Before I move on to the complex issue of why the human genome carries one less pair of chromosomes than the other ‘great apes’ (23 pairs as opposed to 24, respectively) — who are supposedly our direct ancestors – I need to explain why virtually all our discussions on human evolutionary history may be based on still another Big Lie, and hence distorted if not outright erroneous from the get-go. Bear with me and see what you think.
For this post I dug up some oldies…
In discussing human origins there is almost certainly going to be a giant fly in the ointment – no matter what direction the discussion takes – and that fly is named Michael Cremo. Over the past few days in thinking about Neanderthals/humans/DNA/blah blah, for example, at least 10 times I’d say to myself, ‘Yeah, but what about Michael Cremo?’
I speak of his book, Forbidden Archeology, and the condensed version, The Hidden History of the Human Race, the latter of which I’ve read cover to cover twice and thumbed through (in amazement) more times than I can count. I’ll give you an example of its importance, and its controversial implications. In 1997, Graham Hancock wrote the foreword to Hidden History, starting with this sentence:
‘It is my great pleasure and honor to introduce the abridged edition of Forbidden Archeology. Let me say at the outset that I believe this book to be one of the landmark intellectual achievements of the twentieth century.’
Whoa! Strong words, and agree or disagree with Graham Hancock’s theories, you have to admit he is no scholarly lightweight. I mean, right? Someone to pay attention to regarding the deep history of the human species, at the very least.
DCIM102GOPRO
Cut to about a year ago. Hancock is on Joe Rogan, talking about human origins and the subject comes up that there are theories saying that modern humans have been around for much longer than the mainstream will admit. (This is what Cremo’s work — with co-writer Richard Thompson — is about.) Cremo’s name is not mentioned but Rogan (whose ignorance knows no disciplinary bounds) says that there are a lot of crackpots working in this area. Laughing derisively — and he’s too ignorant to know that he’s directly referring to Cremo — he blurts that anyone who thinks modern humans have been on earth for millions of years is not only a crackpot but probably clinically insane. He repeats variations of this several times, possibly to let his PTB handlers know he’s doing as he’s been told.
This goes on and on, with Hancock nodding and grunting in agreement as Rogan will just not get off his dumb-ass roll. I’m listening, at first assuming and then hoping Hancock will say… something in Cremo’s defense, but Graham just keeps nodding and agreeing. Note that the first sentence to Hancock’s Foreword is a direct endorsement of the notion that modern humans (‘humans like us’) have very possibly been on earth for millions and tens of millions and maybe even hundreds of millions of years.
Yet he lets the moron Rogan go on and on.
I like Hancock, have spent a lot of time reading him, and get the impression he’s a good man. You may feel the same way. As I did you might at first be thinking, now, wait, Hancock’s Foreword was written twenty years before the show. Obviously, Hancock must’ve ‘smartened up’ in the interim. Right?
Just going to add some pics from my files.
Nope. See, almost nowhere in The Hidden History of the Human Race does Cremo state an opinion or even make an inference about human antiquity. Virtually the whole book is mainstream archeological research, research that has been ‘hidden’, even ‘forbidden’ (hence the titles) by the PTB. Research that Cremo has uncovered from their hiding places in the mainstream archives.
Again: It’s not Cremo’s research that indicates ancient human antiquity, it’s the mainstream! A lot of Cremo’s citations are from the 19th century (before the Darwinian PTB really took control) but plenty of it is much more recent too. Research papers and peer reviewed documents that reveal literal mountains of evidence that humans ‘like us’ have been around… forever.
When I say forever I almost mean it literally, given the intelligence-produced artifact found in a layer of earth dated at two billion years. Cremo describes mainstream research and discoveries of artifacts, bones, and even full human skeletons that have been formally dated at many millions of years; as I say, even hundreds of millions of years.
Okay, before you assume there’s a reasonable explanation here, or that I’ve gone off on a tangent, I strongly suggest you take in at least one Cremo lecture. Best of course would be to read his book(s), but i know that’s asking a lot.
But assume for the moment that I’m not making this up. Do you see the fly in the Darwinian or even the Creationist or even the fringe ointment?
After a lot of thought, here’s the way I’ve come to look at it: Cremo’s evidence is every bit as robust as is the evidence upon which the textbooks and the general human origins zeitgeist that has been drummed into you since childhood are based. So if Cremo’s unearthed research is somehow… wrong… then so is the whole mainstream paradigm regarding how we got here (ditto most of the fringe). It’s one or the other, Cremo’s right or Cremo’s wrong, and either way you go it’s astounding. Either way, no matter who you are or what you believe, it’s likely that ‘everything you know is wrong,’ to quote Lloyd Pye.
But what’s up with Graham Hancock? Another PTB limited hangout mole? Maybe. Or maybe he got so successful since 1997 (his books now sell in the millions) that he fears alienating his semi-mainstream fan base. And now that he’s on his ‘comet impact’ kick (as the destroyer of his ancient high civilization) – a semi-mainstream idea to begin with – he’s being extra careful not to look too fringe, and, as usual, let the truth (Cremo’s truth in this case) be damned. (That Hancock completely ignores the Electric Universe paradigm is another strike against him: I cannot for the life of me come up with an innocent excuse for his total lack of mention of it, especially the petroglyph analysis of highly respected plasma physicist Anthony Peratt, which directly affects the ‘comet impact’ roll Hancock is on lately.)
Addendum: if you’re ever in the audience at one of Hancock’s book-promo lectures, please do ask him why he turned on Michael Cremo, and remind him of the Foreword he wrote back in ’97 for Hidden History. I like Hancock – a good writer who walks the walk — but I despise hypocrites. Maybe he can explain himself. I’ve tried contacting him on this issue but (predictably) did not hear back.
I recently read America Before, Hancock’s latest theorizing about his lost civilization (Atlantis/whatever); maybe it was the North American continent he figures, blah blah. Yeah, well maybe it was, but he burns many words on the recent SoCal finding of a 130,000 year old mastodon carcass with obvious ‘human’ artifacts around it. Makes a huge deal out of the date, given the mainstream’s hackneyed bullshit that humans didn’t invade the continent before… what is it?… 13,000 years ago, or maybe it’s 20,000 these days; I forget. Oh, and he burns even more words on the deceit and hypocrisy of how poorly the mainstream treats fringe researchers like himself… well, I couldn’t agree more, Graham, but…
‘What about Michael Cremo?’ You know, the guy who wrote ‘one of the landmark intellectual achievements of the twentieth century.’
You didn’t want to get too fringe, though, did you, Graham, and stand up for Michael? Is that it?
A couple nights ago, near Sedona, AZ.
Hancock’s premise in America Before was that ‘humans like us’ were on the continent waaay before the mainstream admits, but not only did he leave out Michael Cremo in his citations, but likewise ignored the work of archaeologist Virginia Steen-McIntyre, who dated an early human site at Hueyatlaco, Mexico at more than 250,000 years, using four mainstream-approved dating methods. (For a brief explanation of this matter, go to 12 minutes in the Cremo lecture.) This article from Nexus magazine is the best detailed version of the Steen-McIntyre scientific disgrace.)
Addendum: For me, the most startling of Cremo’s exposés was regarding the ‘California Gold Mine’ finds. I highly recommend you take a quick look at this video and please do it now, so you understand what’s really at real stake. (It’s the same Cremo Google talk I linked to before; here you go to 29:40. I really do suggest you view the whole video, though, then come back here.)
This one involves multiple finds of human artifacts and bones from strata dated at 50 million years ago. The California Gold Mine findings are so robust – according to the protocol of mainstream archaeology – that you may understand why I say that Cremo’s body of work, whether you accept it or not, means that the story we’re told about ancient human history is untrue, i.e., is either a lie or a series of scientific blunders, especially about dating. That the California Gold Mines finds directly, hugely, affect the premise of Hancock’s America Before is obvious, considering his brouhaha about a 130,000 year find. Yet no mention…
At first I couldn’t get a grip on why Hancock would fail to mention Virginia Steen-McIntyre’s Hueyatlaco work, given that it not only supported his own premise of human antiquity in the Americas but is also another example of his own horrendous treatment by mainstream archaeology; for ‘following the evidence’ Steen-McIntyre was ostracized and her career ruined; this in spite of the inarguable results of the most advanced dating techniques of the time. Hancock constantly complains about his abuse by these same people.
See, the date of the Hueyatlaco site would not only annihilate the mainstream history of the colonization of the Americas, but would throw into severe doubt the accepted human-evolutionary paradigm, i.e., 250,000 years pre-dates the emergence of modern humans. In short, Steen-McIntyre’s work was a bullet aimed right at the heart of Neo-Darwinism.
Hancock’s ignoring of the Steen McIntyre issue is likely for the same reason as his disrespectful treatment of Michael Cremo: He’s either trying to nuzzle up to the mainstream, or, and I hate to say it, is another limited hangout state mole.
Although I didn’t mean to go off on a rant about Graham Hancock, I nevertheless hope you’ve gotten my point about how Big Lies can throw us off even with issues that don’t appear to be directly related. The matter of Neanderthal DNA we’ve been going over is a good example. If ‘humans like us’ have been on earth for tens or hundreds of thousands of years (or more), what are we to make of that controversy?
One explanation for the finds Cremo has unearthed could be based on… astonishingly inaccurate dating methods, coupled with totally mistaken assumptions regarding the geological history of this planet. As an Electric Universe devotee, this possibility looms very likely to begin with. (There is no doubt whatsoever that the mainstream’s version of the formation of the solar system is completely bogus, so why, one might ask, should we assume they got geology right?)
It’s probably a matter of degree.
And it’s probably not that simple.
In any event, I will next try to deal with the chromosome issue; in doing so I will have to accept certain ‘official versions.’ I do so with trepidation.
Here’s a video from… last night (hence the title):
Allan
Ya’ all check out Barbara Müller’s responses.
She does everything in her power to spin the credibility of Sheldrake in all other directions by NOT answering the importance of the ether and fruit fly experiments AT ALL. As GB mentioned, is she is being deliberately obtuse, or misdirecting again?
By not answer specific questions, this is a sign of a shill, IMO. What other explanation can it be, especially based on all her past comments on this blog – trying to sew doubt to about just every topic Allan brings up.
oh Todd, but I answered your flies argument. I repeat, if you keep an amount of flies isolated, it will inbreed and degenerate very quick. Without a morphic field. It is you, who’s ignoring questions. How about my simple argument? If the morphic field spreads skills once achieved on one place, making it easier to learn the same skill on other places, how come our children still need the same amount of time to learn the basics in school? Also what predictions can be made with the MF theory which cannot be explained with common sense? And last but not least, what conditions can invalidate the MF theory? You know, a theory is only then scientific, if you can tell from the beginning, what has to happen to invalidate it.
You proven my point you certainly are a shill, probably a mole.
Sure, you answered with something, but it lacks any mechanism describing the significant increase in mutations for those flies who’s parents have not previously been subjected to ether. How quickly you dismiss his work straw-man style by stating “…it has nothing to do with it.”
But I suspect nothing will sway you no matter what, so this comment is more for the benefit of the others readers on this blog so they don’t get the wrong impression about Sheldrake’s work, even though you refuse much (or all?) of it perhaps.
But, this is all irrelevant, isn’t it? You certainly are not here looking for more truth, are you? Your behavior in the comments section gives your agenda away. Your job here is to inject doubt into many of the reader conversations via the comments for important topics, usually the opposite of Allan and many of the other readers.
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=Kcl3XZeiJdGe-gTAoqaYBg&q=M%C3%BCller+site%3Abanditobooks.com&oq=M%C3%BCller+site%3Abanditobooks.com&gs_l=psy-ab.3…1134.4970..5153…0.0..0.105.1703.22j1……0….2j1..gws-wiz…….0j0i22i10i30j0i22i30.6Q_GtLS4hY0&ved=0ahUKEwjX2vzJ0MbkAhVRj54KHUCRCWMQ4dUDCAc&uact=5
For your educational type of question, please refer to Sheldrake’s work with IQ (Sheldrake, Morphic Resonance (2009), p.240-242), which you will not do, but others might. This really shows your lack of knowledge (or purposefully misdirecting away from his work) RE Sheldrake.
Again, thanks for the reveals Barbara 🙂
jeez Todd, relax. No need to get so excited. You believe in Sheldrake? Ok. Fine with me. We have a freedom of religion, at least on the paper. Believe in what you want to believe. I’m just demonstrating that it is not different to any other religion. Some people believe, that their success in life is due to their prayers, you may believe it is due to some morphic field. I have no problem with that.
kind regards
Barbara
By not answer specific questions, this is a sign of a shill, IMO. What other explanation can it be, especially based on all her past comments on this blog – trying to sew doubt to about just every topic Allan brings up.
You mean the same allan who posted my email address on a blog where this is written:
Leave a Reply
Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
yes, absolutely defend the “honor” of this good man!
do you need to see the link to where he published my email address on the blog?
what a charming individual he is, master of his anger.
We’re really impressed down here! (Monty Python quote)
If Rupert Sheldrake is right and the morphic field makes learning a skill easier somewhere else for somebody else once it is mastered, how come our children still need the same amount of time to learn how to write and the basics of mathematics than they did hundreds of years ago? How come it still takes about 10-12 years of school education to get the matura (or high school diploma)? How come training of dogs still takes the same amount of time, etc.?
Cool video in Sedona a beautiful and spooky place.
Witnessing the supernatural multiple
Times puts you in a place of seeing the
Truth but nothing can explain it.
Multidimensional Comes closest for me
and Spiritual. I appreciate and enjoy your
Trying to keep them honest Allan
while searching for the truth.
Some 455,000 years ago a self exiled fallen king from another planet came to earth looking for Gold- He found gold,
This Ancient Astronaut sent for help. Grandchildren of the New King arrived as leaders of the new outpost with workers in tow. Mining operations commenced, the work was tough, the mining colony needed help, needed reinforcements, the outpost needed more workers many many more – There was mutiny on the mining outpost called EA-rth.
A plan was devised in secret and the begrudgingly agreed upon
Chief Scientist Leader Heir to the throne took Homo Erectus and turned him into Homo Sapiens via genetic manipulations with help of other Royalty. After trial and (many) error’s Modern man,fully capable of breeding with itself was perfected 4 breeding pairs gave birth to the modern human race some 200,000+ years ago, no missing link, recombined DNA, shared DNA, their DNA mixed and recombined…
The rest is a matter of semantics and ancient history – Thank you Doctor Zecharia Sitchin for all your hard work which all these phonies like Hancock and others piggyback upon.
Aloha
No one is arguing with this, and saying No so far :-)….but I have heard this put forward years ago before.
And I have always wondered – if they had that space travel technology and more etc, why the hell do they need to hunt high & low for GOLD, and for WHAT???…
There are other versions to the Sitchen version that are, perhaps, less entertaining but more easily digested.
http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/downloads/Christian%20OBrien%20and%20Zecharia%20Sitchin.pdf
Yeah drud, I’d say ‘more plausible’.
It ties in with Hancock’s conjecturing about ‘Magicians’ who attempted to perpetuate/transfer antideluvian knowledge to the post Younger Dryas survivors.
However, The Great PYramid mentioned in your linked text is a tad beyond a mere commemorative monument. In any case, there is mounting evidence it’s tends of thousands of years old, and so could not have been a ‘historic’ monument, but a ‘predictive’ one – for the benefit of civilisations to come, with ground penetrating radar, etc. In other words, it was built to survive several Younger Dryas events.
I’m not saying no to this Sitchin’s work either, but…. ~455K years doesn’t agree with the timeline put forth in Forbidden Archeology, especially the spheres found at Table Mountain dated about a Billion years. Bones in other areas with tools being dated up to tens of millions or more years-old. Not sure how to integrate Sitchin’s work into Cremo’s work.
Krusty, what makes you so reliant on Sitchin’s work that appears to cause you to overrule (couldn’t find a better word here and didn’t want to say ignore) Cremo’s work?
Something doesn’t add up for me here.
Nigel (no reply box), I SORT OF understand that, but it isn’t working very well because I should, and need to be, much $wealthier$.
Interestingly, Graham Hancock just posted this endorsement yesterday –
Congratulations to Andrew Collins and Gregory Little on the US publication of their important new book “Denisovan Origins”. Stunning genetic data has emerged in the past 20 years, radically changing our understanding of the human story. Until now, however, no-one has considered the implications of the new genetic data for the mysterious origins of that uniquely-human construct called civilization. Collins and Little fill the yawning gap in our knowledge with this unique, in-depth and thoroughly up-to-date investigation. It’s a must-read for anyone truly interested in getting to grips with the mystery of who we really are and where we really came from. Highly recommended.
https://www.facebook.com/31260747353/posts/10157526796427354/
They, all rip off the work of Zechariah Sitchin.
In case you haven’t seen this, may be interesting.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/fossil-dna-reveals-new-twists-in-modern-human-origins-20190829
Thanks for the link. See my new post for my view on it.
There are so many flies in this particular ointment that one has to wonder if there is any ointment to be had in it at all. Sometimes it takes an outsider to point it out; Allan is one such, Prof. David Gelernter (Comp. Sci., Yale) is another. Galernter penned a useful critique a couple of months back attacking neo-Darwinism and the intellectual dead end it has taken us down: https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/
This is the sort of intellectual dead end which means you have to hide evidence that doesn’t fit the theory such as giant skeletons & elongated skulls. They don’t match the theory and therefore MUST be fake – resources are instead dedicated to searches for links which never quite seem to link anything (although you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise given the fanfare around supposed missing link ‘finds’ ). What we have ended up with as result is theory based ‘science’ rather than evidence based science. It this were a phenomenon confined to evolutionary theory alone it wouldn’t be so bad, but as Allan often uncovers – this is far from being the case.
Great essay, GB; I appreciate your linking it. I agree with it all, including the doubts about Dr. Meyer’s bottom-line beliefs. I’ve read all the books you mention and what bothers me (about the I.D. boys) is that none of them deal with a simple question:
How, specifically, did speciation occur? Let’s say we have had a total of 10 million (a very low number) species on this planet, including those which are extinct. If some form of common descent is not the case then — it seems to me — we are left with 10 million ‘beam them down, Scotty’ miracles, which I personally do not buy. (The authors mentioned avoid the common ancestry question – which is both odd and revealing. Meyer has let slip that he doesn’t believe in it — so he much be of the ‘beam me down’ school, unfortunately (I have great respect for him). Behe says he’s into common ancestry but has to be jabbed to talk about it. Not sure about the others.)
The I.D. crew has brilliantly debunked Darwinism but they should have left it at that, and not opened the ‘Designer’ can of worms. (One can show a theory to be untrue without providing a substitute.) By doing so they left themselves open to not completely spurious jabs from the mainstream.
With all the I.D. reading and podcasts I’ve come across, not once has anyone explained how speciation DID occur. (Do you see an alternative to common ancestry or ‘beam them down, Scotty’? Is there another possibility?)
They also never touch on the matter of actual mechanism. For example, you unearth a tablet of hieroglyphics, right? Yes, intelligence is behind it, but we also know HOW the hieroglyphics were created: a hammer and chisel or some such. None of the I.D.ers deal with this subject, if you get my drift. They just leave it out.
I wrote the Discovery Institute group an Open Letter that ended with these questions but never heard back. If you haven’t seen it, it’s here:
http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-michael-behe-stephen-meyer-and-douglas-axe/
As you say, this is one of the big questions. Anyone not interested in it… well, is of no interest to me.
Thanks again. Keep in touch.
If ‘evolution’ (in the change over time definition ) is not responsible for speciation,
Thanks Allan. The best mechanism would be for variations accrued during the life-time of an individual of a species to be passed on to one’s offspring. As you know this was postulated by JB Lamark in the 18th Century. If random mutation ever was a mechanism for producing variation in the genotype of a species, the single most advantageous mutation that could be made would be to come up with something better! It would be so overwhelmingly advantageous that all other lineages retaining the ‘old’ mutation method would wither and die-out.
As a young undergrad I thought the mechanism for this would simply be the existing mechanism for producing proteins but reversed (the enzyme ‘reverse transcriptase’ is already there ). This however would require environmental modification of the protein (not necessarily external – it could be the internal environment) which could then be ‘reverse transcribed’ into the DNA.
There are obvious problems here though (undesirable modifications would be at least as numerous as beneficial ones) and deviation away from a workable ‘template’ would be too quick. It was the speed with which inherited learned behaviours (such as birds learning to peck through milk bottle lids) were transmitted between populations (at a faster rate than would be expected through migration) which led me to believe that consciousness was the ‘missing link’ in evolution (and also in physics). Not co-incidentally this was around the time Cambridge biologist Rupert Sheldrake was starting to gain some traction and I still think that his ‘Morphic Resonance’ theory (though incomplete) is about the best fit we with current evidence https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance/introduction. It is in effect an extrapolation of the Hylozoic school applied to Biology only (at least Sheldrake has not to my knowledge taken it further than that). The reason it has not gained more traction I suspect is that over the last 100 years we have convinced ourselves that it is possible to design-out consciousness from experiments (double blind placebo trials etc). The take-home for me from Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen theory of quantum physics is that consciousness is hard-coded into the fabric of our world. Without consciousness to collapse the wave form (or maybe to ride the wave for a surfer like you) there is only potential.
Thank you Sir.
Yes I believe CONSCIOUSNESS is the seat, and the source of all life, – without a doubt.
And no need to wonder, how a spider knows how to make it’s web for instance.
Brett , it’s true , your life is a mirror of your mind (literally) , and everything else is a distraction – rabbit hole … steering people away from doing the work on themselves …. ( btw, Most people are unable to realize the gravity of this statement 🙂
GB, that’s interesting, when I first heard of Rupert Sheldrake in the 90-s it weren’t birds stealing milk, it were ants. So he changed his story in between. I was always wondering how can anyone make a living with this kind of story telling. Not without support of the main stream, hidden or not. What he’s telling in his stories about Morphic Fields and Morphic Resonance and such sounds convincing but cannot be reproduced or objectively proved even if it may look that way. Nobody ever documented scientifically that birds in Southampton or somewhere else were systematically stealing milk from delivered bottles. On the other side, birds are always everywhere looking for food and learn fast, where there is food to steal. So it does not require any Morphic Field to explain that phenomenon. Sheldrake works with suggestions and never provides any serious references. And he does not make this observations himself. It’s story telling and nothing more.
This is your favorite kind of comment, Barbara: You obviously haven’t paid attention to R Sheldrake, as his experiments and observations are very well documented. As for his ‘changing his story’ from ants to birds or whatever, please do some research before you make comments like that. People who may not know of Sheldrake’s excellent work may take you seriously.
well Allan, then tell me please the document where the observation of birds stealing milk is researched. Don’t get me wrong here. R.S. is a good read, because he is kind of creepy charismatic and a good story teller. I read him myself like over two decades ago and liked that back then. Now I’m paying more attention to details and not buying it anymore. My point here is, if you can explain something using simple logic (i.e. birds are always looking for food and if there is some they will start picking) then there is no need for any morphic fields and such. On the other side, you cannot scientifically and objectively demonstrate the existence of such field. It is just an idea artificially glued to common phenomenons without any explanation how this fields can be responsible for this phenomenons. Allow me to quote Miles Mathis from his Sheldrake paper: “His critiques of modern science – both its methods and its findings – are mostly true. It is only when he begins
advancing his own theories that he goes off the rails for me.” That’s pretty much what I think of him. It may seem that I’m only commenting to criticize something you or others write but I’m simply not a yes-sayer. I hope you don’t mind.
Hi Barbra. Not sure where you got the bit about ants from but glad you are interested. As a refresh start at Lefebvre, L. (1995) “The opening of milk bottles by birds: Evidence for accelerating learning rates, but against the wave-of-advance model of cultural transmission.” Behavioural Processes Vol. 34, 43-54.
If you are interested in current research on MR in general start with the Appendix A to his 2009 revision of ‘A New Science of Life’ here: https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance
You seem not to like stories – I would use the term ‘theory’. A theory leads to a prediction which leads to a hypothesis and thence to an experimental design in order to test it. This is the basis of scientific method and without theories we have no science. By way of contrast have a think about the last time you heard a prediction that could be tested by a neo-Darwinist. About the last one I remember was that ‘missing links’ between species would eventually turn up in the fossil record…
GB, I actually like stories a lot but not if they are being sold as science, counter-mainstream or not. This “birds picking” paper maybe the reason why he changed from ants to birds. I still don’t buy it. How did this Lefebvre guy his behavioral analysis on birds? Did you read the paper or just googled “opening of milk bottles by birds”. Did Sheldrake referenced him explicitly? Where? How hard is it for birds to find out, there is yummy milk in bottles? I’ve recently seen seagulls completely emptying garbage baskets in search for food. Birds are smart animals and why invent a morphic field to explain something which does not need such explanation? Normally there first is a phenomenon in need of an explanation and then there is a theory explaining this phenomenon. Not with this morphic field theory. It actually does not explain anything. Sheldrake himself writes “I suggest that morphogenetic fields work by imposing patterns”. He does not explain how his MF imposes patterns. That’s not science, that’s like preaching. Unfortunately the modern “science” is full of such things. People just don’t pay attention to details anymore. It’s not pettiness on my side. I just don’t buy half-truths.
Well Barbara, you certainly are cherry picking Sheldrake’s evidence.
To respond to your comment, “What he’s telling in his stories about Morphic Fields and Morphic Resonance and such sounds convincing but cannot be reproduced or objectively proved even if it may look that way.”
How do you explain this (as one example of something that CAN be reproduced!)?
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
“Experiments at Stanford University in the 1990s also showed that that the proportion of bithorax phenocopies increased progressively in successive generations treated with ether(27). The most remarkable finding in Ho’s laboratory was that when the experimental flies had been treated with ether for six generations, new batches of flies whose parents had NEVER BEEN EXPOSED to ether reacted more strongly to the same ether treatment: in the FIRST GENERATION, 10 percent of the progeny were bithorax and in the second 20 percent, compared with 2 percent and 6 percent in the FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION of the original experimental line. In other words, phenocopies became more probable after similar flies HAD ALREADY DEVELOPED the bithorax phenocopy, even in flies whose ancestors had never been exposed to ether. This result would be expected on the basis of morphic resonance, but not on any other hypothesis.” – Morphic Resonance (2009), Rupert Sheldrake, p.129
27 – See G.C. Gibson and D.S. Hogness, “Effect of Polymorphism in the Drosophila Regulatory Gene Ultrabithorax on Homeotic Stability,” Science 271 (1996): 200-203
Explain to us how this is storytelling Barbara? As I see this, mainstream science cannot explain this and Sheldrake’s theory is the best fit for the evidence at hand, no?
Todd, we are way out of topic and I just hope, Allan will not delete this conversation. This fly example reminds me of an old joke about a “Russian” scientist experimenting with flies. He tears of one leg of the fly and says to it “go fly go”. The fly obeys and moves on the table.The scientist then tears of another leg and says “go fly go”, And the fly obeys and moves. And then the third and fourth and fifth leg. “Go fly go” and the fly still moves a little. Then he tears of the sixth leg and says “go fly go” Fly doesn’t move. “Go Fly Go!” again and still the fly doesn’t move. He then writes in his protocol: “after tearing of the sixth leg, the fly became dumb”.
If you keep a certain amount of flies isolated it will inbreed and produce mutations. Using ether on eggs has nothing to do with it. See, that’s the main problem with the MF theory. It can be glued to anything. It never fails. The ancient priests in Egypt did the same claiming that the eclipse can only be undone by them.
The MF is being told to be everywhere and can’t be avoided so what ever happens can be explained with the MF. It’s a replacement for God’s will. A good litmus test for the MF would be to ask: what predictions can be made with the MF that cannot be made with other theories?
As for the “Birds stealing milk” experiment: Behavioral studies are social studies and different to studies of the laws of nature. Yet still they can be done scientifically. A good example is Frans de Walls “Chimpanzee Politics”. But you need to identify the objects. Just watching birds will not do. My point here is: why state a morphic field if common sense will do. Birds are smart and always look for food. There is no need for a morphic field to explain this.
Barbara are you being deliberately obtuse? Please do some study – if for no other reason than that in order to refute a theory convincingly you at least have to understand it. Your comments regarding learned behaviour in Blue Tits clearly shows you have not since there is no dispute that this is initially learned behaviour in the first instance, MR predicts that once learned by a species the spread of this idea is not constrained by boundaries of social integration (learned behaviour could obviously be learned anew many times but with a classical theory of learning one would expect this rate of learning to be near identical for each re-invention of that particular wheel. Studies have shown (eg the re-learning of the ability in occupied Europe after WW2 during which there were no milk deliveries for a time duration well outside the life expectancy of even the most venerable and learn’ed Blue Tit) show results best explained by MR. You state (absolutely correctly) in your reply to Todd that “A good litmus test for the MF would be to ask: what predictions can be made with the MF that cannot be made with other theories?”. These are in the first case self evident by anybody that has understood the implications of the theory, and secondly therefore, already postulated (by Sheldrake and others) – in many cases the experiments have already been done in lab conditions with impressive results. For example in animal behaviour if a population of rats takes 300 repetitions to learn condition ‘A’, MR would predict that a separate population (from the same species) hundreds of miles away would learn that behaviour in an identical experiment far more quickly. This phenomenon (which has been observed in Lab conditions) is inexplicable with any other theory of learned behavioural transmission that I have ever read. If you genuinely are interested try starting here with App A of the 2009 edition of ‘A New Science of Life”: chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/A_New_Science_of_Life_Appx_A.PDF
Why are you worried about being censored? Maybe it’s based on what you are writing? As Allan previously stated, I too, don’t know what’s up with you.
I’ll let the readers decide for themselves. You initially answered my question with a joke, conflating it with the Russians. Then misdirect away from the results of the experiment by saying ether on eggs has nothing to do with it and bring up “Chimpanzee Politics”. You failed to explain the significance of the results by ignoring the experiment completely.
I’m done corresponding with you, so comment back whatever you feel that can misdirect further.
So what are we all to make of this? I’ve made up my mind, for sure now. You’ve certainly help me understand your motive.
Todd and GB, I tried to explain, that these ideas of a morphic field can’t explain anything the common sense already sufficiently does. Claims that rats first needed 300 iteration and then on some other place much less are empty and to say it directly: fakes. If it was for real, today’s rats would have to know this tricks by mind, everywhere in the world, no? If learning gets easy with the time, why our children still need the same amount of time to learn how to write and do the numbers as they did hundreds of years ago. It even takes more time today due to all the games, smartphones and tablets, the kids are wasting their childhood with now. I’m sure the morphic field theory has an answer to it too. Every religion has answers to its own contradictions.
that Cremo-video proves one thing. The age of an artifact is being defined based on the age of a similar artifact found somewhere else or on the age of artifacts found in the same place earlier. Bu if you follow the chain, it’s all based on estimations. There is no objective method to “measure” the age of something. The C14 isotope or radiocarbon method is a nice fairy tale, but it is not suitable to measure the age of anything. The analysis can only roughly estimate the amount of the remaining C14 isotope. The procedure is very complicated and there is no way to keep the same quality in the process. That’s why the results of two different test of the same probe never show the same age. They don’t even tell the standard error because there is no standard. Involved people are careful not to fall out of line and piss of their colleagues because it then would show how unscientific all this is. There is no competition, they all work along. Before Darwin all “archeology” was Bibel oriented and nothing was older than the few thousand years since God created everything. After Darwin they invented all this millions of years ages they’re using now.
Fair enough, more or less. As I say, what Cremo proves is that the mainstream story is false, one way or the other.
Thanks to GB for straightening Barbara out on the difference between ‘story’ and ‘theory.’ It’s tiresome to go through comments on my blog and find stuff like that. Simplest would be to just delete them – so folks don’t get confused – but if someone is not obviously a mole/shill or otherwise out to misdirect I sort of have to leave them in. (I don’t know what’s up with Barbara, frankly.)
‘X” had to go b/c my past experience with him showed me he is harmful and distracting, for whatever reason. Also, he uses bogus emails, which is a no-no with me. Boom, you do that, you are out of here.
Mol sent an interesting link, that I will write about today — not sure what to make of it but I believe it’s a LH misdirection from the mainstream.
GB, I didn’t really understand your comment starting with ‘thanks, Allan. The best mechanism would be…’ etc. I’m not sure how it answers my concerns as to ‘how speciation occurred’ and so forth. Anyway, I’ll post the piece on the Mol-supplied link later today. Maybe use that for comments as I don’t look carefully at past comments.
Thanks for the “Last Night” video. I watched it last night on your youtube. It reminded me of the night before last. 😉
Thanks for the book recommendations. I’ll watch the videos when I get a chance. Fascinating subject even if I can’t see why the PTB gain from the deception. I get the feeling gold is key somehow……
Excellent topic Allan. After reading America Before, where Hancock goes into great detail with regard to the placement and orientation of many of the mounds found throughout the Americas, I had to scratch my head and wonder why he did not mention the large skeletons found in many mounds in the 1800’s and documented in local papers at the time. I went back to the index of the book to see if I missed some reference to giants and found nothing. This is a glaring omission with regard to ancient history and I can only conclude that Mr. Hancock is indeed a gatekeeper. There are many books that reference ancient giants, and once place to start would be The giants Who Ruled America, The missing skeletons and the Great Smithsonian Cover-Up, by Richard J. Dewhurst.
Great point. I flat forgot about the ‘giants’ issue, which is important on a shit load of levels, including evolution. That Hancock didn’t mention this is inexcusable.
The Dewhurst book is fantastic and full of so much good research. In the FWIW category, I learned of Dewhurst and his book through Hancock, when he had Dewhurst do a guest blog on his website about 4-5 yrs ago. Hancock almost never talks about Giants but it’s been a favorite area of research for me. Appreciate the reminder of Klaus Dona! Looked at a bunch of his stuff number of years ago and excited to go reconnect with it.
Personnaly i found Klaus Dona work in many way much more interesting thant he one of Hancock. Klaus expose artifac (most of them from South America) wich, you know real thing, object you can analyse, if even only 1% are genuine, prove humanity is much older than we think (million of year) and with technical achivement we have no clue how they did it. Also personnaly i found Hancock a really good author and he is also the leader in this field but God this guy is egomaniac and sometime he lost me like his theory Angkor Wat suppose to match the dragon constellation.
Something i found strange about the theory of evolution is we never found any missing link of any specie… Its like the sabre tooth tiger existed, disapear than boom the modern tiger appear.
…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv8qdzwsGQY
I agree. Klaus is great. Some amazing finds. Anyone who hasn’t looked into him, I suggest you give him a shot. Good video, yes.
They don’t want the masses to understand this planet’s lifecycle (yin/yang in Chinese zodiac) and the true prehistory of h sapiens, because then they’d become less amenable to exploitation.
Hence, a gradualist fairy story is presented (with the terrible truth being occulted).
Even Hancock has been nobbled such that he can promote the idea of a Younger Dryas ELE, but only if it’s clearly a one-off event, e.g. being caused by an asteroid impact. However, his theories concerning knowledge transfer (antediluvian to postdiluvian) indicate that he doesn’t believe this.
He may be right about a comet, but that he doesn’t even mention solar blasts is a very bad sign. And solar blasts come at regular intervals (hence the PTB want avoid them); we’re overdue for one, btw.
That’ll eff up all the electrical grids.
Yes X, 12k, hence yin/yang in the Zodiac.
Here we go again. X is trying to sneak back in with his nonsense:
‘The sufficiently perspicacious can utilise the 12k periodicity to deduce a more likely causation, and recognising how it has been hidden, will then know it to be the true cause (and that it isn’t an energy burst).’
Presumably you know the cause but aren’t saying. Listen,. any more crapola like this and you’re be banished again. Christ, ‘the sufficiently perspicacious.’…. Go away.
WHat happened to X’s comment that I replied to?
For one thing, he was using a bogus email address. This gets you banned automatically. I also got tired of his bald assertions and dumb ass innuendos that he possesses secret info that the rest of us should not be privvy to. I have a list of his bullshit that goes way back. If he’s not a shill, he’s an idiot.
One large *Carrington Event* and its back to horse and wagon for a while…