I have been collecting my thoughts on this for a few days now and i feel i am ready to share them.

It seems obvious to me that evolution for the first time in history of this planet is in the hands of the those who are to be evolved; us humans, but what are we doing with it.

I realise that we have been around for thousands of years now but i'm not sure if anyone has realised this. As normal with my ideas it's unlikely that i'm the first to think this, so if you know of an author who has gone before me on this i'd be intereested to know their name.

Darwinian evolution predominantly revolves around cumlulative mutations that offer the predator or prey an advantage. Thus elovolution occurs slowly over long periods of time in both types of animal and each will follow growth and decline curves related to their evolution.

As humans we have no predators, so we do not exhibit this kind of evolution anymore, with the execption of viruses and alike as predators, but then we have medicine to combat them. I feel that Darwinian evolution as a theory can not be applied to humans.

Evolution of course still takes place but its no longer within the structures of predator/prey.

I find myself asking the question; what is it in us that is evolving now, and is it still a uncontrollable process? could we have a choice and if we do where are we going to take evolution?

One of the other aspects of Darwinian evolution relates to trends in natural selection. In the animal world natural selection is not random, it is instead by preference and that preference is encoded in genes and ultimately DNA. These preferences cause similar types of gene preference to be sought out by those animals in possesion of those genes. Preference can screw up the principle of survival of the fittest and one famous example used by Darwin is that of Peacocks tails.

Peacocks tails exist because of a gene preference for large flambouyant tails, Peahens find them more attractive than smaller less colourfull tails, and thus the Peacock with the biggest, most outrageous tail gets all the girls. This is not a good idea from the survival of the fittest angle as a bird with a large cumbersome tail will be more likey killed than an bird with a smaller, more agile tail. However because of relatively few predators, the peacock tail has been able to develop, and its development has been exponential.

How does this relate to humans? Well we have no predators, yet we have genes and DNA like every other animal on the planet so evolution must apply to us still. Could we be subject to selfish gene evolution, could our intelligence/consciousness be subject to exponential growth?

I believe that it is a factor but it is overrulled by our power of choice. In human society we tollerate those with less than perfect bodies. I mean this in a general sense and include all the things you might imagine; from disabilities, through diseases, to physical appearances. So we Humans are less than perfect in darwinian evolutionary terms.

We do have the unique ability to look beyond the body though, and at the mind of our peers. It is here where I believe we should be evolving, but this does not seem to be happening in society at large. Have you noticed how stupid people seem to make up the predominant portion of human populations? Please don't jump on me for calling them stupid, i'm sure that you see what i mean.

Given human society is subject to choice, it seems that we have branches of clever families spawning further clever families, and stupid families doing the opposite. This is of course a huge over simplification but it helps to illustrate my point that Humans don't seem to be evolving in any meaningful direction anymore.

What do we do about it? I would like to see the expansion of consciousness as the primary goal of human procreation and hence evolution, but that is never going to happen unless we all choose to drive evolution that way and that is very doubtful. We would have to have world wide policy and be taught it in school.

So we are left with the situation where expanded conciousness is for the few. It would be nice to bring in eastern religions here and the idea of reincarnation and suggest that we will all get there in the end, but i don't feel at the moment that i can support such an idea.

I invite you comments on whether cummulative evolution is dead within us...

Thanks

Society might want to teach 'Awareness' in School but sloooowly soooo thaaaat everyoooone caan uuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnndddddddddeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrsssssssssttaaaaaannnnnnnd

I know alot of people who could use it

There is innate in matter and present in universal space a form of energy not commonly accepted or known to Humanity on Earth. When this discovery is finally made, then will physicists feel that they have solved, almost at least, the mystery of matter. And so will they have approached one step nearer the Creator; so will they have mastered one more phase of the divine technique; but in no sense will they have found God, neither will they have established the existence of matter or the operation of natural laws apart from the cosmic technique of Consciousness and the motivating purpose of the God.
Subsequent to even still greater progress and further discoveries, after Humanity on Earth has advanced immeasurably in comparison with present knowledge, though you should gain control of the energy revolutions of the electrical units of matter to the extent of modifying their physical manifestations--even after all such possible progress, forever will scientists be powerless to create one atom of matter or to originate one flash of energy or ever to add to matter that which we call life.

Religion is not alone dogmatic; natural philosophy equally tends to dogmatize. When a renowned religious teacher reasoned that the number seven was fundamental to nature because there are seven openings in the human head, if he had known more of chemistry, he might have advocated such a belief founded on a true phenomenon of the physical world. There is in all the physical universes of time and space, notwithstanding the universal manifestation of the decimal constitution of energy, the ever-present reminder of the reality of the sevenfold electronic organization of prematter.
The number seven is basic to the central universe and the spiritual system of inherent transmissions of character, but the number ten, the decimal system, is inherent in energy, matter, and the material creation. Nevertheless the atomic world does display a certain periodic characterization which recurs in groups of seven--a birthmark carried by this material world indicative of its far-distant spiritual origin.
This sevenfold persistence of creative constitution is exhibited in the chemical domains as a recurrence of similar physical and chemical properties in segregated periods of seven when the basic elements are arranged in the order of their atomic weights. When the perceived physical chemical elements are thus arranged in a row, any given quality or property tends to recur by sevens. This periodic change by sevens recurs diminishingly and with variations throughout the entire chemical table, being most markedly observable in the earlier or lighter atomic groupings. Starting from any one element, after noting some one property, such a quality will change for six consecutive elements, but on reaching the eighth, it tends to reappear, that is, the eighth chemically active element resembles the first, the ninth the second, and so on. Such a fact of the physical world unmistakably points to the sevenfold constitution of ancestral energy and is indicative of the fundamental reality of the sevenfold diversity of the creations of time and space. Man should also note that there are seven colors in the natural spectrum.

But not all the suppositions of natural philosophy are valid; for example, the hypothetical ether, which represents an ingenious attempt of man to unify his ignorance of space phenomena. The philosophy of the universe cannot be predicated on the observations of so-called science. If such a metamorphosis could not be seen, a scientist would be inclined to deny the possibility of developing a butterfly out of a caterpillar.

Physical stability associated with biologic elasticity is present in nature only because of the well-nigh infinite wisdom possessed by the Master Architect of creation. Nothing less than transcendental wisdom could ever design units of matter which are at the same time so stable and so efficiently flexible.

I came across a statement of interest where it was said,� left up to the rules of science man could not have known the realities of the relationship of Oxygen and Hydrogen to create water, nor the ability of water to extinguish fire. Oxygen is an active enhancer to fire and helps it burn as hydrogen in itself is a fuel to give potential for combustion.� Left on their own methods of dissecting what is tangible and within the limits of relative thinking would man have ever be able to take these two properties and create water without having seen water and analyzed its physical properties? Then does it still make sense that these two combustion aiding properties could extinguish fire?
Thinking cannot always facilitate the awareness of reality by using linear progression in relative terms.

Reality or the perception of it is a mirror of the minds evolution in awareness towards the innate qualities of Spirit and Consciousness. Manifest reality including the evolution of Man is a mirror to the process of return towards (so to speak of) the Source of creation. Like the saying all things that go up must come down. All things that are created must return towards their source. Or in other words all things that are created are tied and can be traced to their source. Man is tied to Consciousness and spirit is the binding force of all manifestations including man to the Ultimate Consciousness.

When spirit is denied man wanders about trying to define itself within the limits of the perceived reality and that perceived reality being limited to limits and boundaries of thoughts and beliefs. Thoughts and beliefs substantiated by tangible relatively explained experiences, mostly consecrated by democratic approval.

All matter is affected by spirit and is created by Consciousness through spirit. If you don’t like the terminology then what happens is thought patterns of habit tend to separate reality again rather than uniting it to find a grander picture of reality.
The study of religion would be to find what is truth in all religions rather than break down each to find flaws and definitions based on limits in physical reality.

Science continues to try to define reality by doing just that. It takes what it can prove within the limits of its abilities and throws out the rest.

It is a common new age idea to say, “Who am I?� If we continue to limit ourselves to definitions in what we are and are not then Man continues to evolve in its slow progression of mirroring its struggle to achieve the innate nature of Spirit in its perfection, its limitless abilities and moral structure of service and surrender to the One. The One being the All. The All being God. God being everything.

The search cannot end in the endless experiences or any one experience, but in the totality that is the essence of all creation and its related experiences to that. Once that is recognized, the meaning of life, evolution, matter can be cognized or somewhat understood. The totality of Consciousness can never be defined in any relative dfinition or experience, nor can it be denied by such means either.

Matter is unerringly drawn and moved by the gravity of spirit. It is directed by consciousness. Mans evolution is a mirror of that. Know the spirit, know the Self and know yourself as Man-ifest reality.

Thanks Shawn, I tend to agree with the Bell curve idea and for all our technology, things seem to be getting worse, perhaps technology has to take some of the blame?


Hi Ziska, yes you are probably right about me going to quickly If you have any direct questions, i'd be happy to help you out.

Unfortunately to explain the ideas more slowly may take many pages, and many hours, instead if you are interested in learning about this subject may I direct you to Richard Dawkins books; the Blind Watchmaker, and The Selfish Gene, or Darwins Origin of the Species if you are feeling brave.

I really dislike Dawkins personality and his writing style, but has got a point or two worth understanding.


Joe, thanks for posting, I really appreciated the bit on Engery, and its something I am looking for always. It seems to me to be equivelent to Carlos Castenedas Power, Yogas Tapas, George Lucas's Force, and Phillip Pulmans Dust

Hi Laz

This is a great discussion you have started. However, in your introductory posting you made many simplistic and erroneous remarks. I won't go into all of these immediately, but take your statements about "stupid" people. First you do need to give your definition of this now, clearly, as you have made your own understanding of it rather elusive. As an educationalist for over twenty years I now believe that the vast majority of humans are far from stupid and that the "intellectual phenotypical status" of most is down to the environment (health, education, etc). In the UK, the government wish to achieve a 50% university entrance level and they are getting close to this. Not withstanding all of the issues to do with funding etc, the majority of students will achieve. The other 50%? Well, I am currently involved in the development of a Foundation Degree that will attract a proportion of these. A sort of second chance. Now I know that getting a degree and being intelligent are not necessarily one and the same thing. The definition of intelligence is still vague and can take us down a devisive route anyway. Better to look at potential to do things, chances to do things and time to do things. How many Einsteins have we lost due to starvation in the developing world?

I do like the idea of expanded consciousness. (We also need to refine the description of what we mean by this).

But take care with your science. Two stupid (your term) parents do not necessarily give rise to a stupid offspring. Genetics does not work like that. Don't assume that you know the reason why a given charactersitic has evolved. The convoluted human brain cortex might be more beneficial as a heat sync than a more voluminous processor when it comes to survival. Also, we have a great expanded consciousness future (evolution?) utilising adjuncts such as electronic processors, memory etc (electronics might actually be photonics or whatever). And humans ARE probably being selected. We have an enormous battle going on every day with viruses, bacteria, protozoa, fungi et alia. Our very genome is constructed partly from the DNA of viruses (who knows how much yet?). Our very behaviour is modified by our reactions to these battles (bacterial toxins affecting neurochemistry). One idea of evolution is to see a future potentially free of disease and then our minds will be free from processing disease and pain activity (and response to it), providing a better vehicle "expanded consciousness". To finish for now, how do you not know that the peacock tail is also an efficient weapon in addition to its display usage in mating? Beware teleological statements.

But, again, what a fine discussion you have started. Thank you.

Hey Hey

Edward Wilson, in his book Consilience, addresses Laz' concern about the lack of evolutionary direction for homo sapiens, and also debunks Herrnstein's Bell Curve, which I haven't read, but from reviews, appears to legitimize racism.

There are two mental features that I think are desirable for increasing in evolution: intelligence and consciousness. If people value these things, they can select for them in their potential marriage partners, just as they select for beauty today.

Rick, how do you select a marriage partner via intelligence? Not using IQ's, I hope. By the way, if my wife should get to know this is possible there will be hell to pay!

How about evolution for communication?