“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(I learned that “evolution” can mean many things.¹ Like variations on a theme, it can be progressive or relatively sudden, convergent or divergent. I also learned that once I began to study it, a great amount of material presented itself seemingly without effort on my part, the information ranged all the way from paleontological studies to current biological research on recombinant DNA, and I found it in newspapers, scientific journals and popular magazines, in books and even on television. [I’m sure others have had similar experiences: Once a subject is focused upon, data relative to it seem to leap out from the background welter of daily events and “facts” surrounding one’s life.] Almost automatically, many of the notes for this appendix came to deal with the scientific thinking about evolution, and I realized that I wanted them to show the differences [as well as any similarities that might emerge] between Seth’s concepts and those “official” views prevailing in our physical reality.

(Now we read late surveys that show an increase in religious faith, and statements to the effect that science does not claim to reveal absolute truth, that any scientific theory is valid only until a variance is shown. Jane and I certainly aren’t turned on to realize that a major religion, for instance, teaches the “facts” of man’s basically corrupt and sinful nature; surely a religion in the best sense can offer beliefs superior to those! At the same time, we take note of the latest efforts of biological researchers to explain how, millions of years ago, a primitive DNA molecule could begin to manufacture the protein upon which life “rides,” and thus get around the contradiction posed in Note 8: What made the protein that sustains the processes of life, before that life was present to make the protein? The scientists involved hope the new hypothesis will survive further tests and become “fact,” thus giving clues to the riddles of origins and evolution. But to briefly paraphrase material Jane came through with not long ago [and which, again, will eventually be published]: “How does one deal with new facts that undermine old facts, in whatever field of endeavor? Do you say that reality has changed? Upon examination, facts give.”

Many times in laboratory studies, substances called proteinoids (often misleadingly defined in dictionaries as “primitive proteins”) have been observed forming from amino acids, which are subunits of proteins. Some researchers think of proteinoids as the forerunners of the protein that life needs to ride upon, but for quite complex scientific reasons, proteinoids are far from being true biological proteins and do not lead to life. Jane and I strongly object to being told that dead matter turns itself into living matter. Just how does this transformation come about?

15. In microbiology, the first stages of the exciting and controversial “genetic engineering” are at hand. This long-sought goal of science involves the very sophisticated recombination of DNA from such different life forms as plants and mammals, say, into new forms not seen on earth before. Such work has been called vital for the understanding of many things — the genetics of all species, the control of at least some diseases, great improvements in the quality of food plants, and so forth. It’s also been called outright interference with the evolutionary constraints that prevent the interbreeding of species. Although risks may be present in DNA research, such as the unforeseen creation of new diseases, it seems that within strict safeguards recombinant techniques are here to stay.