Quote:Methanosarcina acetivorans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Methanosarcina acetivorans C2A
Scientific classification
Domain: Archaea
Kingdom: Euryarchaeota
Phylum: Euryarchaeota
Class: Methanomicrobia
Order: Methanosarcinales
Family: Methanosarcinaceae
Genus: Methanosarcina
Species: M. acetivorans
Binomial name
Methanosarcina acetivorans
Sowers et al. 1986
Methanosarcina acetivorans is a versatile methane producing microbe which is found in such diverse environments as oil wells, trash dumps, deep-sea hydrothermal vents, and oxygen-depleted sediments beneath kelp beds. Only M. acetivorans and microbes in the genus Methanosarcina use all three known metabolic pathways for methanogenesis.[1] Methanosarcinides, including M. acetivorans, are also the only archaea capable of forming multicellular colonies, and even show cellular differentiation. As of 2006, the genome of M. acetivorans is the largest of all sequenced archaeal genomes.[2]
In 2006, James Ferry and Christopher House discovered that M. acetivorans uses a previously unknown metabolic pathway to metabolize carbon monoxide into methane and acetate using the well known enzymes phosphotransacetylase (PTS) and acetate kinase (ACK). This pathway is surprisingly[according to whom?] simple, and has been proposed by Ferry and House as perhaps the first metabolic pathway used by primordial microbes.
However, in the presence of minerals containing iron sulfides, as might have been found in sediments in a primordial environment, acetate would be catalytically converted into acetate thioester, a sulfur-containing derivative. Primitive microbes could obtain biochemical energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) by converting acetate thioester back into acetate using PTS and ACK, which would then be converted back into acetate thioester to complete the process. In such an environment, a primitive "protocell" could easily produce energy through this metabolic pathway, excreting acetate as waste. Furthermore, ACK catalyzes the synthesis of ATP directly. Other pathways generate energy from ATP only through complex multi-enzyme reactions involving protein pumps and osmotic imbalances across a
I have a question, Is it still considered an ad hominem if you really are an idiot?
So I should lie whenever I address you and I should make believe that you are sane and I should ignore the fact that you are a dishonest Creationist troll who is fucked in the head?
As for Quahog, I just shut him down because he's obviously an attention whore who has nothing valuable to contribute and yells in the process of contributing nothing.
The big lie of genetics exposed: human DNA incapable of storing complete blueprint of the human form
The curse of being a critical thinker is that you can't turn it off, I've discovered. So you become a critical thinker about everything you've been told or taught, and as it turns out, most of what we've all been taught about genetics is a lie.
But don't take my word for it. Join me as we take an honest, critical look at genetics using the same kind of skepticism scientists demand we invoke when looking at medicinal herbs or acupuncture.
Genetics is an attempt by materialistic scientists to offer a purely materialist view of inheritance and development of not just physical bodies but non-physical inherited attributes such as instinctive behaviors and cellular function.
According to the theory of genetics, physical gene sequences contained in chromosomes found in each cell in your body are a "blueprint" for all your body's physical structures, biochemical functions and inherited behavioral patterns. This blueprint, the theory goes, contains ALL the instructions needed to create a complete human form with all its physical structures, physiological functions and inherited behaviors fully represented and complete.
Because of the enormous complexity of the human body, organ function, cell structures and instinctive behaviors, it was once believed that humans must possess somewhere around 2 million protein-coding genes. The Human Genome Project was launched in 1990 with the widespread belief that when it was finished, it would "unlock" all the mysteries of the origins of disease in humans. It was also believed that when the human genome fully mapped, scientists would be able to create humans in any form they wanted, including humans with extra arms or legs, humans free of all disease, humans with "enhanced" physical powers, and so on.
At the start of the Human Genome Project, everybody "knew" that humans were far more complex than, say, a roundworm, which only has about 20,000 protein-coding genes. This is why estimates of the number of genes in a human ranged from 100,000 to 2 million. Scientists were absolutely sure that humans were far more complex than a tiny roundworm, and therefore humans needed far more genes.
The Human Genome Project suffers an "epic fail"
The first draft of the Human Genome Project was published in the year 2,000. Far from being a breakthrough that would end all human disease, its findings utterly shattered the mythology of genetics as the sole explanation for all inheritance and physical development. Why? Because the Human Genome Project found that humans have only about 20,000 protein-coding genes, roughly the same number as the roundworm.
Huh? A human being has about the same number of protein-coding genes as a roundworm? Yes. And that's straight out of the mouths of human genome researchers who are, themselves, hard-core materialists.
By comparison, the common fruit fly has about 15,000 genes, only marginally less than a human. And yet it is obvious to any intelligent observer than a human being is considerably more complex than a fruit fly and a roundworm. So why didn't the Human Genome Project find a lot more genes that code proteins in humans?
Genetic inheritance theory shattered
The findings of the multi-billion-dollar Human Genome Project shattered the mythology of genetic materialism, sending nearly the entire scientific community into a tailspin and forcing "the great genetic cover-up" to begin.
Human genes simply needed "more research" to be understood, scientists exclaimed. And since the year 2000, that research has continued to no avail. The cover-up continues...
The truth is that there isn't enough data storage in 20,000 genes to hold a blueprint for a human being.
Human DNA data storage capacity
Allow me to explain this from a computer science point of view, as many of you know I founded a very successful computer software company and was the head of R&D for many computer science projects, including the popular new SCIENCE.naturalnews.com which uses advanced statistical algorithms to analyze scientific concepts across millions of published studies.
The human genome contains about 3 billion "base pairs" of genes. Each base pair can exist in one of four possible combinations of the four bases that make up DNA: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C), and Guanine (G).
From a digital storage point of view -- as DNA is "digital" in its format -- a base pair is equivalent to two bits of binary data, which can represent four possible states as follows:
00
01
10
11
In computer storage vernacular, a "byte" is eight bits of data, such as:
01011010
Four DNA base pairs, then, makes one byte of data.
Given that there are roughly 3 billion base pairs in the human genome, this equates to roughly about 750MB of data storage capacity.
It turns out this number is shockingly small. 750MB is smaller than the file of a typical modern video game. It's smaller than a movie on a DVD, in fact. It's so small that a typical miniature thumb drive you might buy at Best Buy can actually store over 20 times as much data (that's merely a 16 GB thumb drive). You can buy a 16GB SD card right now on Amazon.com for a mere $12.
750MB of data is so small that no one can explain how it could possibly account for a human body with extraordinary complexity while somehow encompassing physical, structural, functional and behavioral inheritance as well.
To get a grasp of the complexity of the human body, realize that your body is made of 60 - 90 trillion cells. Each cell is its own ecosystem with highly complex functions including cell energy production, waste removal, cell membrane function, the nucleus command control center, and so on.
Your body manufactures 10 million red blood cells every hour. It has a capacity to heal damaged tissues almost everywhere. Your skin and intestines are being slowly replaced with new cells every minute. Your immune system is incredibly complex and highly capable, representing the most advanced system of nanotechnology that modern science has ever witnessed.
On top of all this, you are born with innate behaviors and the ability to develop, all on your own, the behavioral skills to walk, talk, focus your eyes, digest foods, eliminate waste, sweat, breathe and much more. Meanwhile, your body accomplishes billions of chemical reactions every second without you even knowing it. Somehow, every cell, organ and organ system in your body knows what to do to keep you alive and functioning.
Your body and its functions are unimaginably complex. Simply cataloging the structure and function of all the cells in your body right now would take countless terabytes of data -- more than a million times larger than "megabytes" of data.
Yet the entire human genome delivers only 750MB worth of data storage. Obviously, this is wholly insufficient to describe the entire structure, function and development of a human being. No matter how the desperate materialists try to keep us focused on human genes, it flat-out isn't possible to store a full blueprint of the human form in 750MB of data.
The human genome, therefore, is not the entire blueprint of human development. Although some genes do obviously code for some physical characteristics (such as eye color), genes alone do not contain the full blueprint. There must be something else that also contributes morphological information in addition to DNA.
The Human Genome Project, to the shock of nearly all materialists, ultimately proved exactly the opposite of what scientists had hoped. It proved that genes alone do not explain inheritance.
The materialists were horrified by this finding. To this very day, they are pouring over human genome data, desperately trying to find some "meta data" that would explain all inheritance. What they refuse to acknowledge is that there is a non-physical field of inheritance patterns that functions as an overlay to the human genome, interacting with it and enhancing its scope with non-physical encoding of additional information needed to develop a complete human form.
That field is called the "morphic resonance" field, and it was proposed by one of the most brilliant, revolutionary scientific thinkers of our time, Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist and author of "Science Set Free."
Morphic resonance fields infuriate materialists
The idea of morphic resonance infuriates materialists -- and nearly all modern-day scientists are materialists -- because the presence of a non-physical field of information naturally leads to the most dangerous idea of all to materialist science: the idea of consciousness.
This idea that your body as a whole, as well as each cell in your body, can tap into a field of information which encodes the "memory" of what a human form is supposed to be threatens the very pillars of materialistic science, upon which nearly the entire pharmaceutical industry is based, by the way. This is why materialist scientists are desperately attempting to defend the human genome as the single source of all the information needed to develop a human body, even though the human genome clearly doesn't have the storage capacity to represent an entire body (not to mention inherited physiological functions and behavioral inheritance).
The best place to read and learn about morphic resonance is at Rupert Sheldrake's website:
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/pap...
I also recommend his amazingly insightful book, A New Science of Life.
Keep in mind that if you read about Rupert Sheldrake from any materialistic science website -- including Scientific American which is 100% pro-Monsanto, pro-GMO and anti GMO labeling, by the way -- you are going to read vicious attacks against Sheldrake from desperate materialists who brand morphic resonance as "magical thinking."
This is especially comic, given that these same materialists believe the entire universe in which we live spontaneously appeared from nowhere without cause or reason through a process they call the "Big Bang." Somehow, the big bang isn't magical thinking to the materialists, but the idea of a non-physical field of inheritance is magical thinking. It's almost like these people have never heard of gravity: yet another invisible field that affects all living things.
How does your hand know it's a hand?
Another key problem with the theory of genetic inheritance is that even though all the cells across your body are supposed to contain the same exact genetic code, somehow the cells in your hand knew they were supposed to grow into a hand, not a foot or an ear, for example.
Conventional genetics has no explanation for this. How does a cell "know" it's supposed to be a specialized cell functioning as a tiny part of the whole? If every blood cell in your body contains the DNA for your entire body, how does it "know" to form itself into a blood cells and not, for example, a skin cell?
Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance explanation provides an answer. The cell taps into a knowledge field -- a non-physical pattern blueprint -- and through influence with that field, the cell knows to activate only the genes that code for it to form a blood cell. The local physical genes accomplish the protein coding, but the morphic resonance field directs the pattern of which genes to activate. This is how morphic fields interact with DNA.
The human genome, in other words, works hand in hand with a non-physical information field that keeps physical form development organized so that the resulting form is a human. The morphic resonance field "knows" the pattern of being human because it is a pattern that has been reinforced by billions of other humans who came before you and contributed to the resonance of the field.
This explains the missing link in DNA -- the fact that DNA alone cannot store the entire blueprint of the human form. The master blueprint is actually found in the non-physical morphic field. Local DNA are simply "protein builders" that follow the morphic resonance blueprint.
Just like there is an energetic pattern for a human being, there's also a different energetic template for an oak tree, and it overlays the genes from an oak tree seed, directing it to form a fully-grown oak tree. For every cell, every organ, every organ system and every life form on our planet (and across the universe), there is a morphic resonance field that provides the template overlay which affects local gene activation.
Learn more about morphic resonance
This article, of course, is only a short summary of the concept of morphic resonance. To learn more, I encourage you to read books by Rupert Sheldrake, and visit the Sheldrake.org website.
Keep in mind that Sheldrake's theories absolute infuriate materialist scientists. The journal Nature actually suggested that Sheldrake should be burned at the stake... like a witch, I suppose. TED talks essentially banned Sheldrake from speaking because he dared mention the idea of "consciousness."
Everywhere across the fatally closed-minded community of materialist science, Sheldrake is considered to be worse than a demon... he is a non-believer in the Church of Materialism! And there is no greater sin to today's cult-like science community than non-belief in materialism.
This is why Sheldrake's ideas will be viciously attacked, demonized and denied... up until the day they are finally embraced and accepted as the "new science of life." In a hundred years, Sheldrake will likely be remembered as far more important to science than even Charles Darwin. His ideas are not merely revolutionary, but desperately needed to advance science beyond the limiting realm of materialism. If science does not expand its scope beyond chemical structures, it will never understand life and will always remain mystified and frustrated about why genes still don't control much in the way of inheritance.
Watch for more coverage of Rupert Sheldrake here on Natural News, where our ideas are rooted in science yet not limited by the artificial confines of materialism. We also hope to interview Sheldrake soon and bring you the interview that TED won't allow you to hear.
Questions for faith believers in materialist genetics
1. Where is the gene for creativity? If creative works (songs, poems, fiction novels, etc.) are merely the work of mechanistic brains following genetic instructions, then all the lifelong works of creative individuals (musicians, artists, novelists, etc.) must somehow be encoded in the DNA before birth. Where is all this creativity encoded?
2. How does a blood cell know to make itself into a blood cell and not a skin cell?
3. Why is most physical inheritance unable to be traced to DNA? (The "heritability problem.")
4. If there is not enough storage capacity in the human genome to fully describe the human form, then where does the rest of the blueprint come from?
5. Where is the genetic code for love, compassion and cooperation, without which human civilization never would have survived?
6. If human consciousness is an illusion, as materialists claim, then it can have no impact on human behavior, which is purely mechanistic, they insist. So then why did the "illusion of consciousness" evolve in human beings if it serves no purpose? This contradicts one of the more fundamental tenants of natural selection.
7. Are you, yourself, purely a mechanistic biological robot suffering under the illusion of consciousness? And if so, then why should we listen to anything you have to say in the first place?
http://www.naturalnews.com/042260_genetics_myths_human_genome_project_morphic_resonance.html#ixzz2o89DHSkK
Hmmmm
Quote:The big lie of genetics exposed: human DNA incapable of storing complete blueprint of the human form
The curse of being a critical thinker is that you can't turn it off, I've discovered. So you become a critical thinker about everything you've been told or taught, and as it turns out, most of what we've all been taught about genetics is a lie.
But don't take my word for it. Join me as we take an honest, critical look at genetics using the same kind of skepticism scientists demand we invoke when looking at medicinal herbs or acupuncture.
Genetics is an attempt by materialistic scientists to offer a purely materialist view of inheritance and development of not just physical bodies but non-physical inherited attributes such as instinctive behaviors and cellular function.
According to the theory of genetics, physical gene sequences contained in chromosomes found in each cell in your body are a "blueprint" for all your body's physical structures, biochemical functions and inherited behavioral patterns. This blueprint, the theory goes, contains ALL the instructions needed to create a complete human form with all its physical structures, physiological functions and inherited behaviors fully represented and complete.
Because of the enormous complexity of the human body, organ function, cell structures and instinctive behaviors, it was once believed that humans must possess somewhere around 2 million protein-coding genes. The Human Genome Project was launched in 1990 with the widespread belief that when it was finished, it would "unlock" all the mysteries of the origins of disease in humans. It was also believed that when the human genome fully mapped, scientists would be able to create humans in any form they wanted, including humans with extra arms or legs, humans free of all disease, humans with "enhanced" physical powers, and so on.
At the start of the Human Genome Project, everybody "knew" that humans were far more complex than, say, a roundworm, which only has about 20,000 protein-coding genes. This is why estimates of the number of genes in a human ranged from 100,000 to 2 million. Scientists were absolutely sure that humans were far more complex than a tiny roundworm, and therefore humans needed far more genes.
The Human Genome Project suffers an "epic fail"
The first draft of the Human Genome Project was published in the year 2,000. Far from being a breakthrough that would end all human disease, its findings utterly shattered the mythology of genetics as the sole explanation for all inheritance and physical development. Why? Because the Human Genome Project found that humans have only about 20,000 protein-coding genes, roughly the same number as the roundworm.
Huh? A human being has about the same number of protein-coding genes as a roundworm? Yes. And that's straight out of the mouths of human genome researchers who are, themselves, hard-core materialists.
By comparison, the common fruit fly has about 15,000 genes, only marginally less than a human. And yet it is obvious to any intelligent observer than a human being is considerably more complex than a fruit fly and a roundworm. So why didn't the Human Genome Project find a lot more genes that code proteins in humans?
Genetic inheritance theory shattered
The findings of the multi-billion-dollar Human Genome Project shattered the mythology of genetic materialism, sending nearly the entire scientific community into a tailspin and forcing "the great genetic cover-up" to begin.
Human genes simply needed "more research" to be understood, scientists exclaimed. And since the year 2000, that research has continued to no avail. The cover-up continues...
The truth is that there isn't enough data storage in 20,000 genes to hold a blueprint for a human being.
Human DNA data storage capacity
Allow me to explain this from a computer science point of view, as many of you know I founded a very successful computer software company and was the head of R&D for many computer science projects, including the popular new SCIENCE.naturalnews.com which uses advanced statistical algorithms to analyze scientific concepts across millions of published studies.
The human genome contains about 3 billion "base pairs" of genes. Each base pair can exist in one of four possible combinations of the four bases that make up DNA: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C), and Guanine (G).
From a digital storage point of view -- as DNA is "digital" in its format -- a base pair is equivalent to two bits of binary data, which can represent four possible states as follows:
00
01
10
11
In computer storage vernacular, a "byte" is eight bits of data, such as:
01011010
Four DNA base pairs, then, makes one byte of data.
Given that there are roughly 3 billion base pairs in the human genome, this equates to roughly about 750MB of data storage capacity.
It turns out this number is shockingly small. 750MB is smaller than the file of a typical modern video game. It's smaller than a movie on a DVD, in fact. It's so small that a typical miniature thumb drive you might buy at Best Buy can actually store over 20 times as much data (that's merely a 16 GB thumb drive). You can buy a 16GB SD card right now on Amazon.com for a mere $12.
750MB of data is so small that no one can explain how it could possibly account for a human body with extraordinary complexity while somehow encompassing physical, structural, functional and behavioral inheritance as well.
To get a grasp of the complexity of the human body, realize that your body is made of 60 - 90 trillion cells. Each cell is its own ecosystem with highly complex functions including cell energy production, waste removal, cell membrane function, the nucleus command control center, and so on.
Your body manufactures 10 million red blood cells every hour. It has a capacity to heal damaged tissues almost everywhere. Your skin and intestines are being slowly replaced with new cells every minute. Your immune system is incredibly complex and highly capable, representing the most advanced system of nanotechnology that modern science has ever witnessed.
On top of all this, you are born with innate behaviors and the ability to develop, all on your own, the behavioral skills to walk, talk, focus your eyes, digest foods, eliminate waste, sweat, breathe and much more. Meanwhile, your body accomplishes billions of chemical reactions every second without you even knowing it. Somehow, every cell, organ and organ system in your body knows what to do to keep you alive and functioning.
Your body and its functions are unimaginably complex. Simply cataloging the structure and function of all the cells in your body right now would take countless terabytes of data -- more than a million times larger than "megabytes" of data.
Yet the entire human genome delivers only 750MB worth of data storage. Obviously, this is wholly insufficient to describe the entire structure, function and development of a human being. No matter how the desperate materialists try to keep us focused on human genes, it flat-out isn't possible to store a full blueprint of the human form in 750MB of data.
The human genome, therefore, is not the entire blueprint of human development. Although some genes do obviously code for some physical characteristics (such as eye color), genes alone do not contain the full blueprint. There must be something else that also contributes morphological information in addition to DNA.
The Human Genome Project, to the shock of nearly all materialists, ultimately proved exactly the opposite of what scientists had hoped. It proved that genes alone do not explain inheritance.
The materialists were horrified by this finding. To this very day, they are pouring over human genome data, desperately trying to find some "meta data" that would explain all inheritance. What they refuse to acknowledge is that there is a non-physical field of inheritance patterns that functions as an overlay to the human genome, interacting with it and enhancing its scope with non-physical encoding of additional information needed to develop a complete human form.
That field is called the "morphic resonance" field, and it was proposed by one of the most brilliant, revolutionary scientific thinkers of our time, Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist and author of "Science Set Free."
Morphic resonance fields infuriate materialists
The idea of morphic resonance infuriates materialists -- and nearly all modern-day scientists are materialists -- because the presence of a non-physical field of information naturally leads to the most dangerous idea of all to materialist science: the idea of consciousness.
This idea that your body as a whole, as well as each cell in your body, can tap into a field of information which encodes the "memory" of what a human form is supposed to be threatens the very pillars of materialistic science, upon which nearly the entire pharmaceutical industry is based, by the way. This is why materialist scientists are desperately attempting to defend the human genome as the single source of all the information needed to develop a human body, even though the human genome clearly doesn't have the storage capacity to represent an entire body (not to mention inherited physiological functions and behavioral inheritance).
The best place to read and learn about morphic resonance is at Rupert Sheldrake's website:
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/pap...
I also recommend his amazingly insightful book, A New Science of Life.
Keep in mind that if you read about Rupert Sheldrake from any materialistic science website -- including Scientific American which is 100% pro-Monsanto, pro-GMO and anti GMO labeling, by the way -- you are going to read vicious attacks against Sheldrake from desperate materialists who brand morphic resonance as "magical thinking."
This is especially comic, given that these same materialists believe the entire universe in which we live spontaneously appeared from nowhere without cause or reason through a process they call the "Big Bang." Somehow, the big bang isn't magical thinking to the materialists, but the idea of a non-physical field of inheritance is magical thinking. It's almost like these people have never heard of gravity: yet another invisible field that affects all living things.
How does your hand know it's a hand?
Another key problem with the theory of genetic inheritance is that even though all the cells across your body are supposed to contain the same exact genetic code, somehow the cells in your hand knew they were supposed to grow into a hand, not a foot or an ear, for example.
Conventional genetics has no explanation for this. How does a cell "know" it's supposed to be a specialized cell functioning as a tiny part of the whole? If every blood cell in your body contains the DNA for your entire body, how does it "know" to form itself into a blood cells and not, for example, a skin cell?
Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance explanation provides an answer. The cell taps into a knowledge field -- a non-physical pattern blueprint -- and through influence with that field, the cell knows to activate only the genes that code for it to form a blood cell. The local physical genes accomplish the protein coding, but the morphic resonance field directs the pattern of which genes to activate. This is how morphic fields interact with DNA.
The human genome, in other words, works hand in hand with a non-physical information field that keeps physical form development organized so that the resulting form is a human. The morphic resonance field "knows" the pattern of being human because it is a pattern that has been reinforced by billions of other humans who came before you and contributed to the resonance of the field.
This explains the missing link in DNA -- the fact that DNA alone cannot store the entire blueprint of the human form. The master blueprint is actually found in the non-physical morphic field. Local DNA are simply "protein builders" that follow the morphic resonance blueprint.
Just like there is an energetic pattern for a human being, there's also a different energetic template for an oak tree, and it overlays the genes from an oak tree seed, directing it to form a fully-grown oak tree. For every cell, every organ, every organ system and every life form on our planet (and across the universe), there is a morphic resonance field that provides the template overlay which affects local gene activation.
Learn more about morphic resonance
This article, of course, is only a short summary of the concept of morphic resonance. To learn more, I encourage you to read books by Rupert Sheldrake, and visit the Sheldrake.org website.
Keep in mind that Sheldrake's theories absolute infuriate materialist scientists. The journal Nature actually suggested that Sheldrake should be burned at the stake... like a witch, I suppose. TED talks essentially banned Sheldrake from speaking because he dared mention the idea of "consciousness."
Everywhere across the fatally closed-minded community of materialist science, Sheldrake is considered to be worse than a demon... he is a non-believer in the Church of Materialism! And there is no greater sin to today's cult-like science community than non-belief in materialism.
This is why Sheldrake's ideas will be viciously attacked, demonized and denied... up until the day they are finally embraced and accepted as the "new science of life." In a hundred years, Sheldrake will likely be remembered as far more important to science than even Charles Darwin. His ideas are not merely revolutionary, but desperately needed to advance science beyond the limiting realm of materialism. If science does not expand its scope beyond chemical structures, it will never understand life and will always remain mystified and frustrated about why genes still don't control much in the way of inheritance.
Watch for more coverage of Rupert Sheldrake here on Natural News, where our ideas are rooted in science yet not limited by the artificial confines of materialism. We also hope to interview Sheldrake soon and bring you the interview that TED won't allow you to hear.
Questions for faith believers in materialist genetics
1. Where is the gene for creativity? If creative works (songs, poems, fiction novels, etc.) are merely the work of mechanistic brains following genetic instructions, then all the lifelong works of creative individuals (musicians, artists, novelists, etc.) must somehow be encoded in the DNA before birth. Where is all this creativity encoded?
2. How does a blood cell know to make itself into a blood cell and not a skin cell?
3. Why is most physical inheritance unable to be traced to DNA? (The "heritability problem.")
4. If there is not enough storage capacity in the human genome to fully describe the human form, then where does the rest of the blueprint come from?
5. Where is the genetic code for love, compassion and cooperation, without which human civilization never would have survived?
6. If human consciousness is an illusion, as materialists claim, then it can have no impact on human behavior, which is purely mechanistic, they insist. So then why did the "illusion of consciousness" evolve in human beings if it serves no purpose? This contradicts one of the more fundamental tenants of natural selection.
7. Are you, yourself, purely a mechanistic biological robot suffering under the illusion of consciousness? And if so, then why should we listen to anything you have to say in the first place?
http://www.naturalnews.com/042260_genetics_myths_human_genome_project_morphic_resonance.html#ixzz2o89DHSkK
Yeah, and all started with a cartoon of a double helix, not one shred of visual evidence. Me, I'll stick with Dr William Sheldon 's physical temperaments
"William Sheldon (1898-1977) was an American psychologist who devoted his life to observing the variety of human bodies and temperaments. He taught and did research at a number of U.S.universities and is best known for his series of books on the human constitution. He was a keen observer of animals and birds as a child, and he turned this talent to good effect by becoming an avid people-watcher, and out of his observations he gradually elaborated his typology."
http://kheper.net/topics/typology/somatotypes.html
CONTENTS: Wistar Destroys Evolution
The Philadelphia Meeting: Evolution destroyed by mathematical facts at Wistar
The Alpbach Meeting: More evidence against evolution
The New York Meeting: The situation became even worse
The Cambridge Meeting: The finishing touch
THE PHILADELPHIA MEETING
It was not until the 1960s that the neo-Darwinists really began fighting among themselves in earnest. At Wistar, evolutionary theory was destroyed by mathematical facts.
The Alpbach Meeting
A follow-up meeting was held in 1969 at Alpbach, but it only resulted in fruitless discussions in defense of evolution, angry words by some, desperation by others desiring some kind of "evolutionary" solution that scientists could ably defend, and additional presentations of evidence that evolutionary theory was unscientific. Although it was an important meeting, little space was given to it in the public press.
THE NEW YORK MEETING
For decades, men had to silently accept evolutionary theory in order to graduate with a doctorate and enter a field of science. Everywhere they turned in their chosen field, they see evidence of creation, not evolution. An ever-increasing explosion of knowledge in the sciences only added to the massive weight of evidence in favor of creation science. But, at last, careful researchers were beginning to openly scoff at evolutionary theory in professional journals. Leading paleontologists, such as *Gould and Stanley, were brazenly flaunting the foolishness of Darwin's legacy; but, unfortunately they were substituting strange new fairy tales that were utterly opposed to reality, common sense, genetics, mutational studies, or mathematical probabilities. Something had to be done.
THE CAMBRIDGE MEETING
The following year, still another important meeting of evolutionists was held. At this meeting, held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, *Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in a paper that he presented to the assembly, declared before his peers that evolution was "positively anti-knowledge," and added that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth."
The same year another scientist wrote this:
"An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."—*Michael Ruse, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science," in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 828.
Commenting on the crisis that had come to the evolutionary camp, *Niles Eldredge, head of the Department of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, later wrote this:
"The doubt that has infiltrated the previously smug confident certitude of evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions . . There has been a total lack of agreement even within the warring camps . . Things are really in an uproar these days . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists."—*Niles Eldredge, "Evolutionary Housecleaning," in Natural History, February 1982, pp. 78, 81.
