View Full Version : The Meta Gene

Baby Steps
15th December 2014, 12:17
The Metagene.

Recently I put the following to Simon Parkes:

What is driving the spiritual awakening that is happening right now?
The answer he gave was ‘The Metagene’
So I had a little look into this, PLEASE can other members share any info they may have.
I found various strands, but really it was sparse:
1. The Meta Human in Superhero stories-ie superpowers people have as a result of their Genes.
2. Dormant Psionic capability in some humans as detailed below from Do More Good Deeds:
“Our Most Important Secret Weapon: THE META GENE FACTOR
The Metagene is a biological variant lying dormant in select members of the human race [especially on planet earth], until an instant of extraordinary physical and emotional over-stress activates it. (Apparently a latent self-preservation ‘gene’ capable of producing seemingly ‘superhuman’ abilities in earth humans during times of extreme stress or crisis.
That’s an energo-chemical, in response to adverse stimuli. A chromosomal combustion takes place, as the Meta Gene takes the source of biostress, be it chemical, radioactivity, or what ever and turns the potential energo response into a catalyst for genetic change.The main focus of the catalyst power is a gland in the middle of the human brain called the PINEAL gland, and the nutrient for increasing the Pineal’s action is the adrenaline. The Meta Gene factor gives the ability of Psionic Power.


3: The following Video details the idea that God’s power does not act on the universe directly, but through physical entities with the right Genes. The speaker does not mention The Meta gene, but it is in the title


4. The following video again does not mention the Meta Gene, but the theme is that the Greys are trying to piggy back on us genetically-trying to steal our Soul immortality. The implants we are due to receive will allow grey/AI hacking into our genetic material, and could deprive us of our immortality. Strangely I cannot find mention of the Meta Gene except in the title, but the implication is that it is a defence against these attacks.


5. The greek root META means beyond or after
6. In medical terminology ‘Metagene’ is in use. It does not describe a gene. It describes how various genes act together to express something that is not expected from their coding, if I have read it right. This is fascinating as it is effectively saying that unknown effects are lying latent in our DNA that will express in un-anticipated ways. Of course the study of DNA is in its infancy and this is basically another way of saying that we do not know the potential of our DNA, how it works, or how all that ‘junk’ DNA contributes.
For me there is great fascination in the idea of latent psionic abilities, the Human awakening, and how we as humans deal with the attacks we are experiencing.

I have had the following info from higher sources:

Q: Currently there are a small number of people who recognise what is going on here, and numbers appear to be too low to trigger a mass awakening. We need many more people to be aware for the Human race to start turning this situation around. How will this awakening happen?

A: It will happen to every person in a way that they will be unable to misunderstand.

Q: How will the Human race be able to defend itself?

A: A mass awakening will happen amongst the young that will be an inexorable force
This brought to mind the scenes in the movie ‘Avatar’ when the forces of nature mobilised to defend the planet.

I am uncomfortable about these ideas as where is the free will? This awakening must be a force that we are collectively creating. I am also cautious about any model for how we Humans are going to get out of this mess that would seem to release us from the idea of being the change we wish to see in the world, and getting on individually and collectively with resisting the attacks. Is simply ‘Being-ness’ adequate or do we need more ‘Doing-ness’???
Please can I have your insights on this?

I then asked specifically about the Meta Gene:
Q: What is the Meta Gene:
A: It is an expression of the Human collective sub-consciousness
Q: Did the manipulators know about it?
A: Yes
Q: Why did they not remove it?
A: They know it was perceptual
Q: Is it defensive?
Q: What is the role of those who know what is going on?
A: To hold that awareness
Q: What will this achieve?
A: To light the blue touch paper.

Now we know that the human sub-consciousness has a pre-cognition capability:


I am suggesting that we are collectively sensing the negative factors in play on earth at this time, whether future or current, and the Meta Gene is our inherent capability to enforce balance. This is happening at many levels and is the growing perception amongst humans that something sinister is afoot, and we need to evolve new paradigms and structures to move forward. It is happening all over the Earth.

Those that have a greater understanding probably achieve nothing by standing on a box and shouting. Rather they need to hold their understanding in their perception, build and augment it, and thereby light the blue touch paper!



15th December 2014, 18:24
I personally believe Simon Parkes is one hundred percent mind controlled from birth. Thats my opinion.

On the subject of the Meta Gene, I rate that as a normal systemic cellular interaction and reluctantly agree with the prognosis of the medical fraternity, your option 6.

Researching this will drive you into madness as the realm of archives needed to be accessed is full of obfuscation by modern scientific interpretations.

I would agree with the tenet that we are all like minded and we do share emotions in real time with each other whilst here on Earth but that is something quite different than having some sort of switch inside of us that can be turned on and off.

My stroke reset me, I have an active Pineal gland, I know all and see all, just as the claims are made, I live the experience. The problem I have is not within me but in the world of people I share Gaia with who are predominantly blind to their own abilities. We are all telepaths, fact. No technology needed. But that claim threatens me as is a threat to the Genocide of Economics that prevails our lives. We must change.

Do yourself a favour Hugo, complete a study of Simon Parkes and move on to new pastures. Build your own repository of archives and heighten your awareness of everything around you. Find your own way, not that of others.

Baby Steps
15th December 2014, 21:29
I personally believe Simon Parkes is one hundred percent mind controlled from birth. Thats my opinion.

On the subject of the Meta Gene, I rate that as a normal systemic cellular interaction and reluctantly agree with the prognosis of the medical fraternity, your option 6.

Researching this will drive you into madness as the realm of archives needed to be accessed is full of obfuscation by modern scientific interpretations.

I would agree with the tenet that we are all like minded and we do share emotions in real time with each other whilst here on Earth but that is something quite different than having some sort of switch inside of us that can be turned on and off.

My stroke reset me, I have an active Pineal gland, I know all and see all, just as the claims are made, I live the experience. The problem I have is not within me but in the world of people I share Gaia with who are predominantly blind to their own abilities. We are all telepaths, fact. No technology needed. But that claim threatens me as is a threat to the Genocide of Economics that prevails our lives. We must change.

Do yourself a favour Hugo, complete a study of Simon Parkes and move on to new pastures. Build your own repository of archives and heighten your awareness of everything around you. Find your own way, not that of others.

Thanks, that's a great post. I do feel that mass awakening is the most important thing, and it is happening. Just that the more awake ones may wish that the others would hurry up.
Kids today are much more receptive to these ideas, and I hope that the mind control is fading, God willing!

15th December 2014, 21:56
"in the world of people I share Gaia with who are predominantly blind to their own abilities. We are all telepaths, fact. No technology needed. But that claim threatens me as is a threat to the Genocide of Economics that prevails our lives. We must change."

I agree 100% Love it...great post.

16th December 2014, 00:35
It's becoming harder and harder every day to live by the truth without causing some infringement to someone or something somewhere. All by design. Humanity is creating it's own Matrix of itself. To our own demise . . . and we have front row seats.

So Neo if you are out there, anytime now would be good ;)

And on my point about Simon Parkes is not meant in anyway to be construed as offensive to him or his beliefs. In fact I secretly hope some or all of it to true though I do class it with episodes of Voyager on it's fruitless journey across space as well. Each to their own, will always help those on a journey, then he'll lead a good life. Fair play to the man. I just moved on to other associations. Been fun.

Baby Steps
16th December 2014, 14:57

This excellent info from Good ET fits with the idea that a global an inexorable energy change is coming-that will awaken us.
Perhaps our response to this could be described as the Meta Gene!

Baby Steps
11th March 2015, 15:55
Dear All,
I missed Simon Parkes's reference to the 13th Gene in his first interview with Alfred Webre.
He mentions the Meta Gene- as the 13th strand of (etheric) DNA that binds the other 12 and ‘ACTIVATES’ them.
This is what is driving the Human Spiritual awakening that is happening.
The below info from universal life tools discusses environmental factors that activate our DNA.
It mentions water, but I would add that part of our environment that would activate our DNA would be our MIND/INTENTION
Mental/Spiritual work will be an activating factor. The Genes are bathed in water and we know that water responds to consciousness in potentially beautiful crystalline ways!
So what affects humans as bags of water?

With thanks:

“The ‘awakened’ scientific view of our DNA
Whilst western science was focused on The Human Genome Project, a Russian research team headed by Dr Pjotr Garjajev and comprising of molecular biologists, physicists, embryologists and linguistic experts also commenced investigations in 1990.
Their research uncovered that the 95% junk DNA was in actual fact a highly intelligent combination of Codon sequences that spoke a ‘language’. This biological language not only explained the origins of human language but was also a text that could be altered. That is, DNA is reprogrammable and DNA codon sequences can be inter-changed and activated.
Cellular Biologist Bruce Lipton (Biology of Belief, 2005), is one of thousands of scientists that are re-writing the old science regarding our knowledge of the functioning of our DNA. Bruce Lipton’s years of research uncovered that the DNA within the nucleus of every cell is simply a response unit to the environment. Receptors on cell membranes (the walls of cells) ‘read’ the messages from the environment and ‘tell’ the DNA how to respond accordingly.
Thus it is the ‘environment’ that either inhibits or promotes the functioning of DNA, and it is the environment that has the capacity to reprogram / activate the non-functioning DNA.
The environment is considered to be a combination of:
Food / Water / Nutrients that we consume;
Sound, Colour, all frequencies that our body’s are bathed in;
Cosmic energetic forces (planetary, solar, radiation, electromagnetic etc..);
Speech, thoughts, emotions, feelings etc;
Auric Field – as a direct mirror image of our Soul Star expression
Nature – Earth’s Crystalline Field, devic energies, vibrational essences etc.”

With thanks:

“Up until present time most individuals have worked with the 12 strands of DNA and have not yet allowed that 13th step or strand to evolve in their lives. The 12 strands of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) are the carriers of genetic information in almost all organisms. As the individual begins its process in this lifetime, certain traits (hair and eye color, body structure, cultural traits) begin their influence. Coupled with them are the thought forms developed through family, religious or societal belief systems, patterns which begin to influence and form the total being. Many of these patterns or belief systems if healthy, help us to create a functional existence. In most cases this has not proven to be true and subsequently our patterns of unhealthy relationships began. Instead of happiness one becomes a victim to the past and all its trappings. The continuous mind chatter regulates them and keeps them prisoners to the thought forms created by deleterious belief systems.
The Design of the 12th & 13th Strand system of DNA
The 12 strand system of DNA was designed to allow a person to focus intensely upon certain aspects of evolution that they “at a Soul level” were seeking to understand. The 12 strand system allows for lessons of this detail to be learned in the physical. Until this time most of these lessons we have had to learn was in a non-physical state. This is because the lessons in certain areas become so refined that they need to be separated from physical dimension in order to learn them cleanly and clearly, such as a persons intent versus their desire.
The 13th strand overlaid on the 12th strand system then permits the individual to be empowered, and self willed. The 12 are the foundation and tools, the 13th is the “Itself.” It is love as the Christ Consciousness resurrected in each individual with the potential to increase its vibratory rate to invoke universal healing. Unlike the 12 strand system, each 13th strand is completely unique, it carries with it the 4 extra “codons” of DNA which we are seeing in the children born today. They are disease free. The 13th strand connects one from the earth plane to the God-Self, with the energy of the CHIRST as the glue or love source that assists the veils of separation to be lifted.
When working with the 13th strand, the real goal a person is seeking is to integrate the 12 strand areas of mastery they have chosen into their Spirit or Essence. When complete and in Harmony, the being has succeeded in making a leap of personal evolution, has physically integrated areas of knowledge and there will no longer be the separation of being from knowledge. It is now one. When this happens a new area of mastery comes into being.
The 13th strand is also the communicator focus. In all instances the 13th strand is the strand of love, and is designed to integrate Spirit and flesh. We all came from the same Spirit. The origin of our being is included in every single 13th strand, therefore even though 2 people might be of totally different areas of knowledge about the world, each would also be aware of their uniqueness and relation to each other as they both have the same Creator. They could then work on integrating and exchanging information, because they could relate on a higher frequency level of their being. This 13th strand of complete love is woven throughout the 12 strands of DNA, thus imprinting the Divine Blueprint, Spirit’s blueprint, the innate being of you which has stemmed from the source, the beginning, day one of creation. The Christ, the anointed spirit formed into being-ness is thus resurrected, alive again within each and every being.

Chanelled to Shirley Catanzaro”


Baby Steps
12th January 2016, 18:17

Geneticists are mostly but not completely dismissive of Mr Goldschmidt’s ‘Hopeful Monster’ theorem. Under this suggestion, a mutation of a key gene can trigger the appearance of something dramatically different because genes are not just a sequential information store-there may be controllers or keys. Trip they key and a big change happens.

For me it makes no sense, as the only way a potential big change could occur is if it was in some way designed in to the genotype,or the life form had some kind of dormant code and then we end up with intelligent design.

HOWEVER it allows for a creature to carry the potential to make a large change over a short time and that in itself is fascinating. In the case of Humans- if advanced civilisations have been manipulating our code as is often suggested, we may now be in the magical period where photons, perhaps exotic ones, are now triggering mutations

I am hopeful


From a zoologist:

‘major phenotypic changes might arise from simple mutations in key genes. This went against the gradualistic ideas of classical Darwinian evolution, which is incremental.

Modern interpretations of this include the idea that gene duplications or chromosomal translocations could produce multiple copies of genes which could then diverge and result in various related structures being produced, for example various kinds of haemoglobin (foetal, adult, myoglobin etc) - or, in the case of insects, one gene for one kind of appendage (say a leg for walking) and another that could evolve for digging, running etc.

In short, I don't think his mechanism holds water, but his suggestion that small changes in the genetic code could produce hopeful monsters has resonance for modern genetics’

With thanks to Rational WIKI:


Hopeful monster
• Hopeful monster also known as the hopeful monsters hypothesis is a biological theory which suggests that major evolutionary transformations have occured in large leaps between species due to macromutations.
Richard Goldschmidt
The German geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1878 – 1958) was the first scientist to use the term "hopeful monster". Goldschmidt thought that small gradual changes could not bridge the hypothetical divide between microevolution and macroevolution. In his book The Material Basis of Evolution (1940) he wrote "the change from species to species is not a change involving more and more additional atomistic changes, but a complete change of the primary pattern or reaction system into a new one, which afterwards may again produce intraspecific variation by micromutation." Goldschmidt believed the large changes in evolution were caused by macromutations (large mutations). His ideas about macromutations became known as the hopeful monster hypothesis which is considered a type of saltational evolution.[1]
According to Goldschmidt "biologists seem inclined to think that becuase they have not themselves seen a 'large' mutation, such a thing cannot be possible. But such a mutation need only be an event of the most extraordinary rarity to provide the world with the important material for evolution".[2] Goldschmidt believed that the neo-Darwinian view of gradual accuumulation of small mutations was important but could only account for variation within species (microevolution) and wasn't a powerful enough source for the origin of evolutionary novelty to explain new species. Instead he believed that big genetic differences between species required profound "macro-mutations" a source for large genetic changes (macroevolution) which once in a while could occur as a "hopeful monster".[3][4]
Goldschmidt is usually referred to as a non-Darwinian, however he did not object to the general microevolutionary principles of the Darwinians. He only veered from the synthetic theory in his belief that a new species develops suddenly through discontinuous variation, or macromutation. Goldschmidt presented his hypothesis when neo-Darwinism was becoming dominant in the 1940's and 1950's and he strongly protested against the strict gradualism of neo-Darwinian theorists. Becuase of this his ideas were seen as highly unorthodox of the time by most scientists and were greatly subjected to ridicule and scorn.[5] However there has been a recent interest in the ideas of Goldschmidt in the field of evolutionary developmental biology as some scientists are convinced he was not entirely wrong.
Otto Schindewolf
Otto Schindewolf (1896 – 1971) a German paleontologist also supported macromutations as part of his evolutionary theory. He was know for presenting an alternative interpretation of the fossil record based on his ideas of orthogenesis, saltational evolution and extraterrestrial impacts opposed togradualism. Schindewolf's theory was a form of orthogenesis, which stated that variation tends to move in a predetermined direction.[6] His theory became known as typostrophism and stated that evolution occurs due to a periodic cyclic model of evolutionary processes which are predestined to go through a life cycle dictated by factors internal to the organism.[7]
Part of his 'typostrophe' theory advocated sudden evolutionary change by macromutations but he later dropped this view (see below). His theory of orthogenesis (straight-line evolution) and eventual decay, claimed to be embedded within a cyclical view of the evolutionary process. According to (Levy, 2002) Schindewolf theory also proposed that mass extinctions, especially the ones at the end of the Permian period 225 million years ago, were the result of cosmic radiation caused by supernova explosions. Schindewolf speculated that a supernova star explosion could emit radiation which could be lethal to organisms if close enough to earth. He proposed that the radiation from a supernova could have two effects, one is extinguishing many species of life and the other that the radiation may cause macromutations which could cause new species to originate.[8] Schindewolf was the only scientist to have speculated that the first bird may have hatched from a reptile's egg.[9] It was only a speculation and he abandoned the view of macromutations in later publications.[10]
His book Basic Questions in Paleontology was published in German in 1950 and was translated into English in 1994 with a foreword written by Stephen Jay Gould.
Stephen Jay Gould
Stephen Jay Gould (1941 – 2002) had attempted to update the ideas of Goldschmidt by redefining the concept of "hopeful monster" in a way that can be kept in the neo-Darwinian framework via an extension.[11] In an article titled The Return of Hopeful Monsters (1977)[12] Gould argued that the recent discovery of regulatory genes offered new evidence which supported some of Goldschmidt's postulates and that small changes in the embryological "contraint systems" can produce large morphological transformation in the adult, and possibly macro-evolutionary pathways.[13] Gould's re-definition of the hopeful monster is different to that of Goldschmidt and they should not be confused with eachother.
Many scientists rejected the hopeful monster hypothesis as genetical research seemed to show that large mutations would be lethal.[14] In response to this Goldschmidt suggested that, from time to time, big mutations can occur and although the majority of these would have been lethal, a very small number would have been compatible with survival. The most common criticism however; came from the early neo-Darwinian theorists who asked the question "how does a hopeful monster find a mate?". These scientists were skeptical of the idea of hopeful monsters as without more than one hopeful monster there would be no possibility of breeding or establishing a new population and thus would be no chance of a new species forming.[15]
In response to this criticism, Patrick Bateson wrote in Sudden Changes in Ontogeny and Phylogeny (1984):
“”Hopeful monsters were disparaged on the grounds that even if a big change in the phenotype could occur as a result of a mutation, the hopeful monster would be a novelty on its own with no possibility of finding a mate. With a mate there would no new species. However, if we suppose that, somehow or other, there were enough hopeful monsters to breed successfully with each other, the possibility exists of competition between the hopeful monsters and the stock from they sprang. It is not at all difficult to suppose that, by the process of natural selection, hopeful monsters could quickly replace their competitors if they were better adapted to the environment. No new fancy principles of evolution are involved here.[16]

Modern science
Some modern scientists have written that hopeful monsters are neither impossible nor should be seen as anti-Darwinian because even if proven to exist would not replace the evidence for gradual evolution by mutation but supplement it. The early neo-Darwinian synthesis theorists had rejected hopeful monsters due to lack of evidence; however there is now evidence that Goldschmidt was not entirely wrong.
Richard Dawkins wrote in his book Climbing Mount Improbable (1996):
“”My suggestion is that Scyllarus may actually present an example in the wild of a homeotic mutation, analogous to antennapedia in Drosophila in the laboratory. Unlike antennapedia, this mutation has been incorporated into an actual evolutionary change in nature. My tentative conjecture is that an ancestral Scyllarid mutated homeotically, slipping the developmental subroutine appropriate to a uropod into a segment where an antenna ought to be, and that the change conferred some benefit. If I am right, it would constitute a rare example of a macro-mutation’s being favoured by natural selection: a rare vindication of the so-called ‘hopeful monster’ theory that we met in Chapter 3.[17]

Donald R. Prothero in his book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (2007) has written:
“”The past twenty years have vindicated Goldschmidt to some degree. With the discovery of the importance of regulatory genes, we realize that he was ahead of his time in focusing on the importance of a few genes controlling big changes in the organisms, not small-scales changes in the entire genome as neo-Darwinians thought. In addition, the hopeful monster problem is not so insurmountable after all. Embryology has shown that if you affect an entire population of developing embryos with a stress (such as a heat shock) it can cause many embryos to go through the same new pathway of embryonic development, and then they all become hopeful monsters when they reach reproductive age.[18]

In 2008 evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson in her article The Monster Is Back, and It’s Hopeful listed some examples which may support the hopeful monster hypothesis[19] and an article published in the nature journal in 2010 titled Evolution: Revenge of the Hopeful Monster reported that studies in stickleback populations in a British Columbia lake and bacteria populations in a Michigan lab have shown that large individual genetic changes can have vast effects on organisms "without dooming it to the evolutionary rubbish heap". According to the article "Single-gene changes that confer a large adaptive value do happen: they are not rare, they are not doomed and, when competing with small-effect mutations, they tend to win. But small-effect mutations still matter — a lot. They provide essential fine-tuning and sometimes pave the way for explosive evolution to follow."[20]
A paper by (Page et al. 2010) have written that the Mexican axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum) could be classified as a hopeful monster as it exhibits an adaptive and derived mode of development that has evolved rapidly and independently among tiger salamanders. According to the paper there has been a recent interest in aspects of the hopeful monster hypothesis in recent years:
“”Goldschmidt proposed that mutations occasionally yield individuals within populations that deviate radically from the norm and referred to such individuals as "hopeful monsters". If the novel phenotypes of hopeful monsters arise under the right environmental circumstances, they may become fixed, and the population will found a new species. While this idea was discounted during the Modern synthesis, aspects of the hopeful monster hypothesis have been substantiated in recent years. For example, it is clear that dramatic changes in phenotype can occur from few mutations of key developmental genes and phenotypic differences among species often map to relatively few genetic factors. These findings are motivating renewed interest in the study of hopeful monsters and the perspectives they can provide about the evolution of development. In contrast to mutants that are created in the lab, hopeful monsters have been shaped by natural selection and are therefore more likely to reveal mechanisms of adaptive evolution.[21]

Evolutionary developmental biology
Goldschmidt presented two mechanisms for how hopeful monsters might work. One mechanism, involved “systemic mutations”, rejected the classical gene concept and is no longer considered by most modern scientists however, his second mechanism involved “developmental macromutations” in “rate genes” or “controlling genes” that change early development and thus cause large effects in the adult phenotype. These kind of mutations are similar to the ones considered in contemporary evolutionary developmental biology.[22]
Guenter Theissen
Guenter Theissen a professor of genetics has classified homeotic mutants as hopeful monsters and documented many examples for animal and plant lineages that may have originated as hopeful monsters in his scientific publications (Theissen, 2005 and Theissen et al. 2006).[23][24]
Creationist quote mining
Creationists are known for notoriously quote mining Goldschmidt, misrepresenting his views on purpose and for setting up a straw man definition of the hopeful monster. Thousands of creationist books since the 1960's have described the hopeful monster hypothesis as a bird hatching from a dinosaur egg or a reptile laying an egg with a bird popping out. The creationist Duane Gish was known for promoting this misrepresentation thoughout his books which he described as believing in a miracle.
In Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (1983) Philip Kitcher has discussed this issue, and wrote:
“”So far as I know, nobody is currently defending the idea that the birds evolved through the emergence of a single individual bird from a reptilian egg. The principal suggestion has been that some mutations - perhaps mutations in regulatory genes - might produce large effects by altering the timing of developmental events. By modifying the pattern of development, they could produce organisms with a different form from that of the parents.[25]

Unfortunately creationists out of dishonesty never choose to really study what Goldschmidt actually said and continue to peddle the lie that he promoted the view that birds popped out of reptile eggs. According to Stephen Jay Gould the scientist who speculated that the first bird may have hatched from a reptile's egg was Otto Schindewolf who linked cosmic radiation to mutational rates from supernova explosions.[26] Creationists have obviously confused the ideas of Goldschmidt with Schindewolf.

1. ↑ Verne Grant The origin of adaptations 1963
2. ↑ Prog Nucleic Acid Res&Molecular Bio by By J N Davidson, Waldo E. Cohn, Serge N Timasheff, C H Hirs 1968, p. 67
3. ↑ Nick Lane Power, Sex, Suicide : Mitochondria and the meaning of life 2005, p. 30
4. ↑ Eva Jablonka, Marion J. Lamb Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: The Lamarckian Dimension 1995 p. 222
5. ↑ Donald R. Prothero Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters 2007, p. 99
6. ↑ Chunglin Kwa Styles of Knowing: A New History of Science from Ancient Times to the Present 2011, p. 237
7. ↑ Book Review
8. ↑ David H. Levy Shoemaker by Levy: The Man Who Made an Impact 2002, p. 61
9. ↑ Trevor Palmer Perilous Planet Earth: Catastrophes and Catastrophism through the Ages 2003, p.99
10. ↑ Otto Schindewolf Über den “Typus” in morphologischer und phylogenetischer Biologie. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1969
11. ↑ New Scientist 15 Apr 1982
12. ↑ Return of the Hopeful Monster by Stephen Jay Gould
13. ↑ Stephen T. Asma On Monsters: An Unnatural History of Our Worst Fears 2011, p. 314
14. ↑ Peter J. Bowler Evolution: The History of an Idea 1989 p. 340
15. ↑ Donald R Prothero Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters 2007, p. 99
16. ↑ Patrick Baeson Sudden Changes in Ontogeny and Phylogeny in Gary Greenberg, Ethel Tobach Behavioral Evolution and Integrative Levels: The T.C. Schneirla Series 1984, p. 162
17. ↑ Richard Dawkins Climbing Mount Improbable 1996, pp. 232-233
18. ↑ Donald R Prothero Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters 2007, p. 100
19. ↑ The Monster Is Back, and It’s Hopeful by Olivia Judson
20. ↑ Evolution: Revenge of the hopeful monster by Tanguy Chouard
21. ↑ Microarray analysis of a salamander hopeful monster reveals transcriptional signatures of paedomorphic brain development
22. ↑ Homeosis of the angiosperm flower: Studies on three candidate cases of saltational evolution
23. ↑ The proper place of hopeful monsters in evolutionary biology
24. ↑ Catching a ‘hopeful monster’: shepherd’s purse (Capsellabursa-pastoris) as a model system to study the evolution of flower development
25. ↑ Philip Kitcher Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism 1983, p. 149
26. ↑ Basic Questions in Paleontology

Baby Steps
15th September 2017, 09:35
I think I got my answer with thanks to Inelia Benz. The DNA molecule is 'ultra-dimensional', and the Aliens that interfered with us about 200,000 years ago - inserting some of their own genetic material - are now linked to us in subtle ways that they do not understand.

Meanwhile, we are experiencing some kind of subtle energy awakening of these ultra dimensional capabilities that were engineered in much earlier, but not understood by the later slave owners who wished to create 'drones'

Brilliant information from Inelia.