As I said, it depends on the technology and the level of understanding of the person viewing it. A hologram would be a harder sell, as would most of our virtual technology. A mechanical device or even an electromechanical device? You could sell that to a man of science from the Greeks forward I would think.

But the question is, if an educated person of today were to be handed some incredible device would they say "magic" or "science"? We have a far broader understanding of science and a wide array of speculative fiction that helps us grasp the unknown.

It is magic. Has to be.

The very idea that a cell phone, GPS, or any other electronic device, can pull a invisible thing called an electrical signal out of thin air, and actually DO something with it.....

Magic. Has to be. Even after working on this stuff for 41 years..... I'm still amazed a time or two.

I believe that we are all ignorant or wrong, on so many different levels, in so many different ways.

Life is a voyage of discovery to correct our shortcomings as best we can with not enough time in a lifetime.

An open mind is a wonderful thing to behold.

As evidenced by Mike and Morris here.

Thanks for sharing, boys, you have my grey matter churning away in fine style.

Shit, you guys are keeping me awake. I will pay for it at work. I’ll give this a shotgun approach. I tried to go back and pick things I forgot to quote as well so bear with me.


I know you missed some of the earlier posts but I am interested in any evidence you can lay out. I know you are not a scientist but any overwhelming evidence that is not on a Darwinian theory is new to me. I posted a bit on intermediary species, mutations within species (and their corresponding evolution), DNA vs protein protection of DNA (as well as the need for RNA and protein coding/synthesis). I work in Molecular Bio doing PCR with DNA/RNA and have a decent grasp on genetics, nucleic acids, etc. My main argument was how does the DNA get randomly formed without protein since the DNA codes the protein. Also, where are signs of intermediate species that could have evolved over long periods, evidence for chromosomal number differences that would not kill the offspring, how do random mutations in a male or female correlate to offspring with the same genetics unless a male/female mutated and mated together, how would a chromosomal fusion randomly happen in both sexes to give the offspring the chromosomal change, etc. There are many more problems with just one mutation being conferred to an offspring that can survive, let alone the massive number that would have to occur over time at every step of an evolution between species.


I resemble that 5 year old you discuss. I agree with that as well. We are basically ignorant about most of the Earth, let alone the universe and what might be in other dimensions.



I understand your point. How about a specific example to today; many UFO accounts state what appears to the observer as craft popping in or out of our space/time. The explanation usually is not magic or supernatural but alien beings in craft that have higher technology and may come either in a different time frame or from a different dimension. Rarely do you hear someone say it might be a cloaked craft from a government agency that is a bit ahead of us technologically. They jump to the alien conclusion without any evidence. I have no clue how to explain these but that goes to my point. People have no bearing on reality when they see something outside of their current technological framework. We have no evidence for aliens or beings from other dimensions (unless I missed the class) but that is what many people say. Advanced technology from another planet has replaced magic or supernatural because that is what people have seen in movies and literature.



I’m amazed at electrical gadgets all the time, but then electrical physics had me studying too much. I found vectors, rotation, biochemistry, and other areas less supernatural because they didn’t have that spooky action.



You take the prize for saying it in a short and succinct version. We are ignorant but not stupid if we keep that open mind.

I went back to read some of the posts and found a couple things I wanted to address that I had missed. Mike had reiterated that he thought of the thread as a round table when I mentioned it as a debate. It only became my sense as being more of a debate from our back and forth so I am glad he brought this up. Steve and I have PM’d each other and we have more agreement than the discussion here would suggest. I know things get heated, especially when we all can misinterpret what little is written online. My writing may not convey my original intent and I see that sometimes when I am quoted or I read it later. I preface this so my meaning will not be misconstrued.

The reason I have thought of this more as a debate than a round table is from some of the responses (mine included). I believe my reasoning for posts on different subjects may not have been as clear as I wished. As a round table, we are writing to more than just one person who does or does not hold our opinions on an issue. If I post something on prophecy or the Bible, I am not expecting anyone to believe it as truth. I am only stating my opinions and asking for comment. There are other members and guests that might either be interested in it as literature, mythology, or reality. I assume I am not the only Christian that is on the site. They may find it edifying. Sometimes we will have disagreements; we have since the start. When I see statements of cherry picking, arrogance, magic vs science, absurdity, and the like, I will debate my side as best I can or try to clarify. Do not take my defense of a position as meaning I think it is the correct one. My opinions can change over time so I try to limit my hubris but I am not perfect.

I do feel we have more agreement than some of our posts reflect. I also have learned things from our discussions. When Mike brought to my attention some things on Newton and his breakdowns in later life, I purchased a couple of biographies so I can study. Down the road I will try to post what I think on this as I get through them. My current views are based on the works I have; “The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”,”Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of Saint John”, “Opticks” and others. From my reading of his work, I found well researched data. His historical writings are no less detailed and well thought out with meticulous calculations and thought. That does not mean any of what he writes is true, that is a decision for each person to decide.

I have said this before, but I wish to state it again: my views are just that and I do not expect others to hold the same views. If I discuss a subject, it is because I feel it may interest someone or it interests me. It may not interest Mike or Steve, especially if it refers to the Bible, but there are others who may want to look into something further. I am happy to talk about any subject with anyone who wishes to post. I will listen to the points made for their stance and give my opinion. That does not mean if I disagree that they are wrong and I am right, it just means I disagree. I may not have the facts or the worldview that the other person does so the round table concept will hopefully bring clarity on the subjects. If we agree to disagree after discussion, we can move on. As a round table, we should remember this is just a deliberation. So I will try to get my mind back to this as an open discussion. I will post Biblical topics at times for those who like that sort of thing. Do not take it as meaning anything other than my intent to have a discussion.

I noticed Steve brought up something that I think is important if you want to study the Bible or just are interested in mythology and the history of ancient cultures. He was relating the Bible to other ancient texts and I believe some may find this information useful.

For understanding the context of both the Bible and ancient beliefs, it is important to read the literature of the ancient people to understand their views. We have a tendency to study using our own worldview instead of that of the people when the text was written. Dr. Michael Heiser is a Semitic language expert who is also a Christian. He has a podcast called The Naked Bible. His approach is that of a scholar, being both a professor and an author. Here is his bio to see his credentials:
https://www.logos.com/academic/bio/heiser

The link below is to the bibliography section for some of the podcast episodes and it contains information on resources for not only Biblical but Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Ugaritic and other cultures. Some of the books are fairly expensive but he also gives websites where free texts can be found. There are also links to digital versions of some volumes. I use Logos so many of my books are in digital format for ease of study across text (and using Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic word studies). If nothing else, these 3 volumes are good for a broad view of the ancient cultures and their beliefs. I think ANET is the cheapest of the three. The list is pretty long but these are good overview volumes.

http://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/bibliography/

Books: General Collections
The Context of Scripture (COS); 3 volumes
Ancient Near Eastern Texts (ANET) by Pritchard (one volume hardcover; split into two volumes paperback; vol. 1 and vol. 2)
Writings from the Ancient World

Dr. Heisers main page is: http://drmsh.com/

I'm not in the mood to break this up into a growing nest of quotes and quotes of quotes and shit.

Re: Evolution. It would be helpful if I had my science textbooks. I don't. From the top of my head there is a lot of very interesting DNA and genetics based study going on. This might help. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics If not, a decent entry level anthropology or biology text published in the last few years should have a deep enough discussion of the matter.

Re: UFO's and shit. That is popular culture crafting a narrative, and it may also be supported by government efforts if these UFO's are military craft. It is also an interesting avenue to explore, so we ponder and theorize on the existence of aliens, because that is speculative and new, while spooky government planes are not. Curiously though, this speculative approach to what might be in terms of science and technology help drive progress. Our fiction becomes a source of inspiration. If we ask how can aliens do this or what might aliens be doing, that could lead us to finding aliens. I think the fact that even our outlandish ideas of aliens flying through time and space focus on technology and science instead of the supernatural say something about how far even most lay persons have come. They see a flying saucer and go "Advanced species from another world with superior technology" instead of "God" or "Angels" or some such like that.

When a theologian tries to work out God you get a nice set of theological ideas. When somebody tries to work out a flying saucer, you get science and maybe progress, or at least an effort to understand the material reality of an event without ascribing it to on high. And even in the testing of something and saying "not aliens" we advance because we stop calling weather balloons spaceships and stop calling spy planes alien craft because we force a broader understanding of deductive reasoning and examination of an event.

You're right... The round table comment was more of wishful thinking and intent rather than "truth." Anytime someone has deeply held beliefs and someone else presents things that are deeply held and contrary, there is going to be a desire to justify the contrary beliefs.
I don't think that we've gone off the rails despite such treacherous ground that we've covered.
If I was a dick a few times, I hope that it can be forgiven due to my good intentions.
What's the old admonition about the road to hell and paving?
I really don't mean to be a dick... I just wanted to avoid including personal grudges in this thread as much as possible.

Steve already slapped me with my first TLDR this morning, so I will save the long-winded response that I had planned.

Thanks for the replies and I'll hold off on the quote of a quote as well. I am decently versed in DNA and genetics due to my work in Molecular (DNA/RNA/bacterial) for about 8 years. I am no expert like I was in Toxicology and I'll take a look at the information. I have never gotten answers to the types of questions I have raised here from any genetics or DNA researchers however. My examples I listed a few pages back are beyond a simple genetic answer of DNA being similar, etc. They go to the mechanism of initial structuring of cells with complex biochemistry as we learned in cell physiology. I have searched for answers to how the initial cell membranes and proteins formed if no DNA was available to code for the molecules, transport systems, organelles, mitochondria, etc. Biochemistry is a complex field that I have studied and the myriad of chemical reactions within a single cell need not only all of the reactants within a limited space at the correct ratios and small distances, but a structured cell in order for the processes to occur.

I will take a look at the info you posted in the link but I doubt it will go into my questions on the structures, chemistry, or how procreation would occur randomly for moving a mutation forward in animals without dual mutations occurring within the first mutated animals lifespan. Genetics and DNA are interesting topics and it may be worth discussing more, whether or not we agree on evolution itself.

EDIT: I read the page but all it shows is a close similarity in the DNA. Similarity of DNA does not mean the similarity has to come from an evolutionary change of species. We are also close to pigs in many instances of the genome. We actually can use organs from pigs and our immunology is similar. We cannot use ape or monkey organs without rejection. If we were to look at every animal, we would find most of the DNA is similar. In order to design the myriad of animals, assuming there was a designer, it would be more efficient to use similar coding, even if there are large quantitative sequence differences even among the closer animals. A genome more similar should give us similar attributes (ability to breath oxygen, arms, legs, toes, fingers, etc) but does not necessitate the same origin. Chromosomal differences are a hindrance to having an offspring that is not sterile. In nature this mechanism works to keep species distinct. It is not impossible, yet very rare. A short explanation of this problem can be found at these two links: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/20 ... .Ge.r.html and https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/hybrid.htm

I find the topic of aliens and UFO's fascinating. I found Sitchin's books on Sumeria interesting, although his take on the actual cuneiform does not conform to what you can find by reading translations online. It's been a while since I read his work. I always thought that even if what the Annunaki claimed was true about a Nibiru planet where they came from and they genetically modified creatures on Earth to create humans as a slave race, as Sitchin states, I wondered why anyone would believe the gods of Sumeria. I figured it was easy enough for them to lie yet a lot of people Sitchin is correct and don not question whether there would be any deception. They came across as a pretty nasty bunch.

One of my favorite books on UFO sightings in history is William Bramley's "The God's of Eden". It would be hard to substantiate but was well written.

Mike, we are all dicks so no problem. As you said, we haven't really gone off the rails, we just got sidetracked a little.

I finished one of the biographies of Newton but haven't received the big one (600 pages or so). I have some thoughts on it but will save most of that for when I have more time to write a decent reply. The one I read did not change my mind on Newton but I understand your arguments. He did have a few nervous breakdowns and his arguments with Hooke likely precipitated some. Since Newton usually backed down and went back into seclusion, it seems he may have had some type of anxiety disorder or he just did not like confrontations. He definitely spent most of his time in isolation doing his work and research. Hooke was a nasty character from what I read.

Whenever I discuss DNA and the similarities of its encoding between animals with my family or friends, I compare it to software coding. I do not discuss plants because I am ignorant of anything but rudimentary plant biology. DNA is a higher form of code than binary software since it has 4 nucleobases but the functions of each can be compared. If we look at similarities of DNA among any number of animals, no matter what the organism, we see that all animals share a large number of sequences. This indicates that all animals have a fairly close relationship in their DNA, at least on a percentage basis.

Human DNA has approximately 3 billion base pairs (see: https://www.genome.gov/11006943/human-g ... questions/ ) If we only look at a 1% difference, this would be a 30 million base pair differences, which can account for a large variation of traits. Humans are only a few thousand years old so we have a major difference between any species with even a 1% difference. Find those millions of intermediate species and we have some good evidence for cross species evolution with our nearest nucleobase examples.

If we look at both sides of the genetic/evolution picture, on one side we would say this similarity is be caused by all animals having a common progenitor. On the other side, we would say this is a design feature to be efficient when writing the code. Most of us have done at least some coding of software or else understand the process. If you want to code a large program, it makes sense to reuse code for similar attributes or functions. Say you want to create a picture where some elements have features that are the same. It would be more efficient to reuse lines of code than it would be to write different instructions for the similar attributes (perhaps objects on screen). It makes sense if we were assuming a designer of DNA to also utilize the same coding amongst DNA of animals if similar attributes are present between species. If animals have two legs, we could use similar base pairs or genetic sequences that code for that feature. If we wanted to design an immune system, for similar animals (say mammals), we could do the same but with other sequence variations. I have never found a method to prove this either way so it is a matter of how each person interprets the data based on their worldview and what they have studied.

I think I should have posted a bit more background earlier in the thread to lay out what my views are. I joke with my wife that I should just start my own church but she says it would be the church of one (Unitarian?) because I disagree with everyone on all sides. The Christian dislikes my views because I have interpretations of the Bible most do not like (blasphemous to them). The Atheist dislikes my views because they are spiritual. Politically the right and left both dislike me because I do not like control and I believe in freedom. The Republican right wants to tell me what I can and cannot do, much as the fundamentalist Christian does. The Democrats dislike me because they feel I want to make them adhere to my beliefs, which is not the case. The Republicans I debated over the legalization of Cannabis, which was solely based on my medical understanding of the drug from Toxicology, were vehemently against me. Although the Bible says nothing about Cannabis and Paul specifically tells Timothy to drink wine for his ailments, they are so biased against it that they cannot see it as anything but the evil weed portrayed in the idiotic movie “Reefer Madness”. So I get hit from all sides, but I am a Yankee fan so I am used to that.

People might be surprised that I dislike most churches and preachers. I do not like preaching in general. Those who preach that they know what is right for another individual, in my opinion, are just as bad as lying politicians. I do attend a service with my oldest son but it is not a typical church. My pastor, Michael, started a Christian heavy metal band, Bloodgood, back in the early 80’s (he became a Christian in high school in the mid 70’s). Their first tour was with Stryper if I recall correctly. Stryper is another Christian heavy metal band and Michael actually hired one of Strypers lead guitar players (Oz Fox) for his last album. Michael talks about being attacked relentlessly back in the 80’s by Christians for his “evil” music, although the lyrics are straight-up Biblical. The band has done a lot of touring over the decades so he knows a lot of different people from metal bands like Dio, Megadeth, etc. My son and I both like metal so we fit in well. He often says we are all the original Motley Crew (sp). You would not expect to talk with people at church that are into Metallica, Megadeth, Black Sabbath, Ozzy, Scorpions and the like but many of us do. I told my son that it doesn’t matter what the lyricist meant when writing a song, you can interpret it for what it means to you, and although there are some songs I just won’t listen to, it is up to the person to do what they wish.

For anyone reading this that is Christian and likes metal, there are excellent bands. Of course, there are also excellent bands of other genres. These are straight up Christian metal with excellent music, lyrics, and arrangements. Of course I like Bloodgood. One of their songs, “In the Trenches” has a Seahawk video that Seattle used on TV a few years back and is still on Youtube. My favorite bands are Rush and Alice in Chains but one of my newer favorites is Theocracy. Theocracy sounds to me like a mix between Styx, Metallica, and Kansas. I had asked my son (16), who is the only other Christian in my immediate family, if he wanted to try another church where there were kids his age. He said no. We have electric guitars and he likes the music fellowship. Where else can you play and learn from people who have metal bands and are in the Christian Music Hall of Fame?

I have had more problems when I discuss issues with Christians than any other group. The discussions I have had make me wonder if Christians are either lazy or just prefer to do light reading. My views on the Bible are quite a bit different because I go back and look to the original text in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Some people use a concordance, which is okay, but to really understand what it says, you need to look at the original writings and place it in the context of the writers’ time. You find a lot of things that do not correlate with mainstream views. Most people do not even use a parallel Bible to check the meanings of their translations or see the discrepancies. I often show people translational errors and scribal errors just by looking at multiple translations. This doesn’t mean we have to learn the languages (although I am trying). We can use the original text and use software to study the word meanings as they relate to the sentence structure (verbs, nouns, etc.)

One such example that almost is universally misunderstood is “the satan” in the book of Job. This is not referring to the Nachash (serpent) of Genesis.

http://drmsh.com/the-absence-of-satan-i ... testament/

“Although English Bibles continue the practice of capitalizing the word “satan” in passages like Job 1 and 2, those passage do not have a specific individual in mind — that is, “satan” in these passages should *not* be understood as a proper personal name. Here is a video presentation of the material that follows in case you’d rather watch (I also run a search through the OT for what I’m talking about).
The reason for this is straightforward. In biblical Hebrew, the definite article (the word “the) is a single letter (heh). Hebrew prefixes (attaches) the definite article to a noun (or participle to make it a substantive) so that, like all languages that have definite articles, the noun is made specific. Biblical Hebrew does not, however, put the definite article (the word “the”) on proper personal nouns (personal names). In this respect, Hebrew is like English. I don’t call myself “the Mike”. No one (except maybe Donald Trump ) puts the word “the” in front of their first name. Hebrew simply does not do this at all. As the well known biblical Hebrew reference grammar by Jouon-Muraoka notes: “No proper noun of person takes the article, not even when it has the form of an adjective or a participle.”1

Without exception, the word “satan” in Job occurs *with* the article. This indicates quite clearly that “satan” is *not* a personal name. It is generic, and means “the adversary”. The word can be used of human beings (1 Sam 29:4; 2 Sam 19:23; 1 Kings 5:18; 1 Kings 11:14). All of these examples have “satan” without the article, but the referent is a human being, not a divine being, so we don’t have “Satan” here either.”

When we actually study the Bible in depth in this manner and read texts from scholars instead of listening to what the typical Christian or local church leaders believe, the ideas that we hear so often are not so easily found in the text and many times disagree. The quote from Dr. Heiser above shows this and his book “The Unseen Realm” has more examples and explanations. Interpretations can easily be describing a local flood when you look at the Hebrew. I have seen similar issues with the young Earth theory of most Christians. I can see the points on of the young Earthers and could argue their side from a scientific basis due to issues of dating, both radiometric and geological formations, but saying they are correct is not something I would do. I can also argue (and have) from a Biblical standpoint for an old Earth but most Christians will not hear of it. There are certain issues that are not worth arguing over since it is unlikely to be provable with a high degree of confidence either way. On those issues that are not straightforward, such as these two, I am agnostic because not only do I not have enough information but it is meaningless in my overall belief. What I do know is there are a few issues that have to be true or my belief in Christianity, and anyone’s belief would fall apart. Evolution and the Resurrection are mandatory for a belief in the Bible (assuming we are talking Old and New Testament beliefs). That is why I have spent a lot of time focusing study on those topics. The Resurrection is the harder of the two since it means we must use a lot of circumstantial evidence but most trials are based on this type of evidence in order to reach a reasonable conclusion. As long as there is not incontrovertible evidence against your view, a strong circumstantial case would be as useful as in a criminal prosecution.

So I disagree with most Christians but just as I have done in this thread, I try to go where the information leads me without being concerned if others do not agree. I wish most Christians would be as motivated to study in depth their religious text before jumping to attacking other people as many Muslims are. Muslims are some of the most well-read people I have met and the ones I have known understand their book. Just like any other subject, we need to study before we come to our conclusions and listen to the other side if we want to find the truth (or what we believe is the truth).

My idea here was to show that a basis of science does not necessarily mean we have to discard things that are beyond our normal understanding. We can look at the possibility of entities outside our awareness, other dimensions, aliens, whatever we want to call them. That means we may not be the most advanced intelligence but so be it. We also do not have to adhere to a rigid foundation of fundamentalism of any kind or cursory interpretations of things that we do not agree with. To call ourselves Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or something else pushes us into a box that someone else has defined.

I hate the control of others and I should start that church of mine so I can dictate the box I am in. My belief is still that freedom wins in the end. I do not agree that America should have Christians running the government. Our founding was based on liberty to believe what we want and it should always stay that way. I wish we followed the law and treated everyone with respect and love but that is not likely. We can see how far we have fallen just from the divisiveness rampant in American society. These people want to tell others what to do and how to live their lives. Believe me or else you are a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, an asshole, and you also hate women.

The leftists and the righty’s should also adhere to freedom and stay out of everyone’s business. There is actually clear Biblical precedent for this. When Jesus said render unto Caesar, he was making a clear statement of what he was meant to bring and it wasn’t a new government. It was purely how you should treat others, even those who disagree and do not follow your beliefs, it was spiritual. This caused him major problems because the Hebrews expected a physical king to give them a new government on Earth, drive out the Romans, and yet he wanted to give them something higher. The Old Testament is replete with the notion of the people of Israel, due to their covenant with Yahweh, being under harsh law and if they broke the law, they were punished severely. It wasn’t because they were better than the other nations; it was because they were under a contract. Throughout the Bible the Hebrews show convincingly they were not great people and had no reason to be proud. The other nations were not under a contract and were not expected to be under that law.

When Christians tell me something that does not conform to scripture, I show them what it says and let them decide for themselves. It may cause me to lose friends and family but I have no problem with that. I am just trying to get people to study and decide from a basis of knowledge and not ignorance of their own book. If they need to consult their pastor, their priest, or any other person, then they need to spend more time on studying.

Work has been busy so I have not had time to look in depth at any subjects for the thread. I ordered another book on Isaac Newtons Alchemical experiments so I want to read that before discussing his work any further and it may take a few weeks to arrive.

However, last year I had been looking at the body emitting biophotons and research on DNA as the source. Since we were discussing DNA and it's complexity, I thought it might be interesting. I have not looked at it much but still want to spend time on it at some point. Usually when I look up research I use NCBI/NIH and I have a few links to papers but they can be somewhat technical without Biochem or Cell Phys. I am also linking to another site discussing older research into cancer causing agents and biophotons, especially at 380nm. It also goes into the mechanism of photorepair of cells, which is pretty amazing. After you get past the talk of ESP and telepathy, it is worth reading.

http://www.viewzone.com/dnax.html

"It is well known from biological laboratory experiments that if you blast a cell with UV light so that 99 per cent of the cell, including its DNA, is destroyed, you can almost entirely repair the damage in a single day just by illuminating the cell with the same wavelength at a much weaker intensity. To this day, scientists don't understand this phenomenon, called photorepair, but no one has disputed it....

In an old documentary film taken in the laboratory at the International Institute of Biophysics, Dr. Popp opens a chamber about the size of a bread box. He places a fresh cutting from a plant and a wooden match in a plastic container inside the dark chamber and closed the light proof door. Immediately he switches on the photomultiplyer [sic] and the image shows up on a computer screen. The match stick is black while the green, glowing silhouette of the leaves is clearly visible.

Dr. Popp exclaims, "We now know, today, that man is essentially a being of light.""

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4267444/

"Mothersill and many others during the last hundred years have shown that cells and now whole animals may communicate with each other by electromagnetic waves called biophotons. This would explain the source of the bystander phenomena. These ultra-weak photons are coherent, appear to originate and concentrate in DNA of the cell nucleus and rapidly carry large amounts of data to each cell and to the trillions of other cells in the human body. The implications of such a possibility can be wonderfully important."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4654779/

"This article briefly reviews the biofield hypothesis and its scientific literature. Evidence for the existence of the biofield now exists, and current theoretical foundations are now being developed. A review of the biofield and related topics from the perspective of physical science is needed to identify a common body of knowledge and evaluate possible underlying principles of origin of the biofield. The properties of such a field could be based on electromagnetic fields, coherent states, biophotons, quantum and quantum-like processes, and ultimately the quantum vacuum. Given this evidence, we intend to inquire and discuss how the existence of the biofield challenges reductionist approaches and presents its own challenges regarding the origin and source of the biofield, the specific evidence for its existence, its relation to biology, and last but not least, how it may inform an integrated understanding of consciousness and the living universe."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/6204761/

"The phenomenon of ultraweak photon emission from living systems was further investigated in order to elucidate the physical properties of this radiation and its possible source. We obtained evidence that the light has a high degree of coherence because of (1) its photon count statistics, (2) its spectral distribution, (3) its decay behavior after exposure to light illumination, and (4) its transparency through optically thick materials. Moreover, DNA is apparently at least an important source, since conformational changes induced with ethidium bromide in vivo are clearly reflected by changes of the photon emission of cells. The physical properties of the radiation are described, taking DNA as an exciplex laser system, where a stable state can be reached far from thermal equilibrium at threshold."

Morris, the wife and I want to join your church - if we can get a musical exemption for our love of rock ' n roll, blues, classical, bluegrass, and traditional fiddle tunes.

Everything else is spot on from where we come from philosophically.

Did you ever read much Robert A Heinlein ? Many of your views are aligned with his philosophical renderings of moral character in his novels.

Orson Scott Card is another fellow who looks through the rabbit hole of humanity, and channels some of the best moral character examples for people to aspire to.

Light reading to intersperse between dusty scripture, and molecular biology tomes, methinks.

All my pastor dislikes as far as music is country. I happen to like some country also so we joke about it but I pretty much like all types of music except rap, techno, and the girly pop. Greg, who also plays guitar at service is into blues. Funny thing is it's not even at a church. We are pretty small and meet at the Old Redmond Schoolhouse. Michael always says we are the original motley crew (I know spelling is different). We have a mixed bag of people. One guy is a disabled felon, another is a black guy named Dragon that first came in with face paint (and is a really interesting guy). Not your typical Christians and probably the reason it is the only place I would feel at home. I asked my son last year if he would want to try another service where there were some more kids his age but he said no, which made me happy.

I have heard of Heinlein but never read any of his work. I think my brother might have since he was into science fiction as a kid. I will have to look at his books.

I like that image.

Heinlein was brilliant. Eccentric too, but how often don't those two traits go together in humans?

If we get to meet soon enough I'll bring a few of what I consider his better books.

Off the top of my head I recommend 2 first Heinlein reads... Tunnel in the Sky and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

Friday was good too.

Excellent, thanks for the recommendations. I lean towards the eccentric but not so brilliant side, that is why I have so many books. I use osmosis.

I have had a long hiatus due to a hectic time at work, etc. I came across this article while studying some PCR and genetics articles and am sending it to a few people I correspond with on these subjects so thought I would share it here as well.

It has relevance for the evolution timing human DNA based on mitochondrial DNA mutation rates. This article is fairly technical on the PCR methodology and DNA sequencing itself but the main point to note is the mitochondrial DNA substitution rate that corresponds to ~6500 years for current human DNA (for the most recent ancestor if you go by the evolutionary model). It is an interesting paper and is more interesting because it is in the same range as the Biblical genealogy of a little over 6000 years.

Notice the conundrum they have when trying to reconcile the PCR mtDNA mutation rate dating with the assumptions of phylogenetic dating as to why the date is only 6500 years as opposed to several hundred thousand. They fail to give a conclusion on the discrepancy.

The methodology of testing is listed below as well. One of our PCR systems is an older Applied Biosystems cycler and we also use Taq polymerase in some of our methods. I am not including the commentary of how they rule out sequencing errors but they used replicate analyses from multiple labs and 63 individuals and their protocol is sound. They had a concordance (in their words) across the lab results.

Definitions:

mtDNA: mitochondrial DNA

MRCA: Most Recent Common Ancestor

RFLP: Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism

CR: Control Region

Phylogenetic: based on natural evolutionary relationships (Merriam-Webster)

Source:

Thomas J. Parsons (1, 5), David S. Muniec (1), Kevin Sullivan (2), Nicola Woodyatt (2), Rosemary Alliston-Greiner (2), Mark R. Wilson (3), Dianna L. Berry (4), Koren A. Holland (4), Victor W. Weedn (1), Peter Gill (2) & Mitchell M. Holland (1)

(1) The Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory, Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, 1413 Research Blvd., Rockville, Maryland 20850, USA.

(2) The Forensic Science Service, Priory House, Gooch Street North, Birmingham, UK.

(3) The FBI Laboratory, Washington, DC 20535, USA.

(4) Department of Chemistry, Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325, USA.

(5) Correspondence should be addressed to T.J.P.

A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nature Genetics, May 1997

“Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans. Even acknowledging that the MRCA of mtDNA may be younger than the MRCA of modern humans, it remains implausible to explain the known geographic distribution of mtDNA sequence variation by human migration that occurred only in the last ~6,500 years.

“While our results are at odds with those of the phylogenetic studies, they are in excellent agreement with a recent report that also directly measured the CR substitution rate.” [other report cited: Howell, N., Kubackka, I. & Mackey, D.A. How rapidly does the human mitochondrial genome evolve? Am. J. Hum. Genet 59, 501-509 (1996)]

Further excerpts:

Abstract: “The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. Here, we report a direct measurement of the intergenerational substitution rate in the human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hypervariable segments from close maternal relatives, from 134 independent mtDNA lineages spanning 327 generational events. Ten substitutions were observed, resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence. The data also indicate that extremely rapid segregation of CR sequence variants between generations is common in humans, with a very small mtDNA bottleneck. These results have implications for forensic applications and studies of human evolution.”

“In these and other studies of mtDNA RFLP or coding sequence variations, a standard approach is to derive a phylogenetic tree, then date branch lengths by reference to an assumed molecular clock, calibrated with divergence dates from the hominoid fossil or human archaeological record. However, this approach assumes neutral evolution and a known relationship between observed sequence divergences and the mode and rate with which substitutions accumulate…

Analysis was performed using two different methods. AFDIL, the FBI and Gettysburg College amplified the two hypervariable regions separately and sequenced the PCR products using the Prekin-Elmer, Applied Biosystems Division (ABD) DyeTerminator™ Taq polymerase cycle sequence kit and the ABD 373A DNA Sequencer. The British FSS amplified the entire mtDNA CR, followed by amplification of the two hypervariable regions with biotin-labelled primers… In all cases, sequence was determined from both strands.”