Laying A Foundation for Originality Morphology Law, Part Two

One can explore the stages that yield a snowflake or a fingerprint, seeking an explanation for their unique results. Once combined, there is no tangible explanation to account for the same characteristic in completely different processes of development. A snowflake does not result from an embryo and a fingerprint is not the result of water and atmosphere, and yet there is something in two completely unrelated processes that yields a unique object every single time; day after day, century to century.

Expanding on the same premise, a study was made of similarity in grains of sand on a beach. Under the microscope all 167 grains in the sample were originals. While at it, 29 grains of salt also were microscopically examined and they too were unanimously originals.

From one population to another, all different types of objects from one another, originality was observed. One experiment focused on studying 61 clouds, 619 solar system objects, and 23,000 stars from the Hertzspung-Russell diagram were studied. In total, 29,257 inanimate objects from 6 different populations of objects, were unanimously originals.

The goal of the greater experiment goes beyond uniqueness within populations. But, within each group, we’re seeking an explanation for what can lead to unlimited variation. This is a challenge when no single group provides an indicator that applies to the next. Thus far, the answer to the puzzle is not identified in any isolated example and is not crossing over as a likeness between multiple unique test categories. Thus, attention was turned to animate objects.

30 Popcorn seeds were used to test similarity. When popped using only air (no salt or butter added), every kernel was noticeably different. Moisture content, variations in internal structures and other factors all point to originality.

Perhaps redundancy was produced by some simple process that could not be repeated in complex animate objects. Studies were conducted in the botanical biosphere based on the premise that plants might not always yield originals.

39 flowers were studied and were found without a single duplicate. To increase the likelihood of a duplicate, 21 of the same kind of blossom were observed, and yet all of them were unique. They studied 63 petals and found the same result. They observed 176 leaves, only to find each one was an original. Establishing a premise that was the most likely to yield a duplicate led to higher stakes.

What about the honeysuckle vine? The leaves of a honeysuckle vine were paired, growing opposite to each other on the vine branch. Because both grew on the same branch, equa-distant and across the same location, one could assume they would get the same nutrition, share the same genetics, and access the same sunlight.

The conditions to establish a norm and provide a neutral setting for a duplicate seemed ideal. Regardless of the physical forces and natural processes at work, every leaf was unique. None of the pairs or leaves were a duplicate. The terminal leaf at the end of the vine branch seemed like a merger of creative agent, no combination of physical forces has ever been observed to create even one original object.

As we add one study to the next, with more unique objects, more unique populations, more unique categories of items, we find an exponentially complex development with no scientific explanation to account for such complex commonality among different processes and objects. This continues to prove true throughout the entire universe. From the snowflake to the fingerprint, the flower to the leaf, we find a never-ending production of originals in every observable form of nature.