[ Back ]
From: Daniel J. Benor, M.D.
Date: 5/7/2001
Time: 11:53:13 AM
Remote Name: 207.144.212.70
MENTAL INFLUENCE ON GENES, MUTATIONS AND EVOLUTION
Daniel J. Benor, M.D. P.O. Box 502 Medford, NJ 08055 Phone (609) 714-1885 Fax (609) 714-3553 E-mail: db@WholisticHealingResearch.com http://www.WholisticHealingResearch.com ©2000 by Daniel J. Benor, M.D.
ABSTRACT
Rex Stanford’s Conformance Theory of psi (parapsychological) events, Schmidt’s work on random number generators, and recent theories of modern physics suggest that a fertile ground for psi events is a system in which random factors can be selectively acted upon by the psi process. A biological system in random flux is found in chromosomes undergoing meiosis, the process whereby reproductive germ cells prepare for division. This would appear to be a fertile ground for the introduction of psi influences, per the conformance model. The interaction of mind with living organisms (as spiritual healing) has been demonstrated in an impressive array of studies (Benor 1992; in press). The work of Luther Burbank appears to support the conformance hypothesis in plant reproduction. Burbank (1849-1926) developed over 800 new varieties of fruits, vegetables, flowers, cacti and trees. Burbank had psi abilities which may have been a factor in his success in creating new plant varieties. The Darwinian view that evolution is determined by environmental selection acting upon genetic endowment has been well supported by experiments on Mendelian inheritance of animal and plant characteristics, by identification of chromosomal abnormalities which relate to heritable diseases, and by recent genetic manipulations producing deliberate alterations in living organisms. This has led to the belief that the Lamarckian hypothesis of environmental factors influencing genetic processes is disproved. This need not be the case because these theories are not mutually exclusive. Both theories may be correct. That is, Darwinian selection of the fittest genes may coexist with Lamarckian influences. The Lamarckian hypothesis appears to be supported by Burbank’s work.
Hypothesis
The Darwinian hypothesis stresses selection of the fittest as the mechanism for the evolution of species. This has been supported by research on Mendelian inheritance of animal and plant characteristics, by identification of chromosomal abnormalities that relate to heritable diseases, and by recent genetic manipulations producing deliberate alterations in living organisms. The Lamarckian hypothesis proposes that evolutionary changes in organisms can be produced by naturally occurring environmental influences upon the germ plasm of individual beings. This theory has been rejected for lack of other supporting theories and research evidence. This paper proposes both a scientific theory and some evidence from field and laboratory in support of Lamarckian processes of evolution.
Basic assumptions Parapsychological (psi) processes provide an explanatory mechanism in Lamarckian processes of evolution. I take the view that psi events are scientifically supported beyond reasonable doubt. Meticulous, replicated experiments (Edge, et al.; Nash, 1986; Wolman) have confirmed the existence of telepathy (one mind interacting directly with other minds), clairsentience (mind obtaining information about matter outside the organism), pre- and retro-cognition (mind obtaining information that transcends the present time), and psychokinesis (PK; mind influencing matter outside the organism). Though there is as yet no explanation for how psi processes function, there is no reason not to invoke these as explanations of other observations in nature. Because we have strong evidence that psi processes occur, we can postulate that other processes may occur through the agency of psi effects. Rex Stanford’s Conformance Theory proposes that needs of an organism may influence the environment via psi processes, acting most easily upon random events to bring about results more desirable for the organism (Braud, 1980; Stanford, 1977; 1978). That is, you can scan your environment using telepathy, clairsentience, pre- and retro-cognition, identifying people and opportunities that might be favorable to your needs. Then, using this information, you can use telepathy and PK to influence the environment in favorable ways to meet your needs. Anecdotal reports abound on people showing up precisely when needed to help, a book falling off a shelf or opening precisely to the page to provide the precise information you are seeking, and prayers may be unexpectedly and dramatically answered. To those familiar with psi, these occurrences are welcomed synchronicities, coincidences that speak of a subtle, spiritual choreography in our lives that links each of us to the All. Helmut Schmidt’s research on random number generators (RNGs) supports this theory, demonstrating that RNGs respond to psi influence (1973; 1974; 1975). Machines that function with perfect randomicity when left alone, generating ones and zeros in totally chance patterns, will deviate and produce significantly more ones or zeros when someone directs them to do so mentally. This has been repeatedly demonstrated with RNGs based on electronic, mechanical, and even radioactive mechanisms. Recent theories of modern physics (Walker, 1974; 1975; 1982) also lend support to Stanford’s theory.
Biological random number generators A system in random flux is found in chromosomes undergoing meiosis, the process whereby reproductive germ cells prepare for division. In meiosis, sets of chromosome pairs in the nuclei of reproductive cells separate into sets of single chromosomes which are imparted to the sperm and egg cells. The distribution of genes among the various single chromosomes of each pair occurs in a random distribution. That is, any gene may be distributed to either one of the pair of germ cells (sperm or egg) produced. This would appear to be a fertile ground for the introduction of psi influences, per the conformance model. Avenues for practical research in genetics and other areas are then suggested. I was inspired to propose this possibility by the work of Luther Burbank, a nurseryman who was able to produce remarkable numbers of new varieties of plants in the early 20th Century.
The work of Luther Burbank appears to Support the conformance hypothesis. Burbank developed over 800 new varieties of fruits, vegetables, flowers, cacti and trees. Ordinarily, it takes several decades of cross-fertilizations to develop a single new hybrid variety of a plant (or animal). Specimens with desirable traits are crossed and re-crossed until the desired trait is strengthened. It is considered a notable achievement to produce a single new variety of a given species. Burbank’s was able to bring out new traits in plants in just a few successive generations, over 2-4 years (Burbank with Hall; Clampett; Dreyer; Tompkins and Bird; Whitson, John and Williams; Yogananda). His methods were based on more than just hybridization. Burbank would plant thousands of seeds. He would then select those plants with desirable new traits to inbreed until the new traits were breeding true (i.e. the plants were reproducing the new traits regularly and reliably). Thus far, the description sounds rather routine. Let me quote Burbank describing the rate at which he worked, in order to give some impression of his unusual abilities.
From the first it has been my practice to mark selected individual plants by tying a strip of old white cloth on; this means that the marked plant is sacred… Plants that I could see would add nothing to my experiment, by any possibility, came up at once, or else were marked by my making a line in the bed with the toe of my shoe so that the men could take them out later. . . Now, when I had a very large project going on -- a field or bed with thousands and thousands of varieties of individuals in it --I would have two or three of my helpers follow me and I would simply drop the ‘neckties’ on the superior plants or those suited to my purpose, and put a shoe-mark against the worthless ones, about as rapidly as a man could walk along, and the men would do the tying and spade out and burn the condemned plants. (Burbank and Hall, 53)
Burbank’s neighbors thought him crazy, as he uprooted and burned large portions, sometimes the majority, of the plants he grew. One might think at first that Burbank simply developed his powers of observation to such a high acuity that he could work this rapidly. Indeed, he notes that his five senses were so acutely sensitive that he found some stimuli, such as certain music, painful. However, he himself adds:
Probably there is more to it than merely this sensory response in me – it may be a sixth sense, it may be purely intuitive (italics inserted) -- but I know that even those who have worked with me longest and have been closest to me, learning my methods and watching me in the gardens, have been unable to duplicate what I have done as a mere matter of routine, and with no thought as to how I did it. Some of the men who have worked for me have developed into good, sound, original, and even clever and successful plant developers. But as far as I have been able to observe they have not been able even to approach my own natural ability to choose between plants, and to choose, not one from a dozen, or a few here and there, but at wholesale -- thousands of plants in a day out of tens of thousands growing in my experimental gardens. Even close friends and observers have said what you, perhaps, are saying to yourself now; that is that I was bound to be right part of the time and that there is no way of telling how many poor selections I made through error nor how many perfect ones I caused to be destroyed. My friends were wrong, as you are. I made some mistakes, of course, but considering the number of plants I have selected in the course of sixty years as a plant breeder they are negligible. On the contrary, I will tell you a story, out of many such that are available, to show you how complete my gift is. (ibid, 52)
Burbank proceeds to tell of a friend, a judge who expressed skepticism regarding Burbank’s ability to select plants correctly.
"Well, Judge," I said, "this selecting isn’t being done by guesswork, though I suppose it looks like it. Why don’t you take half a dozen of those condemned (plum) trees and plant them down on your Santa Clara Valley place, and find out for yourself whether I am right or wrong?" He said he would like to make the test, and for good measure I insisted on his taking also six of the seedlings I had selected as the best varieties. So we dug the trees up carefully, packed them and shipped them to his home. (ibid. p. 54) When the trees were bearing fruit, the Judge reported, "Burbank, if any one had told me five years ago that selection could be done by a man almost at a trot, I would have said that he was crazy. . ." He went on to admit that he had been wrong and that I had been right in every single case. He said that he had ordered his men to take out and burn all of the six trees I had condemned as seedlings, five years before, but that every one of the six I had chosen had proved perfect trees with beautiful luscious, well-developed fruit and plenty of it. (ibid. p. 54)
One might hypothesize that Burbank was simply gifted with precognition. His feats of hybridization would therefore have been merely (!) an enhanced and accelerated process of selection of seedlings (prior to their showing any hints of the desired new characteristics, such as flowers or fruits). However, some of Burbank’s explanations for his success suggest that additional psi processes were involved.
. . . I have had as many as ten thousand separate and distinct experiments going on at one time. I have produced as many as five hundred varieties of plums on twelve trees in one short row. I have had in my gardens as many as eight thousand different varieties of roses, iris, or gladiolus. Every one of these was obtained by using natural processes or adaptations of them, and every one was there because I needed it in my search for a definite quality or characteristic. . . I took Nature’s mind and added to it my own, that knew exactly what it wanted and was in a hurry (comparatively speaking) to get it! (italics inserted) (ibid. p. 44)
Burbank was a staunch admirer of Darwin and credits him with the inspiration for developing many of his techniques. Nevertheless, he believed in Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics.
I began with the cell, the fundamental unit of life: it was apparent from all I saw that the cell was influenced by environment, that those influences, if they persisted long enough – repetition, repetition, repetition – entered into the heredity, and that this heredity was the factor I had most to deal with in training plants to bend themselves to man’s greater good. . . (ibid. p. 88)
One might wonder whether by "repetition" Burbank referred merely to repeated generations of hybridization/selection. Although he does emphasize these mechanical processes (ibid. p. 76), he clearly goes further towards Lamarckian hypotheses in his beliefs.
. . . The fruit pit, bearing the seed, it is very difficult to break into; the soles of a man’s feet are tough and of thickened skin; in each case the reason is, originally, that the seed must be honed against destruction by birds, the feet armored against thorns and pebbles and a nail in the shoe! Do you think these natural provisions are the result of chance? Not at all... (ibid. p. 95)
Burbank found that by cross-fertilizing between individuals of the same species (which possessed widely varying characteristics or which had simply been isolated geographically for long periods) he produced progeny in the third and later generations which were markedly more varied than the parent plants. This appears to be a possible method for increasing random options available during meiosis, upon which psi factors may operate to select new combinations for desired characteristics. In fact, his own words suggest that he was aware of this aid of psi influences:
Crossing is done to secure a wealth of variation. By this means we get the species into a state of perturbation or wabble, [italics inserted] and take advantage of the ‘wabbling’ to guide the life forces into the desired habits or channels. (Jordan, p. 204) [C]ombining heredities, by cross-pollinization, and thereafter selecting those individuals showing the strongest tendency toward my purpose, was one of the chiefest methods in my repertoire. It was here that there entered the one important process I relied on and which I had never seen stressed by any one before me – the repetition, repetition, repetition, of one influence on one plant for one purpose, time after time, day after day, generation after generation, patiently, tirelessly, without ever changing my idea or deviating from my plain course, until, in the end, the characteristic or quality or power I wanted in the plant was so firmly fixed in it – in its heredity, you see. . . that it could no more be bred out or dropped out or lost than could the plant’s tendency to send its roots downward and its leaves upward. (Burbank and Hall p. 107)
Lest there be any doubt about Burbank’s intended meaning, consider the following quotes:
To Manly P. Hall, founder and president of the Philosophical Research society of Los Angeles and a student of comparative religion, mythology and esoterica, Burbank revealed that when he wanted his plants to develop in some particular and peculiar way not common to their kind he would get down on his knees and talk to them. Burbank also mentioned that plants have over twenty sensory perceptions but, because they are different from ours, we cannot recognize them. "He was not sure," wrote Hall, "that the shrubs and flowers understood his words, but he was convinced that by some telepathy, they could comprehend his meaning." (Tompkins and Bird, p. 133; similar citation of Hall in Kraft and Kraft 1959 p 131) If we invite Mr. Thistle or Mr. Cactus into our gardens and patiently and earnestly teach and thoroughly convince him that all the marauding animals shall be kept out, it will not be very long before some members of his tribe will see fit partly to discard some of those exasperating pins and needles and put out a more civilized suit of clothes; and by further careful selection from this one varying individual others are produced which are absolutely spineless, to remain so as long as the marauding animals do not disturb them, often becoming useful members of our parks and gardens. It is great effort on the part of the plant to produce all these spines and when this effort is made unnecessary the plant will at once become more docile and pliable, and can be easily led into almost any useful occupation in which plants are employed. (Harwood, p 662) "You have nothing to fear," I would tell them. "You don’t need your defensive thorns I will protect you." Gradually the useful plant of the desert emerged in a thornless variety. (Yogananda p. 41) [T]he structural always follows the functional; in other words, the necessity of a thing is exhibited as functional and afterward the structure arises. (Burbank with Hall p. 97)
Of note is the report that Burbank was a telepathic sender. He is mentioned as repeatedly being able to summon his sister from miles away telepathically. He also worked occasionally as a healer (Kraft and Kraft, pp. 126-129). He was apparently very reticent in discussing these aspects of his life, and the above are the only shreds of evidence unearthed relating to his psi abilities. It is probable that most people even had difficulty accepting him as a wizard, i.e. a man of extraordinary natural abilities, in plant breeding. He likely had no desire to increase their apprehensions by discussing matters that probably would have only gained him the added reputation of being insane. It appears probable from the above that Burbank’s methods involved biological PK. He seemed able to influence the genes of plants through intention to enhance the production of new varieties. By increasing the range of variability, or randomness, of combinations of genetic materials ("wabble") through cross-fertilizations, he may have bean able to increase his psi influence over these processes, tipping the balance of plant reproductive potential in desirable directions. Burbank lived at the time when railroads were opening new markets to farmers who previously had sold their produce locally. They wanted plants that could survive the time and traumas of travel from farm to distant markets, with no refrigeration. In response to their requests, he produced over 800 new varieties of plants to the orders of other nurserymen around the world, according to the desirability of complex sets of characteristics. These included: rate of growth; qualities of roots, trunk, height, branching, flowering, fruit (time of ripening, narrowness of range of individual ripenings within the group, size, shape, seed, color, texture, skin thickness, odor, flavor); productivity of plants; speed of reproduction; resistances (to colds insects, fungus); raw qualities (keeping fresh, surviving challenges of shipping); and last, but certainly not least, their cooking qualities. He was able by such methods to produce entirely new species, such as crosses between a plum and an apricot (a "plumcot"), which had previously been considered impossible to achieve. His pet project was the spineless cactus. He hoped that this hardy plant would provide fodder for animals who otherwise were unable to eat it. It is ironic that although most of Burbank’s new plant varieties continued to breed true indefinitely, the spineless cactus (about which he elaborated regarding apparent psi influence more than about other plants) did not. It reverted to producing spines in the decades after his death. Evidence has also been presented by skeptics that spineless varieties existed prior to Burbank’s and that his "spineless" cacti still had little sharp spicules. It is considered a creditable achievement to develop even one new variety of plant in a botanical career. To develop over 800 is astounding. The closest anyone else has come through modern methods of selective plant breeding is to produce about 100 new varieties of plants. It seems a reasonable hypothesis, in view of the above, that Burbank was gifted with biological PK ability.
Further evidence for Lamarckian genetics To build a thesis on the basin of one man’s work might seem rather precarious. Is there any other evidence for the ability of individuals to influence inherited characteristics? Two papers in parapsychology relate to this question. Carroll Nash (1984) tested the abilities of ungifted college volunteers to produce mutation of Escherichia coli bacteria from lac-negative to lac-positive forms in three culture tubes and to produce the reverse mutation in three tubes. "The mutant ratio of lac-positive to total bacteria was greater in the promoted than in the inhibited tubes, with two-tailed p < .005; less in the inhibited tubes than in the controls, with two-tailed p < .02; and greater in the promoted tubes than in the controls, although not significantly so. " These results may also be interpreted to indicate selective growth of one type of bacterium over the other rather than mutation of one type into another. Were this the case, though this would still be evidence for a biological PK effect, it would be irrelevant in evidence for environmental influence on genetics. William Cox hypothesized that in families where there were several children of the same sex there would be a motivation to produce a child of the opposite sex. Studying families with either four boys or four girls, to see whether there was a greater than chance occurrence of opposite-sex birth in the fifth child. He found a modestly significant greater incidence of boys born as fifth children after four girls, but the reverse did not prove significant. The case of Paul Kammerer is worth mentioning (Koestler). Kammerer had an unusual ability to breed amphibians and reptiles in captivity. He succeeded in raising varieties which no other zoologist had been able to breed previously in captivity. This may suggest no more than patience or especially tender, loving attention, which has been demonstrated in other laboratory workers to enhance the vitality and resistance of laboratory animals (Dossey, p 61-2). However, inherent in such processes may be elements of psychic healing. But Kammerer also explored the influence of environment on genetics. In simple experiments he placed salamanders with dark skins (with small yellow patches) in cages which had yellow earth. Over successive generations they developed increasingly greater areas of yellow on their skin, until they were soon mostly yellow. Conversely, in lizards which started with mostly light skin, he was able to bring about development of greater areas of dark skin in successive generations by placing them on black earth. Many of Kammerer’s experiments were not repeated by others. He was discredited after World War I when a toad specimen from his laboratory was found to have been altered with india ink in a manner that suggested fraud. Kammerer suicided shortly after accusations of fraud were made against him. No one disputed that Kammerer had an unusual gift for raising and breeding amphibians and reptiles in the laboratory. This in itself may represent a measure of psi ability. The production of the apparent genetic changes in the salamanders and frogs may have been due to psi talents in the experimenter which were not consciously utilized or even recognized by himself or others.
Discussion The Darwinian view that evolution is determined by environmental selection acting upon genetic endowment has been favored because it has the support of theories and research evidence. This has led to the belief that the Lamarckian hypothesis that environmental factors may influence genetic propensities is disproved. These theories are not mutually exclusive. Both may be correct. That is, Darwinian selection of the fittest genes may coexist with Lamarckian influences upon them. The Lamarckian hypothesis appears best supported by evidence from reports of Burbank’s work. The work of Kammerer is also suggestive, though clouded by questions of possible fraud. It is unfortunate that in these men’s time there were few who were open to exploration of psi phenomena. They had to work in isolation, eventually carrying much of their knowledge to the grave. An alternative possibility to Burbank’s influencing plants via biological PK is that he was able to select precognitively or clairsentiently those specimens which contained the characteristics he sought. This does not appear a reasonable alternative hypothesis for Nash’s experiment or Kammerer’s work. Several other scientists have proposed similar observations. Stephen Gould suggests that the existence of a need in an animal species could lead to the development of physical characteristics that are of benefit to that species. In some instances there have, in fact, developed characteristics that are very difficult to postulate explanations for under Darwinian theory. Gould gives the example of the panda’s extra, sixth digit on its forelimbs that is highly useful in splitting the bamboo shoots which are the principal item in the panda’s diet. There is a very low probability of an extra digit developing by random mutations. A more likely hypothesis seems the mechanism of Lamarckian genetics. Rupert Sheldrake proposes that a morphogenetic field could explain such phenomena. This is a psi field of species-specific, shared experiences. Individual of a given species contribute their personal life experiences to this field of awareness, which then becomes available to other members of that species. This could explain behaviors such as migration, and the appearances of physical characteristics such as the camel’s thick knee pads.
Further research is suggested to test the Lamarckian hypothesis 1. Cross-fertilization of plants, fruit flies, or bacteria can be used as a random system for psi experiments, where the object will be for subjects to selectively influence successive generations to produce more individuals with particular characteristics.
2. Refinements of Nash’s experiment should be sought, wherein growth vs. genetic influence can be distinguished.
3. The experiments of Kammerer can be repeated, with the inclusion of psi-gifted subjects who might inject the crucial ingredient of biological PK into the experiment. The abjection of conventional science that the experiment must be repeatable by anyone cannot be sustained when one appreciates that psi ability is not equally manifested in every individual. (In fact, there is evidence from the sheep/goat observations (Palmer, 1971; 1972; Lovitts) to suggest that skepticism may lead to a negative psi effect, so that scientists seeking to disprove the Lamarckian hypothesis may have been influencing their materials parapsychologically in accordance with their beliefs.)
4. Highly gifted botanists and/or biologists who produce unusual results an their experiments may be: A. Studied for psi abilities, which might explain some of their gifts; and B. Encouraged to develop their talents as useful gifts rather than reject them as aberrations.
5. Other experimenter effects appear worth investigating, with psi factors in mind (Rosenthal; Solfvin).
6. Highly gifted scientists in other fields may be similarly studied. Nikolas Tesla certainly comes to mind as an example of a scientist who might have been similar to Burbank.
You may quote from or reproduce this article if you include the following credits and email contact: Copyright © Daniel J. Benor, M.D. 2000 Reprinted with permission of the author Daniel J. Benor, M.D. P.O. Box 502 Medford, NJ 08055 www.WholisticHealingResearch.com DB@WholisticHealingResearch.com
References Benor, Daniel J. Fields and energies related to healing; A review of Soviet and Western studies, Psi Research 1984, 3(1), 8-15.
Benor, Daniel J. Believe it and you’ll be it: Visualization in psychic healing, Psi Research 1985, 4(1), 21-56.
Benor, Daniel J. Healing Research, Volumes I-IV, Southfield, MI: Vision Publications (in press).
Braud, William G. Lability and inertia in conformance behavior, Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 1980, 74, 297-318.
Burbank, Luther with Hall, Wilbur, The Harvest of the Years, Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin 1921.
Clampett, Frederick W. Luther Burbank, "Our Beloved Infidel."His Religion of Humanity; Westport, CT: Greenwood 1926.
Cox, William E. The influence of "applied psi" upon the sex of offspring, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 1957, 39, 65-77.
Dossey, Larry, Space, Time and Medicine, Boulder and London: Shambhala 1982.
Dreyer, Peter, A Gardner Touched with Genius: The Life of Luther Burbank, New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan 1975.
Edge, Hoyt L. et al. Foundations of Parapsychology, Boston and London; Routledge and Kegan Paul 1986.
Gould, Stephen Jay, The Panda’s Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History, New York/ London: W. W. Norton 1980.
Hall, Manly P. Philosophical Research Society Journal, 1959 (Winter), cited in Kraft and Kraft p. 131.
Harwood, William S. A wonder-worker of sciences: An authoritative account of Luther Burbank’s unique work in creating new forms of plant life, Century Magazine 1906, 656-67, 821-837.
Jordan, David Starr, Some experiments of Luther Burbank, Popular Science Monthly 1905 (Jan), 201-225.
Koestler, Arthur, The Case of the Midwife Toad, New York:
Random House 1971.
Kraft, Ken and Kraft, Pet, Luther Burbank, The Wizard and the Man, New York: Meredith 1967.
Lovitts, Barbara E. The sheep-goat effect turned upside down, Journal of Parapsychology 1981, 45, 293-310.
Nash, Carroll B.. Test of psychokinetic control of bacterial mutation, Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 1984, 78(2), 145-152.
Nash, Carroll B. Parapsychology: The Science of Psiology, Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas 1956.
Palmer, J. Scoring in ESP tests as a function of belief in ESP. Part I: The sheep-goat effect, Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 1971, 65, 373-408.
Palmer, J. Scoring in ESP tests as a function of belief in ESP. Part II, Beyond the sheep-goat effect, Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 1972. 66, 1-26.
Rosenthal, R. and Rubin, D. R. Interpersonal Expectancy Effects; The First 345 Studies, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1978, 3, 377—415.
Schmidt, H. PK tests with a high-speed random number generator, Journal of Parapsychology 1973, 37, 105-118.
Schmidt, H. Comparison of PR action on two’ different random number generators, Journal of Parapsychology 1974, 38, 47-55.
Schmidt, H. Toward a mathematical theory of psi, Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 1975, 69, 267-291.
Sheldrake, Rupert, A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation. Los Angeles: Tarcher 1981; Rev. Ed. 1987.
Solfvin, Gerald, Psi expectancy effects an psychic healing studies with malarial mice, European Journal of Parapsychology 1982, 4(2), 160-197.
Stanford, Rex G. Conceptual frameworks of contemporary psi research, In: Wolman, B. B. (Ed.) Handbook of Parapsychology, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold 1977, 823-858.
Stanford, Rex G. Toward reinterpreting psi events, Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 1978, 72, 197-214.
Tompkins, Peter and Bird, Christopher, The Secret Life of Plants, New York/ London: Harper & Row 1972, p. 126-134.
Walker, E. H. Consciousness and quantum theory, In: White, J. (Ed.), Psychic Exploration, New York, Putnam’s Sons 1974, 544-568.
Walker, E. H. Foundations of paraphysica1 and parapsychological phenomena, In: Oteri, L. (Ed.), Quantum Physics and Parapasychology. New York: Parapsychology Foundation 1975, 1-53.
Walker, E. H. A response to criticisms of the quantum theory of psi phenomena, Research in Parapsychology 1981, New Jersey/ London: Scarecrow 1982, 68-72.
Whitson, John: John, Robert and Williams, Henry Smith (Eds.), Luther Burbank, His Methods and Discoveries and Their Practical Application, Prepared from His Original Field Notes Covering More than 100,000 Experiments Made During Forty Years Devoted to Plant Improvement, New York/ London: Luther Burbank Society 1915, Vols 1-XII.
Wolman, Benjamin B. (Ea.), Handbook of Parapsychology, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1977.
Yogananda, Paramahansa, Autobiography of a Yogi. Los Angles: Self-Realization Fellowship 1983, p. 411-417.
A briefer version of this article appears as: Benor, Daniel J., Lamarckian genetics: Theories from psi research and evidence from the work of Luther Burbank, Research in Parapsychology 1987, Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow 1988.
You may quote from or reproduce this article if you include the following credits and email contact: Copyright © Daniel J. Benor, M.D. 2000 Reprinted with permission of the author P.O. Box 502 Medford, NJ 08055 www.WholisticHealingResearch.com DB@WholisticHealingResearch.com
Daniel J. Benor, M.D. P.O. Box 502 Medford, NJ 08055 Phone (609) 714-1885 Fax (609) 714-3553 E-mail: db@WholisticHealingResearch.com http://www.WholisticHealingResearch.com ©2000 by Daniel J. Benor, M.D.