This week the University of Sheffield announced results of experiments which promulgate Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' theory. Scientists claim we humans continue to be subject to the forces and whims of natural selection like other species.
"We have shown advances have not challenged the fact that our species is still evolving just like all the other species 'in the wild,'" posited Dr Virpi Lummaa, from the University of Sheffield's department of animal and plant sciences. "It is a common misunderstanding that evolution took place a long time ago, and that to understand ourselves we must look back to the hunter-gatherer days of humans."
The study, however, was nebulous in terms of expressing precisely what 'evolutionary changes' they found from the church records of almost 6,000 Finns born between 1760 and 1849.
An interesting experiment and indeed correct in that we are still evolving, however to attribute it to the Victorian, matter-based, Darwinian model of evolution is backward-thinking and flawed given the recent leaps and bounds in metaphysical sciences and physical historical evidence disproving linear evolution. The ideology we randomly mutated from ocean slime to our knuckle-dragging neanderthal long-long lost cousins to our current incarnation is one that's been dogmatically accepted into mainstream evolutionary hegemony without challenge until recent years.
"If you take Darwinian theory, make a 'scientific' principal out of it, put it into political action, then you have something like Nazi Germany" states the pioneering Dr Bruce Lipton, author of Spontaneous Evolution. Lipton believes it's 'cooperation not competition' which are the hallmarks of most natural orders.
Speaking in context of the current human-related environmental destruction of the planet, "Much of this is related to the concept of us having arrived here as accident, when in fact it's the opposite, there was purpose and design in the process. The relevance is that when we bought into the Darwinian theory we bought into a way of life that's based on survival of the fittest, but the actual theory of evolution is survival of those that cooperate."
But if Darwin was wrong, that beardy fella on a cloud must have made us, right? Well, no.
The latest science suggests we are intelligently designed - not by some sentient humanistic being from on high - moreover a higher, energetic, source intelligence. Einstein's Unified Field theory equation was completed in 2007. The breakthrough proves everything: matter (which derives from energy, which is what we're made from) all natural laws and processes link to one underlying, unifying consciousness - aka, God, Source, Allah, Yaweh - pick your favourite.
According to John Hagelin, leading particle and quantum physicist, "Everything that's been discovered about the universe in modern science for the last 3 centuries can be systematically derived from the Unified Field's compact expression. The self interacting dynamics of unity at the basis of life's' diversity."
"The space between things isn't empty, it's full" claims maverick physicist Nassim Haramein whose groundbreaking expansion of the Unified Field theory is changing the face of physics as we know it. "We're bathing in energy which is the fundamental source of all creation. This was known by ancient civilisations but was lost due to the advancements of physics. My theories are starting to show the source of everything, all the material world, is mostly space. It's the medium that connects all things."
Quantum physicist Amit Goswami PhD supports the existence of a God consciousness, "The evidence for God is within us, but to see it we have to be subtle. To live it, we have to grow. Mystics, contrary to religionists, are always saying that reality is not two things - God and the world - but one thing, consciousness. The problem with science has always been that most scientists believe that science must be done within a different monastic framework, one based on the primacy of matter. Quantum physics showed us that we must change that myopic prejudice of scientists, otherwise we cannot comprehend quantum physics."
The problem with the Darwinian vs Creationist altercation is because it's so polarised. Atheists feel obliged to cling onto the Darwinian model because until now the only answer was a religious, faith-based one which they negate. Trouble is, in our logical, left-brain thinking society we view religious and ancient texts as literal rather than metaphorically encoded, hence their denunciation. For the sake of its remembrance, truth was often encrypted in fables, myths and legends. The highly-charged, energised space between things Haramein speaks of is what the ancients - and religious - call spirit.
One explicit way in which mankind is evolving for sure is in terms of our consciousness. From the Arab Spring, to #Occupy, to other measured dissent, there is a huge global shift and awakening to the corrupt, control system matrix we've been locked into for so long.
The Maya, who were acute astronomers, mathematicians and scientists knew this and their precise Long Count calendar not just tracked time, but evolution of consciousness. The much discussed end of it being December 21st 2012. Contrary to Hollywood fear-mongering, it doesn't connote the 'end of the world', moreover the transition into a more enlightened, evolved age.
Engineer and scientist Maurice Cotterell studied the Mayan cycles of human evolution and discovered they corresponded remarkably with his sunspot cycles of magnetic emissions. "Research was carried out confirming modulating magnetic fields caused genetic mutations in developing cells in test tubes." Begins Cotterell. "Here we have the mechanism whereby the sun's radiation affects the magnetic field of the earth then the magnetic field of the earth shuttles up the genes."
Everything is energy - including us. Life is the interaction of magnetic vibrational fields and our evolution is subject to the cosmos, not random selection. There have been peak sunspot emissions and coronal mass ejections in 2012 so it's little surprise humankind is awakening.
Unlike Darwin, the Maya, ancient Hindus and Hopi Indians recognised evolution/time as cyclical. There is overwhelming global, physical evidence that vast, advanced civilisations preceded us: the technology in which to create, many of today's engineers assert we do not possess.
Off the coast of Yonaguni Japan, India and Cuba there are giant sunken megalithic sites and pyramidal structures. In Bosnia Europe's first pyramid was discovered and dated to 10,000 years plus. Geologist Dr Robert Schoch has accurately dated the Sphinx to be 7-9,000BC - throwing our mainstream historical timeline into chaos and in need of serious re-writing.
Despite our spiritually-impotent, techno-worshipping race's arrogance that we're the height of all that's ever been, we are not actually the apex of human evolution, as Darwin's linear theory would have us believe. Primordial soup was never our ancestor. Dr Lummaa's archaic suggestion we should, "look back to the hunter-gatherer days of humans" to understand ourselves is dangerously reductionist. Yes the past can inform us, but by limiting our evolutionary learning using an old-world paradigm will only hinder progress. We can waste time searching for Darwin's 'missing link', but it will never be found.
Follow Ellen Grace Jones on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EllenGraceJones
Charles Darwin tarred, feathered by … Pirates!
Relevant: Charles Darwin the naturalist who set out the theory of evolution
Human Races May Have Biological Meaning, But Races Mean Nothing About Humanity
Once we get past semantics, the only important outcome is that which is shown to be factual through the scientific method, mathematics and observational data. Darwinism is a complete crock, along with the entire materialist ideology that holds that ongoing lucky mixes of chemicals are causing intelligent beings.
The darwinists have a had a free pass to spread a bizarre ideology at taxpayer expense without evidence for too long. Simply excluding all evidence that opposes your religious views (fundamentalist materialism) based on outdated definitions won't work much longer.
And Evolution has been updated constantly, as any competent person in the field would know. It moved on from Darwin ages ago. Darwin had some things right. He wasn't correct in everything, and no biologist makes such a claim. We have built the theory of inheritance on DNA, we see genetic links between close species, and can see genetically where species have diverged.
Ellen Grace Jones would do well to know her topic better. She needs a lot of study.
Intelligent Design is nothing like creationism. Creationism is Biblically based and claims that God made all life, without macroevolution. Intelligent Design states that ther best explanation based on the evidence is that there is some type of intelligent cause involved in life's origins, and ID does not oppose evolution.
Jones also did not oppose evolution so your comments about genetic links, while correct, do not present a counterpoint to her article. She opposes the "Darwinian" model of evolution, not evolution itself, and I do too.
Q: Why are there long necked giraffes?
A: Because all the short necked ones died.
At first pass this almost seems to make sense but after a few moments and a cup of coffee, you realize the Darwinists never really explained how long necked giraffes exist. If there ever really were short necked ones, they could explain their death, but death doesn't extend a neck.
Darwin falsely believed he had found a perpetual creation machine, but mathematicians do not agree in the least. Darwin credits random happenstance as his sole creator of new traits and species (a Luck Theory), but random changes cause nothing but an ambiguous, useless mess There is nothing more destructive than random chaos. It NEVER creates.
Ah, no, say the Darwinists, we have SELECTION! Doesn't that change everything? In a word, no. The only thing selection can do is either kill or get out of the way, but it can NOT create anything new. Nothing at all, good OR bad, can be created "by" selection because selection can only select that which already exists. To credit selection for evolution is illogical nonsense. Its like saying "We live because we didn't die."
So the Darwinists claim that random chaos causes complex functional order and that death causes life. Darwinism is the most destructive force imaginable.
You mentioned selection, so I see you are a Darwinist. So tell me, do you believe selection can cause new traits or new species? If so, how can it select something that doesnt already exust? Or if you agree it can only select a trait after it exists, then it can't cause the trait in the first place.
Like most Darwinists, I expect you to dodge the questions....
So chance introduces variety, and possibly some mechanical influence on genes in more complex organisms. Then natural selection slowly removes things. This slowly, over time, creates gradual change in a creature.
Your argument ignores half of what makes evolution happen - the introduction of new genes.
If new traits or species can emerge that are superior to the previous trait or species, then that really is the crux of the matter, not what comes later anyway. The megamillion dollar question is how do genetic upgrades keep happening? If mutations were random, they would literally never happen and destruction of order would ensue, as that is the only outcome of randomness. What Darwin got wrong is that he thought the phenotypical modifications were random but he didnt do the math
Nor the science nor the common sense.
I can't disagree with Jones, but she included so much here I don't know how to break it down. I like Lipton's comments that evolution has more to do with cooperation than competition. First off, competition for limited resources, when it does happen, is a cause of death, not life. Death of the unfit does not cause the life of the fit, anyway. Darwin's theory doesn't even make sense.
Jones did discuss a study showing that evolution is not a linear progression, but we have known this since Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium. We know what a Genomic Range is. She finished saying there is no missing link, but didn't explain how she knows this. Magnetics? I don't doubt that magnetism could affect genetics as we already know radiation and toxins can cause deformations, but how does this translate to Darwin being wrong? (And I agree Darwin was wrong.)
I just wish Jones had shown why Darwinism fails and why it should not be taught in schools as if it had any reality to it. If she had done so, HuffPo wouldn't have presented it.
I say that in a loving way - I agree entirely with the thrust of the comments.
And remember, if the universe didn't have patterns it would be impossible for anything that resembles what you are to exist and ask why it has patterns.
Is it possible to be more wrong?
We are so f**ked.