Organic Portals: Human variation

[Laura]

Generally, it is helpful to ask questions on a given topic within the thread about that topic so that mods (myself included) don't have to spend ten minutes searching and merging threads.

However, having done so now...

Sorry if this question has been answered somewhere else. Read most of the info about OPs from the different threads that the search function returned, but still had this doubt in mind.

My question is, let's imagine a new child, adamic, is born. S/he has all the genetics and qualities to "host" a soul and develop all the energy centers. Do you think there is a possibility that no soul "wants to" or "needs to" use that body (for whatever reason) and it becomes an adamic body with no soul emboided?

First, if the child is "Adamic", that would include the genetics to "host" a soul. That's the definition of "Adamic." All of those that are, have that potential but a lot of them never actualize it. My guess is that all of us have some sort of "soul pool" enlivening of our genetic bodies that runs the show until we begin to do the work that actualizes the seating/crystallizing of the higher self/soul. If that doesn't happen - for whatever reason - then the "soul pool essence" that was there to begin with is all there is. Maybe this idea is somehow related to "totems" where families or tribes or individuals would identify with certain creatures representing the soul pool connection of their genetic bodies?

I guess that hypothetically this could happen if, for instance, all the souls that want to take part in this final "stage" of the density jump have already incarnated or are about to leave this density to go to 4D via 5D. But we still keep having babies, free will does not prevent that, so, the millions of adamic new bodies that come to life every year, may not all host a soul.

Would that be possible?

Sounds reasonable to me. However, I have the feeling that a LOT of souls want to get in on the final act, many of them wanting/needing to expiate some last bit of karma, to make that last growth effort, to maybe be helpers during such a dramatic time, and so forth; so the demand for bodies is high and, as the Cs said to one individual, "you took what you could get in terms of genetics" just to get in and do things that needed doing.

I would say that the bigger problem is the LACK of useful/acceptable genetics. As we can figure out from reading about all the many historical periods when the intelligentsia and strong-potential individuals have been exterminated, taking their genes out of the gene pool, we might be getting to the point where finding something that will work means accepting some disadvantages as well. Let's face it, humanity as a whole is getting dumber and weaker in all respects by the decade due to the meddling of psychopathy...

 

[SeekinTruth]

Wow! That was a remarkably succinct answer to an interesting question, Laura. I had similar thoughts reading David Topi's post and I'm glad you answered it before me. I don't think I could have covered it so well and so compactly.

 

[David Topi]

Generally, it is helpful to ask questions on a given topic within the thread about that topic so that mods (myself included) don't have to spend ten minutes searching and merging threads.

ok, sorry for that!

Sorry if this question has been answered somewhere else. Read most of the info about OPs from the different threads that the search function returned, but still had this doubt in mind.

My question is, let's imagine a new child, adamic, is born. S/he has all the genetics and qualities to "host" a soul and develop all the energy centers. Do you think there is a possibility that no soul "wants to" or "needs to" use that body (for whatever reason) and it becomes an adamic body with no soul emboided?

First, if the child is "Adamic", that would include the genetics to "host" a soul. That's the definition of "Adamic." All of those that are, have that potential but a lot of them never actualize it. My guess is that all of us have some sort of "soul pool" enlivening of our genetic bodies that runs the show until we begin to do the work that actualizes the seating/crystallizing of the higher self/soul. If that doesn't happen - for whatever reason - then the "soul pool essence" that was there to begin with is all there is. Maybe this idea is somehow related to "totems" where families or tribes or individuals would identify with certain creatures representing the soul pool connection of their genetic bodies?

That makes sense to me also. I have been for a long time thinking in the terms of a soul "entering" the body sometime between conception and birth, and going in and out of the body in the first months of the baby till "merging" with genetics, or making the full connection between body and soul. So, I though that babies where no "external" soul would be willing to come in, would be somehow in behaviour similiar to OPs, in the sense that, although they do have the genetics to "host" a higherself, an individual soul unit "coming" from 5D and choosing that baby for the next incarnation, if the baby grows up with no soul driving that body, their behaviour would be also of a "simple person" (no offence intended, of course).

I guess that hypothetically this could happen if, for instance, all the souls that want to take part in this final "stage" of the density jump have already incarnated or are about to leave this density to go to 4D via 5D. But we still keep having babies, free will does not prevent that, so, the millions of adamic new bodies that come to life every year, may not all host a soul.

Would that be possible?

Sounds reasonable to me. However, I have the feeling that a LOT of souls want to get in on the final act, many of them wanting/needing to expiate some last bit of karma, to make that last growth effort, to maybe be helpers during such a dramatic time, and so forth; so the demand for bodies is high and, as the Cs said to one individual, "you took what you could get in terms of genetics" just to get in and do things that needed doing.

I would say that the bigger problem is the LACK of useful/acceptable genetics. As we can figure out from reading about all the many historical periods when the intelligentsia and strong-potential individuals have been exterminated, taking their genes out of the gene pool, we might be getting to the point where finding something that will work means accepting some disadvantages as well. Let's face it, humanity as a whole is getting dumber and weaker in all respects by the decade due to the meddling of psychopathy...

Indeed, it is like before there were plenty of Ferraris that souls could go into and "drive", and now we have to get used to drive only "small fiat punto", and sometime, the only vehicle available is one with no brakes, or a bad engine, but nonetheless, is still a vehicle that allows you to drive in the physical existence.

That raises something interesting also, that not all physical problems are related to some sort of "karma" or life lessons. I mean, sometimes I understand that if you may have big lessons to learn, you can choose, if available, a specific body that helps you learnt that lesson, among others, sort of people who said they have been born blind or with a dissability for the reason X, when in fact, for many people, it could be that you simply were born with that dissability not because it was useful to you to learn something, but because it was the only option available. Not sure if that would be also a correct assumption.

 

[Laura]

That raises something interesting also, that not all physical problems are related to some sort of "karma" or life lessons. I mean, sometimes I understand that if you may have big lessons to learn, you can choose, if available, a specific body that helps you learnt that lesson, among others, sort of people who said they have been born blind or with a dissability for the reason X, when in fact, for many people, it could be that you simply were born with that dissability not because it was useful to you to learn something, but because it was the only option available. Not sure if that would be also a correct assumption.

I think we can go with that one unless something proves it incorrect. It seems reasonable to me. I never did buy into the whole "you are suffering because it's your karma" or "you are suffering because you created it" schtick applied across the board (sometimes or many times it may be true, of course). Sometimes, I think, many influences converge to create a particular situation and the only thing over which we have any control is how we respond to it or what we learn from it.

 

[cubbex]

Generally, it is helpful to ask questions on a given topic within the thread about that topic so that mods (myself included) don't have to spend ten minutes searching and merging threads.

However, having done so now...

Sorry if this question has been answered somewhere else. Read most of the info about OPs from the different threads that the search function returned, but still had this doubt in mind.

My question is, let's imagine a new child, adamic, is born. S/he has all the genetics and qualities to "host" a soul and develop all the energy centers. Do you think there is a possibility that no soul "wants to" or "needs to" use that body (for whatever reason) and it becomes an adamic body with no soul emboided?

First, if the child is "Adamic", that would include the genetics to "host" a soul. That's the definition of "Adamic." All of those that are, have that potential but a lot of them never actualize it. My guess is that all of us have some sort of "soul pool" enlivening of our genetic bodies that runs the show until we begin to do the work that actualizes the seating/crystallizing of the higher self/soul. If that doesn't happen - for whatever reason - then the "soul pool essence" that was there to begin with is all there is. Maybe this idea is somehow related to "totems" where families or tribes or individuals would identify with certain creatures representing the soul pool connection of their genetic bodies?

I thought about this too. I took the horoscope and the incredible ways it can describe a person with a natal chart, as the expression of this.

 

[Laura]

I thought about this too. I took the horoscope and the incredible ways it can describe a person with a natal chart, as the expression of this.

Well, horoscopes are not at all what people think. The original reason for dividing the sky into the zodiacal signs was two-fold: 1) to keep time through the night; 2) to locate comets that might threaten earth.

The totem system of the ancient shamans is more what I mean.

 

[Graalsword]

I thought about this too. I took the horoscope and the incredible ways it can describe a person with a natal chart, as the expression of this.

Well, horoscopes are not at all what people think. The original reason for dividing the sky into the zodiacal signs was two-fold: 1) to keep time through the night; 2) to locate comets that might threaten earth.

The totem system of the ancient shamans is more what I mean.

That's very interesting, if it represents that soul pool of their genetic bodies or something related to genetics, it is very interesting that most totems have representations of birds, which could have something to do with avian genes? Or just symbolical of something else.

 

[whitecoast]

First, if the child is "Adamic", that would include the genetics to "host" a soul. That's the definition of "Adamic." All of those that are, have that potential but a lot of them never actualize it. My guess is that all of us have some sort of "soul pool" enlivening of our genetic bodies that runs the show until we begin to do the work that actualizes the seating/crystallizing of the higher self/soul. If that doesn't happen - for whatever reason - then the "soul pool essence" that was there to begin with is all there is. Maybe this idea is somehow related to "totems" where families or tribes or individuals would identify with certain creatures representing the soul pool connection of their genetic bodies?

That is really interesting. So, reading the following passage in the context of what Laura just said:

[quote author=Session on October 28, 1994 ]Q: (L) According to shamanistic teachings, one can have animal spirits or
guides. Is this correct?
A: Partly. You have them if you believe you have them.
Q: (L) If believing in them makes it so, is this belief beneficial?
A: All belief is beneficial at some level.
Q: (L) Did Jesus of Nazareth believe in animal spirits or totems?
A: No.
Q: (L) Is it just New Age revival of superstition?
A: Shamanism is subjective and limits. Lizard inspired.[/quote]

Is it possible that the C's could be saying that placing value on totems or genetic bloodlines could be limiting in the sense that they are prizing a particular characteristic in their genome or genetic body (which may be conferring certain physical/psychic/soul potentials), instead of being open and receptive to all the DNA they've inherited, and the multitude of its yet-unknown or unrealized possibilities?

 

[Jones]

First, if the child is "Adamic", that would include the genetics to "host" a soul. That's the definition of "Adamic." All of those that are, have that potential but a lot of them never actualize it. My guess is that all of us have some sort of "soul pool" enlivening of our genetic bodies that runs the show until we begin to do the work that actualizes the seating/crystallizing of the higher self/soul. If that doesn't happen - for whatever reason - then the "soul pool essence" that was there to begin with is all there is. Maybe this idea is somehow related to "totems" where families or tribes or individuals would identify with certain creatures representing the soul pool connection of their genetic bodies?

That is really interesting. So, reading the following passage in the context of what Laura just said:

[quote author=Session on October 28, 1994 ]Q: (L) According to shamanistic teachings, one can have animal spirits or
guides. Is this correct?
A: Partly. You have them if you believe you have them.
Q: (L) If believing in them makes it so, is this belief beneficial?
A: All belief is beneficial at some level.
Q: (L) Did Jesus of Nazareth believe in animal spirits or totems?
A: No.
Q: (L) Is it just New Age revival of superstition?
A: Shamanism is subjective and limits. Lizard inspired.

Is it possible that the C's could be saying that placing value on totems or genetic bloodlines could be limiting in the sense that they are prizing a particular characteristic in their genome or genetic body (which may be conferring certain physical/psychic/soul potentials), instead of being open and receptive to all the DNA they've inherited, and the multitude of its yet-unknown or unrealized possibilities?
[/quote]

I believe so. We can historically look at all types of things that seem to indicate that this is true.

Beethoven was born deaf, yet he made beautiful music. We hear the music which is just a type of vibration, he may have sensed that vibration differently but nonetheless perhaps it was just as pleasing to him.

Apparently neither Seabiscuit nor Pharlap had the conformation to be a great race horses, yet they were both winners.

If its true that the whole universe exists inside of each of us, then perhaps the possibilities are endless.

An elderly friend of mine used to talk about his brother who was a retired geneticist who believed that there were actually four strands of DNA instead of two. Perhaps there is more? What is the 'junk DNA' really about?

Perhaps it is not junk at all, but maybe latent or dormant....something that is awoken by circumstance, motivation and opportunity?

 

[SeekinTruth]

One thing seems pretty certain to me: what they labeled "junk DNA" -- the VAST majority of DNA, in fact -- CAN'T be "junk!" Why would nature have more than 90% of the DNA remain as useless information? Plus every day they keep finding more and more important functions for parts of DNA the had earlier considered "junk." Most of it is regulatory genes that regulate / turn on/off other genes and have VERY significant effects.

I guess it's part of the bias and idiotic, narrow dominant materialistic view that made the assumption possible that if the parts of the DNA that aren't obviously coding for proteins, they must be "junk."

 

[mcb]

There was a recent research report that shed new light on the role of introns (non-protein-coding DNA sequences; I do NOT call them "junk!") in "framing" RNA transcription (as I recall), but I have misplaced my references to it. If I find anything, I will post it. The functions of this DNA are slowly coming into view. Introns (probably using the j-word) have been discussed in other places in the forum.

While I don't know very much about it, RNA transcription is one of my special interests. I guess it appeals to my software developer's brain. Nothing "just happens" in the transcription process, any more than a computer "just happens" to interpret machine language. Introns would seem to have a critical role in transcription, along with microtubules, a myriad of "*ase's" and a whole bunch of other things. The odds of all this coming together without any external input in a span less than the age of the universe are not very good, I suspect.

 

[whitecoast]

One thing seems pretty certain to me: what they labeled "junk DNA" -- the VAST majority of DNA, in fact -- CAN'T be "junk!" Why would nature have more than 90% of the DNA remain as useless information? Plus every day they keep finding more and more important functions for parts of DNA the had earlier considered "junk." Most of it is regulatory genes that regulate / turn on/off other genes and have VERY significant effects.

I guess it's part of the bias and idiotic, narrow dominant materialistic view that made the assumption possible that if the parts of the DNA that aren't obviously coding for proteins, they must be "junk."

I have a relatively recent science degree in biology, and during my training at university almost ALL my professors called it non-coding DNA, and very rarely Junk DNA. It is more or less accepted that calling all non-protein-coding DNA junk is highly antiquated. FWIW, it takes awhile for certain discoveries and truths to trickle down from academia into high school classrooms and wal-mart aisle science magazines..... plus there is a benefit to the PTB in getting everyone to believe that genes = fate, and there's nothing you can do to improve your own genetic health.

In my molecular genetics class there was a special qualification made for calling something junk DNA, and that was DNA that did not seem to be selected for preservation by the organism. i.e., it would mutate at a regular rate (entropically) with no consequences to the organism's fitness. More essential genes mutate much slower, since they have a lower error tolerance from being so critical to the organism's functioning. Some genes mutate faster than what is expected, which indicates that the gene is taking on an additional or different function from its previous role in the organism.

You see these three potential manifestations crop up a lot in natural history that follows gene duplication events. Sometimes the extra copy of the gene is unneeded, and so mutates at a regular pace. Sometimes you see it mutate just as slowly as the original gene, indicating it probably is probably retaining the same functionality. Sometimes you see it mutate quicker, which indicates that the gene is evolving to conform to another optimal function.

A lot of transposable genetic elements (also called jumping genes) can still be perceived as junk DNA as well, since outside of their meta-adaptive role of being able to increase flexibility in the genome or trigger gene duplications, they almost amount to intra-cellular parasites, similar to viruses. Many actually believe that retroviruses first evolved as highly sophisticated mobile genetic elements that "captured" all the right genes in its sequence to code for proteins that allowed its escape from its home cell into another!

There was a recent research report that shed new light on the role of introns (non-protein-coding DNA sequences; I do NOT call them "junk!") in "framing" RNA transcription (as I recall), but I have misplaced my references to it. If I find anything, I will post it. The functions of this DNA are slowly coming into view. Introns (probably using the j-word) have been discussed in other places in the forum.

While I don't know very much about it, RNA transcription is one of my special interests. I guess it appeals to my software developer's brain. Nothing "just happens" in the transcription process, any more than a computer "just happens" to interpret machine language. Introns would seem to have a critical role in transcription, along with microtubules, a myriad of "*ase's" and a whole bunch of other things. The odds of all this coming together without any external input in a span less than the age of the universe are not very good, I suspect.

It sounds like you could be describing RNA splicing. The splicing out of introns allows the possibility of some exons (which ARE protein-coding) to be excluded from the open reading frame of the mRNA, allowing the protein to be truncated in some locations to alter its functionality for additional purposes.

Here's the wikipedia entry for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_splicing
Here's a neat little animation of how RNA is spliced via proteins: http://vcell.ndsu.nodak.edu/animations/mrnasplicing/movie-flash.htm

 

[Palinurus]

Beethoven was born deaf, yet he made beautiful music.

This statement is not correct, I'm afraid.

His hearing began to deteriorate in his late twenties, yet he continued to compose, conduct, and perform, even after becoming completely deaf.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_van_Beethoven

 

[Jones]

Oh.

My apologies.

Something I've heard but not questioned.

 

[David Topi]

Reading some stuff about the human evolution I stumbled upon this graph from wikipedia about the different "races" of hominids.


I guess that my question may not be easy to answer, if there is even an answer, but just started thinking if the two races, adamic and pre-adamic were already mixed into the earliest human ancestors that the wikipedia link noted (_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution )


That is, do you think that for instance, the earliest hominid race described there, Sahelanthropus Tchandensis, from the early Miocene period, had already members from both the pre-adamic and the adamic race or that "separation" happened later in history?


Or maybe all those lines of hominids had already members of both "souled" and OPs, and they come from a much more distant past we have no record of?