Evolution

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Evolution

Unread postby Levatio » Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:30 am

Goodday all,

While reading the forum, I've come across several comments of people who dis-agree with the common evolution theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

I was wandering why they think so, because I don't know any better then the darwin theory..

In my view, there are some fine arguments for why species are evolled and linked together.

Such as:
Because of the morphological similarities present in embryos of different species during development, it was once assumed that organisms re-enact their evolutionary history as an embryo. It was thought that human embryos passed through an amphibian then a reptilian stage before completing their development as mammals. Such a re-enactment, (often called Recapitulation theory), is not supported by scientific evidence. What does occur, however, is that the first stages of development are similar in broad groups of organisms.[36] At very early stages, for instance, all vertebrates appear extremely similar, but do not exactly resemble any ancestral species. As development continues, specific features emerge from this basic pattern.


And what about Vestigiality? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality
Or Convergent evolution? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

I'd love to be enlightened 'bout this matter :D.
"Perfection is an illusion of our imperfect brain."

"The essential principle — "eager to be corrected" — will always be the best guide in the broad, interdisciplinary investigation of the Electric Universe." -- David Talbott
Levatio
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:26 am
Location: Den Haag, Netherlands

Re: Evolution

Unread postby KeepitRealMark » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:14 am

Hi All

As I see it....
All life starts with what I like to call the initial “Spark” of energized tissue. All life forms process this energy to keep it self alive. Each life form develops it’s own unique way of physically processing the energy that keeps it alive. Every life form must have a base of tissues that the energy is focused/located. We call our own processing center our Brain. All life must have developed some similar manner of housing and controlling the energy within the tissues. It is the Base Foundation of all life. After that one similarity, life can take off in an infinite array of various forms… as we see in Nature.
Each life form Evolves into it’s own creature depending on it’s environmental conditions. From there it can take off in an infinite variety of similar but different versions of the original, as in Mammals, Reptiles, Fish, Insects and so on. Each form continues to evolve and change according to it’s environment and needs for survival. Us Humans grew our bodies from the original energized tissues into what we are today. Without the initial spark, there would be no life. I am not sure how it all got started…yet, but I am sure that it required the first spark to Cause the Effect we see occurring.
All life forms, from the simplest to the more complex, must have a basic brain of some sort, or tissues that the energy is stimulating to cause it to be alive. Without the initial spark, there will be no life created. In that regard, all life shares a similarity. From that point we are all very different.
KeepitRealMark
Guest
 

Re: Evolution

Unread postby HelloNiceToMeetYou » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:34 am

Alfred Russel Wallace look him up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

Same sort of Darwinian sense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Rus ... and_Darwin


Unlike Darwin, Wallace began his career as a travelling naturalist already believing in the transmutation of species. The concept had been advocated by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Erasmus Darwin, and Robert Grant, among others. It was widely discussed, but not generally accepted by leading naturalists, and was considered to have radical, even revolutionary connotations. Prominent anatomists and geologists such as Georges Cuvier, Richard Owen, Adam Sedgwick, and Charles Lyell attacked it vigorously. It has been suggested that Wallace accepted the idea of the transmutation of species in part because he was always inclined to favour radical ideas in politics, religion and science, and because he was unusually open to marginal, even fringe, ideas in science.

He was also profoundly influenced by Robert Chambers' work Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, a highly controversial work of popular science published anonymously in 1844 that advocated an evolutionary origin for the solar system, the earth, and living things. Wallace wrote to Henry Bates in 1845:

I have a rather more favourable opinion of the ‘Vestiges’ than you appear to have. I do not consider it a hasty generalization, but rather as an ingenious hypothesis strongly supported by some striking facts and analogies, but which remains to be proven by more facts and the additional light which more research may throw upon the problem. It furnishes a subject for every student of nature to attend to; every fact he observes will make either for or against it, and it thus serves both as an incitement to the collection of facts, and an object to which they can be applied when collected.

Wallace deliberately planned some of his field work to test the hypothesis that under an evolutionary scenario closely related species should inhabit neighbouring territories. During his work in the Amazon basin, he came to realise that geographical barriers—such as the Amazon and its major tributaries—often separated the ranges of closely allied species, and he included these observations in his 1853 paper "On the Monkeys of the Amazon". Near the end of the paper he asks the question "Are very closely allied species ever separated by a wide interval of country?"

In February 1855, while working in the state of Sarawak on the island of Borneo, Wallace wrote "On the Law Which has Regulated the Introduction of Species", a paper which was published in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History in September 1855. In this paper, he gathered and enumerated general observations regarding the geographic and geologic distribution of species (biogeography). His conclusion that "Every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a closely allied species" has come to be known as the "Sarawak Law". Wallace thus answered the question he had posed in his earlier paper on the monkeys of the Amazon river basin. Although it contained no mention of any possible mechanisms for evolution, this paper foreshadowed the momentous paper he would write three years later.

The paper shook Charles Lyell's belief that species were immutable. Although his friend Charles Darwin had written to him in 1842 expressing support for transmutation, Lyell had continued to be strongly opposed to the idea. Around the start of 1856, he told Darwin about Wallace's paper, as did Edward Blyth who thought it "Good! Upon the whole!... Wallace has, I think put the matter well; and according to his theory the various domestic races of animals have been fairly developed into species." Despite this hint, Darwin mistook Wallace's conclusion for the progressive creationism of the time and wrote that it was "nothing very new ... Uses my simile of tree [but] it seems all creation with him." Lyell was more impressed, and opened a notebook on species, in which he grappled with the consequences, particularly for human ancestry. Darwin had already shown his theory to their mutual friend Joseph Hooker and now, for the first time, he spelt out the full details of natural selection to Lyell. Although Lyell could not agree, he urged Darwin to publish to establish priority. Darwin demurred at first, then began writing up a species sketch of his continuing work in May 1856.


Enjoy.
User avatar
HelloNiceToMeetYou
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:51 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby StevenJay » Fri Feb 04, 2011 9:47 am

Levatio wrote:And what about Vestigiality?
Or Convergent evolution?

Or transmutation at a DNA level via intense EM radiation (which places it firmly within the EU perspective). ;) Sorry, still trying to recall pertinent sources. . . I know they're around here somewhere. . . :oops:

Evolution is an intrinsic aspect of movement. Darwin's "Origin of Species," though (another "gaslight-era" theory), is almost as full of holes as the gravity-centric theory of the universe. :P
It's all about perception.
User avatar
StevenJay
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:02 am
Location: Northern Arizona

Re: Evolution

Unread postby HelloNiceToMeetYou » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:08 pm

We see evolution though through humans. We have tons of skeletal remains, of humans/homo erectus evolving over time. Isn't that evolution?
User avatar
HelloNiceToMeetYou
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:51 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby StevenJay » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:31 pm

HelloNiceToMeetYou wrote:We see evolution though through humans. We have tons of skeletal remains, of humans/homo erectus evolving over time. Isn't that evolution?

Like I said above: Or transmutation at a DNA level via intense EM radiation. . .

It's still a form of evolution. It just doesn't require millions of years but rather, the blink of an eye, by comparison.
It's all about perception.
User avatar
StevenJay
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:02 am
Location: Northern Arizona

Re: Evolution

Unread postby JaJa » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:08 am

StevenJay wrote:Evolution is an intrinsic aspect of movement.

Without that initial division of the original cell there would be no change - no change, no evolution. I like that quote StevenJay.

Are there examples of species transmutation taking place at the micro level or do we see the potential of adaptation being pushed to the limit within the boundary of the species as in what was demonstrated by T. H Morgan (who won a Nobel Prize for what he found out about drospholia DNA arrangement on chromosomes).

As far as I am aware, despite untold adaptations, geneticists can't demonstrate species transmutation at the micro level, let alone the macro level, correct me if I am wrong. In other words, a species can be pushed to the absolute limits of mutation (as drospholia was) but all you get is teenage mutant ninja flies - the mutations do not kick start the process by which one species begins morphing into a brand new species to support Darwins 'origin of species' from one common ancestor.

Evolution clearly happens in some capacity. A single cell evolves into you and I at an incredible rate of knots.

The argument I have had back from evolutionists is generally that evolution requires lots and lots of time to produce new species which is why we are unable to observe macroevolution. That may be the case with a blind watchmaker but it only takes 9 months to build an intelligent organism - something tells me that Darwinian evolution is somewhat skewed. But then that is only my very humble opinion.
Omnia in numeris sita sunt
User avatar
JaJa
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:23 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby Jarvamundo » Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:25 pm

StevenJay wrote:Or transmutation at a DNA level via intense EM radiation (which places it firmly within the EU perspective). ;) Sorry, still trying to recall pertinent sources. . . I know they're around here somewhere. . . :oops:


not quite EM radiation, but alternative lifeforms through changing ES potential environment. ;)

Swiss journalist Luc Bürgin unveils the secret of a sensational biological discovery at the pharmaceutical giant Ciba (now Novartis), which unfortunately has been ignored by the experts up to the present day. In laboratory experiments the researchers there Dr. Guido Ebner and Heinz Schürch exposed cereal seeds and fish eggs to an "electrostatic field" - in other words, to a high voltage field, in which no current flows.

"Unexpectedly primeval organisms grew out of these seeds and eggs: a fern that no botanist was able to identify; primeval corn with up to twelve ears per stalk; wheat that was ready to be harvested in just four to six weeks. And giant trout, extinct in Europe for 130 years, with so-called salmon hooks. It was as if these organisms accessed their own genetic memories on command in the electric field, a phenomenon, which the English biochemist, Rupert Sheldrake, for instance believes is possible."


http://www.urzeit-code.com/index.php?id=23

Spontaneous "evolution" via exposure to electrostatic field.

Slots in nicely with critters morphing on a EU variable planetary capacitor surface.
User avatar
Jarvamundo
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Evolution

Unread postby HelloNiceToMeetYou » Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:01 pm

Question is ...Why has this electrostatic field cease to function the way it did before?
User avatar
HelloNiceToMeetYou
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:51 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby Jarvamundo » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:02 pm

HelloNiceToMeetYou wrote:Question is ...Why has this electrostatic field cease to function the way it did before?


Answer is it's constantly varying. EU is exactly this picture; Saturn mythology, motions through galactic circuit, variable stars / solar environments, new solar system neighbors, charged celestial body exchanges etc etc.

That these organisms under a particular electrostatic stress are morphing back to high-yield fast growing variants recorded in fossil layers, to me points to a more favorable 'life' environment in the past. ;) Enter "golden age" etc.
User avatar
Jarvamundo
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Evolution

Unread postby JaJa » Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:53 am

"Unexpectedly primeval organisms grew out of these seeds and eggs: a fern that no botanist was able to identify; primeval corn with up to twelve ears per stalk; wheat that was ready to be harvested in just four to six weeks. And giant trout, extinct in Europe for 130 years, with so-called salmon hooks. It was as if these organisms accessed their own genetic memories on command in the electric field, a phenomenon, which the English biochemist, Rupert Sheldrake, for instance believes is possible."

Hmmm, I wonder why this is never mentioned in Evolutionary literature...

Jarva, you are a Gold mine of information. Shame about the rest of the article...
The Swiss pharmaceutical group patented the process – and then stopped the research in 1992. Why? Because "primeval cereals" generated by an electric field, in contrast to modern strains of seeds, require hardly any fertilisers or pesticides – i.e. crop protection agents, sold as priority products by Ciba at that time. The discovery was soon forgotten, without the global scientific community taking any notice

Nothing to see here... move along please...
Omnia in numeris sita sunt
User avatar
JaJa
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:23 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby StevenJay » Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:59 am

I recall reading that article not too long ago, and it reminded me of another one I'd read several years ago - possibly pre-EU awareness - in which frog eggs were zapped and salamanders hatched (or was it vice-versa?). The thing is, after something like three to five generations, the "zapped" critter's DNA reverted back to its "proper" blueprint. At the time, I thought, "Wow - fascinating! But what force caused it to eventually revert back?"

Now, I'm able to connect some more dots and get a broader perception of what makes this "evolution" thang tick!

In esoteric terms, "vibrational frequency" can be pretty nebulous. But in EU/genetic terms, it all seems to come into focus. :)

So, is "genetic memory" a mistaken interpretation of simple frequency response?
It's all about perception.
User avatar
StevenJay
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:02 am
Location: Northern Arizona

Re: Evolution

Unread postby JaJa » Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:24 am

StevenJay wrote:So, is "genetic memory" a mistaken interpretation of simple frequency response?


http://www.rexresearch.com/gajarev/gajarev.htm

The most astonishing experiment that was performed by Garjajev’s group is the reprogramming of the DNA codon sequences using modulated laser light. From their discovered grammatical syntax of the DNA language they were able to modulate coherent laser light and even radio waves and add semantics (meaning) to the carrier wave. In this way they were able to reprogram in vivo DNA in living organisms, by using the correct resonant frequencies of DNA. The most impressive discovery made so far is that spoken language can be modulated to the carrier wave with the same reprogramming effect. Now this is a baffling and stunning scientific discovery! Our own DNA can simply be reprogrammed by human speech, supposing that the words are modulated on the correct carrier frequencies!
Omnia in numeris sita sunt
User avatar
JaJa
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:23 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby Jarvamundo » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:40 pm

JaJa wrote:Hmmm, I wonder why this is never mentioned in Evolutionary literature...

makes cents to me... ;)
JaJa wrote:Jarva, you are a Gold mine of information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKHuqXKJhNs
it's in german, but they do swim
User avatar
Jarvamundo
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Evolution

Unread postby Jarvamundo » Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:31 pm

StevenJay wrote:So, is "genetic memory" a mistaken interpretation of simple frequency response?


I prefer a reorganizing antenna to take advantage of the available field.

The experiments of Dollard helped me make sense of these ideas....

Eric Dollard - Theory of Log Periodic (Lakhovsky) Multi Wave Oscillator Antenna
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSIuWUOFB2g

Of particular interest is the compounding harmonics of waveforms. Much like EE in how you use a fourier series to produce square waveforms, certain harmonics arrangements particularly arranges with regard to golden ratios will produce organic waveforms. This is the basis of Eric's refining invention of Lakhovsky's work.
User avatar
Jarvamundo
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Next

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests