- The Facts:
Darwin's Theory of Evolution has, for a great many scientists, become relatively obsolete in the face of new research into the creation and generation of life.
- Reflect On:
Can we see that the belief in the randomness of the creation and evolution of life, as posited by Darwin's Theory of Evolution, is a limitation on human progress and no longer serving us in our collective evolution?
Science never ceases to question. When a theory is taught as an unquestionable fact, it should be quite obvious that something is wrong. Today, science isn’t really science, and this is not only true for topics such as evolution, it’s true in many areas where science is used for an agenda by powerful and corrupt forces.
Health sciences are a great example. As Bud Relman, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine said, “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”
Today, some scientific publications are silenced and others are pushed forward, depending on how they affect corporate and political agendas. It’s not actually about the science. What the mainstream media preaches as “settled science” is not actually settled. In fact it is often highly dubious. Why don’t more people see this? The answer is simple, it’s because we rely on outside sources to tell us ‘what is,’ instead of taking the time, as individual researchers, to really look into something.
The Theory Of Evolution
The ‘Theory of Evolution’ falls into this category. Scientists who have rejected the basic premises of Darwin’s theory continue to be condemned and shunned by the mainstream community and powerful people. This is because their paradigm-shifting thoughts and ideas on the subject, though more grounded in fact, threaten the goal of the global elite, which NSA whistleblower William Binney says, is “total population control.” The average person who gets a bachelor’s degree in science is trained to simply repeat the same old textbook rhetoric as to why evolution is the be all and end all of human existence, without actually looking into why the theory is highly questionable.
One of the latest dissenters is David Gelernter, a prominent scientist and distinguished professor of computer science at Yale University. He recently published an essay in the Claremont Review of Books explaining his objections to a premise behind Darwin’s theory.
He first points to the famous “Cambrian Explosion” which occurred half a billion years ago, in which a number of new organisms, including the first ever known animals, pop up suddenly in the fossil record over a period of approximately 70 million years. Apparently, this giant explosion of spontaneous life was followed by evolution, slow growth and “scanty fossils, mainly of single celled organisms, dating back to the origins of life roughly three and a half billions years ago.”
From here, he explains how Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from preceding ones. but if this is applied to the Cambrian creatures as well, it doesn’t work. The predecessors to the Cambrian creatures are missing, something that Darwin himself was disturbed by as well. Furthermore, even without this fact, many scientists have already used other aspects of the fossil record to demonstrate that Darwin’s theory is clearly wrong.
The Cambrian explosion had been unearthed, and beneath those Cambrian creatures their Precambrian predecessors should have been waiting – and weren’t. In fact, the fossil record as a whole lacked the upward-branching structure Darwin predicted….the ever-expanding fossil archives don’t look good for Darwin, who made clear and concrete predictions that have (so far) been falsified—according to many reputable paleontologists, anyway. When does the clock run out on those predictions? Never. But any thoughtful person must ask himself whether scientists today are looking for evidence that bears on Darwin, or looking to explain away evidence that contradicts him. There are some of each. Scientists are only human, and their thinking (like everyone else’s) is colored by emotion. (source)
The Genesis Of New Life Forms
His next point goes a little deeper. Many people point to the fact that variation occurs naturally among individuals and different traits are past on, this is something observable and something that we all know. Many scientists actually use this point as a proof for evolution, which doesn’t make much sense. According to proponents of the theory of evolution, natural variation is the consequence of random change or mutation to cells, to the genetic information within our cells that deal with reproduction. These cells pass on genetic change to the next generation, which, according to Darwinians, changes the future of the species and not just the individual.
The engine behind this thought, as Gelernter explains, is ‘change’ driven by the survival of the fittest and, obviously, lots and lots of time. He then goes on to ask a very crucial question: What exactly does generating new forms of life entail? Many within the field agree that generating a new shape of protein is the key to it. But does Darwinian evolution even purport to be able to do that? For Chris Williams, A Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University, the full scope of Darwinian Evolution barely touches upon this important matter:
As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.
More and more, the evidence points to the great intelligence apparent in the system of life-creation. The reason that Darwinian Evolution is being left behind, and for many is obsolete, is because it is completely based on random, non-intelligent processes. Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute), Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry, uses a clear real-life laboratory example to explain the need to posit the existence of an overriding ‘intelligence’ in order for things to make any sense:
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Gelernter brings this conversation specifically to the generation of proteins:
Proteins are the special ops forces (or maybe the Marines) of living cells, except that they are common instead of rare; they do all the heavy lifting, all the tricky and critical assignments, in a dazzling range of roles. Proteins called enzymes catalyze all sorts of reactions and drive cellular metabolism. Other proteins (such as collagen) give cells shape and structure, like tent poles but in far more shapes. Nerve function, muscle function, and photosynthesis are all driven by proteins. And in doing these jobs and many others, the actual, 3-D shape of the protein molecule is important.
So, is the simple neo-Darwinian mechanism up to this task? Are random mutation plus natural selection sufficient to create new protein shapes?
Diving Into Proteins
Gelernter goes on to answer that question in great detail, and after going through the entire explanation he comes to what seems to be an inarguable conclusion. That the Theory of Evolution cannot, in any way, be a possible explanation for the generation of new proteins and mutations that are required for evolution to occur at all. This explanation is complex, but well worth it if you really want to understand how the ‘Theory of Evolution’ is refuted by the science of proteins:
How to make proteins is our first question. Proteins are chains: linear sequences of atom-groups, each bonded to the next. A protein molecule is based on a chain of amino acids; 150 elements is a “modest-sized” chain; the average is 250. Each link is chosen, ordinarily, from one of 20 amino acids. A chain of amino acids is a polypeptide—“peptide” being the type of chemical bond that joins one amino acid to the next. But this chain is only the starting point: chemical forces among the links make parts of the chain twist themselves into helices; others straighten out, and then, sometimes, jackknife repeatedly, like a carpenter’s rule, into flat sheets. Then the whole assemblage folds itself up like a complex sheet of origami paper. And the actual 3-D shape of the resulting molecule is (as I have said) important.
Imagine a 150-element protein as a chain of 150 beads, each bead chosen from 20 varieties. But: only certain chains will work. Only certain bead combinations will form themselves into stable, useful, well-shaped proteins.
So how hard is it to build a useful, well-shaped protein? Can you throw a bunch of amino acids together and assume that you will get something good? Or must you choose each element of the chain with painstaking care? It happens to be very hard to choose the right beads.
Inventing a new protein means inventing a new gene. (Enter, finally, genes, DNA etc., with suitable fanfare.) Genes spell out the links of a protein chain, amino acid by amino acid. Each gene is a segment of DNA, the world’s most admired macromolecule. DNA, of course, is the famous double helix or spiral staircase, where each step is a pair of nucleotides. As you read the nucleotides along one edge of the staircase (sitting on one step and bumping your way downwards to the next and the next), each group of three nucleotides along the way specifies an amino acid. Each three-nucleotide group is a codon, and the correspondence between codons and amino acids is the genetic code. (The four nucleotides in DNA are abbreviated T, A, C and G, and you can look up the code in a high school textbook: TTA and TTC stand for phenylalanine, TCT for serine, and so on.)
Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation—by the accidental change of one codon to a different codon. You have two possible starting points for this attempt. You could mutate an existing gene, or mutate gibberish. You have a choice because DNA actually consists of valid genes separated by long sequences of nonsense. Most biologists think that the nonsense sequences are the main source of new genes. If you tinker with a valid gene, you will almost certainly make it worse—to the point where its protein misfires and endangers (or kills) its organism—long before you start making it better. The gibberish sequences, on the other hand, sit on the sidelines without making proteins, and you can mutate them, so far as we know, without endangering anything. The mutated sequence can then be passed on to the next generation, where it can be mutated again. Thus mutations can accumulate on the sidelines without affecting the organism. But if you mutate your way to an actual, valid new gene, your new gene can create a new protein and thereby, potentially, play a role in evolution.
Mutations themselves enter the picture when DNA splits in half down the center of the staircase, thereby allowing the enclosing cell to split in half, and the encompassing organism to grow. Each half-staircase summons a matching set of nucleotides from the surrounding chemical soup; two complete new DNA molecules emerge. A mistake in this elegant replication process—the wrong nucleotide answering the call, a nucleotide typo—yields a mutation, either to a valid blueprint or a stretch of gibberish.
Building a Better Protein
Now at last we are ready to take Darwin out for a test drive. Starting with 150 links of gibberish, what are the chances that we can mutate our way to a useful new shape of protein? We can ask basically the same question in a more manageable way: what are the chances that a random 150-link sequence will create such a protein? Nonsense sequences are essentially random. Mutations are random. Make random changes to a random sequence and you get another random sequence. So, close your eyes, make 150 random choices from your 20 bead boxes and string up your beads in the order in which you chose them. What are the odds that you will come up with a useful new protein?
It’s easy to see that the total number of possible sequences is immense. It’s easy to believe (although non-chemists must take their colleagues’ word for it) that the subset of useful sequences—sequences that create real, usable proteins—is, in comparison, tiny. But we must know how immense and how tiny.
The total count of possible 150-link chains, where each link is chosen separately from 20 amino acids, is 20150. In other words, many. 20150 roughly equals 10195, and there are only 1080 atoms in the universe.
What proportion of these many polypeptides are useful proteins? Douglas Axe did a series of experiments to estimate how many 150-long chains are capable of stable folds—of reaching the final step in the protein-creation process (the folding) and of holding their shapes long enough to be useful. (Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding: he was a graduate student at Caltech, then joined the Centre for Protein Engineering at Cambridge. The biologists whose work Meyer discusses are mainly first-rate Establishment scientists.) He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 1074 will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 1074 is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 1077.
In other words: immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is—so far—a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million—you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.
Proteins/Mutations Are One of Several Issues
Despite all of the scientific dogma that plagues this issue, proteins/mutations and lack of fossil evidence are simply the tip of the iceberg when it comes to finding faults found within the Theory of Evolution. There are many facts, information, science and new discoveries that would make one wonder how it’s even still being taught.
Furthermore, despite the fact that we get pounded with the idea that random mutation is ultimate truth within the mainstream, and that one is wrong for questioning it, there are a number of prominent scientists, who are actually getting together in large numbers to collectively refute Darwinism. A group of 500 scientists from several fields came together a few years to create “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,” as one examples. The issue is that these scientists are never getting any mainstream attention. But clearly there are some very intelligent people here.
The theory will be with us for a long time, exerting enormous cultural force. Darwin is no Newton. Newton’s physics survived Einstein and will always survive, because it explains the cases that dominate all of space-time except for the extreme ends of the spectrum, at the very smallest and largest scales. It’s just these most important cases, the ones we see all around us, that Darwin cannot explain. Yet his theory does explain cases of real significance. And Darwin’s intellectual daring will always be inspiring. The man will always be admired.
He now poses a final challenge. Whether biology will rise to this last one as well as it did to the first, when his theory upset every apple cart, remains to be seen. How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself? There is one of most important questions facing science in the 21st century.
Other Examples That Throw Off The Theory Of Evolution
Not long ago I wrote about a recent paper published by 33 scientists in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal suggesting that the flourishing of life during the Cambrian era (Cambrian Explosion) originates from the stars is so fascinating.
“With the rapidly increasing number of exoplanets that have been discovered in the habitable zones of long-lived red dwarf stars (Gillon et al., 2016), the prospects for genetic exchanges between life-bearing Earth-like planets cannot be ignored. ” (The study)
There is a great little blurb from Cosmos Magazine, one of the few outlets who are talking about the study:
With 33 authors from a wide range of reputable universities and research institutes, the paper makes a seemingly incredible claim. A claim that if true, would have the most profound consequences for our understanding of the universe. Life, the paper argues, did not originate on the planet Earth.
The reasons for this are as fascinating as the evidence and claims advanced by the paper itself. Entitled “Cause of the Cambrian Explosion – Terrestrial or Cosmic?”, the publication revives a controversial idea concerning the origin of life, an idea stretching back to Ancient Greece, known as ‘panspermia.a’.
Academics like Francis Crick, an English scientist who co-discovered the structure of the DNA molecule (alongside James D. Watson), argues that there is no possible way that the DNA molecule could have originated on Earth. The generally accepted theory in this field, as explained above, is that we are the result of a bunch of molecules accidentally bumping into each other, creating life. However, according to Crick, we are the result of what is now known as Directed Panspermia. Crick and British chemist Leslie Orgel published their paper on it in July of 1973, hinting that we were brought here by chance, or by some sort of intelligence from somewhere else in the universe.
This is interesting, because then you can get into the lore of creation stories that exists within ancient cultures from around the world, one would be our relation to, for example, what many indigenous culture refer to as the ‘Star People.’
I’m not even going to go into all of the strange skeletal remains that have been completely left out of the record, like the remains of giants, for example.
The agenda for the maintenance of the neo-Darwinian version of the ‘Theory of Evolution’ was nothing less than to move people away from the notion of an intelligent creator and towards a perception founded in scientific materialism. In this way, those who funded and controlled scientific activity on the planet would have tremendous power.
Darwin’s theory may have served humanity for a certain phase of our own evolution, but now it is holding us back. It’s time for all of us to pierce more deeply into an understanding of the nature of the creation of life if we are to become creators ourselves by studying the current evidence. As the group of 500 scientists asked, ‘How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself?’
Police Vet Explains Why People Like Jeffrey Epstein Get Away With Child Trafficking & Pedophilia
- The Facts:
Jon Wedger is a retired Police Detective with over 25 years service in the investigation into child abuse. In the video below, he describes how elite level trafficking and the abuse of children are able to sustain themselves.
- Reflect On:
What are some of the most powerful people on our planet involved in? When you are perceived as someone else than who you really are, what implications does that have? Do you research something before simply throwing it into the 'conspiracy' bucket?
Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest and death brought a lot of attention to the topic of elite level child trafficking and more awareness to the idea that powerful people may actually be running sex trafficking pedophile rings, as unbelievable as it sounds. The truth is, prior to Epstein’s ‘fame,’ this type of activity was well known. For example, there are strange cases of child porn from within the Pentagon and many more examples within politics, even within the Royal Family–something that Prince Andrew’s supposed involvement brought more attention to. If you want in-depth details and evidence, you can refer to this article I published a few months ago, which provides that type of information. There’s no point in re-writing it all here.
The key to all of this seems to be bribery and blackmail–at least there is information suggesting that part of Epstein’s role was to entrap ‘elite’ level figures who had the power to make decisions with regards to political policies and much more. You can read more about that here.
A paper published in European Psychiatry titled “The cremation of care ritual: Burning of effigies or human sacrifice murder? The importance of differentiating complex trauma from schizophrenia in extreme abuse settings” by Dr. Rainer Kurz, a chartered occupational psychologist (PhD at The University of Manchester, MSc in Industrial Psychology at The University of Hull) explains:
Research eventually led to the Franklin scandal that broke in 1989 when hundreds of children were apparently flown around the US to be abused by high ranking ‘Establishment’ members. Former state senator John W DeCamp, cited as one of the most effective legislators in Nebraska history, is today attorney for two of the abuse victims. A 15 year old girl disclosed that she had been abused since the age of 9 exposed to ‘ritual murder’ of a new born girl, a small boy (who was subsequently fried and eaten) and three others.
It’s quite shocking stuff, and who really knows how deep the rabbit hole goes and what these supposed rings are involved in.
Jon Wedger is one of many people who has testified at the International Tribunal For Natural Justice (ITNJ). Here is a list of the ITNJs commissioners, and here’s a list of their advocates. Wedger is a retired Police Detective with over 25 years service in the investigation into child abuse. According to his testimony, he was threatened and bullied out of his job for exposing the high-level cover-up of child prostitution. Since his retirement, he’s been working with anti-child abuse campaigner Bill Maloney in raising awareness of the true extent of the scale of this heinous crime. Himself, along with other whistleblowing cops as well as victims and survivors of abuse, are campaigning for a change in the Law to give brave whistleblowers the protection they truly deserve.
The truth is, there are many leaks that have come out and will continue to be revealed that have implicated a large portion of the global elite in the use, abuse, and murder of many children. These are very powerful people who basically control the judicial system as well as the mainstream media. Because of their power, they are able to protect themselves from ‘punishment.’
When people like Wedger dig into these cases, they are eventually stopped and threatened, and many are then afraid to speak out and of being wrongfully accused, put in prison, and silenced forever.
Whistleblowers in all fields have tremendous problems. The intelligence community does not make it easy for these people, and they show great bravery for speaking out.
The interview with Wedger below is a good interview to give you the extent of this problem and just how high up it goes. Places like the Vatican, global politics, Hollywood, and within the military industrial complex have all been implicated, and there are multiple examples in each field to choose from. Collective Evolution has covered many stories on this topic for multiple years, and you can find more articles on our website if you’d like to learn more. The ITNJ is also a great place to begin your research as well.
The testimony below is a great way to get an idea of how this type of activity is able to continue.
Obviously, the world is waking up to the fact that some powerful, influential people are involved in some very immoral things. But does this surprise you? To engage in such activities, perpetrators have to not only be dealing with a great amount of trauma, but also lack the ability to feel, lack empathy in some sense, and be devoid of the moral character that makes human beings so special. If many of these people are atop our political and financial worlds, making decisions that greatly influence our entire planet in a number of different ways, are you really surprised to see that our climate and our political relationships are in the states they are today? How can people involved in the abuse of children, among other things, really care about planet Earth and humanity as a whole? Something to think about…
Breaking: Harvey Weinstein Found Guilty of Criminal Sex Acts & Rape
- The Facts:
Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of committing a criminal sex act in the first degree, and rape in the third degree. Sentencing is still to come.
- Reflect On:
How many more high profile figures like Weinstein are involved in actions like this?
(Updates will be posted below as more information arrives.) It took 5 days for a New York jury to hand in their decision just a few hours ago. They found Harvey Weinstein guilty of committing a criminal sex act in the first degree involving one woman, and rape in the third degree involving another woman.
There were more serious charges against Weinstein as well; however the jury acquitted Weinstein on charges of predatory sexual assault involving two women, Miriam Haley and Jessica Mann. Jurors felt that that evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Weinstein had also raped Annabella Sciorra, a “Soprano’s” star.
The judge remanded Harvey Weinstein into custody following today’s verdict. Harvey Weinstein’s attorney is already filing an appeal following the verdict.
The sentence has not yet been handed down. The sentencing guidelines are as follows:
- Probation to four years in prison for rape in the third degree
- At least five years in prison for criminal sexual act in the first degree
More updates will be posted as we get them today.
The charges he was acquitted of carry a recommended sentence of 10 years to life in prison.
On The Rise
News of high profile sexual abuse cases such as this have been on the rise in recent years. This includes the Jeffrey Epstein case which of course involves accusations against Prince Andrew. Evidence and testimony suggest that stories like this lead us to the involvement of many more powerful figures including politicians, presidents and celebrities. These are the people who we idolize, give our power to, and who make up the rules of society.
The big question is, why are we suddenly having to face these revelations so intensely as a society at this moment? Is it finally time for humanity to face what sorts of acts are taking place at high levels of society and government? How would this change how we give trust and power to certain individuals?
Here at CE, we had the opportunity to do an incredible interview series with one survivor of sexual and ritual abuse as part of an elite level ring. Her name is Anneke Lucas and she gives important insights into how people in positions of power take actions like this, and what it means for the rest of society to learn about this stuff so we can create a better world at the end of the day. You can check out her testimony in full here on CETV.
– Harvey Weinstein is scheduled for sentencing on March 11.
Study: The Human Body Responds To Sharp Changes In Solar & Geomagnetic Activity
- The Facts:
Multiple studies have shown how changes In solar & geomagnetic activity correlate with human biology. This is usually measured by autonomic nervous system activity.
- Reflect On:
How much of an influence do the cosmos have on human consciousness?
Over the past few years, a number of publications have emerged from scientists and researchers all over the world regarding the human magnetic field. Not only have they been studying the human magnetic field, they’ve also been studying the magnetic field of the planet, and how all these fields, including our own, can impact ourselves and the people around us. It’s similar to quantum entanglement, in that both show that everybody and every living thing is “connected” in ways we have yet to fully understand.
Leading the charge are the brilliant scientists over at the HearthMath Institute. An internationally recognized nonprofit research and education organization, it dedicates itself to helping people reduce stress, self-regulate emotions, and build energy and resilience for healthy, happy lives.
A large portion of their research has investigated heart and brain interaction. Researchers have examined how the heart and brain communicate with each other and how that affects our consciousness and the way in which we perceive our world. For example, when a person is feeling really positive emotions like gratitude, love, or appreciation, the heart beats out a certain message. Because the heart beats out the largest electromagnetic field produced in the body, it can yield significant data for researchers. You can read more about that here.
Now, the Institute has published new research which suggests that daily autonomic nervous system activity not only responds to changes in solar and geomagnetic activity, but also synchronizes with the time-varying magnetic fields associated with geomatic field-line resonances and Schumann resonances.
In 1952, German physicist and professor W.O. Schumann of the Technical University of Munich began attempting to answer whether or not the Earth itself has a frequency — a pulse. His assumption about the existence of this frequency came from his understanding that when a sphere exists inside of another sphere, an electrical tension is created. Since the negatively charged Earth exists inside the positively charged ionosphere, there must be tension between the two, giving the Earth a specific frequency. Following his assumptions, through a series of calculations he was able to land upon a frequency he believed was the pulse of the Earth. This frequency was 10hz.
It wasn’t until 1954 that Schumann teamed up with another scientist, Herbert König, and confirmed that the resonance of the Earth maintained a frequency of 7.83 Hz. This discovery was later tested out by several scientists and confirmed. Since then, the Schumann Resonance has been the accepted term to describe or measure the pulse or heartbeat of the earth.
You can read more about Schumann Resonance here.
“To follow up and confirm these profound findings, an international study with 104 participants in five countries was conducted. The preliminary findings have confirmed and extended the results of the first study and they indicate humanity’s heart rhythms are synchronized on a global scale. We are synchronized not only with each other, but also with the earth’s energetic systems.” (source)
The study was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, and its results are consistent with other studies showing that changes in solar and geomagnetic activity correlate with changes in the human nervous system activity.
It’s long been known that all biological systems on Earth are exposed to invisible magnetic fields of all kinds, and at all range of frequencies, and that these fields can affect every cell and circuit to a greater or lesser degree. A number of physiological rhythms, as the study points out, have been shown to be synchronized with solar and geomagnetic activity. (source)(source)(source)(source)(source)(source)
As the study points out:
Human regulatory systems are designed to adapt to daily and seasonal climatic and geomagnetic variations; however, sharp changes in solar and geomagnetic activity and geomagnetic storms can stress these regulatory systems, resulting in alterations in melatonin/serotonin balance, blood pressure, immune system, reproductive, cardiac, and neurological processes. Disturbed geomagnetic activity is associated with the intensification of existing diseases, significant increases in myocardial infarction incidence and death, changes in blood flow, aggregation, and coagulation, increased blood pressure, cardiac arrhythmias, and seizures in epileptics.
Fascinating, isn’t it? it makes one wonder just how much we know about our health and what influences it.
The study outlines how, during periods of increased solar activity, which peaks every 10.5 to 11 years, “the sun emits increased ultraviolet (UV) energy and solar radio flub, which is measured by the 2.8 GHz signal” and “although the details of the physiological mechanisms in humans and animals are not yet fully understood, it is apparent that solar and magnetic influences affect a wide range of human health and behavioral processes, with the cardiovascular and nervous systems being the most clearly affected.”
The study goes on to outline several examples where the human autonomic nervous system seems to be responding to this type of activity.
For this specific study, ten healthy individuals from the ages of 34 to 65 years old participated, with an average age of 53. Their Heart Rate Variability (HRV) was recorded for 31 consecutive days. To see the methods and results, as well as the statistical analysis, limitations, and more, please refer to the actual study.
Based on their results, the authors concluded:
Overall, the study suggests that daily autonomic nervous system activity not only responds to changes in solar and geomagnetic activity, but is synchronized with the time-varying magnetic fields associated with geomagnetic field-line resonances and Schumann resonances. A likely explanation for how solar and geomagnetic fields can influence human nervous system activity is through a resonant coupling between our nervous systems and geomagnetic frequencies (Alfvén waves), or ultra low frequency standing waves in the earth-ionosphere resonant cavity (Schumann resonances) that overlap with physiological rhythms.
Findings like these, and many more, are exactly why the HeartMath institute began what’s known as the Global Coherence Initiative (GCI).
Others are working on identifying how these fields can be sensed.
A recent study published by Kirschvink in the journal Nature Communications suggests that a protein in the human retina, when placed into fruit flies, has the ability to detect magnetic fields. The research claims that it can serve as a magneto sensor, but it’s unknown whether or not humans use it in this way as well. (source)
The Global Coherence Initiative
The GCI in an international cooperative effort to help activate the heart of humanity and facilitate a shift in global consciousness. Its primary focus is to invite people to participate by actively adding more heart-coherent love, care, and compassion into the planetary field. It also aims to scientifically research how we are all energetically connected with each other and the planet, and how we can utilize this interconnectivity to raise our personal vibration to assist in creating a better world.
The hypotheses of the researchers and scientists behind this process are as follows:
- The Earth’s magnetic fields are a carrier of biologically relevant information that connects all living systems
- Every person affects this global information field. Large numbers of people creating heart-coherent states of love, appreciation, care, and compassion can generate a more coherent field environment that benefits others and helps off-set the current planetary discord and incoherence
- There is a feedback loop between human beings and Earth’s energetic/magnetic systems
- Earth has several sources of magnetic fields that affect us all. Two of them are the geomagnetic field that emanates from the core of the Earth, and the fields that exist between Earth and the ionosphere. These fields surround the entire planet and act as protective shields blocking out the harmful effects of solar radiation, cosmic rays, sand, and other forms of space weather. Without these fields, ice as we know it could not exist on Earth. They are part of the dynamic ecosystem of our planet.
- The Earth and ionosphere generate frequencies that range from 0.01 hertz to 300 hertz, some of which are in the exact same frequency range as the one happening in our brain, cardiovascular system, and autonomic nervous system. This fact is one way to explain how fluctuations in the Earth’s and Sun’s magnetic fields can influence us. Changes in these fields have also been shown to affect our brain waves, heart rhythms, memory, athletics performance, and overall halth.Changes in the Earth’s fields from extreme solar activity have been linked to some of humanity’s greatest creations of art, as well as some of its most tragic events. (source)We know how these fields affect us, but what about how we affect these fields? That’s the real question here. GCI scientists believe that because brainwave and heart rhythm frequencies overlap the Earth’s field resonance, we are not just receivers of biologically relevant information, but also feed information into the global field, thus creating a feedback loop with the Earth’s magnetic fields:
Research is indicating that human emotions and consciousness encode information into the geomagnetic field and this encoded information is distributed globally. The Earth’s magnetic fields act as carrier waves for this information which influences all living systems and the collective consciousness. (source)
This research, which is still in its infancy, has great ramifications. It will further push along the fact that our attitudes, emotions, and intentions actually matter, a lot, and that these factors within the realm of non-material science can affect all life on Earth. Coherent, cooperative intention could impact global events and improve the quality of life on Earth. Practicing love, gratitude, and appreciation, and bettering ourselves as individuals, are just a few of many action steps we can take toward changing our planet for the better.
This research further reinforces the fact that we have a special kind of relationship with every living system around us, an energetic relationship where processes as described above affect our nervous system, health, emotions, and mood. Previous research on this topic shows just how important our emotions could be with regards to coding information into this field. Positive emotions can uplift our nervous system, while negative emotions can dampen it.
The best way, for now, to work with this information and incorporate it into our daily lives is through self observation.
So, the next time you feel upset, angry, or frustrated, try observing yourself and how you react. It’s great practice to identify and neutralize your buttons so they cannot be pushed, and work on your personal development. You have to do whatever you can to feel good, which could include exercise, eating healthy, minimizing electronics usage, spending time with friends and animals, and more. You could practice being less judgemental, and work on your intentions by figuring out if they are coming from a ‘good’ place. You could be more grateful, you could help others, and you could treat others how they want to be treated.
There are a number of tools you could use, like meditation, for example, to assist you with these action steps. The bottom line is, if you are at peace with yourself, and have control over your emotions, you are helping the planet and others around you. If you are constantly angry, harming others, or have negative intentions, you could be doing the exact opposite.
To further your research on this topic, an excellent place to start is the at the Institute of HeartMath. The Institute of HeartMath is an internationally recognized nonprofit research and education organization dedicated to helping people reduce stress, self-regulate emotions, and build energy and resilience for healthy, happy lives.
Collective Evolution III, The Shift
Some of what is discussed above is also covered in our third documentary that was released three years ago. The Collective Evolution III is a powerful documentary that explores a revolutionary shift affecting every aspect of our planet. As the shift hits the fan, people are becoming more aware of the control structures that prevent us from experiencing our full potential. CE3 uses a different level of consciousness and scientific facts to bring clarity about the shift while dispelling myths about our true nature. It offers practical steps that we can implement right now to transition out of survival mode and into our more natural state of peace and co-operation . CE3 includes fascinating interviews with revolutionary speakers and people who are already opting out of the current socioeconomic system. The film examines hidden technologies and exciting alternatives for a bright limitless future. This is the most exciting time in the history of our world.
So if you’re interested, you can watch it on CETV here.
Related CE Articles:
Almost No Children In France Are Medicated For ADHD: Here’s How They Define & Treat It
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 11% of American children between the ages of 4...
8 Year-Old Mexican Girl Invents A Solar Water Heater & Wins Nuclear Science Prize
Innovation comes from all ages, and this is further seen in the story of Xóchitl Guadalupe Cruz, an eight-year-old girl...