ancestor forms, it’s the full possibility space of viable configurations, including gene networks that can build structures; constraints such as aerodynamics, hydrodynamics work the same for all organisms; structural potential; unexpressed genetic pathways (suppressed but available).

Bats didn’t need pterosaur “flight memory” and neither did birds or pterosaurs. They activated the geometry which allows that. Now could they have utilized webbing structure from fish? Sure. That certainly could be studied at the genetic level. And I’d expect that is the case.

Plus they optimized toward physical law memory: aerodynamic efficiency has geometric requirements independent of ancestry. This is beyond simply genetics. That’s why insects, pterosaurs, birds, and bats all converge on similar wing physics despite completely different structures.

The horizontal tail proves the point with whales. If whales were simply “becoming fish again,” they’d have vertical tails.

Whales “threaded” aquatic streamlining principles (physical law memory) with mammalian body plan (active memory), creating a hybrid configuration. This is exactly what Fabric predicts: M_latent + M_active → novel combination.

Why no gills? Re-evolving gills would require dismantling the entire mammalian respiratory system, and wasn’t needed. Evolution follows paths of least gradient tension. Modifying existing lungs is easier than rebuilding gills from scratch.

The framework doesn’t require nor expect ancestral return. Examples of non-ancestral Fabric evolution:

Electric organs (evolved many different times)
Echolocation (bats and whales independently)
C4 photosynthesis (many independent origins)
Eyes, etc, etc.

The Real Claim: Evolution explores constrained space. Random mutation predicts: Infinite possibilities, low convergence, no patterns. Fabric predicts: Constrained space, high convergence, geometric optimization

M_latent isn’t simiply ancestral memory: it’s possibility space defined by physical laws, developmental capacity, and genetic toolkits. Evolution activates this potential along beauty, resonance, and memory gradients, not through random exploration. Bat wings, whale tails actually demonstrate the framework: novel forms emerging from constrained optimization, not infinite randomness.

12

This is the deeper question. For sure. In the paper (section 1.3).

If evolution activates latent potential rather than creating novelty, where did that potential originate?

Why do geometric forms (spirals, hexagons, golden ratios) appear across totally different systems (nautilus shells, galaxies, snowflakes, honeycombs, basalt columns)?

Four options are outlined:

  1. Physical Constraint - Forms emerge necessarily from fundamental laws
  2. Cosmic Bootstrapping - Universe recursively generates complexity; each organizational level creates new possibilities.
  3. Eternal Forms (Platonic) - Geometric attractors exist timelessly as pure mathematics, discovered not created.
  4. Intelligent Design (Theistic) - Latent potential reflects purposeful embedding by transcendent intelligence; beauty signals intentionality.
  5. Quantum-holographic memory - all possible forms exist simultaneously in fundamental information substrate. Evolution selects rather than generates.
13

Um…

I’m not inclined to take this seriously.

Not just because of the four/five issue, but because all the geometric forms you listed (nautilus shells, galaxies, snowflakes, honeycombs, basalt columns) have known reasons for their structure, all of which fall under the first option, making the others unnecessary.

2 Likes
14

I am being serious. Keep in mind the Fabric framework is intended to apply across the spectrum from biology to chemistry to cosmology. If evolution applies biologically, the SAME mechanisms (wrong word) must apply to other spheres.

The point of listing multiple “options” (I added a fifth, sorry for the numbering mistake ;)) is to highlight that the patterns observed in nature often emerge from overlapping mechanisms. For example, nautilus shells and honeycombs are indeed shaped by physical constraints and optimization (beauty gradient in the equations). Is beauty not a thing?

The additional options, including quantum-holographic memory, are meant to provide a lens for thinking about latent potential and convergence. They are ways to frame why similar solutions can repeatedly arise in distantly related lineages or across scales, even when the selective pressures differ.

Yes, quantum-holographic memory is a mouthful. However, think about what it represents. Break a hologram and the tiniest shard contains the image (though at lower resolution). Under Fabric, if quantum collapse exits, it occurs through agency. Quantum-holographic memory is a speculative concept (are we allowed to explore thought?) in which all possible forms and patterns are encoded simultaneously in a fundamental informational substrate, allowing “evolution process” to select from pre-existing possibilities rather than generating them anew. Essentially: there is DEEP coding in the light substrate, proposed under “light-first” threading.

15

I don’t doubt that you intend to apply it to everything, but reality isn’t forced to fit your model. Flat Earthers have their model for the Earth, but it’s still a globe. You seem have the cart before the horse. I would strongly suggest that you start with data and then form models based on that data.

Animals can only build the bodies that their genomes can produce which is the form you see. In order for them to have a different structure you have to change their DNA.

They don’t converge on similar wing physics.

That is something you made up from whole cloth.

2 Likes
16

reminds me of panspermia

just passes the buck on origins to some by gone era

ultimately a non-answer

and thus it makes more sense to address the real question of origin and leave the burden of proof on this fruitless detour

regardless, the evidence doesn’t support this idea since we see the history of evolution written in the genomes right in front of us in agreement with the fossil evidence.

2 Likes
17

I will admit I’m a little out of my depth here. Your theory is complex and interesting, but it seems to be a metaphysical theory, or even teleological or theological rather than scientific and seems to me it would be difficult to prove, though I am not a scientist by trade.

To one of your points, though, evolution is more complex than random gene mutations. It does involve some of that, but it also involves a lot of mixing of and editing of genomes, especially from viruses in early single celled lines or germ lines. Epigenetics plays a huge factor too - environmental factors can literally turn on or turn off genes and those can be passed on in that form to the offspring which then affects them further. It is information preservation at its very basic level, and most changes have a reason and purpose, even if not willfully enacted by the organism. So in a very real sense, there is a “memory” in the sense of information preservation and transfer. But I’m not sure how we could definitively say it is from a higher form memory encoded in the universe, if that is what you are saying.

Your idea, while interesting, seems more like a theological theory than something that can be proved scientifically.

1 Like
18

Am I saying evolution is not written in the genome? We agree genomes record evolutionary history! As does the tree’s bark I see outside or the lines in my face or the tail on a cat or the flocking behavior of red-wing blackbirds.

Fabric describes evolutionary dynamics without requiring origin resolution. Although origin is a wonderful speculative area.

If I understand panspermia properly it puts the seeds of life everywhere, literally in space. I’m saying evolution is the same process that happens here or on another planet and actually is the same process that creates atoms molecules and galaxies. Scale is different.

I think I need to provide a review on where this emerged and how the Fabric equations are applied to evolution:

τ = t - Evolutionary time is threading depth; organisms experience configuration changes as temporal progression
c = ΔΦ/Δτ - Evolutionary rate = how fast organism configuration changes per threading step (metabolic/generational time)
c_path = ΔΦ/Δτ * f(∇M) - Evolutionary trajectories bend toward memory density (existing stable configurations constrain possible paths)
P = |ψ|² / Σ|ψ|² - Developmental decisions select among possible phenotypes based on probability amplitudes (gene expression as quantum-like choice)
M = M_active + M_latent - Total biological information = expressed traits + dormant genetic/behavioral/ecological potential (Could be genetic, epigenetic, behavior, structure, env, etc.)
g = k∇M - Evolution flows toward stable configurations like gravity toward mass (species attracted to fitness peaks/memory wells)
δ(M_latent → M_active) - Speciation events, trait activation, developmental transitions transform dormant potential into expression
M_latent + A → M_active - Environmental pressure + organismal choice activates dormant traits (agency-mediated evolution)
∂C/∂τ = f(B,R,M_active,M_latent,A) - Ecosystem coherence evolves through beauty optimization, species resonance, memory balance, and agency
B = ∇C - Beauty gradients drive evolution toward optimal form (hydrodynamic whales, geometric flowers)
R = Σ cos(Δφ) - Ecological stability from phase-locked species interactions (mutualism, predator-prey cycles, synchronized reproduction)
S = -∂C/∂τ - Entropy increases when coherence breaks (extinction, ecosystem collapse, loss of complexity)

Φ=config, τ=threading depth, ΔΦ=change, Δτ=step, c=coherence rate, M=memory/mass, M_active/latent=constraint states, E=energy, I=info, S=entropy, Ω=state count, ψ=amp, P=prob, R=resonance, Δφ=phase diff, B=beauty, C=coherence, g=gravity, k=const, Ψ=consciousness order parameter, A=agency (unmeasurable)

19

Exactly.

The processes we observe, such as: latent developmental programs, convergence on optimal forms, or persistence of certain lineages, can be described and analyzed through empirical evidence and research. Some of the proposed mechanisms are particularly interesting to me, for example, the idea that aesthetic or geometric “beauty” acts as a natural attractor, or that once a certain adaptive gradient decreases, species become effectively locked-in, as we see in horseshoe crabs or Douglas-firs.

At the same time, you are right that the ultimate origins of these phenomena remain speculative. This openness doesn’t weaken the scientific approach; rather, it allows for broader conceptual frameworks, including theological or philosophical interpretations, without being constrained solely to randomness or mechanistic solutions.

Another fascinating application of Fabric evolution is a paper I’m working on titled, “Threading Ecology: A Coherence-Based Framework for Ecosystem Dynamics with Disturbance Cycling.” There’s a deep application of evolution here. Essentially disturbance cycling is how M_latent and M_active cycle within ecosystems. And this very much applies to speciation and how evolution happens (via disturbance). Of course, what’s also fascinating is how this may apply to health and even mental heath.

1 Like
20

I’m 50+ years old, been involved with science, math, and natural resources for my entire career. I’ve been involved with data collection for many years with various citizen science project from ecology to climate. As noted in the light-first discussion, I consider myself a classical naturalist of the Alfred Russell Wallace or David Douglas type. Outside of working, I spend my normal life outdoors in the woods, mountains, and rivers.

Models have been formed based on reflection of observation and data. They didn’t just ‘poof’ appear. But I will add that I do consider them to be “discovered.” I’ve polished them so they are simple enough so they can apply to ANY system. Just like evolution, I expect a “convergent evolution” of math proxies for the universe. So, if these have any basis in reality, they will be discovered by others. And note, that most of them have long been discovered, certainly not by me. :wink: