Theory of Evolution Examined

[Mark M]

"...the theory of evolution is as beautiful as a tale as the theory of Biblical creation."

—Seth/Jane Roberts, The Early Class Sessions, Vol 3, ESP Class Session, April 27, 1971
 
Evolution is assuredly a theory and here's why:
 
Speciation has not been worked out. Think of the unnatural selection of all those breeds of dogs -- they're still all the same species.
 
From the description of the book, Speciation (the author spoke at UW-Parkside a number of years ago):
 
...gives special emphasis to topics that are either controversial or the subject of active research, including sympatric speciation, reinforcement, the role of hybridization in speciation, the search for genes causing reproductive isolation, and mounting evidence for the role of natural and sexual selection in the origin of species. The authors do not hesitate to take stands on these and other controversial issues....
 
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/speciation-jerry-a-coyne/1101662254?ean=9780878930890
 
The rapid, even explosive, fish speciation in this lake in Africa strongly challenges conventional notions of evolution:
 
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/mystery-lake-malawi-180971442/
 
In contrast, apparently more usually:
 
Species remain unchanged for millions of years:

According to Michael Benton, "it seems clear then that stasis is common, and that had not been predicted from modern genetic studies."[17] A paramount example of evolutionary stasis is the fern Osmunda claytoniana. Based on paleontological evidence it has remained unchanged, even at the level of fossilized nuclei and chromosomes, for at least 180 million years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
 
The fossil record does not show transitional forms, so the notion of "punctuated equilibrium" was proposed.
 
From the same link above:
 
"Richard Dawkins regards the apparent gaps represented in the fossil record as documenting migratory events rather than evolutionary events. According to Dawkins, evolution certainly occurred but "probably gradually" elsewhere."
 
Per Seth, matter and form arise out of consciousness, not the other way around.
 
But if you are a materialist, evolution is required.
 
"The theory of evolution... brings about its own hypnotic focus...
"It can, even in scientific terms, never be proven. [No one can live long enough to witness a new
species evolutionarily emerging.]

"It is indeed no more than a point of view. It has colored man's
societies and cultures since its inception. It has dominated
economic systems....

"Sexual, economic, social, and even religious behavior became tinged
by these concepts.

"Darwinian concepts [such as the pass on one's genes imperative] ... certainly did not admit any altruistic animal
intent [which there are many accounts of including cross species]."

--Seth, Deleted Sess of 08\27/77
"There were fully developed men — that is, of full intellect, emotion, and will — living at the same time, in your terms,
as those creatures supposed to be man's evolutionary ancestors."

—Seth/Jane Roberts, The "Unknown" Reality, Vol 2, Appendix 12: (For Session 705)
 
"Now, your human stock did not all originate solely from
your planet. I never told you that it did. In that respect your
ancestry is indeed varied. Some of the information given in my
own book [Seth Speaks], by inference, should have made that clear....
 
"Basically - in your terms now - there is no such
thing as an isolated, independent earth stock, in that
consciousness did not suddenly erupt from the physical behavior
or characteristics of your planet, or in any other.

"As you know, consciousness comes first, and then forms
the physical materializations of it.


"[Human] Consciousness is not local [to the earth], and it never was."
 
--Seth, Session #604, Wednesday January 12, 1972
 
The occupants of some UFOs appear to be completely human.
 
I predict that if we manage to travel to other planets beyond our solar system, we will find most habitable planets already inhabited
with intelligent life, which will sometimes be human, just as Columbus' New World was already inhabited and not at all new to those already there.
 
Seth said the creation was akin to vivid dream becoming physically manifest.

 
I regard it as All That Is's ineffable experience.

[wadihicham]

Thank you for your post. Evolution is one of the reasons I'm interested in Seth teachings.

Even Darwin finally wrote in his autobiography:

extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist

One thing seems to be established, evolution is not determined uniquely by DNA.  Epigenetic mechanisms modify gene expression without altering the genome and are themselves influenced by numerous environmental factors, ranging from food and pollution to, according to some researchers, mental states, including thoughts and emotions.

The Epigenetics Revolution: How Modern Biology is Rewriting our Understanding of Genetics, Disease and Inheritance

and

The Biology of Belief 10th Anniversary Edition: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter, and Miracles


The following conversation between Lipton and Sheldrake is not to be missed.

For me, even taking into account the fact that thoughts, emotions and the environment impacts evolution (Lamarckian position) is not enough for understanding evolution. For example, how does one explain this :

 
Something as crazy as Seth metaphysics is needed. Maybe the future guide evolution in the past, passing through some extra temporal elsewhere (Framework 2 ??).

Trying to interpret evolution of species through the lens of Seth metaphysics would be a great project !

[wadihicham]

Here is a quote from Seth about evolution, a central concept seems to be the notion of mental genes:

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

I'm far from understanding all of this, but I note that evolution is guided by information outside of camouflage, beyond space-time. The assertion that the past, present, and future are simultaneous in a reality that is not fixed and leaves room for free will, that seems central to me, even though at the moment I don't understand it and Seth's metaphysics seems paradoxical to me.

[Deb]

I remember being a kid in elementary school and being told "this is the science, it's settled, no need to look any further." Which I believed. And then over the years the science kept changing. As it turns out, the established and accepted science is typically just theory... they don't tell you that. Theories can be disproven and replaced when a new theory comes along. At some point along the way I lost my faith in "facts."

There are gaps, or missing links, in the chain of evidence of evolution. I'm a big Bruce Lipton fan and his Spontaneous Evolution was a real eye opener. Well, he was, in general. BTW Bruce had some things to say about Darwin in that book. I've had the pleasure of meeting Bruce, getting my copies of his books signed. And a big hug.

His Spontaneous Evolution covers a lot of what he talked about in his earlier books, but goes beyond that. It's probably time for me to listen to it again. What he talks about fits in with Seth very well, but his approach is more scientific and less personal than Seth. As is his old buddy Joe Dispenza. Another author who is approaching what Seth teaches from a more scientific angle in order to reach a larger audience—appealing to those who trust science and not "woo-hoo" teachings such as Seth. Regardless of the approach, I'm on board. I took the series of workshops Joe offered. In person. Until he outpriced himself.

Great topic.

BTW I read an article about the platypus not long ago. Evolution, what the...?

[inavalan]

"(Long pause.) One particular experiment in consciousness may be pursued by one species, for example, and that knowledge given to another, or transferred to another, where it appears as "instinct." Here it will be used as a basis for a different kind of behavior, exploration, or experiment. I have said that evolution does not exist as you think of it, in any kind of one-line, ape-to-man time sequence. No other species developed in that manner, either. Instead there are parallel developments. Your time perception shows you but one slice of the whole cake, for instance.

In thinking in terms of consecutive time, however, evolution does not march from the past into the future. Instead, the species is precognitively aware of those changes it wants to make, and from the "future" it alters the "present" state of the chromosomes and genes to bring about in the probable future the specific changes it desires. Both above and below your usual conscious focus, then, time is experienced in an entirely different fashion, and is constantly manipulated, as physically you manipulate matter.

The CU's, forming the structure later in its entirety, form all the atoms, molecules, cells, and organs that make up your world. Land changes and alterations of species are conditions brought about in line with overall patterns that involve all species, or land and water masses, at any given "time." There is a great organization of consciousness involved on such occasions — sometimes creative cataclysms, in which, again from its own precognitive information, nature brings about those situations best suited to its needs. Such biological precognition is firmly based in the chromosomes and genes, and reflected in the cells. As mentioned earlier (in the 684tb session), the present corporal structure of any physical body of any kind is maintained only because of the cells' innate precognitive abilities. To the self the future, of course, is not experienced as future. It is simply one of the emerging conditions of an experienced Now (you had better capitalize that). The cells' practically felt "Now" includes, then, what you would think of as past and future, as simple conditions of Nowness. They maintain the body's structure in your poised time only by manipulating themselves in a rich medium of probabilities. There is a constant give-and-take of communication between the cell as you know it in present time, and the cell as it "was" in the past, or "will be.""

—UR1 Section 2: Session 690 March 21, 1974


EDIT: added highlights

[wadihicham]

Here is a text from  Paul M. Helfrich concerning Seth and related to the origin of species.

Seth on "The Origins of the Universe and of the Species" – An Integral Conscious Creation Myth

[Deb]

Thanks for that, Paul is great. I've bookmarked it so I can download some of these for safekeeping.

@wadihicham you might also enjoy this topic, I'm always interested in adding more materials.

"Influential people who take Seth seriously"  https://speakingofseth.com/index.php/topic,2493.msg20561.html#msg20561

[wadihicham]

Thank you Deb,

By the way, too sad (for me) that Paul's book  "Seth, the ultimate guide" is out of print. I would have been so glad to read it !

[Deb]

Well I have a copy, only started reading it and then put it on the back burner a while ago because (1) my life is hectic and (2) I already understand Seth. I collect Seth stuff.

I could be wrong but I think it never went to print because of copyright issues. Anyway, I bought it a few years ago, I think directly from him. I'm not home this week, can't verify this, but I think he mailed me a copy and I sent him a donation because legally he's not permitted to sell. PM me if you need more info.

[Mark M]

My understanding is Laurel wouldn't let him go to print over copyright.

Unfortunate as a book about what Seth says would at least to an extent promote the books themselves as Seth is the "horse's mouth" when it comes to Seth!

[Deb]

I have more to say about that.

But I'll keep my mouth shut since I've been referred to as the horse's mouth recently (or posterior?) on Facebook. I'll just continue digging thru Mary's stuff and keep my thoughts to myself.

 

[Mark M]

I understand.

[inavalan]

Well I have a copy, only started reading it and then put it on the back burner a while ago because (1) my life is hectic and (2) I already understand Seth. I collect Seth stuff.
...

I think that everyone should understand Seth on their own, because we're all different, with our own beliefs, our own paths on our value fulfillment quests, so we should individually intuitively-interpret the Seth material.

Probably, in the very beginning, it is okay to get initiated from others' views, but it is important to be aware that you inherit the others' distortions.

When I firstly read Hilfrich's essays on Seth they seemed interesting, but now my understanding differs from his.

Obviously, I believe that I have a better understanding of reality and the Seth Material, but I don't recommend anybody to trust me. Everyone should just find out for themselves directly intuitively-interpreting the Seth Material by themselves, leaving aside all their beliefs and expectations, to reduce distortions.

Some time ago, I watched an interview Hilfrich and his wife who channels an entity called Rose. To me, they weren't inspiring.

[inavalan]

"History, as you know it, represents but one single light upon which you focus. You interpret the events that you see therein, and you project upon its glimmer your interpretation of events that may occur. So entranced is your concentration, that when you wonder about the nature of reality you automatically confine your question to this one small flickering moment that you call physical reality. When you ponder upon the aspects of God, you unthinkingly speak of the creator of that one light. That light is unique, and if you truly understood what it was, you would indeed understand the nature of true reality.

History, as you think of it, represents but one thin line of probabilities, in which you are presently immersed. It does not represent the entire lifetime of your species or the catalogue of physical activities, or begin to tell the story of physical creatures, their civilizations, wars, joys, technologies, or triumphs. Reality is far more diverse, far richer and unutterable than you can presently suppose or comprehend. Evolution, as you think of it and as it is categorized by your scientists, represents but one probable line of evolution, the one in which, again, you are presently immersed."

There are, therefore, many other equally valid, equally real evolutionary developments that have occurred and are occurring and will occur, all within other probable systems of physical reality.  The diverse, endless possibilities of development possible could never appear within one slender framework of reality.

Sorry but you must log in to view spoiler contents.

—SS Part Two: Chapter 14: Session 559, November 9, 1970

[inavalan]

"God, therefore, is first of all a creator, not of one physical universe but of an infinite variety of probable existences, far more vast than those aspects of the physical universe with which your scientists are familiar. He did not simply then send a son to live and die on one small planet. He is a part of all probabilities.

There have been parables told, and stories of beginnings. All of these have been attempts to transmit knowledge in as simple terms as possible. Often answers were given to questions that literally have no meaning outside of your own system of reality.

For example: There was no beginning, and there will be no end, yet parables have been given telling you of beginnings and endings simply because with your distorted ideas of time, beginnings and endings seem to be inseparable, valid events. As you learn to turn the focus of your attention away from physical reality and therefore experience some slight evidence of other realities, your consciousness will cling to old ideas that make true explanations impossible for you to understand. Multidimensional awareness is available to you in your dreams, however, in some trance states, and often even beneath ordinary consciousness as you go about your day."

—SS Part Two: Chapter 14: Session 560, November 23, 1970

[Deb]

Some time ago, I watched an interview Hilfrich and his wife who channels an entity called Rose. To me, they weren't inspiring.

I know what you mean. I'm not a big fan of people who say they channel entities, Seth is really the only exception for me. Having come from Abraham Hicks, nothing else felt more genuine to me than Seth. That's just my preference, I get that.

I started this forum (2014) to discuss the Seth materials and get a better understanding from others' interpretations. I'm not saying Seth takes a lot of interpreting, he was very specific. SoS has well served my needs. While I love reading the Seth materials and still have a lot of material to go through, there are times when I take a break from studying to instead walk the talk.