'Map of life' predicts ET. (So where is he?)

July 2, 2015, University of Cambridge
The camera eye of an octopus is structurally similar to that of a human, but has evolved independently, making it a classic example of convergent evolution. Credit: albert kok, CC Wikimedia Commons.

Extra-terrestrials that resemble humans should have evolved on other, Earth-like planets, making it increasingly paradoxical that we still appear to be alone in the universe, the author of a new study on convergent evolution has claimed.

The argument is one of several that emerge from The Runes Of Evolution, a new book in which the leading evolutionary biologist, Professor Simon Conway Morris, makes the case for a ubiquitous "map of " that governs the way in which all living things develop.

It builds on the established principle of , a widely-supported theory - although one still disputed by some biologists - that different species will independently evolve similar features.

Conway Morris argues that convergence is not just common, but everywhere, and that it has governed every aspect of life's development on Earth. Proteins, eyes, limbs, intelligence, tool-making - even our capacity to experience orgasms - are, he argues, inevitable once life emerges.

The book claims that evolution is therefore far from random, but a predictable process that operates according to a fairly rigid set of rules.

If that is the case, then it follows that life similar to that on Earth would also develop in the right conditions on other, equivalent planets. Given the growing number of Earth-like planets of which astronomers are now aware, it is increasingly extraordinary that aliens that look and behave something like us have not been found, he suggests.

"Convergence is one of the best arguments for Darwinian adaptation, but its sheer ubiquity has not been appreciated," Professor Conway Morris, who is a Fellow at St John's College, University of Cambridge, said.

"Often, research into convergence is accompanied by exclamations of surprise, describing it as uncanny, remarkable and astonishing. In fact it is everywhere, and that is a remarkable indication that evolution is far from a random process. And if the outcomes of evolution are at least broadly predictable, then what applies on Earth will apply across the Milky Way, and beyond."

Professor Conway Morris has previously raised the prospect that alien life, if out there, would resemble earthlings - with limbs, heads, and bodies - notably at a Royal Society Conference in London in 2010. His new book goes even further, however, adding that any Earth-like planet should also evolve thunniform predators (like sharks), pitcher plants, mangroves, and mushrooms, among many other things.

Limbs, brains and intelligence would, similarly, be "almost guaranteed". The traits of human-like intelligence have evolved in other species - the octopus and some birds, for example, both exhibit social playfulness - and this, the book suggests, indicates that intelligence is an inevitable consequence of evolution that would characterise extraterrestrials as well.

Underpinning this is Conway Morris' claim that convergence is demonstrable at every major stepping stone in evolutionary history, from early cells, through to the emergence of tissues, sensory systems, limbs, and the ability to make and use tools.

The theory, in essence, is that different species will evolve similar solutions to problems via different paths. A commonly-cited example is the octopus, which has evolved a camera eye that is closely similar to that of humans, although distinctive in important ways that reflect its own history. Although octopi and humans have a common ancestor, possibly a slug-like creature, this lived 550 million years ago and lacked numerous complex features that the two now share. The camera eye of each must therefore have evolved independently.

Conway Morris argues that this process provides an underlying evolutionary framework that defines all life, and leads to innumerable surprises in the natural world. The book cites examples such as collagen, the protein found in connective tissue, which has emerged independently in both fungi and bacteria; or the fact that fruit flies seem to get drunk in the same manner as humans. So too the capacity for disgust in humans - a hard-wired instinct helping us avoid infection and disease - is also exhibited by leaf-cutter ants.

The study also identifies many less obvious evolutionary "analogues", where species have evolved certain properties and characteristics that do not appear to be alike, but are actually very similar. For example, "woodpeckerlike habits" are seen in lemurs and extinct marsupials, while the mechanics of an octopus' tentacles are far closer to those of a human arm than we might expect, and even their suckers can operate rather like hands.

Conway Morris contends that all life navigates across this evolutionary map, the basis of what he describes as a "predictive biology". "Biology travels through history," he writes, "but ends up at much the same destination".

This, however, raises fascinating and problematic questions about the possibility of life occurring on other planets. "The number of Earth-like planets seems to be far greater than was thought possible even a few years ago," Conway Morris said. "That doesn't necessarily mean that they have life, because we don't necessarily understand how life originates. The consensus offered by convergence, however, is that life is going to evolve wherever it can."

"I would argue that in any habitable zone that doesn't boil or freeze, intelligent life is going to emerge, because intelligence is convergent. One can say with reasonable confidence that the likelihood of something analogous to a human evolving is really pretty high. And given the number of potential planets that we now have good reason to think exist, even if the dice only come up the right way every one in 100 throws, that still leads to a very large number of intelligences scattered around, that are likely to be similar to us."

If this is so, as the book suggests in its introduction, then it makes Enrico Fermi's famous paradox - why, if aliens exist, we have not yet been contacted - even more perplexing. "The almost-certainty of ET being out there means that something does not add up, and badly," Conway Morris said. "We should not be alone, but we are."

The Runes Of Evolution was six years in the making and draws on thousands of academic sources, and throws up numerous other, surprising findings as well. Sabre-teeth, for example, turn out to be convergent, and Conway Morris explains why it is that the clouded leopard of Asia, Neofelis nebulosa, has developed features that could, as it evolves "presage the emergence of a new sabre-tooth", although sadly it looks set to become extinct before this happens. Elsewhere, the study suggests that certain prehistoric creatures other than bats and birds may have attempted to evolve flight.

"It makes people slightly uneasy that evolution can end up reaching the same solutions to questions about how to catch something, how to digest something, and how to work," Conway Morris added. "But while the number of possibilities in evolution in principle is more than astronomical, the number that actually work is an infinitesimally smaller fraction."

Explore further: Meet a thorny devil through the Map of Life

More information: "The Runes Of Evolution" is published by Templeton Press. The author is Professor Simon Conway Morris. ISBN 13: 978-1-59947-464-9.

Related Stories

Meet a thorny devil through the Map of Life

March 3, 2011

A new website that explains why humans have the same type of eye as an octopus, and how animals separated by millions of years have evolved in the same way, has been launched by a team of scientists at Cambridge University.

Is the outcome of evolution predictable?

October 28, 2014

If one would rewind the tape of life, would evolution result in the same outcome? The Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould came up with this famous thought experiment. He suggested that evolution would not repeat ...

Researcher explores how the universe creates reason, morality

January 23, 2015

Recent developments in science are beginning to suggest that the universe naturally produces complexity. The emergence of life in general and perhaps even rational life, with its associated technological culture, may be extremely ...

Intelligent life in the universe? Phone home, dammit!

June 15, 2015

We've been conditioned by television and movies to accept the likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. "Of course there's intelligent life out there; I saw it last week on Star Trek." We've seen it all, from ...

Recommended for you

Scientists find evidence of 27 new viruses in bees

June 20, 2018

An international team of researchers has discovered evidence of 27 previously unknown viruses in bees. The finding could help scientists design strategies to prevent the spread of viral pathogens among these important pollinators.

202 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Squirrel
5 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
How does Conway Morris square this with being a devout Christian? If extra-terrestrials resemble humans has convergent evolution resulted in them being also Jews, Muslims and Christians? Are there zillions of Christs out there and googolplex people of faith? Templeton Press, the publisher of his book is a religious publisher--so one needs to ask these questions.
Bloodyorphan
5 / 5 (1) Jul 02, 2015
Considering there is no other life signs even in our own solar system, must tell us the equation for advanced life forms is a lot more complex than we currently predict.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
Conway Morris argues that convergence is not just common, but everywhere, and that it has governed every aspect of life's development on Earth.

Operative words being: "On Earth". Different circumstances (temperatures, gravity, radiation environment, day/night cycles, ... ) may lead to radically different convergence schemes.

The book claims that evolution is therefore far from random, but a predictable process

I don't think one can argue the 'predictable' part. There are many solutions to a problem. And once one solution is locked in then any latecomer with a different approach will fail (as the earlier one will already be refined to the point where a crude, other approach has no chance to survive).
It's like left- and right-handedness in molecules. Could an organism using right-handedness in amino acids survive? Yes. Can it survive NOW that left-handedness has had a few billion hears head start? No. It'd just be 'instant free lunch'.
katesisco
1 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2015
I look at our system and see a planetary nebula. There is Sol, a magnetar winding down from its creation from a red giant sun, the rocky planets inside the former red giant cavity, the blown apart planet known as the asteroid belt, their age being 5 b y but outside this new system is the older gas giant system. Jupiter and Saturn both ringed. The debris from the exploded planet much in evidence in this much older system. Jupiter with its giant red spot the impact site for the large body shattered to create the asteroid belt.
It is not that life is rare; it is that it is rarely long.
Birger
5 / 5 (1) Jul 02, 2015
Alas, to compare with other biota we first need to find another planet where conditions have been *STABLE* for ca. 4 Gyr. Such worlds will be rare.
Instead we will find many worlds where the most advanced life is lichen, and many worlds that used to have life but ran up against any of a number of life-killing problems, many becoming runaway "snowballs", other becoming runaway greenhouses like Venus.

Because of the huge number of star systems in the universe, advanced life will be common, but because of the strict criteria needed for long-term survival, such worlds will be far apart. This is not a contradiction!
So among millions of worlds witha dvanced life, evolution may tend to converge, but we will not be able to confirm it empirically.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2015
Our life is based on DNA. Perhaps other life is not.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
I don't think biologists dispute convergent evolution, see e.g. the shuttlecock form of bony fishes, sharks, squids, whales, seals, penguins, ichtyosaurs, ... They dispute Conway-Morris use of it, which is born out of magic thinking. He is a Templeton funded creationist, whose apologetics to square away the fact of evolution seems to consist of the inevitability of human equivalent species.

Biologist and species evolution specialist Jerry Coyne has written a lot on him and Templeton:

"Simon Conway Morris becomes a creationist ... claims that convergence shows the incompleteness of Darwinism. ... palbable nonsense" [From 2009, on "Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe" ; https://whyevolut...tionist/ ]

[tbctd]
Thereisnotry
5 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2015
To answer this, I shall quote one of the preeminent authors of our time:
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."
We are nowhere even remotely close to achieving technology required to begin to cross these ridiculous interstellar distances. Are we that naïve to think that some extraterrestrial race has achieved the necessary level of technology for efficient interstellar travel, managed to find us (a veritable needle in a cornfield the size of Texas), and would consider contacting us to be the best use of all that effort? Any species at that technology level would have approximately zero interest in getting involved in all our crap. I suspect they saw us a long time ago and just kept right on flying.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2015
if technical civilizations are not very long-lived, there is very little chance of one encountering another.

I think the chance would be low even if technological civilizations exist for a long time.
Given even the most minute disparity in technological levels the more advanced one could certainly chose whether it wants to be detected by the 'barbarian' civilization or not (certainly the advanced one would be the first one to detect the other - and not the other way around).
And since we're still at the very low end of the spectrum when it comes to space exploration....

I've always found this "advanced civilizations are obvious" argument ridiculous. If you're advanced you're efficient. Which means every effort/energy goes towards intended purposes and nothing goes to waste. And it is the waste (pollution/wasted broadcast energy, etc.) that current detection schemes are geared towards.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.8 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
[ctd]

"Paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris gives evidence for God from evolution ... Conway Morris is also known for being a devout Christian, one who tries to show that the evidence from paleobiology and evolution supports the existence of God. ... Inevitably, Dr. Conway Morris's work on evolutionary convergence was supported by The Templeton Foundation ($983,253 from 2006-2009), and his work on the emergence of biological complexity, along with that of five other principal investigators, was also sponsored by Templeton ($3,584,147 between 2005-2008)." [From 2012, https://whyevolut...olution/ ]

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2015
[ctd]

"Like Conway Morris's previous book, it is probably a work of natural theology. ... The problem with Conway Morris's Life's Solution was not its catalogue of remarkable convergences, which I found fascinating, but in its aim: to claim that evolutionary convergence gives evidence for God." [From 2015 on "The Runes of Evolution: How the Universe Became Self-Aware"; https://whyevolut...for-god/ ]
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2015
This a long and silly way to pervert evolution to be in concert with superstition.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2015
There are two main obstacles for Conway's convergence: eukaryote type high energy density cells evolved only once, and language capable intelligence evolved only once. We can predict from the rapid emergence of life on Earth that it it will be common in the universe, but we can also predict that complex multicellular life will be rare.

@B-o: There is no 'equation' for advanced life, but there is a statistical model (the Drake Equation). That model is valid independent of specific likelihoods.

@katesisco: No. Just no.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2015
@Birger: There are ways to get around that we have access to just one fossil record as of yet, but they seem contrived, (Use mass extinctions to explore outcome of diversity changes.)

Lichens are eukaryote symbionts, so we won't find exactly them but cyanobacteria based analogs (the green subsurface rock layer from Atacama to Antarctica). The runaway scenarios has the "Rare Earth" problem that we can't tell the likelihoods so we can gear the models to any likelihood we want by just adding or subtracting presumed factors. There is also no contradiction that every system will have a Venus inhabitable zone for every radiative habitable zone.

Convergence could be seen in photosynthesis and other pigment spectra - as well as cellular/eukaryote analog evolution (oxygen levels) - and astrobiologists have collected a library of them in preparation for such observation.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2015
@richard: I agree with AAP essentially, but my analysis would be a wider claim. We can't constrain the frequency of false negatives in the Fermi Question sufficiently to find it useful as an observational tool if negatives is all we get. It has as of yet no bearing on the first parameters of the Drake Equation.

@gkam: It is more generic to note that our life is based on RNA (but uses DNA out a set of alternatives for improved replication). There is a thermodynamic bound on RNA that seems to make it the unique bottleneck for early cells. [England.] However having more alternatives would ease, not harden, the evolutionary pathway for an UCA population. Life emerges easy enough, so I wouldn't worry.
Edenlegaia
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2015
There's also the idea of Mankind being the first sentient lifeform in the Universe. It may be, it may not be.
Besides, if we're so bored about being alone, we can just play the Alien role, spreading life where we want and scare lifeforms with our UFO's.
Manking will have many, many things to do before rotting in boredom. Imagination is as large as universe, probably :D
RM07
5 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2015
The best chances for life in our solar system are under the icy crusts of both Europa and Enceladus -- where almost certainly liquid water oceans exist.

Unfortunately, we're decades if not longer from ever discovering it, as there are no plans to land on either surface, let alone figure out how to bore through potentially miles of ice.

Sentient E.T.s might either be too far away to travel or contact, or may not have survived their own nuclear/robotic ages.

To take to the stars, you have to survive both the ability to destroy your own planet, and the proliferation of robotic artificial intelligence. When you consider smaller and smaller groups, ultimately down to even a single individual, will be capable of wreaking either nuclear destruction, or hacking an artificial AI -- maybe it's very, very difficult for an advanced species to survive those consequences...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2015
Unfortunately, we're decades if not longer from ever discovering it, as there are no plans to land on either surface, let alone figure out how to bore through potentially miles of ice.

There are plans and tests already underway (google for "cryobot" and "project VALKYRIE")
https://astrobiol...phase-2/

Missions with this have been kicked around the office at NASA, but there are no formal proposals for any that I'm aware of.

To take to the stars, you have to survive both the ability to destroy your own planet, and the proliferation of robotic artificial intelligence.

I agree on the former, but why the latter? Robotic AI and humans don't compete for any resources. So there should be no grounds for conflict. (Unless we use them for the "destroy the planet" purpose)

Hypothesisman
not rated yet Jul 03, 2015
The latest thinking on the evolution of life indicates that anywhere there is likely to be rock, water, and a proton gradient, then life may well get going. If life evolves in a similar way elsewhere, it will probably be shaped by a tough environment and stress, and thus, will always seek to makes its environment more comfortable. There could, therefore, be an "intelligence paradox" where being smart enables you to change your environment to the extent that you become too comfortable and thus get fat, and thus, you spend more on healthcare than space research. NASA has an annual budget of around $20 billion, whereas some estimates put the cost of obesity in the USA north of $500 billion. Same goes for the joint fusion project in Europe and the cost of obesity. Hence, Fermi's paradox could be due answered by all aliens getting fat! We can only go on a sample of one at the moment, us, but you cannot argue with the data as it stands.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2015
NASA has an annual budget of around $20 billion, whereas some estimates put the cost of obesity in the USA north of $500 billion.

You vcan't really compare numbers like that (though I agree that NASA should get more money - particularly considering the US defense budget).

Healthcare spending is 'upkeep' spending. Research spending is 'once and done' spending.
Meaning: upkeep spending will just keep you at a certain point, forever. 'Once and done' spending can be built upon by the next batch of spending.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2015
http://figshare.c...s/994281

In my invited review of nutritional epigenetics, Kohl's "Laws of Biology" match Darwin's "conditions of life" on this planet. They also link ecological variation to ecological adaptation via the conserved molecular mechanisms of RNA-directed nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions. Differentiation of all cell types of all individuals of all genera occurs via fixation of the amino acid substitutions in the context of the physiology of reproduction.

Why there is no other similarities between human and octopus this speculators have no idea...


The similarities were detailed in works by Anna Di Cosmo and others. See, for example: Role of olfaction in Octopus vulgaris reproduction http://www.scienc...14004006 They also cite my 2013 review and a 2000 article that cites our 1996 review.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
See also: http://www.amazon...99471388

Description: "Twelve renowned scientists and theologians offer penetrating insights into the evolution dialogue in The Deep Structure of Biology. Each considers whether the orthodox model of evolution is sufficient and offers his/her own perspective on evolution and biology. Essays include..."

The chapter by Richard Lenski provides information that conflicts with a report that he is "The Man Who Bottled Evolution" http://www.scienc...90.short

If anything, he has showed that ecological variation in the supply of nutrients leads to ecological adaptation in some strains of E. coli. For comparison, we have the re-evolved flagellum of another species of bacteria "over-the-weekend." See: http://www.the-sc...ewiring/
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
The latest thinking on the evolution of life indicates that anywhere there is likely to be rock, water, and a proton gradient, then life may well get going.


The latest research reported by serious scientists links the light-induced de novo creation of amino acids to the nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all genera via fixation in the context of their physiology of reproduction.

See: Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism http://dx.doi.org...hem.2202 reported as: http://www.the-sc...of-Life/

Obviously, this has no appeal for those who were taught to believe in what was presented in the context of "evolution for dummies." That gene-centric approach was abandoned during the past decade, but it still invites comments from those who believe in ridiculous theories.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
See also: http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0 A Crisis at the Edge of Physics

It's a discussion of an article that includes this statement: "These unprovable hypotheses are quite different from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable through observations — such as the standard model of particle physics and the existence of dark matter and dark energy. As we see it, theoretical physics risks becoming a no-man's-land between mathematics, physics and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any."

Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theorists have also created a no-man's-land. They do not link what is currently known about the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding to biodiversity.

Continuing to tout emergence, mutations, and evolution is the folly of anonymous fools who are biologically uninformed science idiots.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2015
Kohl's Laws of Biology

Life is nutrient-dependent. That is a Biological Law. The ecological origin of all biological laws is apparent 1) in the context of systems biology (P. Kohl, et al., 2010); 2) in the context of the metabolism of nutrients by microbes (K. D. Kohl, 2012); and 3) in the context of how the metabolism of nutrients results in species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction (J. Kohl, Ostrovsky, Frechter, & Jefferis, 2013). Taken together, the systems biology of nutrient metabolism to species-specific pheromones, which control the physiology of reproduction, can be expressed in a summary of Kohl's Laws of Biology: 1) Life is nutrient-dependent. See for review (J. V. Kohl, 2012; M. Lynch, 2007). The physiology of reproduction is pheromone-controlled. See for review (J. V. Kohl, 2013). In the context of nutrient-dependent epigenetically-effected human reproduction, it is clearer that the epigenetic effects of ... [cont]
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2015
[cont.]
...human pheromones integrate neuroendocrinology and behavior (J. V. Kohl, et al., 2001), which includes the neuroendocrinology of mammalian behavior associated with the development of sexual preferences (J.V. Kohl, 2007).

Kohl's Laws help to explain what was missing from Darwin's 'conditions of life.' Darwin knew nothing about genetics, which means he knew nothing about the epigenetic effects of food odors or pheromones.

http://figshare.c...s/994281

See also: Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction http://www.ncbi.n...16290036
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2015
If anything, he has showed that ecological variation in the supply of nutrients leads to ecological adaptation in some strains of E. coli.


Except for the fact that there was no ecological variation between his 12 populations. They were all clones grown in identical media.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2015
If anything, he has showed that ecological variation in the supply of nutrients leads to ecological adaptation in some strains of E. coli.
@jk
as Anon points out - you are wrong
from the article
Lenski placed identical E. coli populations into 12 flasks filled with a liquid containing nutrients and 25 milligrams of glucose per liter
...
as they monitored their cultures, Lenski and his colleagues saw what looked very much like an accelerated process of evolutionary change
&
By thawing out frozen vials from generations past, Lenski can go back in time to look at intermediate stages of evolutionary change.
All 12 lines improved by about the same amount, showing that, broadly speaking, evolution is reproducible (Science, 25 June 1999, p. 2108) to be continued
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2015
more refute of your "claims" and model, @jk
some lines improved faster than others, and genetic analyses of the strains showed that they had taken different evolutionary paths. For example, six lines developed defects in DNA repair, and instead of dying out, began sustaining higher mutation rates than their counterparts. "Historically, which mutations arise early changes the subsequent evolution," explains Janette Boughman, an evolutionary biologist at Michigan State University. "But you really get to the same endpoint": better fitness in sugar solutions
&
At generation 6500, about 3 years into the experiment, two types of E. coli evolved in one of the flasks: one that made small colonies consisting of relatively small cells and one that made large colonies, with large cells.... both types have persisted, creating an ecosystem in which competition and other interactions between the colony types allowed both to be viable
all in the same media
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2015
@jk cont'd
so the ONLY part of Lenski's experiment that supports your "claim" that
Life is nutrient-dependent
is the last part
By growing the Ara-3 bacteria on different types of media, they discovered that the bacteria in that flask had evolved a new way to nourish themselves. Instead of relying on scarce glucose, they drew on a different energy source in their medium, citrate, which enabled them to reach much higher densities than in other flasks
given this point, we can now see that, because Lenski provided HARD DATA supporting his claim, we now know that (as you state) there can be a nutrient dependent factor in mutations/evolution, HOWEVER, we can also see that evolution is NOT necessarily confined to "nutrient dependent" processes as the first tens of thousands of generations in the SAME media also mutated and evolved!

this is the direct evidence you refuse to accept which proves your creationist diatribes wrong

JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2015
as Anon points out - you are wrong


No, Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) simply reasserts the fact that he is a biologically uninformed science idiot.

The bacteria changed their ecological environment and adapted to the shortage of nutrients via their innate ability to use another nutrient, which linked their thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation to RNA-mediated metabolic networks and to their genetic networks via the physiology of their pheromone-controlled reproduction.

A similar adaptation occurred in another species that "re-evolved" it's flagellum "over-the-weekend." Reporting that fact in the context of ridiculous theories about 'evolution over time' is the problem that theorists refuse to address.

See also: http://www.the-sc...ewiring/
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2015
In my invited review of nutritional epigenetics, Kohl's "Laws of Biology" match Darwin's "conditions of life" on this planet. They also link ecological variation to ecological adaptation via the conserved molecular mechanisms of RNA-directed nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions. Differentiation of all cell types of all individuals of all genera occurs via fixation of the amino acid substitutions in the context of the physiology of reproduction.

Evolution in action -
Mr. Kohl's descriptor lines are growing longer and more complex with each new thread...

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
No, Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) simply reasserts the fact that he is a biologically uninformed science idiot
@jk
then please point out the mistakes in his paper so that it can be addressed... from what i saw, there are NO mistakes in his assesment of your "model"
as for the rest of your "claims" - to date, you have a 100% fail rate on interpretations of science, starting with your next sentence
The bacteria changed their ecological environment
the point of the study is/was that the bacteria (all in the same environment/media) EVOLVED and mutated (this is proven, not speculation: see your own link OR here: http://www.scienc...790.full or go to Lenski's papers here: http://myxo.css.m...dex.html )
thus you are DIRECTLY refuted with EXPERIMENTAL evidence, validated through other labs like Dr. Extavour's experiments

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
@jk cont'd
A similar adaptation occurred in another species that "re-evolved" it's flagellum "over-the-weekend." Reporting that fact in the context of ridiculous theories about 'evolution over time' is the problem that theorists refuse to address
and i explained that to you with quotes directly from the paper you linked... which you promptly ignored (just like you are ignoring Lenski et al above, or the rest)
Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean it isn't true, real or validated... your religion is interfering with science
one last cogent point
and adapted to the shortage of nutrients via their innate ability to use another nutrient
this is true only of the LAST experiments

this is not explanation for the first YEARS of experiments and tens of thousands of generations till 2003! which is the POINT of the article and Anon (and my) comments and post
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
Evolution in action -
Mr. Kohl's descriptor lines are growing longer and more complex with each new thread...
@Whyde
very astute - besides panic and refusal to accept legitimate science, i have a hypothesis to forward:

this evolution and mutation of kohl-slaw word-salads is due to the nutrient-dependent pheromone controlled adaptations which clearly show that a member of the paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits is being utilised for assault and battery in a cultural art form that generally involves movement of the body, often rhythmic, and to music

https://www.youtu...Qp-q1Y1s

or we can go with Python logic, like the eu clan?
https://www.youtu...MhU_4m-g

take your pick!

marcush
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
And for a good explanation for why JVK doesn't know what he's talking about see here:

http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2015
The bacteria changed their ecological environment and adapted to the shortage of nutrients via their innate ability to use another nutrient


Again, only 1 out of 12 acquired that adaptation when all 12 had the same environmental conditions. The oxic cit+ trait was not a deterministic promoter shift, otherwise all of them would have acquired it. Random mutations were responsible for the observed divergence.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2015
Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean it isn't true, real or validated...


I like the idea of "re-evolution" of a complex structure in four days because it attests to facts about how quickly the RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that are fixed in species via their pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction can occur.

Also, an example of how quickly traits are removed that are linked from nutrient-uptake to metabolic networks and genetic networks via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and scent production in plants was just published.

See: http://phys.org/n...ses.html

Excerpt: This gene, which produces an enzyme, revealed the odor-producing process.

Would any of the biologically uninformed science idiots here like to place the difference in the bacteria (4 days) and difference in the roses (3 generations) into the context of mutations and evolutions?
RM07
1 / 5 (1) Jul 03, 2015
Missions [to bore through the ice of Europa] have been kicked around the office at NASA, but there are no formal proposals for any that I'm aware of.

Good to know there's some movement on the subject. An actual Europa mission was just approved by NASA this past month, but it will only fly around the moon for a closer look, and it's slated for launch sometime in the mid 2020s.

So, why no rovers? Missions in the unapproved/unplanned phase are literally multiple decades from reality -- talking 2030-2100, which is so unfortunate, considering the potential discoveries and questions that could be answered.

Robotic AI and humans don't compete for any resources. So there should be no grounds for conflict. (Unless we use them for the "destroy the planet" purpose)

Autonomous robots, will at some point, be used to fight conflicts (why spend human blood??) They'll be capable of self-assembly. All it takes is one 'hack' or bad program to have a runaway effect.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2015
Mr. Kohl's descriptor lines are growing longer and more complex with each new thread...


I was not taught to believe in "evolution for dummies." The complexity comes from what has been learned by serious scientists during the past century.

the bacteria (all in the same environment/media) EVOLVED and mutated (this is proven


http://www.huffin...211.html
[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.

Lenski's experiments proved evolutionary theorists are biologically uninformed science idiots who don't know that definitions don't change the fact that his bacteria changed their ecological niche via their nutrient uptake & reproduction.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2015
Of mice and men http://www.scienc....summary

1)
"It's pretty embarrassing how little we know about the specific changes in our genome" related to our evolution... "You could imagine [their roles], but they were just sort of 'just so' stories."

Lenski's story is a "just so" story. Serious scientists have abandoned claims about mutations and the evolution of biodiversity except in the context of mutations that are eliminated from organized genomes at the same time as they are replaced by the de novo creation of other genes.

2) "Wray and Silver's mice will never reveal the whole story of how our brains diverged from those of chimps and other animals. "The evolution of the human brain did not occur by a single gene or even a few genes," Eichler notes. "Rather it was a concert of evolutionary changes."

Ecological adaptations are RNA-mediated changes.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2015
who don't know that definitions don't change the fact that his bacteria changed their ecological niche via their nutrient uptake & reproduction
@jk
1- your assumption would mean that no definitions in the lexicon could "evolve" once the definition has been set (which we can see is wrong as the definition of "mutation" has evolved from it's original use to it's current meaning - despite your claims otherwise)

2- & as Anon, myself and many others (except Noumenon, your champion) has pointed out:
only 1 out of 12 acquired that adaptation when all 12 had the same environmental conditions. The oxic cit+ trait was not a deterministic promoter shift, otherwise all of them would have acquired it. Random mutations were responsible for the observed divergence
so jk, why don't you provide VERY SPECIFIC detailed data proving Lenski wrong and get it published in ScienceMagazine... that would convince everyone here about your creationist proclamations
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2015
@jk cont'd (and Nou, too)
"It's pretty embarrassing how little we ...stories."
this was from your link.
let me also note that even though we've sorted out our DNA, we still don't know what everything does - you can read up on the sheer volume of info here; http://www.madsci...e.r.html

but that's not all, your quote is cherry picked
n 2006, computational whizzes at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), announced that they had glimpsed the DNA that made us human. They had compared all of the vertebrate genomes sequenced to date and come up with a list of about 50 DNA regions that were identical in many animal species but had changed in humans.
By 2008, almost two dozen bioinformatics studies had added hundreds of other uniquely human genetic sequences to the list
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2015
@jk (and Nou)
your second quote simply reinforces Lenski and other people working on Evolution and genetic diversity. PLUS - it also states clearly
"Wray and Silver's mice will never reveal the whole story of how our brains diverged...
this is the KEY part of the quote.
working on Mice will not tell us the story of humans. working on Humans is not kosher, however, and the species (culturally) will not allow human experimentation. this is pretty much everywhere (unless Nou would like to chime in )

Ecological adaptations are RNA-mediated changes
SOME are - Lenski proved NOT ALL are: that is the experiment you keep IGNORING above - the first thousands upon thousands of generations

IOW - Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean it isn't true, real or validated
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2015
why don't you provide VERY SPECIFIC detailed data proving Lenski wrong


No data suggest he is right.

See: Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population
http://www.ncbi.n...3461117/

"...novel functions often emerge in rudimentary forms that must be refined to exploit the ecological opportunities. This three-step process—in which potentiation makes a trait possible, actualization makes the trait manifest, and refinement makes it effective—is likely typical of many new functions."

The "emergence" of novel functions is not linked by data to anything currently known about the biophyiscally constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent protein folding. The three step process is not likely to involve mutations that perturb protein folding and RNA-mediated DNA repair. Emergence of novel functions after thousands of generations is only possible in the context of ridiculous theories.

JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2015
working on Mice will not tell us the story of humans.


It already has. See my 2013 review: http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Excerpt:
Two additional recent reports link substitution of the amino acid alanine for the amino acid valine (Grossman et al., 2013) to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. The alanine substitution for valine does not appear to be under any selection pressure in mice. The cause-and-effect relationship was established in mice by comparing the effects of the alanine, which is under selection pressure in humans, via its substitution for valine in mice (Kamberov et al., 2013).
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2015
IOW - Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean it isn't true, real or validated


Agreed. That's the problem I have with biologically uninformed science idiots. They don't realize that my model has be validated by all the experimental evidence published by serious scientists during the past two decades. They think that what they were taught about evolution is true, although the ridiculous theories of neo-Darwinism have never been supported by research that links them to what is currently known about the nutrient-dependent biophysically constrained chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding that I modeled.
Semmster
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2015
Having not physically gone to the surfaces of these earth-like planets, how can we be sure that there is no life on them, partiularly human-like life?
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2015
Thanks for asking.

http://rna-mediat...heories/

Excerpt: "The understanding of pyrotechnics also links quantum physics and biophysically constrained chemistry on this planet to the conserved molecular mechanisms of protein folding in our organized genomes outside the context of "big bang" cosmology."

Given what is currently known about life on this planet, theoretical physicists and evolutionary theorists have been forced to invent theories about life on other planets that cannot be tested. That makes their theories relatively worthless to the serious scientists on this planet who are Combating Evolution to Fight Disease. http://www.scienc...88.short

If human-like life existed on other earth-like planets, how might that life have avoided extinction if only theorists had evolved?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2015
No data suggest he is right
@jk
so what you are saying is that you don't know anything about the Lenski experiments and you don't wish to further make a fool of yourself here by trying to be specific and being caught yet again so you will simply give a general comment covering everything without specifying how stupid you really are?

So much for your mensa brain, eh?
See my 2013 review:
i have seen it: it doesn't answer anything... it is referenced only by you yourself and the following DEBUNKING of your article on pub med:
http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

That's the problem I have with biologically uninformed science idiots. They don't realize that my model has be validated by all the experimental evidence published by serious scientists during the past two decades
if that is the case, then why do all the "serious scientists" i contacted completely DEBUNK your claims and call you wrong?
shall i re-post some of the biggies?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2015
WARNING
THE FOLLOWING SITE IS A PHISHING and PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE
http://rna-mediated.com
This site contains PHISHING material and cookies as well as combines PSEUDOSCIENCE with some actual science
THIS SITE IS PERSONALLY OWNED BY KOHL FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING PSEUDOSCIENCE AND HIS CREATIONIST/7th DAY ADVENTIST CLAIMS WHICH HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED FOR A CENTURY

be warned
reported
If human-like life existed on other earth-like planets, how might that life have avoided extinction if only theorists had evolved?
well... i think you should first point out the specifics on how you "learned enough about physics to link the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of amino acids"

your links in other threads don't support this claim... please be specific without linking to your perfume site or your pseudoscience crap

if you can't link to reputable journals and studies it proves you are a pseudoscience crackpot
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2015
theoretical physicists and evolutionary theorists have been forced to invent theories
for those interested in the actual article the idiot kohl linked... contact me for a copy
some excerpts are here (from ScienceMag- Science 7 March 2014:
Vol. 343 no. 6175 pp. 1088-1089
DOI: 10.1126/science.1247472 )
Molecular biology and evolutionary biology have been separate disciplines and scientific cultures: The former is mechanistic and focused on molecules; the latter is theoretical and focused on populations. However, these domains are beginning to converge in laboratories addressing molecular mechanisms that explain how evolutionary processes work, and bring these processes to bear on medical problems such as cancer and infectious disease. Each discipline can be viewed as a missing link in the other's description of biology, and in medicine.
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (7) Jul 04, 2015
cont'd
Even the assumption that mutations are random, constant, and gradual has been revised on the basis of molecular mechanisms of mutagenesis. For example, in bacteria, responses to environmental stress can activate mutagenesis mechanisms that increase mutation rate, which can potentially increase the ability of a cell to evolve, specifically when it is poorly adapted to its environment (when stressed).
Kohl hates that part... it refutes his claims
Such a fusion of molecular mechanisms with evolution is needed because cancer and infectious disease are evolutionary problems that could be attacked at the molecular level. For example, when a pathogen defeats a host, it has won an evolutionary arms race with the host immune system; cancer, too, proceeds by the generation of phenotypic variation and selection of those cells that are most fit to propagate
shall i paste more?

@Noumenon!
don't forget to downvote and support your BUD kokl!
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2015
Lenski's experiments proved evolutionary theorists are biologically uninformed science idiots who don't know that definitions don't change the fact that his bacteria changed their ecological niche via their nutrient uptake & reproduction.


Through a non-deterministic MUTATION. Only 1 in 12 acquired it even though they were all IDENTICAL.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2015
From the photo caption:
The camera eye of an octopus is structurally similar to that of a human, but has evolved independently, making it a classic example of convergent evolution.


Role of olfaction in Octopus vulgaris reproduction http://www.scienc...14004006

Excerpt: "The OL acting as control centre may be target organ for metabolic hormones such as leptin like and insulin like peptides, and olfactory organ could exert regulatory action on the OL via epigenetic effects of nutrients and pheromones on gene expression (Kohl, 2013; Elekonich and Robinson, 2000)."

Kohl (2013) is Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.
http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2015
Kohl (2013) is Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.
this model is completely debunked in that very same journal here:
http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2015
How does Conway Morris square this with being a devout Christian? If extra-terrestrials resemble humans has convergent evolution resulted in them being also Jews, Muslims and Christians? Are there zillions of Christs out there and googolplex people of faith? Templeton Press, the publisher of his book is a religious publisher--so one needs to ask these questions.


If you had read Paul a bit you'd know the answer to that is that there is only on Christ and there only needs to be one Christ, for ALL sin, as is laid out plainly in the New Testament. Read Romans 3.

But what did Jesus of Nazareth say regarding a similar context? "Think not to yourselves, 'we have Abraham as our father,' I say to you that God is able to make children of Abraham out of these stones."

You vastly, vastly under-estimate what "Omnipotent God" really means.

In Christian theology, Christ is seen as the second "person" or "personality" of the Trinity. There is only one Christ for all beings.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2015
Moreove, Paul said that the High Priests of men offered sacrifices continually, to symbolically portray salvation, but that the Christ suffered once for all time, that there was no need for Christ to ever be offered multiple times.

Therefore, even if there are sentient aliens who have moral spirits as do humans, and even if they do have a sin problem, the Christian writings say they have the same Christ as us and the same God as us.

There is only one Omnipotent Creator, and there is only one "Only Begotten Son of God".

"God is able to make children of Abraham from these stones."

I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2015
Let me correct something, because the term "Trinity" actually doesn't appear in any of the accepted scriptures, but rather the term "Godhead". The Bible doesn't actually put a limit on the number of personalities the Omnipotent Creator assumes, but there are three which are known and are given proper names in the Bible: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the Old Testament there are only two personalities given proper names, which are "The Lord" (Yahweh) and the "Spirit of the Lord" which is a bit obfuscated in English, but in the Hebrew it's a little more distinct.

There is some potential precedent in Isaiah that the Jews may have believed in as many as 7 personalities of God, and this is briefly mentioned again in the Book of Revelation, as you see "Seven Spirits of God" standing before the throne, but since there is also the Father on the Throne and the Lamb(Jesus) receiving the book, that brings the number to as much as nine.

That gets into some deep waters though.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2015
I should also point out that in Jewish language and usage, the number "Seven" is often used to describe an "indefinite number", the same way we use the term "a million" to just mean some really big number. It is not obvious from the context whether the "Seven spirits of God" are the definite number "Seven" or whether they are the indefinite number.

Anyway, now that this personality of God thing has been explored a bit, I will remind you that when a monotheist apologist speaks of God, they are referring to a Being who is the First Cause of all reality, both known and unknown, and that this Being is easily proven to be eternal, as something uncaused, creative, and eternal must always have existed, else nothing at all would ever exist, since nothing cannot create something.

The God that I believe in does not sit in the clouds and throw thunder bolts at people he's angry with. That's a metaphor. The real God created time, space, and galaxies, and the very concept of universes.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2015
The number "0" is an abstract, and holds no meaning outside the context of a mathematical equality or expression. Hawkings assertion that the universe could come from nothing because "positive 1 plus negative one equals zero" is easily proven false, because the "zero" he is talking about is itself a part of a set of terms which already exists: The logic of the equation.

Thus his attempt to disprove the existence of the eternal "Logos" actually proves the necessity of the eternal Logos, and proves that there is no such thing as "absolute nothingness".

However, we certainly know that this Logos can do a whole lot more than add one and negative one, so Hawking's entire assertion is relegated to the ravings of a deranged mind, damaged by too much ALS.

Back when he wrote "A Brief History of Time" and "Black Holes and Baby Universes" he pointed out that he had a problem with the fact he couldn't figure out what "Breathes fire into it all"i.e. God.

Now the poor guy is delusional.
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2015
Perhaps greed and self extinction are convergent properties too?
Perhaps ET and the Easter-Islanders and the Incas and the greedy western-world-denialists have LIMITED RESOURCE EXTINCTION in common?
Greed does seem to override both altruism and intelligence in bulk populations.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2015
when a monotheist apologist speaks of God, they are referring to a Being who is the First Cause of all reality, both known and unknown, and that this Being is easily proven to be eternal, as something uncaused, creative, and eternal must always have existed, else nothing at all would ever exist, since nothing cannot create something.
@returnerTROLL
oh, well... then since you've said it is "easily proven" then by all means, give us the empirical evidence of the "easily proven" god you claim to know, represent or talk about!

the problem with your comment is that your "god" is a faith... and by definition, a faith is the belief in something without evidence. WITHOUT evidence. not with it...
that is not even getting into the argument about religion, which is the codified rules surrounding a faith which are designed, by definition, to control others and cause prejudice and friction by setting rules to be followed and never varied from!
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2015
Cori Bargmann (Rockefeller) Part 1 : Genes, the brain and behavior
https://youtu.be/ZRXqhpxNdok

"...Cori Bargmann explains how individual genes can affect the brain and behavior. Humans are complex creatures, but as many as 99% of our genes are shared with simpler organisms. By focusing on the genes for a family of proteins found in many organisms, the G protein-coupled receptors, Bargmann illustrates that mutations in a single gene can cause significant behavioral changes in organisms as diverse as nematodes, dogs and humans. In Part 2, Bargmann presents work from her own lab in which the olfactory system in C. elegans was used to dissect the role of genes on behavior. She shows us how it was possible to map the neuronal circuits that modulate worm behavior in response to different odors."

Accumulated mutations cause the loss of olfactory receptor genes, which suggests that we are not mutant worms.
NiteSkyGerl
Jul 05, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
AGreatWhopper
5 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2015
Working on it! I'll throw you that horse's ass JVK for free, tho.

James V. Kohl
175 Crimson Lane
Epworth, Georgia 30541
706-455-7967
jvkohl@bellsouth.net
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2015
Why aren't you biologically uninformed science idiots attacking Simon Conway-Morris, since he is the author of the book?

Re: this model is completely debunked in that very same journal here:
http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

How could a biologically uninformed science idiot debunk my model of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation?

My model is fully supported by everything known to serious scientists about physics, chemistry, and the conserved molecular mechanisms of RNA-mediated protein folding in all genera.

See: Genes and the Human Condition (From Behavior to Biotechnology)
https://www.cours...iac8ueua

It might take only 10-15 hours for biologically uniformed science idiots to inform themselves -- for free. Who is willing to try?
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2015
I'm sure their life specifics are quite laughable.


http://perfumingt...m/about/

Excerpt:
Kohl worked as a medical laboratory scientist from 1974 until 2013, and he devoted more than twenty-nine of those thirty-nine years to researching the relationship between the sense of smell and cell type differentiation associated with the development of human sexual preferences. ...medical laboratory scientists use the latest technology from many scientific disciplines to perform a variety of specialized diagnostic medical testing on people. That fact led Kohl to recognize how nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled cell type differentiation enables ecological variation to epigenetically effect cell type differentiation in all cells of all tissues in all organs of all organ systems in all organisms via conserved molecular mechanisms.
James V. Kohl is certified with:

American Society for Clinical Pathology (Medical laboratory scientist)...."
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2015
The God that I believe in does not sit in the clouds and throw thunder bolts at people he's angry with. That's a metaphor. The real God created time, space, and galaxies, and the very concept of universes.

GOD, an acronym - {G}lobally {O}rdinated {D}ata
The Universe itself is the god. You and everything in it are a little piece of it. The only communication with it is the information you collect on your little helical trip THROUGH it...

The Bible - a book of human interpretation of how the universe does it's accounting. It's an instruction manual - that doesn't instruct {a free-willed mind} all that well...
Time for a re-write?
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2015
500 USD per head for anyone that PM's me the contact details for returners, antigoracle, JVK, ryggesogn2, ren82, verkle, or MR166. I know who Penrod is.


Offering a bounty to those who provide contact information for others who are being attacked by anonymous fools should get people banned.

I've reported this twice, and hope to see it removed by the moderators. The information is publicly available, and their was no need to post it to the phys.org discussion.

Working on it! I'll throw you that horse's ass JVK for free, tho.

James V. Kohl
175 Crimson Lane
Epworth, Georgia 30541
706-455-7967
jvkohl@bellsouth.net
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2015
Offering a bounty to those who provide contact information for others who are being attacked by anonymous fools should get people banned.

Doubtful you are being "attacked"...
However, I will agree that that kind of behavior is unnecessary on this site. It is "threatening" in it's nature and smacks of juvenilism...
I thought we were all reasoned adults...
Remember what Rodney King said?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2015
Octopus limbs are unsuited for tool-making and wielding. Human limbs and stereo vision made them uniquely suited for turning screws, an indispensable development in a technological species.

Machines cannot exist without the means to assemble and dismantle them for service. Screws are the only means of doing this efficiently. And so we should expect to find intelligent species with rigid limbs suitable for wielding screwdrivers.

As to why the universe appears empty, any species which has reached our level of technical acumen would quickly develop more capable machine versions of itself. It would begin replacing parts of its brain and anatomy with more efficient components until nothing biological is left.

But long before this occurs, machines designed from scratch would have replaced all functions of even the most capable of humans, rendering them obsolete.

And a machine singularity would have absolutely no reason to communicate with precursor biological species like us.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2015
when a monotheist apologist speaks of God, they are referring to a Being who is the First Cause of all reality, both known and unknown, and that this Being is easily proven to be eternal, as something uncaused, creative, and eternal must always have existed, else nothing at all would ever exist, since nothing cannot create something
I assume this is a returners/Lrrkrrrr quote. Lrrkrr is a delusional psycho whose brain tells him absolutely everything he needs to know.

Ego-megalo-maniacs will only conjure personal gods with similar qualities, as they are the only ones worthy.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2015
How could a biologically uninformed science idiot debunk my model ...
@jk
lets look at that logically
we have the debunker [Andrew Jones, BA] holding a 4year baccalaureate whereas you are a "lab tech" who has repeatedly lied publicly on this site and been caught at it!
Hmm - OK FORUM: which do YOU think is more credible?

also @jk- you have not corrected your mistakes shown by Jones
My model is fully supported by everything known ... genera
except that you are lying again... Jones pointed out your fallacies
selectively choosing religion over science means you are a PSEUDOSCIENCE poster, not a "serious scientist"

//perfumingthemind.com
- self reference W/O science to a site that also promotes creationists dogma?

reported
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2015
http://phys.org/n...ian.html

Excerpt: "The methods used may help investigators genetically engineer cells to produce high levels of certain proteins—for example by placing the DNA sequence of a particular protein at the site of a highly active gene."

Everything currently known about the CRISPR-Cas technology appears to link cell type differentiation to the balance between viral microRNAs and nutrient-dependent microRNAs.

Changes to the balance alter RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that repair DNA and prevent virus-induced genomic entropy.

we have the debunker [Andrew Jones, BA] holding a 4year baccalaureate whereas you are a "lab tech"


I am an award-winning published author with public domains that link every aspect of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man via metabolic networks and genetic networks.

http://rna-mediated.com/
http://perfumingthemind.com/
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2015
2012 Minisymposium
Transcribing Memories: New Mechanisms of Activity-Regulated Gene Expression and Their Roles in Experience-Dependent Plasticity.
http://www.abstra...a14cd9f1

A speaker (?Tim Bredy?) confirmed that everything that happens to an organism's cell type differentiation occurs downstream from the microRNA/mesenger RNA balance, and I confirmed that his statement was correct with others who attended the symposium.

In my 2013 review, I wrote: "...the epigenetic 'tweaking' of the immense gene networks that occurs via exposure to nutrient chemicals and pheromones can now be modeled in the context of the microRNA/messenger RNA balance, receptor-mediated intracellular signaling, and the stochastic gene expression required for nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution." http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2015
you are lying again... Jones pointed out your fallacies
selectively choosing religion over science means you are a PSEUDOSCIENCE poster, not a "serious scientist"


See: Study explains how dengue virus adapts as it travels, increasing chances for outbreaks
http://medicalxpr...aks.html

AF SSgt (ret) James Stumpy and Andrew Jones are collaborating in an attempt to continue touting ridiculous theories that may lead to the death of us all unless others join the serious scientists who are Combating Evolution to Fight Disease http://www.scienc...88.short

See also: Evolution of MicroRNA Research Over the Past Decade
More than 20,000 microRNA-Focused Publications Were Assessed as a Means to Characterize the Field http://www.geneng...;a=false

See also: http://www.biolog...abstract
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2015
join the serious scientists who are Combating Evolution to Fight Disease


Still misusing that title? You should have learned a long time ago what they really meant by that. It's about using our knowledge of evolution to treat disease, not combating evolution as a belief system.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2015
Who told you what they meant?

They cited Dobzhansky (1973) in the same context as I have repeatedly cited him.

"...the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla" (p. 127).
This link opens the pdf
http://img.signal...nsky.pdf

Only biologically uninformed science idiots like you, Andrew Jones, continue to insist that mutations lead to evolution -- despite 42 more years of experimental evidence that reports how ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in all genera.

See also:
Who forgot about non-coding RNAs? http://rna-mediat...ng-rnas/
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2015
What ecological variation was there between Lenski's 12 populations? None, but they diverged anyway and acquired their own unique adaptations.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2015
I am an award-winning published author ...

http://rna-**mediated.com/
http://perfum*ingthemind.com/
@jk
first off... if you are a "serious scientist" and an "award-winning published author", then WHY do the sites you link contain PSEUDOSCIENCE with your science?
IF the site promotes PSEUDOSCIENCE like creationism then it is NOT SCIENCE!
PERIOD!
and
IF you cannot actually link studies which support your claims
OR you repeatedly misinterpret studies or blatantly LIE about claims
THEN
you are NOT A SERIOUS SCIENTIST

you are simply PHISHING for ACOLYTES and pushing a religion!
reported
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
touting ridiculous theories that may lead to the death of us all ...
@jk
this is called a strawman as well as a few other logical fallacies... appealing to the possibility of DEATH from modern medical and scientific research because we tout experimental evidence and proof over ridiculous religious/creationist and pseudoscience claims????
WTF?
from your link
Molecular biology and evolutionary biology have been separate disciplines and scientific cultures: The former is mechanistic and focused on molecules; the latter is theoretical and focused on populations. However, these domains are beginning to converge in laboratories addressing molecular mechanisms that explain how evolutionary processes work, and bring these processes to bear on medical problems such as cancer and infectious disease
so your link doesn't support your claims at all!
it REINFORCES our claims though, especially the one where we showed you have a 100% FAILURE rate interpreting science
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
Who told you what they meant?
@jk
the article actually EXPLAINS what it meant
Molecular biology and evolutionary biology have been separate disciplines and scientific cultures: The former is mechanistic and focused on molecules; the latter is theoretical and focused on populations. However, these domains are beginning to converge in laboratories addressing molecular mechanisms that explain how evolutionary processes work, and bring these processes to bear on medical problems such as cancer and infectious disease. Each discipline can be viewed as a missing link in the other's description of biology, and in medicine.
IOW - you are seeing something that is NOT THERE!
you are attempting to "interpret" the title in the religious PSEUDOSCIENCE goggles on your delusional head, just like you've done with EVERY scientific study and link to date!

another for the 100% FAIL pile!
See also Anon's post after your BS
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
I don't read JVKS stuff as I have him turned off. But I get the gist of his argument - we are what we eat. What we eat in different environment drives diversity and divergence.

Divergence, reinforced by tribalism, is a major cause of conflict in the world today. And so we find western supermarkets filled with food from all over the world, and people encouraged to eat standardized fast food diets, all of which make people smell the same.

Is this the expression of Efforts to rehomogenize the species and thereby reduce the Urge to Diverge? Melting pots work better when everybody is interbreeding and eating the same stuff.

Right JVK? Perhaps our Shepherds have known all about your 'theories'. For a few thousand years.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2015
http://rna-mediat...tations/
-- "...downregulation of the ubiquitously expressed RBP Ptbp1/PTB/hnRNAP I in the developing brain stimulates neuron-specific alternative pre-mRNA splicing patterns and stabilizes a subset of neuronal transcripts5, 6."

This stability is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in the brains of insects and primates. Biologically uninformed science idiots would like you to believe that mutations and evolution lead to the stability of organized genomes.

-- A good explanation achieves a happy medium between too little and too much. If you assume that your reader knows as much as you do, you will be prone to leaving out crucial information. It can be hard to notice what's missing from an explanation, because every part of it exists in your mind, if not on the page.

My comment: "…it just happens" assumes that his readers know as much as he does about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation..."
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2015
Divergence, reinforced by tribalism, is a major cause of conflict in the world today.


http://islam-scie...ed-3204/ Guessoum lamented how powerful Muslim clerics in the Middle East — such as Harun Yayha, Safar Al-Hawali, Abdul Majid al-Zindani, Mahmoud Ashour and others — repeatedly warn that any Muslim who accepts Darwinian evolution is a dangerous heretic.

Harun Yayha is an Islamic Creationist who wrote: The Miracles Of Smell And Taste, which is available for free http://www.haruny...mell-and

He included a chapter "Evolutionists Cannot Account for the Origin of the Sense of Smell"

Because they cannot, they link the light-induced de novo creation of amino acids to the RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types via ridiculous theories that divide creationists into different factions. It's another way that evolutionary theory kills.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2015
I don't read JVKS stuff as I have him turned off. But I get the gist of his argument
@Otto
you should also read the following short account of JVK by PZ Myers, as it is not only very relevant to his tactics, but also is descriptive of his typical argument and post
http://freethough...s-place/

from the link
Pretentious phrasing. Repetition: if the audience didn't get it the first time, just say the same thing again, twice. A kind of sneering anger that people don't understand how smart he is. An obsession with one narrow idea, which is his, which explains all of evolution and proves that everyone else is wrong.
the sad thing is, it is not even "his" idea, but someone else's which he is trying to flood with even though he doesn't have the expertise or biological knowledge to comprehend why he is wrong.

Myers describes him perfectly
read it for more info
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2015
PZ Myers attacked my established views on chromosomal rearrangements with this intro:

"Behold James Vaughn Kohl.
Ecological adaptation occurs via the epigenetic effects of nutrients on alternative splicings of pre-mRNA which result in amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all species. The control of the differences in cell types occurs via the metabolism of the nutrients to chemical signals that control the physiology of reproduction.

These facts do not refute evolution; they simply refute the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that most people here were taught to believe is the theory of evolution."

See also: http://www.pnas.o...abstract
Nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated pheromone-controlled morphological phenotypes and behavioral phenotypes arise via chromosomal rearrangements.

All experimental evidence continues to attest to the validity of my details.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2015
Re: RNA-directed regulation of epigenetic processes

See:
1) rna directed https://www.googl...directed

2) rna directed dna methylation https://www.googl...directed+dna+methylation

3) dna methylation and histone acetylation https://www.googl...tylation

4) rna mediated https://www.googl...mediated

Find out who is still touting the pseudoscientific nonsense invented by population geneticists and compare who's who among serious scientists. If you find one evolutionary theorist who knows how cell type differentiation occurs in the absence of RNA-mediated biologically-based cause and effect, please alert others to the representations made by the biologically uninformed science idiot, for comparison.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2015
Find out who is still touting the pseudoscientific nonsense
@jk
you are: see MYERS blog for more details, if you are still able to read it
it also still contains your religious fueled BIGOTRY and prejudice towards homosexuals as well!
you know, the comments that got you BANNED because of your blatant hatred and stupidity
post # 317
Mere stupidity I will tolerate, but I really don't need to give a platform to homophobes. Kohl has been banned
http://freethough...s-place/

the one you spent 5 posts crying about because you were caught in yet ANOTHER lie here: http://medicalxpr...ors.html

pseudoscience = "mutations are never beneficial" while blatantly ignoring Lenski, Extavour, Whittaker and more
then calling everyone "biologically uninformed science idiots" because we don't like LIARS like you
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2015
you should also read the following short account of JVK by PZ Myers, as it is not only very relevant to his tactics, but also is descriptive of his typical argument and post
Ive said before - your enemies are not my enemies. I happen to agree to a certain extent that food has something to do with evolution.

You tolerate a confirmed LIAR and pretender just because he supports your cause. I dont LIKE people who pretend to be what theyre not in order to legitimize lies and bullshit.

I dont LIKE people who insult the engineering community by pretending to be one, which obviously he is not. He doesnt even know that BTUs and calories are expressions of the same thing.

I will continue to expose this sicko. Thats not going to change.

It amazes me that you think efforts to do so are wrong, just because he supports your cause with empty rah rah posts and t shirt slogans from the 60s.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2015
Re: Control of body growth by nutrient-dependent microRNA(s) in insects and mammals.
See: http://dx.doi.org...omms8693

Excerpt: "miR-9a binds to sNPFR1 mRNA in insect cells and to the mammalian orthologue NPY2R in rat insulinoma cells."

Cell type differentiation is biophysically constrained by the nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction in all genera.

In species of insects and mammals the physiology of reproduction is controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones.

See also: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

I happen to agree to a certain extent that food has something to do with evolution.


Food links ecological variation to ecological adaptations, not to evolution. The anti-entropic epigenetic effects of nutrient-dependent microRNAs on DNA repair prevent the genomic entropy caused by viruses and accumulated viral microRNAs.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
I happen to agree to a certain extent that food has something to do with evolution
@Otto
the link was to enlighten you to more info re: jvk. no one said any different re: food and evolution. jk claims that is the ONLY way, however (IOW- it's BS) and also claims that there are no beneficial mutations, etc
You tolerate a confirmed LIAR and blah blah I dont LIKE people who pretend to be what theyre not in order to legitimize lies and bullshit blah blah blah just because he supports your cause blah blah
1- i do NOT support lies - check my voting (lying to support your own delusions again?)
2- just like YOUR own stupidity, i do not vote when he goes on his tangents. in fact, i tend to ignore most of them (along with your own stupidity)
3- your BS public service is about pointing out lies, but somehow you like to ignore some of the worst on the site... from denglish and alchie to jvk- why?
cause it easier to pick on gkam?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
I dont LIKE people who pretend to be what theyre not

This from someone who uses sockpuppets? That's rich.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
I dont LIKE people who pretend to be what theyre not

This from someone who uses sockpuppets? That's rich.
I thought you had me turned off? Must've been Arf.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
Otto
the link was to enlighten you to more info re: jvk. no one said any different re: food and evolution. jk claims that blah Don't care. Not interested.
don't support lies
You support and encourage a confirmed liar and flooder by updating him and DEFENDING him here.

What are you doing? You don't think the gnome can defend himself? He can't and you shouldn't be trying.
ignore the worst on the site
Once again, don't presume to tell me what to do. To address your AGW enemies I would have to know something about AGW, which I don't and don't care to know.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
And poor vietvet has to defend the confirmed liar and flooder by down raters who criticize him, just because he is a vet.

Is it wise to defend lying, cheating vets who pretend to be something they are not vietvet? How does this reflect on the integrity of all honest, decent vets out there?

Gkam did not develop, install, and operate surveillance equipt directly for macnamara as a 20yo uneducated tech. He lied about that.

You OK with that?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
To address your AGW enemies I would have to know something about AGW, which I don't and don't care to know.
And apparently easily googled facts are not right up your alley, either...or is it that you like to google easily available facts that make you feel superior to others?
Gkam did not...
TL;DR
let me repeat myself, because obviously you didn't read it the last time: i dealt with gkam privately about his claims sans evidence. also- you don't know what actually happened
just like you made a fuss about me and got educated real quick about reality.

since i don't know what happened, i ignore those claims he makes and privately tell him to back off and justify his posts with evidence

he has issues just like you do, otto
and they are NO different than your support for MIlls "hydrino" perpetual motion paper or claims sans evidence except his personal site claims or paid ads

i find it interesting that you would target gkam in light of that, especially
Vietvet
4 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
@otto

I ignore most of gham's and your comments but if you had been paying attention I've up voted you much more than I've down voted you and I have down voted gham.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
@otto
and why do you drag vietvet into it? are you downrating vietvet because you don't have a clue?
what?

You OK with that?
No, i am not

but - as i stated above... the question is: why are YOU ok with it?

especially in light of your own prejudices and support of pseudoscience?

one last thing: and this is especially cogent as it directly is connected to the idiot jvk above

JK is a creationist promoting creationist claims, easily googled and followed
I am surprised you didn't catch THAT in your google defense of "science" and things that are "true"
his site is filled with creationist dogma and most of the BS diatribes he rants on this site are straight out of the creationist handbook... and i spot it without being up on creationist diatribe because of my historical past in biology/medicine... given that you've crusaded against the "godders" here, why didn't YOU spot it?

are YOU ok with THAT?

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2015
why do you drag vietvet into it?
Because he down rated my comment.

People with gkam affliction take any positive response at all as encouragement to keep on lying and fabricating, in order to get more and more attention.

And so rewarding them for the occasional worthwhile post does more harm than good.

Gkam makes up outrageous stories about watching an SR71 crash from a hangar roof, or waking up to watch rocket engine tests which didn't even happen where he was, because he thinks you guys are impressed by them.

Are you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
especially in light of your own prejudices and support of pseudoscience
And as i recall you're the fireman who didn't know what an exothermic reaction was. And so you were trying to argue against something you knew nothing about, and couldn't admit it.

I know very little about AGW and have no problem admitting it, and wouldn't presume to argue for either side. You know nothing about either LENR or the hydrino, and refuse to learn, and yet you feel qualified to deem them pseudoscience.

See the difference?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 09, 2015
Because he down rated my comment.
SO?
i tend to downrate your stupidity too! especially if it is BLATANT or easily checked stuff, like your support of "hydrino's"
People with gkam affliction take any positive response at all as encouragement to keep on lying and fabricating, in order to get more and more attention
Yes, we see it with some of your own posts about hydrino's... and?
Gkam makes up outrageous stories ....because he thinks you guys are impressed by them
how do you know he hasn't seen SR-71's crash?
I've also personally seen and done things that would curl your toe-nails or cause you nightmares for the rest of your life. SO WHAT?

it is his way of dealing with the hand that he was dealt with
just like you take your frustrations out on people on PO, or generate socks for voting, or google everything except what you really should (see above)...

like i said: my admonishment comes privately because i am more aware of certain things than you
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
You didn't even know what perpetual motion was but you continue to use the term. Mills machine stops working when it runs out of fuel.

That's not perpetual motion.

I think you should look up the def as I'm not going to copy/paste it for you again.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
And as i recall you're the fireman who didn't know what an exothermic reaction was
that was YOUR assumption, not mine, nor was it a claim i made... you really should get out of your moms basement more often
And so you were trying to argue against something you knew nothing about, and couldn't admit it
no, i admitted what i didn't know, and i still DO when i make a mistake... the exothermic reaction comment was your confusion about who posted what
ALSO - at least i took the time to actually research Mills and his claims vs what is actually happening and the actual feasibility of the stuff he says (as in Hydrino's etc)
you say i know nothing about the hydrino, and yet i provided YOU with papers as well as information regarding the physics which was debunked, but you ignored THAT too!

YOU DIDN'T research! you IGNORED the actual physics i gave you, with links! why is that?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
You didn't even know what perpetual motion was but you continue to use the term
Perhaps you should re-read the term AND the paper:

mills made the claim that you get power from the hydrino when it jumps to the lower AND back up to the ground state, when it must have power applied to it to jump to the lower state

that means that you get power from the hydrino when it jumps to a lower state that exceeds the power applied to it to jump to the lower state, which he called a stable ground state, which it isn't....

then the lower state, which he claimed was a stable ground state, was NOT stable, so it jumped back to the typical ground state, releasing energy again, per mills claim

THAT is where the perpetual motion comes in from, not the stupid machine he made
this was explained to you more than once, but you ignored all that because you are in love with mills

you would have understood that if you would have actually READ the papers i gave you
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
oe-nails or cause you nightmares for the rest of your life. SO WHAT?

it is his way of dealing with the hand that he was dealt with Poor gkam got a finger burn while soldering circuit boards in thailand. Poor baby.

There's no way to tell which of his claims are true and which are bullshit. We only know that a LOT of them are bullshit.

This is not a therapy site. Allowing crackpots like gkam to lie and bullshit degrades this site and certainly does not help them to reconnect with reality.

And defending their bullshit just because they agree with you is just pathetic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
that was YOUR assumption, not mine, nor was it a claim i made... you really should get out of your moms basement more often
Still can't admit it eh? You just couldn't grasp how a reaction could put out more energy than it took to initiate it.

Apparently you still cant.

This was the whole gist of your argument against LENR and the hydrino, and it was WRONG.

There are very good arguments against these things but yours was certainly not one of them.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
There's no way to tell which of his claims are true and which are bullshit
except that i know a few more details about him than you, because:
1- research
2- data received and validated
get off your high horse
defending their bullshit just because they agree with you is just pathetic
i do NOT defend the BS- watch how i vote, troll-boy
Still can't admit it eh? You just couldn't grasp how a reaction could put out more energy than it took to initiate it
still can't admit that you are talking about the machine whereas i was talking about the hydrino theory, which has been subsequently DEBUNKED by various labs and actual physicists

my argument was not against LENR, it was against MILLS and the HYDRINO
it has also been validated (and your precious lover hasn't been able to provide his machine based upon that theory either, has he? LMFAO)

the best arguments are true- mine were TRUE (and backed up)

keep on posting, basement boy
I have a hot date
l8er
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
AND back up to the ground state
See? Wrong again.

"It's broadly understood that while the electron orbit in a solitary hydrogen atom can be excited to higher, unstable states, it can't be lowered further than a certain point, called the ground state. But Mills claims his hydrinos are just that –- atoms with stable electron orbits below the ground state."

You misread something and used it as an argument because you assumed it was pseudoscience. I showed you how you were wrong and it failed to register
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
See? Wrong again
@otto... you just posted MY argument against YOU! ROTFLMFAO

Mills hydrino paper says it uses UV to push the electron to a ground state below the original (PHYSICS BASED AND KNOWN) ground state, as i said
Mills claims his hydrinos are just that –- atoms with stable electron orbits below the ground state
as noted, and as i told YOU already more than once!

Then he says they get energy from this, then they also get energy from the release back to the original ground state, which normal physics calls the ground state but MILLS says is higher than the "hydrino" state...

READ THE FREAKIN PAPER, troll boy!
ROTFLMFAO

and thanks for actually using my argument against you before i could sign out!
PRICELESS!

nice to know you can now finally read, though
it means you have a chance of getting better!

THANKS
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
Then he says they get energy from this, then they also get energy from the release back to the original ground state NO he didnt. Explain how you get energy out of a reaction that requires energy to jump to a higher state.

Like I say you don't know what you're talking about. You misread something and thought you had an argument.

You didnt.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
argument against you
You claimed that the hydrino was unstable. I showed you that Mills is claiming that it is. The traditional ground state requires energy to jump to a higher state and so does the hydrino.

You get drunk before hot dates with teenagers? That would explain your confusion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
Notice your little buddy gkam is downrating my posts? Not possible if I was on ignore, which he claims.

More empirical evidence that he is a compulsive liar.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
Oh, my! The Ignore feature here fails, and I get to see some of otto's delusions. Hilarious.

I sent him to places where he can see my name and picture, but they are Air Force sites, and he can't navigate them. Major General Hugh Manson (Commandant of the Air Force Flight Test Center), gave me a great recommendation on my first performance review, setting me up for the rest of my term.

Send me an email address, otto, and I'll send you a copy of the front page of the base newspaper, with my picture and that of Pete Knight.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2015
What does that have anything to do with you pretending to be an engineer, or that you designed, constructed, and operated a spy system for macnamara while a 20yo noncom with no training, or that you heard rocket engine tests in the night that never happened?

You are a liar. You lied about not reading my posts. You can't help but lie because you're obviously a pretty sick little guy.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
Gosh, otto, I proved who I am, and you have admitted to being a lurker, a sniper hiding behind pseudonyms playing your "games" as you called them. We have it in your own pathetic bragging.

The come-and-go of the Ignore function here also does no let me edit my posts immediately. But that's okay. I see the silly stuff again by otto, and will not let them get unanswered this time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2015
I proved who I am
Youve PROVEN that you are a liar and a fabricater. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK that any claims of jobs or accolades can change that?

WHY would you think anyone would accept your obvious LIES just because Major General Hugh Manson (Commandant of the Air Force Flight Test Center), gave you a great recommendation on your first performance review, or that you got your picture taken with Pete Knight? How can you be so IGNORANT as to think that way?

Doesnt matter what you did or didnt do. A lie is a lie. ANYONE knows this.
The come-and-go of the Ignore function
This is also a lie. You downvoted me because the ignore function switched itself off?

No, you downvoted me because you forgot that if I was ignored, you couldnt do that.

Youre not smart enough to get away with your lies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
As to stumps ignorance:

"The transition of H to a stable hydrino state H [aH /p=m+1] having a binding energy of p2•13.6eV occurs by a nonradiative resonance energy transfer of m • 27.2 eV (m is an integer) to a matched energy acceptor such as nascent H2O that has a potential energy of 81.6 eV (m = 3)."

Stable.

"BlackLight's game-changing energy device that has water (H2O) as its only fuel input from which it produces 100 billion watts per liter of energetic plasma by forming a more stable state of the hydrogen atom has been validated by academic experts."

Stable.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 09, 2015
Heres where I think you got confused:

"These states are assumed to be reachable
in the collision of hydrogen atoms with a catalyst, which can make an electronic
transition of the same energy. In the collision the energy is transfered from the
hydrogen to the catalyst, which absorbs it by an electronic transition to a more
energetic state. Eventually the catalyst will release the acquired energy by the
emission of a photon and return to its ground state."

-IOW the release of energy by the hydrino transition excites the catalyst which then emits a photon and returns to ITS OWN ground state.

The hydrino is not the catalyst.

Now dont you feel dumb?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
"The ground state of hydrogen is stable in the sense that it cannot emit photons. However, Mills argues that it can undergo a non-radiative transition to a lower state with the help of a catalyst, releasing the additional energy in the process. "In layman's terms, a catalytic process causes the latent energy stored in the hydrogen atom to be released by allowing the electron that is otherwise in a stable orbit to move closer to the nucleus to generate power as heat, light and the formation of a plasma," Mills told PhysicsWeb. Similar non-radiative transitions occur in fluorescent lights and in the formation of chemical bonds in cases where the excess energy is carried away by a third particle."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
Further, he needs to regenerate the fuel/catalyst mixture by adding water in the form of steam.

"An auger such as one used in the pharmaceutical or food industries transports the product powder to a regeneration system wherein it is rehydrated with steam wherein the steam is formed by flowing H2O from a H2O reservoir over the hot coils of the regeneration system heat exchanger.

Water containing H2 is the fuel. If he doesnt add more fuel the reaction stops as the catalyst has nothing to convert.

Is this too many words for you? So sorry.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
"WHY would you think anyone would accept your obvious LIES just because Major General Hugh Manson (Commandant of the Air Force Flight Test Center), gave you a great recommendation on your first performance review, or that you got your picture taken with Pete Knight?"
---------------------------------

We were not in the same picture.

Where were you?

"Now dont you feel dumb?"
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2015
We were not in the same picture
So fucking what?
Where were you?
I was som place where I learned that lying about my past is what idiots do.

I also learned that the veracity of LIES does not depend on what you allegedly did or where you were when you did them.

Why are you too stupid not to realize this? Claiming that your LIES are true because you got a good review once or that you got your picture in a magazine is beyond ignorant.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2015
We are making progress. You used to scream "liar" and "bullshit" in all caps when I recounted my experience before, but now, you apparently found out I am real, and you are not.

It must be maddening.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
I thought you had me turned off? Must've been Arf.

Explained this to you before. I do tend to give people second chances every once in a while*. Not everyone stays consistently stupid (some actually learn stuff by beaing a science site. Fancy that.)

But I see nothing has changed with you. So back on the ignore list you go.

* You know, because scientific mindset and stuff: Check your assumptions and results every so often.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
@otto, while you are defining perpetual motion, see also the following:
https://en.wikipe...e#Energy

now, maybe you can get your buddy Noumenon to help you with this:
http://www.blackl...aper.pdf

& lets talk about your failure to comprehend what i stated here:
http://phys.org/n...ive.html

March 4 -
i recognized the problem with the lower ground state and the introduction of low energy to somehow miraculously get large amounts of energy
this pertained specifically to mills introduction of the hydrino state which miraculousy [sic] gives power twice, when going to the hydrino state and when going BACK to the zero point state from a "supposedly" stable hydrino ground state -proven by links to the various PDF's and publications i gave you (to date)

2B cont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
Cont'd

it will *not* give off energy if it is already in a ground state... you need to apply energy to get a ground state to jump to a higher state, but mills is saying that the jump from Hydrino to the known zero point/ground state is where the energy comes OUT... epic failure
see also: http://jiplp.oxfo.../6/6/374

but you argued for it none the less
And you can't win arguments by making shit up either. The hydrogen gives up energy by transitioning to a lower state. The resulting hydrino is stable. According to mills
MAR 05
and according to the laws of physics and the community of physicists it is not true

but that didn't stop your condescension and support of mills hydrino's, despite all the contrary evidence

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
cont'd
to continue
mills claims the HYDRINO is a stable ground state below the known ground state-
how does one procure this "ground state" which defies all the laws of physics?
including, but not limited to, the fact that the electron can't get closer to the nucleus from the *known* ground state/zero point (which is *above* what Mills claims) without the application of energy

|(also note that the Hydrogen atom, the basis of his Hydrino claims, is the most studied atomic particle in the world)
- see also: https://en.wikipe...nd_state

It's not that i "misread something" - it is also the bulk of the physics community
and most of the posters who know physics, as well (including some of the engineers and physicists posting here, like Thompson, etc)

feel free to read more about Hydrino's here:

http://arxiv.org/...95v1.pdf

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
@cont'd
but that's not all, even Mills himself made the claim for the patent office, which i repeatedly linked to you before
Methods and apparatus for releasing energy from hydrogen atoms (molecules) by stimulating their electrons to relax to quantized lower energy levels and smaller radii (smaller semimajor and semiminor axes) than the "ground state" ...
now, he stated he used "energy sinks" for this, but doesn't describe how they would apply the energy for the jump to a lower "stable ground state" or how the energy destabilized to release from said hydrino ground state to the original ground state/zero point state to draw the "free energy"

stimulating something is usually a term reserved for the application of energy, mind you

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
mills also claims this
... his team has isolated and characterized hydrino's properties using spectroscopy and has even created hydrino-rich materials it can provide for analysis

http://spectrum.i...or-not/0

Now, be logical for one minute:
IF the universe is as old as it's claimed
AND if the hydrogen is as studied as it is
THEN (and this is a biggie) why haven't we observed, using "spectroscopy" (which is widely used in astrophysics) the signatures of bulk free floating hydrino's in space, which is where they would be most abundant, as mills claims that the hydrino is the lowest ground state/zero point state it can attain?
(rhetorical, but feel free to answer if you can)

But don't take my word for it about the implausible hydrino state, instead, read some of the physics (again, ask your pseudoscience-promoting buddy Nou to explain these to you) :
http://arxiv.org/...95v1.pdf

more to come
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
finale
http://arxiv.org/...95v1.pdf

the abstract says it all here: [ It is suggested that spectral lines, on which the fiction of fractional principal quantum numbers in the hydrogen atom is based, are nothing else but artefacts. ]
http://iopscience...8001.pdf

article 2 here: http://bobpark.ph...608.html

http://www.rexres....htm#dow

all in all, you have demonstrated to everyone that you are every bit the trolling crackpot as jk or the people you single out for your trolling

you can't even comprehend what i wrote before, re: Mills, so you make unfounded claims based upon your "interpretations" and what you want to believe, just like jk above... and you excoriate others for the same thing?

before you start your BS machine up, why not admit you made a mistake?

i know you won't- don't care either
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
@Otto
sorry-forgot this
mills initial paper, introduced the hydrino states: http://www.blackl...22PM.pdf

so... as you claimed, he says it gives off power when transitioning to a lower hydrino state
Mills argues that it can undergo a non-radiative transition to a lower state ..."In layman's terms, a catalytic process causes the latent energy stored in the hydrogen atom to be released by allowing the electron that is otherwise in a stable orbit to move closer to the nucleus to generate power as heat, light and the formation of a plasma," Mills told PhysicsWeb
and in his paper, above, he also states you get power when it transitions to H (normal zero point)
Following the nonradiative energy transfer, further energy as characteristic ... is released as the hydrino transitions to a final stable radius of ()1/ 1m+ that of H
see abstract/paper

care to expound, oh literate one?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2015
wait! found ANOTHER
Spectra of low energy, high current pinch discharges in pure hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and helium were recorded in the EUV region, and continuum radiation was only observed from hydrogen... The continuum radiation bands at 10.1 and 22.8 nm and going to longer wavelengths for theoretically predicted transitions of hydrogen to lower-energy, so called "hydrino" states...
http://link.sprin...-20246-5
time resolved spectra were performed that showed a unique delay...following the high-voltage pulse consistent with the mechanism of recombination to form the optimal high-density atomic hydrogen in the pinch that permits the H–H interactions to cause the hydrino transitions and corresponding emission
Well @Otto?
those are MILLS words (again)
i linked these to you already at least once
http://phys.org/n...fic.html

hydrino's = perpetual motion
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2015
who don't know that definitions don't change the fact that his bacteria changed their ecological niche via their nutrient uptake & reproduction
@jk
2- & as Anon, myself and many others (except Noumenon, your champion) has pointed out:.... CaptainStumpy


I'm not his "champion". You've been told that I don't know enough about the subject to even follow his reasoning, .... yet you continue your lies?

I'm as much in agreement with his arguments as you are that metaphysical speculation are legitimate aspects of science,.... as that is what I agrue against upon which you rate me 1's, ....being completely oblivious to this fact due to your ignorance of the subject.

IOW, I'm deliberately behaving as you do,... rating your posts based on 'form of argument' rather than specific 'substance of argument'. Apparently, you don't like when it's done to you, hypocrite?
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2015
ask your pseudoscience-promoting buddy Noumenon to explain these to you
[sick]

I have been posting here for 8 years and have NEVER once advocated for non-mainstream theories, nor pseudoscience of any kind. I am not sure who is worse the cranks or the dishonest trolls who confuse the internet with their own knowledge and trash every thread with jerry-springer bickering and lies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2015
you can't even comprehend what I wrote before
What you wrote before was wrong.

The hydrino supposedly exists in a lower ground state.

It needs to give off energy to reach this state.

This transition is achieved using a catalyst

The catalyst itself becomes excited and then returns to normal.

The hydrino remains as-is because it's stable.

-Period.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 10, 2015
Your last quote which you also completely misunderstood;

"following the high-voltage pulse consistent with the mechanism of recombination to form the optimal high-density atomic hydrogen in the pinch that permits the H–H interactions to cause the hydrino transitions and corresponding emission"

-describes how his machine works. He provides a high voltage pulse which permits certain H-H transitions which allows the hydrino to form and emit energy.

Nothing about retransitioning back to a higher energy state which you seem to think would give off even more energy.

As to hydrinos existing in the cosmos, you didn't even read far enough to see Mills theory that dark matter is mostly it. His evidence is observed x-ray emissions which supposedly match his experiments.

All this bluster and brainless quote-throwing just to avoid admitting you're wrong. This is why I have no respect for the crap you post.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2015
Another one you misunderstood:

"Following the nonradiative energy transfer, further energy as characteristic ... is released as the hydrino transitions to a final stable radius of ()1/ 1m+ that of H"

-IOW the hydrino reaches it's final state as a FRACTION of the normal H radius. Again, no return to normal H.

Read quotes and try to understand them before posting ok?

TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2015
I have been posting here for 8 years and have NEVER once advocated for non-mainstream theories, nor pseudoscience of any kind
This is your perception of what you post. The idea that kant could have divined the quantum nature of the universe just by sitting on his ass and thinking, or that his musings mean that QM is the last theory that scientists will ever come up with because kant said things can't be known in their entirety, is pure religion-derived mysticism.

ie pseudoscience.

But you're right, the stump thinks that linking his detractors together will somehow make him less wrong. More disrespect for facts commonly found in gangbangers.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2015
I am not sure who is worse the cranks or the dishonest trolls who confuse the internet with their own knowledge and trash every thread with jerry-springer bickering and lies.


Perhaps I can help you decide who is worse. For example, here are links from chromosomal rearrangements to biodiversity sans ridiculous theories.

Chromosomal rearrangements maintain a polymorphic supergene controlling butterfly mimicry

RNA-Mediated Epigenetic Programming of Genome Rearrangements

Large Chromosomal Rearrangements during a Long-Term Evolution Experiment with Escherichia coli

Describing Sequencing Results of Structural Chromosome Rearrangements with a Suggested Next-Generation Cytogenetic Nomenclature

Chromosomal rearrangements and karyotype evolution in carnivores revealed by chromosome painting

Nuclear compartmentalization of odorant receptor genes

Chromosomal speciation revisited: rearranging theory with pieces of evidence

For more see: http://rna-mediated.com/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2015
What you wrote ... was wrong
@otto
then go argue with the bulk of modern day physicists. maybe you should have Nou explain it to you?
It needs to give off energy to reach this state
that is my point, troll-boy, but Mills states, paraphrased by YOU
He provides a high voltage pulse which ...allows the hydrino to form and emit energy
which i said already- he used energy to achieve the state of hydrino. But mills also states
Following the nonradiative energy transfer, further energy ...is released as the hydrino transitions to a final stable radius of 1/(1+m) that of H
please take extra time to NOTE that this is NOT his explanation of hydrino state above, mentioned as
H(1/p)
now, even a TROLL like you, otto, can see that H(1/p) is NOT equal to 1/(1+m)

so when you get all high and uppity and say
All this bluster and brainless quote-throwing just to avoid admitting you're wrong
remember to choke on your own words
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2015
@otto
so while you are choking on your stupidity, please remember, Mills is claiming that he is getting energy when he
-describes how his machine works
that comes from the jump DOWN to hydrino, and then also back UP to stable hydrogen, based upon the collection of papers (and that is not just per my reading, but also the bulk of physicists out there)
so it is NOT stable as he claims, he even says that in the paper, as i showed you above
Read quotes and try to understand them before posting ok?
i read and understood them far better than even you did, google boy!
the problem is that you are so enamored and in love with Mills that you can't see the problems with his writings, instead concentrating on flooding with "bluster and brainless quote-throwing just to avoid admitting you're wrong"
thanks for playing, you've truly shown that you have a true " disrespect for facts commonly found"
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2015
@otto
As to hydrinos existing in the cosmos, you didn't even read far enough to see Mills theory that dark matter is mostly it. His evidence is observed x-ray emissions which supposedly match his experiments
which is supported only by his claims and not validated in ANY other papers...
until there is proof that hydrino's exist, you can't state that they are "dark matter" because that is simply the same thing as stating that "fairy farts mixed with unicorn turds create black holes"

that is why YOU receive no respect when you post, Otto... even when you are wrong, you can't admit it. at least i have the cojones to admit my own mistakes

Nou knows QM... ask him about Mills papers

>>

: http://rna-mediated.com/
@jk
PHISHING PSEUDOSCIENCE AND CREATIONIST SITE
gkam
2 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2015
"More to Thank God for in Your Body"
- entry in the rna mediated site.

Pure religious dogma.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2015
PHISHING PSEUDOSCIENCE AND CREATIONIST SITE


Excerpt from my invited review of nutritional epigenetics (and chromosomal rearrangements):

"The ability of nutrients to epigenetically effect changes in base pairs and to alter the miRNA/mRNA balance appears to link food odors; cell type-specific alternative splicings of pre-mRNA; de novo gene creation and pseudogene creation; chromosomal rearrangements and the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man (Diamond, et al., 1996; J. V. Kohl, et al., 2001) (J. V. Kohl, 2012, 2013). The bottom-up epigenetic effects of food odors associated with nutrients and the top-down epigenetic effects of pheromones seem to act within the context of biophysically constrained conserved molecular mechanisms that finely tune the transcriptional output of different alleles."

Pure religious dogma.


If so, the Creationists are right.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2015
Among other serious scientists and a science fiction novelist, young earth creationists have linked life and death differences to biodiversity via the effect of viruses on entropic elasticity and genomic entropy in the perfectly created nutrient-dependent cell types of all genera.

Viral Genome Junk Is Bunk http://www.icr.or...cle/8661
Excerpt: "So, where do viruses come from that essentially share the same sequences as those found in their host genomes? Perhaps the evolutionists have placed the cart before the horse on this issue, as proposed by several creationist scientists.4,6 In fact, in an ironic twist, the evidence mentioned above indicates that viruses likely arose from their hosts and not the other way around. As molecular biologist and biochemist Peter Borger notes, "The most parsimonious answer is: the RNA viruses got their genes from their hosts."6"

If so, the creationists may be right about everything else linked to controlled biodiversity.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2015
If not, current efforts to link nutritional epigenetics to pharmacogenomics and precision medicine via what is known to serious scientists about the biophysically constrained chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding will lead nowhere. Efforts described in the articles below will be as useless as neo-Darwinian theory -- unless cell type differentiation is, as it appears to be, biophysically constrained by the nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated mediated chemistry of protein folding in all genera.

Popping the Cork on a microbiome alliance http://ddn-news.c...cle=9664

Success of new-generation metabolo-therapies in personalized medicine depends on measuring bioenergetic health http://www.ddn-ne...cle=8956
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2015
I have been posting here for 8 years and have NEVER once advocated for non-mainstream theories, nor pseudoscience of any kind

This is your perception of what you post. The idea that kant could have divined the quantum nature of the universe just by sitting on his ass and thinking,

I never said he knew anything about QM.

....or that his musings mean that QM is the last theory that scientists will ever come up with because kant said things can't be known in their entirety, is pure religion-derived mysticism.

I have never stated that QM is the last theory possible.

Like Stumpy, you seem to invent arguments never made by me, because you still fail to understand the substance of my posts. In This Thread, I mention Kant in relation to QM. Maybe you can try again.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2015
"More to Thank God for in Your Body"
- entry in the rna mediated site.

Pure religious dogma.


The entry was placed into the context of "Celebrating independence from ridiculous theories" http://rna-mediat...heories/

http://crev.info/...od-body/
Excerpt: "…the same elements that add color and sparkle to explosive light shows—potassium, calcium, lithium, copper and iron—perform numerous vital functions in our bodies."

I compared that fact to the horrid misrepresentations of Darwin's 'conditions of life' in an example from two pages from A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems (1914). The pages are displayed at the "Scopes" Museum in Dayton, Tennessee. (I took at picture of the display when I visited there, two weeks ago -- for the fourth time.)
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2015
I have never stated that QM is the last theory possible.


Neither have I, but it seems to be the best theory in terms of its explanatory power, which is supported by experimental evidence from classical physics, biochemisty, biology, and molecular epigenetics.

See: Solving Biology's Mysteries Using Quantum Mechanics: The new field of quantum biology applies the craziness of quantum physics to biology's most fundamental processes.
http://discoverma...tum-life
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2015
I have never stated that QM is the last theory possible
Dont makke me go back and dig up the thread. Just be honest for once.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2015
which is supported only by his claims and not validated in ANY other papers...
SO WHAT? You still misunderstood it and posted a lot of shit to try and cover this up.
then go argue with the bulk of modern day physicists. maybe you should have Nou explain it to you?
The bulk of these guys would read mills papers and conclude that hes not claiming perpetual motion because 1) they understand what he wrote and 2) they can see that his theories describe a finite fuel which needs to be replenished and that 3) he claims his hydrinos are stable.

You missed all these things didnt you? They also know what exothermic means.

They might still disagree with the theory but at least they would UNDERSTAND it.

You dont.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2015
I have never stated that QM is the last theory possible
Dont makke me go back and dig up the thread. Just be honest for once.


I have never stated that QM is the last theory possible,... obviously it's the basis of QFT which does not include dark matter, and does not include gravity.

I may have used the phrase, "quantum mechanics is complete",.... but this just means that there are no local hidden variables,... no missing information with which to take into account, wrt it's ream of applicability.

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2015
Did I mention that RNA-mediated gene duplication links the biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent chemistry of protein folding to the physiology of reproduction and chromosomal rearrangements in species from microbes to man via fixation of amino acid substitutions that determine the cell types of all cells in all individuals of all genera?

Doesn't that fact make the link from QM to the creation of biodiversity obvious?

Why are you still discussing theories? See, instead: http://phys.org/n...ion.html

See also: A quantum theory for the irreplaceable role of docosahexaenoic acid in neural cell signalling throughout evolution http://www.ncbi.n...23206328
Full text pdf: http://www.ars.us...2012.pdf

Excerpt: "While amino acids could be synthesised over 4 billion years ago, only oxidative metabolism...."

The 4 billion years is an error.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2015
"By contrast over 600 million years
animal genomes underwent countless mutations with enormous
variation in protein composition and structures"

"A practical point is that random mutation and selection for
survival have little predictive power. However, has powerful
predictive power because it predicts human biological evolution
slows or reverts if DHA is not superabundant"

"As far as our knowledge goes, DHA has been the dominant
fatty acid in the membrane phosphoglycerides of the photoreceptors,
neurones and synapses for all 600 million years of animal
evolution. Even today, the composition of the photoreceptor and
brain varies little between species despite large scale species
variation in the lipid composition of the diet, liver and muscle."

http://www.ars.us...2012.pdf

@JVK

Are these statements mistaken too?

Vietvet
5 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2015


Excerpt: "While amino acids could be synthesised over 4 billion years ago, only oxidative metabolism...."

The 4 billion years is an error.


@JVK

Besides your creationist beliefs do you have any other reason to declare "The 4 billion years is an error"?

Amino acids have been found in meteorites, detected in interstellar space and on a comet.
Is earth somehow special?

http://www.newsci...SqflVhBd
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
Are these statements mistaken too?


Yes. Thanks for asking.

A single amino acid substitution in the GnRH decapeptide links the morphological phenotypes and behavioral phenotypes of all vertebrates to their nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction.

Given the fact that only two amino acid substitutions are required for the bacterial flagellum to "re-evolve" over the weekend, the likelihood that the substitution of the only achiral amino acid, glycine, in the cell types of all vertebrates took 600 million years represents the pseudoscientific nonsense taught to biologically uninformed science idiots.

Those idiots, like you, link that nonsense to the deep-space formation of amino acids instead of their formation on earth via the epigenetic effect of light on contact with water, which is manifested in the "rainbow" of life's spectral diversity and nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated gene duplications.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
Is earth somehow special?


Of course it is. Thanks for asking.

Excerpt: "The book claims that evolution is therefore far from random, but a predictable process that operates according to a fairly rigid set of rules."

The rules are akin to Darwin's 'conditions of life' on this planet. If organisms don't eat, genes don't duplicate and RNA-mediated events cannot link cell type differentiation via the fixation of nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions to all of biodiversity.

That leaves only randomness and evolution, which is what serious scientists have ruled out in the context of biologically-based cause and effect.

Amino acids have been found in meteorites...


That's nice. How were they linked to the RNA-mediated diversity of life on this planet?

...detected in interstellar space and on a comet.


That's nice, too. What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot linked their "detection" to all of earth's biomass?
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
Single-residue insertion switches the quaternary structure and exciton states of cryptophyte light-harvesting proteins http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Reported as: http://phys.org/n...nce.html

"...in two species a genetic mutation has led to the insertion of an extra amino acid that changes the structure of the protein complex, disrupting coherence."

But first, you must have a protein complex. You can't link disrupted coherence to the evolution of anything, without sounding like a biologically uninformed science idiot who knows nothing about RNA-mediated gene duplication or other RNA-mediated events that link cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all living genera via their biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent protein folding.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
on a long break...
SO You still misunderstood it
@Otto
even the patent office said it was a perpetual motion machine "the patent appeared to involve cold fusion and perpetual motion" from the court case, Group Director Esther Kepplinger of the USPTO, physicsts Park et al and more

http://jiplp.oxfo...abstract

see also: https://en.wikipe...ht_Power

posted a lot of shit to try and cover this up
LMFAO - to anyone reading, you have just proven yourself an idiot. the evidence i posted doesn't "cover up" anything ... it proved i was right

when you get to the 9th grade, you will understand, otto
2Bcon't
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
@TROLLINGotto
The bulk of these guys would read mills papers and conclude that hes not claiming perpetual motion
Except see above... the perpetual motion comment i gave came straight from physicists who read mills work (from Thompson & Park to Kepplinger et al), and i linked that to you already more than once...
not my cault you're illiterate like jk

only 1 & 2 have any merit... 3 is false because NO ONE, has validated the claim, and it is NOT stable as the paper itself shows. (another point that i had validated from a physicist)
See links already above
You missed all these things didnt you?
answered above
They also know what exothermic means
as do i, but this is simply your misinterpretations and attempt to distract, as this is an argument against someone else, not me, basement-boy.

try another distraction, eh?

2Bcont'd
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2015
@JVK

Besides your creationist beliefs do you have any other reason to declare "The 4 billion years is an error"?

Still waiting for an answer.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
@otto cont'd
your whole argument re: exothermic (and insistence that people don't know what it means) comes from your inability to read ... you got angry at Mike and then started slinging ad hominem's at everyone proving you wrong in another thread. i demonstrated my point and taught you a lesson, which you still can't man up to-

try re-reading these links:
https://en.wikipe...dynamics

as well as your description of exothermic

i can see that you're trolling now!

stay stupid and pretend you're not. it suits you
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
lastly @Otto
pay special attention to the LAST sentence!
... It is argued that the observed EUV emissions during their pulsed discharges originate from transitions in ions sputtered or evaporated from the electrodes. Such an interpretation removes their justification for the introduction of hydrino particles
http://download.s...35634c88

since you won't read the physics... until there is something more relevant: stay stupid and pretend you're not. it suits you
i got better things to do
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
@last
try re-reading these links:
missing links from edit function:

https://en.wikipe...dynamics

http://www.world-...Library/

http://www.duke-e...-how.asp

http://www.mpower...ency.htm

https://en.wikipe...ficiency

http://www.consum...ses.html
,

,

@jvk
please answer Vietvet's questions, reposted here
@JVK

Besides your creationist beliefs do you have any other reason to declare "The 4 billion years is an error"?

Still waiting for an answer.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
I've answered this "twisted" question repeatedly in the context of many different phys.org discussions.

No experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect suggests that "4 billion years" is relevant to any question about how ecological variation is linked to ecological adaptations via RNA-mediated gene duplications and nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated DNA repair, which is controlled by the physiology of reproduction that enables fixation of amino acid substitutions in the organized genomes of all living genera.

The only relevance of the 4 billion years nonsense is to theorists who know nothing about cell type differentiation and how it is biophysically constrained by the nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated events that link metabolic networks to genetic networks and all of the earth's biomass.

Thus, the relevance that theorists attribute to "4 billion years" may be the best indicator that they are biologically uninformed science idiots.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
Similarly, the relevance that biologically uninformed science idiots attribute to ~2 billion years of no evolutionary events in bacteria living in the sediments of the ocean floor attests to their belief in pseudoscientific nonsense.

See: http://creationre...-puzzle/

Add the "re-evolved" bacterial flagellum to the puzzle and you may realize why serious scientists remain puzzled by the ridiculous claims of evolutionary theorists.
http://www.the-sc...ewiring/

It's as if pseudoscientists expect serious scientists to believe that evolution occurs in 4 days and that it doesn't occur in ~2 billion years at the same time they attribute "4 billion years" of change to mutations that perturb protein folding and lead to pathology linked to the accumulation of viral microRNAs and absence of the anti-entropic epigenetic effects of the sun.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2015
Such an interpretation removes their justification for the introduction of hydrino particle
What does this have to do with the fact that you totally misunderstood what you read about Mills theory?

Of course scientists doubt it's true and have many good arguments against it. But they at least understand what he's proposing.

YOU DONT. Or at least you didn't and are now trying to avoid having to admit the fact by diverting the argument.

How gutless. How pathetic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2015
your whole argument re: exothermic (and insistence that people don't know what it means) comes from your inability to read ... you got angry at Mike and then started slinging ad hominem's at everyone proving you wrong in another thread. i demonstrated my point and taught you a lesson, which you still can't man up to-
So you've obviously reread the thread recently. Post the link to it and save me the trouble of looking it up.
Vietvet
4 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2015
I've answered this "twisted" question repeatedly in the context of many different phys.org discussions.

@JVK

"The 4 billion years is an error"

A simple direct statement you refuse to directly defend. The only conclusion anyone can draw is that you're not only a creationist but a young earth creationist.

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
http://www.nature...726.html
Reported as: https://www.faceb.../?type=1

The anti-entropic epigenetic effects of nutrient-dependent microRNAs prevent entropic elasticity from becoming genomic entropy caused by viruses and viral microRNAs.

If that fact gets me labeled a "young earth creationist" by biologically uninformed science idiots who know nothing about RNA-mediated gene duplication and RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all genera, I will proudly wear the label underneath the logo on my T-shirt that reads "RNA-mediated.com (linking metabolic networks to genetic networks)."

I will consider distributing T-shirts with the label "biologically uninformed science idiot" to those who provide the incentive for a "kickstarter" source of funding. That way, others can recognize the idiots among them.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
Svante Paabo may be a young earth creationist. With others he published: Natural Selection on the Olfactory Receptor Gene Family in Humans and Chimpanzees. http://linkinghub...07620138

Robert Sapolsky claims to be a "strident atheist" but he linked olfaction and pheromones to the Theory of Mind in this 2009 presentation. https://www.youtu...bZE#t=14

So far as I know, neither of them specifically address the "The 4 billion years is an error"
...direct statement you refuse to directly defend."
So far as I know, they have never addressed any comments from biologically uninformed science idiots.

Perhaps, like me, they don't care what biologically uninformed science idiots claim about the religious beliefs of others.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2015
@JVK

"The 4 billion years is an error"

You wont directly defend your statement because to do so honestly would further damage your credibility, not that you have any to begin with.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2015
they... understand ...YOU DONT
@trolling basement otto
how could i post or supply arguments refuting your post if i didn't understand, oh narcisisstic one? https://www.psych...-sadists
...you didn't ...diverting the argument
diverted how? I made the argument, supplied the evidence, proved you an idiot... it's not like this is the FIRST time, or much different from the last time.. the only one diverting is YOU!
and now you also want me to do all your work for you too? All 5 prior threads you made the same fallacious arguments against physics? >WTF?<
in your own words
it's pointless for me to try to repeat what is readily available on the internet. Isn't it?
How gutless. How pathetic. How like you, otto

until there is something more relevant: stay stupid and pretend you're not. it suits you.
i got better things to do
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2015
I will consider distributing T-shirts with the label "biologically uninformed science idiot"... That way, others can recognize the idiots among them.
@jk
and you will be sued, as it is already in the process of being trademarked by someone else who is capitalizing upon the phrase to make fun of creationists and people like you who ignore actual science

just letting you know

keep a sharp lookout for them, hopefully before december
there are some other surprises in the t-shirts too! some you will recognize and enjoy!

LMFAO
Vietvet
5 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
Svante Paabo may be a young earth creationist. With others he published: Natural Selection on the Olfactory Receptor Gene Family in Humans and Chimpanzees. http://linkinghub...07620138

"We suggest that, whereas most human OR
genes are under no or little evolutionary constraint,
others have important functions shared with the apes
and that a subset have evolved under positive selection
in humans."

@JVK

That is hardly the statement of a young earth creationist.

http://ac.els-cdn...46d11b5e
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
That is hardly the statement of a young earth creationist.


How would you know? Dobzhansky (1973) linked his creationist views via a single amino acid substitution and the constrained receptors via positive selection for food odors and pheromones.

See: 'Junk DNA' Used To Sort Species
http://www.asians...species/

...process of being trademarked by someone else who is capitalizing upon the phrase to make fun of creationists...


What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot would do that? The creationists will probably buy more of them to make fun of evolutionary theorists. I can picture Ken Nye wearing one at his next debate where he will probably link the information about viruses, which was provided by Jeffrey Tomkins, to Bibilical Genesis.

Let me know as soon as they are available. I will help you to market them as uniforms for uninformed theorists and informed creationists who know them.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
@JVK

"The 4 billion years is an error"

You wont directly defend your statement because to do so honestly would further damage your credibility, not that you have any to begin with.



JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
...would further damage your credibility, not that you have any to begin with.


Mazur mentions the folks who lack credibility. Inventing a ridiculous theory and teaching it to others does not gain you any credibility among serious scientists.

"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... The anglophone tradition was taught. I was taught, and so were my contemporaries, and so were the younger scientists. Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... No, it wasn't dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact."
http://www.huffin...211.html
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2015
Israeli Middle Schools School to Include Theory of Evolution
http://www.educat...olution/

Excerpt: "...learning about evolution is not the primary function of the decision, but rather to use it as a building block for students to learn more about their ecology."

Some schools focus on teaching facts to their students. Some of their students become serious scientists who are Combating Evolution to Fight Disease http://www.scienc...88.short

Some of their students became serious scientists several decades ago, and they have tried to provide facts about biologically-based cause and effect to other serious scientists.
Bacterial self-organization: co-enhancement of complexification and adaptability in a dynamic environment http://rsta.royal...abstract
Vietvet
5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2015
@JVK

"The 4 billion years is an error"

You're running scared.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2015
Some of their students become serious scientists who are Combating Evolution to Fight Disease http://www.scienc...88.short
lies, misinformation as well as piss-poor interpretations of actual science? FROM YOUR LINK
Molecular biology and evolutionary biology have been separate disciplines and scientific cultures: The former is mechanistic and focused on molecules; the latter is theoretical and focused on populations. However, these domains are beginning to converge in laboratories addressing molecular mechanisms that explain how evolutionary processes work, and bring these processes to bear on medical problems such as cancer and infectious disease. Each discipline can be viewed as a missing link in the other's description of biology, and in medicine.
in other words... the article talks about the JOINT efforts of two disciplines!

it doesn't say that belief in ONE is false or that evolution is not real

Vietvet is right!

You're running scared.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2015
The joint efforts of 2 disciplines led to the elimination of evidence from population genetics via experimental evidence of what occurs within the context of the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry.

The de novo creation of receptors that allow the entry of nutrients into cells must occur, and virus-driven mutations must lead to the genomic entropy linked to the creation of pseudogenes, when the experience-dependent de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes is no longer required to link ecological variation to ecological adaptations via epigenetically-effected metabolic networks and genetic networks.

The epigenetically-effected networks are linked to all morphological diversity and to all behavioral diversity in all genera via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in the context of their physiology of reproduction and cell type differentiation, which starts with RNA-mediated gene duplications.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2015
You're running scared.


I fear no evil that comes from the minds of biologically uninformed science idiots. Neither do other serious scientists who understand how cell type differentiation occurs.

See why:
https://www.faceb.../?type=1

https://www.faceb.../?type=1

and see:
https://www.faceb...f_t=like
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2015
Michael Skinner and his kind are running scared.

See: Environmental Epigenetics and a Unified Theory of the Molecular Aspects of Evolution: A Neo-Lamarckian Concept that Facilitates Neo-Darwinian Evolution
http://gbe.oxford...abstract

Excerpt: "Although the causal role of epimutations was not established in the Darwin's finch adaptive radiation (Skinner, et al. 2014b) or other models (Brennecke, et al. 2008; Gokhman, et al. 2014; Zeh, et al. 2009), the causal role of genome-wide genetic mutations has also not been established (Laland, et al. 2011)."

Anyone who claims Lenski's works established cause and effect via mutations is a biologically uninformed science idiot. Skinner's desperate attempt to change Larmarckism to neo-Larmarckism is fatally flawed.

He uses "epimutation" when serious scientists know the difference between mutations and epigenetically-effected RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2015
@JVK

You've repeatedly declared yourself to be a creationist. You've not answered why "The 4 billion years is an err". The only conclusion anyone can draw is that you are a young earth creationist' hence no respect for scientific evidence. It also shows you lack the courage of your convictions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
remember to choke on your own words
More from the blacklight power site:

"Q: Do hydrinos violate conservation of energy?
No. The hydrogen atom is stable to emitting a photon directly. But, an unstable hydrogen state forms when a hydrogen atom resonantly and nonradiative exchanges energy with another atom (a catalyst) capable of accepting energy in multiples of 27.2 eV. This process relies on multipole coupling between the hydrogen atom and the catalyst. The unstable state then emits further energy as radiation of a characteristic continuum profile as the electron drops into a lower energy state, in which the electron is closer to the proton, forming a higher binding energy hydrogen atom. Energy is conserved in this process. The resulting hydrino atom CANNOT BE CONVERTED into a normal hydrogen atom WITHOUT THE ADDITION of collisional energy to elevate the electron's energy by at least that released in the formation of the hydrino."
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
The hydrino is a stable energy state which cannot be reconverted to H without the addition of energy. This is stated many times on mills website. This doesnt describe perpetual motion because the process requires fuel in the form of water, also stated many times on the website.

The patent office apparently religated his theory to the 'perpetual motion' category because, like mainstream physics, the H ground state is assumed to be the lowest possible state.

This does not MEAN that mills is claiming perpetual motion, only that the PM bin was the only bin the patent office could throw his theory into.

Citing multiple websites which also call it PM doesnt make it true either.
the bulk of physicists
The bulk of them dont know about it and dont care.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
diverted how?
Our original discussion was about your ignorance of mills actual claims. Nowhere does he claim to get energy out from the retuen to a higher energy state. I provided quotes above to show you exactly how you misunderstood them.

So instead of addressing that you switched to how the entire physics community thinks the theory is crap. This has nothing to do with your ignorance of his theory beyond the fact that many of them dont understand it either for the same reasons.
I made the argument, supplied the evidence, proved you an idiot...
You provided evidence of your ignorance and the ignorance of a few such ignorant critics. Many of your refs are over a decade old, including the wiki ones.
NO ONE, has validated the claim
-More stumpy ignorance.
http://www.blackl...reports/

-which youve seen before and chosen to ignore.

How come?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2015
I ask the stump to provide a link to a previous thread which he has recently revisited, and he says this:
now you also want me to do all your work for you too?
OK so lets see what the stump is trying to hide...
your whole argument re: exothermic (and insistence that people don't know what it means) comes from your inability to read
So explain how I misread this which you wrote in the thread which you didnt want to provide a link to?
the introduction of low energy to somehow miraculously get large amounts of energy... and I am not thinking with my gut when I came up with this"

http://phys.org/n...ive.html
All 5 prior threads you made the same fallacious arguments against physics?
No I showed you how you misunderstood mills theory. For instance;

"the hydrino transitions to a final stable radius of ()1/ 1m+ that of H"

-This is a FRACTION. Also written 1/1+m that of H. The stable hydrino state is a FRACTION of H.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2015
Hey vietvet,

Whatsamatter gangbanger you dont understand it either? Or you dont think I have the riight of rebuttal?
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2015
You've not answered why "The 4 billion years is an err".


Theorists invented it, and have not supported it with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect. You simply do not understand my answer. Here it is again.

Excerpt: "Although the causal role of epimutations was not established in the Darwin's finch adaptive radiation (Skinner, et al. 2014b) or other models (Brennecke, et al. 2008; Gokhman, et al. 2014; Zeh, et al. 2009), the causal role of genome-wide genetic mutations has also not been established (Laland, et al. 2011)."

Because the causal role of genome-wide genetic mutations has not been established, they cannot be linked to the evolution of any species no matter how long a biologically uninformed science idiot thinks it might take a new one to evolve. If you think "The 4 billion years is NOT an err," please tell us the basis for your ridiculous thoughts.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2015
"While amino acids could be synthesised over 4 billion years ago, only oxidative metabolism allows for the synthesis of highly unsaturated fatty acids, thus producing novel lipid molecular species for specialised cell membranes."
http://www.ncbi.n...23206328

@JVK

Instead of deflection explain in your own words why 4 billion years is an error.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2015
The bacterial flagellum "re-evolved" over-the-weekend.
http://www.the-sc...ewiring/

Also, see: http://www.clinic...t/7/1/19
These results indicate that tightly regulated epigenetic modifications during long-term culture contribute to changes in nuclear organization and gene expression.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2015
I ask the stump to provide a link to a previous thread which he has recently revisited, and he says this:
now you also want me to do all your work for you too?
@ottoTROLL
and apparently, in all 5 of those threads, you missed your own comment, which i posted verbatim, when you were asked the very same question? ROTFLMFAO
the irony!
what the stump is trying to hide
i wasn't trying to hide anything: after all, i wanted YOU to actually link them here, and i knew you would

what do those links say? they all say the SAME thing: Otto is taking links from blacklight power as verbatim source material whether they are validated or not, and making ASSumptions (valid or not) while promoting a pseudoscience (which i've already proven, above AND in those threads!)

http://goodmath.s...pottery/

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2015
@ottoTROLING cont'd
but lets look at your argument (again)-you quote this from blacklight power
"Q: Do hydrinos violate conservation of energy?No
while FAILING to admit that, even in Mills own words (above- various threads), he states that he gets power from the drop TO hydrino, and then the return to known stable ground (as pointed out above, and in all 5 threads), this is not just my interpretation of it, but of multiple physicists who actually do this stuff for a living... but instead of actually listening to the people who got the patent pulled, you are listening to the CON MAN who perpetuated this scam!
ok, there is plenty of egg on your face for that one, and another few for this comment
The bulk of them dont know about it and dont care
they absolutely do know/care, as it is published in multiple physics mags, as i pointed out (again above)

but you even missed where this all started, didn't you, basement boy? not the thread you linked

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2015
cont'd @ottoTROLLING
lets not stop there with actual FACTS... lets see what else you claim, sans evidence
So explain how I misread this which you wrote in the thread which you didnt want to provide a link to?
actually, if you read the thread, you will see that i DID provide links that you are ignoring

but the argument started much earlier, basement boy: http://phys.org/n...fic.html

That is where you [wrongly] started your "exothermic" argument without being able to comprehend the links i gave!

the links you ignored there are directly related fat man... try reading them again:
https://en.wikipe...ficiency

http://www.consum...ses.html

your entire argument is circular & continually refers to the same FAILED argument which is debunked above, as well as in the links
it started/continues as my original claim: hydrino theory is perpetual motion
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2015
@last point @otto-in-momma's-basement
I showed you how you misunderstood mills theory
this is a good ending topic because you actually keep proving MY point, which is this:
1- you don't understand mills papers on hydrino's

2- the debunked hydrino papers have been proven to demonstrate a perpetual motion machine by numerous physicists

3- your repetitious linking to mills site and no other non-biased objective source proves you got CONNED

4- you absolutely proved MY points re: hydrino's as well as your inability to comprehend even the simple pages google gives you re: exothermic reactions as well as the links i gave you about how we get energy from reactions

and you are simply repeating the same circular argument with no evidence, ad nauseum!

How gutless. How pathetic. How like you, otto

until there is something more relevant: stay stupid and pretend you're not. it suits you

i got better things to do
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2015
The bacterial flagellum "re-evolved" over-the-weekend
@jk
just because you don't understand it doesn't mean no one understands it... you should have stayed in college and learned a little something about biology
Theorists invented it, and have not supported it with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect. You simply do not understand my answer
no, that's not it at all... you are trying to divert from the question

Why is that? is it that you don't want to freely admit your religious beliefs? i don't know why... you link them all over your personal web-site's (which is WHY they're considered PSEUDOSCIENCE and not actual science)

the question Vietvet asked was simple:

explain in your own words why 4 billion years is an error.
You've repeatedly declared yourself to be a creationist. You've not answered why "The 4 billion years is an err".
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2015
Plasma cells were created when the immune system was exposed to pathogens such as viruses or bacteria. https://www.faceb.../?type=1

How long did it take evolution to create the plasma cells that were required to respond to the pathogens? How long did it take for the pathogens, to evolve? The bacterial flagellum "re-evolved" in 4 days. What experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect supports the utter nonsense of biologically uninformed science idiots who claim the 4 billion years is not an error?

See also:
http://onlinelibr....60/full
http://jem.rupres...abstract
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2015
The amino acid transporter SLC6A15 is a regulator of hippocampal neurochemistry and behavior
http://www.scienc...15002058

My comment: We again see how the misplaced focus on genes has skewed the entirety of what might otherwise have been rapid progress towards linking RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and RNA-mediated gene duplication from nutritional epigenetics to pharmacogenomics in the context of chromosomal rearrangements, pathology, and healthy longevity -- without the pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and neo-Darwinian theories.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.