Everything you know is wrong: Prehumans, Hominoids and Genetic Intervention in Human Evolution

Everything you know is wrong 

Prehumans, Hominoids and Genetic Intervention in Human Evolution

By Lloyd Pye

Full length presentation (1:58:35) @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObjiTKIPDjU

Have You Ever Wondered...?

Why our skin is so poorly adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth?

Why we are so physically weak compared to our closest genetic relatives?

Why Earth is the only planet or moon with moveable tectonic plates?

Why Earth’s moon is so extraordinarily outsized relative to other moons?

Why megalithic structures like the Pyramids cannot be duplicated today?

How the ancient Sumerians could know Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto existed when we discovered Uranus only in 1781, Neptune in 1846, and Pluto in 1930?

How and why the Sumerians kept cosmic time in units of almost 26,000 years?

Why humans have a gene pool with over 4000 genetic defects, while our closest genetic relatives, chimps and gorillas, have very few?

Why the human genome clocks is only about 200,000 years old but anthropologists insist we descend from creatures 6.0 million years old?

Why humans in no way resemble those ancient so-called “pre”-humans?

Why humans have 46 chromosomes while our closest genetic relatives (sharing over 95% of our DNA) total 48?

image - http://wikicompany.org/wiki/images/thumb/South_america_elongated_skull_005.jpg/384px-South_america_elongated_skull_005.jpg

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati or click on any label/tag at the bottom of the page @  http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

 New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 New Illuminati on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Illuminati/320674219559   

The Prince of Centraxis – http://centraxis.blogspot.com

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 

Very Hard to Catch: AIDS – The Real Story 2

AIDS – The Real Story

 Section 1 Part 2 – Very Hard to Catch

 It’s long been known that, compared to most sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS is very hard to catch. There are a number of reasons for this; one is that retroviruses such as HIV use RNA for their core genetic material, not the more robust DNA used by other life forms. RNA-based organisms will not survive for long outside a culture medium (such as blood) as their genetic material will rapidly break up and dissolve.

        While around 27% of Australian hospital workers accidentally pricked with hypodermic syringes contaminated with hepatitis-B contract that disease, HIV infection occurs in less than 1% of those stuck with HIV-contaminated needles. 

            A year-long Canadian study involved accidental exposure to HIV in health workers from more than 200 hospitals and laboratories, including needle-stick and scalpel injuries, eye-splash and open wound contamination. No cases of HIV contamination were found in the study, which matched a U.S. survey by the CDC of 1,116 health care workers who were directly exposed to HIV-contaminated blood. One of the only two workers who tested positive was thought to have contracted the virus outside work.[i]  

Long Odds

 

While the transmission rate for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as syphilis and gonorrhea is between 20% and 50% (depending on the disease and whether it’s transmitted from male-to-female or female-to-male), the infection rate for AIDS by heterosexual (vaginal) transmission was estimated at “probably less than 1% per contact” by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) back in 1986.  [ii] 

            This figure was subsequently reduced to about one in a thousand per heterosexual encounter with an HIV-infected person – and this from males to females only. This Berkeley University study (released at the Third International Conference on AIDS in June 1987) concluded that this one in a thousand chance only relates to male-to-female transmission. In the reverse case, too few men had shown any sign of infection to calculate a man’s risk of sex with an infected woman. The study was based on a survey of 96 women who had varying degrees of sexual contact with HIV-infected men. [iii] 

            But the odds of transmission could be more like one in a million – or less.

“Whether it’s one in a million, or one in a hundred thousand, or one in ten thousand, or one in ten million, I don’t know,” said CDC Head Statistician Dr Meade Morgan in 1988. “But the risk is very low in any given instance.”

 

        

[iv]

              AIDS transmission is divided into three categories:  Primary transmission is to a member of a high-risk group – homosexual, bisexual, intravenous (I.V.) drug user, haemophiliac etc – by direct blood-to-blood or semen-to-blood contact.  

Secondary transmission occurs when these people pass the HIV retrovirus on sexually (including anally) to a member of a non-high risk group. Most secondary recipients who have been studied are the steady female partners of I.V. drug users. The spouses and regular sex partners of many regular I.V. drug users are also I.V. drug users. That this fact is not allowed for in these studies makes questionable widely-quoted sexual transmission figures for I.V. drug users.  


Tertiary transmission is said to occur when the secondary recipient then passes on the virus to another person heterosexually. People can be forgiven for assuming that it’s been proved that this is happening, other than by the anal route. But no such proof exists.
  
            Tertiary transmission isn’t happening, except perhaps in some very isolated cases. AIDS began showing up among U.S. homosexuals in 1979; in early 1981 the CDC documented AIDS cases among I.V. drug users, and, in June of that year, their heterosexual partners. If it existed, tertiary heterosexual (vaginal or oral) AIDS would have started showing up by late 1981. By 1982 the first fourth-generation, purely heterosexual cases would have started. By 1988 AIDS would have been decimating the US population. This didn’t happen - and there is, as a result, no possibility of significant or actual tertiary heterosexual transmission. 

Abovementioned blood bank and US Army reports show that the level of HIV infection remained low in the general population (See previous - AIDS – The Heterosexual Myth). 

Body Fluids

Female-to-male transmission during vaginal intercourse is believed to be virtually non-existent and researchers have long reached general agreement that the miniscule amounts of HIV  occasionally isolated in the teardrops of infected people is not enough to cause transmission. HIV in vaginal secretions is present in roughly the same proportions as in tears – when it can be isolated at all. Dr Robert Gallo (credited as co-discoverer of HIV) stated in 1987 that despite repeated attempts, he could not isolate the retrovirus in vaginal fluids. In February 1987 Gallo told a reporter he did not know of a single case of female-to-male sexual transmission.
[v]

              With the female-to-male transmission rate so low as to be actually or practically non-existent – as research indicates – there is a natural ‘firebreak’ for heterosexual transmission of AIDS, making it virtually impossible for the syndrome to spread horizontally through the heterosexual (non-I.V. drug-using, non-anal sex practicing) community. HIV’s RNA structure makes it very susceptible to rapid breakdown by substances in human saliva and other enzyme-rich bodily secretions.

 

            Several studies of gay men have failed to find any HIV-positive cases which could definitely be linked to oral sex. Oral sex has never been definitely linked to any cases of HIV transmission. 

 I.V. Drugs and AIDS

 

 I.V. drug users who share needles and/or syringes face a much greater risk of infection than hospital workers who accidentally prick themselves on infected syringes, as the full contents of a syringe is dumped directly into a vein along with the contaminated blood of other users.
 
             One 1987 Australian study indicated that 2% of Australians had injected themselves with a drug at least once in the previous 12 months.[vi]

             I.V. drug use is the major IV transmission vector aside from anal sex. Three Australian studies showed the rising prevalence of HIV infection in the I.V. dug-using community, based on rates of contaminated syringes. In 1985 the rate was 0.5%; in 1986 the figure was 1% and in 1987 some centers reported a 10% infection rate. These figures could be slightly inflated by the regular return of syringes to needle exchange centers by a few heavy users, but by 1988 one of the centers alone was giving out around 2,500 needles a month in Sydney’s King’s Cross. In February 1988, 10-15% of 1,500 returned needles in three inner-city suburbs were infected. [vii]

              “These kids are homeless and routinely take serepax, alcohol, speed, heroin or combinations of all these drugs,” said the director of the King’s Cross Kirketon Road Centre. “They are living very dangerous lives anyway.
 
             “They view AIDS as just one concern and probably not as important as having a full stomach or somewhere to stay. A virus that will not appear for three or four or five years… well, it’s very difficult for them to grasp.”

             The New South Wales State Government started a pilot needle exchange at one centre in November 1986. In the first nine months of operation 14,000 needles were handed out, so the scheme was expanded.[viii]

 

            In New York and many other places it’s still (on writing) illegal to for non-insulin users to possess a hypodermic syringe, which has meant that some users hire their used syringes out to other users, often using abandoned buildings as ‘shooting galleries’.

             Mainly as a result of such outdated legislation, 1988 figures from the Bronx indicated that half of the estimated 30,000 to 40,000 I.V. drug users there may have been infected with HIV.

             “A quarter of these AIDS victims are women,” according to Dr Ernst Drucker, an epidemiologist who ran the Montefiore Medical Centre’s community health and drug addiction programmes.
[ix]

              1988 New York City Health Department figures show that 52 out of 650 homeless youths under the age of  21 who came to the Covenant House crisis centre were infected with HIV. 

            “Fifty-two people tested positive, but the most startling statistic we have come up with is that the incidence of antibodies to AIDS among the males and females (in these 52) is exactly the same,” said medical director Dr Jim Kennedy of Covenant House, located two blocks from Times Square.

             “What has already happened with AIDS in New York is very interesting. First the incidence of AIDS in gay men has peaked and is going down. The incidence of I.V. drug users getting AIDS is going up and up,” said Dr Kennedy.[x]

 

            The demonstrated prevalence of I.V. drug use in the U.S., Australia and the rest of the developed world shows how easily I.V. drug users can account for most HIV cases classed as ‘heterosexual’ or ‘other/unknown’ (see AIDS – The Heterosexual Myth). When added to the reported and unreported incidence of anal sex and bisexuality (see part 3), most – if not all – cases attributed to possible heterosexual transmission of AIDS are accounted for.

Continues...

- R.Ayana

[i]  Communicable Diseases Intelligence Bulletin (Australia) No. 87/7 April 1987

[2]  Drs Curran and Peterman of the CDC, Journal of the American Medical Association, October 1986

[3]  Nancy Padian, Berkeley School of Public Health, AP, The Australian 6-6-87

 [iv]  AIDS Backlash, The Bulletin (Australia), 22-3-88

 v]  Sydney Morning Herald, 3^rd August ‘87

[vi]  Study quoted by Professor Ron Penny, NACAIDS Acting Chairman, The Australian 25-3-88

[vii]  Dr David Cooper, Director of NHMRC’s Special Unit in AIDS Epidemiology, Sydney Morning Herald 21-5-88

[viii]  Ibid

[ix]  Ibid

[x]  Sydney Morning Herald 21-5-88

  See

AIDS the Real Story - Prologue

AIDS the Real Story Section 1 – The Heterosexual Myth

Section 1 Part 2 - Very Hard to Catch

-          Se AIDS the Real Story Section 2 Intro - Smallpox Vaccines
AIDS the Real Story Section 2 – The Virus Engineers

 See Section 2 Part 2 - Bacteriological Warfare

Section 2 Part 4 - Mistake Waiting to Happen 

Part 5 - 'Gay' AIDS - Early Warning

AIDS the Real Story Section 3 - African AIDS

images - author's &

http://www.starmgc.com/images/syringe.jpg

Continues Part Three...

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati or click on any label/tag at the bottom of the page @  http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

 New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 New Illuminati on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Illuminati/320674219559   

The Prince of Centraxis – http://centraxis.blogspot.com

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

HARMFUL UV RAYS ARE A CORPORATE HOAX

HARMFUL UV RAYS ARE A CORPORATE HOAX

Don’t Panic!

How often have you been told to put on plenty of sunscreen before venturing out into the bright summer sunshine? If you are anything like the average American you have been or will be told about 8,463.2 times before the age of 21, according to the Federal Statistical Institute. Why? Because you've also been brainwashed to believe that ULTRA VIOLET RADIATION is harmful to your health, but the only thing being hurt by UV radiation is your wallet.

The Sun Picture Obtained from NASA

A Bottle Of A Popular Sunscreen

According to research scientist, Dr. Matthew Kingston-Brown, and his colleague, Dr. Harold Schafferton, UV radiation is absolutely harmless. In fact, it is essential for your continued health and well-being. "Ultraviolet Radiation is not the demon that governmental "health" agencies and news media have portrayed it to be," states Dr. Kingston-Brown. "Your body must absorb an ample supply of UV to keep the skin properly conditioned in order to repel infection, as well as aid in breaking down waste produced by dermal cells." Dr. Schafferton also explained: "Sunburn is not a serious sign of skin damage. If you eat too much sugar, you will get hyper; too much wine and you will get drunk. Likewise, if you absorb too much UV you will get a painful sunburn, but it does not cause skin cancer! That (cancer) is a result of air pollution combined with, of all things, sunscreen!" According to the two doctors, they have uncovered a plot by "Big Business" and "Big Brother" to trick the American people into believing that UV is harmful! "If you think UV will give you cancer, then you will buy products to 'protect' yourself from it. It is really an ingenious plot," Dr. Kingston-Brown stated. According to Dr. Kingston-Brown and Dr. Schafferton, the people have been convinced that UV is harmful, and thus will buy sunblock to protect themselves. The sunblock has chemicals in it that not only are harmful, but are also mildly addictive! People will then continue to buy sunblock throughout the summer months until autumn arrives and the weather cools. During the autumn and winter months people are not outside as much, and not as exposed to solar rays and thus quit using sunscreen. That is when withdrawal sets in which is illustrated by the cold/flu-like symptoms seen during the winter and fall months. People BUY a FLU SHOT or COLD MEDICINE to protect against and alleviate these symptoms! They say there is no cure for the cold, because there really is no cold causing virus! The companies (which as we all know own most of the government anyway) want you to keep feeding them your hard-earned money all year long! "We (Dr. Kingston-Brown and Dr. Schafferton) are very concerned that this hoax has been allowed to propagate for as long as it has, but, what can we do against it? We are only two dedicated scientists wanting to alert the American people to the fraud and health risks that their government has placed them in." Now, thanks to the UNCOVEROR, the truth can be known: DON'T USE SUNSCREEN! From http://www.uncoveror.com/sun.htm

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati or click on any label/tag at the bottom of the page @  http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

 New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 New Illuminati on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Illuminati/320674219559   

The Prince of Centraxis – http://centraxis.blogspot.com

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

A New Science of Life: The Matrix of Matter and Consciousness

A New Science of Life

The Matrix of Matter and Consciousness

 

 
Can instinct, mind, habit, psychic abilities and the nature of life and consciousness be understood in a new, exciting and illuminating way? Has the solution for many of the basic puzzles of existence been found – and conveniently ignored?          

Rupert Sheldrake is an English biochemist who studied cell biology, the development of plants and the ageing of cells. In 1983 he published A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation, written over a year and a half in an ashram in southern India . His book provoked great controversy; the leading journal Nature said that it was “the best candidate for burning for many years.”          

            The questions Sheldrake tries to answer are ones that have remained unanswered, although widely recognised by other biologists. If he’s right the common conception of the evolution of biological forms has been completely revised; if he’s wrong the debate that has ensued can only help in the search for answers that have so far eluded orthodox science. 

                       His theory of formative causation is deceptively simple and has intuitive appeal because it connects the past with the present in a direct, though intangible way. As such it is a causal factor unrecognised by physics and is outside the conventional, mechanistic approach that science is built upon. This approach treats living organisms as complex machines obeying the laws of physics and chemistry and seeks to explain life in terms of these laws. While extraordinarily successful in detailing the components and workings of organisms it has led to only a limited understanding of the complexity of life. Sheldrake seeks and illuminates a broader science of life.

                           What his hypothesis suggests is that present forms of life are influenced by previous generations of the same type; it is concerned with the repetition of forms. The greater the numbers, the greater the influence, so it becomes more likely over time that current forms will be patterned on their ancestors. While this sounds like a reasonable proposition it has some amazing implications. It is also a radical departure from the idea that lifeforms are solely determined by their genetic inheritance.

Morphogenetic Fields

Formative Causation works through what Sheldrake has called Morphogenetic Fields. These can be regarded as being analogous to known fields of physics because the effects they cause are observable even though they themselves are not, like gravitational or electromagnetic fields. Since each type of organism has its own characteristic form each must have its own specific kind of morphogenetic field – one for protozoa, one for amoeba, one for muscle cells of earthworms, another for sheep’s kidneys, one for elephants, another for each type of tree and so on. At all levels of complexity the forms of systems are developed and maintained by morphogenetic fields. 

                                 Morphogenetic fields do not act alone, but in conjunction with traditional energetic and chemical causes studied by biophysicists. However something has to account for the emergence of pattern and form in organisms, and Sheldrake suggests that this is due to the action of specific morphogenetic fields. These are hierarchically organised, from cells to tissues to organs then to organisms as a whole, working at each level to organise the processes of growth and development. The higher-level fields restrict and pattern the lower ones. 

                     The idea of a causal influence from previous similar forms requires an action across space and time unlike any known type of physical action. The medium for this action is called morphic resonance, which operates like radio transmissions that can be picked up by tuning a receiver to a particular frequency or waveform. Present forms are receivers for the ‘transmissions’ from the past and so their development is influenced by these past forms – in Sheldrake’s phrase “the forms of past systems influence all subsequent similar systems”. This does not mean that there are not differences in detail between past and present similar forms, but there is a process of averaging, with those features that most past forms have in common being reinforced. Receptivity to specific morphic frequencies depends on the system’s or organism’s internal structure and organisation. 

                                 As time goes on the cumulative influence of previous systems confers increasing stability on the morphogenetic field and the more likely it is to be repeated in the future. There is a pathway of morphogenesis (the coming into being of characteristic and specific forms) that is created and strengthened by succeeding generations.                      

Formative Karma

Sheldrake contrasts his theory of formative causation with what he calls the ‘conventional’ theory. That is the mechanistic, materialist view that all life forms are solely dictated by their genetic and chemical structures. The hypothesis of formative causation regards the forms as the causes of subsequent similar forms. 

                                 “However, this is not a metaphysical but a physical proposition, and is capable of being tested experimentally.


            “If this hypothesis is supported by experimental evidence, then not only might it allow the various matter fields of quantum field theory to be intercepted in terms of morphogenetic fields, but it could also lead towards a new understanding of other physical fields.” (p. 118)

            The hypothesis can be summarized in the following way: 

                                 All material units like atoms, molecules, crystals, organs and organisms are given their form and internal structure through non-physical fields called morphogenetic fields. Each kind of morphic unit (i.e. material unit) has its own characteristic morphogenetic field. In the morphogenesis of a particular unit all past members of its particular type or species are causally linked to all present members. 

                                  “…Organisms of the same variety or race will resemble each other not only because they are genetically similar and subject to similar genetic influences during morphogenesis, but also because their characteristics are reinforced and stabilised by morphic resonances from past organisms of the same variety.” (p. 130) Characteristic forms are determined by previous similar forms which act across time and space by a process called morphic resonance acting through the morphogenetic field. 

                                  Sheldrake isn’t suggesting that the causative role of morphogenetic fields is conscious design, but is emphasizing that not all events are explained by purely physical fields.

                                   The effect causative formation has on the probability of a given creature or object having a given structure is that it determines only the most widespread features of its species. For example, in the development of an organism from a fertilised egg, features appear in a sequence of the organism’s order, family, genus, then species before any characteristics which distinguish the individual from other members of their species appear. In Sheldrake’s terminology there is an increasing specificity of morphic resonance during morphogenesis.

Repeatable Experiments

Where Sheldrake differs from other researchers who have proposed holistic theories of form and being is that he claims there are replicable experiments that prove the existence of formative causation. The scientific community usually reacts badly to what they see as metaphysical explanations of problems which can’t be solved by conventional reductionist methods. 

                                  In his first book, several experimental tests are outlined. He considers the case of a newly-synthesised organic chemical which has never existed before (pp. 106-110). According to his theory its crystalline form will not be predictable in advance, but after it has been crystalised for the first time its form will influence subsequent crystalisations by morphic resonance. The more often it’s crystalised the stronger the influence should become.

                                   Chemists who have synthesised new chemicals often have great difficulty in getting these substances to crystalise for the first time. But over time, as increasing numbers of past crystals contribute to the morphogenetic field, these substances tend to crystalise more and more easily. 

                                 Sheldrake proposes dividing a batch of a newly synthesised chemical into three and separating them and comparing crystal forms under controlled conditions when growing larger batches from them. If the batch which has the largest number of crystals exerts the strongest influence on the form of subsequent crystals, this will be evidence to support Sheldrake’s hypothesis.  

                                A similar experiment using hybrid seeds is also proposed (pp. 133-134). Three batches are grown under controlled conditions to determine contributions of morphic resonance to the characteristics of the plants. Testing for environmental and morphic effects on plants could be done using a new variety of self-pollinated crop, by growing plants in two very different environments. Comparing their effects on an original batch of seeds could show relative effects on the morphology of subsequent plants. Any sort of transmitted environmental influence of this sort is inexplicable in terms of mechanistic theory.    
       

           

It’s this willingness to propose experiments and have his theories tested by other scientists which distinguishes Sheldrake from many other theorists. He is an excellent scientist and an imaginative plant physiologist and what he proposes is scientifically acceptable. The scientific method is to test theories and hypotheses in order to gather evidence for their proof (verification or falsification).

                                  Biological science has many unsolved problems despite the cracking of the genetic code. The conventional approach argues that a little bit more research will be ale to explain these anomalies in physical and chemical terms. This makes the evidence gathered in a large-scale experiment using television virtually inexplicable.

Conventionally Inexplicable

In Sheldrake’s television test, a picture containing a hidden image was shown to about two million viewers in Britain . A picture hidden within a design was found to be easily recognisable after it had been shown. The pictures were shown for one minute each, always with the overall picture first. Different groups of people were shown the pictures a few days before the TV transmission and tested for their recognition of the hidden picture; this was repeated a few days later. The proportion recognising the hidden picture increased by 75% after the transmission.

          

             This increase is statistically significant at the one percent level of probability – that is, there’s a probability of less than one in one hundred that this result was obtained by chance. Parameters were carefully checked, cheating was ruled out and controls were used. These positive results may be inexplicable by factors other than morphic resonance, and the outcome has been replicated in a number of subsequent tests.

          

            Sheldrake sees morphogenetic fields as capable of explaining aspects of quantum theory, evolution (not just genetic), instinct and habit – all of which depend on morphic resonance as well as just the physical forms of matter and life. The repetition of behaviour builds up its own morphic resonances which become our instincts and daily habits.

           

            An experiment with rats which was begun in 1920 in the hope of testing Lamark’s theories of inherited characteristics provided results which support the hypothesis of formative causation. One prediction of the theory is that the larger the number of animals that have been trained to complete a specific task in the past, the easier it should be for subsequent, similar animals to learn the same thing.

          

            An increased rate of learning in both trained and untrained rats in successive generations would support the hypothesis. In this experiment (p. 189), the number of errors made by a rat before it learned to leave a tank gave a measure of its rate of learning. The experiment continued for 32 generations and took fifteen years to complete; there was a marked tendency for rats in successive generations to learn the task more quickly. The average number of errors made by rats in the first eight generations was 56, but by the last generation only twenty mistakes was the average.

          

            A critic of this experiment repeated it in Edinburgh over eighteen generations and included a parallel line of untrained rats, which were tested for their rate of learning as a control. For some reason, all the rats found it much easier to learn the task in this second experiment than in the first! A considerable number of rats in both trained and untrained lines actually knew how to do the task immediately. The average score of the Edinburgh rats at the beginning of the experiment was similar to the result of rats tested in the previous Harvard experiment after thirty generations.

         

            The experiment was carried out again in Melbourne, Australia , where the rates of learning of trained and untrained lines were measured for fifty successive generations over twenty years. A marked tendency for rats of the trained line to learn more quickly in subsequent generations was found – but exactly the same tendency was also found in the untrained line.

           

            The results of these experiments – which began ninety years ago – are completely inexplicable using any orthodox scientific idea but are seen differently in the light of the hypothesis of formative causation.

         

            Perhaps the apparently debunked New Age ‘Hundredth Monkey’ story propounded by Ken Keyes was the right idea on the wrong track – or another example of morphic resonance.

- by Gerard Deva
We first published this in NEXUS New Times Magazine, Vol 1. no 9
SeeA New Science of Life – The Hypothesis of Formative Causation by Rupert Sheldrake (Paladin)

xtra image - http://www.greatmystery.org/images/rupert_sheldrake.jpg
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC12/Puz1b.gif

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati:

@  http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com (or click on any tag at the bottom of the page for direct references)

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

 New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 New Illuminati on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Illuminati/320674219559 

The Prince of Centraxis – http://centraxis.blogspot.com

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com