Genetic Entropy

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The problem with the scientific types who realize that something is really wrong with the science is that they then run back to the arms of the standard religious paradigm. That doesn't help a bit.

In regard to genetic entropy, I'm reminded of this little exchange with the Cs:

23 Feb 2002:
Q: ... (R) But the thing is, when that woman said, "in my world the Rainforest is okay," it means she had already made a judgment that...(V) Yeah, that she was somehow in a better place than I was. (L) Well it was also making a judgment against the wisdom of the universe. It avoids the understanding that if the Rainforests are dying maybe there is a reason for it. (R) Exactly. All there is are lessons. (V) Well you know it was funny because I was taking a Geology course at the time and we were supposed to go on a diving trip down to South Florida, and it got stopped by a hurricane. But before that, this so-called psychic told me she could see me going down there, following her healing reccommendations, and all the dead coral would come back to life.

A: When the universe is ready to revive dead coral, you can bet it will revive.

It seems to me that the evidence of our DNA points to the fact that there ARE beings/intelligences much "higher" than us. That seems to be a fact and no possible doubt about it. And I think we need a better understanding of this than what has come to us via standard religions. And that is not to say that the founders of religions didn't at least partly get things right. But one has to go through the ancient texts and other materials very carefully to sort out the confabulated from reality.
 

Altair

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I think the following C's quotes are appropriate here, too.

Session 22 October 1994

And those who are described as the Lizards have chosen to firmly lock themselves into service to self. And, since they are at the highest level of density where this is possible, they must continually draw large amounts of negative energy from those at the third level, second level, and so on, which is why they do what they do. This also explains why their race is dying, because they have not been able to learn for themselves how to remove themselves from this particular form of expression to that of service to others. And, since they have such, as you would measure it, a long period of time, remained at this level and, in fact, become firmly entrenched in it, and, in fact, have increased themselves in it, this is why they are dying and desperately trying to take as much energy from you as possible and also to recreate their race metabolically.

Q: (L) Well, since there is so many of us here, why don't they just move in and take over?

A: That is their intention. That has been their intention for quite some time. They have been traveling back and forth through time as you know it, to set things up so that they can absorb a maximum amount of negative energy with the transference from third level to fourth level that this planet is going to experience, in the hopes that they can overtake you on the fourth level and thereby accomplish several things. 1: retaining their race as a viable species; 2: increasing their numbers; 3: increasing their power; 4: expanding their race throughout the realm of fourth density.

So maybe genetic entropy of a race could be one of the consequences of being STS?
 

Scottie

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Finished this book last night, and it's quite good.

Even if he's not totally 100% correct, it still really highlights just how far geneticists are willing to go to make that square peg fit the round hole.

Totally hilarious at the end when he goes all "Jesus saves"... I felt like saying, "Dude, if you're smart enough to figure out the problems, then shouldn't you actually at least TRY to find a better solution?!" He doesn't do himself any favors with the rest of the scientific community on that front.

For example, in the techie world, there is error-correction built in to certain data transfer protocols. Given the apparent complexity of DNA and the way in which information seems to be stored backwards, forwards, up, down, and inside-out, there could very well be error-correction going on. It just that since we have no idea how it actually works, we can't understand it yet.

In any case, one thing is clear: we really have no idea how DNA works. It's almost the equivalent of a caveman looking at the source code for Windows, seeing trees and rocks and woolly mammoths, and then developing an entire theory on how the code works. Well, no.

The evidence for degeneration is pretty strong, but it's also still based on a lack of understanding of how the machine actually works. So, I'm not convinced we'll all be dead in 3 years, either. And then, what about futzing with DNA from "out there"? What about the possibility of DNA changes by what you see, do, etc??

Does makes you wonder about GMO and ethnic specific weapons... One could easily see how it could all go terribly wrong!
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Finished this book last night, and it's quite good.
The evidence for degeneration is pretty strong, but it's also still based on a lack of understanding of how the machine actually works. So, I'm not convinced we'll all be dead in 3 years, either. And then, what about futzing with DNA from "out there"? What about the possibility of DNA changes by what you see, do, etc??

Haven't started the book yet, but I agree with the above questions. It's like Marshall points out in Evo 2.0. There is a TON of intelligence packed into DNA. I was under the impression that geneticists already knew about some degree of error correction. But we really have no idea just HOW well written the genetic code is.
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The evidence for degeneration is pretty strong, but it's also still based on a lack of understanding of how the machine actually works. So, I'm not convinced we'll all be dead in 3 years, either. And then, what about futzing with DNA from "out there"? What about the possibility of DNA changes by what you see, do, etc??

I been along the lines that the cosmic "cleansing" could be somhow related to not only an infusion of new information into the living system, but also a removal of some accumulated defective DNA. Something like that anyway.
 

genero81

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
For example, in the techie world, there is error-correction built in to certain data transfer protocols. Given the apparent complexity of DNA and the way in which information seems to be stored backwards, forwards, up, down, and inside-out, there could very well be error-correction going on. It just that since we have no idea how it actually works, we can't understand it yet.

In any case, one thing is clear: we really have no idea how DNA works. It's almost the equivalent of a caveman looking at the source code for Windows, seeing trees and rocks and woolly mammoths, and then developing an entire theory on how the code works. Well, no.

The evidence for degeneration is pretty strong, but it's also still based on a lack of understanding of how the machine actually works. So, I'm not convinced we'll all be dead in 3 years, either. And then, what about futzing with DNA from "out there"? What about the possibility of DNA changes by what you see, do, etc??

Kindle had a sample available; introduction plus the first two chapters. That much I've read. Waiting for the book to arrive in the mail for the rest. So the question has already been raised; given the fact of genetic entropy, how is it the human race hasn't already expired long ago?

In Evolution 2.0 it's made clear that there are error correcting mechanisms inherent in the code. But you're right, we know so very little.

One things for sure, it's all quite fascinating! I don't know this for sure but I would be surprised if there's not instructions for genes to accommodate the learning and conscious evolution of the inhabiting soul.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Just finished it as well.

Sanford mainly proposes two things. First, he completely demolishes what he calls the "Primary Axiom" aka. Neo-darwinist dogma: that evolution works via random mutations which are then filtered by natural selection to produce/advance life. As he shows, this cannot possibly work for dozens of reasons. Second, he shows that the genetic mutations that are detrimental (i.e. either all mutations or nearly all mutations) must by necessity lead to genetic degradation of the species and eventually extinction sooner or later.

Some initial thoughts: the first proposition - random mutation/natural selection can't work - implies that there needs to be another factor at work that pretty much creates organisms as a whole. This doesn't necessarily mean God snapping his finger to magically create man, it could also mean the creation of different species over long periods of time by a complicated process we don't understand yet. Maybe this force is consciousness, or Mind, that somehow interacts with other spheres or something. But the point is, there needs to be a direction, a goal - the finished product or at least parts of the finished product must already exist somewhere. Otherwise, it's simply impossible for life to come into existence. Perhaps we could think of some attractor in the future that "pulls" the process along?

And as Altair said above, maybe if this "attractor" is STS, this whole process can only lead to degradation eventually. Degradation is what Sanford suggests. Yet there must exist a force to counter it - otherwise evolution wouldn't have been possible. So maybe the only thing that can save us from genetic degradation is the conscious choice of a different future, a different "attractor"? One that could pull us away from entropy? Ruppert Sheldrake talked about "morphogenetic fields" that infuse information into the evolutionary process and even the process that leads from the DNA to the organism after conception; the Cs called it "information field":

Q: (L) So, basically you're saying that DNA can be changed? Well, we know it can, because I read the books. But in other words, you're saying that it can be changed by changes in your thinking, understanding, and level of knowledge?

A: Information is the most important factor.

Q: (L) You mean gathering information, researching, and learning is the most important factor?

A: Yes and applying what is learned.

Q: (L) So information is like filling up the gas tank, and applying what you've learned is like starting the engine and pushing on the gas pedal?

A: Yes

Q: (Pierre) That makes me think of something. The key for DNA transformation, the most important factor, is information. At the same time, DNA is the intermediary or the receiver to the information field. It evokes to me some kind of mirroring where the individual gathers information in the world which then improves his connection to the information field and allows him to gather even more information? Like a circle?

A: Yes. It is like building an antenna.

Q: (L) So the more knowledge you gather, your antenna changes. But it depends upon using it because building the antenna is a product of using what you've learned.

A: Yes

Q: (L) That's what makes the changes.

Like Scottie, I'm not 100% convinced about the genetic degradation thing. Maybe Sanford makes the error here of believing in God the watchmaker - He created the world and the creatures, built into them some mechanisms to help them along, but then withdrew - and we will die in some kind of Second-coming, Revelation kind of apocalypse? What about Perry Marshall's "Swiss Knife", i.e. all the mechanisms at work that seem to be able to "reprogram" DNA intelligently, i.e. adding information? Even if the empirical evidence is that we see no information creation on the genetic level, or a net information loss, could these mechanisms at least theoretically reverse the process? Perhaps it really depends on what we do, what future we choose as an attractor by acting in certain ways in the present? The rest, and how this works, we have absolutely no clue about it seems...

Anyway, the book is brilliant in its arguments against the Primary Axiom. Well worth the read.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Call me crazy, but I have a hunch that DNA involves mechanisms beyond a simple 3d "Oh look, it's a computer program!" sort of thing...
:guru:
Good point, and I won't call you crazy, either. Or maybe we can just be crazy together. ;)

Some initial thoughts: the first proposition - random mutation/natural selection can't work - implies that there needs to be another factor at work that pretty much creates organisms as a whole. This doesn't necessarily mean God snapping his finger to magically create man, it could also mean the creation of different species over long periods of time by a complicated process we don't understand yet. Maybe this force is consciousness, or Mind, that somehow interacts with other spheres or something. But the point is, there needs to be a direction, a goal - the finished product or at least parts of the finished product must already exist somewhere. Otherwise, it's simply impossible for life to come into existence. Perhaps we could think of some attractor in the future that "pulls" the process along?

I think you're on the right track. The thing is, though, we don't really understand consciousness. I think another point you made below might point the direction out of the problem:

And as Altair said above, maybe if this "attractor" is STS, this whole process can only lead to degradation eventually. Degradation is what Sanford suggests. Yet there must exist a force to counter it - otherwise evolution wouldn't have been possible. So maybe the only thing that can save us from genetic degradation is the conscious choice of a different future, a different "attractor"? One that could pull us away from entropy?

That's what all beings do all the time - with greater or lesser degrees of 'talent' and success. And I think that is the fundamental nature of consciousness: choosing which future (i.e. which 'self'!) to create at every given moment. At this point I think Marshall is correct: cells aren't just computers running programs. They are intelligent. The know what they are doing. But how can they know what they're doing if they don't have brains, and if even we don't know what they're doing? Well, that comes back again to the mystery of consciousness. I don't think it's a stretch to hypothesize that consciousness is vastly more complex 'under the surface', i.e. in the unconscious, subliminal self. Think of a savant whose mind operates on a level even they do not comprehend. We have no idea HOW a mathematical savant does what he or she does, but they do it. So maybe something similar is going on at the level of the cell: a vastly complex intelligence that is 'subconscious', subliminal and implicit. It creates itself as a function of consciousness which we only dimly comprehend at this time.

Our consciousness operates the same way, but on a different level. We don't create cellular selves; we create macroscopic selves, our own character, the shape of our own lives... We are only conscious of a tiny band of our 'full' consciousness in our everyday lives, but there's a whole lot more going on, and we don't have much of a clue of what its capabilities are, or how it works. God may be a metaphysical necessity to account for certain things, but not the childhood vision of God. (Cf. Collingwood's distinction between the symbol of God and the philosophical absolute.)
 

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Haven't read it yet. Started to read "Making Sense of Genes by Kostas Kampourakis (here) as a starter to go into the whole genetic stuff. Did not have much knowledge about that topic beforehand. I quickly realized though that there are some fundamental things I was rather confused about and couldn't understand while reading Kampourakis. Like what is actually a gene and how exactly is it defined and how does it actually relate to DNA. That made it rather difficult to understand what the basis of a lot of things is in this filed. So I figured, before reading any further, I need to understand some basics there to even be able to follow the deeper stuff in genetics.

Many books keep on talking about genes while never really defining the term CLEARLY, then they talk about DNA, chromosomes and such in a sort of interchangeably way (at least in the mind of a complete lay reader in this topic). So you get completely confused.

So then I came across The Mysterious World of the Human Genome by Frank Ryan. The author of two other recently added recommended books about Genetics ["Darwin's Blind Spot" (here)
and "Virolution" (here)] and in this book, for the first time, I started to grasp some of the concepts because he actually does a very good job of defining it for a lay person.

So I would highly recommend reading that one especially when you are new to this stuff before delving into the other books. For example, I was getting totally confused and frustrated by the term "gene" at some point, since I couldn't really put my finger on what it actually is they are talking about when they use that term.

I haven't finished the book in a long run yet, but for the first time (and because of it I'm rather existed now, since I finally seem to start to understand things in this field!) it dawned on me what they might actually mean by "gene", or at least have meant by the term in the beginning of this field; "A certain something [that they don't really know what it is] that is supposed to cause another something [in this case how life works and all in it is "programmed"]". Is that fairly accurate? So, a gene is for biology what an Atom is for physics? Anyway, I will read further so that the term becomes more clear maybe.

Ryan's goal in this book is to explain the whole field as best as possible in simple layman terms, avoiding any too difficult science language. And so far he is doing a pretty good job there! I'm existed. Although some things are still a bit complicated to understand, at least for me! He also presents a rather extensive sort of history into the scientific history of this discipline itself and the people who developed it in a sort of narrative way. From the introduction of the book:

The Mysterious World of the Human Genome by Frank Ryan said:
A few years ago I gave a lecture on a related theme at King’s College London. The chairman asked me if I planned to write a book about it. When I said yes, he asked me to please write it in words that a lay reader, like himself, could readily understand. ‘Just how simple do you want me to make it?’ ‘I want you to assume that I – your reader – know nothing at all to begin with.’ This, then, I promise to do. There will be no complicated scientific language, no mathematical or chemical formulae or unexplained jargon, and I shall introduce no more than a handful of simple illustrations. Instead I shall begin from first principles and assume that the readers of this book know little about biology or genetics.
 
Last edited:

genero81

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
That's what all beings do all the time - with greater or lesser degrees of 'talent' and success. And I think that is the fundamental nature of consciousness: choosing which future (i.e. which 'self'!) to create at every given moment. At this point I think Marshall is correct: cells aren't just computers running programs. They are intelligent. The know what they are doing. But how can they know what they're doing if they don't have brains, and if even we don't know what they're doing? Well, that comes back again to the mystery of consciousness. I don't think it's a stretch to hypothesize that consciousness is vastly more complex 'under the surface', i.e. in the unconscious, subliminal self. Think of a savant whose mind operates on a level even they do not comprehend. We have no idea HOW a mathematical savant does what he or she does, but they do it. So maybe something similar is going on at the level of the cell: a vastly complex intelligence that is 'subconscious', subliminal and implicit. It creates itself as a function of consciousness which we only dimly comprehend at this time.

Our consciousness operates the same way, but on a different level. We don't create cellular selves; we create macroscopic selves, our own character, the shape of our own lives...

Right, and what the C's have told us comes to mind; that the 'battle' is through us. The power of choice appears to have vast implications!
 

Altair

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Call me crazy, but I have a hunch that DNA involves mechanisms beyond a simple 3d "Oh look, it's a computer program!" sort of thing...
:guru:
I agree and I can imagine that what we know as DNA could be a 3D manifestation of something bigger and even more complex.
 

Ina

The Living Force
Right, and what the C's have told us comes to mind; that the 'battle' is through us. The power of choice appears to have vast implications!
I agree however I need to ask a question. Would the power of choice and conciousness would sustain life should electricity cease to be available? The availability of electricity for the modern man has become an indispensable factor for living. All modern human knowledge is digital. We might know instinctively how to to plant, tell time, make fire, even build. But there are so many other aspects embedded in our lives that would be removed from our reach.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Sanford pooh-poohs the idea that gene-duplication within a genome can be useful in any way; he says it's like having just another copy of something that repeats what's already been said. I'm not so sure that is the case. I remember asking the Cs about the ALU repeats and here is the exchange. Remember, this was back in 2014 (11 Oct). I was quoting from a session back on 23 Sep 2000:

Q: What about this ALU repeat with over 300,000 copies of the same base pair sequence. What is it?
A: Tribal unit.
Q: What is a tribal unit?
A: Sectionalized zone of significant marker compounds.
Q: What does this code for?
A: Physiological/spiritual union profile.
Q: Could you define "tribal" for me?
A: You define. ---
Q: (L) Well, I think that obviously "tribal" means physiological spiritual union profile, and that that may have something to do with what we were talking about at a previous session when we asked about Caesar's soul group. Physiological spiritual union profile would be what defines what tribe you belong to, but it's a spiritual tribe and not necessarily specifically physical. You can grow into it according to some criteria... “graduate” was the term used. Am I correct here about a tribal group being like a soul group? Is that an accurate way of putting it?
A: Very close.
Q: (L) Is there anything that can get me closer?
A: In some cases there is also a supersensory component.
Q: (L) What is a supersensory component?
A: Externally driven mutation.

There's another related snippet from 23 Aug 2001

Q: .... (L) Okay, now about the Pig God: what is it about pigs that makes them ideal as a symbol for the manifestation of God energy, or even as a vehicle?
A: Genetically manipulated RU 353535.
Q: (L) What does that code relate to?
A: Race underpinning tribal code structure.
Q: (L) Are you suggesting that some codon of human DNA that relates to a "tribal code structure" was spliced into an animal?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Why an animal and not a human being? Is it because the STS energy is so contractile that a pig is an appropriate receptacle?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) That's bizarre. Moving along.

And another that leads off from that one and kind of wraps things up because it brings it back to the religious stance that Sanford has taken:

Q: ... (L) ... If nobody else has anything else, I think we'll just ask if there are any words of wisdom or encouragement for people?
A: Those who wish to participate in the future should "be prepared" like the wise virgins.
Q: (L) Alright then. So, I guess we say good night because I am really, really tired.
A: See/C you soon!
Q: (Andromeda) Who are the wise virgins? What are they talking about. (L) Story in the bible. Wise and foolish virgins. It's funny that they make these biblical references. I'm coming more and more to the conviction that most of what's in the bible was borrowed by some desert tribes that got civilized and called themselves Jews; borrowed from other cultures. So, it's funny that some people, if they've decided that the whole Yahweh/Jesus thing is not their cup of tea, they throw the whole thing out. They throw the baby out with the bath water. When in fact, if they could get past the idea that all of this isn't focused around some primitive tribal god from the hill country of Judea, but rather this was or this is the main mode of transmission of some very, very ancient stories that would otherwise have been lost if the Jews hadn't stolen and adapted it for their own uses. And it takes a very clever person, a good analyst to read them and understand where they really may have come from.

Oh, there is actually another session that mentions the term "tribal" and it's kind of funny; so, just for a laugh:

Q: .... Next question: This was something that was bugging me, and somebody sent an e-mail asking the same question, so I thought I would toss it in here. What is the origin of the Finns. They are quite different from their neighbors, and something of a puzzle.
A: Tribal split in transit.
Q: (L) What tribe?
A: In other words, "you take the high road and I'll take the low road..."
Q: (L) Are they split off from the Hungarians? Were the Hungarians and the Finns originally the same tribe?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And what is the origin of the Hungarians and Finns before they split?
A: Carpathian zone.
Q: (L) Now, you have them in a locator, what is the origin of their genotype since they sort of stand out alone?
A: What do you propose?
Q: (L) I guess that they were another experimental creation. A genetic "tweak," so to speak.
A: Works for us. [Laughter.]
Q: (L) Okay, that takes care of my short questions.
 
Top Bottom