Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Swandancer

Darwin's "Forgotten" Partner Alfred Wallace

35 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Swandancer

I watched an interview with Michael Cremo, author of "Human Devolution" and "Forbidden Archaeology", on Out There TV the other day. He says Charles Darwin had a partner, who is never spoken of by science or the textbooks, in their search and discovery of the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. This man's name was Sir Alfred Russell Wallace. I understand this is all being debated very hotly around the internet, but here is the story as Cremo tells it, and it is also at his website http://www.humandevolution.com

The story goes that Wallace had found an 'additional' component to humans, besides the usual organic ingredients, which he called the Paranormal. If I'm not mistaken and am remembering correctly, it seems this man was the first to coin the term. Wallace found that humans could communicate telepathically, have OBEs and NDEs which they reported on later, among other Metaphysical experiences. He found this added another dimension to the theory of evolution, at which time he and Darwin had a falling-out, and Cremo states this is why science refuses to mention Mr. Wallace. It takes away from the case of Charles Darwin's theory.

As an interesting side-note, many people have told Cremo they think he is the reincarnation of Darwin. He said on the interview that, if it's true, he has come back to correct his mistakes. From the gist of his statements, I gather he believes spirit is involuted into matter, and matter is evolving back to spirit, thereby calling his theory "Human Devolution". It is more the devolving of spirit, rather than of man, and is the evolving of man into the higher spiritual consciousness. To me it is a contacting of our Spiritual True Self or Angelic Twin, and a melding with Such.

Cremo is a Vedist and makes no small mention of this. I do not know if the Vedic Puranas contain all Truth or not, but am mainly interested in sharing on this forum about the partner Darwin is said to have had. His scientific and archaeological findings that seem to verify the antiquity of the earth, and which place its age at billions of years old, with human life existing for almost that long, has led him to believe that the Vedic Puranas could be accurate. He does admit that much more research is necessary to definitively prove this.

To quote from the Cremo website, which is mainly an overview of the book Human Devolution:

'Using the work of Wallace as a starting point, I proceed in the remaining chapters of Human Devolution to develop a Vedic alternative to the Darwinian account of human origins. I propose that before we ask the question, "Where did human beings come from?" we should first of all ask the question, "What is a human being?" Today most scientists believe that a human being is simply a combination of the ordinary chemical elements. This assumption limits the kinds of explanations that can be offered for human origins. I propose that it is more reasonable, based on available scientific evidence, to start with the assumption that a human being is composed of three separately existing substances: matter, mind, and consciousness (or spirit). This assumption widens the circle of possible explanations.'

So to me, "matter, mind and consciousness" equates to "body, soul and spirit".

He goes on to say:

'I define mind as a subtle, but nevertheless material, energy, associated with the human organism and capable of acting on ordinary matter in ways we cannot explain by our current laws of physics. Evidence for this mind element comes from scientific research into the phenomena called by some "paranormal" or "psychical". Here we are led into the hidden history of physics. Just as in archeology, there has been in physics a tremendous amount of knowledge filtration. For example, every physics student learns about the work of Pierre and Marie Curie, the husband and wife team who both received Nobel Prizes for their work in discovering radium. The account is found in practially every introductory physics textbook.

'What we do not read in the textbooks is that the Curies were heavily involved in psychical research......

'Evidence for a conscious self that can exist apart from mind and matter comes from medical reports of out of body experiences.'

Much later in the Introduction to his book it says:

'Having established that the human organism is composed of the elements matter, mind and consciousness (or spirit), it is natural to suppose (this is Cremo speaking, not Swandancer :innocent: ) that the cosmos is divided into regions, or levels of matter, mind and consciousness, each inhabited by beings adapted to life there. First, there is a region of pure consciousness which, as we experience it, is individual and personal. This suggests that the original source of connscious selves is also individual and personal. So in addition to the individual units of consciousness existing in the realm of pure consciousness, there is also an original conscious being who is their source.

'Distance healing by prayer and other miraculous cures provide another category of evidence for paranormal modification of biological form.....

'Psychiatrist Ian Stevenson has conducted extensive investigations into birthmarks that appear to have some relationship with wounds a person experienced in a past life. Persons who died of gunshot wounds in previous lives sometimes display on their present bodies birthmarks of appropriate size at the positions of the entry and exit wounds. This suggests that when such a person's soul and mind enter the present body, they carry with them impressions that appropriately modify the body's biological form....

'Yet another category of evidence consists of reports by prominent scientists who have witnessed mediums produce human limbs or complete human bodies. A particularly striking case was reported by Sir Alfred Russell Wallace who, accompanied by others, saw a clergyman medium named Monk produce a complete human form. ......

'Chapter 11 outlines the concept of human devolution, bringing together the various lines of evidence presented in the previous chapters. We do not evolve up from matter; rather we devolve, or come down, from the level of pure consciousness.

'Originally, we are pure units of consciousness existing in harmonious connection with the supreme conscious being. When we give up our willing connection with that supreme conscious being, we descend to regions of the cosmos dominated by the subtle and gross material energies, mind and matter.'

I would be interested in an exchange of pov's on this. I'm open to any responses and comments anyone may have.

:no::no:linked-image:no::no:

Edited by Swandancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robenergy

just came across this idea in another youtube video.. it may have been the same bloke you're on about??

am surprised there hasn't been much discussion in this thread in this topic!!

definitely rings more true with me than the current mainstream ideas!!

 

after all, what are we, are we humans having a spiritual experience or are we spiritual beings having a human experience!? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph

You should never listen to Cremo, especially when he pontificates about what (or who) is and is not discussed academia.

Wallace is frequently mentioned when discussing the history of science. Note the extensive biography/entry for him on Wikipedia as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robenergy
8 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

You should never listen to Cremo, especially when he pontificates about what (or who) is and is not discussed academia.

Wallace is frequently mentioned when discussing the history of science. Note the extensive biography/entry for him on Wikipedia as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace.

--Jaylemurph

why shouldn't cremo be listened to...?. sounds like he's thinking outside the box and coming up with good ideas that are supported by science..

have you considered "academia" is bought and paid for and all part of the manipulation? how do you think history has been so heavily rewritten..?

Edited by robenergy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
9 hours ago, robenergy said:

just came across this idea in another youtube video.. it may have been the same bloke you're on about??

am surprised there hasn't been much discussion in this thread in this topic!!

definitely rings more true with me than the current mainstream ideas!!

 

after all, what are we, are we humans having a spiritual experience or are we spiritual beings having a human experience!? ;)

Welcome to UM,

Do you realize that you replied to someone who hasn’t been active on the forum for 8+ years? 

Also you should not be surprised that there’s been no discussion, as there’s nothing to discuss. The fact that a YouTube video has enlightened you has warning sirens sounding too. 

You should do a bit more research and at least dig around the forums a bit more before resurrecting old threads! 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
11 hours ago, robenergy said:

why shouldn't cremo be listened to...?. sounds like he's thinking outside the box and coming up with good ideas that are supported by science..

have you considered "academia" is bought and paid for and all part of the manipulation? how do you think history has been so heavily rewritten..?

If he's  bull****ting you as he clearly is -- and that link to the Wiki article proves Cremo is lying, if he says Wallace is "forgotten" to science or history or both -- you should be highly skeptical of anything he says. He's a proven bad source of information.

And, no, I have never considered academia bought and paid for. I *am* an academic. I see how it works every day. I see historians arguing minutiae every day, and I know you could never get them all to agree to one thing, let alone work together for some sort of conspiracy. Because that is what you are implying, either naively or ignorantly. Or I guess it could be both. And history is re-written all the time, as new evidence is found and new interpretations arise. It should be when those things happen. It doesn't mean everything old was wrong (at least, not to anyone who's not a simpleton) or that you need to manufacture a giant conspiracy to account for it. So, I know how history is rewritten first-hand. 

Who do you think I'm going to lend more credence to -- myself, with direct applicable knowledge, or you, who can't even come up with his own ideas and are stuck carrying coals for someone you don't even know is worth listening to?

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lysippos
14 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

If he's  bull****ting you as he clearly is -- and that link to the Wiki article proves Cremo is lying, if he says Wallace is "forgotten" to science or history or both -- you should be highly skeptical of anything he says. He's a proven bad source of information.

And, no, I have never considered academia bought and paid for. I *am* an academic. I see how it works every day. I see historians arguing minutiae every day, and I know you could never get them all to agree to one thing, let alone work together for some sort of conspiracy. Because that is what you are implying, either naively or ignorantly. Or I guess it could be both. And history is re-written all the time, as new evidence is found and new interpretations arise. It should be when those things happen. It doesn't mean everything old was wrong (at least, not to anyone who's not a simpleton) or that you need to manufacture a giant conspiracy to account for it. So, I know how history is rewritten first-hand. 

Who do you think I'm going to lend more credence to -- myself, with direct applicable knowledge, or you, who can't even come up with his own ideas and are stuck carrying coals for someone you don't even know is worth listening to?

--Jaylemurph

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. A fallacy most “academics” would not commit.

Especially within the field of History. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
On ‎05‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 8:43 PM, robenergy said:

sounds like he's thinking outside the box and coming up with good ideas that are supported by science..

Such as?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
2 hours ago, Scepticus said:

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. A fallacy most “academics” would not commit.

Especially within the field of History. 

Notwithstanding which, Cremo is guilty of deceit when he claims "science refuses to mention Mr. Wallace". 

Admittedly, only the ignorant and gullible would fall for it (Wallace's work being pretty well known even outside of biological science), but if anything that makes it worse,  What other lies has he told you ....... ?  ;) 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lysippos
1 hour ago, Essan said:

Notwithstanding which, Cremo is guilty of deceit when he claims "science refuses to mention Mr. Wallace". 

Admittedly, only the ignorant and gullible would fall for it (Wallace's work being pretty well known even outside of biological science), but if anything that makes it worse,  What other lies has he told you ....... ?  ;) 

Please elaborate your rhetoric. More specifically, why you address the above to me.

You have not mentioned anything which I do not already know. 

In fact, I do wonder why below hasn’t already been pointed out to OP. 

They were not partners in anyway.  Their evolutionary theories were both published in the same year (1858) but they were never partners. 

Yes Wallace often applauded Darwin, however there were also several issue they firmly disagreed upon. 

It makes me suspect not that many of here knew of Wallace, before the posted Wikipedia page.

Edited by Scepticus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan

That's the problem with necrothreads, the OP has long since gone away .... 

But I am guessing the ressurector has little prior knowledge of Wallace?
 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Codenwarra

Alfred Russel Wallace is well known. In the 1850s he worked as a specimen collector in south east Asia.  During this time he conceived a theory of evolution. 

1.  The "Wallace Line" is named for him.  This line is is of course imaginary like the Equator, but it separates Australian fauna (kangaroos etc) from those of Eurasia.  he essentially founded the topic of biogeography.  

2.  In the 1850s, before publication of his theory of evolution Charles Darwin was already the among the best known naturalists in the world.  Wallace was recovering from an illness in Singapore and in 1857 or 1858 wrote to Darwin to ask his opinion of his own evolution theory.

3. Though Darwin had conceived his theory in the 1830s, and had worked on it over the years, he had been reluctant to publish because of the religious implications. Despite this Darwin had asked the opinion of a number of people in that time to ask if they could find factual or logical errors. He received the letter from Wallace in 1858 which startled him.  Someone else might have published immediately but Darwin waited until Russel had returned and the co-published at the end of 1858.

4.  Far from science hiding the name of Wallace, there is a portrait of him at the Royal Society of London and anyone taking an interest in the history of evolutionary thought finds out about him very quickly. 

5.  There are hundreds of scientists of the 1800s and 1900s who made minor or major contributions whose names are now known to few,  Wallace is just one of many who are now more of less obscure.  

I have seen some of Cremo's stuff a good while ago.  It does not in the least surprise me that he would lie about science and Wallace.      

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line    

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
On 2/6/2018 at 4:05 AM, Scepticus said:

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. A fallacy most “academics” would not commit.

Well first of all, the appeal to authority is not always regarded as a fallacy. If, for instance, everyone in a group of people debating decided that the authority appealed to is valid, then it's in no way a fallacy. (Though that's clearly not the case here.) The idea that it is a fallacy comes, basically, from the fact the an authority can still be wrong.
 

It strikes me that what's at issue is the difference between authority and expertise. Inasmuch as authority exists in an academic field, it's relational, rather than probile: people either call you an authority (compared to themselves, or to an assumed average person on the street) or not. There's no sort of test you take to prove your authority.

With expertise, however, there are standards. Either you can change a lightbulb or not. Either you know where to look to confirm a claim that Livy makes or you don't. Your proven expertise does not depend on comparing you with others in your field. You can demonstrate you are expert in something, even if you can't demonstrate your authority on a subject. To say that appeal to someone's expertise is fallacious is to make an attempt to make an argument counter to "people who know more about a subject, know more about a subject." You're not going to get very far with that, though god knows it gets thrown around on this forum virtually daily, and no one taking that stance has ever convinced anybody else of anything other than their own ignorance.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lysippos
On 10/2/2018 at 8:03 AM, jaylemurph said:

Well first of all, the appeal to authority is not always regarded as a fallacy. If, for instance, everyone in a group of people debating decided that the authority appealed to is valid, then it's in no way a fallacy. (Though that's clearly not the case here.) The idea that it is a fallacy comes, basically, from the fact the an authority can still be wrong.
 

It strikes me that what's at issue is the difference between authority and expertise. Inasmuch as authority exists in an academic field, it's relational, rather than probile: people either call you an authority (compared to themselves, or to an assumed average person on the street) or not. There's no sort of test you take to prove your authority.

With expertise, however, there are standards. Either you can change a lightbulb or not. Either you know where to look to confirm a claim that Livy makes or you don't. Your proven expertise does not depend on comparing you with others in your field. You can demonstrate you are expert in something, even if you can't demonstrate your authority on a subject. To say that appeal to someone's expertise is fallacious is to make an attempt to make an argument counter to "people who know more about a subject, know more about a subject." You're not going to get very far with that, though god knows it gets thrown around on this forum virtually daily, and no one taking that stance has ever convinced anybody else of anything other than their own ignorance.

--Jaylemurph

Above is a demonstration of your scientific illiteracy. 

Regarding expertise you show a very simplistic view. This leads me to believe you have poor knowledge of the current academic debate on ‘expertise’. Suggest you read up on Gobet, 2015, to expand your knowledge of the current debate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan

No, Scepticius, it's an example of you been rather rude to someone for no apparent reason.

And when recommending books on obscure subjects, it's useful to give the title and ideally a link ;) 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Expertise-Multi-Disciplinary-Fernand-Gobet/dp/0230276245

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
8 hours ago, Scepticus said:

Above is a demonstration of your scientific illiteracy. 

Regarding expertise you show a very simplistic view. This leads me to believe you have poor knowledge of the current academic debate on ‘expertise’. Suggest you read up on Gobet, 2015, to expand your knowledge of the current debate.

 

Well, we poor historians are noted for our small wit and lack of complexity: you know, like Livy and Gibbons and Yates. I've never claimed any particular literacy in science (which I believe most long-term posters here can confirm) as history isn't a science. And as others forgive me for my poor, doddering pseudo-intellectualism, I'm sure they'll just as kindly forgive you for your poor, doddering attempt at social interaction.

Or, you know, they'll call you out on it like Essan just did. But you do you, baby!

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
2 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

Well, we poor historians are noted for our small wit and lack of complexity: you know, like Livy and Gibbons and Yates. I've never claimed any particular literacy in science (which I believe most long-term posters here can confirm) as history isn't a science. And as others forgive me for my poor, doddering pseudo-intellectualism, I'm sure they'll just as kindly forgive you for your poor, doddering attempt at social interaction.

Or, you know, they'll call you out on it like Essan just did. But you do you, baby!

--Jaylemurph

:lol::tu:

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lysippos
12 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Well, we poor historians are noted for our small wit and lack of complexity: you know, like Livy and Gibbons and Yates. I've never claimed any particular literacy in science (which I believe most long-term posters here can confirm) as history isn't a science. And as others forgive me for my poor, doddering pseudo-intellectualism, I'm sure they'll just as kindly forgive you for your poor, doddering attempt at social interaction.

Or, you know, they'll call you out on it like Essan just did. But you do you, baby!

--Jaylemurph

I am a trained historian and archaeologist, who could argue why history is no longer an art. 

I would, however, probably come across as rude and socially incompetent. 

Given you view the field of history as an art, can I assume you only hold an undergraduate degree?

 

Edited by Lysippos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
13 hours ago, Lysippos said:

I am a trained historian and archaeologist, who could argue why history is no longer an art. 

>Goodness, poor Clio. Any other Muses you want to cut down to save your ego? I guess Urania would be your next victim, but οὐαί ταῖς θῠγᾰτέρσῐ Μνημοσῠ́νης.
     In any case, you display a distinct ignorance of (several) fields and of personal imagination if you're actual suggesting an academic field can be either just an art or just a science. I'm sure your black and white stance makes for truly insightful historical writing, though: Hitler was a bad man. Charlemagne was a good king. The French Revolution was bad. Such simplicity might remind others of more robust understanding of academic administrators rather than their faculty.

I would, however, probably come across as rude and socially incompetent. 

>I believe (tho' my own ignorance may well forbid me from knowing) there's an expression about horses and shutting the barn door too late that applies here. Though your use of a subjunctive rather than indicative verb is charmingly naive.

Given you view the field of history as an art, can I assume you only hold an undergraduate degree?

>There's a folk derivation of the word assume that seems here relevant, but no doubt your intellect has removed you from appreciating the feeble attempts at learning we hoi polloi are reduced to.

I've left one other wee medieval literary gift here for you, as well. Given your advanced historical training, it will no doubt be exceedingly evident.

--Jaylemurph

Edited by jaylemurph
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lysippos
14 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

I've left one other wee medieval literary gift here for you, as well. Given your advanced historical training, it will no doubt be exceedingly evident.

--Jaylemurph

If above is not a joke due to ignorance, its a perfect example of the dunning-kruger effect. 

But given you hold the opinion a field cannot ‘just be a science’ (by the way, your ignorant assumption demonstrates your level) I would love to hear your thesis on why. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
3 hours ago, Lysippos said:

If above is not a joke due to ignorance, its a perfect example of the dunning-kruger effect. 

But given you hold the opinion a field cannot ‘just be a science’ (by the way, your ignorant assumption demonstrates your level) I would love to hear your thesis on why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrostic

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
On 2/22/2018 at 4:53 AM, Lysippos said:

I am a trained historian and archaeologist, who could argue why history is no longer an art. 

I would, however, probably come across as rude and socially incompetent. 

Given you view the field of history as an art, can I assume you only hold an undergraduate degree?

 

Appeal to authority? How ironic.

.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal
7 minutes ago, Swede said:

Appeal to authority? How ironic.

.

I just viewed that statement as an affirmation of jay's assertion that historians argue minutiae everyday.

:D

Edited by Jarocal
Fringe theories are like Bratwurst. They go great with beer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
8 minutes ago, Swede said:

Appeal to authority? How ironic.

.

Most people who make this claim have to reveal the who and where or be written off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
52 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

I just viewed that statement as an affirmation of jay's assertion that historians argue minutiae everyday.

:D

That easily got my second biggest laugh of the week*. I mean, I told you guys that. For years!

And there are already a good four solid-gold, definite wheezes in my post.

--Jaylemurph

*Here's number one: https://imgur.com/gallery/GQyBIrg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.