Natural Science Forum / Biology / Biology / April 2008

Let me try to explain. I am amassing a book which incorporates some
old posts of mine
from 1993 to 2008 on the Internet. So in the organizing of this book I
need to use and
rewrite previous posts. This is the first edition of this book and
will not be a smooth and
flowing book but initially be a piled up presentation. In the 2nd and
3rd editions I should
be striving for smooth flow.

-------------------------------------------------------------
From: arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,soc.history.science,sci.bio.misc
Subject: Proving Darwin Evolution is a fake Re: test for Darwin
Evolution theory
Date: 1 Aug 1999 00:51:30 GMT
Organization: Proving Darwin Evolution is a fake theory
Lines: 82
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7o05mi$8h1$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (7nq8gk$q1c$1@usenet48.supernews.com>
(37A198F8.7F536EA3@mizi.co.kr>
(7ntjle$8qs$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7ntkem$8om$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(srcZoMG00Ui708vgA0@andrew.cmu.edu>
(7o02ef$5us$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

The heart of Darwin Evolution is "differential reproductive success"
commonly known as Natural Selection. It revolves around sexual
reproduction. Natural Selection is the engine for Darwin Evolution.
So,
how to disprove Darwin Evolution?

Differential Reproductive Success implies
(1) that a sex reproducing environment has more "evolution going on"
than a nonsex reproducing environment.
(2) that in an environment where there is no reproduction going on
then
there is no evolution going on.
(3) that there are gradients of evolution depending upon the various
types of reproduction going on. If the reproduction is sexual then
evolution is swift, and swifter in populations that reproduce quickly
regardless of whether sexual or asexual. But how about a
sex-manipulated environment or a cloned environment.
(4) evolution gradients would have the following from the fastest
evolution to the slowest evolution:

i) large populations, quick time, sexual reproduction
ii) large populations, quick time, asexual reproduction
iii) small populations, quick time, sexual reproduction
iv) small populations, quick time, asexual reproduction
v) small populations, slow time, sexual reproduction
vi) small populations, slow time, asexual reproduction
vii) cloning

Paleontology should show that cloning becomes less and less with time
in all species. If Darwin Evolution were true, then cloning and
homosexuality and altruism should never be on the rise. Cloning and
homosexuality and altruism, if Darwin Evolution were true should be
rare and mutations. But they should never be increasing.

What does the world science record show?

It shows that there exists many species dependent upon cloning and
that cloning is successful in many species. In fact, human cloning is
soon to appear and to accelerate. If Darwin Evolution were true, then
cloning would have and should have gone extinct before the dinosaurs
and that only isolated mutation incidents of cloning should ever
appear
in species. But the world is at the verge of seeing a massive
acceleration of cloning.

And homosexuality and altruism should only be rare incidents and that
Darwin Evolution would have decreased the numbers of these. What does
the world record show? It shows a rise in homosexuality and altruism.

In the future, when human cloning is the preferred method. It is
going to be difficult to say that Darwin Evolution applies to
humanity,
since its main mechanism of differential reproductive success no
longer
applies to the majority of humanity. Since it no longer applies for
specific cases means that Darwin Evolution is not a "law of science"
but an algorithm, a rule that is useful but not a scientific law.

I need to discuss more about cloning reproduction and its
relationship to Darwin Evolution. Cloning is the least dynamic of the
Differential Reproductive Success Gradient enumerated above. Yet
cloning is the preferred method in many species. If Darwin Evolution
were true, then cloning should never be on the upswing for any
species,
but rather that in paleological time Darwin Evolution would have
extincted cloning process and replaced them with species that had a
more favorable Differential Reproductive Success gradient.

Altruism behavior is a crack in Darwin Evolution theory, and 20th
century biologists failed in reconciling the two.

Homosexuality is a crack in Darwin Evolution theory which predicts
that it would decrease in frequency and be tallied as a rare mutation.
Instead homosexuality is on the increase in many species and the
percentage of homosexual to sexual individuals is a large percentage.
Darwin Evolution theory if true should and must supply a Bell-curve
statistic of a percentage of homosexuals in a species wherein if more
than the theory is a fake.

Cloning as a means of reproduction should always be on the wane if
Darwin Evolution theory is correct. The evidence points to the
opposite. Many species in the world rely solely on cloning and that
cloning in general is waxing increase.

Darwin Evolution by 1990s with the Atom Totality theory and Quantum
Mechanics (QM) and specifically the Bell Inequality shows that QM is
on
the large scale. Bell Inequality implies superdeterminism.
Superdeterminism implies Darwin Evolution is a fake theory.

-------------------------------------------------------------
From: arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.electromag,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: biology compared to physics; Re: Light Wave equals Perfect
DNA
Date: 1 Aug 1999 01:17:03 GMT
Organization: why so few if any universal laws in biology
Lines: 41
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7o076f$cnf$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (7nq8gk$q1c$1@usenet48.supernews.com>
(7nr2uk$3lq$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (7nr2uk$3lq$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

And this makes sense with the empirical data. We notice that in
biology
we seldom if ever have any universal laws, unlike particle physics. In
particle physics we have such universal laws as Coulomb force,
Maxwell's Equations, gravity, Quantum Mechanics etc. Do we have any
universal laws for biology? About the only two I can think of is the
Cell Theory and the theory of DNA/RNA as the basis of life.

So the above quote agrees with the empirical data that because biology
is predominantly the wave-nature of physics means that it is extremely
difficult to have universal laws since waves are broad and not
narrowly
defined. That a wave has alot of room for exceptions to the rule. The
particle-nature of physics is narrowly confined and so "universal
laws"
can be formulated and accepted.

Keep in mind that no matter how narrowly confined a particle aspect
of nature has a wave aspect and so the Universiality of universal law
is not 100%. This means that no matter how universal one believes
their
physics theory to be true, it is not 100% true but has small cracks in
it. And the reason being is because the wave nature of reality exists
in all matter. So, then as an example, Coulomb force law as a
universal
law of physics maybe 99% true, but has a 1% exceptions to the Coulomb
law wherein some situations the Coulomb law just does not apply.

And the reason that biology seldom has any universal laws, unlike
physics which abounds in universal laws is because the subject of
biology is preponderantly or predominantly dealing with the Wave-
Nature
of physics. And most of physics before the 20th century dealt with
objects that were predominantly the Particle-Nature of physics such as
the Coulomb force law and its universiality could be pegged at almost
100% with no apparent exceptions to its bid as a universal law
(however
there are some since the wave-nature exists in tiny amount)

I am glad to have clarified the relationship of the subject of
biology to the subject of physics. Complementarity and subset,
especially complementarity is deep and profound.

-------------------------------------------------------------
From: arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: Proving Darwin Evolution is a fake, an algorithm at best
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 18:21:33 GMT
Organization: ## Whole universe is just one big atom
Message-ID: (rq941dhj3recq6@news.supernews.com>
Lines: 15

Yesterday I listed in order of magnitude where Darwin Evolution
and its many variants such as the Modern Synthesis Evolution
form a gradient of evolution rates. The topmost rate would be
sexual reproduction of a large population. The slowest rate
would be cloning of a small population.

Biology researchers can put numbers to these gradient rates
and compare the numbers with the experiments.

If Darwin Evolution is a true theory of science, then cloning
of small populations would have gone extinct in paleontology.
But if there existed in present day species whose dominant
form of reproduction is cloning, those species would tend
towards extinction. But we see the opposite to be true, an
example is the cloning in aspen trees.

And we see the recent advances in mammalian cloning performed
by human science research.

Human cloning itself is possible. But if the Darwin Evolution
theory is correct, cloning should not even exist as a
"possibility" let alone a reality. Call it cloning reality
that of "cloning kinetics" and call cloning as a possibility
that as "cloning potential". Cloning potential such as a
million degree Kelvin temperature superconductor is a
possibility. But is a superconductor possible in reality?
No. And if Darwin Evolution theory is true and correct, is
mammalian cloning possible in reality? No, because the
engine of Darwin Evolution is that of "differential
reproductive success". If the world contains dynamics where
NONdifferential-reproductive-success, the antithesis of the
Darwin program exists in reality, well, Darwin Evolution
is a fake theory.

What I am saying today, is that Nature displays in reality,
dynamics that are counter to the tenets of Darwin Evolution
theory.

Ohm's law of physics is a algorithm. Ohms law is true for
only a small bandwidth of parameters. Darwin Evolution is
another algorithm of science, and it, like Ohms law is true
for only a small bandwidth of parameters. Evolution is a
useful tool, no doubt about its usefulness for a small
bandwidth of parameters. But Darwin Evolution is a fake theory,
a fake concept when applied beyond its limited capabilities.

Newtonian Mechanics is perhaps our most famous algorithm.
It is fake physics but useful as a tool. The true physics
that replaced Newtonian Mechanics is Quantum Mechanics. Now
it is time that Darwin Evolution theory be replaced by the
Atom Totality theory with Quantum Mechanics and the Bell
Inequality with Superdeterminism. Atom

-------------------------------------------------------------
From: arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Complementary principle Re: biology compared to physics;
Re: Light Wave equals Perfect DNA
Date: 1 Aug 1999 20:24:20 GMT
Organization: Complementary Principle and whether anything
comes 100% to 0%
Lines: 68
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7o2adk$a0o$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (7nq8gk$q1c$1@usenet48.supernews.com>
(7nr2uk$3lq$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7o076f$cnf$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  (7o0uqm$7qu$4@netnews.upenn.edu>

In article (7o0uqm$7qu$4@netnews.upenn.edu>
rnyberg@force.stwing.upenn.edu (Roy Nyberg) writes:

When I discuss Complementary Principle of Quantum Mechanics and
elaborate on the concept of complementarity I shall give a fuller and
richer discussion than here.

The Uncertainty Principle, the Exclusion Principle and the
Complimentarity Principle of Quantum Mechanics are
embodiments/characteristics of atoms and their subatomic particles.
The
electron is the Uncertainty Principle, and the electron is the
Exclusion Principle and the electron is the Complimentarity principle.

When we go to measure a particle aspect of nature, we cannot
simultaneously measure the wave aspect of that piece of nature. But
the
two exist and are complements.

Can we measure the particle aspect of nature such that it is 50% of
the measured observation and the wave aspect of that same piece of
nature such that it comprises the other 50%? Can we set up a
double-slit experiment or a modified double slit experiment so that we
can observe Nature as 50% particle and 50% wave? Or do the Quantum
Mechanical principles allow only an observation of 100% particle and
0%
wave, or, 100% wave and 0% particle?

This line of research would also question whether a world of
superdeterminism has to be 100% deterministic with 0% free-will. But
that is another area to explore later.

I believe the answer is that there exists nothing in the entire
universe that is 100% one thing and 0% the other. I believe that
Complementary Principle implies that complements are never 100% one
thing with the other thing at 0%.

I believe the prime-root of the Complementary Principle is the Proton
to Electron relationship. I believe the Proton is the complement to
the
Electron.
And so, as I stated above, that these principles of Quantum Mechanics
are the Electron and are the Proton and are the Atoms. That the
relationship of Complementarity is never one of 100% one thing to 0%
of
the other.

Mass is a complement to Charge. Do we ever have the mass at 0% and
the
energy at 100%. Answer is no. And recently the neutrino was determined
to have a mass relationship of 0.05 eV to the Electron mass of 511,000
eV. So, what numbers can one apply to the observable relationship of
Wave Nature to Particle Nature.

One cannot say that it is 100% Wave to 0% Particle. Rather instead,
as with the numbers of 511000/511000.05 = 99.9999902% wave to a tiny
percent of particle.

This principle extends to even the Laws of Physics, in that they can
be 99% true but retain a small percentage of being "not applicable"
that is a nice way of saying that they are false in a small domain.
So,
what we think of as absolute truth, or universal laws, are really not
absolute or universal. That their truth domain can be 99% but possess
a
range of not applying. Universal laws of physics are not 100% truths,
not absolute truths, but only a range of truth. And we see this all
the
time in what is experimentally verified with Quantum Tunnelling.
Quantum Tunnelling is a concept that simply means a conversion of the
wave to particle or the conversion of the particle to wave during the
experiment.

More later...

-------------------------------------------------------------

From: arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: soc.history.science,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Comparing the world's greatest algorithms, ie, fake theories
Date: 1 Aug 1999 21:29:49 GMT
Organization: Comparing the fake theories in science history
Lines: 107
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7o2e8d$cn1$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (7nq8gk$q1c$1@usenet48.supernews.com>
(7nr2uk$3lq$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7o076f$cnf$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> (7o0uqm$7qu$4@netnews.upenn.edu>
(7o2adk$a0o$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

Some would say that the ranking of the greatest science fake theories
should be in terms of duration, how long they were accepted by the
world at large. That would be a practical ranking. But I myself am
more
inclined to make a ranking according to "usefulness" of the fake
theory
or politely called an algorithm.

First I need to list some of the most famous fake theories of science.
Here is a partial listing.

1 Astrology
2 Geocentric theory
3 Epicycle theory
4 Bleeding in medicine
5 Alchemy
6 Newtonian Mechanics

7 Uniformitarianism principle in geology
8 Phlogiston theory
9 Ohm's Law
10 Darwin Evolution
11 General Relativity
12 Steady State theory
13 Big Bang theory
14 Neutron star theory
15 Black hole theory
16 BCS superconductivity theory
17 Standard Model theory in particle physics (perhaps the only theory
ever modest enough to call itself a "model" and not a theory in the
naming)
18 Quark theory

One feature about this list of fake science theories is that many of
them were important tools for the eventual discovery of the true
theory
behind these subjects.

A historian of science may well argue that it was essential to have
Newtonian Mechanics before the real-true science of Quantum Mechanics
emerged to replace Newtonian Mechanics. And Newtonian Mechanics, like
Ohm's law are algorithms, easy tools for approximations, but which do
not capture the fuller truth or reality that Quantum Mechanics
captures. One can analogize with the slide-rule in calculating a 1,000
place number compared to the state of the art supercomputer. Newtonian
Mechanics like the slide rule gives a crude first approximation to
many
physics phenomenon, but one needs Quantum Mechanics to do the best
job.

So, Newtonian Mechanics stands out as different from the other fakes
in
that list above. And Ohm's Law can be well-defined as to have the
qualities of physics universal law. But other theories in that list
are
so fakish that they ceased to have any tool value. Epicycles in
astronomy and bleeding in medicine have no tool value towards their
science and are anti-science.

And the most recent theories on that list above of fake theories are
so recent that they serve mostly as exotic ideas that makes for good
commercial bleeding of the general publics wallets via the buying of
books and watching movies of these science fiction. Star Trek sucked
into a black hole or neutron star or wormhole. People are con-artist
suckered by these science fake theories.

But Darwin Evolution is a fake theory but unlike Newtonian Mechanics,
Darwin Evolution is not a first approximation and is not needed to
build the next true biology theory that will replace Darwin Evolution.

Darwin Evolution has been replaced by Atom Totality theory which
implies Quantum Mechanics/Bell Inequality/Superdeterminism.

So, unlike Quantum Mechanics having replaced Newtonian Mechanics but
NM acting as a first approximation tool, Darwin Evolution does not
fulfill any approximation tool for its replacement of
Superdeterminism.
In other words, like epicycles in astronomy or bleeding in medicine,
we
have to chuck the whole entire fake theory out.

So, what was the historical purpose or significance of Darwin
Evolution theory? That is easy to answer. All we have to do is study
the history of the Uniformitarianism principle in geology to
understand
why Darwin Evolution theory arose in history. Uniformitarianism
occurred in order to remove religion out of geology. Once religion
evacuated geology and allowed geology to mature into a science, then
the principle of uniformitarianism was proclaimed and seen as the fake
it was. It served only a utilitarian purpose, remove religion out of
geology. Likewise in the history of science, Darwin Evolution is a
fake
theory, but it was useful in getting religion out of biology.

But the surprizing development with Darwin Evolution and its
replacement as compared to Newtonian Mechanics and its replacement
Quantum Mechanics. One could say that Newtonian Mechanics flowed into
the development of QM. That NM helped to discover QM and that NM is a
subset of a gross approximation of parts of QM.

But what replaces Darwin Evolution is Superdeterminism in an Atom
Totality. Unlike a close relationship of NM to QM, Darwin Evolution is
antithetical towards Superdeterminism in an Atom Totality. You see,
Darwin Evolution usefullness is to get religion out of biology. But if
you take the Atom Totality as God, then in Superdeterminism there is
little free-will and hence most of life is puppet action.

In physics we can still retain and make use of NM in many cases, but
in biology we cannot make use of Darwin Evolution replaced by the true
biology theory of Superdeterminism. So, Darwin Evolution did its job
of
removing religion out of biology, but the true theory that replaces
Darwin Evolution injects a physics-god, the Atom Totality.

I could spend the entire rest of my life discussing the science fake
theories and the history of science, but such an adventure is not the
best use of time for the King of Science...
-------------------------------------------------------------

From: arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,soc.history.science,sci.bio.misc
Subject: Reproduction gradients Re: Proving Darwin Evolution is a fake
Date: 2 Aug 1999 19:42:20 GMT
Organization: proving Darwin Evolution is a fake
Lines: 87
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7o4sas$g34$2@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (37A198F8.7F536EA3@mizi.co.kr>
(7ntjle$8qs$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7ntkem$8om$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(srcZoMG00Ui708vgA0@andrew.cmu.edu>
(7o02ef$5us$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> (7o05mi$8h1$1@dartvax.t>
(7o4s4r$g34$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (7o05mi$8h1$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

First we need to clearly define sexual and asexual reproduction. We
know of mitosis and meiosis. And that mitosis is identical twins.

But is mammalian cloning such as human cloning of the future, is that
mitosis or a variant of mitosis?

So for the above numbers gradient we need to precisely define the
world's different types of reproduction. Once well defined, then
numbers can be given to the above list. And once numbers are attached
then field research would confirm or deny those numbers gradients.

It is my hunch that Darwin Evolution will fail miserably upon
correlation of numbers data with field research data.

I already know that Darwin Evolution is a fake theory from applying
Quantum Mechanics physics. Atom Totality theory implies Quantum
Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics implies the Bell Inequality. The Bell
Inequality implies Superdeterminism. Superdeterminism implies that
both
the large-scale universe and small scale universe operate by
deterministic means. Deterministic means implies little to no
free-will, and implies the universe operates with little to no chance
and little to no probability.
Darwin Evolution and all variants of Darwin Evolution cannot exist in
a world operated by Superdeterminism.
The Bell Inequality coupled with the Atom Totality theory proved that
Darwin Evolution is a fake theory.

So why am I seeking further proof? Easy, because biologists are too
dumb to understand Quantum Mechanics. Of these biologists: Mayr,
Wilson, Dawkins, Gould, not a one of them knows enough about Quantum
Mechanics, Bell Inequality, or even the Schrodinger Equation to be
able
to relate biology to modern day physics. These biologists career has
mostly involved writing money-grub books on biology that enriches
their
pocketbooks. They have performed one useful service to biology in that
they have helped to eradicate religion out of biology. But what a
price
to pay to these so-called biologists because they have gotten rich
from
their biology-science-fiction books.

Since they are too dumb to understand Quantum Mechanics and its
implications. Well, Archimedes Plutonium has to go right inside Darwin
Evolution and tear it to pieces. It is a fake and so tearing Darwin
Evolution theory to pieces should be easy. Easy, because Darwin
Evolution implies homosexuality should decrease and never increase.
Easy because Darwin Evolution implies Altruism should decrease and
never increase. Easy because Darwin Evolution implies that sexual
reproduction should increase and never decrease, concomitantly,
asexual
reproduction such as cloning should decrease and never increase.

In the numbers data a brilliant scientist will realize that there is
a correlation also between size of organisms and their means of
reproduction. Can you have bacteria reproducing sexually? So this
correlation of size will go into the gradient numbers data above.

But Darwin Evolution if it were true, by 1999 the planet Earth would
seldom if ever have any incidents of homosexuality. It can occur as a
mutation, a rare incident. But in 1999 we see a large frequency of
homosexuality, not only in humans but in other species. If Darwin
evolution were true, we would seldom see altruistic behaviour, but
there exists alot of this behaviour. And if Darwin Evolution were
true,
by 1999, few incidents of cloning in any species would exist, but we
see many species where cloning is the major form of reproduction such
as ants, bees, aspen trees etc. And soon, humanity itself will have
human cloning.

The foundation of Darwin Evolution is Differential Reproductive
Success, also known as Natural Selection. Natural Selection implies
that sexual reproduction of large populations is superior to asexual
and cloning reproduction of equal population equal time. To prove that
Darwin Evolution is a fake theory, or an algorithm at best. And to
satisfy biologists who are too dumb to understand real science such as
Quantum Mechanics. Then, what I propose is the research of the above
to
show that the numbers gradients do not fit the Darwin Evolution
theory.
And since the numbers will not fit the observations, Darwin Evolution
is a fake science theory.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: archimedes_plutonium@my-deja.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: soc.history.science,sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Uniformity of geology compared to Darwin Evolution of
biology Re: Comparing the world's greatest algorithms, ie, fake
theories
Date: 3 Aug 1999 03:06:50 GMT
Organization: biologists will not admit that Darwin Evolution is died
until the last bucks are sucked out
Lines: 113
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7o5mca$qpk$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (7nq8gk$q1c$1@usenet48.supernews.com>
(7nr2uk$3lq$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7o076f$cnf$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> (7o0uqm$7qu$4@netnews.upenn.edu>
(7o2adk$a0o$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7o2e8d$cn1$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

There are patterns in the history of science as well as patterns in
the
history of humanity. All of history has progressive patterns. History
itself is a physics experiment that is completed, and the overriding
characteristic of science is that of pattern. The Second World War was
not identical to the First World War but there are patterns in both
that are remarkably similar. Patterns that repeat but have differences
that is what progressive patterns means. As I wrote a long time ago on
History = physics experiment completed that the block of patterns
repeats but has a spice kicker thrown in, like a Kant Categorical
Imperative, a historical block of the past repeats in fair amount in a
future block of time only there is a large element of improvement in
that future historical block which is a patterned repeat of a former
past block of history. Example, the US Revolutionary War is a
patterned
repeat block of history of the Vietnam War. Many similarities and a
spice-kicker improvement.

So, what science theory is a patterned similar repeat of the Darwin
Evolution theory? Is it epicycle theory? Or is it Aether theory? Or
Alchemy?

No. I believe the history-of-science repeating block that matches
more
closely the Darwin theory of Evolution than any other history of
science block is the Principle of Uniformity in geology.

Geology by the 1830s was ruled by religion and religious
catastrophies such as the biblical Flood. In order to remove religion
out of the science of geology, scientists of the late 1700s and up
until the middle 1800s had to come up with an idea to eradicate the
religions out of geology. Thus was born the Principle of Uniformity.

By the later 1800s and throughout the 1900s it was biologys turn to
eradicate and exspunge and exspurgate religion out of its science in
order for the science to go anywhere and to begin to grow.

Sorry, but I was not alive in the 1830s to eyewitness a detailed
account of the geologists of that timeframe and how they successfully
removed the religionist out of their science. But applying my
History-repeats in blocks, I have some hunches of what went on,
comparing my eyewitness of Darwin Evolution exspunging religion out of
biology.

Questions:

1) Did the geologists of Uniformity days, did they write alot of books
and magazine articles on Uniformity. Witness the flooding of the
biology section with Darwin Evolution. Of course the religionists have
their Bibles that already floods the bookshelves and newstands. So,
did
the geologists of the 1800s need to flood the bookshelves and
newstands?

2) Did the geologists of Uniformity days get rich off of the
Uniformity
principle. I guess I am talking about Mr. Whewell, Mr. Hutton, Mr.
Lyell and others. I notice that Mr. Gould, Mr. Mayr, Mr. Wilson, Mr.
Dawkins getting rich off of their flooding of the bookshelves and
newstands of Darwin Evolution.

3) Once the geologists removed the religionists out of their science,
then the Principle of Uniformity was shown to be a mere algorithm. Can
some briefly recount how this proving or showing it to be an algorithm
went? Contrasting biology by 1999, no biologist other than Archimedes
Plutonium has even realized that Darwin Evolution, just like
Uniformity
Principle in geology is nothing but an algorithm (a fake science
theory). I make note however, that many philosophers have realized
that
Darwin Evolution is a circular argument in that they correctly seen
that the "fittest fit". In sum total briefness, that is what Darwin
Evolution really is all about, "the fittest fit".

4) With Darwin Evolution, however, there was Quantum Mechanics and
then
the Bell Inequality which showed that QM was not only on the small
scale but the scale of the universe-- ie, the large scale where Darwin
Evolution operates. But there was no Atom Totality theory until 1990
to
anchor Bell Inequality with its Superdeterminism implications.
 So, question, how did the Uniformity geologists admit to Uniformity
being just an algorithm. Were these geologists so noble of scientists
that once they saw the religionist get out of their science that they
made public announcement that the Principle of Uniformity was a mere
algorithm? It would be nice if that was the actual history but I tend
to think that scientists are not that honest and noble to tell the
truth but rather instead milked Uniformity for all its money worth.
Perhaps it was a religionist camp that showed that Uniformity
Principle
was a mere algorithm. Please, someone help me on the history of
Uniformity. How was it uncovered to be a fake principle/theory?

5) The fight to get religion out of biology was a worse fight than
that
held in geology. By 1990s there are still clarion calls to introduce
religion into the school education of biology. Thus, Darwin Evolution
had performed a worthy task of nearly eradicating most religions out
of
biology. But, by the 1990s a great new theory appeared that will
eventually sink Darwin Evolution into the status of algorithm or fake
science. This great new theory is the Atom Totality theory based on
Quantum Mechanics. It is the logical completion of Earth's oldest and
greatest science theory. The Atomic Theory of Democritus. The one
science theory that basically has not changed, but elaborated.
Now, can someone tell me if Uniformity Principle needed some coaxing
from another theory in order for geologists of the 1800s to announce
that Uniformity was a algorithm or a fake science theory?

--- quoting Encycl Britannica 1992 ---
In contrast to the catastrophic view of geology, the principle of
uniformity postulates that phenomena displayed in the rocks may be
entirely accounted for by geologic processes that continue to operate
at the present day-- in other words, the present is the key to the
past. This principle is fundamental to geologic thinking and underlies
the whole development of the science of geology. The expression
uniformitarianism, however, has passed into history, for the
controversy between catastrophists and uniformitarians has largely
died.
Geology as an applied science draws on the other sciences, but in the
early 19th century geologic discovery had outrun the physics and
chemistry of the day. As geologic phenomena became explicable in terms
of advancing physics, chemistry, and biology, the reality of the
principle of uniformity as a major philosophical tenet of geology
became established and the controversy ended.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: archimedes_plutonium@my-deja.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.physics,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: a test for Darwin Evolution theory Re: desire for
knowledge and understanding is rooted in desire sex & food
Date: 5 Aug 1999 03:41:20 GMT
Organization: Darwin Evolution just an algorithm
Lines: 111
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7ob150$aiq$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (37A198F8.7F536EA3@mizi.co.kr>
(7ntjle$8qs$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7ntkem$8om$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(srcZoMG00Ui708vgA0@andrew.cmu.edu>
(7o02ef$5us$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(krcu0rW00UwH0OOgI0@andrew.cmu.edu> (7o (7oaoso$bqa$1@nnrp1.d.

In article (7oaoso$bqa$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
andysch@my-deja.com writes:

Algorithms such as the Principle of Uniformity in geology have a
purpose for appearing in the science of geology. Its purpose was to
eradicate the religionists of their Flood of their dating the Earth to
4000 BC etc. Once the job of eradicating the religionists out of
geology, then the need or use for this "philosophical principle such
as
Uniformitarianism" was dropped out of science. And, Darwin Evolution
is
really just another extension of the Uniformitarianism Principle, in
that the progression of life is step by step from the past to the
present.

Darwin Evolution is just another algorithm whose purpose and use was
to eradicate the religionists out of the subject of biology. Trouble
by
1990s with Darwin Evolution is that the biologists and physicists
failed to recognize that Quantum Mechanics with the Bell Inequality
coupled with Atom Totality theory disproved Darwin Evolution.
Biologists of the 20th century are sticking to Darwin Evolution in the
same fanatical manner that religionists stuck to their Creation
picture
and Flood picture.

In the above where DNA analysis is discussed and that humans share
98% DNA with chimps, is a part of an Algorithm where the algorithm is
partially successful. Darwin Evolution, although a fake science is
useful in hinting at _some truths_ Same as Uniformity having the
ability to hint at some truths. Uniformity hints that geologic
processes in action now were similar to those processes of the past.
But the hinting at truths does not make a science theory.

What Chris Franks is unable to see, is that in an Atom Totality
theory with Superdeterminism, that this theory explains the Creation
of
life in the first place with that of stopped energetic photons whose
internals has the DNA coding and can turn into instant life. This not
only happened 4 billion years ago on Earth but occurrs continually. In
the Atom Totality theory, a brand new virus never evolved from any
other virus or past creature on Earth can suddenly appear from a
stopped energetic photon. Who knows, perhaps the AIDS virus never
evolved from any line of organisms but was a photon creation of new
life on Earth. This is something far beyond Darwin Evolution.

Atom Totality with Superdeterminism actually controls mutations
themselves. That is a new concept for Darwin Evolutionist. Controlled
mutations. For there is no such thing as controlled mutations in
Darwin
Evolution which relies so much on chance probabilities. In
Superdeterminism a energetic photon whose mission it is (targetted by
the Protons of 231Pu) to change the DNA of a particular organism and
cause a beneficial mutation, is easily done.

Darwin Evolutionists could never explain the beginning of life
itself. Could never explain the appearance of new life that had not
come from other life forms. Could never explain the many beneficial
coincidences found in paleontology.

Also, just as a photon creates new life, an energetic photon can stop
inside the nucleus of a already existing life and alter that cell.
Thus, we have a new form of orderly-mutation in the Atom Totality
theory. This is important for such things as the preponderance of
Coincidences such as wheat and humans. In an Atom Totality theory with
Superdeterminism there are no coincidences, no chance luck or
probabilities. It is hard for Darwin Evolution to explain all of the
many fantastic strokes of luck in the progression of life.

And again, Darwin Evolution is utterly silent as to the first forms
of life. It ugly science to impute a Darwin Evolution mechanism to
nonliving substances, yet these nonliving substances eventually
becomes
the first life. So where does a Darwin Evolution mechanism start to
become the mechanism for this "first life". Darwin Evolution theory is
very ugly science with the first life on Earth. But the Atom Totality
theory with Superdeterminism blends nonlife with life and so there are
no gaps.

And also, Darwin Evolutionists have an extremely difficult time in
explaining why their mechanism is variable, in that it goes fast some
times and very slow other times. As to say that the overall
environment
changes fast and changes slowly. They have come up with a concept of
Punctuated Equilibrium. This reminds one of the epicycles -- more
circles inside of circles in order to save appearances and to save the
fake theory.

In an Atom Totality theory with Superdeterminism there is built
within
it a variable mechanism of change. Because in Superdeterminism the
whole biosphere is affected by change, but not in Darwin Evolution
with
its geographic isolation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: plutonium_archimedes@yahoo.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.physics,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: a test for Darwin Evolution theory Re: desire for
knowledge and understanding is rooted in desire sex & food
Date: 5 Aug 1999 04:09:12 GMT
Organization: Pu
Lines: 54
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7ob2p8$dbr$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (7ntjle$8qs$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7ntkem$8om$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(srcZoMG00Ui708vgA0@andrew.cmu.edu>
(7o02ef$5us$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(krcu0rW00UwH0OOgI0@andrew.cmu.edu> (7o (7oaoso$bqa$1@nnrp1.d.>
(7ob150$aiq$1@dartvax.dartmh

In article (7ob150$aiq$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
archimedes_plutonium@my-deja.com (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

After having written the above, I realized that the quickest way to
show that biology community that Darwin Evolution is a fake theory is
to show new life on Earth that never evolved from any existing life,
but rather was created spontaneously. Created from an energetic
stopped
photon whose internal parts has DNA coding and has become a new form
of
life on Earth.

Now there is one problem with this experiment in that the doubters
will
claim that the new life did not come from a stopped photon but was in
that vicinity.

And another trouble is that it is very difficult to isolate any part
of
Earth such that it is 100% free of life, and then to eye witness a new
form of life created spontaneously. In other words, it is not easy to
spot and verify newly created life.

But, there is one avenue of experimental advantage. Take for example
the AIDS virus. Does the AIDS virus have an evolutionary chain of
descendents? If not, then it is highly likely that the AIDS virus was
a
newly created lifeform from photons.

And another help in experimental verification, is the newness of many
disease causing microorganisms. AIDS is a 20th century phenomenon and
also prion disease. In the next century, should we encounter new
diseases that were unknown before and whose causitive agent has no
descendents. Such encounters lend credence to the idea that some new
life forms are Created spontaneously from stopped photons and not
evolved from past hereditary lines.

For me the Darwin Evolution theory was easily disproved with the Bell
Inequality of Quantum Mechanics. Those two theories/experiments are
contradictory. I would keep the Bell Inequality and throw out the
Darwin Evolution as a fake.
But 20th century biologists are too dumb to understand the Bell
Inequality or QM. Thus, I have to go inside of the subject of biology
and tear it all to pieces in front of the eyes of those "dumb 20th
century biologists". But the quickest way to show them that Darwin
Evolution is a fake is to show them spontaneously new created life.

One such experiment would be to get a physics accelerator of
energetic photons and to clean it out 100% of all life inside this
accelerator. Then, subject energetic photons to the inside of this
accelerator. Preferably filled with water. Then if the appearance of a
new blue-green algae cell is found. That would be convincing proof
that
photons have DNA coding inside themselves and that life is created and
changed by photons which have DNA internal parts. Such a reporting of
science news would kill the Darwin theory of Evolution.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: newly created life (AIDS virus?) disproves Darwin Evolution
Date: 5 Aug 1999 04:24:59 GMT
Organization: A revised Miller experiment to prove photons possess DNA
Lines: 33
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7ob3mr$o5q$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (7ntkem$8om$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(srcZoMG00Ui708vgA0@andrew.cmu.edu>
(7o02ef$5us$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(krcu0rW00UwH0OOgI0@andrew.cmu.edu> (7o (7oaoso$bqa$1@nnrp1.d.>
(7ob150$aiq$1@dartvax.dartmh>  (7ob2p8$dbr$1@dartvax.dartmouth.ed>

In article (7ob2p8$dbr$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
plutonium_archimedes@yahoo.com (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

We have set up fine apparatuses for measuring the neutrino rest mass.
We should now set up a fine apparatus for seeing whether energetic
photons can create new forms of life. This reminds me of the Miller
experiment in Chicago to make amino acids in a test tube with
electricity currents.

And possibly this new apparatus need not be any more fancy than
Miller's Chicago experiments. Perhaps some of those amino acids found
by Miller were the conversion of photons into amino acids. But
Miller's
experiments in the 1950s ?? was unable to ever investigate whether he
had created new viruses. But by 1990s we have the equipment to spot a
new virus.

The above is a modern day revised Miller experiment. As so often
happens in science, in all branches of science. An experiment of one
generation becomes a further elaborated experiment of a future
generation. The Double Slit of Heisenberg becomes a revised experiment
by Bohm-Aharonov.

Question: who is given the credit in the history of physics for the
first Double Slit Experiment? I am just guessing Heisenberg

-------------------------------------------------------------
From: arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: soc.history.science,sci.bio.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Reproduction gradients Re: Proving Darwin Evolution is a fake
Date: 6 Aug 1999 02:37:38 GMT
Organization: Pu
Lines: 117
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7odhpi$ft8$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (7ntjle$8qs$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7ntkem$8om$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(srcZoMG00Ui708vgA0@andrew.cmu.edu>
(7o02ef$5us$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> (7o05mi$8h1$1@dartvax.t>
(7o4s4r$g34$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7o4sas$g34$2@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

Believers of Darwin Evolution theory do not know, or understand how
dependent is their theory upon reproduction. And they have never
tested
the various means of reproduction to support or to kill the theory of
Darwin Evolution. The Modern Synthesis of Evolution has 4 concepts.
These 4 concepts are:
(1) mutation
(2) genetic recombination
(3) Natural Selection or differential reproductive success
(4) reproductive isolation

It is odd that biologists never realized that Darwin Evolution can be
focused upon the various means of reproduction and that one form of
reproduction (factoring in organism sizes) is selected above other
forms of reproduction.

For example, homosexuality should never be on an increase in any
population, however it is in human and some bird species. Cloning as
compared to sexual reproduction should never be on the rise in any
sexual reproduction population. However, in many species of plants,
such as aspen trees, cloning is on the rise.

The biggest trouble with Darwin Evolution is that the biologists have
become so fanatically in love with the theory that they are behaving
like religion fanatics whom they mostly eradicated out of the subject
of biology.

Instead of stating that homosexuality contradicts Darwin Evolution,
the
so-called biologist defenders of Darwin Evolution such as Mayr,
E.O.Wilson,Dawkins and Gould, instead of being honest and truthful and
state that homosexuality contradicts Darwin Evolution, they have
patched and plastered up the theory with their childish and
pretentious
new definitions and concepts. The height of pretentiousness is the
"meme" baloney of some higher-grade of genes.

Increasing homosexuality contradicts Darwin Evolution.

Increasing altruism contradicts Darwin Evolution.

And this reproduction gradient of increasing forms of reproduction
that are inferior, such as cloning over sexual production of large
populations. I call these various forms of reproduction the
"reproduction gradient". And if Darwin Evolution was true, then the
most Evolutionary Kinetic form of reproduction should be on the
increase, not a lesser kinetic form of reproduction such as cloning,
or
mitotic reproduction-slow time-small population. But there are cases
where mitotic reproduction-slow time-small population is on the
increase over sexual reproduction-fast time-large population.

Inferior increasing-reproductive-gradients contradicts Darwin
Evolution
and proves the theory is a fake, an algorithm at best.

i) large populations, quick time, sexual reproduction
ii) large populations, quick time, asexual reproduction
iii) small populations, quick time, sexual reproduction
iv) small populations, quick time, asexual reproduction
v) small populations, slow time, sexual reproduction
vi) small populations, slow time, asexual reproduction
vii) cloning

Reproduction has meiosis and mitosis.

To some extent, mammalian cloning such as the future human cloning is
somewhat similar to bacteria mitosis wherein the clone is almost
identical to the original.

There is a math gradient also for the differences in small organisms
as
a result of mitosis and the differences in large organisms such as
humans as a result of cloning, provided these two reproductions are
categorized as the same Mitosis and Cloning. Roughly compute this
mathematical gradient.

Now, in the above list of reproductive environments, the one which
favors Darwin Evolution the most is the large population sexual
reproduction. Insects fall into that category and Darwin Evolution
applies well to that research

But if Darwin Evolution is a true theory, then it is not stuck with
just a small biology area of reproduction but should apply to all
forms
of reproduction.

Compute the gradients, rough computations for the other areas of
reproduction listed above such as Cloning.

I suspect that after the computations are made and after field study
researches confirming the numbers gradients will reveal that Darwin
Evolution theory applies to only one of those categories above.
Applies
to only sexual reproduction, fast time, with large population numbers.
For example, insect species, or even rodents.

But that Darwin Evolution theory fails in the other gradients.

I already know that Darwin Evolution theory is merely an algorithm
that applies only to a small and narrow range of biology. How do I
know
this? Easy, because Quantum Mechanics implies the Bell Inequality
which
implies Superdeterminism. Superdeterminism implies that determinism is
on the large scale universe of animal and plant activity such as
sexual
reproduction. There exists very little free-will, and chance and
probability in a world of superdeterminism. Darwin Evolution
foundation
is built upon free-will, chance and probability.

Since the Bell Inequality already disproves Darwin Evolution, why am
I exerting so much energy in disproving Darwin Evolution from field
researches into different methods of reproduction. Answer: because the
20th century biologists spent most of the century eradicating religion
out of biology by using Darwin Evolution. These biologists were
somewhat successful, but they were terribly dumb as far as uniting the
advances made in Quantum Mechanics in the 20th century. In fact, other
than myself, there probably exists not a single biologist of
prominence
that can get up in front of a group of physicists and talk about the
impact of Quantum Mechanics upon biology for 5 minutes without making
horrendous mistakes. Probably not a single one of these biologists
other than myself knows or understands the Dirac Equation or
Schrodinger Equation

-------------------------------------------------------------
From: arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.chem
Subject: revised Miller experiment of 1953 Re: newly created life
(AIDS virus?) disproves Darwin Evolution
Date: 6 Aug 1999 02:53:16 GMT
Organization: Pu
Lines: 45
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7odims$gr7$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (srcZoMG00Ui708vgA0@andrew.cmu.edu>
(7o02ef$5us$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(krcu0rW00UwH0OOgI0@andrew.cmu.edu> (7o (7oaoso$bqa$1@nnrp1.d.>
(7ob150$aiq$1@dartvax.dartmh> (7ob2p8$dbr$1@dartvax.dartmouth.ed>
(7ob3mr$o5q$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (7ob3mr$o5q$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

--- quoting ACAD. AMER. ENCYC. ---
     Topic: Miller, Stanley Lloyd
      Text:
   The American biochemist Stanley Lloyd Miller, b. Oakland, Calif.,
Mar. 7, 1930, conducted experimental research designed to duplicate
the
conditions that might have been present on the primordial Earth and
that may have produced the initial chemicals necessary for chemical
evolution toward the formation of the more complex molecules essential
for LIFE. In 1953, Miller subjected a gaseous mixture of hydrogen,
water, methane, and ammonia--the components of the primordial
atmosphere--to an electric discharge for a period of one week. This
treatment produced significant amounts of organic compounds, such as
aliphatic acids, hydroxy acids, urea, carbohydratelike compounds, and
8
of the 20 amino acids found in nature (see BIOCHEMISTRY). Other
investigators have shown that under the proper conditions the amino
acids will react to form more complex proteinlike products or, in some
cases, the base structures found in nucleic acids.
--- end quoting ACAD. AMER. ENCYC ---

Great experiments are often repeated for new insights or new
understanding. The Double Slit was repeated by Bohm-Aharonov in order
to understand better electrodynamics.

I propose a modern day revision of the Miller experiment to test to
see if energetic photons contain internal parts of DNA coding. That
is,
a very energetic cosmic ray of 1019 MEV as observed over the Utah
desert would have the energy to form a whole entire small insect.

If the energetic photon contains the DNA coding as internal parts,
then perhaps some of Miller's amino acids were formed from the photons
of the electricity.

In this revised Miller experiment, we want a container absent free of
all life. A container of water that has no life whatsoever. Then we
subject the container with energetic photons and later probe the
container for new life such as DNA strands, or viruses or bacteria or
blue green algae depending on how energetic of photons we can subject
this container of water. We should be able to easily calculate what
energies of photons are needed to make a DNA strand or the most
primitive virus or the most primitive blue green algae.

-------------------------------------------------------------
From: arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.chem
Subject: revised Miller experiment of 1953 Re: newly created life
(AIDS virus?) disproves Darwin Evolution
Date: 6 Aug 1999 18:34:27 GMT
Organization: Bell Inequality disproved Darwin Evolution
Lines: 113
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7of9rj$8t1$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (7o02ef$5us$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(krcu0rW00UwH0OOgI0@andrew.cmu.edu> (7o (7oaoso$bqa$1@nnrp1.d.>
(7ob150$aiq$1@dartvax.dartmh> (7ob2p8$dbr$1@dartvax.dartmouth.ed>
(7ob3mr$o5q$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7odims$gr7$1@dartvax.dartmouth.ed>

How I came upon this idea that a photon has perfect DNA wrapped up
inside of itself? Well, one good feature of the Internet is that it is
my personal science diary and I can go back in time and see how my
thoughts developed. And at this moment in time I do _not remember_ how
I came upon that idea that photons have perfect DNA as internal parts.
I suspect that I came upon that idea years ago because I noticed that
the photon or Light Wave is a transverse wave of magnetic field and
electric field and then, by analogy, looking at a model of DNA of its
spiral staircase, one can easily transfer that geometric image to the
transverse wave of a Light Wave. Thus, in my mind was born the theory
that Photons = perfect DNA. Not just the ordinary DNA found in humans
or other species but DNA that is perfect. Perfect means it has the
potential to become human DNA should it come to rest, and perfect in
that it has the potential to become DNA far better than human DNA.

But the intent of this post today is not to talk about my history of
discovering the idea that Photon = perfect DNA, but rather, the intent
of this post is to talk about *gaps* in science, wherein filling those
gaps will lead to a great science theory. Talking about gaps in
physics
connected to biology leads to my theory that Photons = perfect DNA.
But
before I talk about the gap between physics and biology, let me talk
about other gaps in science to make this gap easier to understand.

Quantum Mechanics had a huge gap around the time of Niels Bohr. The
gap
was how to understand the "boundary" between Classical Newtonian
Mechanics (NM) and the small scale world of Quantum Mechanics QM. Bohr
wrestled with the gap but was never able to solve it. QM was in the
small scale world and anything not in the small scale was
satisfactorily explained by NM. Bohr's answer to this gap was to talk
about "walking canes". Bohr said that if you are dealing with the
microworld, you are dealing with QM and to analogize that with a
walking cane that when you need it, need it up close to walk you have
the cane near your body to help it move. But in the large scale world
of NM, like the walking stick, it is not needed up close and movement
can occur without the stick to help you. So, the gap of Quantum
Mechanics was to resolve the small scale world where QM dominates with
the large scale world where NM takes over. The gap implies a
*boundary*
between the small scale and the large scale. So, where is this
boundary? Of course the Bell Inequality with Aspect Experimental
Verification destroyed this gap between QM and NM. The large scale
universe is operated 100% by QM and thus there exists no boundaries
between small scale and large scale.

And the Atom Totality theory is the logical culmination of all of
Quantum Mechanics. For if QM is on the large scale as proved by Bell
Inequality implies that the universe itself is an atom.

But I wanted to discuss mostly the feature of *gaps* in science. And
when a gap in science occurrs, the solution for the gap is often a
revolutionary change in the science. The Atom Totality theory is
certainly revolutionary.

But now I want to talk about two gaps in biology. The first gap is
that
of Darwin Evolution theory. And the second gap is the bridging of
biology with physics.

The gap in Darwin Evolution theory is easy to understand. Was there a
Darwin Evolution mechanism before there existed any life on Earth for
which the Darwin Evolution mechanisms could apply to? Did Darwin
Evolution mechanisms apply to pre-biological-life? Does Darwin
Evolution mechanisms apply to those amino acids produced by Stanley
Miller in Chicago of 1953? And if Darwin Evolution did not apply to
pre-life chemicals, at moment in development of life did the Darwin
Evolution mechanisms apply? That is, at what stage of development of
life did the Darwin Evolution engine begin. Thus a boundary is formed
by Darwin Evolution. Is there a quick and fast resolution, such as an
Occam's razor resolution of this gap? Yes. If we say that DNA is
contained inside of photons and that the first life forms were stopped
photons whose internal DNA was transformed into living organisms, then
we eliminate the gap of nonlife-to-life. Of course that resolution
means that Darwin Evolution is a fake theory.

The gap in the *subject of biology bridged to the subject of physics*.
This is easier to explain and to resolve. If you understand the Bell
Inequality with the Aspect Experimental Verification, you realize that
two events in the universe, call them event A and event B, separated
by
huge distances of trillions of light years have to be *coupled and
dependent* events. Thus, as you influence event A, then event B must
change concurrently. The Occam's razor of resolving this problem of
coupling two events separated by huge distances of space is to say (1)
that the entire universe is but a single atom, Atom Totality, and thus
being just an atom, distances are never huge and vast because all
atoms, even the Atom Totality is of the same size-- small, and
secondly
(2) Light Waves inside this single-atom-universe contain a DNA coding
as internal parts to give messages from event A to event B. (here I
have thought of another revised experiment, a future experiment of the
Bell Inequality with Aspect Experiment, for there exists a tiny delay
in time for event B to change due to the changes with event A, ie, the
changes are not instantaneous)

Enough discussion about gaps in science. The gap in bridging biology
with physics was not how I personally discovered the theory Photons =
perfect DNA internal parts. But rather, after I discovered this
theory,
I realized that a gap existed between physics and biology and that
this
theory would eliminate that gap. Thus, gaps, once we realize they
exist
in a science, the resolution of that gap is usually some new
revolutionary idea. And that the gap resolution is a supporting
evidence for the new theory, and usually the gap does not help one to
discover the new theory that resolves the gap. The gap between QM and
NM was around for most of Bohr's life and it did not help him in
finding a resolution.

Recognition of a gap in a science can occur before the new theory
that
resolves the gap is discovered. Or the recognition of the gap can
occur
after a new theory that resolves the gap is discovered.

No-one in the biology community recognized or realized that there was
a huge gap between pre-life and Darwin Evolution theory. My discovery
of Photon = perfect DNA was before I discovered the gap between
pre-life and Darwin Evolution. And this gap is now helping me and the
biology community to confirm the new theory that Photons = perfect DNA
as internal parts.

-------------------------------------------------------------
From: arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.chem
Subject: revised Miller experiment of 1953 Re: newly created life
(AIDS virus?) disproves Darwin Evolution
Date: 6 Aug 1999 18:46:06 GMT
Organization: help me to find an old NYT article on eukaryote
progression
Lines: 36
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7ofahe$bvt$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (7o02ef$5us$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(krcu0rW00UwH0OOgI0@andrew.cmu.edu> (7o (7oaoso$bqa$1@nnrp1.d.>
(7ob150$aiq$1@dartvax.dartmh> (7ob2p8$dbr$1@dartvax.dartmouth.ed>
(7ob3mr$o5q$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7odims$gr7$1@dartvax.dartmouth.ed>

In article (7odims$gr7$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

I had thought of a Miller type apparatus full of water and 100% free
of
all DNA. Then subject energetic photons into this water and analyze
for
newly created DNA from stopped photons.

However, come to think about it some more. I realized that Nature
already has a catch and containment system. It is called the Plant
Kingdom for they depend upon photon energy. Thus, if the plants have
rare species of viruses and if the plants have an abundance of rather
new forms of viruses would indicate or suggest that these new life
forms were the result of stopped photons.

Please, someone help me to locate an old NYT article talking about
the conundrum to biologists of trying to reconcile the classification
system. If my memory is at all correct the biologists have a difficult
time of telling whether the eukaryotes came first or whether the
prokaryotes came first, or something dealing with the first organisms.

With a theory that Photons = internal perfect DNA, and that when
coming to rest have the potential in forming a new life form, would
help to resolve this classification problem. In Darwin Evolution, it
has to be one long continuous chain, all connected. In Atom Totality
with Superdeterminism, life can be a discontinuous chain and that even
the rare event of a more complex species appearing before a
less-complex species, such as a more complex virus and only later
comes
the appearance of a lesser complex virus. In Superdeterminism there is
continual creation of new forms of life from energetic stopped photons
which transform their internal DNA into living DNA.
-------------------------------------------------------------

From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.physics,sci.geo.geology
Subject: Re: Why 20th century biologists were unable to apply Quantum
Mechanics
Date: 8 Aug 1999 18:48:07 GMT
Organization: history is a completed physics experiment and thus,
repeating in blocks to large degree
Lines: 87
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7okjd7$i92$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (7okido$och$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (7okido$och$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

Lyell and Hutton will probably be remembered in geology, unlike the
washing out of the names of Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Wilson from biology.
So, if my history-is -patterns is correct would imply that during the
history of geology, there existed many so-called geologists who
flooded
the book market of England and elsewhere with so called geology
tauting
Uniformitarianism. We seldom ever read about these so-called
geologists
because by the 20th century we know that Uniformitarianism was just a
algorithm and not real science.

So, I would like to suggest to a researcher of the history of science
to uncover the history of Uniformitarianism of geology and they should
find many parallels with that history as to the history of Darwin
Evolution. In fact, one may even be able to find the counterparts of
Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, and Wilson in geology with the fake theory of
Uniformitarianism as those so called biologists are with the fake
theory of Darwin Evolution in biology.

Social Science Research Experiment: based upon my theory that history
repeats somewhat in patterns. Search to see if there  were 4 geology
counterparts with the fake theory of Uniformitarianism compared to the
4 so-called biologists of Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Wilson with their fake
Darwin Evolution.

This research experiment should find strong parallels with these
issues
from a) through f)

a) all 20th century biologists were too dumb to even understand QM,
let
alone the Bell Inequality. It is rare to find a single biologist who
even knows or understands Schrodingers Equation and can talk about the
Schrodinger Equation as a physicist or chemist can talk about the
Schrodinger Equation. I nice test would be for the The New York Times,
Science Times is to quiz Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Gould, Mr. Mayr and Mr.
Wilson if they can even talk for 5 minutes about the Schrodinger
Equation.

b) 20th century biologists were too busy making up fake concepts for
Darwin Evolution for their next moneyspinning book to sell to innocent
students of biology forced to buy these books for classroom teaching.
The four above mentioned so-called biologists are prolific book
writers, and they must laugh all the way to the bank. I propose that
the sketches below be printed on the jackets of the next so called
bio-books published by Dawkins,Gould,Mayr,Wilson.

c) 20th century biology was mostly an eradication of religion out of
biology in the name of Darwin Evolution and little time available for
Real-Biology-As-A-Science. No time for real scientists to make links
and connections with the latest advances in Quantum Mechanics.

d) Too much moneygrubbing, a pity when a science gets to the stage
where the dollars flowing from a theory means more than the truth or
real science of biology. The education system structure is set-up from
the book publishing to the teachers of biology to be fanatical Darwin
Evolutionists, fighting against Religionists, and too stupid to even
understand that Quantum Mechanics had destroyed Evolution theory.

e) and the biggest factor of all. The world at large was still of the
mind that QM dealt only with the small scale universe, the world of
atoms and molecules and things under a microscope. That QM had nothing
to say about the large scale universe of anything beyond the
microscope. The so-called 20th century biologists felt safe in echoing
their bias that QM was about the small scale world and had nothing to
do with the world of biology. Thus, long after the Bell Inequality was
proved true in favor of QM, these same so-called biologists, these
dumb
biologists just kept repeating their biases and prejudices that QM was
only confined to the small scale universe of under the microscope.
They
were too dumb to understand that the Bell Inquality with the Aspect
Experiments means that QM is of the large scale universe.

f) but I am happy that I am the first to link QM to biology; to link
the Bell Inequality to biology. And it was fated for the man who
discovered the Atom Totality theory to resolve the issue of algorithm
that is Darwin Evolution. So, it was fated that biologists of the 20th
century would look miserably bad in the history of science. Biologists
of the 20th century too dumb to ever realize that QM surpassed Darwin
Evolution. Too moneygrubbing to admit any new ideas that Darwin
Evolution is an utter fake. Too arrogant to admit or allow the QM, the
Bell Inequality, the Atom Totality theory to even enter publication
into journals. Such is the moneygrubbing strength of the so-called
biologists of the 20th century, their political sway over the biology
community.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.physics,sci.geo.geology
Subject: Re: Why 20th century biologists were unable to apply Quantum
Mechanics
Date: 8 Aug 1999 19:10:38 GMT
Organization: history is a physics experiment completed, and has block
patterns
Lines: 44
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7okkne$gs7$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (7okido$och$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7okjd7$i92$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (7okjd7$i92$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

A research for an expert because by the 20th century, the 4
counterparts in geology who fit the descriptions closest to that of
Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, and Wilson would have been washed out of the
literature of geology and the history of geology for the most part.
The
history of science is mostly about triumphs and what is *presently*
believed to be true of science, and all of the fake theories with
their
adherents are washed out of the present history of science literature.
Looking at a history of science book in 1999, it is filled with those
people whose ideas have lasted, not with those whose ideas were found
to be flawed. A history of science would only glancingly mention the
Uniformitarian principle in geology and will not go into depth and
details of the people who dealt with Uniformitarianism.

But I suspect that if a researcher were to delve into the history of
Uniformity of Geology, that this researcher would find 4 persons in
that history, whose names are now so washed out of the history of
science, but whose careers in science closely parallels the careers of
Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, and Wilson in biology and the algorithm of
Darwin
Evolution.

Now, please, the tone of these posts sounds bad for those 4 persons,
but the truth and reality of the world, I find, is often more shocking
than any fiction story or imagination that could ever be asked to
write
the most shocking story. I have often said and thought that the real
world as it stands has so many more shocking real truths that we
seldom
need fiction writers or imagination to shock us. One example is
homosexuality. When I was growing up, perhaps in my teens when I first
learned that some people have sex preferences for the same kind, was a
shocker to me, and something that I believe no fiction writer or
person
with a large imagination to ever imagine such. That is to say, if the
real world never had homosexuality, I doubt that the most creative
imagination or fiction artist would have ever created or written about
it. And the reason I pick on homosexuality in this thread is because
as
a process, it disproves Darwin Evolution, but the biologists of the
20th century have not been honest with themselves in admitting that
Darwin Evolution is contradicted by homosexuality.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: more on why Darwin Evolution theory is a fake, and where QM
takes over
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 14:20:19 GMT
Organization: ## Whole universe is just one big atom
Lines: 37
Message-ID: (rrqp13brboh92@news.supernews.com>

(from Dartmouth-Halifax, Canada 99-08-16)

More ideas on how Quantum Mechanics via Bell Inequality
and Superdeterminism in an Atom Totality destroys Darwin
Evolution. And it is quite amazing how my adversarys and
opponents dream that QM will never have anything to say
or do with the large scale universe and to their tiny
world of the biosphere. When an old theory such as Darwin
Evolution is challenged, the biologists do not discuss
the merits of the new theory of Bell Inequality-Superdeterminism
-Atom Totality.
Instead the ignore and hide away and pretend that the
new theory is irrelevant. To this I can ask these steadfast
biologists a question-- do they think that QM will never
invade or link up with Darwin Evolution and do they think
that Darwin Evolution will remain intact once QM enters
biology in a large degree? Apparently they think QM will
never modify Darwin Evolution. And that is rather funny,
because in all areas where QM entered and challenged a
science (Bohr versus Einstein with EPR), QM always won.
QM was always the victor.
My guess as to the reason for this biologists holding
on to Darwin Evolution is because they make alot of money
selling Darwin Evolution books and books which depend on
a Darwin Evolution background, which is the entire biology
text book industry. They have millions and millions of dollars
at stake and so a new theory that trashcans Darwin Evolution
no matter how correct it is, will receive this "ignoring, and
irrelevant response" by the biology community.

As of this date, no biologist except myself has said to the
world, that Bell Inequality with its Superdeterminism implies
that Darwin Evolution is a fake theory.

Sorry, but the above is so long that I did not even get to
the start of my notes that I intended to post in this message.
So will post in a few minutes in a separate post.

-------------------------------------------------------------
From: arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: more on why Darwin Evolution theory is a fake, and where QM
takes over
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 14:20:20 GMT
Organization: ## Whole universe is just one big atom
Lines: 37
Message-ID: (rrqp14hkboh10@news.supernews.com>

(from Dartmouth-Halifax, Canada 99-08-16)

More ideas on how Quantum Mechanics via Bell Inequality
and Superdeterminism in an Atom Totality destroys Darwin
Evolution. And it is quite amazing how my adversarys and
opponents dream that QM will never have anything to say
or do with the large scale universe and to their tiny
world of the biosphere. When an old theory such as Darwin
Evolution is challenged, the biologists do not discuss
the merits of the new theory of Bell Inequality-Superdeterminism
-Atom Totality.
Instead the ignore and hide away and pretend that the
new theory is irrelevant. To this I can ask these steadfast
biologists a question-- do they think that QM will never
invade or link up with Darwin Evolution and do they think
that Darwin Evolution will remain intact once QM enters
biology in a large degree? Apparently they think QM will
never modify Darwin Evolution. And that is rather funny,
because in all areas where QM entered and challenged a
science (Bohr versus Einstein with EPR), QM always won.
QM was always the victor.
My guess as to the reason for this biologists holding
on to Darwin Evolution is because they make alot of money
selling Darwin Evolution books and books which depend on
a Darwin Evolution background, which is the entire biology
text book industry. They have millions and millions of dollars
at stake and so a new theory that trashcans Darwin Evolution
no matter how correct it is, will receive this "ignoring, and
irrelevant response" by the biology community.

As of this date, no biologist except myself has said to the
world, that Bell Inequality with its Superdeterminism implies
that Darwin Evolution is a fake theory.

Sorry, but the above is so long that I did not even get to
the start of my notes that I intended to post in this message.
So will post in a few minutes in a separate post.

-------------------------------------------------------------
From: arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: more ideas on Darwin Evolution and why it is a fake, and why
QM replaces it
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:07:05 GMT
Organization: ## Whole universe is just one big atom
Lines: 88
Message-ID: (rrqrop6cboh64@news.supernews.com>

(writing to you from Dartmouth-Halifax Canada,Aug20 from my
notes of 16AUG99)

Sorry that this has to be disjointed from my few minutes
ago earlier post. I have so many thoughts but my writing them
is not as fast.

In this post I am going to talk alot about mice, from a
direct experience with mice recently on this trip to Halifax.
And I had more experience with mice in my youth than most
people. In fact, when I was circa 8th grade at Anderson School
near Cincinnati Ohio, I raised mice in my home for a science
project for which I was able to go to the State Science Fair
and won an award. So mice are not new to me. But what has
changed severely in my life is that I have through the years
become a "health and sanitary and cleanliness addict" I cannot
stand the prescence of mice in my living quarters. Details of
this in a later post of my vacation trip to Halifax from 10AUG
to present writing. And it was this experience that gave me
the ideas for this post.

NOTES:
16AUG99
If Evolution were correct then the highest form of
"evolutionary reproduction" which is sexual reproduction of
large numbers coupled with its sexual potential for diversity
would have linked by now, with insect cloning reproduction
of large
numbers of eggs such as say ants or bees or mosquitos. Thus,
take the most evolutionary successful mammal such as the mouse,
it would have by now bridged between sexual reprod. and insect
cloning reprod. Let us call this "bridged mouse" the supermouse.
What it is capable of doing, is to not only breed large litters
and breed often, but also, lay eggs such as insects wherein
these eggs deposited would be able to come to life. Thus this
supermouse would have bridged the advantages of sex-reprod.
plus insect cloning reproduction and clearly this would be an
advantage in terms of evolution. However, no signs or
appearances of a "bridged animal exists" at present or even
throughout paleontology evol. history. If evolution were true
and correct then the appearances by Nature or the movement
towards superior features for the "fittest" should be underway
at all times. But there exists absoltuiely no links of the
advantages between one form of reproduction versus another. It
is as if there exists no advantages in one form of reproduction
over another. As if homosexuality in sexual species is not an
"evolutionary disadvantage". Therefore the mechanism of
"Differential Reproductive Success" or Natural Selection is only
a "minor partial truth at best." Natural Selection is more of
a circular argument-- the fittest fit-- and a simpleton's
fool's explanation for past events.
In fact, the different forms of reproduction, within a
Darwin Evolution perspective should be competing and those
less advantageous forms should eventually go extinct. (Example:
marsupial reproduction). But when looking at sexual compared
to cloning, neither is competing and there are no signs of
bridging between the two forms.
Darwin Evolution theory relies heavily on reproduction
mechanisms and thus the methods-of-reproduction. The believers
of Darwin Evolution have never debated the various methods and
contrasted those methods to make "tests" for the validity of
Darwin Evolution. Perhaps biologists were too dumb to make these
tests, however I believe the reason is that biologists never
had any alternative plausible competing theory. When you have
only one theory on the block, then that theory is king of the
block. Darwin Evolution
did manage to remove the religion Creationists out of biology,
similarly, the Uniformity principle removed the Flood
religionists out of geology. But once the religionists departed
geology, the Uniformity Principle was admitted to being a fake.
 Quantum Mechanics- Superdeterminism of Bell Inequality-
Atom Totality is an alternative theory to Darwin Evolution.
The results of the Aspect experiment on the Bell Inequality
already defeats and destroys Darwin Evolution.
 Since 1993, I have asked for the biology community to begin
the scientific and academic debate between Darwin Evolution and
QM-Bell Inequality. So far the reply to that has been either to
ignore it, or to say that Bell Inequality deals only with small
scale things such as atoms and molecules. This is garbage talk,
because the Bell Inequality implies that Quantum Mechanics
applies to the large scale universe.

homepages of Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/
http://www.galstar.com/~ichudov/ppl/ap/index.html
email: arc_plutonium@hotmail.com
email: plutonium_archimedes@yahoo.com
universe
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: archimedes_plutonium@my-deja.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.bio.technology
Subject: Re: can biotechnology wipe out the tent-caterpillar
Date: 30 Aug 1999 17:21:01 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Lines: 57
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7qeeht$kh6$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (rsg26i53j7168@news.supernews.com>  (7qe8l7$7tq
$1@news.duq.edu>

In article (7qe8l7$7tq$1@news.duq.edu>
"Gourou" (waldron9458@duq.edu> writes:

You have stated what almost everyone expects to hear. A sort of
politically-science-correct statement. But like a politician it is
vapid of any useful information.

For example, we are all lead to believe that all species rely on all
other species and that each species has an important benefit to all
others. This is the accepted so-called-wisdom, but I think it is not
the truth and reality. I would bet that if we had the power right now
to make the tent caterpillar species extinct, that the world would not
suffer one bit and that the world would get over its tent caterpillar
loss and readapt fast and the world would be a better place without
tent caterpillars. I question the political-science-correct-response
that every species is vital.

So, again, let me ask the question, does modern biotechnology have
the prowress to make the tent caterpillar species go extinct? Can we
engineer some biological agent that will extinct the Tent Caterpillar.
My hunch is that biotechnology is not advanced enough to single out a
species such as the tent caterpillar and extinctify it. The only
species we can extinctify are those that are on the verge of
extinction
already. We can reduce the numbers of tent caterpillars but not
extinct
them. That is my assessment. But it will be interesting for theories
in
biology to try to understand if and when extinctification procedures
are do-able. Again, here is another fine example of why the Darwin
Evolution theory is a fakery. And I never discussed a nuclear war
where
all nuclear weapons were used in relation to the Darwin Evolution
theory. It is difficult for Darwin Evolution to reconcile the fact
that
a species has the physical means of self destruction. Human species
suicide, and in fact, suicide increases is hard for Darwin evolution
to
reconcile. But not for Superdeterminism theory. Darwin Evolution has a
large list of contradictory observations. Superdeterminism has no
contradictions of observed facts.

And when the day comes, if it does come, where biotechnology is so
advanced that give a pest, that we can extinctify the pest easily.
When
that day comes, if it does come, it would be increasingly difficult
for
those Darwin Evolutionists to hold onto anything in their theory that
can account for such routine actions. Simply because the species Homo
Sapiens has superceded the pretentious mechanisms of Darwin Evolution
of differential reproduction success and survival of the fittest. This
is where Darwin Evolution theory becomes as pretentious looking as the
Lovelock Gaia theory of a self-regulating Earth. What does Lovelock do
when the Earth is carved up in the distant future and made into a
New-Earth. Pretentious theories, very pretentious
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: plutonium_archimedes@yahoo.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: Re: more ideas on Darwin Evolution and why it is a fake, and
why QM    replaces it
Date: 2 Sep 1999 01:43:11 GMT
Organization: Bell Inequality implies Superdeterminism implies that
Darwin Evolutionn is a fake
Lines: 25
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7qkknf$vfp$2@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (rrqrop6cboh64@news.supernews.com> (FHB0MJ.11y@bath.ac.uk>
(37CB4D61.2BE8DC16@flyinggoat.com>

In article (37CB4D61.2BE8DC16@flyinggoat.com>
Betty Cunningham (bettyc@flyinggoat.com> writes:

You missed the big points. The big points were that the different
types of reproduction are each a set. And those sets are different.
Hence, those sets are in competition with each other. Thus, if Darwin
Evolution were correct then one form of reproduction should be
outstripping a weaker form of reproduction and slowly a weaker form of
reproduction should go extinct. Marsupial reproduction was a weaker
form and it should have gone extinct. But we see that these various
forms of reproduction really do not compete with one another and that
the weak forms do not verge towards extinction, in fact we see the
opposite in that some weak forms of reproduction such as cloning are
on
the rise and at an advantage over sexual.

So, one of Darwin's own tenets of Evolution theory, that of
differential reproductive success (Natural Selection) does not even
apply to reproduction itself. Darwin Evolution fails on reproduction
itself.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: plutonium_archimedes@yahoo.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.bio.technology
Subject: Re: can biotechnology wipe out the tent-caterpillar
Date: 2 Sep 1999 04:15:18 GMT
Organization: a new theory that a future timetable of extinctifying by
humanity exists
Lines: 49
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7qktkm$u2g$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (rsg26i53j7168@news.supernews.com>
(7qe8l7$7tq$1@news.duq.edu> (7qeeht$kh6$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7qj84m$ekn$1@news.duq.edu>  (37cddb37.4353685@agate.berkeley.edu>

In article (37cddb37.4353685@agate.berkeley.edu>
bbruner@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Bob) writes:

This helps me alot towards a theory of future power of extinction. I
believe that since the theory of Darwin Evolution is a fake, that
future progress will have the power to extinct pest species. At
present
we cannot extinct a single pest species. But as biotechnology
progresses, I believe we will have the power to extinct a species. And
then a history of species which humanity extincted will be kept record
of. What is the first *pest* species that humanity will extinctify? I
do not know, perhaps the lamprey eel. I wish it were the tick. But I
believe the tick will be a very hard one to extinctify. I suspect the
tent-caterpillar would be about a million times easier to extinctify
than the tick. And I would guess that the mosquito will be
extinctified
before (thus easier) than the tick. Several species of blood sucking
flys are high on the list of extinctifying. And I think they would be
easier to extinct.

But thanks very much for the comment on biochemical processes. It
maybe that I have no theory at all about a future timetable of species
extinction helped by the progress of biotechnology. It maybe that the
theory in final form is that no thriving species can be extincted due
to the near universal biochemistry of all species. It maybe that no
intelligent species can reach a power of extincting any thriving
species due to the near universal biochemistry. If that is the final
form of this theory then I should be able to relate some mathematics.
And this mathematics would prove that the near-universal biochemistry
prohibits the extincting of another thriving species. (We can extinct
a
species that is heading for extinction such as the rhino, but we could
never extinct a species that was thriving).

Which is correct? AP's timetable of extincting, or BB's
near-universal biochemistry as a barrier to extincting thriving
species, or something else? I believe AP's timetable of extincting is
the correct science. And the reason I believe this to be true is
because we have the ability to change atom per atom of the DNA
molecule
itself. Given time, we can become masters of the DNA molecule of a
species and to target a species for extinction by either picking at
its
weaknesses, or going in the opposite direction and inventing a newer
species to replace the pest species.
BB focuses on the near universal biochemistry. This is true. But I
focus on the specifics of DNA and the fact that humanity can
manipulate
atom by atom the DNA of a species. This manipulation implies the power
to extinctify.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From: plutonium_archimedes@yahoo.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.bio.technology
Subject: Test for Darwin Evolution Re: can biotechnology wipe out the
tent-caterpillar
Date: 3 Sep 1999 00:46:52 GMT
Organization: Pu
Lines: 54
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7qn5ps$b11$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (rsg26i53j7168@news.supernews.com>
(7qe8l7$7tq$1@news.duq.edu> (7qeeht$kh6$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7qj84m$ekn$1@news.duq.edu> (37cddb37.4353685@agate.berkeley.edu>
(7qktkm$u2g$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (7qktkm$u2g$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
plutonium_archimedes@yahoo.com (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

Actually, if it comes to pass that humanity extincts a species pest
via
biotechnology, say for instance the tent caterpillar, then such an
event proves Darwin Evolution is a fake theory.

There are roughly 4 basic elements in the Darwin Evolution/Modern
Synthesis theory. These 4 elements are (1) mutation (2) genetic
recombination (3) Natural Selection or differential reproductive
success (4) reproductive isolation.

If humanity targets a species such as the tent caterpillar, then
manipulates the DNA and successfully extincts the tent caterpillar,
then humanity has replaced mutation, genetic recombination and Natural
Selection and what is more, humanity surpassed those mechanisms of
Darwin Evolution. Reproductive isolation is vacuous in this case.

Thus, if humanity extincts a targeted pest species, is proof that the
Darwin Evolution theory is a fake theory. Humanity will have surpassed
all of the mechanisms of Darwin Evolution. Humanity is more powerful
than the theory of Darwin Evolution and that Darwin Evolution no
longer
applies to humanity regards many of its elements for it has surpassed
the theory itself.

Thus, a targetted extinction of a pest species by humanity would
constitute an experimental proof that Darwin Evolution is a fake.
Such
would be analogous to the experimental proof in favor of QM
established
by Aspect with the Bell Inequality on EPR. Analogously, Darwin
Evolution would be like EPR opposed to QM, and the experimental set-up
of Aspect would be the analogous experiment of the extinction of the
tent caterpillar.

If humanity can target a pest species and extinct it, then Darwin
Evolution is a fake theory. On the other hand, if the near universal
biochemistry of all living species disallows the planned targetted
extinction of another species and this universal biochemistry poses as
a barrier, then the theory of Darwin Evolution is not surpassed or
superceded. (I am the author of the Fusion Barrier Law, and
momentarily
wondering if a connection exists here, a physics barrier connected to
a
barrier in biology even though it would suggest a universal
biochemistry barrier) (Strange how a ordering in energy extraction
with
a barrier existing, would connect, perhaps even impose a barrier in
biology, wherein no one species can ever have the technology or
capability to extinct a pest species.)

The question of whether humanity of the future can or cannot target a
pest species and extinct the species is a monumental test of Darwin
Evolution theory. My guess or hunch at this moment is that targetted
extinctions of pests will be commonplace practice in the future.
-------------------------------------------------------------