A new law in science.

Originality Morphology Law.

J A Mastropaolo
Ask anyone about snowflakes and they will tell you that no two are alike. It was also common knowledge that there were no duplicate fingerprints. What was not well known was why objects so different, one inanimate and one linked to animate, shared such an unusual characteristic like originality. If a coin was tossed, it came up heads only half the time. It seemed a snowflake likewise should be an original only half the time. If proteins were synthesized, they came out left-handed half the time and right-handed the rest of the time. It seemed fingerprints also should be originals only half the time. Besides, it was well known that duplicates would be much easier to make than a vast array of originals for every kind of object. The originality evidence came from 5,381 snowflakes and more than 3 billion fingerprints. That all of them, snowflakes and fingerprints, so different in nature, were together as originals seemed difficult to explain, an enigma.

To illuminate this strange association, a study was made of other inanimate objects like grains of sand from a nearby 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. Once in the searching mode, 61 clouds, 619 solar system objects, and 23,000 stars as shown in the Hertzspung-Russell diagram also were studied. Altogether the 29,257 inanimate objects from 6 different populations of objects, were unanimously originals. What initially seemed easy to investigate had become more of a challenge.

It seemed that inanimate objects would not illuminate the enigma so attention turned to animate objects. For the botanical biosphere, plants were studied on the hunch that living objects may not so easily provide originals. Flowers seemed likely candidates for duplicates so 39 flowers were studied and were found without a single duplicate. To make finding a duplicate more likely, 21 of the same kind of blossom, 63 petals, were examined and as unlikely as that seemed they were all originals. Attention then turned to 176 leaves. They were all originals. But there was one kind of leaf that had some promise of breaking the pattern. It was on the honeysuckle vine. The leaves were paired and grew opposite each other on the vine branch. Nutrition, genetics and sunlight seemed close to identical. That suggested that two of the pairs of leaves would be the same, but none of them were the same. However, the terminal leaf at the end of the vine branch seemed like a merger of a top leaf and a bottom leaf. It seemed likely that the pattern of the serrations above and below would be the same. They were not. Even the terminal leaves were different.

Popcorn seeds seemed quite similar in their shiny brown shells. As a test of similarity, they were popped only in air with no salt or butter or anything added. The analysis then showed that they were all very different. No two were anywhere near similar. Their moisture content and internal structures must have been very different to yield such disparate shapes in the popped condition. From these 5 populations, 329 objects were sampled and all of them were unanimously original.

Rather than give up, the decision was made to study animals. 
It was recalled that a pet dog had large litters of puppies. Perhaps duplicates could be found among the siblings in a litter. To test that speculation, 220 dogs were studied. Sure enough, a perfect match was found. It was an Alaskan Malamute. The shapes of the head, ears, nose, mouth, eyes, fur, and fur coloring were identical. It was a perfect match, a duplicate in every detail. It seemed that the quest was over, that is, until the identification details were scrutinized. Then it became apparent that it was the same dog, entered twice with different names and different identification numbers by the same owner. It was a false alarm, the quest was not over, a duplicate had not been found. However, the methods for the identification of a duplicate were validated, were effective and gave motivation to continue the search for a duplicate. Accordingly, samples were taken and studied of 49 cats, 223 cattle, 8 buffalo, 46 goats, 226 sheep, 61 swine, 172 horses, 8 donkeys, 56 snakes, 24 chickens, 7 turkeys, 8 ducks, 8 geese, 7 seagulls, 10 frogs, 51 salamanders, 29 turtles, 158 fish, 35 spiders, 20 ants, 14 bees, 37 wasps, 11 beetles, 12 cockroaches, 11 flies, 10 grasshoppers, 12 moths, and 106 butterflies. The possibility that amphibians or fish or birds or insects might provide duplicates proved fruitless. From these 29 populations, there were 1,639 objects sampled and all were unanimously original.

A disproof tactic began to form. Perhaps diminishing the range in a sample might improve the chances of finding a duplicate. Accordingly, groups were chosen from the same breed. There were 25 of the same breed of fish, 30 bees, and 26 drosophilae. There were 22 breeds of dog sampled. The number of dogs in each breed were 149, 78, 35, 19, 2, 3, 82, 12, 347, 6, 106, 172, 19, 246, 1,022, 10, 70, 46, 2, 607, 365, and 25. A colleague heard about the study and speculated that a duplicate would surely be found in the microscopic realm because space would be so constricted. So the samples were taken for the microscopic realm and they included 58 Paramecium aurelia in fission and their daughter cells, 210 Micrasterias and their semicells, another group of 116 Paramecium aurelia, and 1 Euglena gracilis compared to itself after 70 metaboly changes. There alm 31 breeds. While at it, thirteen disproof experiments also were employed to disprove the originality concept. The attempt to find a duplicate by reducing the variability in breeds came up void. Reducing parents to one and siblings to two as in binary fission also failed. Reducing parents to one and siblings to zero as in the metaboly changes in the Euglena gracilis also failed. The Euglena changed shape 70 times in one hour and in those 70 photographs there was not one duplicate. Further, even parts of a cell as in the Micrasterias semicells also failed. Parts of an individual, like the halves of a human face also failed to produce a duplicate. If duplicates were not impossible, it seemed difficult to find them. Even the 13 purposeful disproof attempts failed to find a flaw in the unanimous morphological originality of all of the samples.

As the evidence mounted for no duplicates, an obverse finding began to develop. All of the 71 groups of 36,659 observations were unanimously documenting the infallibility of originality morphology as a law affecting all objects in the universe. And as each group was statistically analyzed, it was not only statistically significant for each sample as a part of its population, but the 71 populations themselves served as a sample to infer on the nature of the entire universe. That analysis was called the second tier of statistical analysis. That analysis also was statistically significant and gave its conclusion about the entire universe. The entire universe was unanimously composed of original objects.


Given that such a conclusion was new, it became important to calculate the possibility that it was wrong. In science, a usual standard was that a conclusion was considered true and believable if the possibility of being wrong was less than 5 chances in 100 experiments, P < 0.05. The conclusion that all objects in the universe were unanimously original had the possibility of being wrong less than 1 chance in 2 sextillion chances. Or if expressed in the obverse, the conclusion of universal originality had the certainty of a fact. There were no duplicates, no exceptions. For all objects in the universe, regardless of characteristics, animate or inanimate, universal originality was a law.
In conclusion, the morphological originality law unanimously affected every object in the universe.

Note. This new morphological originality law conflicted with a number of well known theories about the universe. However, except for briefly explaining those conflicts in the Discussion, that was beyond the scope of the present study.


The evidence did not resemble any of the models for the universe. For example, there did not seem to be anything resembling a “big bang.” There was no sign of a singularity that exploded. The distribution of the stars and their galaxies showed no sign of an origin for such an explosion. The stars and galaxies seemed evenly distributed with no origin, no center for such a blast. The distribution of planets and moons in our solar system also did not seem like the distribution from an explosion.

Nor did it seem like the distribution from the accumulation of star dust for the formation of a new star, its planets, or its moons. There was no sign that any supernova in its post explosion stages was providing star fragments to form new stars. Nor was there consequently any evidence for any resemblance to the “big bang” and what may be observed in our solar system or our Milky Way galaxy to confirm it.

The background radiation seemed like it may have originated from an explosion. The red shifts of galaxies may suggest that the universe is expanding like a balloon. However, there may be other explanations.

The originality fact provided sufficient reason to suppose that the universe was a construct. The objects and their populations required mega-physics to create, and to arrange and to function in the astronomical arrays observed. Or if the viewpoint was that the arrays existed forever and there was no reliable evidence on how they were created, then the arrays on planet Earth needed explanation because the forces of nature lack the creativity as well as the mega-physics, mega-chemistry, and mega-biology to create the living interdependent biosphere observed. Myriad living organisms cannot arise individually and in collaborating groups without enormously extensive mega-intelligence and mega-creativity in the management, the planning, the organizing, the coordinating, the controlling and the commanding. Neither brainless spontaneous generation, nor spontaneous evolution can begin to qualify for what would be needed.

The observed data establishing universal originality was troubling for any speculation suggesting that life, or any other Earth conditions, could occur elsewhere in the universe. The data contradict such a view because not only the objects, like this planet and its moon and its star, were originals, but also their location and function were original. The conditions necessary for life were original, and like the objects apparently were found nowhere else in the universe. According to originality evidence, SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) may never be successful because all of the objects sought, and their configurations, were originals. They occurred only once. Those unanimous data indicated that everything known about life on this planet, by the principle of originality, will be absent everywhere else in the universe. In spite of the large increases in search instrumentation, the consistent complete failures of SETI for the last 50 years confirmed that evidence, and the principle derived from that unanimous originality evidence. SETI originated in failure and apparently was doomed to consistent failure. Originality evidence indicated it.

There had to be a mega-creative agent to provide the myriad original objects. The forces of nature were disintegrative and consequently were devoid of the mega-creativity to originate and manage an originality universe. And that eliminated the idea that the forces in nature were the likely cause or propagator of life.

The ancient idea that life could spontaneously arise and advance was proven a superstition 348 years ago by Redi’s more than 36 experiments that have never been contradicted (6). Without a mega-creative agent, no combination of physical forces has ever been observed to create even one original and certainly not a whole universe of originals nor a global interdependent biosphere for this planet that anyone may observe.

Further, given that the universe seemed a construct of unique exhibits, in effect a huge museum, then that suggested its purpose. A Museum of Everything suggested an educational purpose, a purpose of instructing the observer (7). That differed from the 
purpose of how to construct a universe, as much of the research in physics 
seemed to imply.

If all of the major theories could be fitted together as one compound theory, then science might understand fully how the universe was formed and developed. The residual background radiation from the “big bang” seemed to provide indirect evidence for an original singularity. The red shifts seemed indicative of the subsequent expansionist development. And if the explosion was guided by an ad hoc anthropic principle, then there seemed a progression to modern times. Having to anthropically guide the development from the singularity and the seeming incompatibility of quantum mechanics, probability, and relativity left that big bang train of thought with much to be desired by classical science. Those big bang speculations have been represented as a tangle with no theory capable of fitting together its pieces (8).
There was the speculation that in the abstract domain of physics, the pieces were too gross or too irregular or too abstract or too imaginary or too incompatibly mixed. By stepping back to the domain of morphology, at once validly fundamental yet demanding, a path to the puzzle’s solution was found. For example, originality affected gravity because every object was an original and therefore deformed space-time in an original way. The configuration caused by gravity depended on the objects in the field. Each object was an original, so every field and every object in that field was an original. Similarly, the magnetic force emanated from an object morphologically original. Therefore the magnetic force also was configured by morphological originality. The weak nuclear force associated with radioactive decay and nuclear fission also was associated with the morphologies of the objects. The strong nuclear force that bound neutrons and protons into atomic nuclei also was configured by the objects engaged. To obtain the variety of atoms observed, then the neutrons and protons engaged must be originals, if not individually then as combinations.

Quantum mechanics and thermodynamics were affected by the objects involved. Those objects could not be treated as a homogeneous group, for all of them were morphologically originals. Therefore originality morphology had to be taken into account for a unified model of the universe. And since originality morphology applied to every object in the universe, then the model was affected by every object in the entire universe. Hence at the macro domain or the micro domain or the atomic domain, originality morphology affected every object and thereby affected any candidate model of the universe.

In summary, any model of the universe needed to account for a universe of original objects and the requirement for a mega-creative agent.


All of the objects studied were unanimously original. By statistical inference, all of the objects in the entire universe were unanimously original. The forces of nature were disintegrative and could not account for the universal originality observed nor for the necessity of a mega-creative agent in order to explain and to manage the observed universe. Life was an originality and the principle of originality contraindicated the possibility of extraterrestrial life. All attempts to disprove the originality fact failed. Originality morphology uniquely provided a unified “theory of everything” for the entire universe.

Comments, questions: jamastropaolo@gmail.com



  1. Bentley W 2000 Snowflakes in photographs, Dover Publications Inc., Minneola.
  2. Bentley W, Humphreys W 1962 Snow Crystals, Dover Publications Inc., New York.
  3. Libbrecht K G 2005 The physics of snow crystals, Rep. Prog. Phys. 68: 855-895.
  4. Is it really true that no two snowflakes are alike? http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/alike/alike.htm. Also Ken Libbrecht’s Field Guide to snowflakes, Voyageur Press, 2006, p.13.5. The Fingerprint Sourcebook. Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST), et al., September 2009, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs- sum/225320.htm (http://www.onin.com/fp/fphistory.html). The Fingerprint Sourcebook, a definitive guide to the science of fingerprint identification.
  1. The Fingerprint Sourcebook. Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST), et al., September 2009, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs- sum/225320.htm (http://www.onin.com/fp/fphistory.html). The Fingerprint Sourcebook, a definitive guide to the science of fingerprint identification.
  1. Redi, F 1668 Experiments on the Generation of Insects, Florence.
  1. Gonzalez, G J, Richards J W 2004 The privileged planet, how our place in the cosmos is designed for discovery, Regnery Publishing, Inc8.
  2. Rovelli, C 2014 Seven brief lessons on physics. Riverhead Books, N.Y.