the calcium in your bones

[Timothy Sutter]

if you could figure out the 'age'
of the calcium in your bones, and you
found that the calcium in your bones
was much older than the date
on your birth certificate

you may want to change the date
on your birth certificate to reflect
the age of the calcium in your bones,
then again, you may not,

because chances are that the calcium
in your bones is 'older' than the
date reflected on your
birth certificate.

[lycos.com Timothy Sutter]

because there are pockets of ores
scattered throughout the earth,

it is probable that the earth
was never entirely molten at
any time it its 'history'

which is to suggest, for one thing,
that the earth is older than the earth,
meaning, it seems quite probable that
the components which make up the earth
are 'older' than the earth itself.

so, someone asks you;

"how old is the gold silver and platinum?"

for one thing, even if you could get a date
for the age of the gold silver and platinum

you could not say that this age reflects
the age of the earth because the earth
is not a fusion generator and therefore,
the gold silver and platinum could not
have been produced on the earth as
the earth is now.

bearing in mind that we still suggest
that it doesn't look as if the earth
was ever entirely molten and so,
'melt inclusions' become problematic
in assigning 'absolute' age of
composition of the earth itself.

also considering that if a so-called
'meteorite' fell to earth in tact and
no one saw it fall,

and someone stumbled onto it later and
simply assumed that it was a native stone
and they found that this 'meteorite'
claimed to be '10000 years old'

in reality, you'd still have no firm basis
in claiming that the age claimed by this
stone at all reflected the age of
the planet earth any more than you would
claim that a hip replacement makes you
as old as the materials in the new joint.


you still end up wanting to say,
no matter -what- you say, that;

"the earth is older than the earth"

so, you get stuck with an earth
that seems 'older' than itself
and no real way of determining
any absolute relationship between
formations of component substructures
and formation of the planet
as it appears today.

so, even though the calcium
in your bones may suggest that -you-
are older than the planet itself,

you'd still be warranted in assigning
your 'age' as that reflected on
your birth certificate.


if platinum is not formed by
any mechanism found on this planet

then any platinum which is found
on this planet is quite possibly
older than the planet itself,

unless, of course, the planet and the platinum
came into being in some simultaneous manner.

[Timothy Sutter]

> "the earth is older than the earth"

> so, you get stuck with an earth
> that seems 'older' than itself
> and no real way of determining
> any absolute relationship between
> formations of component substructures
> and formation of the planet
> as it appears today.

> so, even though the calcium
> in your bones may suggest that -you-
> are older than the planet itself,

> you'd still be warranted in assigning
> your 'age' as that reflected on
> your birth certificate.

> if platinum is not formed by
> any mechanism found on this planet

> then any platinum which is found
> on this planet is quite possibly
> older than the planet itself,

> unless, of course, the planet and the platinum
> came into being in some simultaneous manner.

when you're going -real- fast

your clocks are going real slow,

and as you s l o w down,

your clocks begin to speed up,

but you, as enclosed observer,
don't notice the time speeding up,

and for you, a second 'then'
[at light velocity{which may be faster
than what we measure here on earth now}]
seems indistinguishable from a second 'now'
[at terrestrial velocity]

and yet, the second -then- is much much

different from the second -now-


there's a consequence to this...

[Timothy Sutter]

what you may wish to think on is that
you have multiplex bacterial colonies
that live with you on you in you
and around you.

and bacteria have no emotional sentimental
reason why they may turn on your to your
harm as opposed to your good.

just remember, these bacterial colonies
that live with you must respond to whatever
chemical environment your body and mind
is laying out before them.

they may very well be nice poodles
and sheep dogs and golden retrievers,

until you start poisoning them with your
poor chemical environment and they breed
of themselves, rabid pit bulls and very
fierce doberman pinchers on you, and start
taking bites out of you.

so, you would be 'reaping what you sow'
in a very real sense of the matter.

better to make friends with your
bacterial chums before they turn
into a very real obstacle to your
continued existance.

you can't run from them, they float on the
moisture in the air and actually live in
and on your bodies and you do, in fact, need
bacteria for your very survival, but, these
same 'symbiotic' friends -can- and -do- become
very harmful unwanted guests and all in
response the way -you- are behaving.

every thought that crosses your mind elicits
a chemical marker that these same bacteria who
live with you at all times must analyze and
respond to with their own chemical markers.

and 'poisonous thoughts' are just that, thoughts
that trigger chemicals from your brain that induce
a noxious response from the bacterial colonies
which, in turn, further poisons your body.

it's not just the food that you eat, but of course,
the food that you eat is -also- triggering specific
responses for your bacterial symbiotes,

and you don't even know that you're killing yourself
slowly by antagonizing, not only _God_, but the
living Host of bacterial colonies in whose
environment -you- are absorbed.

so, how -do- you make 'peace' with
a Host of bacterial colonies who are
only, quite mechanically, geared
towards their own perpetuation?

well, you -have to- rid
yourselves of these poisons.


just think of it like this,

if -you- are vicious and cruel, chances are,
your bacteria which will be feeding on these
thought chemicals will be producing by-products
which have no one else to attack -but- _you_


an dof course, this same sort of
thing goes for a whole host of
harmful emotional traits.

they produce chemicls which your bacteria
must analyze and make response to.

just like you toxify your body with poor diet
and the bacteria are then living on, or -against-
your poor physical environment and formulating
more by-products which cause you greater harm,
so, with these emotional agents, you slowly
poison yourself by your activities
-and- your thoughts.

so, God, does in fact, have -teeth-

don't you ever kid yourself.

you really do reap

=exactly=

what you sow.

ha ha ha

[Timothy Sutter]

> when you're going -real- fast
> your clocks are going real slow,
> and as you s l o w down,
> your clocks begin to speed up,

> but you, as enclosed observer,
> don't notice the time speeding up,

> and for you, a second 'then'
> [at light velocity{which may be faster
> than what we measure here on earth now}]
> seems indistinguishable from a second 'now'
> [at terrestrial velocity]

> and yet, the second -then- is much much
> different from the second -now-
> there's a consequence to this...

so, when you're travelling very fast,
your little heart is beating somewhere
in the one beat per second range,

and as you slow down, your heart is still
beating in the one beat per second range
according to you and your little stop watch,

and as you come closer to a dead stop, your
heart is still beating at roughly one
beat per second

according to you and your
own personal stop watch,

but, as it turns out,


there was someone else on the slow earth
timing your heart beats as well,


and at first, when -you- were going very fast,
for them [on earth], your heart was beating
at nearly one beat per thousand years,


and when you got to earth,

your heart was beating at roughly one beat per second,

all according to [their] stop watch.


you never noticed it,

but [they] did.

so, you seem to be really really -old- to the generations
of people who were on the earth monitoring your heart beat

but you only saw a day or two tick off

of your own personal stop watch.

[Timothy Sutter]

so, when i was a photon

and i was screaming across the newly developing
spacial patterns at speeds far in excess of
300000 kilometers per second,

i managed to get to the newly formulating earth
in several days according to my reckoning of time,

and when i became a man, and i turned myself

to ascertain how long i had been in transit,

it -looked- as if i had been travelling

for several billions of years.




see, it's sort of like, space itself

was s t r e t c h i n g out with my progression

and so, it appeared as if, i was travelling at speeds
which would be calculated as in -excess- of the speed of light,
perhaps even a full order of magnitude faster, like 10 or
maybe even 50 times the speed of light, as reckoned from
the slow moving earth in the fully stretched out spacial domain.

and as i slowed down, and came to light

on my blue little habitat...


... it -looked- like i had been on

a very long journey, but,

it didn't really take that long...

[m4]

certificate.

[ggg]

Re: madam i'm adam

[Timothy Sutter]

and then consider material life itself;

there is insufficient physical data to support
the notion that any living tissue will rise from
the earthly surroundings by random collisions of
'non-living' molecules or that -algorithms- will
simply write themselves into existence from the
earthly surroundings under their own volition.

On the contrary a wealth of observation supports
the very opposite notion that Life begats Life
and that DNA is the template for its own replication.

that is, 'we' observe that Life springs
from that which is already alive, number one.

and, that -algorithms- never write
themselves in to existence, number two.

-algorithms- arise from the purposeful
assembly of instruction sets
by an outside agency.

the central dogma of molecular biology would state;

DNA --> RNA --> Protein

and never;

RNA --> Protein --> DNA

nor

Protein --> RNA --> DNA

and the central dogma of genetics would say;

"DNA is the template for its own replication"

DNA, here, is our -algorithm- and we observe,
essentially, that DNA is a primary necessity
for the production of DNA and this has never
been observed to be violated in any manner.

and so, proposing the idea that living tissue
manufactured itself from inert chemical materials
leaves us with a quandary that a purposed phenomenon
like an algorithm, wrote itself into existance
in a set of freakish accidents.

this is contrary to all observation and must,
therefore, be discarded as a self evident falsehood.

now, you -should- begin to see *exactly* why any
proposed theories of 'abiogenesis' are based
on self evident falsehood.

it steamrolls overtop of physical observation and
overwrites it with some simplistic metaphysical lie
gleaned from the entrails of an owl.

as far as physical observation is concerned,
a purposeful Creative Event is exactly necessary.

and this is no accident.

can be classified as "miraculous" even.

certainly, there's more to
a living creature that just DNA.

but, as far as proteins which are -not- alive
following some non-demonstrable mechanism
that fits together a self duplicating and
living organism and then shuts off and
is never seen again, there is not any sort
of viable explanation for such an
impracticable possibility.

the trouble with this sort of consideration
is that it suggests that natural forces
provide the onus for a living cell to
deliver its own functionality before
-it- is there to provide the onus for itself.

that is to say;

natural forces -cause- the components of a
living cell, gathered up from whatever source,
to behave as if they were part of a working
device -before- that device is working

and this phantom mechanistic device carries
out the purpose of bringing the actual device
into being.

it basically cedes a living
-purpose- to an inanimate nature.

it is as if the living cell were
operating without being a living
cell -to produce- a living cell

whereupon, this mechanism
disappears into oblivion,

and the living cell procedes to
continue producing living cells.

that is, the living cell uses proteins
and the like to reproduce DNA et al

but in this very special case,

natural forces did the work of the mechanism
-without- any sort of encoded instructions.

instructions the cell now receives
from the living cell mechanism.

this demands that -no- mechanism has brought
a self promulgating mechanism, in to existance,

where the functions of a cell are carried out
by no cell -until- the actual cell is
there to carry it out.

nothing like this is observed.

it requires belief -against- factual
reality to support such a hokum.

see what i mean?

you have -no- mechanism bringing
a self perpetuating mechanism
in to existance.

and that should be much more puzzling
than any chicken/egg difficulties.

you have the functions of a
cell being carried out by no cell,
-until- the actual cell is
there to carry it out.

nothing like this is observed.


we just say something like;

"the power of will in words is alive"

the design personality of the Creator
turned ideas into reality by a Power
contained in the Creator's declarations.

and materials aligned themselves around
and about those 'powerful' declarations.

and we -have- observed
things -exactly- like this.

now, if we claimed that God was entirely
beyond our understanding, and "unknowable"
-then- we should speak no further,

however, we do not speak of a "God" who is
beyond all understanding and unknowable
but of a Creator who -does- present
God for inspection.

a God we -can- come to know and understand.

we simply maintain that much personal
understanding of the Creator must
be presented -by- that same Creator.

we don't abstract God -from- natural reality

we learn of God from God in much the
same way as we learn of each other
from each other and learn of stones
and flowers from stones and flowers.

the design personality of the Creator
caused materials to align themselves
around a template of conscious purpose,
by a Power contained in the Creator's
own demonstrative declarations.

the Creator molded space in to
a template and the materials aligned
themselves about this template.

theories of 'abiogenesis' would demand
a similar unseen template structure to
exist and operate and would be forced
to cede a conscious -purpose- to an
inanimate nature.

we know the consciously purposeful designer.

this is no mystery to us

and yet, it will forever remain a mystery
to anyone who would make attempts at ceding
conscious purpose to inanimate materials.


no statements in favor of such an outlandish
proposal as inert chemical materials initiating their
own advance towards structures that actually support
living processes because there is no statement that
will possibly stand in support of a conscious purpose
existing in an inanimate material nature.

"conscious purpose"

this is the fundamental idea that
you will never be able to reconcile
with your god-less mythology.

"conscious purpose" is required to initiate genesis

"conscious purpose" is not an attribute
of inanimate material and natural forcework.

"conscious purpose" is an attribute
of Personality and Living Being.

these are not two equally viable prospects.

conscious purpose -is- a Living Personal Being.

we know God.

and life itself is miraculous, not because
we do -not- understand it, but because
we -do- understand it.





assume A

A implies B

B proves A


now, it's 'ok' to assume an 'A'

and to suggest that an "A" implies a "B"

but, when one uses "B" to
then say that "A" is 'true'

one falls headlong into
an invalid reality.


if you assume that there is no directing
influence which is not composed of the
98 elements, gravity and electromagnetism,

you may imply that life arose on
earth with zero directing influence.

what you should not be found doing is;

-then- suggesting that life did, in fact,
arise without an outside directing influence
and therefore that there -is- no outside
directing influence.


someone somewhere would call this;

"assuming the conclusion"



what you may want to ask anyone
who says that 'virgin birth'
is a 'miracle' is;

are you insisting that
'miracles' do -not- happen?

[Timothy Sutter]

so, what you'd like to say is
that this 'thing/organism'

eats respires and replicates and moves

and proceed to chop it down to the smallest
'thing/organism' that eats respires replicates
and moves

and find out what 'bit' of 'it'

if removed, will prevent this 'thing/organism'
from continuing to eat respire replicate an move.


but, you may also find that there are more than
one 'site' which, if removed, will 'kill' the 'organism'


so, that's the backward regression,


and now, you'd like to say;


"this is the very smallest 'organism'

that can eat respire replicate, and move


and then, find a way of having components of -it-

self assemble in aqueaous solution.


and now your back to the "phantom mechanism" again


as, without doubt, if the components do -not-


eat respire and replicate and move


the chances of these components

self assembling as -in-

the process of replication

is nil.


if you chop away the component that

facillitates assembly of replicants


then it ain't gunna self assemble from scratch...


end game...


y'ain't got 'it'



if you'd like, you can truncate 'eats and respires'

in to a single phenomenon

eats and replicates

"this thing eats and replicates"

"these are the components of this
'thing' that eats and replicates"

"now, we dump these components into aqueous solution,
and, they sit there and stare at us, and no
respiring/replicating organism emerges"

"days later, still nothing"

"months later, still nothing"

"years la....ah skip it"


"how -did- you 'do' it?"

"cuz -this, just ain't workin"



=because= this would have to be some thing

that -could- "self assemble" in a matter of days/weeks

from these 'unmotivated' constituent parts.


skip right to the point where this self assembly -could- happen


not asking -how- all of these constituents

take shape over the eons, so-called,


"-these- components, self assemble
-into- an organism that -replicates-"


it's a paradox


'it' needs 'itself' to assemble 'itself'


the "phantom mechanism"


"the shadow knows"


or, alternatively;


"who knows?"

"the shadow do"


more fine tuning...


i'm starting to see the relatedness between

"fine tuning" and "fine tuning"


it's always strange how these things fit together...


it's not "whimsy"



"the shadow built the man"


or, i suppose it's more like;


"the shadow -cast- the man"




this isn't happening;

""take one strand of RNA and toss it into
a container of warm water/nutrient bath

and days later, you find multiple copies of
the original RNA strand and a somewhat
depleted nutrient supply.""

so, that'd be a dead end...





in other words,

i'm -giving- you the "non-living" -components-

now, let's watch the "non-living" -components-

self assemble in aqueous solution, whereupon

a "living" assembly is now present

in aqueous solution.


there is no resort to an;

"it takes a million years" argument


these non-living -components- should self assemble

to form a living organism in a matter of -days-

-if- they can self assemble -at all-





one thing for sure, considering the speculation
of a primal cell type that is a precursor for all
subsequent living organisms including all bacteria

there is no =specimen= of any such primal living organism.

no trace at all.

it must be one of those "invisible pink unicorns"





but, -positting- a primal precursor 'organism'

is a tacit admission that simple bacteria did not

spring to life from numerous collisions

of non-living components.

that means, speculating on
the necessary existence of
some primal precursor,

is an unspoken admission that simple bacteria

did not spring to life from numerous collisions

of non-living components.





so, what there is =evidence= for

is an organism that has no precursor

which did not arise from the random collisions

of non-living components.

[Timothy Sutter]

coded instruction sets
are components of Nature.


one view;
coded instruction sets are an
intrinsic attribute of Nature.

one view;
coded instruction sets are used
in the construction of Nature.

are instructions given or are instructions ever present?

how are coded instruction sets best represented?

coded instruction sets ---> non-personal configurations

coded instruction sets ---> conscious conceptions

that is part of the problem, in that it
does not seem to matter how one describes
coded instruction sets, be they tools in
a box or the conceptions of mind, to
initiate operation is a characteristic
of conscious intent.

OFF | / | ON

how many ways can chemicals be assembled
producing the functionality of a spleen?

if non-specific make-up can be shown
for specific function, then similar
make-up becomes a significant datum.

if similar function requires similar make-up,
then similar make-up is of no real significance.

it seems as if specific function
demands specific make-up.

that creatures that have outward appearing
similarities are also similar on the
molecular level is to be expected.

if one could show two creatures which were
very similar in appearance and function and
yet markedly different on the molecular level
this would be somewhat more significant.

still not an evidence that either could have
arisen by random happenstance, however.


oh, and as far as this monkey business,

apprently one would have to suggest
a rather -immediate- speciation followed
by some slow and gradual genomic shift.

etc.

[Timothy Sutter]

> coded instruction sets
> are components of Nature.

[fixed width text]


=======================================


_______/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_______


N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N U
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231 D

_______/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_______



=======>




_NN_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231



=======>



_N_121
\
\
123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
-N-434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231



=======>



_N_121-123
434 \
\
124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
/
-N-434



=======>



_N_121-123-124
434-234 \
\
324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
/
-N-434-234



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324
434-234-431 \
\
432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
/
-N-434-234-431



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432
434-234-431-213 \
\
412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
/
-N-434-234-431-213



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412
434-234-431-213-143 \
\
431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
124-324 /
-N-434-234-431-213-143



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431
434-234-431-213-143-124 \
\
231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324 /
434-234-431-213-143-124



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231
434-234-431-213-143-124-324 \
\ U
N--324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324
/ |
/ NN
/ /
124-N-413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324 / D
434-234-431-213-143-124-324



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231-N-324
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 \
\
321-232-123-413-231-243-324
|
NN
/
N-413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413 \
\
232-123-413-231-243-324
|
NN
/
412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324 431-231 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413



=======>




_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412 \
\
123-413-231-243-324
\
NN
/
143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413-412



=======>




_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143 \
\
413-231-243-324
\
NN
/
234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413-412-143



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234 \
\
231-243-324
\
NN
/
121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413-412-143-234



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413-231
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121 \
\
243-324
\
NN
/
342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 232-123 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413-412-143-234-121



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342 \
\ UU
324
\
NN ====
/
112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123 / DD
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324
\ \ / \
\ N N UU
\ / \
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112

->



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N_ UU
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231



++++++



231--N-- DD
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112
->
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123 243-324
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231-N- DD
->

_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N_ DD
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231





_______/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_______




N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N U
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231



N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231 D



_______/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_______






=======================================>>>

[Timothy Sutter]

[fixed width font]

> =======>
>
> _N_121-123-124-324-432
> 434-234-431-213 \
> \
> 412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
> 143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
> /
> /
> -N-434-234-431-213

this is a little assembly line,
and it's operative mission is
to make replicas of itself.
this operative mission is not innovative, and
incorrect copies are generally spot repaired,
shunted off to a recycling area, or destroyed.


the machine itself is not geared towards innovations.
the machine itself is geared towards precise replication.


in addition to making replicas of itself,
this machine builds and maintains a larger,
composite 'fractalized' version of itself.



which is to say, the machine replicates itself
in its indivisible micro-state, and,
erects and maintains, a composite superstructure
of which, -it- is the blueprint image.


generally, when and if, 'misprints' and other incorrect copying
pass through all of the safeguard devices which assure
replication of the mico-state mechanism, the
composite superstructure tends
to lose functionallity,


where redundancy is incorporated into the make-up
of the micro-state mechanism, which safeguards against
total breakdowns of the composite superstructure
attributable to such misprints and other incorrect
copyings in the micro-state mechanism.



which is to say that;

the micro-state system, will tend to have multiple components
which carry out the same task in erecting and maintaining the
composite superstructure, and so, when one or two 'break down'
due to incorrect copying, the other correct copies will still
be operative so as to assure the overall functionality
of the composite superstructure,


and also, it can be the case, where only very minimal 'damage'
is experienced because of a misprint etc. and the generalized
functionality may be maintained, even in the 'damaged' component.



but, what never seems to be seen, is, that,
a broken of damaged component provides
a =greater= efficacy to the overall workings
of the composite superstructure,


and so, the mechanism itself
is "non-innovative"


and so, what still seems to be in effect
is that organisms who =possess= the more
greatly diverse genomes tend to be able
to maintain their survivability over
the more extensive enviromental systems,


and in this way does a particular environmental sub-system
educes trait structures, -from- an -existing- _genomic_ structure,
which are more suitable for a given, particular,
envirnonmental sub-system,


and, so, we have a "non-innovative" mechanism
inhabitting a variable =environmental= system


where the =environment= -educes- variant
-expressed- trait structures from the
=already diverse and adaptable=
genomic structures,


and -this- is what =some= people would call "evolution"


what we are not seeing is
genetically less diverse organisms
gaining greater genetic diversity
through environmental eduction.



such as; we do not see "the environment" -assisting- in
an =innovation= of more highly adaptable -genomic- structures,
inasmuch as the genomes themselves are "non-innovative" and
geared towards replication, but only in the eduction of
more survivable strains or expression,
from already diverse genomes.



so, it seems as if, Life -on- this Earth is engaged in
a fierce struggle -with- the environment -of- this Earth
and slowly losing its diversity, functionality
and survivability -to- this Earth.


we see organisms survive because they already have
the genomic variability which make them adaptive
to multiplex environmental sub-systems.

this fits a model for "special creation"
meaning, organisms =begin= with the greater diversity
and are =losing- functionality and adaptability
to forces of environmental decay.













"save me Jesus"



=right=... exactly...


"oh dear YHWH, maintain the hedge around us,

like you did for Job"



=right=... exactly...

[Timothy Sutter]

===
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

Natural selection

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution,
along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.


1. There is variation in traits.
For example, some beetles are
green and some are brown.


2. There is differential reproduction.
Since the environment can't support unlimited population growth,
not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential.
In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and
survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.


3. There is heredity.
The surviving brown beetles have brown baby beetles
because this trait has a genetic basis.


If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity,
you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome.
It is as simple as that.
===


see, these people call environmental eduction of specificity

"evolution" by 'natural selection.'


===
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_26

In other cases, human activity has led to environmental changes
that have caused populations to evolve through natural selection.
A striking example is that of the population of dark moths in
the 19th century in England, which rose and fell in parallel
to industrial pollution. These changes can often
be observed and documented.
===


these same people speak of the peppered moth and
it's fluctuations as "evolution" by 'natural selection'


===
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEVOLII.html

Directional Selection

Directional selection tends to favor phenotypes
at one extreme of the range of variation.
<...>
Another example is the peppered moth (Biston betularia).
Before the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and early
19th centuries, only light-colored moths were collected
in light-colored woodlands in England. There was a rare,
dark form. With the pollution caused by the buring of coal,
the light-colored tree trunks became darker due to soot.
The once rare dark-colored moths became more prevalent,
while the once-common light-colored moths became
increasingly rare. Reason: predation by birds.
The color that had the greatest contrast with the background
(tree trunk) was at a disadvantage. Cleanup of the forest
during the 1950s caused the allele frequencies of light
and dark moths to reverse to pre-Industrial Revolution
levels, dark moths are now rare, light moths
are now common.
===



see, some people who seem to be studying "evolution"
call "natural selection" the 'mechanism' of "evolution'


and, as you can see, from this bit on the peppered moths,
the =environment= -educed- variant -expressed- trait structures
-from- the =already diverse and adaptable= genomic structure.

in this case, the two varieties of moth were always present
and the population inversions were noted as "evolution".


"Biston betularia" is a single species with
two noticeable =phenotypic= variations,

very much like the 'dog' exhibits
pekineses and german shepherds etc.

'some' people are calling population conversions and inversions
among species of a single =genotype= with multiple =phenotypes=

'evolution'.


and now;

what we are not seeing is
genetically less diverse organisms
gaining greater genetic diversity
through environmental eduction.


such as; we do not see "the environment" -assisting- in
an =innovation= of more highly adaptable -genomic- structures,
inasmuch as the genomes themselves are "non-innovative" and
geared towards replication, but only in the eduction of
more survivable strains or expression,
from already diverse genomes.

we see organisms survive because they already have
the genomic variability which make them adaptive
to multiplex environmental sub-systems.

so, it seems as if, Life -on- this Earth is engaged in

a struggle -with- the environment -of- this Earth and

slowly losing its diversity, functionality and

survivability -to- this Earth, [note, the cheetah]


this -fits- a model for "special creation"

meaning, organisms =begin= with the greater diversity
and are =losing- functionality and adaptability
to forces of environmental decay.

so, what one may consider is this as an example;

in breeding a pekinese out from a more
genetically diverse 'proto-canine'

that, some, maybe much, genetic information is lost,
in such a way as, -if- all dogs except the pekinese
were suddenly killed, that it would be much more difficult
to breed a malamute from the pekinese as it would be
to breed a malamute from the 'proto-canine'

and so, dog breeds who came forth from the pekinese
as sole progenitor, would have a more difficult time
'adapting' to the wider range of environments to which
'the dog' now is capable of adapting,
and would become 'endangered'

see, in breeding out the pekinese, breeders pick out
specific traits, isolate them, and even euthanize
individuals which express traits they, the breeders,
are not seeking, and so, after many successive generations,

the -genetic- trait structures that constitute
the malamute's -expressed- trait structure,
may become, essentially, 'lost' to the pekinese,

and, reconstituting the 'proto-canine'
from the pekinese alone, may be
simply impossible, and

in this way, 'divergences' =decrease= survivability.


which is to suggest that;
'proto-canine' had a good 'global' survivability
-because- it could 'diverge' into a variety of expressions,
each adapted to a more specific environment, or 'niche'
but, as these 'divergences' -lose- genetic information,
each individual 'breed' is tending towards a lesser degree
of suvivability in the overall global environment of the earth,

and, this sort of phenomenon, if occuring in all global species,

is a slow losing battle to the environment.

[Timothy Sutter]

> coded instruction sets
> are components of Nature.

just some clips;

==
Many important biomolecules are thermally unstable in aqueous media;
for instance, functionalized sugars (both aminated and phosphorylated),
peptides, polyphosphates, or thioesters will not survive long in water
under hot hydrothermal conditions (e.g., Larralde et al. 1995; Shapiro
1995). Nitriles, such as cyanoacetylene and cyanoacetaldeyde � proposed
as possible prebiotic precursors for pyrimidines (Robertson & Miller
1995)
� will be rapidly hydrolyzed to carboxylic acids in hot water (Siskin et
al. 1990). Therefore, if the synthesis of nucleotides and their
subsequent
oligomerization to promote an "RNA" world is requisite to the emergence
of life, then such chemistry would be extremely improbable
(and likely impossible) in high-temperature water
(e.g., Miller & Lazcano 1995).
===


===
The discovery of hydrothermal vents at the oceanic ridge crests and
the appreciation of their significance in the element balance of the
hydrosphere represents a major development in oceanography [126].
Since the process of hydrothermal circulation probably began early in
the Earth�s history, it is likely that vents were present in the Archean
oceans. Large amounts of ocean water now pass through the vents,
with the whole ocean going through them every 10 million years [127].
This flow was probably greater during the early history of the Earth,
since the heat flow from the planet�s interior was greater during
that period. The topic has received a great deal of attention, partly
because of doubts regarding the oxidization state of the early
atmosphere. Following the first report of the vents� existence,
a detailed hypothesis suggesting a hydrothermal emergence of life
was published [128], in which it was suggested that amino acids and
other organic compounds are produced during passage through the
temperature gradient of the 350 �C vent waters to the 0 �C ocean waters.
Polymerization of the organic compounds thus formed, followed by their
self-organization, was also proposed to take place in this environment,
leading to the first forms of life.

At first glance, submarine hydrothermal springs would appear
to be ideally suited for creating life, given the geological
plausibility of a hot early Earth. More than a hundred vents
are known to exist along the active tectonic areas of the Earth,
and at least in some of them catalytic clays and minerals interact
with an aqueous reducing environment rich in H2, H2S, CO, CO2,
and perhaps HCN, CH4, and NH3.

Unfortunately it is difficult to corroborate these speculations with
the findings of the effluents of modern vents, as a great deal of the
organic material released from modern sources is diagenized biological
material, and it is difficult to separate the biotic from the abiotic
components of these reactions. Much of the organic component of
hydrothermal
fluids may be formed from diagenetically altered microbial matter.
So far, the most articulate autotrophic hypothesis stems from
the work of W�chtersh�user [129,130], who has argued that life
begun with the appearance of an autocatalytic, two-dimensional
chemolithtrophic metabolic system based on the formation of the
highly insoluble mineral pyrite (FeS2).
The reaction FeS + H2S -> FeS2+ H2 is very favorable.
It is irreversible and highly exergonic with a standard
free energy change ?G� = -9.23 kcal/mol, which corresponds
to a reduction potential E� = -620 mV. Thus, the FeS/H2S
combination is a strong reducing agent, and has been shown
to provide an efficient source of electrons for the reduction
of organic compounds under mild conditions. The scenario proposed
by W�chtersh�user [129,130] fits well with the environmental
conditions found at deep-sea hydrothermal vents, where H2S, CO2,
and CO are quite abundant. The FeS/H2S system does not reduce CO2
to amino acids, purines, or pyrimidines, although there is more
than adequate free energy to do so [131]. However, pyrite formation
can produce molecular hydrogen, and reduce nitrate to ammonia,
and acetylene to ethylene [132]. More recent experiments have shown
that the activation of amino acids with carbon monoxide and (Ni,Fe)S
can lead to peptide-bond formation [133]. In these experiments,
however, the reactions take place in an aqueous environment to which
powdered pyrite has been added; they do not form a dense monolayer
of ionically bound molecules or take place on the surface of pyrite.
None of the experiments using the FeS/H2S system reported so far
suggests that enzymes and nucleic acids are the evolutionary outcome
of surface-bounded metabolism. The results are also compatible with
a more general model of the primitive soup in which pyrite formation
is an important source of electrons for the reduction of organic com-
pounds. It is possible that under certain geological conditions the
FeS/H2S combination could have reduced not only CO but also CO2
released from molten magna in deep-sea vents, leading to biochemical
monomers [134]. Peptide synthesis could have taken place in an iron
and nickel sulfide system [133] involving amino acids formed by elec-
tric discharges via a Strecker-type synthesis,

although this scenario requires the transportation of compounds formed
at the surface to the deep-sea vents [135]. It seems likely that
concentrations of reactants would be prohibitively low
based on second-order reaction kinetics.

If the compounds synthesized by this process did not remain bound
to the pyrite surface, but drifted away into the surrounding aqueous
environment, then they would become part of the prebiotic soup, not
of a two-dimensional organism.

=================================
In general, organic compounds are decomposed rather than created
at hydrothermal vent temperatures, although of course temperature
gradients exist. As has been shown by Sowerby and coworkers [136],
concentration on mineral surfaces would tend to concentrate any
organics created at hydrothermal vents in cooler zones, where other
reaction schemes would need to be appealed to.
=================================

The presence of reduced metals and the high temperatures of
hydrothermal vents have also led to suggestions that reactions
similar to those in Fischer�Trospch-type (FTT) syntheses may be
common under such regimes. It is unclear to what extent this is
valid, as typical FTT catalysts are easily poisoned by water and
sulfide. It has been argued that some of the likely environmental
catalysts such as magnetite may be immune to such poisoning [137].

Stability of Biomolecules at High Temperatures
A thermophilic origin of life is not a new idea. It was first suggested
by Harvey [138], who argued that the first life forms were het-
erotrophic thermophiles that had originated in hot springs such as
those found in Yellowstone Park. As underlined by Harvey, the one
advantage of high temperatures is that the chemical reactions could
go faster and the primitive enzymes could have been less efficient.
However, high temperatures are destructive to organic compounds.
Hence, the price paid is loss of biochemical compounds to decomposition.
Although some progress has been made in synthesizing small
molecules under hydrothermal vent type conditions, the larger trend
for biomolecules at high-temperature conditions is decomposition. As
has been demonstrated by various authors, most biological molecules
have half-lives to hydrolysis on the order of minutes to seconds at
the high temperatures associated with hydrothermal vents. As noted
above, ribose and other sugars are very thermolabile compounds [79].
The stability of ribose and other sugars is problematic, but pyrimidines
and purines, and many amino acids, are nearly as labile. At 100 �C
the half-life for deamination of cytosine is 21 days, and 204 days for
adenine [139,140]. Some amino acids are stable, for example, alanine
with a half-life for decarboxylation of approximately 19,000 years
at 100 �C, but serine decarboxylates to ethanolamine with a half-life of
320 days [141]. White [142] measured the decomposition of various com-
pounds at 250 �C and pH 7 and found half-lives of amino acids from 7.5 s
to 278 min, half-lives for peptide bonds from <1min to 11.8 min,
half-lives for glycoside cleavage in nucleosides from <1s to 1.3 min,
decomposition of nucleobases from 15 to 57min, and half-lives for
phosphate esters from 2.3 to 420 min. It should be borne in mind
that the half-lives for polymers would be even shorter as there
are so many potential breakage points in a polymer. Thus, while
the vents may serve as synthesis sites for simpler compounds such
as acetate or more refractory organic compounds such as fatty acids,
it is unlikely they played a major role in synthesizing most
biochemicals or their polymers.

350�C submarine vents do not seem to presently synthesize organic
compounds, more likely they decompose them in a time span ranging
from seconds to a few hours. Thus, the origin of life in the vents is
improbable. This does not imply that the hydrothermal springs were a
negligible factor on the primitive Earth. If the mineral assemblages
were sufficiently reducing, the rocks near the vents may have been
a source of atmospheric CH4 or H2. As stated earlier, the concentra-
tions of biomolecules which could have accumulated on the primitive
Earth is governed largely by the rates of production and the rates
of destruction. Submarine hydrothermal vents would have also been
important in the destruction rather than in the synthesis of organic
compounds, thus fixing the upper limit for the organic compound
concentration in the primitive oceans. Although it is presently not
possible to state which compounds were essential for the origin of life,
it does seem possible to preclude certain environments if even fairly
simple organic compounds were involved [143].


79. Larralde, R., M. Robertson and S. Miller.
Rates of decomposition of ribose and other sugars:
implications for chemical evolution. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences USA, 92:8158�60, 1995.
126. Corliss, J., J. Dymond, L. Gordon, J. Edmond,
R. von Herzen, R. Ballard, K. Green, D. Williams,
A. Bainbridge, K. Crane and T. van Andel. Submarine
thermal springs on the Galapagos Rift. Science, 203:1073�83, 1979.
127. Edmond, J., K. Von Damn, R. McDuff and C. Measures. Chemistry of
hot springs on the east Pacific Rise and their effluent dispersal.
Nature, 297:187�91, 1982.
128. Corliss, J., J. Baross and S. Hoffman.
An hypothesis concerning the relationship between
submarine hot springs and the origin of life on Earth.
Oceanologica Acta, 4 Suppl, 59�69, 1981.
129. W�chtersh�user, G. Before enzymes and templates:
theory of surface metabolism. Microbiological Reviews,
52:452�84, 1988.
130. W�chtersh�user, G. Groundworks for an
evolutionary biochemistry: the iron-sulphur world.
Progress in Biophysical Molecular Biology
58:85�201,1992.
131. Keefe, A., S. Miller, G. McDonald and J. Bada.
Investigation of the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids
and RNA bases from CO2 using FeS/H2S as a reducing agent.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA,
92:11904�6, 1995.
132. Maden, B. No soup for starters? Autotrophy and
origins of metabolism. Trends in Biochemical Sciences,
20:337�41, 1995.
133. Huber, C. and G. W�chtersh�user. Peptides by
activation of amino acids with CO on (Ni, Fe)S surfaces
and implications for the origin of life.
Science, 281:670�2, 1998.
134. Orgel, L. The origin of life�a review of facts
and speculations. Trends in Biochemical Sciences,
23:491�5, 1998.
135. Rode, B. Peptides and the origin of life.
Peptides, 20:773�86, 1999.
136. Sowerby, S., C. Morth and N. Holm. Effect
of temperature on the adsorption of adenine.
Astrobiology, 1(4):481�7, 2001.
137. Holm, N. and E. Andersson. Hydrothermal systems.
In Brack, A. (Ed.), The Molecular Origins of Life:
Assembling the Pieces of the Puzzle (pp.86�99).
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
138. Harvey, R. Enzymes of thermal algae. Science, 60:481�2, 1924.
139. Garrett, E. and J. Tsau. Solvolyses of cytosine and cytidine.
Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 61(7):1052�61, 1972.
140. Shapiro, R. The prebiotic role of adenine:
a critical analysis. Origins of Life and Evolution
of the Biosphere, 25:83�98, 1995.
141. Vallentyne, J. Biogeochemistry of organic matter.
II. Thermal reaction kinetics and transformation products
of amino compounds. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 28:157�88, 1964.
142. White, R. Hydrolytic stability of biomolecules
at high temperatures and its implication for life at 250�
C. Nature, 310(5976):430�2, 1984.
143. Cleaves, H. and J. Chalmers. Extremophiles may
be irrelevant to the origin of life. Astrobiology, 4(1):1�9, 2004.
144. Or�, J. Comets and the formation of biochemical
compounds on the primitive Earth. Nature, 190:442�3, 1961.




"Unless the molecule can literally copy itself,"
Joyce and Orgel note, "that is, act simultaneously
as both template and catalyst, it must encounter
another copy of itself that it can use as a template."
Copying any given RNA in its vicinity will lead to
an error catastrophe, as the population of RNAs
will decay into a collection of random sequences.
But to find another copy of itself, the self-replicating
RNA would need (Joyce and Orgel calculate)
a library of RNA that "far exceeds
the mass of the earth."

Joyce G.F. & Orgel L.E., "Prospects for Understanding
the Origin of the RNA World," in "The RNA World,"
Gesteland R.F. & Atkins J.F., eds.



Joyce and Orgel suggest that one must reject
the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo
from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion
unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic
chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's
view of RNA's catalytic potential. If you doubt this, ask yourself
whether you believe that a replicase ribozyme would arise in a
solution containing nucleoside 5'-diphosphates and
polynucleotide phosphorylase!

Joyce G.F. & Orgel L.E.,
"Prospects for Understanding the Origin
of the RNA World," in "The RNA World,"
Gesteland R.F. & Atkins J.F., eds.

==
you may wish to peruse this
review [abridged by me for space]


Self-organizing biochemical cycles
Leslie E. Orgel*
Salk Institute for Biological Studies,
10010 North Torrey Pines Road,
La Jolla, CA 92037-1099
*E-mail: or...@salk.edu.
Contributed by Leslie E. Orgel
Accepted August 24, 2000.


Abstract
I examine the plausibility of theories that postulate the development
of complex chemical organization without requiring the replication
of genetic polymers such as RNA. One conclusion is that theories
that involve the organization of complex, small-molecule metabolic
cycles such as the reductive citric acid cycle on mineral surfaces
make unreasonable assumptions about the catalytic properties of
minerals and the ability of minerals to organize sequences of
disparate reactions. Another conclusion is that data in the Beilstein
Handbook of Organic Chemistry that have been claimed to support
the hypothesis that the reductive citric acid cycle originated as a
self-organized cycle can more plausibly be interpreted
in a different way.

<...>

One possible saving hypothesis is that the molecules that
are the carriers of the cycle are also catalysts for the difficult
reactions of the cycle. Unfortunately, catalytic reactions of
the required kind in aqueous solution are virtually unknown;
there is no reason to believe, for example, that any intermediate
of the citric acid cycle would specifically catalyze any reaction
of the citric acid cycle. The explanation of this is simple:
noncovalent interactions between small molecules in
aqueous solution are generally too weak to permit large
and regiospecific catalytic accelerations. To postulate
one fortuitously catalyzed reaction, perhaps catalyzed
by a metal ion, might be reasonable, but to postulate
a suite of them is to appeal to magic.

<...>


The idea that a complex polymerization reaction such as the
formose reaction or the polymerization of hydrogen cyanide
is likely to simplify to a specific cycle under the influence of
autocatalysis in aqueous solution is implausible. It is not
logically impossible that such an autocatalytic cycle exists,
but because it seems very unlikely from what we already
know about the chemistry of aqueous solutions,
the burden of proof lies with the proposers of such cycles.

W�chtersh�user has put forward a very specific hypothesis that,
if correct, would overcome all of the difficulties discussed above.
In a scenario that he describes as �Two-Dimensional Chemi-Autotrophic
Surface Metabolism in an Iron-Sulfur World� (9), he proposes that
the reductive citric acid cycle and much other organized, nonenzymatic
chemistry occurred on the primitive earth, but on the surface of
iron sulfide minerals rather than in aqueous solution. W�chtersh�user
points out that the conversion of ferrous sulfide (FeS) to pyrites
(FeS2)
in the presence of hydrogen sulfide makes available reducing power
equivalent to molecular hydrogen. This reducing power could be used
to convert carbon dioxide to carbon-containing metabolites.
W�chtersh�user also claims that the surface of iron sulfide would
constrain the spatial distribution and orientation of the newly
formed products of reduction in such a way as to support
complex sequences of metabolic reactions.

<...>

In summary, it seems very likely that minerals played an important part
in prebiotic chemistry, both as simple adsorbents and as catalysts.
A single mineral is unlikely to have functioned as a specific catalyst
for several unrelated reactions. Even if the members of a suite of
minerals could each catalyze one step in a complex cycle, it does not
seem likely that the cycle would self-organize on their surfaces.
Any suite of minerals that included catalysts for each step of the cycle
would be likely to include, in addition, catalysts for reactions that
disrupt the cycle. Efficient transport of the intermediates from one
catalytic mineral to another would also present severe problems.
There is at present no reason to expect that multistep cycles
such as the reductive citric acid cycle will self-organize
on the surface of FeS/FeS2 or some other mineral.


While it seems almost impossible that a cycle of reactions as
complicated as the reductive citric acid cycle could self-organize
on a mineral surface, W�chterh�user's suggestion does raise an
interesting and important question. How much self-organization
is it reasonable to expect on a mineral surface in the absence
of evolved, informational catalysts? Clearly, a simple surface
could reasonably be expected to carry out a series of reactions of
essentially the same type, say a series of aldol and reverse
aldol reactions of the type involved in the formose reaction [.],
or a series of reductions of the type involved in the reductive
citric acid cycle. It is not clear that any surface is likely
to catalyze two or more unrelated chemical reactions, but it
would be interesting to try to discover multifunctional surfaces.

The problem of stereospecificity of a sequence of similar reactions
in aqueous solution or on a mineral surface is equally difficult.
Repetition of some basic reaction with constant stereospecificity
does not seem unlikely, because it is routinely achieved by
polymer chemists. Catalysis of a sequence of reactions, each
with a different defined stereospecificity, seems much less plausible.
Just how far one can go in the direction of self-organization
on mineral surfaces is a question for the future. One can be sure
that the complete reverse citric acid cycle is out of range, but
it is not obvious that some much simpler cycle relevant to the
origin of life is impossible. Huber and W�chtersh�user have
noted the possibility of such a cycle in a footnote added in
proof to ref. 23, but it is not clear whether this cycle is
intended to augment the citric acid cycle or replace it.

The demonstration of a simple specific version of the
formose reaction, for example, would be important, but
studies of the specificity of the formose reaction when
catalyzed by minerals have been disappointing (23).

23. Schwartz A W, de Graaf R M. J Mol Evol. 1993;36:101�106.

<...>

The novel, potentially replicating polymers that have been described
up to now, like the nucleic acids, are formed by joining together
relatively complex monomeric units. It is hard to see how any could
have accumulated on the early earth. A plausible scenario for the
origin of life must, therefore, await the discovery of a genetic polymer
simpler than RNA and an efficient, potentially prebiotic, synthetic
route to the component monomers. The suggestion that relatively
pure, complex organic molecules might be made available in large
amounts via a self-organizing, autocatalytic cycle might, in principle,
help to explain the origin of the component monomers. I have
emphasized the implausibility of the suggestion that complicated
cycles could self-organize, and the importance of learning more
about the potential of surfaces to help organize simpler cycles.



===

==
Postulate 2: Beta-D ribonucleotides spontaneously form polymers
linked together by 3', 5'-phosphodiester linkages (i.e., they link to
form molecules of RNA).

Joyce and Orgel discuss candidly the problems with this postulate.
They note that nucleotides do not link unless there is some type of
activation of the phosphate group. The only effective activating groups
for the nucleotide phosphate group (imidazolides, etc.), however, are
those that are totally implausible in any prebiotic scenario. In living
organisms today, adenosine-5'-triphosphate (ATP) is used for activation
of nucleoside phosphate groups, but ATP would not be available
for prebiotic syntheses. Joyce and Orgel note the possible use
of minerals for polymerization reactions, but then express
their doubts about this possibility:

=================================================
Whenever a problem in prebiotic synthesis seems intractable,
it is possible to postulate the existence of a mineral that
catalyzes the reaction...such claims cannot easily be refuted.
=================================================

-
G.F. Joyce and L.E. Orgel,
"Prospects for understanding the origin of the RNA World,"
in The RNA World, eds. R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins
(Cold Spring Harbor, NY:
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993), pp. 1-25.
===




Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel-two scientists who
have worked on the origin of life problem-call RNA
`the prebiotic chemist's nightmare.

`Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide
neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always
molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been the
first replicating molecule and that chemists are exaggerating
the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis.... The second
group of scientists are much more pessimistic. They believe
that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the
primitive earth would have been a near miracle.
(The authors subscribe to this latter view).
Time will tell which is correct.
[Joyce G.F. & Orgel L.E., "Prospects for Understanding the Origin
of the RNA World," in "The RNA World," Gesteland R.F. & Atkins J.F.,
eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press,
Cold Spring Harbor NY, 1993, p.19]


Even if the miracle-like coincidence should occur and RNA be produced,
however, Joyce and Orgel see nothing but obstacles ahead. In an article
section entitled "Another Chicken-and-Egg Paradox" they write the
following:


This discussion ... has, in a sense, focused on a straw man:
the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo
from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion
unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic
chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's
view of RNA s catalytic potential.... Without evolution it appears
unlikely that a self-replicating ribozyme could arise, but without
some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an
evolutionary search for the first, primitive self-replicating
ribozyme.' [Joyce & Orgel, 1993, p.13]


===
Incubation of the pool RNA...led to rapid and extensive aggregation;
more than half of the pool RNA precipitated when incubated for 90
minutes at 37� C in high concentrations of Mg2+ and monovalent
ions...and
precipitation was even more rapid at higher temperatures. It appears
that conditions that favor RNA intramolecular structure also stabilize
intermolecular interactions; as molecules find regions of
complementarity with more than one other molecule, RNA networks
form and eventually become too large to remain in solution.

David P. Bartel and Jack W. Szostak,
"Isolation of New Ribozymes from a
Large Pool of Random Sequences,
" Science 261 (1993): 1411-1418; p. 1412.
===

[Timothy Sutter]

basically, "homoplasies" are traits which are found on organisms
which clearly have no direct heredity and "homologies"
are traits which can be said to be the
consequence of direct heredity.

ok, so, it has been my contention that -because- 'homoplasies' exist
that traits identified as 'homologies' and 'parahomologies' on
discontiguous breeding populations need not be assumed as such
no matter -how close- they -seem- to be.

that, =if= it is even possible for a trait to "evolve independantly"
on organisms with no clear common ancestor and even after
proposed breaks, like the appearance of eyes, with essentially
identical genetic coding, on entirely different organisms
from invertebrates to mammals [homoplasy]

=then= we need not assume that a common trait structure
that just happens to appear in organisms that are on
the same [purported] "phylogenetic" branch, are the result
of a common ancestry. [homology]

well, it is known that identical trait structures do appear
on disparate organisms that could not possibly have
passed such traits on by heredity,

therefore, we may not assume that instances where similar traits
do appear on organisms which are not presently part of a single
breeding population, but may be supposed to be similar in form
and more closely related structurally are the result of
any direct heredity.


traits which are -called- "homologies"
may very well -be- "homoplasies"

that is a reasonable contention, and now,

how will you prove beyond a doubt that homoplasies

are not simply being -regarded- as homologies?


given that we need not -assume- a

common ancestry in the first place...


i don't presuppose a common ancestry.

and the fact that chimpanzees and human beings
share a variety of common traits, alone,
does not force me to do so.


these similarities could all be homoplasies.

the defining element is that some people =assume=

a common ancestry.


=therefore= it is utterly meaningless
to -assume- common ancestry, and then say, that,
traits which are classified as the result of
this -assumption- of common ancestry
---> PROVE common ancestry


-that- is a "circular argument"

If A then A


etc.

[Timothy Sutter]

=================================================================

humans

[hypothetical]

placenta
hair
digits
jaws
endothermy
organs
vertebra
deuterostome
nervous system
mitochondria,
cell nucleus

== === = == === = == === = == === = == === = == === = == === =

whales

cows


chimpanzees




placenta

hair
digits
jaws
endothermy
organs
vertebra
deuterostome
nervous system
mitochondria,
cell nucleus

=================================================================
no placental/marsupial
=================================================================



marsupials
hair

digits
jaws
endothermy
organs
vertebra
deuterostome
nervous system
mitochondria,
cell nucleus


=================================================================
no organism with both
feathers and hair
=================================================================




birds

feathers

digits
jaws
endothermy
organs
vertebra
deuterostome
nervous system
mitochondria,
cell nucleus


=================================================================
endothermic/ectothermic break
=================================================================



crocodiles

iguanas
lizards




snake[*]


two fenestrae
amniote

amphibians
digits[*]


fish

jaws
vertebra
starfish
deuterostome

organs
nervous system
mitochondria,
cell nucleus




=================================================================
no organisms that is both
protostome and deuterostome
=================================================================



crustaceans[*]


millipedes[*]


insects[*]

insect amnion?
digits[*]
jaws[*]





exoskeleton
mollusks
protostome

nervous system

organs
mitochondria,
cell nucleus


=================================================================


jellyfish
organs
mitochondria,
cell nucleus


=================================================================
no organism lacks organs and has organs

=================================================================


spongues

mitochondria,
cell nucleus

=================================================================



=================================================================

no organisms that is (essentially)
both plant and animal

==================================================================

mushrooms
yeasts
mitochondria,
cell nucleus

==================================================================

no organism that is [essentially]
both plant and fungi


no organism that is [essentially]
both and fungi and animal

==================================================================

dicots
bananas
grasses
palms
monocots

enclosed seeds
conifers
seeds
ferns
Xylem, phloem
horn worts
chloroplasts
green algae



mitochondria,
cell nucleus


=================================================================
no organism that is [essentially]
both and bacterial and mitochondrial
with cell nucleus
=================================================================


bacteria



=================================================================

[Timothy Sutter]

iguanas
> lizards
>
> snake[*]
>
> two fenestrae
> amniote
>
> amphibians
> digits[*]
>
> fish
>
> jaws
> vertebra
> starfish
> deuterostome
>
> organs
> nervous system
> mitochondria,
> cell nucleus

> =================================================================
> no organisms that is both
> protostome and deuterostome
> =================================================================

===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbilaterian
The urbilaterian (< German ur- 'original') is the hypothetical
last common ancestor of the bilaterian clade, i.e.,
all animals having a bilateral symmetry.

<...> no representative has been (or is ever likely to be)
identified in the fossil record;
===


when in doubt, invent untestable organism...

hypothetical organism is now laundered in to factoid.

> crustaceans[*]
>
> millipedes[*]
>
> insects[*]
>

> =================================================================
>
> humans
>
> technology?*

> [hypothetical]
>
> placenta
> hair
> digits
> jaws
> endothermy
> organs
> vertebra
> deuterostome
> nervous system
> mitochondria,
> cell nucleus
>
> == === = == === = == === = == === = == === = == === = == === =

first, capture several seals and teach
them to play the horns like in a circus.

then, take the seals back to a protected
environment that resembles their 'natural habitat'
and leave some crude horns around.

watch and observe as these seals, use
these horns to signal their cousins.

and now, say that this is 'natural seal
behavior' which is suggestive of the
primitive human beings' foray
into musical adaptations.


now, find some chimps in the same sort of protected
environment that resembles their natural habitat,
and 'gain their trust' and become de facto chimps.

these chimps watch -you- constructing
crude tools among -their- troupe,

and begin mimmicking -your- behaviors, and
start making crude 'tools' which resemble
-your- tool making prowess.

now, turn around and suggest that these chimps
are providing demonstrable evidence of the 'natural'
proclivity towards 'human' tool making and that this
is how tool making wa developed in human beings.

the one small datum that is obscured,
is that they, the chimps, -watched- -you-,
the human beings, making tools

and so, you must figure in who -you- watched
in making your first foray into tool making.

all that has been shown is that human beings
can train apes to mimick human behaviors.

what has not been shown is that apes do develop
human tool making behaviors 'on their own' with
no 'outside' influence.

a trained seal will play the pipes.

to suggest that this pipe playing behavior that
the seals learned from human beings, now, represents
the primitive musical ability in human beings,
is wholly unwarranted.

> whales
>
> cows
>
> chimpanzees
>
>
>
> placenta
>
> hair
> digits
> jaws
> endothermy
> organs
> vertebra
> deuterostome
> nervous system
> mitochondria,
> cell nucleus
>
> =================================================================
> no placental/marsupial
> =================================================================

when in doubt, invent hypothetical common ancestry.

===
http://www.nature.ca/notebooks/english/croc.htm

Crocodiles are cold-blooded. Their body temperatures
are only as warm as the surrounding temperature
===















i still suggest that


it requires a concocted set of tails
to tie these organisms in a single
contiguous breeding population,


whereas, it requires no additional
support at all, to present
it just as it is here,


with very clear breaks...


no clear demonstration of "autogenesis"
initial replicating and metabolizing
entity not in evidence.


[imaginary initial organism]


<.>


no contiguous breeding population can be shown
from imagined initial organism to all existing
life on earth.


[imagined contiguous breeding population]


no single "phylogenetic tree of all life" without
similar genetic information and expressed traits
after 'diverging' branches.


[imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]


similar genetic information and expressed traits
do not demand a contiguous breeding population.


contention of a single contiguous breeding poulation
from an imagined initial organism to all contemporary
life on earth is not demanded.


[imaginary initial organism]
[imagined contiguous breeding population]
[imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]