46&2, Super Humanity & Neo Sapiens

Discussions on general biology and biological evolution, genetics, zoology, ecology, botany, etc.

Moderator: BioWizard


46&2, Super Humanity & Neo Sapiens

Postby fakename on September 4th, 2006, 10:44 pm 

Is this our next advancement?


On 46 & 2:

Forty-Six & Two is an idea first conceived by Carl Jung concerning the possibility of reaching a state of evolution where the body would have two more than the normal 46 chromosomes.

"There are three totally different kinds of humans on the Earth, meaning that they perceive the One reality in three different ways, interpreted differently. The first kind of human has a chromosome composition of 42+2. They comprise a unity consciousness that does not see anything outside themselves as being separate from themselves. To them, there is only one energy - one life, one beingness that moves everywhere. Anything happening anywhere is within them, as well. They are like cells in the body. They are all connected to a single consciousness that moves through all of them. These are (like) the aboriginals in Australia. There might (also) be a few African tribes left like this. Then, there is our level, comprising 44+2 chromosomes. We are a disharmonic level of consciousness that is used as a steppingstone from the 42+2 level to the next level, 46+2...These two additional chromosomes change everything."


Since the human DNA holds 44 and 2 chromosomes, the next step of evolution would likely have 46 and 2 chromosomes in their DNA, according to Jung.

Along with this is the idea behind the anima/animus influences on human behavior.

On anima/animus:

Jung identified the anima as being the unconscious feminine component of men and the animus as the unconscious masculine component in women. However, this is rarely taken as a literal definition: many modern day Jungian practitioners believe that every person has both an anima and an animus. Jung stated that the anima and animus act as guides to the unconscious unified Self, and that forming an awareness and a connection with the anima or animus is one of the most difficult and rewarding steps in psychological growth. Jung reported that he identified his anima as she spoke to him, as an inner voice, unexpectedly one day.

Oftentimes, when people ignore the anima or animus complexes, the anima or animus vies for attention by projecting itself onto others. This explains, according to Jung, why we are sometimes immediately attracted to certain strangers: we see our anima or animus in them. Love at first sight is an example of anima and animus projection. Moreover, people who strongly identify with their gender role (e.g. a man who acts aggressively and never cries) have not actively recognized or engaged their anima or animus.



Back to 46 & 2 for just a moment:

The meaning of 46 + 2:

According to Melchezedek, our planet is covered with geometrically constructed 'morpho genetic grids'. These grids extend from about 60 feet under the Earth's surface to about 60 miles above the Earth, arranged in geometric patterns. Each species has its own grid, which supports life, and connects the consciousness of its particular species. Before any species can come into existence or make an evolutionary step, a new grid must be completed. When a species becomes extinct, that particular species' grid dissolves.

A new grid was completed in 1989 - the 'Christ-consciousness' grid. This grid will allow humans to evolve into our next version. We'll develop two additional chromosomes (which are really 'geometrical images' designed to resonate with our specific grid) for a total or 46 + 2.

The main change will be a shift to the ‘unity consciousness’. Every cell in your body has its own consciousness and memory. You, the higher being that occupies your body, make the millions of different consciousnesses in your body work together as one being. How does this relate to this grid? Think of yourself as a cell and the grid as the higher being. We will still have individual consciousness, but will be united in the form of a higher being in order to work as one entity.


Sound familiar? ;)



What happens next for us? Can we really alleviate to a 'higher level' of existing?


..I was just wondering.
User avatar
fakename
Member
 
Posts: 66
Joined: 01 Sep 2006


Postby Baliger on September 5th, 2006, 3:30 am 

What is it that you are asking? if this theory is true and we jump from 44 +2 to 46 +2 do you want to know that generation will be smarter? Better able to learn and retain information? will they percieve the world in a new way? A more inteligent and brilliant way that will hopefuly elivate our world and our society?

only time will tell what the changes our Species will come to.

However if or when we do make the jump from 44+2 too 46+2 at first i do not think there will be a huge change in the species. Not all cromosomes are the same size, and when the jump is made i Doubt the new cromosome will change many things at first. New generations of the 46+2 homosapians could possible be very differant from 44+2 homosapiens.

Again, these are just idea's. You said "Can we really alleviate to a 'higher level' of existing? ". well i believe so. through Trial and error, through struggle and hardship evolution has shown us that Species evolve, become stronger and addapt to there enviroment. If we look at Humans, who test there abilities to think and we continue to learn, study, debate, and ask questions then it is my belief that we Will ellivate to a higher level of Thought and existance.

this was my little reply. i am most definatly not an expert in this field and i hope i did not say any false or ignorant statements.
Baliger
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon


Postby fakename on September 5th, 2006, 3:57 am 

i am most definatly not an expert in this field and i hope i did not say any false or ignorant statements.

Never go in with that preconception. Thanks for your comments.


Anyway, without so much emphasism on the 46 + 2 theory, but the next level of evolutionary man in general.


'Where to from here' was my main direction.
User avatar
fakename
Member
 
Posts: 66
Joined: 01 Sep 2006


Postby Branflakes on September 5th, 2006, 4:44 pm 

Good song.
User avatar
Branflakes
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 11
Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Location: Maryland


Postby BioWizard on September 5th, 2006, 5:10 pm 

Why would we obtain an additional chromosome? If anything, our ancestor had 24 chromosome pairs, two of which fused into a single chromosome (cant recall which ones off hand), and now we have 23 pairs. our closest cousin, the chimpanzee however, still has all 48. The sequences on the fused chromosome in humans match perfectly to the sequences of two of his chromosomes, which is how we know they fused together sometime during our evolution from the common ancestor.
User avatar
BioWizard
Science Admin
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Likes received:69
Blog: View Blog (4)


Postby Forest_Dump on September 5th, 2006, 5:29 pm 

Bio

You beat me to this one by minutes. Yeah, 46 + 2 implies the next step in our evolution is to go Bonobo.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 8021
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region
Likes received:7


Postby fakename on September 5th, 2006, 5:50 pm 

My main emphasis wasn't on the 46+2 chromosome theory, but more towards our universal advancement as a race.

I only included bits and pieces of information to essentially 'get the ball rolling'.


I was more after the perspective of the individual.
User avatar
fakename
Member
 
Posts: 66
Joined: 01 Sep 2006


Postby Silkworm on September 5th, 2006, 9:55 pm 

First of all, I don't see why Carl Jung's work would be at all valid to evolution. His proposal looks pretty damned silly.

Second of all, there may be only two ways you can hope to predict how any population will evolve is if changes would help it fit a niche that would give it a selective advantage. However, usual reproduction methods can't determine how the following generations will evolve - nothing can determine mutations in its offspring and thus the evolution of a population of future generations. (That's not the entire species who will potentially fit these niches, these are populations.) All you can do is look for niches, but that doesn't mean anything. The most popular niche, of course, is the "not dying before adulthood and able to produce offspring" niche.

The second is to simply look at trends in variation.

I have no answer, but I suppose we can speculate.
User avatar
Silkworm
Member
 
Posts: 815
Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Location: Kansas


Postby fakename on September 5th, 2006, 11:01 pm 

Silkworm wrote:First of all, I don't see why Carl Jung's work would be at all valid to evolution.


I just put forward the information and wait to see what people have to say on their own formed opinions, not really reflecting entirely my own comments.


I thought adding at least a few bits and pieces might get things started, rather than just having a topic and asking 'What do you think?'.
Last edited by fakename on September 5th, 2006, 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
fakename
Member
 
Posts: 66
Joined: 01 Sep 2006


Postby BioWizard on September 5th, 2006, 11:06 pm 

I dont read Jung, so can someone explain to me the rationale behind the 46 + 2?
User avatar
BioWizard
Science Admin
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Likes received:69
Blog: View Blog (4)


Postby fakename on September 6th, 2006, 7:20 pm 

*edit* You can't delete your own posts and you can't post a blank post so this is a post to say this isn't a post. :|
User avatar
fakename
Member
 
Posts: 66
Joined: 01 Sep 2006


Postby Hardstreet on September 7th, 2006, 2:32 am 

I'm not sure what fakename meant by his "this isn't a post" post, but it is clearly a case of self-reference of the same kind that finally brought down Bertrand Russell's attempt to build a consistent number system from scratch, so to speak. But I digress.

"What's next for the human race?" is largely a cultural question. There is no intrinsic impetus for any species to evolve, and in the absence of directional selective pressures and in the presence of a relatively huge amount of gene flow between distant populations, there's no reason to believe that humans will evolve any further than they already have.
Hardstreet
Member
 
Posts: 566
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Likes received:2


Postby Hill_Roller on September 14th, 2006, 6:21 pm 

In the developed world, it could be said that many of us under-utilise ourselves physically. Health problems aside, could this be a recipe for de-evolving into something less robust? Secondly, without the stimuli for concentration provided by extended physical toil, could we also evolve into creatures with intrinsically shorter concentration spans?

Julian
Hill_Roller
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Location: Liverpool, UK


so

Postby graemhoek on September 14th, 2006, 6:37 pm 

This post propogates the myth that more genetic material means a more advanced organism. This is not necessarily true. The african lungfish has 50 times as many nucleotides in its genome as Homo sapiens.
User avatar
graemhoek
Member
 
Posts: 868
Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Location: florida


Postby Lincoln on September 14th, 2006, 9:04 pm 

And the African lungfish doesn't watch reality TV, follow the comings and goings of Paris Hilton, nor does it pay $5 for a double whipped frappacino latte.

I'm not sayin' that you're wrong...I'm just sayin' that there is evidence that seems counter to your implied assertion.... :wink:
User avatar
Lincoln
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 10895
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...
Likes received:31


Postby fakename on September 14th, 2006, 9:46 pm 

A strage (but obviously untrue) perspective is 'the ape' evolving from us.

Giving away the needs and wants that plague us for the simple more ignorant (if you will) life with less negative aspects.


Ignorance is bliss


Knowledge is power
User avatar
fakename
Member
 
Posts: 66
Joined: 01 Sep 2006


Postby Hill_Roller on September 15th, 2006, 6:26 pm 

At least if we did evolve into apes, I don't see how we could become at all physically like those that already exist; where's the stimulus for the body hair and robustness?

If it is the case that our distant ancestors had thicker or harder bones than our selves, then what guarantee is there that we've finished evolving into a more delicate species?
Hill_Roller
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Location: Liverpool, UK


hmmm...

Postby Dipset-Boom on September 27th, 2006, 11:12 pm 

I'm pretty sure all modern humans have the same number of chromosomes, incuding Africans and Australians, which are modern humans btw.
Dipset-Boom
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 27 Sep 2006


Postby BioWizard on September 27th, 2006, 11:27 pm 

They all have the same number of chromosomes???? I guess that supports the claim that they're of the same specie. Maybe we need more research on the subject before we can be sure.

Sorry I couldn't resist.
User avatar
BioWizard
Science Admin
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Likes received:69
Blog: View Blog (4)


Postby fakename on September 30th, 2006, 6:38 pm 

You know I didn't personally state those things.


I was just adding information and looking for your own opinions, not based entirely on the initial information I supplied..
User avatar
fakename
Member
 
Posts: 66
Joined: 01 Sep 2006


Postby graemhoek on October 2nd, 2006, 5:30 pm 

There are not a lot of selective presures on modern man. At least not in the classical environment of evolutionary adaptation (EEA a la E. O. Wilson). Modern selective pressures (if any) are vastly different from those that probably existed for our hunter gatherer ancestors. Of course none of us were there and therefore can only speculate over what happened.
User avatar
graemhoek
Member
 
Posts: 868
Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Location: florida


Are we evolving or devolving?

Postby karmaharbinger on December 7th, 2006, 11:58 pm 

I found something of interest as I was searching for any more information I could find on this chromosomal theory of evolution. Chromosome 2 is the largest human chromosome. Various features of this chromosome suggest that it represents the fusion of two (or perhaps more) smaller chromosomes. So, it would seem that the theory that we previously had less chromosomes (44) and now have more (46) might be false. Perhaps there was a time in the human population when the fabled compliment of (48) was more common.

Also of interest is that we assume the average person has 46, that is 44 and 2, chromosomes. Most of us don't know this for certain. Some people don't know their blood type.
karmaharbinger
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Postby BioWizard on December 8th, 2006, 12:25 am 

What does blood type have to do with number of chromosomes? I think it's safe to say that normal humans have exactly 46 chromosomes.
User avatar
BioWizard
Science Admin
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Likes received:69
Blog: View Blog (4)


Postby dho on December 8th, 2006, 1:11 am 

Comparing the human genome with the chimp genome it is very evident that two medium sized chimp chromosomes fused to give us Chromosome 2.
User avatar
dho
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Location: Miami, FL


Postby DarrenLO on December 8th, 2006, 1:12 am 

That would give us 48 chromosomes, the same as the potato. Plants don't have x and y chromosomes (I think) so it is probably better to look at some animals;Camel 68 2, goat 58 2, guinea pig 62 2, and so on.
Darren
User avatar
DarrenLO
Member
 
Posts: 898
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: West By God Virginia
Likes received:2


Postby DarrenLO on December 8th, 2006, 1:35 am 

Correction: Upon further research, I have found that some flowering plants have x and y chromosomes. Also, king crabs have 206 2 chromosomes. I guess they will some day rule the world (as true kings!)
Darren
User avatar
DarrenLO
Member
 
Posts: 898
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: West By God Virginia
Likes received:2


Normal Humans

Postby karmaharbinger on December 8th, 2006, 10:10 am 

The prevalent contemporary mythos of normalcy has always bothered me. I will never hesitate to say: what is normal? Of the 6 billion or so people out there can we really assume they all have 46 (44 + 2) chromosomes? Variation is normal and it is bound to be there. Naturally some variation is known. Some of the effects of that variation is known. Mostly these variations are looked upon as defects.

Has anyone seen any evidence or accounts of humans with more than 46 chromosomes?
karmaharbinger
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Postby dho on December 8th, 2006, 1:32 pm 

Peopel with Downs Syndrome have a third chorm 21.
User avatar
dho
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Location: Miami, FL


Re: Normal Humans

Postby BioWizard on December 8th, 2006, 2:47 pm 

karmaharbinger wrote:The prevalent contemporary mythos of normalcy has always bothered me. I will never hesitate to say: what is normal? Of the 6 billion or so people out there can we really assume they all have 46 (44 + 2) chromosomes? Variation is normal and it is bound to be there. Naturally some variation is known. Some of the effects of that variation is known. Mostly these variations are looked upon as defects.

Has anyone seen any evidence or accounts of humans with more than 46 chromosomes?


Ok, I was hoping we won't have to go there, as discussions about normalcy tend to be more philosophical than scientific. Fortunately however, in science, normalcy can be assigned a functional value, and this removes any ambiguity about what's normal (although the assignment is 100% contextual, it can still be unambiguously assigned, and more easily so if the considered trait is a discontinous one, such as chromosomal count).

In all biological studies, there is what is called the "Wild type". Here is the Wikipedia definition for wild-type:

Wild type, sometimes written wildtype or wild-type, is the typical form of an organism, strain, gene, or characteristic as it occurs in nature. Wild type refers to the most common phenotype in the natural population. The phenotype can be dominant or recessive.

Correction: The definition also applies to genotype, not just phenotype.

But anyway, you can see the assignment of wild-type is unambiguously statistically defined. This wild-type is often taken to mean normal, in the sense that it is the form that was made prominent by the contextual evolutionary conditions. Yes, it is all contextual, of course.

Thus, a normal human being by definition has 46 chromosomes. There are documented and well characterized cases of trisomy (one extra copy of one of the chromosomes), whether in the autosomal chromosomes (giving rise to down syndrome), or in sex chromosomes (giving rise to gender variants). All other cases of more or less chromosomes are lethal, and thus never observed (the embryos don't form and abort very early on). This doesn't mean that there cannot be a case were a fusion (or whatever freak event) of two chromosomes can occur and still yeild a viable and possibly even fertile organism, it just means that it's very rare and as off NOT the norm.

If for some reason this form becomes selected for, and the currently "normal" form goes extinct or drops to below 1% of the population, they will be the norm. However, that population will no longer be the same one it is now. It will have changed into a new norm. For now, the norm is 46 chromosomes.
User avatar
BioWizard
Science Admin
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Likes received:69
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: 46&2, Super Humanity & Neo Sapiens

Postby fakename on August 8th, 2011, 10:40 pm 

Interesting to read over this again.

:)
User avatar
fakename
Member
 
Posts: 66
Joined: 01 Sep 2006



Return to Biology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests