Darwin debunked?

[aroundthetable]

Whether or not you believe in Darwins theory or not, this is well worth a watch.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7Wr-lXLGCxQ

Darwins theory is one of the foundation stones of the modern western outlook, and has been often used as the basis for social construction, political and technological policy and planning. There is however every reason to re-visit this theory without being considered a 'crazy creationist'. This interview reflects a balanced alternative without the drama and is more in line with the thinking of Michael Cremo and many others.

I hope you find the time to watch it

[aroundthetable]

Life comes from life, not chemicals. Therefore 'evolution' is a spiritual process.

[Gajanana]

I remember when I first heard the "apes to man" theory. I was in school and the class was full of pupils, we were 5-6 yrs old. When the teacher said that we evolved from apes the whole class burst out laughing. Now you could say it was immaturity causing the giggles, but for me it was our natural intuition telling us that this was untrue. 45 years on I still feel that it is untrue. I have yet to see any evidence of the fact and the missing link is still missing...

[aroundthetable]

Like the medical industry, there are many careers and grants that depend upon Darwins theory. I like Darwin as a truth seeker, his theory is very attractive and makes sense, at least on the surface. He believed in what he was saying ( at least until his more elderly years) and it put the ' where are we from' question on the map. The need and the desire to know where we are from is a fundamental question and one we will always ask ourselves, because like you said Gajnana, it is a natural intuition. The scientists love his theory because it takes God out of the equation and thus brings in the cash. I do believe they are sincere in their beliefs, but acceptance of this theory has been a big wall to human cultural and spiritual development.

[ulli]

it's all about the missing links, isn't it?

(for the holographically-minded, the above comment can be applied in many ways...)

[Gone002]

I have never liked or even used darwins theory. i see to many problems and flaws in his work.

[KosmicKat]

The problem with theories is that they are just that, theories. They are the best explanation for the facts at the time when the theory is defined; some facts don't fit the theory so they are ignored (and this is the part that gets overlooked too easily) while we look for a better theory that fits more of the facts. But if we continue to overlook the inconvenient facts that do not agree with the theory for long enough the theory starts to be treated as a fact, and anyone looking for a better theory is dismissed as unrealistic and unsound!

[king anthony]

Lloyd Pye - Everything You Know Is Wrong

[excerpt from one of the video posts below]

During years as a fiction writer, Lloyd was trying to work out how the so-called “prehuman” fossil record could be reconciled with the worldwide reality of hominoids. Doubting he would ever discover the answers he sought, in 1990 he belatedly found the work of Sitchin, and realized he could combine his own extensive research with Sitchin’s great ouver to create a new, comprehensive, utterly fact-based theory of human origins... Rationalism.

This presentation covers the 4 main arguments in his book:Darwinism does not satisfactorily explain how life came to be on Earth in the first place, or its subsequent development. The so-called “prehuman” fossil record that supposedly contains mankind’s earliest ancestors in fact does nothing of the kind. The true upright-walking indigenous primates on Earth are Hominoids, such as Sasquatch, Yeti, etc. It is their bones that comprise the so-called “prehuman” fossil record, not ours. The answer to where we humans actually came from can be found in the writings of the ancient Sumerians.

Part 1 of 6

Part 2 of 6

Part 3 of 6

Part 4 of 6

Part 5 of 6

Part 6 of 6

[cloudno7]

Fine if humans didn't evolve from apes then where did they come from. Forget humans, how did other animals/plants etc came up.

I don't like Anthropocentric universe. I don't think humans are special.

[slvrfx]

Darwin. Interesting. In a least expected way I came across info late last night, that he's getting all the credit for work many had done as far back as one hundred years before him. Yet he gets all the credit. (If anyone cares for a list of names, I can post it here, and the source.)

I saw an article in a Time magazine years ago, about how stacks of letters written by Albert Einstein's wife had been found, and in them, the revelation that the work he is getting so much credit for, was actually hers. Some scientists had been suspicious for awhile, especially because he wasn't able to answer questions about aspects he should have completely known (if it had been his work).

(The lesson in all of this? NOTHING IS AS IT SEEMS.)

[Revere]

IMHO Darwin has the hold of the tail of something, he does not really know what but, it did not stop him from describing the figurative animal on the other end.

Friends, seriously check out Bruce Lipton’s Ph. D. book called, "The Biology of Belief"....real good stuff. He approaches evolution from a cellular level. IMO, it kicks natural selection's butt! I bet most of you will feel that it rings much truer to your intuition then Darwin.

The implications of his theory are awesome!


Peace,
-R-

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=VYYXq1Ox4sk

[Dale]

I tend to view the Mendellian/Darwinian view of natural selection as the blueprint to genetics, whereas Lamarckian theory accounts for the traits that seem to be inherited in a manner not descriptively laid out in the chromosomes.

These two theories, when paired, complete the puzzle in a much more astute manner than traditional natural selection on its own. Of course, there are wild-cards in this grand mix, as well, such as the possibility of an extraterrestrial "meddling" of our genome many eons ago. But for the most part, Darwin's theory holds together the framework of genetics, and Lamarck's theory, or epigenetics, accounts for inheritance and influence of the environment/consciousness.

[Revere]

Dale,

These two theories, when paired, complete the puzzle in a much more astute manner than traditional natural selection on its own. Of course, there are wild-cards in this grand mix, as well, such as the possibility of an extraterrestrial "meddling" of our genome many eons ago. But for the most part, Darwin's theory holds together the framework of genetics, and Lamarck's theory, or epigenetics, accounts for inheritance and influence of the environment/consciousness.

Dale Probably....

But here is what is so exciting for me!!!

Epigenetics by definition means above genetics. So, it turns out that our cells can literally change in a proper or positive environment and alter our biology configuration through the nature of our consciousness and the larger collective conscious field and energy fields we live in. Natural selection or luck of the draw only gives a base starting point for us at which our environment is then altering our cells and higher cell configurations right out of the gate. The rate of change/evolution in the cellular epigenetic paradigm is breath taking because we can change our conscious and subconscious thoughts and therefore massively accelerate and/or willfully control our personal situations (healing etc.).

It is a WOW for me. If it is new to you check it out.

Peace All,

-R-

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hLZ7GqWpEqM

[conk]

Yes Revere, Lipton's books are wonderful. Very educational and entertaining. I quite enjoyed them. Spontaneous Evolution is great too. Co-written with a comedian, it is both funny and stimulating.

[firstlook]

I just wanted to say that The topic of Darwin brings up the "mechanics of evolution". Responsive mechanisms at a cellular level that create new chromosomal DNA.

I'm not the one to start lecturing about this science stuff, but it seems that this is a good place to focus on.

Complicated subject from where I sit, so I need time to gather thoughts and learn stuff I ignored in class. lol.

It seems DNA is where the topic of Darwin really gets interesting.

How does DNA respond to a chemical environment that we all live in?

Quite a loaded question IMO that needs careful breaking down. Perhaps there are some here who are more ready for the task and explanations. lol

Just my brief thoughts about how to approach the subject.

Peace


P.S. It seems as much as this community loves to look at the consciousness angle of all things and its influence, sometimes we forget to look at the chemical process interaction. If we can clearly unlock the mechanics in a truthful way (especially at the DNA level), I think we would tap into even deeper understandings of consciousness at play.

[shadowstalker]

Darwin himself stated that for the most part his theories where flawed, I think it was stated in his book.

[Bill Ryan]

--------

Darwin's theory of natural selection is certainly only a tiny part of the larger, much more complex mechanism.

For a much more major factor, read Dale's excellent summary thread on the work of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck - highly recommended:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...863-Lamarckism

[aroundthetable]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ju-hIEcc02w

[shiva777]

if people aren't including ET interference and manipulation in earths evolution and her inhabitants evolution then they really have a very poor understanding of evolution..if people are claiming humans evolved from apes then they have NO idea about human evolution....the fundamental PHYSICS in which all things exist in this HOLOGRAM are an artifical manipulation that has changed the evolution of all life on earth for 100,000's of years and has been tweeked many times ..we are now entering a time where those PHYSICS are changing BACK to the original design...the zero point matrix

[king anthony]

Posted by shadowstalker (here)
Darwin himself stated that for the most part his theories where flawed, I think it was stated in his book.

This is very true... apparently, he 'took' such statements to his 'death bed'. Yet, the 'few' promoted the theory and some still follow the theory. The truth can be found with what the ancients knew; however, these truths most cannot handle, as human arrogance is not satisfied.