Lamarck and the Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics: a different theory of evolution

[Dale]

I would like to share several excerpts from a quite brief scholarly paper I wrote last month, and distributed to several friends. The topic concerns Lamarckism, or the study of "soft inheritance."

With regard to the new information from Charles, you may find this quite interesting, as certain elements of "soft inheritance" are actually valid, and closely studied by groups with such an interest.

*As a side note; several terms had to be changed/removed, and some sentences had to be slightly modified, but not in a way that changes the information in any aspect.

*Please do not distribute or claim any portion of this writing.

Introduction:


LAMARCKISM, EPIGENETICS, AND THE INFORMATIONAL PLANE

AN ABSTRACTED BRIEF


Jean Baptist Lamarck, a French biologist of the late 1700’s and early 1800’s, is commonly cited as designing the first theoretical basis concerning the evolution of biological organisms. His research takes note at a possibility of genetic changes, largely phenotypic, occurring over many generations. This later lead to discoveries by famous names such as Robert Chambers and Charles Darwin, inadvertently spawning the current understanding of natural selection.

Lamarckism:


The work of Jean Baptist Lamarck is centered around the notion that biological organisms can pass traits, acquired during their lifetime, onto their offspring and future generations. This theory falls under a blanket term of “soft inheritance,” though it only occupies a chief cornerstone of the much larger concept. An illustration of Lamarck’s theory would be as followed: A cheetah, at one time in past history, was not as fast as it currently is. Because the cheetah exercised it’s leg muscles more often than not, in the action of chasing prey, future generations became increasingly more quick.
His theory, commonly referred to as “Lamarckism,” is often regarded as pseudoscience by established researchers, disregarding their dependence on Lamarck’s original research and credible reports of distinguished scientists observing instances of Lamarckism.
For example, a common instance of a distinguished researcher observing a feat of Lamarckism would be the case of Ivan Pavlov. Pavlov notably observed that succeeding generations of dogs used in his now famous psychology experiments were much easier to condition than the generations before. They had acquired the traits that their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents had been conditioned to have.

Epigenetics and the Informational Plane:


Lamarckism ties into the relatively new study of epigenetics; or the study of inheritable changes in the expression of genetics outside the information contained within the DNA. Epigenetics, quite literally, states that phenotypes, or physical manifestations of genetic sequences, can be altered, turned on/off, or enhanced from an external source to the code itself. DNA is “controlled” by a source of signals originating from outside the bounds of the cell membrane, holding in place the strands of DNA being altered.
An interesting case of epigenetics, or for that matter, Lamarckism, was observed following the Dutch Famine of 1944. This widely studied case of epigenetics involved taking measurements of women pregnant during the famine. As expected, the women averaged a height below the population mean. What shocked scientists, leading to much further research, was that the children of these women, on average, grew up to be statically shorter than should be expected.
It is reasonable to assume a similarity between Lamarckism and epigenetics exists. Changes to the physical or mental structure of a biological organism can, and often do, carry forward through future generations. An acquired trait, whether it be shortness due to malnutrition or strong conditioning of specific learned behaviors, can be passed to future generations.
This is highly suggestive of an alternative theory concerning cellular, genetic, and physiological interactions. Of course, we are aware of a possible theory. Although such a field encompassing the bridged communications can be referred to by several names, the term “Informational Plane,” or IP, will be used - for simplicity sake. The IP is likely expressed through the conventional Zero Point Field, and is the force that “retains” the information carried through homeopathic treatments. Religious figures of antiquity have termed this plane “Aether,” and more recent Spiritualists have coined to it the name “Conscious Energy.” Wilhelm Reich, a psychoanalytic researcher of the 20th century, described Aetheric energy as fact, giving it the name “Orgone.” These terms describe an all-encompassing field carrying informational points in a way which suggests time may be a physical manifestation of such a field.
Though physical bodies cannot interact directly with the IP, DNA strands, on a microscopic level, act as “antennae,” receiving information contained within this field. DNA can, and is often, influenced by this field; just as it can be via environmental conditions within the body and specific proteins. As neural cells also communicate and receive information from the IP; thoughts, feelings, and emotions can directly modify the expression of DNA. Mental states, thus, have an epigenetic effect on DNA - to be passed onto future generations. The mindset and actions of a man will influence, epigenetically, the attributes of his sons, grandsons, and so-forth.

Footnotes:


The Zero Point Field became more commonly known following Ervin Laszlo’s research, describing the field as a carrier of all information, quoted as saying, “This quantum vacuum [the Zero Point Field] is the origin of mind and matter.”

Dr. L. O. Bygren’s thorough research into the influence of environmental conditions on heredity concludes that such conditions can, in fact, alter the genetics of future generations of offspring. For example, Bygren concluded, after studying two differing samples from a population of children in Overkalix, that the sample of children that overate during the growing season produced sons and grandsons who lived substantially shorter lives than the sample of children who did not overeat during the same season.

Dr. Ellen Langer, of Harvard University, isolated a sample of individuals over the age of 70, placed them, for extended periods of time, in a room decorated exactly as would be common in the 1950’s; taking note of the results. After one week of the participants visiting this room, a statistically significant, physiological change occurred. Many symptoms of aging were discovered to have clinically reversed. It is likely that the elderly individuals involved in this experiment tapped into a particular frame of the IP, physically re-living the time.

It is interesting to note that just as the future generations of Pavlov’s original dogs retained the submissive traits their ancestors acquired due to Pavlov’s conditioning, the same effect occurs in isolated groups of humans. A careful study reveals that particular family lines, usually well-placed in society, stretch far into antiquity; occurring via selective breeding patterns and preexisting knowledge of genetic capabilities. Such was likely done to keep specific traits, knowledge, and mindsets “within the family;” allowing desired phenotypes to flourish, while the undesirable phenotypes dwindle. This miniature experiment has had several thousand years to increase the strength of specific phenotypes, if not longer; and is also is likely to unconsciously take place outside of these family lines, more-so in an unappealing manner.

[DawgBone]

Very interesting!

[Zook]

I would like to share several excerpts from a quite brief scholarly paper I wrote last month, and distributed to several friends. The topic concerns Lamarckism, or the study of "soft inheritance."
With regard to the new information from Charles, you may find this quite interesting, as certain elements of "soft inheritance" are actually valid, and closely studied by groups with such an interest.
*As a side note; several terms had to be changed/removed, and some sentences had to be slightly modified, but not in a way that changes the information in any aspect.
*Please do not distribute or claim any portion of this writing.
Introduction:

Lamarckism:
[...]
Epigenetics and the Informational Plane:
[...]
Footnotes:

Interesting read. I saw a documentary a few years ago (about snow monkeys and inherited learned behavior) which discusses the same thing. Google morphogenetic field or morphic field (which I'm sure you've already done) and you'll find more interesting stuff. Is it safe to say there exists two grandfathers and schools of genetics: Lamarckian genetics versus Mendelian genetics? Mendel has ruled the roost; but perhaps Lamarck is catching up?

Humble thoughts from a lunar aquarian who finds the concept of the morphic field highly intriguing. Mind to matter.

:smow::typing::smow:

[Dale]

Is it safe to say there exists two grandfathers and schools of genetics: Lamarckian genetics versus Mendelian genetics? Mendel has ruled the roost; but perhaps Lamarck is catching up?

Very interesting point, for certain!

I often compare Mendelian and Lamarckian genetic theories much as I do the old duel between Nature and Nurture in developmental psychology.

With regard to Nature vs. Nurture, much evidence suggests both play a near-even role in the cognitive development of a child; each emphasizing a particular area; though each can be "pushed aside" due to an imbalance from the other side.

Mendelian genetics lay out the blueprint, as "Nature" does in developmental psychology; while Lamarckian genetics fine-tune the plan, just as the term "Nurture" does. However, at any given point, an imbalance may occur, tilting the scales either toward Mendelian or Lamarckian genetics.

[Dale]

And with regard to morphic fields, as suggested by Zook, have a look at biologist Rupert Sheldrake's introduction (http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/morphic_intro.html) to the subject posted on his website.

It's an interesting, yet simple, overview of the subject; quite related to this thread, for certain.

[yaksuit]

What an excellent thread!
This is a very apt supplement to the various threads regarding "Charles" and the "33".

I am sure your paper was well received Dale. :)

[Dale]

Let me expand on a small portion of the conclusion:


A careful study reveals that particular family lines, usually well-placed in society, stretch far into antiquity; occurring via selective breeding patterns and preexisting knowledge of genetic capabilities. Such was likely done to keep specific traits, knowledge, and mindsets “within the family;” allowing desired phenotypes to flourish, while the undesirable phenotypes dwindle. This miniature experiment has had several thousand years to increase the strength of specific phenotypes, if not longer; and is also is likely to unconsciously take place outside of these family lines, more-so in an unappealing manner.

Just as specific family lines, normally occupying positions of status, are selective of the way their genetic information is carried through to future generations; the same happens with those in the working class.

For example, in a more privileged family, such traits as strength, honor, pride, and nobility may be emphasized; becoming imprinted in a Lamarckian way, and carried through to proceeding generations in a classical, Mendelian fashion. On the other hand, a working family will do much the same, only with the emphasis unconsciously placed on traits such as grief, despair, servitude, and most crucially - hope.

[Tea]

Thank you for the interesting paper.


I would question though, as to whether these certain family lines are consciously aware that they are affecting their DNA through "Lamarckism". I suppose at the highest levels this could be the case. These individuals may have layed out the rules for the "sellective breeding patterns" these groups engage in.

I would also caution in saying that "Lamarckism" occuring to those outside the family lines is happening in an unappealing matter. That is very open to interpretation and also implies that "Lamarackism" occuring within these family lines is appealing, which I would disagree with.


Personally, the main importance of this paper is that it further supports the notion that we truly can affect our environments/DNA through our minds. This, in my opinion, should be the main focus at this point in time.

[Dale]

Hello, and I thank you for your interest.

Yes, certain "family lines" are aware of this principle, as well as the way it influences future generations, though not all members of such lines are as well-versed in the matter as those occupying a more prominent position.

And you're absolutely right; the focus of this brief is my informing the reader that the expression of our DNA can be influenced by external stimuli, such as mental states, conditioning, toxins, emotions, etc...

[Luke]

I always wondered how "Lamarckian" concepts are influenced by early childhood programming we all receive.
This is generally interesting as my hunch is the psychological "descendance" is as important as genetical one, and how they intertwine.

Also if we consider genetic code to be similar to computer one, one can expect to see many "if" clauses, designed to deal with constantly changing external conditions. Question is, how deep those clauses reach (but seeing genetically-compatible dogs and the amount of phenotypes produced from it, they must multitude of them).

The other question is how introducing of incompatible genome happens (I do not buy neo-darwinian "bunch-of-parts"+"milion years of quakes"=747, and I do not buy the "someone did" it argument .. as we do not gain anything from it- pure saviourism). Simply there are limits to which one set of clauses can handle, and amount of copy-errors it can have before cease of functioning. Given that Earth changes alot, and we are finding life everywhere, there must be mechanism for introducing upgrades within the system.

Great thread, Dale :)
(as usual)

BTW: Working class conditioning can introduce hopelessnesses and grief, but it can also introduce professionalism and working ethics. For anyone dabbling in social engineering the border and stimuli between the two are crucial.. problem, for 'Them' is that professionalism and ethics often go with independent spirit (needed for decision-making associated with high-class work), yet quest for "worker bee" continues.

When you are building new society, you need to fill all the slots in the machine, or it simply would not work.

[bluestflame]

ie , though each cell has that divine spark within it , like us it can be "distracted" by other influences and get caught up in an illusionary state , reacting to conditions in a physical way that are not actually physical

[chelmostef]

This may seem like a silly question but does our DNA code/human genome change at all from birth to death?

[Dale]

This may seem like a silly question but does our DNA code/human genome change at all from birth to death?

Yes, these are commonly referred to as "mutations." DNA can be mutated from a number of external sources such as pollution, smoking, or specific chemicals; but also, from a number of more "epigenetic" sources, such as conscious choices, mindsets, and conditioning.

[chelmostef]

This may seem like a silly question but does our DNA code/human genome change at all from birth to death?

Yes, these are commonly referred to as "mutations." DNA can be mutated from a number of external sources such as pollution, smoking, or specific chemicals; but also, from a number of more "epigenetic" sources, such as conscious choices, mindsets, and conditioning, .



Thank you Dale, that really could open a can of worms for humanity.

I was wondering the other day if we are born with our minds as a direct product of our DNA. An example would be two twins with identical DNA how simular would their minds be?

I came to the conclusions there are many factors at work and Lamarckism is a very intresting factor in this.

[Dale]

I came to the conclusions there are many factors at work and Lamarckism is a very intresting factor in this.

Very much so.

As I said a bit earlier in this thread, Mendelian genetics lay out the blueprint, while Lamarckian, or epigenetic, factors work to fine-tune the plans over time. Much like Nature vs. Nurture in developmental psychology.

When one understands that they're not at the mercy of their inherited genes, a feeling of empowerment ought to accompany such a conclusion!

[Carmody]

Scientific study article appears today, that supports this theory.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-stress-extensive-genetic-rewriting.html

"A team of scientists in the United States, South Korea, and Switzerland has uncovered a vast, complex network of 160,000 genetic interactions within yeast cells that changes dramatically when the cells are subjected to stress."


The “rewiring” of this genetic network is much more extensive than scientists previously thought. About 70 percent of the genetic interactions that took place when the cells were under stress did not take place in normal, unperturbed cells.

“The stress response is dynamic,” says Nevan Krogan, PhD, an associate professor of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology at UCSF and an affiliate of the California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences (QB3). “In the cell, things are constantly changing and functional modules are being rewired.”

Krogan and Trey Ideker, PhD, chief of the Genetics Division at the UC San Diego School of Medicine, led the study, which was described in the journal Science last month, with first author Sourav Bandyopadhyay, PhD – a fellow at QB3 and the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center – and colleagues at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Seoul National University in Korea, and ETH Zurich in Switzerland.

The new work has implicated several genes that were never before known to be involved in stress response, with immediate implications for scientists who study biological responses to stress, the authors say. The technique used also may prove useful for studying a wide variety of human diseases, by providing a new way of examining broadly how cells deal with stresses, diseases, drugs, or other challenges.

How a cell is wired genetically – the exact way its thousands of genes interact and “talk” to one another – is a critical issue for understanding the inner workings of the cell. In the last decade or so, the revolution in DNA sequencing has led to a wealth of new information about which genes are present and active in many types of cells.

Often this data is static, however, and is limited to information about which genes are present but not how these genes interact or how these interactions change over time. The difference is analogous to comparing a photograph with a video.

Imagine a busy playground full of children in the summer. A psychologist examining child behavior might find a photo of the playground useful. It would reveal the structures, the people, and perhaps many of the human interactions. But a video might reveal rich details not seen in the static image, such as which kids are playing with each other, which are playing by themselves, which adults seated on the benches are attentive, and which are distracted. A video might even reveal how a dramatic change to the environment, like the sound of an approaching ice cream truck, alters the children’s play. The same is true for the landscape of a living cell, says Krogan.

[sunnyrap]

Dale, I shared your paper with a local friend who is a practicing psychologist and former Episcopalian priest, who has now become very disaffected with organized religion from any quarter. Therefore I was quite surprised by his whole hearted embracing of orthodox academia's acceptance of Mendelssohn's genetics and dismissal of Lamarck's as 'unsubstantiated', except that I imagine his indoctrination by academia is more insidious than he's aware of. I'm wondering if you could share some background research on Lamarck? I am a great fan of Dr. Lipton, Gregg Braden et al and prefer to think, especially since I'm trying to overcome a genetic-level 'disorder', that their position has real substance. Thanks so much for your contribution.

[Dale]

I'm wondering if you could share some background research on Lamarck? I am a great fan of Dr. Lipton, Gregg Braden et al and prefer to think, especially since I'm trying to overcome a genetic-level 'disorder', that their position has real substance. Thanks so much for your contribution.

Certainly!

Here's a link (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html) to a biographical article on Lamarck. This is from UC Berkeley, so it's slanted a bit toward Darwinian theory.

It does lay out a good introduction to Lamarck and his work, without having the trouble of reading through an old, French textbook.

[tru3]

i just wanted to comment again on your paper; to wit:


This is highly suggestive of an alternative theory concerning cellular, genetic, and physiological interactions. Of course, we are aware of a possible theory. Although such a field encompassing the bridged communications can be referred to by several names, the term “Informational Plane,” or IP, will be used - for simplicity sake. The IP is likely expressed through the conventional Zero Point Field, and is the force that “retains” the information carried through homeopathic treatments. Religious figures of antiquity have termed this plane “Aether,” and more recent Spiritualists have coined to it the name “Conscious Energy.” Wilhelm Reich, a psychoanalytic researcher of the 20th century, described Aetheric energy as fact, giving it the name “Orgone.” These terms describe an all-encompassing field carrying informational points in a way which suggests time may be a physical manifestation of such a field.
Though physical bodies cannot interact directly with the IP, DNA strands, on a microscopic level, act as “antennae,” receiving information contained within this field. DNA can, and is often, influenced by this field; just as it can be via environmental conditions within the body and specific proteins. As neural cells also communicate and receive information from the IP; thoughts, feelings, and emotions can directly modify the expression of DNA. Mental states, thus, have an epigenetic effect on DNA - to be passed onto future generations. The mindset and actions of a man will influence, epigenetically, the attributes of his sons, grandsons, and so-forth.


here are some ruminations of epigenetics (http://vb.spiritual-nature.com/showpost.php?p=29891&postcount=84); this is a recent model, and i'd be very interested in other sources on this subject.

edit: if you can't see the link it's on the word 'epigenetics' :o

[Rainbow44]

I love the phrase.......you don't have a soul........you are a soul. You have a body!!!
Great motto to keep within so we can remember ourselves.
Thank you for sharing this........I love it!

Rainbow

[kinerkid]

I'm curious if anyone has mapped a person's dna from birth to death and actually noticed any mutations? You hear all the time "our dna is changing, junk dna is being activated, etc. amongst new age circles. Anyone aware of any veracity to these claims?

Oh ps -Dale. Thanks for this article. I enjoyed it and the moment I started reading it I thought "morphic fields" LOL.

Do you think Lamarckism correlates at all to the 100th monkey theory? That obviously impacts on a wider range - potentially a whole species rather than just a family or group in close proximity.

[johnf]

Thanks Dale,
This is a set of ideas whose idea has come. When I was a child I had a few "paranormal" incidents which I still remembered but were partially suppressed.
The one that really stands out is from 4th grade when I was given what is probably a standard lecture on evolution. I was strongly interested in animals, and natural history already, so I was much more attentive than usual. Well the teacher was explaining how the legs of a predator got longer over generations and that the predators born with longer legs survived better etc.
At that point I experienced a "voice" or awareness that said there is something in the animal that knows what changes to make, and I was entirely convinced of this being the truth rather than the more materialistic slant I was being told. I was so excited by this that I nearly blurted it out, but seemed to know better and I felt like it was ok to believe this idea.
This was in the sixties and I pursued a major in Zoology later, and dropped out when I had some sort of spiritual existential crisis. But I read a lot of books that discussed things like the hundreth monkey phenomenon, and later the idea of morphogenetic feilds. Then more recently I saw a few Camelot videos that mentioned the information feild.

The future of this subject has a lot of possibilities, perhaps we are nearing the point where we can resist using it for eugenics and cloning super soldiers "without souls" or various other
childish things. The Russian discoveries about frequencies and language being able to change DNA is another piece of the puzzle that hopefully will be allowed to fall into place here.
Can't wait to see what happens next!

[David Hughes]

Here's links to a decent documentary about Epigenetics. The total length of the documentary is about 50 minutes, and it's well worth a watch:

toRIkRa1fYU

iUyEmr1oTTE

d9SB0teMQo0

Kc7LXkuebCI

peGDaBcpIIQ

[Cottage Rose]

And with regard to morphic fields, as suggested by Zook, have a look at biologist Rupert Sheldrake's introduction (http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/morphic_intro.html) to the subject posted on his website.

It's an interesting, yet simple, overview of the subject; quite related to this thread, for certain.

Hi Dale:

This is an interesting informative thread. I enjoyed your correlation between Lamarck and Lipton. I have been a fan of both Sheldrake and Lipton for quite a while.

Recently, while reading an Avalon Reincarnation thread, a question occured to me. I remembered this thread and thought readers here might have useful comments on my question. I have been contemplating the fact that so many seem to place a great weight on the validity of hypnotic regressions. Having studied hypnosis history and practice and having spent time working for a clinical psychologist who was a hypnotherapist, I have always questioned regression results. For example, how much of a part do the expectations and consciousness of the hypnotist play?.

I wonder if the reason why so many "between life" regression experiences are similar might just be that a strong morphic field was created and became a popular "place" to go during these regressions. Could this be a only a morphic field created by a strong consciousness?

Personally, I would make some serious changes to the standard version if I were manifesting. The described "welcome party", "schoolroom", and "body supermarket" experience described by Newton and others would not be my first choice.

Perhaps it was Bob Monroe's Gateway experience that led me to these feelings. An example would be his description of his old "home" where the same music and clouds rolled by. The same games were played. He was bored and realized he didn't want to return to that "home" after all. If there is artistic expession in 3D, surely we all don't wind up in the same boring place in higher dimensions.

Any thoughts?

For any who have not heard Sheldrake, McKenna and Abraham's Trialogues, they are most entertaining. Free mp3's are here:
http://www.sheldrake.org/Trialogues/index.html

[Sync]

Dale,

Thank you for your post. I love Lamarck and where his information is leading current research. If you don't mind, I’m gonna drop some didactic lovin’ up in this space right about now. Sorry about the length.

Within a psychic, psychological, or psychopathological context, epigenetics or Gene-Environment Correlation (rGE) is comprised of three modes of generational transmission: Passive, Active and/or Evocative.

Dale, as you mentioned, one's environment can influence one's genetics and alter one's DNA. For example, an abused child will have an elevated ability to detect potential threats. This state of hyperarousal originates from an overactive Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis (HPA Axis), which essentially results in a feedback loop of increased output of cortisol into various structures of the developing brain. This state of hypercortisolism has a catabolic (degrading) effect upon proteins, thus creating various amino acids and peptides that can effect genetic transcription and translation from RNA-DNA, which can result in the formation of a "new" heritable trait.

Our hypothetical abused child will be able to have an increased vigilance and threat detective system due to synaptic sculpting, yet other parts of his brain will develop in a dysfunctional and dysregulated manner (I’m looking at you, Charles… just joking, you’re a great guy). Elevated levels of cortisol are toxic to brain tissue and can lead to apoptosis and synaptic pruning (Neural cell death). Often times, the child’s ability to regulate their emotions will be dramatically diminished.

If this child (A) grows up and has his own child (B), child B will likely have inherited a vulnerability that trends towards hypercortisolism. In addition, child A may create a home environment of fear and suspicion, which further exploits B’s vulnerability towards a hypercortisolic (aggressive-paranoid-hypervigilant-no bueno) state. This is an example of Passive rGE.

Active rGE is when child B, due to the partial influence of his inherited vulnerability, decides to actively seek out environments or engage in behaviors that will further exacerbate his genetics. For example, B, trending towards paranoia, begins to research fringe topics and finds himself involved with a secret society, which may further increase his hypervigilance and paranoia.

Evocative rGE is when child B, exhibits a behavior (that is partially due to his genetics) that evokes a response from someone that exacerbates his hypercortisolistic state. For example, child B (now an adolescent) decides to join an online forum. In this forum he acts out and accuses many people of belonging to the PTB due to his schema-consistent tendency towards hypervigilant threat detection. He ticks a bunch of people off and gets banned from the forum, which increases his anger, his paranoia, and generally makes his life even worse than it was before.

All of the aforementioned modes of epigenetic transmission can be stable across many generations. This is why people can be bred to be psychic, warriors, or psychic warriors, or just plain elitist a**holes (that are unbalanced in their abilities; therefore vulnerable to and controllable by myriad influences). It can all be explained without leaping to a quantum component.

Although a quantum component exists throughout a human’s cognitive ability, good ol’ fashion breeding can explain most epigenetics.

Even if one breaks the cycle of ritual abuse, monozygotic and dizygotic twin studies produce concordance rates that prove that the genetic component of behavior is very real.

However, focused intent is the key and various practices can reset (so to speak) aspects of genetic expression and can activate previously dormant parts of the brain. For example, recent research (hot off the presses) on the effects of meditation upon the brain has discovered some startling evidence of significant neural tissue growth in a short amount of time. Brain imaging of people who meditated for 8 weeks showed a 9-fold increase of neural density in the left hippocampus versus that of the control group (Holzel, et al./Journal of Psychiatric Research: Neuroimaging 191 [2011] 36-43). This study does not even mention how meditation affects the limbic system and the nucleus accumbens (ahem… your pleasure center).

The hippocampus is involved in the storage and recall of cognitive and emotional memory. This “implicit” memory is the type of memory that trauma survivors cannot recall in a conscious manner; the type of memory that may surface in the form of intrusive dreams. “Threat” (or abuse) alters the ability of the hippocampus and connected cortical areas to “store” certain types of cognitive information.

The moral of the story is: If you think you have been abducted, ritually abused, stressed, scared, messed with, whatever… meditate to find your answers.

Meditation unlocks the quantum component (not forum surfing, not monoatomic gold, not Ashayana Dean’s pricey channeled (but not channeled) freakishly expensive “information,” not baby Jesus, not David Wilcock’s terrible music, not web spider bot reports, not Dan Burisch’s magic glowing crystals, not Pete Peterson’s magic finger thingy, not Stewart Swerdlow’s hyperdimensional language [or recycled train hobo symbols], and not anything else that anyone is selling).

It so simple.

Phew.

[Dale]

The moral of the story is: If you think you have been abducted, ritually abused, stressed, scared, messed with, whatever… meditate to find your answers.

I agree fully.

There is an abundance of silly (and expensive!) mechanisms for retaining lost memories, facing them, and moving forward; most of which simply try to replicate the results of an honest, mindful session of deep meditation.

Regardless of Mendelian or Lamarckian genetic factors; we are conscious beings who can choose to either be at the mercy of what has been passed on to us, or we can set a new president by overcoming the shadows of our distant history.


[post regarding reincarnation, regression, and morphogenic fields] Any thoughts?

I do believe we have what many philosophers and religious figures refer to as "past lives." However, many memories retrieved via means of hypnotic regression seem to closely resemble subconscious methods of coping with past distress, an intermingling with the background energy/field in which consciousness likely operates from, or are simply scenarios coached by the hypnotist.

I do feel some cases of past life recall are genuinely retrieved from hypnotic regressions, but because hypnosis is a difficult art to master, and previous lives tend to be closely tied to the subconscious feedback loops of both ourselves and those nearby, it is highly difficult to pull such a memory out in a complete form.

[Icecold]

I do believe we have what many philosophers and religious figures refer to as "past lives." However, many memories retrieved via means of hypnotic regression seem to closely resemble subconscious methods of coping with past distress, an intermingling with the background energy/field in which consciousness likely operates from, or are simply scenarios coached by the hypnotist.

I do feel some cases of past life recall are genuinely retrieved from hypnotic regressions, but because hypnosis is a difficult art to master, and previous lives tend to be closely tied to the subconscious feedback loops of both ourselves and those nearby, it is highly difficult to pull such a memory out in a complete form.

As a long time practitioner of hypnosis, I would totally agree with the above statement. I have never relied on hypnosis to reveal past life material, nor would I promote the idea. However, hypnosis is an extremely valuable tool for self-improvement.

[modwiz]

I'm curious if anyone has mapped a person's dna from birth to death and actually noticed any mutations? You hear all the time "our dna is changing, junk dna is being activated, etc. amongst new age circles. Anyone aware of any veracity to these claims?

Oh ps -Dale. Thanks for this article. I enjoyed it and the moment I started reading it I thought "morphic fields" LOL.

Do you think Lamarckism correlates at all to the 100th monkey theory? That obviously impacts on a wider range - potentially a whole species rather than just a family or group in close proximity.

I hope half a month isn't too long an interval for a reply. :p

It is my guess/intuition/knowing that the DNA changes are, or will be, occurring in the 'junk' areas. This is where our "latent" and/or forgotten talents lie. It is also where "spare parts" can be cobbled together for as yet unseen/unknown ablities. It is in the "junk" areas that we get to play creator or, more aptly, co-creator.

I believe the morphogenetic field that our bodies source a lot of their epigenetic information/code from is the field where 100 monkey effects have their impact.

It was a biologist named Rupert Sheldrake with his "A New Science of Life" book, first edition in 1981 who posited the idea of morphic resonance and the morphogenetic field that this resonance both derived from and created in a mutual reinforcing feed back loop.

He was ridiculed by almost every eminent and garden variety biologist of his day. His later editions included apologies from some of these same deriders. From what I can tell, Lamarckism builds on this theme, broadens and elucidates it, all the while adding new and useful terms like epigenetics and soft inheritance.

An online google version of the Sheldrake book is here. http://books.google.com/books?id=F75gxeTBgocC&printsec=frontcover&dq=rupert+sheldrake+morphic+resonance&source=bl&ots=lcNZPpsyQf&sig=O9yjGp7sQKG69IIkPSuZUCV6OHA&hl=en&ei=sviXTbTyEImH0QGtqbiCDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Be warned, this is dry, high brow academic research. The other thing Lamarck gave us was a more enjoyable and easily apprehended language to present these ideas to us.

(Note to Cottage Rose, those trialogues sound like something I will have to find the time for.)

[Cottage Rose]

I also enjoyed this video of Thomas Campbell's keynote speech at the Monroe institute a year or so ago. He speaks about his association with Monroe and the early days of the institute:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MQMsFEAbj8&feature=related

[Carmody]

I can't remember the gentleman's name but there is a book that contains information about how the Hebrew language actually corresponds to the shapes it produces in a given medium (sand, etc) when vibrated by the directed sonic or vibrational energies of that particular word or letter. In effect, if one used a amplified sonic 'note' of the given Hebrew letter to excite a layer of sand on a broad or similar materiel that can be excited by vibration, a pattern would form in the sand and it would be the given Hebrew letter. When one takes this to the subject of DNA and other things it does not directly say anything at all but it does leave the door open. That old line, 'sound is god' comes to mind. "all is vibration", etc.

[James]

The hawk/goose effect and innate behavior.

A particular movement of a cut-out shape that elicits a predictable, measurable, and genetically-sophisticated response... And we have our genetic hawks, too.

[Bill Ryan]

The hawk/goose effect and innate behavior.

A particular movement of a cut-out shape that elicits a predictable, measurable, and genetically-sophisticated response... And we have our genetic hawks, too.

Yes. :)

Just a note here to bump this most interesting thread.

Lamarckism is the theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. The 'hawk-goose effect' that Variant mentions is a perfect example: it's highly unlikely to be the product of random genetic changes that optimize survival of a few lucky individuals, one at a time. It's FAR FAR more likely to be the result of generations of geese that have all (wisely!) learned to fear hawks. :)

The cut-out shape reference is that if a goose (or, more dramatically, a baby goose) sees a silhouette that vaguely looks like a hawk, it'll respond the same way, with the panic-and-hide reflex.

It's the inheritance of learned behavior from generations past, and nothing at all to do with Darwinian evolution (natural selection). But it's not accepted by mainstream biologists because no biophysical mechanism is known that could work this way. (Rupert Sheldrake, however, with his theory of Morphic Fields, accounts for it perfectly.)

[James]

Yes!

There are really three minds that need to be read as one in understanding biological evolution: Michael Lerner, Alfred Wallace, and Rupert Sheldrake. Wallace describes the actions that stretch a population, Lerner the mechanisms that push it back together, and Sheldrake the methods that record it for future refinement (because this is a perpetual process that seems to stretch into infinity in both directions!)

Natural selection, genetic homeostasis, and morphic resonance - respectively.

Taking this evolutionary trident to our hawk/goose theory, what are our genetic hawks, and who knows about them enough to litter our world with their cardboard cut-outs?

[Bill Ryan]

Taking this evolutionary trident to our hawk/goose theory, what are our genetic hawks, and who knows about them enough to litter our world with their cardboard cut-outs?

Here are a couple of trivial examples, but they're funny. AND they apply. :)

10 years ago, in the UK, I was driving down the motorway (freeway), going quite fast: maybe 15-20 mph over the limit. Enough to get a ticket, for sure.

In the distance, parked on the hard shoulder, I saw a police car. So I immediately slowed right down.

As I passed it, I saw it was just a painted plywood image. Not a real car at all. But like the goose seeing the hawk silhouette, my fear reflex had kicked in straight away. :)

I later read that the same strategy had been deployed outside some big department stores. Life-size, painted plywood images of policemen had been positioned by the doors.

Anyone could see they were wooden, and not real. But the rate of shoplifting still dropped.

~~~

This isn't necessarily just logical, cognitive behavior. I suspect it's something to do with generations-old, accumulated human anxiety about being unfairly persecuted by brutal authority — maybe with far nastier consequences in the past than now.

[James]

I'm going to keep kicking this can, so here's an amusing anecdote from my own life.

I remember the first time I cooked Brussels sprouts. We never had them growing up, so I had no idea how to prepare a plate of Brussels sprouts. I figured I'd just boil them in a pot, melt in a little butter, and top them with some pepper.

Before putting them in the water to boil, I rinsed them in the sink and put them on a cutting board. I don't know why I felt the urge to, but before putting them into the pot, I cut little crosses into them.

They turned out rather insipid, so I never repeated the dish, but today, I happened to be reading about Medieval cooking, and learned about an old superstition where Brussels sprouts were ridded of their demons by cutting tiny crosses into them before being prepared. This practice ended up becoming more commonplace in later years and even persists today in parts of the world.

Like the little goose with the innate fear of the hawk, I suppose I may have responded in a Lamarckian way to the Brussels sprouts.

[James]

A key component to Lamarck’s theory is the influence of vast amounts of time on the genetic code of a species.

We know from fairly recent studies on rodents that epigenetic changes can be passed to offspring after only one generation - and these changes can persist for many more generations in some cases.

When genetic pressure and time are increased, the Lamarckian effect only becomes stronger.

When we see generations of grandparents, parents, children, and grandchildren growing up under certain environmental stressors, epigenetic changes snowball and can lead to changes that eventually look more Darwinian than Lamarckian. A new species can be categorized.

But the key the guardians of this process are most uncomfortable to let become known openly is how quickly this process can be altered. It takes just one generation, with sufficient effort, mentally and chemically, to undue several generations previous of Lamarckian baggage. We can “hack” genetic homeostasis just as we can CRISPR-Cas our way toward infinity.

The root of any coverup witnessed on the global stage has little to do with religious, socioeconomic, or political reasonings, and all to do with the total annihilation of any centralized, unbalanced control structure that would occur should we all realize and act upon our truest potential and sovereignty.

[silvanelf]

Another article about the connection between epigenetics and morphogenetic fields -- emphasis mine:


However, it is not the case that fertilised eggs start with epigenetic clean slates. One of the important discoveries epigeneticists have made is that 'junk' DNA, which was previously thought to be redundant, plays an important role in gene expression. Furthermore, the Epigenetic Markings On the 'Junk' Inheritance System (EMOJIS) do not get wiped off in the fertilised egg. EMOJIS are needed in order to trigger the epigenetic markings on the genes which cause cell differentiation. This implies that EMOJIS are the ultimate controller of epigenetics and the recorder of epigenetic changes. In other words, EMOJIS form an inheritable Epigenetic System which controls the epigenetic markings on genes in different cell types. That controls gene expression, so the Epigenetic System is responsible for genetic organisation. Any changes to the epigenetics in different cell types as a consequence of experience can accumulate as altered EMOJIS and get passed on to any replicas. The only problem is that the production of replicas by cell division is a localised business. Skin cells produce skin cells and only sperm-line cells produce sperm.

Epigeneticists can offer no mechanisms whereby the changes to EMOJIS in body cells get transmitted, via the fertilised egg, to the next generation. And that is what is needed in order to explain Lamarckian inheritance in sexually-reproducing species. Since 1981 Rupert Sheldrake's hypothesis, which I support in its essential premise, has been that the answer lies in some as-yet-undetectable communication system which he called morphic fields. If epigeneticists suggested that their template effect might be 'at a distance' rather than just in situ, that would have been enough, but they probably feel that such a suggestion would be moving into Sheldrake territory, and hence be scientifically unacceptable. However, as I see it, they have got to move into Sheldrake territory.

http://www.hughdower.com/essays/lamarckian-inheritance-from-epigenetics/

[silvanelf]

Another interesting article about Lamarck's theory and epigenetics.

By the way the article contains some snide remarks about evolutionary psychology. This one made my day:



"It [evolutionary psychology] explained music and art and why we reward senior executives with top-floor corner offices (because we evolved to want a clear view of our enemies approaching across the savannah)."

The article refers to a book by David Shenk: "The Genius in All of Us: New Insights into Genetics, Talent, and IQ"


Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong

-- snip --

But Lamarck was scorned for a much more general apparent mistake: the idea that lifestyle might be able to influence heredity. "Today," notes David Shenk, "any high school student knows that genes are passed on unchanged from parent to child, and to the next generation and the next. Lifestyle cannot alter heredity. Except now it turns out that it can . . ."

Epigenetics is the most vivid reason why the popular understanding of evolution might need revising, but it's not the only one. We've learned that huge proportions of the human genome consist of viruses, or virus-like materials, raising the notion that they got there through infection – meaning that natural selection acts not just on random mutations, but on new stuff that's introduced from elsewhere. Relatedly, there is growing evidence, at the level of microbes, of genes being transferred not just vertically, from ancestors to parents to offspring, but also horizontally, between organisms. The researchers Carl Woese and Nigel Goldenfield conclude that, on average, a bacterium may have obtained 10% of its genes from other organisms in its environment.

-- snip --

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong

[Bill Ryan]

In this highest-quality conversation between Chris Martenson and Brett Weinstein (Martenson is a toxicologist and Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist, both PhDs), Lamarck's view is brought up at 57:00, citing experimental information presented by Chris Martenson that I'd been unaware of.

It looks like the role of DNA adaption to environmental events, and then passed on to offspring, is becoming an accepted mechanism. That's exactly what Lamarck maintained 200 years ago.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU_KpBzFrcY

[Bill Ryan]

:bump: :bump: :bump: