It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A strange way of looking at evolution as a form of creationism

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 09:16 PM
link   
My whole life I've had a amateur interest in studying abiogenesis or the how the first living cell came into existence. No one has ever created new forms of living cells in laboratory using sets of chemicals and electrical stimulus. I've always been fascinated by how it could possible be done.

Abiogenesis

Regardless of the logistics of it and sequencing, we can all agree cellular life coming into existence is extremely unlikely event. But as we all know from lottery math, if you buy enough lottery tickets, eventually you are going to win the lottery.

I think the same thing is true with abiogenesis. Trillions and trillions of bubbles over billions of years eventually one bubble hit the lottery! The bubble started acting like a living cell. Organized to take in food, process food, expel food, divide in such a way as to create copies of itself with the ability to make self-improvements with new generations then giving rise to evolution.

However, even with taking lottery math into account, it's still mind boggling to think how this could ever occur.

I've been studying a scientist named Rupert Sheldrake for a number of years now. What I like about Sheldrake is he's always thinking outside the box of mainstream scientific dogma. Although the skeptic in me knows what he's saying could be completely wrong, my inner child is thrilled with the prospects of rebelling against authority!

So in terms of my study of abiogenesis, I found this video, "Rupert Sheldrake The morphogenetic Universe" which talks about the idea of a type of field in nature is having influence over the way life develops. Essentially the field is like an information store in the fabric of reality. Here's the video maybe you will find it as fascinated as I do. It's kind of interesting how it changes my view of evolution:



If you think this is BS then look at this gem in which science is having great troubles explaining the cause with traditional thinking:

The Flynn effect

Nobody would ever imagined the Flynn effect is really happening but it is!!! If you think about, it's just amazing. Certainly counter to the popular cultural myth created by the movie Idiocracy.

So I was thinking about how Sheldrakes fields might exist in nature in order to bring about abiogenesis. Maybe after having an understanding how to source and control Sheldrake's morphic fields automated experiments could be setup in the lab which could possible succeed in creating a new type of cellular life from non living materials.

Another amateur love of mine is the study of quantum mechanics and do we live in a digital computer metaphor Universe traditionally called a clockwork Universe:

Clockwork Universe

I think Sheldrake makes a pretty good argument against the Universe being a machine. Unlike machine, when you cut up animals they can either repair themselves or keep developing to be eventually normal as shown in the reference video above. Machines do not recover once you cut them up as pointed out by Sheldrake in the video.

So another video I like talks about the implications of experiments in quantum mechanics as a way of proving the existence of God:



I'm not sure I 100% agree with the profound conclusions made by the video's author. But the video certainly lays out the problem of philosophical materialism and the idea the standard model is more like a belief system, dogma, or religion not backed by evidence. I find it very fascinating to think about what is the IT in the double-slit experiments that knows when reality is to behave one way verses another.

So in combining these two videos, I think it's interested to think the idea that whatever the IT is in the double-slit experiments is also the same IT is creating and maintaining Sheldrakes morphic fields. It would be the same IT that would participating in the abiogenesis of the first cell being more than just inanimate dead pieces of matter.

So there you have it. A way of combing Creationism and Evolution into a single theory. Some details still need to be worked out but it's a path to a new level of understanding.


edit on 31-7-2019 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

I'm going to have to quibble here, actually its not quibbling, but some here will claim it so.

Abiogensis is not evolution. One is the start, and one is the change after the start.

Now Dr Sheldrake left academia and has his own pet theory (that Morphic Resonance thing you put a video up on). Every one is allowed their own hypotheses. As a scientist I have some, but keep them to myself, as I have little evidence for them.

So more power to him. But he is doing it with out testable evidence, which is not science. Its faith based.



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I'm pretty confident that the morphogenetic field theory is accurate. There are still some holes in the one sheldrake theorized. But lately I have this weird feeling that this has been studied, tested, approved and implemented.
The nature of such a theory makes it easy to see why it would been hidden by tptb, if you control this field you control reality.
Unfortunately for the hierarchical systems this field gets controlled by all of us... Which makes it almost impossible to control from one point.
Hence the big effort to induce a certain narrative into our brains.
Humanity is getting aware of it!

Thanks for the heads-up.

Sincerely No Clue
edit on 1/8/2019 by NoClue because: eta



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoClue
a reply to: Noinden

I'm pretty confident that the morphogenetic field theory is accurate.


Except that it isn’t actually a Theory in the scientific sense. A Scientific Theory can be tested and is falsifiable.


There are still some holes in the one sheldrake theorized. But lately I have this weird feeling that this has been studied, tested, approved and implemented.


Weird feelings aren’t evidence of anything though. The bottom line is that Morphic Resonance isn’t falsifiable despite attempts to test it. So no, it’s not approved or implemented. It’s not even science the way Sheldrake tries to convince people. If it were science of merit, he wouldn’t be publishing books geared towards a mainstream audience, he would be publishing results imfor peer review. He doesn’t because he knows that his pet project can’t withstand the rigorous scrutiny.


The nature of such a theory makes it easy to see why it would been hidden by tptb, if you control this field you control reality.


There’s nothing to be hidden though. If Sheldrake had actual science supporting his claims, he would revolutionize the way literally everything is viewed or seen. He would have a Nobel for his work. IF it was legit. Nearly 4 decades of”research” by Sheldrake and he’s not any closer to supporting his claims today than he was in the 80’s



Unfortunately for the hierarchical systems this field gets controlled by all of us... Which makes it almost impossible to control from one point.
Hence the big effort to induce a certain narrative into our brains.
Humanity is getting aware of it!


Which narrative exactly is being pushed on us to distract from morphic resonance ?



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: NoClue

What evidence do you have. I'm curious.



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

a reply to: Noinden

I'm also curious, about the scientific evidence.
I'm no scientist unfortunately. So I'm only left with theorys.

You guys seem to know what your talking about.

Would a theory believed and defended, always be a faith if it doesn't hold up to scientific method?

If the current scientific model doesn't manage to include the observer as part of the whole process of creating energy and matter, it will soon be labeled as faith as well... But that's just another strange feeling of mine, with no proof.

How do you explain the strangeness with random number generator?

Why not let the people choose what model makes most sense to them?
Maybe that would make them proven, because by definition the outcome depend on all of the participant's
There are so many out there.

Sincerely No Clue



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: NoClue

The problem with morphogenetic field theory is it is essentially "the force". Humans are very good at seeing patterns where there are none. One of my degrees is in Bioinformatics (a fusion of Biochemistry/Genetics with statistics, and computer programming) and if you just look at the raw data with a naked eye, you can infer a lot of things, that are just not real. We (humans) see an apparent pattern, and usually have said "god" or "magic".

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Pagan, I kind of believe in magic. But the whole morphogenetic field theory thing is pseudoscience. It can't be replicated in studies, its not testable.

Now in your reply to Peter and myself, you made a classic mistake (so I quote)

If the current scientific model doesn't manage to include the observer as part of the whole process of creating energy and matter, it will soon be labeled as faith as well... But that's just another strange feeling of mine, with no proof.

Why must the theory of evolution include anything to do with creating energy and matte? Its not concerned with that.

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations

Characteristics, not new matter, not energy.

So I'm confused why this makes the theory faith based? A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results..

This means that evolution can be (and has been) tested, with observable, and repeatable data. Otherwise it would just be a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a suggested solution with no proof yet.

This is all from the

The steps of the Scientific Method go something like this:
(1) Make an observation or observations. Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
(2)Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
(4)Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
(5) Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
(6) Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.

The Theory of Evolution has been through this.



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 10:59 PM
link   
To view biology from an electromagnetic perspective is most definitely on the right track. Watson and Crick believed that they, after discovering the material manifestation of the genetic code, would be able to soon explain developmental biology with material reductionism as well. But to no avail. Development is beyond material comprehension, and I would bet relies heavily on electromagnetic cues for its guidance. Electromagnetism must account for where materialism falls short. Take for example HOX genes, which orchestrate the organism into developmental segments, yet they themselves are insufficient for the complex organizing factors required for the maturation of an organism.

Developmental neurology was one of my favorite classes I took. Essentially, their conclusion was "we have no idea, neuronal cells just know where to go". They see it happening, but have no idea what is guiding neurological organizations during development. Neurons literally crawl across scaffolding and consistently go in the correct place, surely beyond any mere biochemical cues... although physical cues are likely involved.

I suggested in my response to you in another thread the book "body electric" by MD Robert Becker. He focused his research on the limb regeneration in reptiles, and found a very interesting trend in all organisms with an encephalized nervous system. Our nervous system has what's called a direct current. There are positive charges along the spine at the cervical and lumbar enlargements (the place on your spine where it gets fatter due to the nerves that extend out to the arms and legs, respectively). He supposed that the positive charge was due to the abundance of cell bodies in these locations. For anyone interested in the hippie stuff known as "chakras", these charges are located at the throat and solar plexus chakra.

He also found the same positive charge on the crown of the head. Likely due to the cerebral cortex, which Becker also attributed to the abundance of neuronal cell bodies in these locations. Commonly called "grey matter".

All positions outside of these three positive hubs in the nervous system had a gradual transition to a negative charge. He found that when an organism got injured, that the point of injury would develop a reversal of this charge, assimilating inflammatory repair signals that would help to heal the wound. When he artificially prevented this charge reversal from happening after an injury, the repair would not happen. In example for limb regeneration, he was able to prevent the limb from regenerating, simply by reversing the induced current meant to guide the healing of the limb.

To tie this in with morphic resonance, all electrical currents result in a magnetic field that theoretically extends out infinitely. These consistent currents in the human body therefore must have a magnetic field associated with them. Called an "aura" by the new agers. Perceived as a 'halo' on humans who are acting out Godly archetypes. and also commonly perceivable by those who have sensitivity to energetic emanations. Scientifically tested with electroencephalograms (EEG). It is these types of electrophysiological signatures that are likely the guiding forces in development, and maintenance for organisms.

I perceive these signatures as an electromagnetic blueprint that gives organisms their essence. To think these emergent properties could have evolved will strip it of its wonder and beauty. Matter is like the shadow of these electromagnetic properties. Our physical bodies are shadows of our light-bodies. Perhaps the best example we get of these etheric bodies is in our dreams every night. Also interesting to research 'biophotons'... They are biological photons being released and absorbed all throughout our body at all times. "you are the light of the world, if the light within you is dim, so is the world, but if it shines bright, so does the world". Our pineal gland also has photoreceptors, meaning it detects and emits light despite being deep within our brain!!!



I could go on and on. Very interested in this topic. Cool thread.
edit on 1-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Life is certainly improbable now that I think on it some. Honestly I am still on the who the bleep knows side of this question.




top topics



 
3

log in

join