Ian Weinberg

4 years ago · 3 min. reading time · visibility ~100 ·

chat Contact the author

thumb_up Relevant message Comment

Counter-evolutionary



Counter-evolutionaryFor several years now I’ve been involved in one way or another, with discussions and/or debates relating to the issue of Evolution versus Creationism. I had found myself moving away from traditional Darwinian evolution towards Creationism as a result of several influencers. The most important influencer has been the development of epigenetics.

Epigenetics refers to the dynamic state of the DNA molecule in terms of what is expressed and suppressed. Only a finite proportion of available genetic potential inherent in the DNA molecule is expressed in the form of cellular structure and function in the course of our lifetimes. However, as was shown so eloquently by Bruce Lipton, our diets and habits can de-suppress certain segments of our DNA and suppress others such that our cells, tissues and indeed our bodies may change in terms of structure and function. More recently it has been shown that cognitive function as well as emotion can influence the levels of inflammatory mediators which themselves also influence what is expressed or suppressed by the DNA molecule. This is of critical importance because by altering genetic expression at the DNA level, it can be passed on to our offspring!

The second major influencer has been the confirmation that timeless and spaceless ‘fields’ exist within an energy dimension such that physical entities appear to be entangled within a nonlocality dimension. Simply, resonating information is instantaneously transmitted between two or more entities, independent of separation in time and space. This was elegantly applied by Rupert Sheldrake who postulated the existence of Morphogenetic Fields – energy fields which organized animate and inanimate physicality. Experimentally he showed that if you taught rats a certain behaviour in one location, rats of a similar strain in another location, at a later date, would learn the behavior a lot quicker. He demonstrated a similar dynamic with the creation of crystal formation. Following formation in one location, they would form much more rapidly in another place at a later date.

This can all be illustrated by the following example: Assume that there are fish in a pond which is rapidly drying out. A random mutation develops in a small number of fish who as a result, have grown primitive internal lungs. As the water level drops to critical levels which can no longer sustain ‘normal’ fish, they die off. However those that have the primitive lungs, survive to become the new species of amphibians. This is classical Darwinian evolution. However, factoring in the new influencers, this scenario is no longer correct. Let’s go back to our drying pond and re-postulate: As the water level drops, there is less oxygen. This triggers mediators which cause epigenetic changes in the fish DNA resulting in the growth of primitive lungs. The changes are also influenced by information existing in the nonlocality field reflecting a similar experience of other fish in another place at another time who grew primitive lungs. Therefore there is nothing random about the mutation. The epigenetics is purposefully driven

Extrapolating this to the human experience spanning the ages, both in time and space, it becomes apparent that there are multiple influencers which have continued to prevail and which affect us as a species. We have always and continue to contribute our unique individual imprints to the timeless-spaceless nonlocality dimension and are in turn, affected and influenced by it. Elegant studies have shown conclusively that our very consciousness contributes to the co-creation of physicality from the multi-potentiality of the energy dimension (In physics terms - collapsing the wave from superposition into the base state) .

And so my hard-line response to the traditional Evolutionist Camp is that there is no factual evidence to support the hypothesis that life emerged fortuitously and spontaneously out of the primordial soup (abiogenesis). There is also no evidence to support the contention that the process of natural selection alone is the determinant of the evolution of the species. Yet those subscribing to these views have manipulated theory and hypothesis into fact - that life as we know it arose fortuitously from the primordial soup and evolved on the basis of mutation and natural selection alone to give rise to present life forms and the supportive ecosystem.

When facts are corrupted through unsubstantiated extrapolation, untruths evolve. In this way objective scientific validation is replaced with subjective belief. Individuals that support and drive these non-validated beliefs take on the archetype not dissimilar to that of religious fanatics. The traits include the biased selection of information to support their beliefs; a judgemental (disparaging) attitude towards those not in agreement with their evolutionary beliefs; a cynicism often degenerating into ridicule with bullying tactics directed at anyone expressing intelligent design themes.

There is no place for this destructive emotional archetype in the pursuit of scientific validation. The real fact of the matter at this point in time is that the debate remains wide open in terms of abiogenesis and evolution on the one hand and intelligent design (Creationism) with prevailing influencers on the other. Best to keep the retarding influence of religious fanatics out of the equation wherever they are and stay with unbiased facts, logic, mutual respect and unfettered debate.


Further reading:

http://www.pninet.com/articles/Oscillate(A)v2.pdf

 

                                                        Copyright reserved - Ian Weinberg 2017

"
thumb_up Relevant message Comment
Comments
Ian Weinberg

Ian Weinberg

3 years ago #26

#36
I hadn't recorded it or it's link. Will try and dig it up somewhere.

Ian Weinberg

Ian Weinberg

3 years ago #25

#33
Indeed Praveen Raj Gullepalli - gaping gaps in the narrative. For me, the ultimate illustration and endorsement of this point was Hancock's 'Blueprint of the gods'. His TED talk on the subject was removed by the scientific panel because it was deemed to be 'unsuitable'!! Perhaps it just couldn't be conveniently slotted into the accepted narrative.

Ian Weinberg

Ian Weinberg

3 years ago #24

#32
Thanks Claire L Cardwell . It's somewhat intriguing re-reading these old posts and the accompanying comments.

Claire L Cardwell

Claire L Cardwell

3 years ago #23

Very interesting buzz Ian Weinberg - don't know how I missed it the first time around...

Ian Weinberg

Ian Weinberg

4 years ago #22

#30
Thanks for that Randall Burns Indeed. Reminds me of one of my patients - put him on a new drug and saw him in a follow up consultation. On asking him about the symptoms on the new drug he responded "This is great stuff doc. Not only do you have these incredible dreams, but you can re-choreograph and change the things you don't like. What's more, I can continue to dream after I've woken up!" So who knows, maybe we're all in Aboriginal dream-space.

Randall Burns

Randall Burns

4 years ago #21

Wow! Ian Weinberg posted which just adds another dimension, has got my mind going in some different directions... I don't really have a position, I can definitely relate to the various perspectives presented but like you say Ian, without the hard facts it is difficult to draw any conclusions, I can really relate to your comment of "What the purpose of all this is, I have not the foggiest notion! " Maybe the planet was seeded by an alien species millions of years ago but then we still have the same problem; were they created or evolved? Here's an alternative perspective that may "stir things up a bit"; "Are we the dreamers or the dreamed?"

Ian Weinberg

Ian Weinberg

4 years ago #20

#27
Great article Todd Jones Thanks for sharing. Yes indeed, lots of info in there. My personal opinion: This extended reality in which we find ourselves is a pure energy-information construct. Physicality is the mass-time-distance illusion brought into existence by individual and collective consciousness (collapsing the wave of superposition) - the denser the mass, the lower the frequency. The system is underpinned by intelligent design in the form of source codes which maintain the self-perpetuating nature of the dynamic. There are too many perfect fits and seamless interconnections over 13.9 billion years for this construct to be fortuitous. There is also no concrete evidence of any super-intelligence or creator interfering with the dynamic - we seem to be on auto-pilot. I'm convinced of the persistence of consciousness independent of the brain and persisting after physical death, but within the context of the extended dynamic (consciousness merges with the superposition of singularity). What the purpose of all this is, I have not the foggiest notion! But it's fun and I don't have a problem in being a player in a great computer game.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

4 years ago #19

#27
Todd Jones the cycle is now complete. Early man believed, because of their dependence on the sun for existence, the sun died each day and would only rise if they met some ritual standard. They looked at the current components of existence and decided what was important and made it a god. So today we have figured out that we are a mere sub-routines within a larger program of existence. Maybe we need to make CPU sacrifices to the god's of binary code so they will write us better code.:) Thanks for the link it was interesting.

Ian Weinberg

Ian Weinberg

4 years ago #18

#23
I think we sure got that right Phillip. Us and 7 billion others and still counting ...

Ian Weinberg

Ian Weinberg

4 years ago #17

#21
Indeed Gerald Hecht Back here at home, they've picked up significant levels of SSRI's in the water. So if you take this together with the hormone supplements in the meat, the antibiotics in the chickens, add the toxic mind states and increased cytokines, we're about to give rise to a species, as yet undefined. Of course most of these problems are resolved if we start culling the species to perhaps a manageable 4 billion, but that's a whole other discussion....

Ian Weinberg

Ian Weinberg

4 years ago #16

#20
Thanks for that Jerry Fletcher

Jerry Fletcher

Jerry Fletcher

4 years ago #15

Fascinating! I've never subscribed to the beliefs of either tribe and generally find them a little too pat and not willing to consider that there is more to how this incredibly complex thing we call life came to be. You have presented a rational, questioning approach that I, for one, find refreshing. I hope you will share your further examinations of this phenomenon.

Sara Jacobovici

Sara Jacobovici

4 years ago #14

#15
On a synchronistic and "light" note Ian Weinberg, I just posted a buzz of musician Mike Rutherford who said, "Being in a band is always a compromise. Provided that the balance is good, what you lose in compromise, you gain by collaboration." I understand your response and it's not that I disagree with what your saying. I guess I would call the outcome differently and perhaps imagine the journey a little bit differently. Your writing and comments definitely challenge my thinking and I am motivated to continue to learn from your perspective and to learn how to articulate mine.

Ian Weinberg

Ian Weinberg

4 years ago #13

#17
Yes indeed Bernard. Valid points. Thanks for contributing.

Pascal Derrien

Pascal Derrien

4 years ago #12

I like it when I can read and understand complex concepts thanks Ian Weinberg :-)

Ian Weinberg

Ian Weinberg

4 years ago #11

#12
Thanks for the contribution to the discussion Sara Jacobovici Indeed we are all coming from a subjective perspective. The problem lies not in our state of subjectivity but in our motive - do we want to hold on to our subjectivity (limiting beliefs) at all costs or are we genuinely driven to seek objective clarity through collective dialogue even if it means giving up personal (limiting) beliefs? I personally believe that this would be the price that we would need to pay in regard to the collective evolution of ideas and the move towards greater clarity.

Ian Weinberg

Ian Weinberg

4 years ago #10

#13
Thanks for that Todd Jones I would agree with your suspicion in that we'll probably never arrive at a definitive point of clarity on the subject of existence since we're co-creators - changing the landscape ad infinitum. Anyway, the pondering keeps the frontal lobe ticking, which has some positive benefits ...

Sara Jacobovici

Sara Jacobovici

4 years ago #9

#5
Thanks for the tag Ian Weinberg. To say the least, I find this discussion of interest. I find your post seamless and would not want to pull anything out of the whole but I find that I have no other response than to highlight a few key lines that stood out for me in this first reading. 1. "We have always and continue to contribute our unique individual imprints to the timeless-spaceless nonlocality dimension and are in turn, affected and influenced by it. Elegant studies have shown conclusively that our very consciousness contributes to the co-creation of physicality from the multi-potentiality of the energy dimension." I would love to be able to list the various labels that get attributed to the process you describe. At the risk of sounding simplistic, it's almost as if we don't want to take responsibility for our part in all of this. 2. "When facts are corrupted through unsubstantiated extrapolation, untruths evolve. In this way objective scientific validation is replaced with subjective belief." This is why, unfortunately, subjectivity gets a bad rap. From my perspective, all objective scientific validation is processed by us subjective beings. In this way we try to make sense of the information and give it a meaning. It's the attempt to impose that meaning on others as "truth" that moves us from learning and growth and into a "destructive" engagement. Which leads me to the final line: 3. "The real fact of the matter at this point in time is that the debate remains wide open in terms of abiogenesis and evolution on the one hand and intelligent design (Creationism) with prevailing influencers on the other.' Let the debate continue in this open and exciting way. Thanks for contributing and guiding us through this Ian.

Ian Weinberg

Ian Weinberg

4 years ago #8

#8
Thanks for the feedback and kind words debasish majumder Just a thought to consider - the properties of the basic chemical elements have not changed in over 13.9 billion years. Seems to fly in the face of the second law of thermodynamics - that everything should devolve to a greater state of entropy (chaos). Perhaps an as yet undefined influencer ...

Bill Stankiewicz, 🐝 Brand Ambassador

Cool information

Bill Stankiewicz, 🐝 Brand Ambassador

Great

Ian Weinberg

Ian Weinberg

4 years ago #5

Milos Djukic - you may find this discussion of some interest.

Ian Weinberg

Ian Weinberg

4 years ago #4

#2
Thanks for that Harvey Lloyd

Ian Weinberg

Ian Weinberg

4 years ago #3

#1
Thanks for the positive feedback Phil Friedman

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

4 years ago #2

Interesting insights. I have never been a fan of evolution nor am i well versed enough to argue its merits and fallacies. Your post certainly does add some science that would imply that design is a factor of consideration. If not literally then merely by placing it back on the table of, I don't know. Unfortunately religion has attempted to regain its former power of the circa 1400's by pushing Creationism. I for one believe in Creationism and all that it implies. Most importantly i recognise this as a choice of belief. I have no need to defend my belief but do enjoy discussing the various hypotheses of the "beginning". What i know and what i believe are two very important differences. I take what i believe in faith. I take what i know based on my own research (Limited) and generally accepted science. You have added to that research and discussion. Thanks Ian Weinberg

Phil Friedman

Phil Friedman

4 years ago #1

Ian, this is a very interesting post, which I hope will not be polluted by religiosity, for it deserves better. A major mistake of the 19th and 20th centuries was, I believe, to identify Evolutionary Theory with the single variant presented by Darwinian Natural Selection. I do not pretend to be a deep thinker in this area (or any, for that matter), but it has always seemed to me that Natural Selection is insufficient to explain many of the changes that have taken place over time. Or to explain why some species have evolved very little or not at all. If I had to guess, I would say that "Darwinianism" was historically embraced as a way to fight back the religionists and that it remains far from a complete explanation. As you have, if I understand you, argued clearly here. Good read. Thanks. And cheers!

More articles from Ian Weinberg

View blog
1 year ago · 6 min. reading time
Ian Weinberg

The plot sickens

The ‘experts’ are in a modelling muddle. My respon ...

1 year ago · 2 min. reading time
Ian Weinberg

Homo Panicus

We have arrived at the defining moment of the evol ...

1 year ago · 2 min. reading time
Ian Weinberg

Take me to your leader

I would suggest that leaders are not created but r ...