How Fundamentalism and Science Both Serve the NWO in the "Evolutionary Debate"

The NWO is financed by industry. Modern industry relies on synthetic chemicals - creating them, selling them in products we put in our mouths and on our bodies, using them in industrial products, and releasing them into the environment.

These chemicals have changed the underlying structures of our world, and life - by altering genetic structures, causing mutations, and driving and accelerating evolution.

Questioning evolution helps prevent the information getting out: the evolution "debate" distracts attention from the reality, protects NWO industry from liability and secures the NWO's financial base. Thank the anti-Science fundamentalists for this one.

As just one effect to ponder, you should consider this brilliant compilation from loam on estrogen-like chemicals: MEN: You are being chemically castrated.


On the other hand, pro-science academia supporting evolutionary theory props up the NWO in an entirely different way - by denying the fact that environmental factors impact evolution, and "that environment can influence inheritance." God forbid anyone might suggest that Lamarck was right: acquired characteristics can be inherited.

"It has taken a painfully long time to properly acknowledge that environment can influence inheritance," he told me. "I think academia has discouraged experiments testing environmental modification of inheritance," because the inheritance of acquired characteristics —Lamarckism— drives the self-appointed evolution police crazy.

They might want to spend more time reading studies and less energy manning the barricades.

SOURCE: What Alters Our Genes

So what's your sacred cow? ...What makes your brain shut down? ...Do you have any examples showing how environmental modifications cause genetic mutations, which are then passed on?




phrasing


[edit on 19-9-2009 by soficrow]

Think you're pretty much overstating your second point. Epigenetics isn't really Lamarckism per se, and inheritance of acquired characteristics was around long before Lamarck.

Lamarck outlined two laws:

Thus to obtain a knowledge of the true causes of that great diversity of shapes and habits found in the various known animals, we must reflect that the infinitely diversified but slowly changing environment in which the animals of each race have successively been placed, has involved each of them in new needs and corresponding alterations in their habits. This is a truth which, once recognised, cannot be disputed. Now we shall easily discern how the new needs may have been satisfied, and the new habits acquired, if we pay attention to the two following laws of nature, which are always verified by observation.

FIRST LAW
In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.

SECOND LAW
All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young.

Here we have two permanent truths, which can only be doubted by those who have never observed or followed the operations of nature, or by those who have allowed themselves to be drawn into the error which I shall now proceed to combat.

Naturalists have remarked that the structure of animals is always in perfect adaptation to their functions, and have inferred that the shape and condition of their parts have determined the use of them. Now this is a mistake: for it may be easily proved by observation that it is on the contrary the needs and uses of the parts which have caused the development of these same parts, which have even birth to them when they did not exist, and which consequently have given rise to the condition we find in each animal.

www.ucl.ac.uk...

He's focused on changing environment causing individuals to alter behaviour/habits in pursuit of their needs. The subsequent 'use and disuse' leads to changes in physical functionality (strengthening or weakening) within an organism, which can be inherited. So the environment itself produces no heritable changes in traits, the organisms behavioural response to the environmental changes produces the heritable change in Lamarckism.

So the take home message from Lamarck is that environmental changes alter the needs of an animal. Their pursuit of these needs led to heritable changes.

Darwin in Origin:

I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations—so common and multiform in organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature—had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation. Some authors believe it to be as much the function of the reproductive system to produce individual differences, or very slight deviations of structure, as to make the child like its parents. But the much greater variability, as well as the greater frequency of monstrosities, under domestication or cultivation, than under nature, leads me to believe that deviations of structure are in some way due to the nature of the conditions of life, to which the parents and their more remote ancestors have been exposed during several generations.

Which is possibly closer to the point of epigenetics than Lamarckism. That is, external influences can alter variability within a population and potentially be passed through generations. Although the question for epigenetics is how far and permanent are these changes?

Remember, Darwin essentially was happy for variation to exist (whether internally/externally mediated), it had to come from somewhere - his new idea was to suggest that those variations that improve reproductive success are likely to dominate a population over time (selection). Now we have knowledge of the basis of heritability (genetics), how the mutations/variations are produced is just grist for the mill of Darwin's selection. For example, if males eventually become infertile via xenoestrogens, not really going to be a reproductive success passed down via the generations, lol.

The second point is that there's little opposition to epigenetics in academia. It's a very active area of research.

Thanks melatonin. Excellent response and info. S &

That being said, and while epigenetics IS indeed getting much research attention, the fact remains that the issues are clouded and the implications buried in the defense of sacred cows. To the extent that the theory of evolution itself is not accepted by about 60% of the American population. A situation that serves only international corporate polluters.

Lamarck WAS on to something, as was Darwin. ...Lamarck was trying to explain an epidemic of health problems that suddenly started appearing in city populations along with the industrial revolution. At the same time, archeology was exploding as a study and fossils were turning up pretty much everywhere - proving evolution and suggesting an association with environmental change. Lamarck was just trying to connect the dots. Which made him a pariah with the industrial barons whose profits he threatened.

...The main issues affecting Lamarck's work at that time were political and economic, NOT scientific.

I'm not saying Lamarck was entirely correct - just that polarizing Lamarck and Darwin throws the baby out with the bath water - and supports an old, old pro-corporate, pro-profit, anti-health strategy.


- sofi

The NWO is hell bend on destroying industrialization, and furthermore depopulating the planet.


"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of UNEP

“We support the shift of our economic focus from translational corporate “fusionism” to regional subsistence. Subsistence economy focuses on a “natural” way of living. This is not “back to stone age”. It rather means a spiral, wavelike progress out of the life-destroying habits of today’s so-called civilization and accepting and welcoming the complexity of life.

We support the development of sustainable, decentralized, that is local, high-tech production, combined with local use of local resources. and the redesign of our monetary system according to a fourfold model: 1) economy of gifting (a basic matriarchal feature), 2) counter-trade (barter) economy, 3) complementary local monetary systems for regional trade, and 4) unified currency (for example called “terra”) for interregional and global trade. In our eyes compound interest has to be abolished. Also the concept of “owning” land must be reconsidered.” - Club of Budapest

“We support the shift from brain-focused knowledge, which is based on the metaphor of problems, to heart-cantered wisdom, which connects us with values, vision, and knowing. 300 years ago in the western world Enlightenment discovered individuality and reason and addressed the magical and irrational beliefs of the crowd, but it didn’t deal with the no less irrational beliefs of the accepted religion. Instead Enlightenment has put itself in the place of religion and created new superstitions like positivism, materialism, capitalism and atheism. - Club of Budapest

They do want to use Chemicals to poison everyone though...

"The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size." — Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p.135

Industry is the main thing NWO wants to eliminate. Why do you think they have been pushing the Global Warming issue so hard? Why do you think they are trying to deliberately raise energy costs throughout the world? They are fully against all science except the science that they agree with (eugenics).

[edit on 20/9/2009 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by soficrow
Lamarck WAS on to something, as was Darwin. ...Lamarck was trying to explain an epidemic of health problems that suddenly started appearing in city populations along with the industrial revolution. At the same time, archeology was exploding as a study and fossils were turning up pretty much everywhere - proving evolution and suggesting an association with environmental change. Lamarck was just trying to connect the dots. Which made him a pariah with the industrial barons whose profits he threatened.

Perhaps, not too hot on the less scientific arena. What I see as Lamarck's greatest input was to formalise a potential mechanism that could explain evolution. One of the funny things in science is that even erroneous ideas can have very positive contributions and impacts.

I watched a great talk about evolution pre-darwin t'other day. You might find it interesting (covers Lamarck and others). The video should appear at the site below soon, the mp3 is available now.

www.darwin150.com...

...The main issues affecting Lamarck's work at that time were political and economic, NOT scientific.

Maybe. He certainly did have a positive scientific impact.

I'm not saying Lamarck was entirely correct - just that polarizing Lamarck and Darwin throws the baby out with the bath water - and supports an old, old pro-corporate, pro-profit, anti-health strategy.

- sofi

I'm actually with you on your main point. Since industrialisation, we are carrying out one uber experiment on the population of this planet and the planet itself. The outcome will be clear enough in time (and we see the effects already) and covers a wide-range of areas (from health to climate to biodiversity). And the industrial bigwigs would prefer we keep heads in sand, and carry on buying random stuff to weigh us down, whilst we fill their pockets. We ignore the interdependence of nature at our peril, as we only have a single sample to play with.

Our myopia is pretty crazy.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by melatonin]

I'm actually with you on your main point. Since industrialisation, we are carrying out one uber experiment on the population of this planet and the planet itself. The outcome will be clear enough in time (and we see the effects already) and covers a wide-range of areas (from health to climate to biodiversity). And the industrial bigwigs would prefer we keep heads in sand, and carry on buying random stuff to weigh us down, whilst we fill their pockets. We ignore the interdependence of nature at our peril, as we only have a single sample to play with.

Our myopia is pretty crazy.

Industrialization has had a direct result on the living standards of the world. It improved them dramatically. Without industrialization, you would be dead, so would most people on this planet, and the rest would be living in poverty. Of course, everyone rants about industry lobbying against the theory of Global Warming, completely denying the fact that most proponents of global warming have a massive financial and political stake invested in it.

[edit on 20/9/2009 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz
Since industrialization living standards have dramatically increased which has had a DIRECT result on living standards. It improved them dramatically. Without industrialization, you would be dead - and so would most people on this planet.

I know that living standards have increased, never said otherwise. You might be surprised to know I'm no luddite.

Of course, everyone rants about industry lobbying against the theory of Global Warming, completely denying the fact that most proponents of global warming have a massive financial and political stake invested in it.

Do they? I would say that scientists are the biggest proponents. Scientists have a 'massive' financial stake? You should get yo ass into academia and then make that comment. In fact, a researcher in climate science would most benefit from saying 'we're not sure yet, we need more research. Give me dosh for a new project!'. They seem to be saying 'data is in, we can make a reliable conclusion!'.

Which environmentalist group are your opinions from? Wonder who it's sponsored by...

I'm quite able to form my own. Indeed, can't even remember the last time I ever came across an opinion from an 'environmental group' - don't really seek them. Suppose I read an article on the UK climate camp thing a while back. I've been following climate science since the late 1980s, don't need others to create my opinions. They are generally evidence-based.


[edit on 20-9-2009 by melatonin]

'data is in, we can make a reliable conclusion!'.

The only group who I keep hearing that from is from the IPCC.

“the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over. Unified international political commitment is now urgently required to take action to avoid dangerous climate change.” - IPCC

"We've got to ride this global warming issue."- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation.

Of course, the IPCC should not count as a scientific group on climate change.



"The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government."
- Mikhail Gorbachev, State of the World Forum,

In other words, let's 'ride' global warming to push for world government.

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports.

In other words, let's dramatize the issue to get more funding.



[edit on 20/9/2009 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz

'data is in, we can make a reliable conclusion!'.

The only group who I keep hearing that from is from the IPCC.

Which is just an assessment of the scientific data. I've actually heard it from every major scientific organisation across the world. The research is pretty clear.

Perhaps you need to look better. However, I don't want Sofi's interesting thread to become a discussion polluted by climate science denial. I'm sure you can find somewhere else to show your ignorance of that issue.

ABE: I can actually show how inane your argument has been thus far. You're saying that I'm consuming others opinions paid and bought, then you give me this:

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports.

In other words, let's dramatize the issue to get more funding.

Which is just a quote mine that you have picked up as a packaged opinion sourced from some denialist website likely bought and paid for by industrial interests.

What has happened here is a dishonest method of decontextualising the words of another to provide something the person never meant. It's a common technique used by another pseudoscientific group with an ideological agenda, creationists.

The full quote in context was (with mined parts in bold):

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both)

He's saying that scientists have a difficult job - scientists should be honest to the science, but are also human. He then states how media coverage is generally acquired by playing the scaregame, which sometimes forces scientists to make more simplistic statements of a technical subject which sometimes lose the caveats - relying on soundbites (which are known to be effective - see politicians). So, we might say that science shows a doubling of CO2 will likely lead to 3'C warming, but they might not mention that its actually somewhere between 2-4.5'C with a best estimate of 3'C. The media doesn't care - for example, objects in the world either cure or cause cancer to them.

Interestingly, a quote which has been doctored to suggest scientists make simplistic and dishonest statements, was actually doctored to simplify, lose context, and dishonestly misrepresent the original opinion.

And, secondly, you took this quote-mine as a package from some website with an agenda without even bothering to check its veracity. Something you accused me of.

Doubly ironic, no?

If you want to understand the science, leave the media. Read the science with all its caveats and qualifications. I do.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by melatonin]

However, I don't want Sofi's interesting thread to become a discussion polluted by climate science denial.

Nice deflection. Likening me to a holocaust denier? Too funny.

Fine I'll make my own thread on it later this week.

[edit on 20/9/2009 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz
Nice deflection. Likening me to a holocaust denier? Too funny.

Fine I'll make my own thread on it later this week.

No, that's another misrepresentation. It said 'climate science' denial. If you had denied the holocaust, I would have said 'holocaust' denial. Denialism can be applied to many areas. HIV denial, for example.

I'm sure your thread will be very productive - will be like ATS Friday 13th part 10202726252. I made an edit in the other post for you, not to be missed.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by melatonin]

I know that living standards have increased, never said otherwise. You might be surprised to know I'm no luddite.

You rant about industrialization and claim that it is anti-health. How is it anti-health if industrialization always seems to have a positive effect on living standards?

Do they? I would say that scientists are the biggest proponents. Scientists have a 'massive' financial stake? You should get yo ass into academia and then make that comment. In fact, a researcher in climate science would most benefit from saying 'we're not sure yet, we need more research. Give me dosh for a new project!'. They seem to be saying 'data is in, we can make a reliable conclusion!'.

The biggest proponents in the mainstream media are not scientists - rather, political figures, some groups of environmentalists, and also many bankers. Why don't you look into the media and take a look at the crap that comes out of them? Not a whole lot of there information is based on science - rather the self admitted fear mongering that they so often push.

Which is just an assessment of the scientific data. I've actually heard it from every major scientific organisation across the world. The research is pretty clear.

The research must be pretty clear if so many scientists disagree with it, and their own climate models fall flat on its own face. In any case I am not (trying) discussing whether it's real or not, rather the agenda behind much of it.

ABE: I can actually show how inane your argument has been thus far. You're saying that I'm consuming others opinions paid and bought, then you give me this:

Well all your arguments are exactly the same as the people bought and payed for. Whether you realize it or not you are essentially parroting the same substance.

Which is just a quote mine that you have picked up as a packaged opinion sourced from some denialist website likely bought and paid for by industrial interests.

Excuse me? Last time I checked, quotes are not packaged opinions. They are quotes, straight from the horses mouth, no context had been changed. For you to insinuate otherwise is not only dishonest but a flat out lie. None of my views come from any quote mine, or any creationist group (if that had anything to do with the subject at hand).

What has happened here is a dishonest method of decontextualising the words of another to provide something the person never meant. It's a common technique used by another pseudoscientific group with an ideological agenda, creationists.

Your argument falls flat on its face right here. You get the full quote, even though it does not change any meaning at all - it is exactly the same as the shortened one I posted.

He then states how media coverage is generally acquired by playing the scaregame, which sometimes forces scientists to make more simplistic statements of a technical subject which sometimes lose the caveats - relying on soundbites (which are known to be effective - see politicians).

Yes - and that's exactly the thing that's wrong with it. Fear mongering, pseudo scientific statements based on incorrect climate models in order to get public attention, especially from the UN so that it "assumes the role of a world government".

Two examples for you:
www.iaed.org...
&
Inconvenient Truth.

Dishonest? Hardly, the only one who is being dishonest is yourself.

What has happened here is a dishonest method of decontextualising the words of another to provide something the person never meant. It's a common technique used by another pseudoscientific group with an ideological agenda, creationists.

Well honestly I have no idea what creationists have to do anything.

No, that's another misrepresentation. It said 'climate science' denial. If you had denied the holocaust, I would have said 'holocaust' denial. Denialism can be applied to many areas. HIV denial, for example.

Likening people to holocaust deniers is a very common tactic, however if that was not your intention then I apologize.

[edit on 21/9/2009 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz
You rant about industrialization and claim that it is anti-health. How is it anti-health if industrialization always seems to have a positive effect on living standards?

lol, who said industrialisation is anti-health?

I said it has and is having negative effects on health. It's also had positive effects on health.

You keep misrepresenting me for some reason.

Excuse me? Last time I checked, quotes are not packaged opinions. They are quotes, straight from the horses mouth, no context had been changed. For you to insinuate otherwise is not only dishonest but a flat out lie. None of my views come from any quote

You used a quote-mine and made a conclusion from said quotemine. You can't butcher a quote like that and expect the original argument to remain.

Your argument falls flat on its face right here. You get the full quote, even though it does not change any meaning at all - it is exactly the same as the shortened one I posted.

No, it isn't. It just shows your inability to understand nuance. Also one of the reasons why scientists have to simplify to soundbites for general consumption.

Look the argument is logical and simple, lets take the obvious issue:

And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

Climate scientists would like to reduce potentially disastrous climate change. Which requires support and capturing the imagination. That needs lots of media coverage. The way to acheive that (media coverage) is by scary scenarios, simplistic and dramatic statements and overlooking their doubts (which relates to inherent scientific uncertainty).

1>2>3>4

The way to public exposure is through the media. To get lots of coverge requires what the media feeds on. This leads scientists into a bind. To explain anything in detail with nuance is not what the media wants. They want headlines and soundbites, which leads to simplification and dramatic statements without the nuance.

By ignoring that bolded sentence in the quote it says that to capture public imagination and support needs scary scenarios. That wasn't the point, lol. Therefore it's a misrepresentation of his argument. The obviousness of the misrepresentation is by your interpretation of Schneider's quote-mined words:

In other words, let's dramatize the issue to get more funding.

Which the original quote shows to be a load of poppycock - he meant nothing of the sort. Therefore, you were deceived by the quote-mine picked up on some random denier's website without even a question of its veracity. If you see elipses in quotes, the first question to ask is what words were removed.

Dramatising and simplifying issues is part of the media's narrative. That's how they work. Scientists often have to play the media's game. The science itself is very very complex.

Sorry you can't see the irony in the existence and nature of that quote-mine. It's pretty funny.

Yes - and that's exactly the thing that's wrong with it. Fear mongering, pseudo scientific statements based on incorrect climate models in order to get public attention, especially from the UN so that it "assumes the role of a world government".

You're just spouting climate denialist tripe. Not interested. If Sofi wants to go that route, she can. I'm bored of reasoning with the unreasonable.

Well honestly I have no idea what creationists have to do anything.

I thought I explained it fairly well. Creationists are the masters of using quotemining to alter the original meaning of a writer/speaker. They are uber-denialists. It just shows common techniques.

Likening people to holocaust deniers is a very common tactic, however if that was not your intention then I apologize.

Denialism is a descriptive category. Holocaust denial, HIV denial, moon-landing denial, evolution denial, climate science denial etc are subcategories.

Think of it like books - you can have history books, science books, child's colouring books etc. If I say that you are reading a science book, it only associates with a child's colouring book via the supercategory - book.

If I have to explain this sort of stuff for you, what chance does a scientist have explained the intricacies of a complex science, lol.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by melatonin]

Way ta hijack my thread guys!

Great job melatonin, really. Thanks.

CObzz - with all due respect, the NWO is corporate. And it's already here. ...Even before the "global financial crisis", each major world corporation had more money than most nations. Now? "They own us all," wouldn't be an understatement.

And never mind ready cash, "trade" agreements give corporations the power to negotiate with nations as equals, and according to their terms. In case you don't know, corporate terms are "profits before everything - before people, the environment, public health, human rights, the planet and anything else you can think of."

Helluva way to run a world, dontcha think? Corporations instead of nations. [Not.]

...but back to the topic.

I'd say the corporate NWO does a darn good job. We let them define our terms; we follow their lead into our own extinction - and even pay them to kill us. All because 60% of the American population doesn't "believe in" evolution.

Check this out.

Melatonin - please do read the post linked above. It clarifies how the environment does indeed produce heritable traits. It's not just the individual's behavioral response to the environment that does it...

- sofi