Biological Evolution, Punk Science

Religions > Atheism > Biological Evolution, Punk Science

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Jong Kim"
Date:	01 Jun 2007 09:30:22 AM
Object:	Biological Evolution, Punk Science

"Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnderson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180453795.649630.137120@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On May 29, 8:37 am, "Jong Kim" <r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

When I find facts, I change my mind, if previously I was
wrong. What do you do, sir?

An admirable approach. So, since evolution of species is an observed
fact, may I assume you've now changed your mind and accept the fact?

Your lie is unacceptable.

No lie, just fact. Here's a refernce to observed speciation and
evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

So, since evolution of species is an observed fact, may I assume
you've now changed your mind and accept the fact?

So-called speciation by hybridization is no speciation at all. If a
speciation occurs for an isolated variety, only then can you justifiably say
one instance of biological change (if not evolution, which word implies
improvement or enhancement of some kind, judging by certain criteria for
what are better characteristics) has been observed. Hybridization induced by
man's meddling or by wind or by bees, etc. due to proximities of two
different species breeding obviously ought to be left out when discussing
speciation, which has never been observed to occur naturally in genetic
isolation (all occurrences of speciation are due to direct interferences of
the Lord God of heaven and earth, such as what happened to the serpent in
the garden of Eden and the coming forth of weeds, etc. due to the Almighty's
curses upon the earth, as explained by Brigham Young). Take for instance,
the animal kingdom, in which there's no possibility of anything like wind
pollination for Evolutionists to twist language into imaginary occurrences
of speciation.
James Clerk Maxwell (1867 letter to a fellow physicist, Peter Guthrie Tait,
also an expert in themodynamics):
"The value of the metaphysics is equal to the mathematical and physical
knowledge of the author divided by his confidence in reasoning from
the names of things."
http://www.hypercomplex.com/education/intro_tutorial/nabla.html
Maxwell, like Tait, didn't have much of a stomach for the kind of
metaphysics that came from non-scientists, which often seemed
to consist of nothing but a vacuous play on words.
[end of excerpt]
I understand that field biology has little to do with metaphysics, at least
upon immediate consideration, but you see my point, if you are honest.
(You have not been honest thus far in this thread but mostly wasting
my time.)
Speaking of field biology, has a female tiger ever been observed to produce,
after having mated within her species, a liger or a lion or any other type
of cat? Does it scientifically make any sense that this could be a
possibility at all? I ask you this question, especially because in the
animal kingdom, there's no possibility of anything like wind pollination for
Evolutionists to twist language into imaginary occurrences of speciation.
Herbert Spencer, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, these aren't genuine
scientists. Just advocates of a false ideology, anti-Christs all. There were
and are (esp. in the past) true biologists, true natural philosophers all,
but these three are confirmed charlatans. (Having just learned a little bit
about Tait, that he was not a really spiritual minded scientist, I wouldn't
be surprised if he sustained Evolution in spite of his knowledge of
thermodynamics. But, I have shown in correspondences with Redtrollnames that
Maxwell did not. The point though, is that it's not who says it but what is
said, whether facts and objective reasoning are given by a presenter of any
view, scientific or otherwise. Of course, true religion encompasses all
branches of science, in fact all of life itself. Even if Maxwell did support
Evolution, that doesn't make it true. It so happens that Maxwell himself
rejected Evolution (though not very vocal about it), and I have totally
demonstrated this, so if you want to judge by subjective credibility
suggested by any 'brand name', I offer you the name of the ultra competent
James Clerk Maxwell, if somehow the sanctified names of Joseph Smith and
Brigham Young and Art Bulla aren't enough for your appetite.)
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/James_Clerk_Maxwell
Clerk Maxwell ... yet showed on fit occasion his contempt for that
pseudo-science which seeks for the applause of the ignorant by professing to
reduce the whole system of the universe to a fortuitous sequence of uncaused
events.
The LoveToKnow Free Online Encyclopedia is based on what many consider to be
the best encyclopedia ever written: the eleventh edition of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, first published in 1911.
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:About
In your talk.origins web link, there's a section titled "5.2 Speciations in
Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy". That's only two
examples, and neither is in any way valid, again bogus. The first example is
one where there already existed two different but closely related species in
a given area. In the second example, some degree of hybridization occurred
anyway. Again, nonsense.
Btw genetic changes caused by exposure to x-rays and by any other such
artificial or unnatural means, or mutation as it is called, are generally
for the worse for the affected organism and besides, such changes are not
isolated biological changes. Where there's an effect, there was a cause for
it. There's no such thing as genetically isolated biological change, neither
to any individual organism (other than the process of aging) nor to the
offspring thereof. If you don't believe the Biblical account, at least no
human being has ever detected any such biological change, or phylogeny or
evolution. There are plenty of false or apostate religious sects, too many
to count, but the Bible and the Book of Mormon are true accounts and Art
Bulla is the One Mighty and Strong prophesied therein, and these things and
other appropriate things (i.e., not to tempt God) you may inquire for
yourself through independent, objective reflections and unfeigned humility
and sincere prayers of faith to the Father in the name of Messiah.
When I find facts, I change my mind, if previously I was wrong. What do you
do, sir?
What talk.origins did, they just banned us for life from posting to their
beloved religious newsgroup, in observance of the Principle of Fascist
Reaction.
16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the
potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not?
or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no
understanding?
(Old Testament | Isaiah 29:16)
19 ... Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt
not sow thy field with mingled seed: ...
(Old Testament | Leviticus 19:19)
.

User: "Jong Kim"
Title: Re: Biological Evolution, Punk Science	02 Jun 2007 09:55:57 AM

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1pb063pl822ccrbmnjg4rrlpndsrt6ecvp@4ax.com...

James Clerk Maxwell (1867 letter to a fellow physicist, Peter Guthrie

Tait,

also an expert in themodynamics):

That's 140 years ago, moron. Science has progressed a heck of a lot
since then.

"The value of the metaphysics is equal to the mathematical and physical
knowledge of the author divided by his confidence in reasoning from
the names of things."

Prove it, brainwashed moron.

There is no royal road to Geometry, said Euclid.
There is no royal road to the salvation of the Lord either. Now, the
not-so-royal road to salvation (i.e., the necessity of suffering) is
actually the optimal path of Least Action, or the Law of Economy of
Heaven. (Look up Fermat, Ockham's Razor, Lagrange, William Rowan
Hamilton, Richard Feynman for more on the Principle of Least, more
generally, Stationary Action.) It's based on the individual exercise of
free agency, to freely and not be compelled to choose between good
and evil. There was a war in heaven because of this crucial philosophical
dispute between the spirit of the Firstborn (Christ) and the spirit of
Lucifer, who drew away a third of the spirit male offspring of
Michael the Archangel (He came down and became Father Adam -- just
ask Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and Art Bulla, and I testify that
this doctrine concerning the identity of God is true by testimonies of
the Holy Ghost given me), who by definition is God, and not one of
the Almighty Gods of heaven, even Jehovah and His numerous
Archangels, spoils His children. If God did, God would cease to be
God, for even He is subject to laws, yea the holy and everlasting laws
of the celestial kingdom, which organization is founded upon the Order
of the Priesthood (government) of the Son of God, which Holy Order is
without beginning or end.
28 � Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will
give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in
heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke [is] easy, and my burden is light.
(New Testament | Matthew 11:28 - 30)
I suspect the reason so many are rebellious, whether openly or
ignorantly, against the requirements of heaven is that though they took
the side of God, yea saith the Lord at 12:06 am (on June 1, 2007),
in that war in heaven they secretly resented the doctrine of free agency
being of the economy of heaven, and though these numerous spirit
children of our Holy Archangel of Jehovah managed to avoid the fate
of being born in the flesh in the African lineage, whether they be
fair skinned or of swarthier complexion, being suffered to imagine that
there is no Supreme Being, that they be tested but more accurately
speaking, to be shown unto themselves their own true characters, for
the Great I Am hath foreknowledge, even unto proving themselves
lovers of the everlasting truth or not. Lucifer, though exceedingly
intelligent, arrogantly opposed self-government according to the
unchanging laws of God's Priesthood and insisted that everyone
can and should be brought back to the celestial kingdom. Lucifer's
reasoning became popular with many spirit offspring of God. Some
openly sided with Lucifer and became devils upon being cast out, a
third (decreed to be without bodies to clothe their spirits and to try and
tempt the ones permitted to take on bodies of flesh and blood on this
earth) of the male spirits of the God, Michael the Archangel, while
others sided with Lucifer in their hearts, to one degree or another.
A person demonstrates his or her true character by his or her deeds
in the flesh, according to the heart's innermost thoughts and desires,
when it appears no one is watching. Freely exercise not only intelligence
but also humility and integrity, for yea, there is God.
15 Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and
their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?
16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the
potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not?
or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no
understanding?
(Old Testament | Isaiah 29:15 - 16)
29 For where is the disputer that there is a God in that day which
shall burn, even as an oven, saith the Lord?
Revelations of Jesus Christ 8:29
Right now is as good a time as any, for it is yet called day, to repent
and receive the Lord Jesus Christ and His Father and Their anointed,
who is Art Bulla the One Mighty and Strong, i.e. Messiah to Ephraim
and Manasseh, the house of Joseph of the coat of many colours.
All of Nature and the discovered principles thereof cry out that there
is Supreme Creator. Be ye reconciled to God and His everlasting laws,
even unto salvation from death and hell.
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen,
but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were
created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they
were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained
in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no
good, for they knew no sin.
24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth
all things.
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the
children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the
fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for
themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law
at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath
given.
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given
them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and
eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity
and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh
that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 2:22 - 27)
The import of these things, though they may make some intellectual
sense to the more honest in heart, cannot be fully grasped without
the power of the Holy Ghost, which is given only unto them that are
humble and meek and diligently seek the truth in studies and
reflections and prayers of faith. Though the Lord God sees through
all things, that nothing can be hidden from Him, so many deny this
and vainly imagine to themselves that there is no eternal justice and
thereby become laws unto themselves. Wo unto them that are
uncircumcised in heart! For the knowledge of their iniquities shall
smite them at the last day.
3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be
born, speaking lies.
(Old Testament | Psalms 58:3)
7 Behold, they belch out with their mouth: swords [are] in their lips: for
who, [say they], doth hear?
(Old Testament | Psalms 59:7)
Though the Father knows all things ahead of time, the wicked damn
themselves to hell by the willfully sinful choices they make. A few will
repent of their iniquities through the preachings of the Lord's servants
in the flesh, and through baptism and other Priesthood ordinances and
by enduring to the end, all such will be saved in the celestial kingdom
of God, yea even upon this earth, and the Gospel preaching in all ages
of the world has been to gather in any many as will heaken unto
the voice of God, even the Light of the Holy Ghost.
Fyodor Dostoevsky (The Brothers Karamazov):
God took seeds from different worlds and sowed them on this earth, and His
garden grew up and everything came up that could come up, but what grows
lives and is alive only through the feeling of its contact with other
mysterious worlds. If that feeling grows weak or is destroyed in you, the
heavenly growth will die away in you. Then you will be indifferent to life
and even grow to hate it.
Dire Straits:
Yes it's no use saying that you don't know nothing
It's still gonna get you if you don't do something
Sitting on a fence that's a dangerous course
Oh, you could even catch a bullet from the peace-keeping force
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44 Pg.373:
If Abraham reasoned thus -- If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John
discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose
that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father?
And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a
tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything
comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of
that which is heavenly. Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe
that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at
such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.
6 � Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is
near:
7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and
let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our
God, for he will abundantly pardon.
8 � For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my
ways, saith the LORD.
9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than
your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
(Old Testament | Isaiah 55:6 - 9)
.

User: "Jong Kim"
Title: Re: Biological Evolution, Punk Science	02 Jun 2007 09:59:32 AM

"RetroProphet" <RetroProphet_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:f3r7pd0m33@drn.newsguy.com...

"...the "God-of-the-gaps" concept does not work:
science rapidly closes the gaps that previously
might have been thought to be reserved for
miraculous intervention.

This is exactly what should be expected if either
the material world is all there is, or if the world
was created by a God who, as primary cause, chose
to create through secondary causes -- precisely
those natural causes that science studies.

In fact, creationists should seriously ask themselves
if their concept of God is not a belittling one:
the Intelligent Designer as "tinkerer" who is forced
to break his own created laws of nature once in a
while because they are insufficient to achieve certain
stages in the development of the material world.

From a theistic philosophical perspective, the actual
findings of science suggest a much grander idea of God:
the Designer who laid out an elegant and self-sufficient
set of laws of nature that accomplish the unfolding
of his creation by inducing self-organization of the
material world.

This idea is easily compatible with the concept of God
of many mainstream religions, including most Christian ones."

- Albrecht Moritz

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Biological Evolution, Punk Science	02 Jun 2007 07:01:55 PM

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 07:55:57 -0700, "Jong Kim" <rhl71@hotmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <136316mqa3selef@corp.supernews.com>

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1pb063pl822ccrbmnjg4rrlpndsrt6ecvp@4ax.com...

James Clerk Maxwell (1867 letter to a fellow physicist, Peter Guthrie

Tait,

also an expert in themodynamics):

That's 140 years ago, moron. Science has progressed a heck of a lot
since then.

"The value of the metaphysics is equal to the mathematical and physical
knowledge of the author divided by his confidence in reasoning from
the names of things."

Prove it, brainwashed moron.

There is no royal road to Geometry, said Euclid.

There is no royal road to the salvation of the Lord either.

There cannot be a road to something which does not exist!
How old did you say you were?
Five?
--
.

User: "Doc Smartass"
Title: Re: Biological Evolution, Punk Science	01 Jun 2007 05:43:23 PM

"Jong Kim" <rhl71@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1360baf9rqui911@corp.supernews.com:
<snip a lot of crap>
Look, shitheels. If your argument against evolution involves religion,
you've GOT no fucking argument.
Simple as that.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
Help Prevent Projectile Stupidity
Duct-Tape a Fundie's Mouth Shut Today!
.

User: "Bill M"
Title: Re: Biological Evolution, Punk Science	01 Jun 2007 10:51:35 AM

Get your head out of your imaginary gods ***** and see the 'real' world for a
change.
"Jong Kim" <rhl71@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1360baf9rqui911@corp.supernews.com...

"Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnderson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180453795.649630.137120@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On May 29, 8:37 am, "Jong Kim" <r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

When I find facts, I change my mind, if previously I was
wrong. What do you do, sir?

An admirable approach. So, since evolution of species is an observed
fact, may I assume you've now changed your mind and accept the fact?

Your lie is unacceptable.

So-called speciation by hybridization is no speciation at all. If a
speciation occurs for an isolated variety, only then can you justifiably
say
one instance of biological change (if not evolution, which word implies
improvement or enhancement of some kind, judging by certain criteria for
what are better characteristics) has been observed. Hybridization induced
by
man's meddling or by wind or by bees, etc. due to proximities of two
different species breeding obviously ought to be left out when discussing
speciation, which has never been observed to occur naturally in genetic
isolation (all occurrences of speciation are due to direct interferences
of
the Lord God of heaven and earth, such as what happened to the serpent in
the garden of Eden and the coming forth of weeds, etc. due to the
Almighty's
curses upon the earth, as explained by Brigham Young). Take for instance,
the animal kingdom, in which there's no possibility of anything like wind
pollination for Evolutionists to twist language into imaginary occurrences
of speciation.

James Clerk Maxwell (1867 letter to a fellow physicist, Peter Guthrie
Tait,
also an expert in themodynamics):

"The value of the metaphysics is equal to the mathematical and physical
knowledge of the author divided by his confidence in reasoning from
the names of things."
http://www.hypercomplex.com/education/intro_tutorial/nabla.html
Maxwell, like Tait, didn't have much of a stomach for the kind of
metaphysics that came from non-scientists, which often seemed
to consist of nothing but a vacuous play on words.

[end of excerpt]

I understand that field biology has little to do with metaphysics, at
least
upon immediate consideration, but you see my point, if you are honest.
(You have not been honest thus far in this thread but mostly wasting
my time.)

Speaking of field biology, has a female tiger ever been observed to
produce,
after having mated within her species, a liger or a lion or any other type
of cat? Does it scientifically make any sense that this could be a
possibility at all? I ask you this question, especially because in the
animal kingdom, there's no possibility of anything like wind pollination
for
Evolutionists to twist language into imaginary occurrences of speciation.

Herbert Spencer, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, these aren't genuine
scientists. Just advocates of a false ideology, anti-Christs all. There
were
and are (esp. in the past) true biologists, true natural philosophers all,
but these three are confirmed charlatans. (Having just learned a little
bit
about Tait, that he was not a really spiritual minded scientist, I
wouldn't
be surprised if he sustained Evolution in spite of his knowledge of
thermodynamics. But, I have shown in correspondences with Redtrollnames
that
Maxwell did not. The point though, is that it's not who says it but what
is
said, whether facts and objective reasoning are given by a presenter of
any
view, scientific or otherwise. Of course, true religion encompasses all
branches of science, in fact all of life itself. Even if Maxwell did
support
Evolution, that doesn't make it true. It so happens that Maxwell himself
rejected Evolution (though not very vocal about it), and I have totally
demonstrated this, so if you want to judge by subjective credibility
suggested by any 'brand name', I offer you the name of the ultra competent
James Clerk Maxwell, if somehow the sanctified names of Joseph Smith and
Brigham Young and Art Bulla aren't enough for your appetite.)

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/James_Clerk_Maxwell
Clerk Maxwell ... yet showed on fit occasion his contempt for that
pseudo-science which seeks for the applause of the ignorant by professing
to
reduce the whole system of the universe to a fortuitous sequence of
uncaused
events.

The LoveToKnow Free Online Encyclopedia is based on what many consider to
be
the best encyclopedia ever written: the eleventh edition of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, first published in 1911.
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:About

In your talk.origins web link, there's a section titled "5.2 Speciations
in
Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy". That's only two
examples, and neither is in any way valid, again bogus. The first example
is
one where there already existed two different but closely related species
in
a given area. In the second example, some degree of hybridization occurred
anyway. Again, nonsense.

Btw genetic changes caused by exposure to x-rays and by any other such
artificial or unnatural means, or mutation as it is called, are generally
for the worse for the affected organism and besides, such changes are not
isolated biological changes. Where there's an effect, there was a cause
for
it. There's no such thing as genetically isolated biological change,
neither
to any individual organism (other than the process of aging) nor to the
offspring thereof. If you don't believe the Biblical account, at least no
human being has ever detected any such biological change, or phylogeny or
evolution. There are plenty of false or apostate religious sects, too many
to count, but the Bible and the Book of Mormon are true accounts and Art
Bulla is the One Mighty and Strong prophesied therein, and these things
and
other appropriate things (i.e., not to tempt God) you may inquire for
yourself through independent, objective reflections and unfeigned humility
and sincere prayers of faith to the Father in the name of Messiah.

When I find facts, I change my mind, if previously I was wrong. What do
you
do, sir?
What talk.origins did, they just banned us for life from posting to their
beloved religious newsgroup, in observance of the Principle of Fascist
Reaction.

16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the
potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not?
or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no
understanding?

(Old Testament | Isaiah 29:16)

19 ... Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou
shalt
not sow thy field with mingled seed: ...

(Old Testament | Leviticus 19:19)

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Biological Evolution, Punk Science	02 Jun 2007 02:10:54 AM

In article <1360baf9rqui911@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jong Kim" <rhl71@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nonsense.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Biological Evolution, Punk Science	02 Jun 2007 03:53:43 AM

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:10:54 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-50CA9D.00105402062007@news.giganews.com>

In article <1360baf9rqui911@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jong Kim" <rhl71@hotmail.com> wrote:

Nonsense.

That assessment is exceptionally polite.
--
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Biological Evolution, Punk Science	03 Jun 2007 01:19:31 AM

In article <uvb263l6ma3jeeajqrhe6mb6ti5t9rmr8f@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:10:54 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-50CA9D.00105402062007@news.giganews.com>

In article <1360baf9rqui911@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jong Kim" <rhl71@hotmail.com> wrote:

Nonsense.

That assessment is exceptionally polite.

--

I was in a generous mood yesterday. Today, I would call it diseased,
decaying, putrid, maggot ridden, *****.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.

User: "Jong Kim"
Title: Re: Biological Evolution, Punk Science	03 Jun 2007 10:07:22 AM

"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-6618CB.23193102062007@news.giganews.com...

In article <uvb263l6ma3jeeajqrhe6mb6ti5t9rmr8f@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:10:54 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-50CA9D.00105402062007@news.giganews.com>

In article <1360baf9rqui911@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jong Kim" <rhl71@hotmail.com> wrote:

Nonsense.

That assessment is exceptionally polite.

--

I was in a generous mood yesterday. Today, I would call it diseased,
decaying, putrid, maggot ridden, *****.

"I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but
not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of
science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people
to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be
religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment."
~~Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate (Physics, 1979).
http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm
A Designer Universe? (1999).
The above is one statement of the Principle of Least Reflection, which
through diligent practice brings forth retardation of the mind directly
proportional to the charisma of the advocate thereof:
"Why would I be wrong to see Young vs Morris as
merely what it appears to be: rival alpha males
protecting turf and power -- it's a scenario that
has played out in precisely the same manner
countless times no matter whose names are on
the bill or who's sponsoring the match.
Looks like "he said, he said" to me, mere might makes
right, Darwinian survival of the strongest at its best."
~~Redtrollnames Berserk Relaxwell, Vladimir Putin Professor
of Neuroelectromagneticquantumthermodynamicevolution at
Moscova State University (2006).
reflection, n.
1. (b) The reverting of the mind to that which has already
occupied it; continued consideration; meditation; contemplation;
hence, also, that operation or power of the mind by which it is
conscious of its own acts or states; the capacity for judging
rationally, especially in view of a moral rule or standard.

--
John #1782

"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.4, Pg.203, Brigham Young, February 1, 1857:
You never heard me preach a doctrine but what has a natural system
to it, and, when understood, is as easy to comprehend as that
two and two equal four. All the revelations of the Lord Almighty to
the children of men, and all revealed doctrines of salvation are
upon natural principles, upon natural philosophy.
Richard P. Feynman, Nobel Laureate (Physics, 1965):
"When I was in high school, my physics teacher�whose name was Mr.
Bader�called me down one day after physics class and said, 'You look bored;
I want to tell you something interesting.' Then he told me something that I
found absolutely fascinating, and have, since then, always found fascinating
.... the principle of least action."
~~The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1964).
"From conservation of energy to the principle of least action: A story
line," Jozef Hanc and Edwin F. Taylor, American Journal of Physics, Vol. 72,
No. 4, Aril 2004, pages 514-521. Conservation of energy is sufficient to
predict motion in one dimension and for systems whose motion can be
expressed as one independent coordinate. This prediction can also be used to
introduce the principle of least action and Lagrange's equations.
http://www.eftaylor.com/leastaction.html
Edwin F. Taylor, Professor of Physics at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology:
The action for an actual path may be a saddle point rather than a minimum.
So the most general, but rather esoteric, term for our basic law is the
principle of stationary action.
~~A Call to Action (2003), American Journal of Physics, Vol. 71, No. 5.
"When action is not least," C. G. Gray and Edwin F. Taylor, accepted by
American Journal of Physics subject to final editing. Action is a minimum
along a sufficiently short worldline in all potentials and along worldlines
of any length in some potentials. For long enough worldlines in a majority
potentials, however, the action is a saddle point, that is, a minimum with
respect to some nearby alternative curves and a maximum with respect to
others. The action is never a true maximum.
http://www.eftaylor.com/leastaction.html
Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, Pg.203, Brigham Young, April 6, 1852:
The Millennium consists in this--every heart in the Church and Kingdom of
God being united in one; the Kingdom increasing to the overcoming of
everything opposed to the economy of heaven, and Satan being bound, and
having a seal set upon him.
ZZ Top:
And the choice is up to you 'cause they come in two classes,
Rhinestone shades or cheap sunglasses.
http://www.math.utah.edu/~cherk/teach/calc-var1.html
M-675-2. Modern Problems in Calculus of Variations
....
Course description
The course introduces classical methods of Calculus of Variations,
Legendre transform, conservation laws and symmetries. The attention
is paid to variational problems with unstable (highly oscillatory)
solutions, especially in multidimensional problems. These problems
arrive in large number of applications, including structural optimization,
phase transitions, composites, inverse problems, etc., where an optimal
layout are characterized by short scale inhomogenuities: patterns of
unknown shapes. We discuss methods of effective description of such
solutions. They are called relaxation methods and are based on theory
of quasiconvexity.
===
Biology of Least Action
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reviews
Cells, Gels and the Engines of Life: A New, Unifying Approach to Cell
Function, by Gerald H. Pollack, Ebner & Sons, Seattle WA, USA, 2001. ISBN:
Paperback: 0-9626895-2-1
Don't, don't read this book, if you've built your life around the notion
that cell biology consists of nothing more than enormously complicated
networks of interacting proteins and genes for carrying out a list of vital
functions; like moving the cell around, digesting food, receiving and
transmitting signals from the environment, making the cell grow bigger, and
eventually dividing it into two.
Don't even think of touching this book if you believe that everything about
the cell will be understood when the function of every gene and every
protein has been worked out ad infinitum, and life itself could then be
simulated by the fastest supercomputer. For that's what we are told by the
molecular geneticists who have sequenced the human and other genomes, and
are now desperate to find some meaning in it all. Don't touch this book,
because it will destroy your life and puncture your illusions; or at least
throw you into a terrible state of self-doubt.
If, however, you have been bored out of your mind with the proliferation of
lists upon lists of molecular nuts and bolts that simply don't add up to a
whole, and secretly wondering how the cell might really work, then beg,
borrow, steal or buy a copy of this book right now. You are in for a big
treat. This book will sweep you off your feet.
It is like having a thorough spring-cleaning done on your mind. The layers
of intellectual cobwebs accumulating ever since you decided to read
biology - and never really been encouraged to think your way to any modicum
of understanding - all cleared away, one by one, until you see sunlight
sparkling in your mind's eye. You've regained the innocence of first gazing
into life's wonders, and ready for more. Not a gel in sight, and no
equations either.
With disarming lightness and charm, Gerald Pollack sweeps aside the big
myths out of which the entire subject has been spun, thus disposing of
perhaps 99 percent of what one might have learned from cell biology
textbooks. Well, perhaps I should explain that the molecular 'hardware' does
exist, but the explanatory mechanisms may all be wrong. The most important
message in this book is that life cannot be understood without understanding
some elementary physics and chemistry. There needs to be a complete overhaul
of the typical life-science curriculum in universities and lower down.
The first to go is the myth that the cell is enclosed by a cell membrane
that forms a barrier to substances going in and out of the cell. And hence,
an endless list of specific channel proteins are necessary to allow various
substances such as inorganic ions, sugars, amino-acids, hormones, etc. etc.
to pass in and out, all guarded by specific receptors that make the channel
proteins 'open'; not to mention the specific protein 'pumps' supposedly
operating to transport ions uphill against their concentration gradients.
All that is rather like a house that has a dog-flip, a cat-flip and a
mouse-flip, when it is obvious to men and beast alike that anything smaller
than the dog will be able to use the dog-flip. The artwork in this book is
wonderful, by the way.
Pollack reviews evidence dating from the early part of the last century that
practically all the properties attributed to the cell membrane are there
even when the membrane has been dissolved away, or great holes and tears
made in it, or even when a whole chunk of the cell has been cut away.
These membrane-specific properties include the so-called membrane potential,
the negative electrical potential inside the cell relative to the outside,
as well as the action potential, an electrical spike discharge generated
when the cell membrane (presumably) is electrically or otherwise stimulated.
Furthermore, these cells, denuded of membranes, or full of gaping holes in
their membrane, nevertheless keep hold of their ions and small molecules for
a long time after there are no barriers to prevent them from diffusing away.
The next to go are stories on how cells secrete substances that make other
cells do specific things by vesicles filled with neural transmitter, what
have you, inside the cell migrating outwards, and fusing with the cell
membrane, thus discharging their 'payload'.
Or how cells can transport large cargoes by molecular machines with
molecular 'feet' walking along molecular monorails; how cells themselves are
supposed to move and divide by 'contractile fibres', and how our muscles are
supposed to contract by tiny 'cross-bridges' walking or sliding along fixed,
filaments.
Goodness me. How many hours have I wasted trying to make sense of it all?
And all, quite probably, to no avail, if Pollack is to be believed.
So, what's the grand unifying principle that could explain all that, which
is nothing short of life itself?
It could be no more than phase transition involving gels, for that's what
most proteins are, according to Pollack.
One is reminded of the supercomputer in Adam Douglas' Hitch-hikers Guide to
the Galaxies, finally answering the question that's it has been deliberating
for ages, "What is the meaning of life?"
"Forty-two!"
First thing first, why doesn't the cell need a membrane? Because, rather
than being a bag of enzymes and other proteins enclosed in a membrane, the
cell is a highly organised state of matter, more like a poly-electrolyte gel
akin to egg white, or gelatin. This poly-electrolyte gel, with a lot of
negative charges, accommodates smaller ions such as potassium (K+) and
exclude the much larger sodium (Na+). That's why the cell is predominantly
filled with potassium, while the extracellular fluid like our blood, lymph,
tears and the sea, are rich in sodium. There aren't enough potassium ions
adsorbed to neutralise all the negative charges, so the cell invariably ends
up with a negative electrical potential relative to the outside. That gel
potential has been mistaken for 'membrane' potential. And the orthodoxy is
sticking to its story.
But surely, the potassium atom is much bigger than the sodium. Yes, so the
positively charged potassium exerts a weaker force on the surrounding water
than the sodium and ends up with a much smaller hydration shell. So water is
the key, isn't it?
Our readers will be familiar with water and water in living organisms,
specially featured in "Water, water everywhere" series in SiS 15, where we
said that the water in the cell, as well as outside the cell in connective
tissues, is in a liquid crystalline state bound to proteins and other
macromolecules.
Liquid crystals and gels are the same with regard to the large amount of
water adsorbed, except that liquid crystals are molecularly 'aligned', or
ordered, and gels are not. Thus collagen is liquid crystalline with all the
molecules aligned. If you cook collagen for a long time, it turns into
gelatin, a gel with the molecules randomly dispersed. So, the properties of
gel apply to liquid crystals, perhaps even more so.
It is the layers of adsorbed water on the surfaces of proteins and other
macromolecules in the cell cytoplasm that exclude the larger sodium ions,
except when a phase transition occurs, and the bound water comes off the
surfaces.
Many physical measurements support the idea that most if not all of the cell
water are in this bound, ordered state, in which nothing will dissolve in
it, and it is restricted in its motion. What binds and orders the water
molecules are surface charges attracting the water molecule. The water
molecule is special as it can undergo extensive hydrogen bonds with one
another and with other molecules. Surfaces with a lot of charges will be
able to capture many layers of water molecules all lined up; whereas
surfaces with few charges will be unable to retain bound water. It is
estimated that the layers of water thus adsorbed in the cell are between 5
to10.
And, practically all the vital functions of the cell may be explained in ter
ms of phase transition of gels from a hydrated state, in which the water is
adsorbed to the enormous surfaces available, to a condensed state, in which
the water is displaced and literally squeezed out. It happens very quickly
indeed. This could well explain how 'secretary' vesicles can actually
forcibly eject their 'pay-load', when they change from a condensed state
explosively to an expanded state on reaching the outside, rather like a
compressed spring is suddenly released. No 'membrane fusion' necessary.
Now, this phase transition is quite dramatic, the difference in total volume
between a fully hydrated gel and a condensed state could be as much as a
thousand fold. This surely can't be happening all the time, because we don't
normally shrink and expand like Alice in Wonderland.
The phase transitions could be much more localised, probably because the
cells never has extensive patches of purely one kind of molecules, and more
importantly, there is organisation in the cytoplasm, with diverse molecules
aligned and arrayed next to one another in what biochemist Ricky Welch, not
mentioned in this book, referred to as a distinct and varied 'cytosocial
environment'.
Localised phase transitions could account for the sudden electrical
discharges typical of action potentials, for example, when potassium ions
are released with bound water, and sodium ions coming in to dissolve in the
liberated water. What could trigger phase transition? Anything that changes
surface charge distribution, adding a phosphate group in the ubiquitous
phosphorylation reaction that appears to be involved in every 'signal
transduction' cascade, for example; or binding divalent cations like calcium
(Ca2+) with two positive charges that could link up two protein surfaces,
thus literally squeezing the bound water out.
These simple phase transitions propagating along a long fibre could
automatically make 'molecular motors' stream along the tracts, in what has
come to be known as 'cytoplasmic streaming', most prominent in the long
fibres or axons of nerve cells, but can also be seen in giant alga.
Basically, it is the tiny local turbulences of water being released from the
surface and the rebinding, coupled with the local wave-like contraction and
expansion of the molecular tract undergoing phase transition that propels
the cargoes along, with the greatest of ease.
And how might muscles work? By phase transition of course. All the fibres,
actin, myosin and the newly discovered connecting filaments, contribute to
the contraction of muscle by propagated phase transition, and you can see
this in sections of muscle quick frozen in the midst of a contraction.
I leave you to discover how cells really divide.
Pollack may be wrong on many details, and it is a moot point whether one
should call all movements of bound water onto and off protein surfaces
'phase transition', and, I am slightly disappointed that he hasn't gone on
to talk about liquid crystalline phases at all.
Pollack refers to the important work of many early pioneers, such as
Professor Gilbert Ling who went from China to the United States on a Boxer
Fellowship, and soon found himself at odds with the orthodoxy over the
existence of the cell membrane and the membrane potential. Another is Albert
Szent-Gyorgyi, a founding father of biochemistry who got a Nobel prize, but
had very unorthodox ideas nonetheless that inspired many including me.
Pollack could have mentioned Joseph Needham's remarkable little book, Order
and Life, published in 1936, which has anticipated a lot of the new cell
biology that Pollack so skilfully compels us to think about.
It is clear to me, especially after reading this book, that molecular
biologists have been thinking themselves into a right muddle of molecular
cogs and wheels, cross-bridges, membrane receptors, channels, switches,
signal transducers, nuts and bolts galore that guzzle energy like our own
mechanical devices, and wondering where all that energy could come from.
That, by the way, is why a lot of nano-machines that nano-technologists
intend to build will go nowhere. They should first learn about phase
transitions, and there are already some marvellous applications described in
this book developed by scientists who take the physics and chemistry
seriously.
The cell is not assembled from a nano-Meccanno set, nor endless nano-Lego
pieces that depends on many so isolated push-pull, drive-driven, lock and
key mechanical actions. Not, the cell has been engaged in molecular Kungfu
instead, performing all its vital functions with the greatest of ease and
the least of bother. Just imagine that.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BLA.php
I don't know if everything presented in Dr. Ho's book review article is
correct, but it appears to me that both Pollack and Ho are headed in the
right direction.
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Biological Evolution, Punk Science	03 Jun 2007 06:18:52 PM

In article <1365m7pp7d31l25@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jong Kim" <rhl71@hotmail.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-6618CB.23193102062007@news.giganews.com...

In article <uvb263l6ma3jeeajqrhe6mb6ti5t9rmr8f@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:10:54 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-50CA9D.00105402062007@news.giganews.com>

In article <1360baf9rqui911@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jong Kim" <rhl71@hotmail.com> wrote:

Nonsense.

That assessment is exceptionally polite.

--

I was in a generous mood yesterday. Today, I would call it diseased,
decaying, putrid, maggot ridden, *****.

Can you trolls do anything but cut and paste?
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Biological Evolution, Punk Science	04 Jun 2007 12:18:39 AM

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:18:52 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-8FF899.16185203062007@news.giganews.com>

In article <1365m7pp7d31l25@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jong Kim" <rhl71@hotmail.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-6618CB.23193102062007@news.giganews.com...

In article <uvb263l6ma3jeeajqrhe6mb6ti5t9rmr8f@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:10:54 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-50CA9D.00105402062007@news.giganews.com>

In article <1360baf9rqui911@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jong Kim" <rhl71@hotmail.com> wrote:

Nonsense.

That assessment is exceptionally polite.

--

I was in a generous mood yesterday. Today, I would call it diseased,
decaying, putrid, maggot ridden, *****.

Can you trolls do anything but cut and paste?

He has no independent mind, (that he has any sort of coherent control
over), and no other option but to let others proscribe the simplest
dogma that he follows without conscious consideration.
It is unfortuante that he has fallen victim to most outrageous
religious criminal con-artists.
--
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Biological Evolution, Punk Science	04 Jun 2007 05:39:05 PM

In article <g08763heck9nbqjfu070h8pknk0uscnlqc@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:18:52 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-8FF899.16185203062007@news.giganews.com>

In article <1365m7pp7d31l25@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jong Kim" <rhl71@hotmail.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-6618CB.23193102062007@news.giganews.com...

In article <uvb263l6ma3jeeajqrhe6mb6ti5t9rmr8f@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:10:54 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-50CA9D.00105402062007@news.giganews.com>

In article <1360baf9rqui911@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jong Kim" <rhl71@hotmail.com> wrote:

Nonsense.

That assessment is exceptionally polite.

--

I was in a generous mood yesterday. Today, I would call it diseased,
decaying, putrid, maggot ridden, *****.

Can you trolls do anything but cut and paste?

He has no independent mind, (that he has any sort of coherent control
over), and no other option but to let others proscribe the simplest
dogma that he follows without conscious consideration.

Mindless bots repeating what others feed them.

It is unfortuante that he has fallen victim to most outrageous
religious criminal con-artists.

If these people sold used cars, or anything else, the way they peddle
their silly superstitions, they would all be in jail for fraud.

--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Biological Evolution, Punk Science	05 Jun 2007 06:40:41 AM

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:39:05 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-5AA831.15390504062007@news.giganews.com>

In article <g08763heck9nbqjfu070h8pknk0uscnlqc@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:18:52 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-8FF899.16185203062007@news.giganews.com>

In article <1365m7pp7d31l25@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jong Kim" <rhl71@hotmail.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-6618CB.23193102062007@news.giganews.com...

In article <uvb263l6ma3jeeajqrhe6mb6ti5t9rmr8f@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:10:54 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-50CA9D.00105402062007@news.giganews.com>

In article <1360baf9rqui911@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jong Kim" <rhl71@hotmail.com> wrote:

Nonsense.

That assessment is exceptionally polite.

--

I was in a generous mood yesterday. Today, I would call it diseased,
decaying, putrid, maggot ridden, *****.

Can you trolls do anything but cut and paste?

He has no independent mind, (that he has any sort of coherent control
over), and no other option but to let others proscribe the simplest
dogma that he follows without conscious consideration.

Mindless bots repeating what others feed them.

It is unfortuante that he has fallen victim to most outrageous
religious criminal con-artists.

If these people sold used cars, or anything else, the way they peddle
their silly superstitions, they would all be in jail for fraud.

Exactly!
And for the same reason that not many people jail the Mafia for their
criminal stand-over tactics.
False deference and obescience engendered through threats of extreme
violence and social ostracism.
At least not until now.
The emerging tide of atheist pride across the western world has made
it relatively safe for sane folk to proclaim their mental independence
without fear of being crucified by their indoctrinated and servile
communities.
--
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Biological Evolution, Punk Science	05 Jun 2007 05:35:01 PM

In article <itia63597e184kon6hsvnrupjvjufm5083@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote: