electrophorus electricus Chapt44 Superdeterminism replaces Darwin Evolution and makes it an algorithm #291 Atom Totality 5th ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Chapter 44 Superdeterminism replaces Darwin Evolution and makes it an
algorithm

The biology literature on evolution is full of articles about how the
eye evolved
and is a rebuke to those who cannot understand Darwin Evolution. But
there is one biology question that really puts Darwin Evolution to a
test, a test of
whether evolution or superdeterminism. It is the electric eel and its
uniqueness among all animals for the amount of electric current it can
generate.

So if Superdeterminism is correct, would mean that there are examples
of
"too much luck to arrive at a system". In the case of the evolution of
the eye, we can see it gradually evolving and does not involve all
that pinnacle of too much luck. However, I am guessing that for the
electric eel, there was too much luck and hence an example of
superdeterminism.


--- quoting Wikipedia ---
The electric eel (Electrophorus electricus), is an electric fish, and
the only species of the genus Electrophorus. It is capable of
generating powerful electric shocks, of up to six hundred volts, which
it uses for both hunting and self-defense. It is an apex predator in
its South American range. Despite its name it is not an eel but rather
a knifefish.
--- end quoting ---


Now I went to see if the genome of the electric eel had been
unraveled. This post indicates that by 2008 there was no electric eel
genome.

--- quoting ---
The case for sequencing the genome of the electric eel Electrophorus
electricus
. J. S. Albert*, H. H. Zakon, P. K. Stoddard, G. A. Unguez, S. K. S.
Holmberg-Albert, M. R. Sussman
Article first published online: 31 JAN 2008
--- end quote ---

That was 2008 and now it is 2012, so I need to find out if the
electric eel genome has been unraveled.

What I want to look for, are clues as to how difficult of a succession
of mutations in order to get a knifefish that has millivolts into one
that has 500 volts.

Let me briefly compare the evolution of humanity from a arboreal ape
in Italy some 10 million years ago that started to throw rocks and
stones for advantage of more food, more females and more offspring who
increased throwing of rocks and stones. So we needed some mutation for
the arms of an ape to throw better and in time the legs would stand
upright freeing the arms for more improved throwing. So we can see a
chain of dependent events for improved throwing. But we cannot see a
chain of events of millivolt
fish into a fish that is a 500 Volt weapon. I do not know how far back
in time these 500 Volt fish go, whether more than 10 million years.

But what I am most curious of, is how many mutations of genes to get
from
millivolts to 500 volts.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Feb 8, 2:13 am, Archimedes Plutonium

And here would be an example of where mutations of the genes would
tell the whole story
in that we would not need to go back to the fossil history and find
fossils of electric fish. We can determine the time frame of 500 volt
fish from their living relatives of the millivolt fish.

So, for example, if we find that the 500 volt fish required 12
mutations from that of the next volt fish, and given a timeline of
mutations requiring at least 3 mutations different for different
species, we can thence see that the 500 volt fish had too many
mutations for Darwin Evolution to support and thus Superdeterminism is
the true theory and Darwin Evolution is the algorithm.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Feb 8, 3:27 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

Sorry this is so out of place in order of this book, but I do not want
to forget it by the
time I reach chapter on Superdeterminism and how it replaces Darwin
Evolution.

Now most people, including scientists are miserable at connective
logic. If you are really
good at logic, you are good at mathematics, and by that I mean able to
prove math theorems.
Most scientist are bad at even calculating mathematical things let
alone come up with a
math theorem and then prove it. So what I am trying to convey here is
that most scientists
are poor in logic, and we can see that in their rebuke of
Superdeterminism. So let me give a
quick summary of Superdeterminism and how Darwin Evolution, no matter
what examples I
follow or offer, that Darwin Evolution is dead and a fake.

Superdeterminism comes from John Bell Inequality that checks on
whether the large scale Universe is quantum mechanics, or not quantum
mechanics. As it turns out in an experiment of
Alain Aspect that quantum mechanics won the fight and that the large
scale Universe is run and
operated by quantum mechanics. That means, in order to not have speeds
faster than light, we must have Superdeterminism. That means we cannot
have free will and that we cannot have chance and probability of
Darwin Evolution.

So, for the many in science who lack the skills of logic, and believe
me that means most scientists, that there is no debate or argument as
to whether Darwin Evolution is a fake, for the Bell Inequality with
Aspect Experiment has thrown Darwin Evolution out the window as a
fakery.
The best that Darwin Evolution can do in science is give us a close
approximation of what really happened. So that Darwin Evolution is a
algorithm, like a slide-ruler in mathematics gives a close
approximation to the answer but not the exact answer.

So let me get that fine-point out of the way first before I discuss
electric eel and discuss wheat genes and discuss human evolution and
how humans have bypassed Darwin Evolution.

(1) Electric Eel which is really not an eel but a knifefish and we
want to examine how many mutations were needed per time period. If we
find that we have many mutations per short period of time, we can say
there was far too much "luck involved" and hence superdeterminism
acted.

(2) In a book by Bronowski "Ascent of Man" is a discussion about how
lucky wheat evolution was for humanity. This maybe another example of
too much luck per time that suggests superdeterminism.

(3) Humanity itself with its science is no longer ruled by Darwin
Evolution because humanity is aware of causing changes to species and
creating new species, so humanity was become transcendent-Darwin-
evolution.

Regardless of the above three I outlined, let me repeat again, that
the case is closed on Darwin Evolution for it is a fake theory, and
that the Bell Inequality with Aspect Experiment proves that
Superdeterminism must be the true theory. And that any case examples I
come up with-- wheat, electric eel, humanity, etc etc that any of
these case examples are just more added evidence for a case already
closed.