A New Law in Science.
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 also were 1,803 human faces available, one comparing the left side versus the right side, and they were added to the study. All of these yielded a group of 5,434 samples from 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, explicating those conflicts was beyond the scope of the present study.
Comments, questions: email@example.com