Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution or Devolution
Donald Thomas
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 4 (188048)
02-24-2005 6:53 AM


Evolution or Devolution?
The origin of species debate has fascinated me for many years. I have read widely on the subject and until last month I never had any answers that satisfied my mind. I was always left with more questions than answers. However after reading a recently reprinted book by author Nigel Kerner called The Song of the Greys the answers finally outweighed the questions.
Kerner breathes a breath of fresh air into the stagnancy of the evolution/creationism debate. He offers a third alternative namely — DEVOLUTION.
It is his contention that within a universe subject to the second law of thermodynamics (which states that all atomic states become more and more chaotic with time, through a process known as the ‘entropic drift’) the concept that the underbase of living systems is one of evolution to states of betterment is nonsensical: It is complete lunacy to have an entropic force that is busy dismantling atoms, from prior ordered states into greater and greater states of randomness and chaos with time (the Second Law Of Thermodynamics) and at the same time claim that all things are going from good to better, through a series of fortuitous accidents. It is our vanity that does not allow us to see the TRUTH and that is IT IS ALL ONE WAY -DOWN. Everything rots. We rot the moment we are conceived. It is a cast iron standard bearer basic law of biology, in the Universe of Parts. Our Universe.
The book cites as contradictions to evolutionary theory the facts that approximately 95% of the human genome is redundant, and that roughly the same percentage of the human brain is also dormant. If evolutionary theory were correct and development were based on adaptations to the present environment why would we have developed such a huge brain for potential use in the future! Could it perhaps be the case that the large brain and the large genome are leftovers from the past, from superior states of humanity that once existed and used the full scope of brain and DNA?
Here is a quote from the book:
I am saying that EVOLUTION to betterment as it is generally accepted in Darwinian terms is bunkum. I am saying that it is likely to be EVOLUTIONARY-DEVOLUTION. In other words evolution within the overall format of DEVOLUTION where platforms of effect stabilise to the best possible outlay (such as survival of the fittest) as they drift down to more and more states of chaotic amelioration. They have to drift down in this way because they come from a prior state of ultimate order and are assembled thus before the entropic engine of doom that is our Universe breaks them apart in line with the Second Law Of Thermodynamics.
Nigel Kerner has some common ground with the creationists and the evolutionists but he also has many disagreements with both. He accepts that evolutionary processes do take place but only within the context of the overall drift of devolution, evolution within devolution. Like the creationists he contends that the only logical origin for the coherence and order of living systems in an environment subject to entropic dismemberment is a source outside of that environment, a source that is not subject to entropy and therefore by definition — not of the physical universe. However, unlike the creationists he does not see that source as a ‘creator God’ who chose to place us in the physical universe. Rather he sees creation as an implicit result of the fact that the infinite potential of the ‘universe of the whole’ to know all options had to also include the only potential that could not be achieved within its whole, altogether state. Namely : The potential to know separation from the state of separation . That potential can only be fulfilled in the context of a physical universe:
You might have noticed that I have tried not to personalise GODHEAD by representing it as a ‘being’. There are too many anthropocentric connotations to view it in this way. Too many connections with the European medieval sexist and racist mythology of a white man with a flowing white beard, dispensing all kinds of damnation to those unfortunates who incurred his wrath and favour to favourites and courtiers who praise his name enough. Buddhistic philosophy, while not indenting a personalised anthropomorphic GODHEAD, describes and clearly implies a final neutral state of ultimate being that may well be taken for GODNESS, if you like. This is to my mind, as I have said before, a much more accurate description of the final existential quantum.
So Kerner’s unique contention is: that the line of derivation of all living beings is the complete opposite to what is claimed in EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. We did not evolve up to man from the Seaworm. We DEVOLVE and continue to devolve to our own variety of Seaworm. The ones that are there now are the ends of other lines of superior beings and species that have over billions of years come down to be these seaworms from inaugural geno-types. With a view to all the palaeontological and genetic evidence that has been gathered, all the geno-types of man found thus far are ENDS of the lines of GODMAN or SPIRITMAN. In other words each distinct genus branched off from the original First Adam and First Eve and as they devolved through the aeons they ended their humanoid aspect and became apes. Godbeing came into the Universe in the very special way and form I have outlined previously and all the lines of being all over the Universe come from this original Godbeing.
This would be so whether the Universe had a once and for all single origin point or multiple origin points constantly happening. We are dealing with the conversion, or sublimation, of Spirit-Being to Matter-Being. The conversion of the status of what is not of atoms to what IS of atoms and all the stages in-between wherever, or however, the origination point occurs..
How do we see this as reflected in the genetic ancestry of Man. Is there any evidence from the fossil record of Man and other scientific derivational means, that substantiates this. I believe there is evidence that points tantalisingly to a distinct possibility that what I am postulating may well be true.
.Jonathan Losos of Washington University in Missouri has done some molecular detective work which has produced results which are in defiance of accepted theories of evolution.1 To understand lizard ancestry, Losos examined mitochondrial DNA from the species on two different islands, Puerto Rico and Jamaica. Mitochondrial DNA is passed only from mother to offspring via the cytoplasm of the egg. So it can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories without the complication of contributions from paternal DNA. The DNA data suggested that remarkably similar events took place on each island, however, says Oxford zoologist Paul Harvey, that’s despite the fact that these places have important differences in their plants, predators and climate. It is highly unlikely that the same events could happen on both islands simply by chance, says Harvey, especially since the islands are different in so many ways. Harvey speculates that if more examples of repeatable evolution are found then the whole notion of evolution as a lottery may need to be reconsidered.
Further evidence for the inadequacy of evolutionary theory can be found in a recent article in the New Scientist (28.10. 95).2 Charles Bieberich and his team at the Holland Laboratory in Rockville Maryland have reported that by manipulating genes that control the body plans of embryos they have created mutant mice with backbones that are 200-300 million years out of date. The article points to other research teams that have achieved something similar. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin, at Madison, have created fruit fly embryos which developed with a body plan some 350-450 million years out of date. Two years ago Pierre Chambon and his colleagues at the University of Louis Pasteur in Strasbourg created mutant mice with ear bones halfway between those of mammals and reptiles. According to Chambon the ears followed a developmental plan dating back to the therapsids: primitive, mammal like reptiles that lived among the dinosaurs some 200 million years ago.
Bieberich argues that the researchers are only doing in the lab what sometimes happens naturally producing what is called atavistic mutations. Hind limbs on whales, snakes with rudimentary limbs, people with tails, and horses with hooves split into three toes instead of the usual one, are among the best documented examples. Researchers have been intrigued for years about these naturally occurring atavisms but now that they can be created in the lab, the astonishing persistence of these ‘genetic memories’ becomes clear. The reason for that persistence, researchers now believe, has a lot to do with the laziness of evolution. So says Stephen Day, the author of the New Scientist article discussing these discoveries.
These scientists seem to believe that a genetic memory is stored, for example in a mouse’s genes, from the days when mammals and reptiles last shared an ancestor. That memory can thus be unlocked, at least in the case of ear structure. If genetic information that is up to 350 to 400 million years old can be retained within a genome then does this not lend the lie to Darwin’s theory of evolution via the process of ‘natural selection’? Why would 400 million years worth of redundant genetic codes have been preserved for no useful reason in terms of promoting the survival of an organism? The principle of natural selection ordains that only those organisms with genetic characteristics best suited to their environment will tend to survive best in order to pass their genetic codes on to future generations. Thus ‘evolution’ is able to take place. Why does the evolutionary process preserve redundant genes albeit disabled from coding for proteins. Why did the unsuitable genetic codes survive the ‘evolutionary’ process without being significantly altered by random mutations over 65 million years? How does a mouse retain the genes of a dinosaur? Or, more pertinently, how does a human being retain the genetic codes of an animal with a tail such that that atavism can occur in some people? If this is put down to the laziness of evolution. I would ask the question: How can evolution be a governing principle of biological development if this useless genetic information is so faithfully preserved? It would imply that evolution is so lazy that it came to a complete standstill as soon as it started and has not moved since! How then have we reached our present status as a species from the original primordial soup of life? Perhaps the answer is that we and all other living organisms have not in fact reached our present states from prior states of inferiority. Rather we have DEVOLVED into our present states from prior states of superiority. In other words development up from the primordial soup is utter poppycock.
One of the greatest scientists the Earth has produced - Sir Fred Hoyle, together with his distinguished colleague Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe put the postulation seriously to the scientific world that life was brought to the Earth from outer space through viruses trapped in star dust. Other scientists took the idea less seriously. Nobel prize winner Francis Crick one of the discoverers of the double helix deployment of DNA and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute of biological studies managed to provoke the public and their colleagues, by speculating that the seeds of life were sent to the Earth in a space ship by intelligent beings living on another planet.3 They point out that it did have a serious intent; to highlight the inadequacy of all explanations of terrestrial genesis. As Crick once wrote; The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle. So many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going. The joke may well be on them.
Sir Fred Hoyle in his book, The Intelligent Universe, puts forward some interesting scenarios suggesting the extraordinarily unlikely possibility that life could have originated by chance from a primordial soup: 4
The probability of life appearing spontaneously on Earth is so small that it is very difficult to grasp without comparing it with something more familiar. Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve the Rubik cube. Since he can’t see the results of his moves, they must all be at random. He has no way of knowing whether he is getting nearer the solution, or whether he is scrambling the cube still further. One would be inclined to say that moving the faces at random would ‘never’ achieve a solution. Strictly speaking, ‘never’ is wrong, however. If our blindfold subject were to make one random move every second, it would take him on average three hundred times the age of the earth, 1,350 billion years to solve the cube. The chance against each move producing perfect colour matching for all the cube’s faces is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1.
These odds are roughly the same as you could give to the idea of just one of our body’s proteins having evolved randomly by chance. However, we use about 200,000 types of protein in our cells. If the odds against the random creation of one protein are the same as those against a random solution of the Rubik cube, then the odds against the random creation of all 200,000 are almost unimaginably vast.
Hoyle goes on to point out that even if we were only to assess the likelihood of the spontaneous origin by chance of the 2000 or so special proteins, the enzymes, which are vitally important to life processes, then still the odds would be outlandish. The chance of these vital 2000 enzymes being formed in exactly the correct way, which they must be or else complex living organisms simply could not operate, is about the same as the chance of throwing an uninterrupted sequence of 50,000 sixes with unbiased dice!.
He goes on to examine how those who claim that life originated in an organic soup imagine that complex life developed. They imagine that a clump of two or three very primitive enzymes toured around the primordial soup of amino acids picking up other potential enzymes as and when they happen to arise by chance. Hoyle points out that in effect what this model really describes is how we ourselves would go about collecting up a packet of needles in a haystack, using our eyes and brains to distinguish the needles from the hay. How for instance, would the enzyme clump distinguish an exceedingly infrequent useful enzyme from the overwhelming majority of useless chains of amino acids? The one potential enzyme would be so infrequent that the aggregate might have to encounter 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 useless chains before meeting a suitable one. In effect, talk of primitive aggregate collecting up potential enzymes really implies the operation of an intelligence, an intelligence which by distinguishing potential enzymes possesses powers of judgement. Since this conclusion is exactly what those who put forward this argument are anxious to avoid, their position is absurd.
What is that intelligence that it seems must be the architect behind the origin of life? Could that intelligence be provided for by devolving soul? Hoyle has illustrated with his analogies the extreme unlikelihood of random origins for life in the primordial soup. Thus the suggestion that we are devolving from our original points of inception into the universe, our original Adam points, into greater states of separation from the state of WHOLEness we once were, is, it seems to me, a far more convincing proposition. This pattern of devolution would suggest that just as the whole implicitly contains the parts which make it up, we have within us at any one time, the blueprint for all future states of devolvement into the universe of parts. Perhaps that is how these scientists who appear to be turning back the evolutionary clock, are able to produce these startling results. The article says that they are Making Evolution Run Backwards I propose that they are Making Devolution Run Forwards! They are using that original blueprint for potential devolution and making it actual. What then does that say about human babies who have been naturally born with tails, out of a naturally occurring atavism? There is only one implication and that is that we are indeed apes in the making, if we follow the naturally devolving course that our species prescribes for us.
Those scientists studying these mutational phenomena have discovered that there is in fact such a blueprint, an ancestral body plan on which development from one species form to another is formed. This plan is embodied in what are known of as Hox genes. Instead of inventing a new set of body plan genes for each new type of animal, it seems that natural selection has simply tinkered with an old one, a set known as Hox genes. The telling question that must be asked here is: If all organisms that now exist had from their very inception into the evolutionary process a blueprint of how they should evolve, then where did that blueprint come from in the first place? How did the first multi-cellular animals evolving some 700 million years ago contain the basic template of information that only needed to be shuffled around in order to form a human being?
All the myriad changing environmental factors and chance mutations which allowed survival within changed environments and thus for evolution through the survival of the fittest had not yet occurred at that point. So where did these most basic of living organisms, or indeed the chemical soup that produced them in the first place, get this genetic blueprint from? The basic evolutionary contention that we evolved from a sea worm to a human being through a series of fortuitous genetic mutations that have occurred in turn through sheer chance in the chaotic underbase momentum of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that itself provides a dismantling effect on molecules and atoms to gathering states of randomness, is the stuff for baboons to believe. It is inconceivable that reasoning and directed thinking capable of intelligent arbitration emerged by chance in a environment creating chaos with each progressive moment in time. It is a theory for Lucy in lunatic land. We just don’t have the years in the scale of the time the universe is said to have existed to make enough fortuitous mutations to account for our existence. The law of probability summarily contradicts it. The theory of evolution to the betterment of a species really becomes more and more ludicrous in the light of these new discoveries in developmental biology.
Bieberich says that we’re probably not turning on old genes, but taking existing developmental pathways and twisting them into ancient pathways. If these are existing developmental pathways would not their twisting, at least in terms of the theory of evolution, lead simply to a breakdown in the efficient functioning of the organism rather than to the repeat of genetic information that should, by now, one would have thought, either be significantly changed or even deleted from the genetic record? If indeed we are turning on old genes already there to new effect and not creating them from the start, we could then have the time for a plausible set up to revitalise a species format that was already devolving. .
So, in summary, it is my contention that the form of SPIRIT being was sublimated into atoms (flesh) with the breaking-up effect of the Second Law Of Thermodynamics (ENTROPY). This ‘SPIRIT- being’, in billions of locations all over the Universe - reduced gradually into all the different arrays of living species you see, as represented by our particular brand of species on the Earth. Of course, this same procedure would inevitably go on in locations elsewhere in the Universe too, giving rise to their particular cocktail of species. The crucial point I want to make is that it was REDUCTION to LESSER forms, Superior to Inferior. In our Earth’s terms, from GODMAN to MORTAL MAN to APE to MONKEY to ANIMAL to INSECT to TREE to VIRUS to PLASMID to STONE and all the millions of species that make up the points in-between.
The way is thus always open for ‘Redeemers’ to come to save all that was worth saving in a Universe of decaying parts and the only thing worth saving in such arenas as our Universe, was that line of individual connection that ties the WHOLE with the part: - our SOULS - that most precious thing of all things. Redeemers could and would constantly come into our ‘patch’ in the Universe (because we had a soul, we all had this precious individual line of eternal heritage at least in potential) claiming that we had something precious beyond all reason we could never afford to lose. They would come claiming that we were in a situation of existential danger so awesome in degree that the giving of their lives was a price they were gladly willing to pay. They knew bodies made of atoms were just decaying devices in a Universe of parts, just a physical shell, a means to a worthwhile end. Something temporary and transient that gave access to an eternal ingredient that could be persuaded to return of itself to an eternal existence where there was no threat of its loss. They knew that this shell would continue to make other shells, other bodies in continuums called REINCARNATION CYCLES, ad infinitum, as long as the strength of the connection all the way back to Godhead in a continuous line was never broken. It is this uninterrupted line, incarnation after incarnation, that perhaps best defines the word SOUL. A line that could only be compromised when the thirst and will for knowledge dims in the individual. It would then weaken till it was finally no more capable of reasoning and understanding the meaning of self. Only then would it weaken not able to dictate the best scope for its existence in a Universe of atoms and go from being MAN to MONKEY to INSECT (a million cicadas could sing with the voice that was once a single man) to TREE to VIRUS to PLASMID to STONE to ATOM isolate and beyond to the very ends of ENERGY MASS and finally the contours of SPACE TIME and the arms of TO BE, or NOT TO BE
Kerner offers what, for me, is a very convincing, if unconventional, interpretation of the ‘Adam and Eve’ story:
Let me first speculate for a moment on what might have happened to reduce the scope of Godbeing so drastically in the FIRST ADAMS and EVES in the ‘Gardens Of Eden’ on many planets Universe wide. As I have said, it may well have been something that made the spirit form subject to the arrays of FORCE that define the Universe of Parts. What therefore was the ‘forbidden fruit’ that was supposed to have done this. An Apple? Preposterous you might say. Yet, I believe the ‘apple’ might give us a figurative clue to it all.
If you look at the shape of the inside of an apple cut in half on its vertical plane it resembles the magnetic track or shape of the lines of force that prevail on a bar magnet. Was the ‘Garden Of Eden’ an area that was a natural Faraday cage? A Faraday cage is a device that shields anything placed inside it from electromagnetic fields. Perhaps the G.O.E. was a place or situation into which no electromagnetic fields could enter. A place where the most lethal thing to the spirit form could be kept away. I would surmise that GODBEING in its earliest form in this Universe was extremely vulnerable to FORCE and the forces that made up this Universe. Electromagnetism would then and even now be lethal to the total spirit form. Whatever interdiction Adam and Eve were under, may have included the barring of magnetic fields at all costs. I have said previously that a good definition of GODHEAD is one that conveys the idea that it is the antithesis of what we call FORCE. It is the principle that defines NO FORCE or the state of absolute Peace or Stillness. The final straight line that defines no potential difference between points. Whatever the ‘apple’ was, breached the defences and here the ‘serpent’ may be yet another figurative clue that defined this threat and might affirm my postulation. If you think about it, the serpent travels in a regularly shaped winding form. In other words a ‘Sine Wave’. It may define an electromagnetic field producing an entry mechanism that broke down the protective ‘clothing’ that shielded the ‘spirit form’ of ADAM and EVE from the full rigours of our Universe and they were made naked. In other words vulnerable to the Universe’s dismantling array of forces and thus as I mentioned previously, to the constantly corrosive and lethal break-down effect of the Second Law Of Thermodynamics, namely ENTROPY.
Central to Kerner’s thesis in The Song of the Greys is the influence of grey aliens and their tinkering with the human genome as a primary factor in the development of our human species. Again he presents a very convincing case for this albeit too involved to quote at length here. I strongly suggest to anyone with a serious interest in the origins of life to get hold of this book. I have read it and re-read it and cannot fault its logic.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-24-2005 9:46 AM Donald Thomas has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 4 (188075)
02-24-2005 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Donald Thomas
02-24-2005 6:53 AM


Excellent opening post, but these issues must be addressed before it can be released:
  1. At 4269 words it is too long. Outline your position in a post of less than 1000 words.
  2. It was often difficult to tell which words were yours and which were Kerner's. There are a variety of ways for setting off text using either HTML or dBoard codes (click on these links for documentation). You can use
    , [indent], [qs], [quote] in addition to codes for color, size, background, etc.
  3. Lengthy excerpts should not be included in posts (see rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines). Provide a link to the material. If it is not already available on the web you can petition the site administrator to put it up for you.
A great start, looks like a fascinating topic.
{A footnote from Adminnemooseus - You can preserve the current message 1 of this proposed topic, and instead submit a revised version as a new message (this might well be the preferred method). If and when your revised opening message is approved, the later revised version can be made the message 1 of the new topic.}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-24-2005 13:07 AM

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Donald Thomas, posted 02-24-2005 6:53 AM Donald Thomas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Donald Thomas, posted 02-24-2005 1:01 PM Admin has not replied

Donald Thomas
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 4 (188142)
02-24-2005 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
02-24-2005 9:46 AM


revised post
I hope this new outline of my topic will be acceptable. The book is not available on the web. Should I send you the full extract so that you can provide a link to it? Is the second quote from the book that I make still too long? It is so impressive in the case it presents I felt I could not easily shorten it or paraphrase it and at the same time preserve its line of logic.
Evolution or Devolution?
The origin of species debate has fascinated me for many years. I have read widely on the subject and until last month each book I read left me with more questions than answers. However after reading a recently reprinted book by author Nigel Kerner called The Song of the Greys the answers finally outweighed the questions.
Kerner breathes a breath of fresh air into the stagnancy of the evolution/creationism debate. He offers a third alternative namely — DEVOLUTION.
It is his contention that within a universe subject to the second law of thermodynamics (which states that all atomic states become more and more chaotic with time, through a process known as the ‘entropic drift’) the concept that the underbase of living systems is one of evolution to states of betterment is nonsensical:
It is complete lunacy to have an entropic force that is busy dismantling atoms, from prior ordered states into greater and greater states of randomness and chaos with time (the Second Law Of Thermodynamics) and at the same time claim that all things are going from good to better, through a series of fortuitous accidents. It is our vanity that does not allow us to see the TRUTH and that is IT IS ALL ONE WAY -DOWN. Everything rots. We rot the moment we are conceived. It is a cast iron standard bearer basic law of biology, in the Universe of Parts. Our Universe.
The book cites as contradictions to evolutionary theory the facts that approximately 95% of the human genome is redundant, and that roughly the same percentage of the human brain is also dormant. If evolutionary theory were correct and development were based on adaptations to the present environment why would we have developed such a huge brain for potential use in the future! Could it perhaps be the case that the large brain and the large genome are leftovers from the past, from superior states of humanity that once existed and used the full scope of brain and DNA?
Nigel Kerner has some common ground with the creationists and the evolutionists but he also has many disagreements with both. He accepts that evolutionary processes do take place but only within the context of the overall drift of devolution, evolution within devolution. Like the creationists he contends that the only logical origin for the coherence and order of living systems in an environment subject to entropic dismemberment is a source outside of that environment, a source that is not subject to entropy and therefore by definition — not of the physical universe. However, unlike the creationists he does not see that source as a ‘creator God’ who chose to place us in the physical universe. Rather he sees creation as an implicit result of the fact that the infinite potential of the ‘universe of the whole’ to know all options had to also include the only potential that could not be achieved within its whole, altogether state. Namely : The potential to know separation from the state of separation . That potential can only be fulfilled in the context of a physical universe.
Kerner discusses inadequacy of evolutionary theory with reference to the following research that he quotes from the New Scientist:
Charles Bieberich and his team at the Holland Laboratory in Rockville Maryland have reported that by manipulating genes that control the body plans of embryos they have created mutant mice with backbones that are 200-300 million years out of date.These scientists seem to believe that a genetic memory is stored, for example in a mouse’s genes, from the days when mammals and reptiles last shared an ancestor. That memory can thus be unlocked, at least in the case of ear structure. If genetic information that is up to 350 to 400 million years old can be retained within a genome then does this not lend the lie to Darwin’s theory of evolution via the process of ‘natural selection’?
The article says that they are Making Evolution Run Backwards I propose that they are Making Devolution Run Forwards! They are using that original blueprint for potential devolution and making it actual. What then does that say about human babies who have been naturally born with tails, out of a naturally occurring atavism? There is only one implication and that is that we are indeed apes in the making, if we follow the naturally devolving course that our species prescribes for us.
Those scientists studying these mutational phenomena have discovered that there is in fact such a blueprint, an ancestral body plan on which development from one species form to another is formed. This plan is embodied in what are known of as Hox genes. Instead of inventing a new set of body plan genes for each new type of animal, it seems that natural selection has simply tinkered with an old one, a set known as Hox genes. The telling question that must be asked here is: If all organisms that now exist had from their very inception into the evolutionary process a blueprint of how they should evolve, then where did that blueprint come from in the first place? How did the first multi-cellular animals evolving some 700 million years ago contain the basic template of information that only needed to be shuffled around in order to form a human being?"
Central to Kerner’s thesis in The Song of the Greys is the influence of grey aliens and their tinkering with the human genome as a primary factor in the development of our human species. Again he presents a very convincing case for this albeit too involved to quote at length here. I strongly suggest to anyone with a serious interest in the origins of life to get hold of this book. I have read it and re-read it and cannot fault its logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-24-2005 9:46 AM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 4 (188145)
02-24-2005 1:21 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024