The Ebner effect and it's ramifications on the theory of evolution

So, first of all, I'm still unsure whether this Ebner effect/primeval code thing is real or some kind of very elaborate hoax, but so far, have not been able to find anything to suggest it's been faked.

Here's a video explaining it -



Essentially, 2 Swiss scientists claim that they were able to affect the gene expression of life in it's formative stages (ie. fish eggs, plants at germination) by altering the electrostatic field that it was grown in. Once the "fetal" stage was over, they were then able to transplant the plants and move the fish away from the ESF and they continued to grow into their new forms. The fish that were grown looked like a 150 year old extinct species of fish, the plants also very odd with corn having 8 heads instead of 1 and wheat being ready for harvest in 10 weeks.

If this is true, there would be some truly immense uses for this, it could feed the whole world. But anyway, the question I have is...

As the Earth has a natural electrostatic field, could this mean that we have it wrong with evolution and DNA doesn't change very slowly over the course of years of selection, but could actually change within one generation, if the atmospheric charge of the planet changed for whatever reason?

Now I like this one..... it makes the mind race. Electromagnetism is still not fully known, thus the effects it could have on body fluids in their formation and incubation of emerging (fetal) life forms. The manipulation of chemical elements, their introduction or absence... due to being added or repelled. Think a magnet and iron.

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

interesting question, does this then mean we had giants on earth, all juicing up on Bagdad battery's ?

I wonder if they stopped at the salmon , surely the temptation was too great, and further more secretive testing was done , could a chimp be turned into a gorilla in the zap of an embryonic second ?

a lama to a giraffe?

funbox

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

I've looked into this before and was fascinated by what i read. Kept meaning to rig something up and test it out for myself, but always seemed to forget all about it.

But, you mentioning evolution might be a sporadic, intermittent phenomena, possibly due to changes or variations in natural electrostatic charges rather than a long, gradual, drawn out process got me thinking;

What effects the Earth's natural electrostatic charge?

The Sun.

What if, in the geologic record, we find evidence that major changes in the flora and fauna coincided with increased activity of Sol?

That would mean, obviously, that Stars, or rather the activity and emissions of and from Stars are the prime mover of evolution! Perhaps 'survival of the fittest' is a fallacy.

If true, it makes the Sun worshipper cults and religions from ancient times seem as though they may have been a lot smarter than we could have guessed...seeing as the Sun would indeed have created life...or at least gave it a hand along the way.

Whoa...

It's only a matter of time until someone experiments on an human embryo.

The literary mind races....

"The Ebner Effect".....just listing now with the WGA with a 1 page treatment.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner


What effects the Earth's natural electrostatic charge?

The Sun.

If true, it makes the Sun worshipper cults and religions from ancient times seem as though they may have been a lot smarter than we could have guessed...seeing as the Sun would indeed have created life...or at least gave it a hand along the way.

Makes me want to find a Sun worshipper cult in the phone
book and go join 'em this Sunday for worship services, but
the only groups that I can find that worship on Sunday are
something called "christians" and they don't seem to get it.

> I found this topic discussed on ATS:
> www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink"> The Primeval Code Apr, 6, 2013.

a reply to: wasaka

Apparently, Christians are 'Sun' worshippers...only the reason why they worship the Sun has been lost over time.

There are no credible sources for this so I doubt the ramifications will amount to much/anything.

Two years ago this was covered in detail in an extremely popular thread here (210 flags).

The experiments are too easy to repeat for this to have been somehow "buried" by Ciba. Patents might explain a lack of commercialization, but the patents in question expired in 2009. My guess is that the effects claimed were never reproduced successfully by independent researchers.

I wanna believe this but I cant see it being true. This is beyond ground breaking and the documentary looks pretty old, I would like to think it would have been implemented already and pioneered new discoveries. In my head I can't see how a force can manipulate dorment genes without prolonged exposure. Yes, it might not be beneficial for the company in terms of their existing product line but the potential money to make would far outweigh short term losses. I will keep an eye out for it in future but I will not be expecting much. That documentary looks older everytime I watch it

I couldn't find a single journal article on the Ebner effect. Looks easy enough to reproduce. I don't think you violate the patent if you just test it and use it for scientific research - no commercial application.

Also, I would think that molecular biologists would be very interested to sequence the genes of these enhanced organisms. Maybe they're not prehistoric replicates at all and something entirely new.

Anyway, strange that you can't find any credible sources on the subject.

Here's a link to the patent information:

www.google.com...

a reply to: Plotus

We've known for quite a while that electricity can affect plant growth, it seems like it's becoming a real topic of research more recently.

This article is very interesting -

www.rt17.hr...

In this, they found plant growth accelerated just by putting a geometric antenna near the plants?? Wow! The antenna supposedly changed the shape of local EM fields into something more beneficial for plant growth.

So, if one technology can alter the Earth's natural EM field slightly and increase plant growth, is it not quite possible that changing the EM field strength ENTIRELY could have more of an effect?

a reply to: funbox

If you built a house with an altered ESF and stuck a pregnant lady in there...

Would probably answer some pretty big questions!

a reply to: theantediluvian

Agreed, I doubt it has been re-produced successfully. I don't think that's reason to discount it though.

From everything I've read, it appears that the ESF frequency is very important to the experiment. I don't believe it's as simple as creating the field and sticking your plants in it, I think particular field strengths are required for certain effects. And considering that each seed then needs to be grown to see what effect it has had, I don't find it hard to believe that it hasn't been repeated by Indie's since 2009. It's only 6 years and try as I may, I haven't anyone online who is experimenting/documenting with this. It has been a few months since I checked though.

Everything about this story seems to point towards it being true. The only elephant in the room is that the technology is so amazing and yet it's not in the public sphere, so surely it can't be real?

But if we're honest with ourselves, would a company that produces pesticides want plants being grown that are so strong, pesticides aren't needed. Businesses are not human, they don't think like humans. If they discover something beneficial to humanity it will only be marketed if it's beneficial for the business. Is there even any money to be made from this discovery?

Think about it, if it was marketed, how long before you could go to your local hardware store and buy a contraption that would germinate the seeds for you and a manual to explain what frequencies to use for which plants etc. and in no time at all everyone would have the power to very easily feed themselves, for very little money, growing at home etc.

It wouldn't be long before the agriculture industry fell apart.

Anyway, going off my own topic here a bit, just find it so fascinating. It's hard not to I suppose, as the validity of the experiment is crucial to my actual question.

But let's say for a moment, that this is completely true.

With that in mind, I think we are wrong about evolution. I don't think genes are selected due to environmental factors. I think genes are expressed due to environmental factors.

What say you, ATS?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Two years ago this was covered in detail in an extremely popular thread here (210 flags).

The experiments are too easy to repeat for this to have been somehow "buried" by Ciba. Patents might explain a lack of commercialization, but the patents in question expired in 2009. My guess is that the effects claimed were never reproduced successfully by independent researchers.

I might be the living proof that this theory works.

I never knew this thing 'til now. But back in 2001 and 2009, I performed unrelated experiments with unnatural forms of static/pulsed electricity on a daily basis for more than a year. I was in my teens then if that counts as "formative years" as in infants.

I don't want to bore you with details so jumping to present day, my body acquired an impressive ability to adapt quickly to biological and chemical attacks and to rapidly heal injuries, including burns. I could resist even natural toxins.

Many of my bodily complaints like back pain, migraines since my teens were now gone.

Perhaps, the changes manifested by such experiments were internal and less externally.

And since animal subjects were used, the internal changes may not have been noted.

I wouldn't advise future experimenters to make animal subjects undergo "stress tests" because that is cruel. I am an existing "product" of a similar but unrelated experiment already. I am willing to volunteer myself for further studies.

I don't think that these experiments would change the DNA itself, only the way that the cell reads the DNA during development. Your genome (all of the genes and information on all of your chromosomes) can be modified without changing the sequence. Genes can be turned on and off using molecular switches (usually via methylation of promoter/enhancer regions, or the genes themselves). It sounds like this process alters the switchboard, leading to changes in development. There used to be a theory that you could see every evolutionary state during embryonic development (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny). However, that idea has been mostly disproven.

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Science has never said DNA only changes very slowly. Cosmic rays, chemicals, radiation are all known to change DNA in a very short order. There's nothing surprising about yet another common force doing the same.

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

you mean like a house attached to the electric grid,? wifi , etc, etc ?

we'll have to keep an eye on this next generation.

funbox