Energy Cloud May Be Triggering Rapid DNA Changes & Evolution

page: 10
74
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by tetra50
etc. The last pertaining to the stuff of fluff in clouds and such and how that may or may not work. There's a whole lot of "papers" out there, very easy to find about all this.
I'm actually reasonably well versed in this material, so none of the material you quoted is new to me.

There are lots of papers on lots of things, but people who don't understand what the papers say can misinterpret them. I don't see where either of the sources you quoted or any other paper I've ever read suggests that an "Energy Cloud May Be Triggering Rapid DNA Changes & Evolution".

The most the evidence I've seen would suggest might have happened is very small rates of change over long periods of time, at least for human evolution. Something like a fruit fly, with a short life span, can evolve more quickly than humans, though even with fruit flies, I've seen nothing to suggest that flying through cosmic clouds would have had more than a modest effect on their evolution, if any.


Originally posted by Bedlam
IMHO, it harkens back to the 2012 new age ascension thing where a contingent of people were expecting to morph into X Men or something like you saw on Stargate, it looks like an attempt to say it really did happen, this was what it was, and now we will all mutate into beings of light powered by this putative energy cloud.
Even if the ascension thing is sci-fi, "yogic flying" is already documented, though I don't see what that has to do with genetic mutation. Here is documentation of stage 1:

Yogic Flying - really cool!

Apparently they just aren't meditating hard enough since they can't seem to reach stage 2 or 3. That was the answer to ascension in Stargate...just meditate more.
edit on 20-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Oh, please don't get me wrong, good sir. If that isn't your gender, sorry, no insult intended.
Never thought by your posed question, which I kind of regarded as rhetorical anyway, that you were not well versed.
I guess my reply was rather sarcastic, giving a nod to the fact that there has been a lot of tangential, splitting hairs types of exchanges going on in this thread, covering vast areas of information of lack thereof. And I'm not trying to be an a#@hole, here--maybe that's just coming natural to me. I mean no disrespect to anyone. I have enjoyed reading everyone's interchanges and perspectives.

But, obviously there are lots of papers and information about radioactive mutagenic reactions, and lots of theories.
I think a lot of what's been going on in the disagreements in this thread are about the mechanics of communication, and the use of certain words, like woo, for instance. And the subject, itself, and the way the thread is titled mixes that "woo" thing with hard science in a way that predicted from the get go it was gonna go down kinda like it has. Interesting to read, understanding that. Words like fluff, and words like mutagenic radiation, invite, necessarily, a debate in terminology, as much as it's been about substance and probability from a scientific standpoint.

That's really what my reply was about. Nothing I cited was really controversial, even from a scientific standpoint, though you nailed it in the sense that applying mutagenic theory to a fruitfly as compared to human DNA changes isn't so reliable, doesn't necessarily quantiffy or qualify anything raised in the original OP.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by tetra50
 


None of what you posted really applies to a thin cloud of gas particles that we're running through. It's a lot of nice keywords but no applicability.

Never mind, just read the reply above.
edit on 20-3-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Would that be Arbitrageur's reply to me?
I get you. I think I made that clear in my own reply. However, I respect your intellect and see clearly from your musings in this thread you do not suffer idiots, nor tolerate what you see as ignorance..... Therefore, willing to say it myself, do not let me drain any energy from you wasting your time trying to enlighten me as to what is or is not occurring.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
What evidence is there that this phenomenon is going to "evolve" the human DNA? It could just as easily "devolve" human DNA I would think. Our DNA could be unraveling...
edit on 20-3-2013 by Phantasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tetra50
I guess my reply was rather sarcastic, giving a nod to the fact that there has been a lot of tangential, splitting hairs types of exchanges going on in this thread, covering vast areas of information of lack thereof.
Thanks for putting your reply in context.

However the word "energy" and in the context of this thread "energy cloud" might mean different things to different people. To a scientist (and this thread is in the science forum after all), energy has a very specific defined meaning. To a new-ager, it might mean something totally different.

However I don't see it as unreasonable to try to use scientific applications of terminology in a science forum, nor do I consider that to be splitting hairs. And the scientific paper revealed that the scientists didn't really call it an "energy cloud" after all. This might be trivial to some, but from a scientific perspective, I don't think it is.


Originally posted by Phantasm
What evidence is there that this phenomenon is going to "evolve" the human DNA? It could just as easily "devolve" human DNA I would think. Are DNA could be unraveling...
Sorry if this is a little off topic, but your post reminded me of this, not very scientific but funny evolution graphic:



However, getting serious, my own view is that the evolution of man through the process of natural selection has largely stopped, or slowed greatly. There is still some natural selection, but modern medicine and farming techniques have "interfered" with the natural selection process in what most would consider to be a positive way in that less people die who would have otherwise. But without much natural selection, there's not much evolution from natural selection. So a more likely scenario than rapid evolution, or de-evolution, is stagnation or slowing down of evolution through natural selection, since natural selection of humans (in the form of death from natural causes during or prior to breeding years) has been greatly reduced.
edit on 21-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
never mind.
edit on 21-3-2013 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE

Thank you for that perspective. The problem I have with most of your interactions with people in this thread, and indeed myself as well, is not particularly your assertions, but rather your method of making them, that is, you come off like a completely narcissistic, arrogant jerk. If you want people to come around to your way of thinking, it's generally not the best idea to constantly belittle them and attempt to point out how foolish they are. It makes me, and I'm sure others in this thread as well, very disinterested and disinclined in listening further to anything you have to say.


This is a point that I think is very relevant- especially to people who would like to invite more mystical thinking people to embrace more rational thought and collectively embraced concepts. Because those people often choose to rely mostly on their less rational feeling and intuitive side because they feel the intellect is the source of cruel, insensitive, inhumane, arrogant behavior.

Every time someone shows them an example of that, it confirms their suspicion that "If I use my intellect and reason, then I will become an uncivilized insenstive person". It pushes them further into their refuge.

Don't get me wrong, I am obviously not a warm and fuzzy person myself; I don't hug aquaintances, and I don't give a bunch of loving compliments and sugar to lubricate my communications either. But there is a mid way between kissing someones rear and just respecting them, it seems to me.


edit on 21-3-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phantasm
What evidence is there that this phenomenon is going to "evolve" the human DNA? It could just as easily "devolve" human DNA I would think. Our DNA could be unraveling...


I don't think there is any evidence of this "cloud" existing, so none of it doing anything to our DNA... but hypothetically speaking (and in my mind, linked more to the effects of increased exposure to radiation (both from the sun and because of nuclear accidents such as Fukushima) the actual changes probably, in themselves cannot be determined to be evolved or devolved, beneficial or destructive.

That gets sorted out only relative to environmental changes and challenges. It depends upon what happens in the world next.

I observe that our global situation is reaching a crisis stage, as communication and exchange expanded quickly (especially with internet). This is causing a clash which may lead to a lot of environmental challenges- wars, environmental disasters. It is faced with these that some mutations will end up surviving and reproducing and others won't.

For example, a very big sanitary problem in a conflict stricken place could cause those with an immune system that is mutated one way to survive better than others. (before I get mocked as talking about people growing six arms or whatever nonsense
)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I have a question!

I first just saw it expressed in one persons posts, but now have seen it in quite a few-

Where/how does the concept of "evil", (bad, negative, threatening) come into this?

Whether one considers this hypothesis possible or not, what gives this "cloud" the "evil" flavor?

I did not grasp any mention of the "end of the world" claims, of disaster, of evil aliens, rise of Satan, or any of that usual doom porn.

Does the idea of DNA change, or evolution, seem frightening or threatening?



.....or perhaps, was it that music..?????
edit on 21-3-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
There is no evidence of it.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by seamus
 



We are not in orbit AROUND the sun; we're being dragged behind it just like the debris you mention. Look at www.feandft.com... for more technical info and watch this video if you're simply interested in how this can be:


Is this what you're on about?
click to enlarge

www.feandft.com...

If this is accurate then I must ask what Jedi mind tricks were employed to allow me to see Jupiter near the setting Sun? Think about that, for yourself of course.


The drawings are not to scale (if they were to scale, you wouldn't be able to see the planets). . And the conical profile is exaggerated for clarity.
edit on 23-3-2013 by seamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by RadicalRebel
 


You telling me that device that rely on science is science doesn't make it so either.

There is a big difference between sweeping science under the rug and patent applications.

So far no one can show a single example of science being dismissed because it is inconvenient.

It stands so far that there are zero examples of science being dismissed because it was inconvenient.


What about Viktor Schauberger's fluid dynamics theories? Oh, that's right. He was JUST an inventor. Because he didn't verbally explain how he understood the theory implicit in his designs (something that can be impossible for someone so gifted), that means there IS no theory implicit in his designs. Right?

Or Wilhelm Reich? As I recall, he died of a mysterious 'heart failure' a week before his parole. Why was he in jail? Oh, that's right. His "science" was declared omnipotently by the supreme court not to exist. No mainstream investigations into Orgone energy were ever made, despite Einstein's half-hearted semi-participation in one short trial.

There's two to chew on. I have more, but they would be wasted on a squirrel such as yourself.


Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by RadicalRebel
 



Thats your issue not mine i only provided simple evidence to show the possibility, and your only and continued argument is that it is not "science".

That's right. My argument is that you challenged me with irrelevant evidence. Later you had the gall to claimit was science. It is not.
application of an effect is proof of the working of that effect. That is called (drumroll, please) Applied Science. woo!
edit on 23-3-2013 by seamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
edit on 23-3-2013 by seamus because: redacted



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by seamus

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by seamus
 



We are not in orbit AROUND the sun; we're being dragged behind it just like the debris you mention. Look at www.feandft.com... for more technical info and watch this video if you're simply interested in how this can be:


Is this what you're on about?
click to enlarge

www.feandft.com...

If this is accurate then I must ask what Jedi mind tricks were employed to allow me to see Jupiter near the setting Sun? Think about that, for yourself of course.


The drawings are not to scale (if they were to scale, you wouldn't be able to see the planets). . And the conical profile is exaggerated for clarity.
edit on 23-3-2013 by seamus because: (no reason given)


Why would we not be able to see the planets if it were to scale?

Show something that accurately represents your misunderstanding.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Originally posted by seamus

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by seamus
 



We are not in orbit AROUND the sun; we're being dragged behind it just like the debris you mention. Look at www.feandft.com... for more technical info and watch this video if you're simply interested in how this can be:


Is this what you're on about?
click to enlarge

www.feandft.com...

If this is accurate then I must ask what Jedi mind tricks were employed to allow me to see Jupiter near the setting Sun? Think about that, for yourself of course.


The drawings are not to scale (if they were to scale, you wouldn't be able to see the planets). . And the conical profile is exaggerated for clarity.
edit on 23-3-2013 by seamus because: (no reason given)


Why would we not be able to see the planets if it were to scale?

Show something that accurately represents your misunderstanding.


Jesus, really?

Ok. Slower now. If. The. Planets. In. The. Drawing. Were. Drawn. At. Their. Respective. Scale. They. Would. Be. Invisible. In. Such. A. Teeny. Tiny. Drawing.

Or, do you really believe that the solar system really looks like the model on your teacher's desk? Really?
edit on 23-3-2013 by seamus because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-3-2013 by seamus because: added another really just to be really sure.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by seamus
 


Orbit size and distance to Sun could be shown to scale. I'm not talking about the SIZE of the planets in a model.

Why were you?

You still don't get why my original question about the Sun and Jupiter disproves your model, do you?



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by seamus
 


Orbit size and distance to Sun could be shown to scale. I'm not talking about the SIZE of the planets in a model.

Why were you?
THIS is why:

Why would we not be able to see the planets if it were to scale?
My question in return is this: Why did you have to ask the above question, if you weren't bothering about the presented size of planets?



You still don't get why my original question about the Sun and Jupiter disproves your model, do you?
Questions don't disprove or prove anything. My implicit answer was that the conical profile presented in the pictures of Dr. Bhat's model is exaggerated for illustrative purposes. No Jedi mind-tricks necessary. The cone is millions of miles deep, but compared to the billions of miles encompassed by our solar system, it would look visually 'flat' if presented to scale. I thought, since you were so astute in your query, that you would be able to make the leap between my brief answer and the tirade I just had to write. I was wrong.
edit on 23-3-2013 by seamus because: hurr durr



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by seamus
 


OK smart guy, it's about position. Explain the conjunction of Jupiter within the parameters of your model.



ETA:


The cone is millions of miles deep, but compared to the billions of miles encompassed by our solar system, it would look visually 'flat' if presented to scale.


Then what exactly is the point of this conical system?

No one I know of actually thinks the solar system is "flat". The other planets have orbits inclined to ours.
edit on 23-3-2013 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
tl;dr www.sciencedaily.com...


Hell of a coincidence right? video op should have thrown blood into the mix.





new topics
top topics
 
74
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant