Evolution theory

[raw-al]

Raw Al, I understand that you don't believe in the evolution theory. That's your right and I had also great doubts about it before experiencing the instinctive raw paleo nutrition. But that diet takes its roots in the evolution theory, and the fact that we are better off with the nutrition of our ancestors of hundreds thousands or millions years ago seems to me be largely in favor of the evolution theory. It’s not a dogmatic one (“religious belief” as you state), but something provisional and in evolution itself, including different variants such as the theory of the punctuated equilibrium.

If the evolution theory is completely wrong, then the concept of raw paleo diet is plainly wrong too and we would not be able to live and thrive on exclusively on raw paleo foods.
Population explosion and individual health are not correlated in our case since the health troubles induced by Neolithic and cooked foods happen largely late in life, after the individuals have been able to reproduce. I think he emphasizes that fact.

Also, our notion of “good” and “evil (or bad)” are highly relative and dependant of the result we aim to. The population explosion can be seen either as a asset or as an evil according to the circumstances. Actually, it’s evidently a plague.

By the way, wouldn't the title "Raw eggs, raw milk, raw fish" be better suited to the whole thread?

The evolution theory is a huge discussion and could be argued till the cows come home and still not be concluded as the two or three or four or more sides would never agree.

Personally I believe (I have no scientific proof that I accept) that foods in a raw state, whatever they are (within the bounds of reason) are what our bodies can deal with the easiest. Obviously if you want to eat tarantulas (I think that's the ones) you have to accept cooking or be poisoned by their venom.

If evolution is correct then why have we not evolved to thrive on cooked food?

Another thing I wonder is that supposedly we all came out of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_Gorge area and spread out from there. This was a popular theory at one time. If you think about it, if some went northeast and some went NW then the period of time that it took for them to meet again when the Northern Europeans sailed across the ocean and met the Aboriginals in North America, one would presume to be a very large amount of time. Not compared to the age of the planet but stlll considerable. In that period of time there was no real changes to the human system and consequently the Honkies were able to hop in the hay with the Injuns and lo and behold - Metis. Following the Evo theory there should have been divergence and thus problematic offspring.

Re: the population explosion, there is a decent argument that it is a plague.

I like to believe and I have zero proof of this, that human history is a total mystery because recorded history only goes back so far due to the human habit of destroying museums when conquering nations. The evolution guess is but one. The riddle will never be satisfactorily answered but it is fun trying.

The thread has definitely changed as most threads tend to do.

[Iguana]

If evolution is correct then why have we not evolved to thrive on cooked food?

Evolution works only in extremely long periods and the question is precisely what initiated the idea that we may not be completely (or even not at all) adapted to cooked food!! The common assumption is that since we’ve been eating cooking foods for "so long"(!), we are certainly adapted to it.

Well, were is the proof that we are completely adapted to cooked food? It should have been a subject of thorough scientific research, but mainstream science has always been  based on the a-priori that our cooking period has been long enough for an adaptation.

But if we think on an evolutionary timescale, this period is extremely short. Our branch is supposed to have split from the chimps (which are genetically almost similar to us) about 6 million years ago. If our ancestors started to systematically cook, eat grains and dairy about 10.000 years ago, than its’ only 0.17% of 6.000.000 years.

Another question without answer: is such an adaptation possible?

[PaleoPhil]

Plus, there have been some changes to humans that scientists attribute to cooking, such as smaller jaws and teeth (attributed to the softening of foods by cooking and other processing), which has probably been covered before somewhere in this forum. I consider this adaptation a physical degeneration. Not all adaptations are purely "positive" (not necessarily even from a modern human's perspective). Weston Price wrote extensively about various forms of physical degeneration in humans from modern foods in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.

[Dr. D]

Plus, there have been some changes to humans that scientists attribute to cooking, such as smaller jaws and teeth, which has probably been covered before somewhere in this forum.

I'm in agreement with raw-al on this one. The evolution thing seems pretty bogus to me and here's why: ALL evidence of evolution is only on the micro scale, and it only references genetic "losses" or adaptations that harm rather than benefit the species. We have no evidence of an evolutionary "gain," as ideally described by evolutionists. If anybody truly has evidence of it, I'd like to know about it. And please don't talk about the bacterial "immunity" to antibiotics. That doesn't benefit the bacteria to not contain the part (a loss) of its system that was affected by the antibiotic. Yes it is a micro adaptation, but that's like humans losing their prostate so nobody gets prostate cancer anymore.

The jaws and teeth evolution; loss. That would in no way benefit our species to natural selection, it decreases strength, promotes tooth erosion and loss, and is plainly and obviously a deformity.

We did get way off topic here, but in the same way the dairy adaptation may not be as much as there are those that are "tolerant" or have "adapted to dairy" but maybe there are those that lived without it for long enough that they lost the ability to cope with it as a food source, however long that may be necessary.

[PaleoPhil]

Like Al said, there will never be agreement on evolution and it probably doesn't matter, because it wouldn't change what people do anyway; for whether one attributes the reason for the success of raw Paleo to evolutionary biology or eating as the Creator intended, the diet is the same (eating as close to wild natural foods as possible, or as much as necessary/preferred). For people who accept the mechanism of evolutionary biology, I explain it that way, and for people who do not accept evolution, I explain that eating Creator-made foods makes more sense than eating man-made foods.

[Dr. D]

Like Al said, there will never be agreement on evolution and it probably doesn't matter, because it wouldn't change what people do anyway; for whether one attributes the reason for the success of raw Paleo to evolutionary biology or eating as the Creator intended, the diet is the same (eating as close to wild natural foods as possible).

That is definitely something that can be agreed upon simply because of observation and scientific experiments that can be replicated. And yes, I don't think the history of it makes a difference as to what we should be doing now as much as does what we do right now work. And it do.

[Iguana]

And please don't talk about the bacterial "immunity" to antibiotics. That doesn't benefit the bacteria to not contain the part (a loss) of its system that was affected by the antibiotic. Yes it is a micro adaptation, but that's like humans losing their prostate so nobody gets prostate cancer anymore.
 

I think you’re wrong here, antibiotic resistance in bacteria is by acquisition of some suplementary DNA part (contained in a plasmid, see picture below) by a pilus or by  a virus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance#Mechanisms

acquisition of resistance genes from other bacterial species by horizontal gene transfer via conjugation, transduction, or transformation.

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

Bacterial conjugation is the transfer of genetic material between bacterial cells by direct cell-to-cell contact or by a bridge-like connection between two cells.[1] Discovered in 1946 by Joshua Lederberg and Edward Tatum,[2] conjugation is a mechanism of horizontal gene transfer as are transformation and transduction although these two other mechanisms do not involve cell-to-cell contact.[3]

Bacterial conjugation is often regarded as the bacterial equivalent of sexual reproduction or mating since it involves the exchange of genetic material. During conjugation the donor cell provides a conjugative or mobilizable genetic element that is most often a plasmid or transposon.[4][5] Most conjugative plasmids have systems ensuring that the recipient cell does not already contain a similar element.

The genetic information transferred is often beneficial to the recipient. Benefits may include antibiotic resistance, xenobiotic tolerance or the ability to use new metabolites.[6] Such beneficial plasmids may be considered bacterial endosymbionts. Other elements, however, may be viewed as bacterial parasites and conjugation as a mechanism evolved by them to allow for their spread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transduction_%28genetics%29

Transduction is the process by which DNA is transferred from one bacterium to another by a virus.[1] It also refers to the process whereby foreign DNA is introduced into another cell via a viral vector. Transduction does not require physical contact between the cell donating the DNA and the cell receiving the DNA (which occurs in conjugation), and it is DNAase resistant (transformation is susceptible to DNAase). Transduction is a common tool used by molecular biologists to stably introduce a foreign gene into a host cell's genome.

And how do you think we could get direct evidence of evolution on a macro scale since it takes durations totally out of proportion with a civilization life span? There is plenty of evidence, but of course, it can not be direct, except for some “losses” as you would certainly qualify the evolution of wolfs into dogs.

And if there’s no evolution as you and Raw Al suggest, then what? A “God” would have separately created each one of  the billions species populating our planet? Why then these species have a lot of common DNA and other characteristics? What is such a “God”? Or some ET would have played the role generally attributed to “God”?   Supposing such a being exists (which I don't necessarily deny), why would he (or she, if she is a Goddess, or they it they are ETs) have started from scratch every time instead of deriving one species from one other, which would be much simpler? 

[eveheart]

For people who accept the mechanism of evolutionary biology, I explain it that way, and for people who do not accept evolution, I explain that eating Creator-made foods makes more sense than eating man-made foods.

And if there’s no evolution as you and Raw Al suggest, then what? A “God” would have separately created each one of  the billions species populating our planet? Why then these species have a lot of common DNA and other characteristics? What is such a “God”? Or some ET would have played the role generally attributed to “God”?   Supposing such a being exists (which I don't necessarily deny), why would he (or she, if she is a Goddess, or they it they are ETs) have started from scratch every time instead of deriving one species from one other, which would be much simpler? 

I also do not believe in the theory of evolution. What puzzles me is the assumption that there are only two possibilities, and therefore that everyone that does not subscribe to the evolution theory believes in a divine he/she/it who fashioned a clay man (or any other creation device).

In the evolution vs. creator debate, each side refuses to acknowledge the evidence of the other's theory. The conversation never progresses because each side is talking to itself. Evolution cannot be turned into a law by using evolution-supporting assumptions to explain away non-evolution. Neither can creation be denied by evolution's insistence that the creator be quantifiable and reproducible.

[bookittyrun]

Evolution works only in extremely long periods and the question is precisely what initiated the idea that we may not be completely (or even not at all) adapted to cooked food!!

just because i'm an idiot, i'm going to chime in here...  i watched an interesting program a while back (and since we all know television to be an infallible source of scientific information...) dealing with the "evolutionary" progress of wild canines, into domesticated dogs.  while popular thought was that this transition would have taken many, many years, it was proved that major evolutionary adaptation can happen in a time frame as short as 1-3 generations.  i found this interesting, and it made me wonder if evolution is not necessarily a genetic shift that happens over the course of eons (as a chimp - man "branch off" suggests), but quick changes in specific genetic lines to encourage the thought of "survival of the fittest"...  by saying this, i'm not discrediting the idea of evolution, but to say that man came from chimps seems a stretch, especially considering this type of evolution did not continue beyond the proposed genetic "split" (in other words, i would think there would be ongoing evolution between the two species, in different stages of progression).  the chimp - man theory suggests that this split happened only once in history, with each species continuing to develop, or not develop, in their own way since then.  i personally feel it is much more likely there have always been different "strains" of humans, just as there are many different species of apes, birds, fish, and other "wildlife"...  why just one "human"?  "survival of the fittest" adaptations amongst different human species could then have weened out those who could not keep up, and conquer their environment in a manner that allowed for continued existence.  those (meaning "us") who were able to develop the necessary life skills and technology to survive through natural disasters and selection, are what remains...  and while cooking foods at some point may have been a characteristic of the ancestors that we are derived from, not all "advancements" and progress is positive to the species (hence our current state of poor health).  to surmise in short, evolution: yes (adaptation in short and long term in the interest of survival of a single species).  man from chimp / ape: no (being close in genetic codes is not enough to say we were once the same).

did this rambling make sense to anyone other than me?

[TylerDurden]

The out of africa theory is a load of b*ll*cks. Current data indicates that the multiregional hypothesis has way more credibility, re our mixing with Neanderthals etc.

[Iguana]

.  while popular thought was that this transition would have taken many, many years, it was proved that major evolutionary adaptation can happen in a time frame as short as 1-3 generations

Yes, that’s what the theory of punctuated equilibrium says. Species  have long periods of stability, (for example the sharks have remained unchanged during 300 millions years up to now, if I’m not mistaken) punctuated by sudden changes to respond (adapt) to an abrupt environmental shift.

I also do not believe in the theory of evolution.

There’s nothing to believe in it. It’s a scientific theory, and like every scientific theory it doesn’t pretend to be the supreme, ultimate truth. It includes many different variants, all provisional.

What puzzles me is the assumption that there are only two possibilities, and therefore that everyone that does not subscribe to the evolution theory believes in a divine he/she/it who fashioned a clay man (or any other creation device).

So, what other possibilities do you suggest?

In the evolution vs. creator debate, each side refuses to acknowledge the evidence of the other's theory. The conversation never progresses because each side is talking to itself. Evolution cannot be turned into a law by using evolution-supporting assumptions to explain away non-evolution. Neither can creation be denied by evolution's insistence that the creator be quantifiable and reproducible.

I fail to see why there cannot be a continuous creation within the frame of evolution. Evolution and creation are compatible: a governed evolution of some sort. Perhaps…

A particularly questionable point in the evolution theory is the apparition of life on Earth. I would favor the “direct panspermia” as suggested by Francis Crick. The question which arises then is “how life appeared in the first place somewhere in the universe?”. This is related to the Big Bang theory, which might have been influenced  by the Judeo-christian mythology that the world (Universe) has an origin in time. That leads to a singularity that none understands. Another view is that the Universe has no origin in time, having always existed… so it could be the same for life! 

I know, this conflicts with the theory of an expanding Universe as the redshift seems to show. But there are difficulties with the expanding Universe theory, see the work of Halton Arp, for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp

Who knows? Not me anyway!

[miles]

People not understanding the theory of evolution.

The idea isn't that organisms become 'better' through evolution.

It's just that, what survives and reproduces, does... And... What doesn't survive and reproduce, doesn't...

If people kill wolves because they're scary and sometimes eat their children, then those wolves won't survive and reproduce. If people look after dogs because they're friendly and play with their children, those dogs will survive and reproduce. The wolves may be stronger, but they were not as fit, evolutionarily speaking, as in they did not fit as well into their environment, i.e. an environment where humans are the apex predator.

Everyone here is aware that different people are different right? That not everyone is identical? This 'phenotype' is instructed largely by 'genotype', i.e. genes influence physique. Y'all are aware that people get genetic mutations right? Like from exposure to radiation, toxins, etc..? Well, if people with these mutations are unable to survive and reproduce, they don't, and their genes do not continue to proliferate. If they are able to survive and reproduce, then their genes do continue to proliferate. If their mutation confers an advantage in surviving and reproducing, then their genes proliferate more, relatively, and eventually they can be spread to a whole population.

[Iguana]

That's it.

[jesterhead]

I think that evolution is self-organizing. I was all for solely natural selection/survival of the fittest until I stumbled upon this several months ago:

Tools to build complex vertebrate brains assembled long before vertebrates had them. (link)

Then I got into reading about evolution as a self-organizing phenomenon, and it just makes a lot sense to me. A good overview paper I found on this concept here. And the abstract:

"Self-organization is sometimes presented as an alternative to natural selection as the primary mechanism underlying the evolution of function in biological systems. Here we argue that although self-organization is one of selection’s fundamental tools, selection itself is the creative force in evolution. The basic relationship between self-organization and natural selection is that the same self-organizing processes we observe in physical systems also do much of the work in biological systems. Consequently, selection does not always construct complex mechanisms from scratch. However, selection does capture, manipulate, and control self-organizing mechanisms, which is challenging because these processes are sensitive to environmental conditions. Nevertheless, the often-inflexible principles of self-organization do strongly constrain the scope of evolutionary change. Thus, incorporating the physics of pattern-formation processes into existing evolutionary theory is a problem significant enough to perhaps warrant a new synthesis, even if it will not overturn the traditional view of natural selection."

I am also intrigued by the symbiotic relationships that some organisms form, and the possibility of these different organisms working together to drive evolution/complexity.

• The mitochondrion and chloroplast are symbiotic relationships from billions of years ago that allowed more complex and multicellular life to arise.
• The gut microbiota in humans drives brain development and predicts adult behavior. (link)
• Gut and psychology syndrome.
• Some helminths being beneficial and the "old friends" hypothesis.
• Retroviral DNA in our own genomes. (link)
• Bacteria exchanging genes like candy through transposons, even in our guts.
• On the scale of superorganisms, dog/cat and human symbiosis. A beneficial relationship for both.
• The Umami Hypothesis can be thought of as an evolutionary adaption to further promote symbiosis between humans and bacteria.
  
• The theory that our brains are so big because our ancestors dined on hallucinogenic mushrooms.
• The list goes on and on.

Evolution is about symbiosis between organisms to drive complexity, along with self-organization from the genetic level to multicellular level. At the same time its about competition and survival of the fittest.

I think that reproduction is a mechanism for survival of a species/genes, adaption to environment thru genetic mutations, etc. (all the classical theories) AND that it allows evolution to continue doing it's thing, that is drive complexity. If survival and reproduction were the sole tenants of life, then I don't see a need for evolution. Life could have stayed as simple prokaryotes and been happy surviving and reproducing for eternity.

I also believe in panspermia theory.

[Iguana]

Evolution is about symbiosis between organisms to drive complexity, along with self-organization from the genetic level to multicellular level. At the same time its about competition and survival of the fittest.

I think that reproduction is a mechanism for survival of a species/genes, adaption to environment thru genetic mutations, etc. (all the classical theories) AND that it allows evolution to continue doing it's thing, that is drive complexity. If survival and reproduction were the sole tenants of life, then I don't see a need for evolution. Life could have stayed as simple prokaryotes and been happy surviving and reproducing for eternity.

Very interesting, thanks. There's still for me a lot to study and understand in your post, but at least I think I understand and agree with both of your last paragraphs. 

[Wai Kai Zen]

I find it hard to argue about whether its a God who created the human race or that we evolved from "an ape" to where we are now. Maybe its a combination, I dont know for a fact.

I do believe that raw paleo helps me to use my (subconscious) brain better than raw veganism or SAD diet. My dreams are way more clear and it gives me answers on some "problems" I face with during that time.
I do feel the need to find out what human potential is and how to get there.. kept me busy for the last 8 years now.
This has let me to believe that there is indeed more than just survival of the fittest (if its God I dont know).

Now I found the best diet (dont know for a fact/but feels like it) and am able to access my subconscious way easier I feel like now its the understanding of dreams that will help me with my own personal evolution.

If someone has had a similar experience and is also busy with the subject of dreams and could provide me with some information.. I would be very thankfull.

I also have found that there is a connection between my sexual energy (libido) and my subconscious/dreams. It is almost as if it makes me aware of what I really want (to know). Everything seems to go easier when libido is high. People are way nicer, girls come on to me instead of me trying to get them, my career is going good..
It is as if the things I really want also seem to come true.. no more struggling for it.. weird..

Well, this is just my personal experience I wanted to share with you all. I know its not supported by facts.. but Im more a person that goes with trial and error and lots of observing. If you have questions, please ask.. I would also appreciate it if someone would share their experiences if it has something to do with I said..

[miles]

"If survival and reproduction were the sole tenants of life, then I don't see a need for evolution. Life could have stayed as simple prokaryotes and been happy surviving and reproducing for eternity."

It is not about need, it's just about what is. What is the 'need' for life in the first place? Life is just something that happened, mutation is just something that happened, speciation is just something that happened... Life is just the result of some random chemical reactions. Chemical reactions, which are happening all over the place all the time, just happened at some point to create something which had the properties that led it to replicate itself.

As it replicated itself, there became changes from yet more random chemical reactions. Some would have reacted in such a way as to cease to be life, some would have reacted in such a way as to replicate themselves more prolifically. This is the start of life, random chemical reactions. It is not about need, just chance.

"I also believe in panspermia theory."

Belief is the absence of reason, you may want to avoid it... if you're reasonable =D

[raw-al]

Firstly thanks for the very thoughtful replies and Iguana I will check out your post # 10 info.

It occurs to me that it is but a small leap from Panspermia to life from another planet (aliens) dropped us off here. One thought provoking book has been written on the subject and maybe many. The Alien Agenda

OK here is another theory to throw into the mix. I didn't make this up, I thought that I did, till I mentioned it to a friend who is a monk in India. He told me that it is a concept that apparently has some traction.

The theory goes that we (some form of human) were created in some way or another and then some humans devolved. In other words through constant inbreeding etc there was a devolutionary pressure that reduced our capabilities.

Since we humans have a habit of destroying libraries when we conquer another group, proofs may have been obliterated, save a precious few. Also large climactic occurrences have buried or submerged land masses. A number of these are well known in the world.

[svrn]

darwinism=hinduism

superstition

[svrn]

i dont have time read everything on here but heres another completely illogical statement I came across in one quick glance

If the evolution theory is completely wrong, then the concept of raw paleo diet is plainly wrong too and we would not be able to live and thrive on exclusively on raw paleo foods.

the reason you thrive on exclusively raw paleo foods is because your food still have all of their enzymes intact, with lots of still living bacteria and all nutrients bound to water for easy digestion and all other components undestroyed by heat. It is much easier for your body to process food in this manner.

I fail to understand how the fact tht its healthier to eat food that hasnt undergone extreme chemical changes proves the theory of macroevolution.

[cherimoya_kid]

i dont have time read everything on here but heres another completely illogical statement I came across in one quick glance

the reason you thrive on exclusively raw paleo foods is because your food still have all of their enzymes intact, with lots of still living bacteria and all nutrients bound to water for easy digestion and all other components undestroyed by heat. It is much easier for your body to process food in this manner.

I fail to understand how the fact tht its healthier to eat food that hasnt undergone extreme chemical changes proves the theory of macroevolution.

The biggest reason that we don't subsist well on raw grasses, raw grains, or large amounts of raw nuts/seeds is precisely because NO primate eats much, if any, of those foods.  Plenty of ruminants and birds eat lots of those foods, and done fine eating that diet.  However, humans cannot eat that way.

Macroevolution correctly predicts that humans cannot healthily subsist on such a diet.  it's raw, but it doesn't work for  humans.

[svrn]

so the cause of humans not eating grass is that primates dont eat grass?

the completely illogical statements keep on coming...

the precise reason we cant digest grass like ruminants is actually because we lack the enzymes to digest it, those same enzymes which ruminants have appximately 60thousand times more of than we do as well not having enough stomachs and short digestive tract as well as many other purely physical factors.

that there is what you call a reason...what you stated is an irrelevant hypothesis.

[raw-al]

Wow this is a wild card.

This veeeery long vid @ 3:26 :02 gives a long fascinating history of history of electricity and then around 2:30 drops a bombshell on the creation of the solar system etc and where life came from. Who knew. It is very useful to listen to it all if you have the time.

It's in the form of a long lecture.
Professor Eric Dollard - Theory of Anti-Relativity

[goodsamaritan]

Im in a far off province with slow internet. What did he say about solar system origin?

[raw-al]

OK I'll try to boil it down.

He was talking about how and why the originators of electrical science as we know it arrived at the conclusions that they did and it is quite surprising some of their conclusions. A real education.

Anyways he got to the part about radios, and electron tubes and their manufacture and it turns out his father was an electrical engineer of some sort and some of his family was employed working for RCA making the tubes.

He spent his childhood completely immersed in the history and the actual working of these tubes and electricity in general and reading about the heroes of discovery like Tesla and the experiments he did.

Then fast forward to some point in his life where he met the son of the inventor or father of the TV Philo Farnsworth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth

Long story, but these two guys got hold of some old rare tubes and (I believe he said) put an excessive amount of electricity through one. I did not memorize what he said, but basically he said that something happened to the tube and suddenly there appeared in the tube what looked like our solar system, suspended in appropriate places in the tube. The PPL in the room all had a look and it appeared real to all of them. Then he goes on to explain the appearance of life and how evolution is BS, but he does not get too much into detail.

He also talks about AC electricity as not being a movement of electrons through a wire as such, but as being a spiral down the wire in a sense, when you look at it from one angle as in an oscilloscope it looks like an up and down flow like a wave, but holographically it would be a spiral.

He also discusses the theories about electricity actually being reflected back into a wire by insulators similar to how light is reflected and how how wires behave in the sense that the electricity is actually also flowing around the wire, and attracting and repelling the adjacent wires.

Then he talks about things that happened in early days with electricity and how they developed theories to explain them These theories were sort of like medical theories in that the monied PPL decided which theories were correct because they designed things based on that knowledge. Like 3 phase circuits rather than four as the speaker says that the ppl who had a better grasp of the theory understood. Four phase requires more wire so it is more expensive to set up.

He also explains how some phenomena such as free electricity is BS at this point, but theoretically it should be available at some point and some of the experimenters who are the closest. He also explains scalar waves. Calling scalar waves 'waves' is ridiculous because by definition scalar is not a wave. That was a Russian hoax.

He also says the sun is hollow and it is not visible when you are in space. Hmmm not sure if the astronauts might agree with that, but who am I to say.

He also explains why physics is at odds with electricity.

Anyways no doubt readers here will dis this and I sent the link to a couple of Electrical engineer friends, so I will be interested in how they reply. One is a dyed in the wool old school, Wackipedia, type and the other is a guy who is into all the way out wild and crazy, bizarre electronics etc on the net... like me.

His main theme is that Einstein's theories are BS. Don't ask me to explain that one, but I did follow what he was saying as he explained.

His youtube on Cell phone radiation is bang on. As a pilot I relate exactly to what he says.
How bad is Cell Phone Radiation? Eric Dollard

His youtube and HAARP etc is also fascinating. It's not what you think. He says the Chinese have created their own and it is bad news.
Eric Dollard Tells us the Truth what HAARP Really Is....

So I cannot argue one way or another but it was fascinating to listen. He may be a sort of AV type of guy that says some things that are valid and others that are not, or are 1/2 true.