immortal

Yes, that was philosophy. I just implemented Yockey's point #6 into the mainstream science. Hardy Wienberg law and population genetics operates only on a large sexually reproducing population and determining the alteration of equillibruim observing the population with the expected value of the Hardy Wienberg formula is irrelevant to Yockey's argument. He has no problem with population genetics or with the Hardy Wienberg equillibruim, his argument is far more fundamental and prior to the origin of life. I am arguing about Yockey's argument of the sequence hypothesis. The argument is actually about is the building blocks and all the known laws of physics and chemistry sufficient enough to account for the origin of life in a natural way. Yockey makes it very clear that the distinction between non-life and life is the very presence of messages with instructions to do specific tasks. The transformation from chemical evolution <=> biological evolution is not simple. Stanley miller's experiment just showed that the building blocks for life like HCN, fatty acids, amino acids, urea etc prevailed in the prebiotic conditions but the problem is if these building blocks are not linked in a precise fashion to do specific tasks then there cannot be life and it requires instructions or meaningful messages to interpret what specific tasks should be performed or what specific chemical reactions should be carried out which is missing in non-living systems and hence the problem is the origin of such instructions to interpret a message or a sequence of building blocks. Such instructions cannot originate in a natural way and there is no natural mechanism for it and yet the building blocks of life are linked in a way to have specificity. The machinery for life originated via specific meaningful instructions which cannot be quantified or measured. Such a mechanism is forever unknown for us.

The critics of Hubert Yockey's paper have misunderstood his arguments, one should allow him to answer his critics. Dr. Hubert Yockey’s answer to FTE amicus brief The problem is something far more different than we had imagined.

No, people are smart and way ahead of us as they know science cannot answer all the questions for them. Then you should watch the video.

Yes, that's right. There is one scientist who thinks that way and his name is Hubert Yockey and that's what should be taught in schools and in biology textbooks instead of a made up origins myth of science by the majority of evolutionary biologists. There are no natural chemical processes which uses codes to synthesize products and hence such origin of specificity and meaning cannot actually be measured via scientific methods. The main difference between living and non-living things is that living things have a genome and that's what is special and unique about life and therefore the problem is the origin of genome and there is no natural process for the origin of specificity seen in the genomes of biological systems. Hubert Yockey proved with mathematical rigour using Shanon's theory of communication systems that origin of life is unsolvable with in science and this is what should be taught in schools.

How much is your bet? I'm interested. There is no scientific evidence to state that God does not exist and as far as Cosmicism is concerned Lovecraft is only looking at the future fate of our cosmos but he doesn't recognize how the cosmos was in the past. In fact all scientific evidence shows that we might have a greater purpose for our existence in the cosmos.

The problem of origin of life is unsolvable by the positivism of science and hence the origin of life should be accepted as an axiom. Science doesn't know and cannot know how life originated through natural processes with its scientific methods.

I don't think anyone can meet the necessary qualifications required to take up the job of God.

The Gnostic Christians seem to have a different creation myth on how the world came about which is very different from as espoused in the Bible.

Its quite easy to disprove idealism, science just have to give an objective account of reality. Not neccesarily, for example Roger Penrose argues that conscious thinking has an element of non-computability in it which means we don't process anything, we just grasp things which already exists in a different realm as Plato says.

One of the criteria that our ancients adopted to distinguish the real from the unreal is that real things were considered to be eternal and unchanging and the whole theory of Forms of Plato and the Advaita Vedanta of the Upanishads is based on this philosophical thought.

Anthropomorphism is defined in my dictionary as 'attribution of human characteristics to a god, animal or thing. - anthropomorphic -adj. God has human characteristics but his ontology is different, our language exists to describe this world and not to describe the numinous world of God, I have no words to describe his ontology or his manifestations. We have to go silent if someone asked us what is sweetness? or what is redness? The revelations of our ancients indicate that he has human characteristics and hence he can be a person.

If our ancients worshiped the Sun as a star in the milkway, something which we can empirically verify then religion wouldn't be a problem to science but the problem is our ancients worshiped the Sun as a deity, as an anthropomorphic God with his own pantheon, God is a person who resides inside everyone, this is where the problem lies and challenges the accepted notions of science and becomes incompatible with it having its own epistemology and methodology. If scientists doesn't want to investigate it then its fine but why make statements like "God is dead".

Sometimes our assumptions can be wrong too, it might be that there is something wrong with our perception of reality just as there might be something wrong in our education system for kids making the same mistakes quite often.

I agree, there are things in all the ancient religions of the world which cannot be dismissed so easily and it deserves an explanation and also a serious investigation something which both the scientific community and many of the scholars in the field really don't take it seriously.

So in a sense only an overactive immune system is more susceptible to develop autistic symptoms and not an immune response from a vaccination?

There is indeed some causal connection between the immune system and the development of autisic behaviors as this study shows. Researchers find evidence of link between Immune Irregularities and Autism However the study was conducted on mice and it doesn't mean that it necessarily works the same way in humans too.

Why can't you be honest with yourself, juan?

Without quoting where I have made mistakes and posted nonsense and without backing this statement with scientific papers to prove that I have made a mistake and just blindly stating it is a personal attack. Please go and read my first post in this thread whether I have called you as a crackpot or whether I called your ideas as crackpottery. Please go read it. I didn't called anonymous users as liars and when you quote such anonymous users to justify your statements who themselves don't back up their claims with scientific papers from reputed journals then I have to inevitably dub their claims as crackpottery. No, please go and read the paper which you cited, it has been falsified. All I requested you to cite a paper to support your claims and instead of doing that you took this discussion into an ugly turn. The problem is not just that, its the way you say "I am right, you're wrong" attitude that you show on a topic where there is no accepted consensus is my main problem. If you just quote it I am not blind to just read it. You said what it is not and not what it is, understand? There is no field in science where scientists don't take help from philosophers and both work hand in hand. I can give one small piece of advice to guests who visit this thread, this is a topic where the scientific community does not have an accepted consensus and it is very customary to call people coming from different schools of thought as crackpots among each other and we should just allow the physicists to work it out rather than taking anyone's claims for granted or as a fact.

I made mistakes and posted nonsense? Where? Which part? Can you quote them specifically? Do you want to have a healthy debate or continue making my arguments look weak by making personal attacks? People can see what you're doing here. I don't go by books, I prefer scientific papers and if this interpretation was so popular and so much accepted I find it hard to believe that there is hardly not a single paper about it. Can you cite papers for your interpretation so that I can understand your arguments better without any confusion. There is a lot of difference between quoting anonymous users and quoting words from respected physicists and scientists. Can't you see that? No, the CERN website doesn't give us the definition of the particle which you're using. Do you care to give us your defintion of the quantum particle? Doing bad philosophy == Doing pseudoscience. Only crackpots prefer such terms like "myth" for such important concepts which is spread among all the literature of QM.

Yes, you don't have intellectual honesty. I'm not here to listen your preaching, claims should be backed up with credible scientific papers not by linking book reviews. Yes that paper which you earlier cited and the interpretation in that paper has been falsified based on Gribbins statements, I have read that paper. This is a mainstream science forum and not a place to preach your myths. If you don't give the correct paper on which your interpretation is based on then there is no common ground to discuss because different interpretations and different papers approach QM with different assumptions and its meaningless to argue without knowing the foundational basis of someone's claims. I never said all of them lying, I said you were lying because you are moving goal posts and not addressing my arguments or my requests. This is double standards, then why the heck do you quote from wikipedia talk page to support your claims, by saying this you yourself have admitted that you embrace crackpottery. When you sarcastically said "quantum particle is a standard term, go and search in google" to an another member I did went and searched for the term and so far it doesn't have an agreed upon definition among physicists and philosophers and I have been asking you politely for its definition and the only thing I got back was a series of personal attacks dodging my questions. Your assumption that I don't reserach and don't learn before posting something is baseless and my posts speaks for itself. The falsified papers, the anonymous quotes from crackpots, physicists who rant on their personal blogs belong to you, not to me. Who is posting nonsense now? This place is not about correcting one, its about making the other person silent with sound arguments and you have not made a tiny effort to do that.

This paper below which you cited earlier has been falsified and its interpretation has been falsified and it is only of a historical significance. Repeating your lies again and again doesn't make it true. The assumptions in this paper are in direct conflict with Gribbin's statements. Now if you insist that Gribbin is talking about an earlier ensemble interpretation, my question is where is the new interpretation? Again citations please? On a topic where there is no accepted consensus why do you insist that only your interpretation is right? Why do you insist that only your approach to the problem is right and everyone should just accept it? We know that Ballentine pushed his own interpretation along with explaining the formalisms of QM so just because people enjoy his formalism of QM which he does without any paradoxes doesn't mean that his Statistical Interpretation of QM is right. As shown above it has been falsified. So what is the modified interpretation? As everyone can see in the wiki page about wave-particle duality. Some say only wave is real and others say wave-particle duality exists and quite a few say neither exist. So why is your arguments any better than others and if it was so obvious then why there is not an accepted consensus still? Particle physicists are not using the term particle in its usual sense and so far you have not defined your quantum ensemble and not even cited a working interpretation to support your arguments. As long as you don't define your interpretation and your definitions properly I have to assume you have no idea what you're talking about when you say particles behave as particles. I don't want reviews because I'm not buying a product. That's why I ignore it. We are talking about science here and it is done in good spirit with good intellectual arguments and your reviews doesn't answer my questions. Is that how you convince someone about your ideas?

Neither the supporters of GM nor its opponents know the real risks and the benefits of GM crops. Humans should be preservers of Bio-Diversity and not its destroyers. It means whether it is the use of a pesticide or the introduction of a new strain of resistant gene or selective breeding effective measures should be taken that the organism carrying that beneficiary gene or the trait should not affect the environment and other organisms so much that non-targeted organisms and its competitors go extinct. Engineered Corn and Monarch Butterflies Toxic pollen from widely planted, genetically modified corn can kill monarch butterflies, Cornell study shows A transgression of GM crops - Nature Maize, Genes, and Peer Review Caterpillars safe from some type of Bt corn - Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, June 2000. Recent experiments have shown that DNA is transferred from organelles to the nucleus at frequencies that were previously unimaginable. - Nature Jumping genes get alarmists worked up - Nature Are genetically modified crops promiscuous? - Joy Bergelson, Nature, september 1998. Scientific American on the Pusztai GE Food Safety Controversy - Organic Consumers Association. Stirring the pot: the Doomsday weapons and GM. Monsanto's herbicide-resistant soya beans cracking in the heat. If GM crops and GMO are not effectively screened with the ESA and EPA guidelines and pre-cautionary measures it shouldn't be allowed. The Europeans have done the right thing by banning GM.

The statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - L.L Ballentine, Reviews of Modern Physics, 1970, APS. This was the paper which you linked earlier to and it says "Ballentine Ensemble Interpretation" In this paper it makes the assumption that the pure state provides description of certain statistically properties of an similarly prepared ensemble of systems and not the description of an individual system say an electron which is in direct conflict with the Gribbin's statements. Then why don't you just give me a paper of the real modified version of your interpretation and not some old falsified interpretation. If this Ballentine ensemble interpretation has already been falsfied why should we still hold on to it and what is the modified interpretation? Citations please? I didn't had one but two problems with your first post in this thread, one was wave-particle duality is a myth and your other claim that particles behave as particles, you have justified the former claim by supporting your point of view with a physicist who treats wave-particle duality as a misnomer which is fine but you have not yet justified your latter claim and both of your claims were pretty upsetting in the begining. Even the Copenhagen Interpretation is not concerned with the metaphysical implications of the nature of the quantum system itself and only difference between this and the statistical interpretation is that it eliminates the paradoxes like wave-particle duality, heisenberg's uncertainty priniciple of the former. If this interpretation is the shut up and calculate approach then how did you made a statement like particles behave as particles? which is a claim on the physical nature of the quantum system. "Whereof one cannot speak we should remain silent" - Wittenstein

No, no I didn't quoted John Gribbin just like that. L. L Ballentine in his paper makes the assumption that the wavefunction does not represent the state of a individual system but he says it represents the state of statistically prepared ensemble of systems. Now if the wavefunction clearly predicts the behaviour of individual systems (say an electron or a photon) as Gribbin says then there must be something wrong with his interpretation. Now which modified version of his interpretation are you arguing now? That's not the consensus of the whole of scientific community, that's just one physicist. Now will you address my requests and arguments or will you rebutt only those which are convenient for you.

L.L Ballentine's paper was an excellent paper on the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics but isn't it that as John Gribbin says it is only of a historical significance which has been rejected by the scientific community at large. The assumption that the wavefunction cannot completely represent the state of individual systems and only an ensemble of systems seems to be false. No, your interpretation does not allow you to make any claims on the nature of the quantum system itself and hence take back your assertion that "particles behave as particles".