pioneer

Another way to interpret the flood is symbolically. This is more consistent with flood mythology, appearing all over the world in the light of limited physical evidence. From a psychological point of view a flood would imply something similar to a flood of emotion. The symbolism of two of every animal is symbolic of a connection to natural animal instinct, which was reintroduced into the world as the collective insanity ended. If you look at the accounts in the bible before the flood, the early pre-humans had become quite perverse, such as Sodom and Gomorra. They lost their connect to natural human instincts. An modern analogy is addictive behavior which is almost like an instinct in terms of compulsion. But it does things that harm the natural body. The gathering of two of each animal was an unconscious compensation to help restore animal instinct. Let me give a modern analogy. Eating is a natural instinct and eating can be pleasurable. Natural instinct eats in a way that allows the body to be a fit animal. Natural animals are fit and trim by instinct. But will power and pleasure can amplify the instinct to eat to great excess and disregard the natural limits of the instinct. The result of this can become an addiction that exceeds natural limits and begins to harm the body. The prehumans were far worse than that with all instincts exceeded and perverted. That is why the flood symbolism uses two of every kind of animal to symbolize the need to renew all natural instincts. The pervert stage may have been a way to develop will power apart from instinct. After the flood of emotion and the adjustment, will power was now in the context of natural instinct so it could be focused to expanding culture and not perverting instinct. The bible says a great flood will never happen again because humanity evolved beyond the unnatural stage. This is reflected in Noah and his family or stable instinct population the world. The flood does not imply all the humans died in the flood. What died was the wild and crazy stage of human evolution.

Emotional logic has a good side. The best example is innovation. The innovator may try many rational approaches to achieve a particular affect. The person has a gut feeling there is light at the end of the tunnel even if the light is very fuzzy. They may work for months or years looking for the pot of gold. This feeling is the motivation, with the feeling creating a fuzzy image of what might be, but what is not yet clear to the rational mind. As the experiments progress all this data and logic generated continue to evolve the 3-D memory in the brain. The evolving feeling is connected to this fast memory. The hard part is translation from 3-D intuition to 2-D rational since rational or 2-D memory is much slower and easier to manipulate. Often innovation is an accident due to the unconscious being triggered when the correct translation is achieved. The result is another feeling "eureka". The classic example was the discovery of the structure of benzene. The scientist racked his brain thinking up logical scenarios. These became stored in the 3-d memory. The unconscious gave him a dream of a snake biting his tail for the ring structure. When he awoke he felt eureka and used feeling to create the logic for others. Everyone then thought it was rational to satisfy the system. After it was accepted he was able to tell the real story. Most innovation uses this stumble approach but you can't say it out loud.

If you look at historical trends in animals on earth one can see they are advancing, with humans currently at the top of the food chain. So evolution represents biological advancement. Where the debate begins is how and why does nature advance. Selection offers one explanation but selection does not have to imply the best path of advancement since selective advantage can be dictated by the environment. The bully in the playground has selective advantage but in the nerd in the boardroom has selective advantage. In terms of advancement, the nerd may be more advanced, in real terms, but if the environment was stuck in the playground stage, selective advantage would perpetuate regressive genes. One of the misconceptions with Darwinism is that selective advantage meant the fastest path for evolution. In terms of a social projection, whoever was in charge had selective advantage so even if they acted like a caveman, it implied this was evolutionary. Using that philosophy, people like Hitler could come along and by simply dominating the environment he could be deemed evolutionary even when regressive. This is why social Darwinism was tried but never seem to work right. But biology never learnt from this in terms of selective advantage not allows implying, the best path for evolution. For example, you can have a forest of old regressive trees dominating the canopy. The new evolutionary trees on the forest floor, which will be the future of the forest, may have not selective advantage due to lack of sun. It may take a forest fire or a hurricane to knock down the old trees before significant evolution can occur. Under this new environment evolution now is able to move forward. Selective advantage before the fire meant slowing down evolution. With Darwinism we fixate on the old fashion trees dominating the canopy and call that one old fashion tree with a little edge evolution, but ignore the possibility that the future of evolution is sitting in the shade and needs the environment to change. The earth is dynamic so it is a matter of time. This creates the second problem. The data is discontinuous. Based on our old fashion forest we are more likely to find regressive trees as fossil evidence. The advanced trees who can't grow easily may not show up. Being true to science we have to assume they did not exist and only selective advantage among old trees was the path of evolution. But then we also find a quantum jump in trees as though they magically appear through mutations. The odds are these were already there and progressing. When the environment change they were finally able to come into the light. But the fossils may not be there since they didn't have selective advantage even if they were more advanced in terms of real evolutionary potential.

One irony in this statement is that the quanta themselves, like photons, are totally reproducible and therefore have a probability of 1, which means the quanta themselves are rational. Another example are the substructures of matter is composed of very distinct combinations of quantized particles, always the same. The proton is a proton and not a distribution function. This suggests the rational laws have yet to be discovered and we use probability as a good first approximation.

I still think the difference between the observeable universe and what is beyond is the observable uses space-time and the beyond is just space. Without time none of the forces can not actt there is no speed less than C, since only at C is time stopped using SR. Enegy although moving at C as a time aspect called frequency. This requires time to act so energy can not exit in space without time. Due to E=MC2, matter also needs time due to the equvilency of energy which needs time.

Thoughts can lead feelings or feeling can lead thoughts. These are two distinct ways to process infomation, although the final results look the same. As an example, a scientist goes into a cave to find artifacts. He looks around and notices the cave is unsafe and begins to feel fear. This is logical thought leading to emotion. His assistant hates caves and has a phobia about them. Before he enters the cave he is already feeling fear and begins to think of the worse case scenario because the fear is leading his thinking. As they both run out one would be hard pressed to tell one from the other since they both show fear and will explain that fear the same way. Logically 911 was a rare event and caused fewer deaths than dozens of other sources such as ligtning, autos, cancer, bathtubs, etc. If thought was leading emotion 911 should be low on the list of fear due to numbers. But the media hyped up the emotion of fear, by dwelling on it, so people became irrational, sort of anticipating the cave falling in even before they entered the cave. This emotional thinking still lingers and is needed to justify all the expense and even the war. If the media had given perspective, such as numbers for comparison, and objectively showed not only the more entertaining fearful but also the calm and objective, this emotional induction would be softer. The thinking that results from the softer eotional would be more consistent with thought leading feeling. As long as the feeling is cool and not too excited it is similar to thought leading feeling, since this is the eotional that thought leading feeling with reason will induce. My Spock had no emotion since the product of pure reason is not emotional. To start with emotion and reach reason the emotion needs to be faint or off. The fear hype was a dead give away for emotional thinking.

I realize this is hard to comment on. The solvent properties of water are critical to life. That solvent power needs to continuously line up with the organics or they don't work right. So we have solvent power always one step ahead so it can be affective. An interesting water affect, may have helped induce the original formation of DNA and RNA. The base pairing on DNA have extra H that can form hydrogen bonds but which don't participate in the base pairing. These are used to support a helix of water within the DNA double helix. The DNA and RNA were designed to include water. This is what one would expect if water was leading the design. So if we needed to insert bases, early in evolution, without enzymes, we need to do it in a way that supports the water's double helix since that is the default which is going to form. It would be an interesting project to see if the double helix of water extends beyond the end of a strand of DNA double helix. If it does, this offers a way to add bases to the end in primal times. Just good ole water pushing evolution. This is not yet replicators but making the first stands of DNA. The idea is that water is adding a little extra to the needs of the energetics.

You need a balance between rational and logical to draw the best conclusions. The rational mind would say media reporting is typically factual but often biased data since they are banking on emotional logic. If they want you to draw a particular conclusion, they only have to stack the data that way. The rational mind would say, one can't depend on this data source as being complete therefore I need to gather more data from other sources. Once all the data is in, sometimes the unconscious can synthesize this into a good emotional conclusion. Most innovation uses this complete data strategy. It is sort of the "Eureka" affect. Once the emotional "eureka" is known, we then back reason it and present it in a way that looks like we rationally deduced it. People reading it thinks the conclusion followed the reasoning but often the reasoning follows the conclusion of the emotional logic synthesized by the unconscious mind.

Getting back to morals, consider the ten commandments. These ten laws tried to control blind ego-centric impulses to create more will power. It was easier to steal than work, since stealing was one notch above an animal. It was easier to go into a blind rage and kill, than count to ten. It was easier to go after your neighbors wife than leave her alone and stick to your own. It was easier to put yourself first, than a higher power. It was easier to follow the lure of fads (false gods). These laws may appear like too much work for the ego, but it had the affect of increasing willpower by limited blind irrational impulse. They were trying to supersede animal or rather beast of the field behavior. Beasts of the field may have been better for the individual, at that time, since all the things that were prohibited were much faster ways toward self gratification. But a bunch of beasts was not the fastest way to evolve the species. It is easier to see if we do the reverse. Say we were to allow an anti-version of the ten commandments. One can steal when the impulse moves you. Or one can hustle their neighbors wife when the husband is at work. Or kill the husband to make it easier. One could move up the ladder faster of self gratification with less effort. But if everyone is doing this, nothing gets done and there is no social stability even though the ego is given maximum flexibility.

In an atheist culture I can see how collective or species advantage is not important beyond a self interest clique. Religion is the one that is usually geared to reducing the desires of the ego in favor of longer term collective goals. This often led to individual repression, but that was the point. The goal was the needs of the collective. This led to being subsevient to a smaller number of egos who would guide the collective. The atheist don't like this approach since it is not ego-centric enough. You appear to have stacked the deck to support your bias. That is why I complain about empiricism. It allows bull to be called science. If we limit science to logic most of the bull would not even be allowed. I am not a fan of modern behavioral pre-science. It is ego-centric science that tries to reinforce the stacked deck. But it lacks common sense and logic. Jesus said" blessed are the poor". How does this serve the ego? It serves the collective by reducing the stresses from competition, stealing, war, etc. There is little potential for most ego-centric things, by default. If you look at the data, poor people have more children than rich people, on the average. According to evolutionary theory doesn't this higher reproductive rate has something to do with selective advantage and therefore the main direction so the species is better able to evolve? There is less cultural prosthesis being poor and the humans that result are, by default, closer to nature. But they are also further away from full ego-centricity by default. Religion is an natural extension of survival of the collective. Atheism is more geared to survival of the individual. The balance is somewhere in the middle. Morality tries to use the best of the both worlds for the balance.

Animal instinct is geared to survival of the individual and survival of the species. With human will power, survival of the individual started to shift this natural balance to the individual and away from the species. It was not just survival of the individual, but all types of behavior geared to the ego-centric needs of individual. Morality is a human equivalent of survival of the species since it dictates behaviors that is less geared to ego-centric survival but more toward the group. I am not saying that morality always works but its role is to substitute the needs of the individual for the needs of the species. With religion usually the basis of morality, this would suggest that religion evolved from this survival of the species instinct that is common to animals. If you look in practical terms, animals don't have morality, but seem to go with the flow in terms of what is needed for their species' evolution. They submit to a higher instinctive power that can supersede their own need for personal satisfaction or survival. For example, a mother animal will try to protect her young, at her own risk. If she was fully ego-centric she would save her own hide. But at great risk to herself, she protects the future of the species since her child is the future. Morality is the human version of this with the individual told not to rape, steal, or kill even if this would make them feel good. Instead this check in behavior serves a higher purpose that benefits the species. Again not all morality is optimized with time, but the general trend helps the collective like an extension of survival of the species. The needs of the species changes with time, with morality evolving and serving to creating a better balance between individual and collective survival. This gives religion a connection to instinct. The higher power of collective survival is now personified but helps to give this instinct the weight needed to help check ego-centricity's that harm the species.

Water is critically important to life. Very few, if any, biological systems or reactions will function without water. There is no substitute for water in life as we know it. Logic would suggest that the evolution of life was also dependant upon the unique properties of water. Is the affect of water taken into consideration within evolutionary theories or is this variable left out even though nothing will work without its unique properties? The answer is this critical variable is left out of the analysis even though it was no doubt critical to every step in evolution. That being said, what is unique about water, is its properties are defined by hydrogen bonding. The observation that hydrogen bonding is also critical to life, in the light of the critical role of water in evolution, suggests that our carbon-nitrogen based life life evolved its hydrogen bonding nature in response to the water. In other words, what better way for water to retain its critical role to life than to push evolution in the direction where it could interface based on the same variable that gives water its unique properties. This keeps water always at the forefront of continuing evolution. Water although just H2O is the most complicated substance in nature with at least 63 anomalies relative to trends of other similar molecules. It makes sense that the energetics in water, which makes these anomalies possible, is also what makes life possible. In terms of speculation, maybe life is evolving to take into consideration the range that is inherent within the water. This is an area of evolution I would like to investigate and discuss in a rational way, even if empirical can ignore this critical variable for a good first approximation. I am not discounting the role of C,N,O, etc, but this doesn't work without water as the mediator. The C,N,O also impacts the water so new states of water become possible for further change in C,N,O, etc. This would make evolution a two-way street.

Obama appeals to the young and the liberal using the same techniques Hollywood uses to create cult heroes and pop super stars. The older and more mature crowd doesn't bite as easily. Obama is analogous to Britney Spears on the rise, where everything negative is overlooked and everything else exaggerated up to a Messiah analogy. Then you sell, sell, sell until they buy, buy, buy. If he sold records he'd be rich now, even with limited talent. Obama was a little taken back when Sarah Palin got into the picture. It was feared she could also gain cult status maybe like one of the more wholesome pop stars. Luckily for the Democrats Hollywood is liberal and they used the the "bring Britney down tactic", on Sarah Palin, using the rag blogs like valid information, with the hope other liberal rag publications will stimulate their voter base.

This is common sense to anyone who is self aware of their own brains. Testing or questions creates stress or a state of tension. The answer releases the tension. Like any chemical reaction, even memory needs an activation state before other thought reactions/interactions can occur. It appears you have learned from those who are not self aware enough to percieve the answer to this question. All I did was add activation energy to your brain and got you excited. Hopefully you don't return to obsolete.

The difference between questions and answers is a question will create a potential in the mind/brain, while answers will lower that potential. As an analogy, a question brings a ball to the top of an energy hill. The potential energy gets the brain going trying to lower this potential. The ball then begins to roll down the hill as we contemplate an answer. The correct path or answer will lower the potential the most. We may sense a feeling of release or satisfaction. Other paths that are not fully correct will retain some potential energy or get caught in a gully part way down the hill. There is still an uneasy feeling. These can raise new questions to lift the ball out of the hole for another run down the energy hill. When they get all the way down the hill these became part of long term memory. The next time, the ball will roll down this trench right to the bottom of the hill. The short term memory appears to be the question and answer energy hill due to lack of stability. But long term memory does not always imply lowest energy. For example, the earth was flat and the final answer to a question for many centuries. This was socially accepted as the lowest energy state to that question, although in reality it was only part way down the reality hill. At that point certain brains will sense this is just a gully illusion allowing thinking to evolve.

One point many people miss is there was not satellite imagery of the earth when these myths were made. The world for them was what they knew. For example, during the middle ages, for most Europeans, the western hemisphere or the America's were not part of the world. There was a big waterfall there with sea monsters. That being said, claims of a world flood only had to encompass the fraction of the world they were aware of when these accounts were written. Beyond that there was no world as far as they knew. The question for the biblical account should be is there evidence of a flood in the Mediterranean region, since this would have been their world.

Humans are messed up critters. I realize the liberal and PC crowd will accept the bizarre as their norm. But maybe we need to try to define natural and differentiated it. Here is how it works. Our natural instincts have distinct goals in mind. Hunger is there to feed the body. Sex is there to procreate, etc. The brain helps this along by dangling carrots on the string, such as pleasure and enjoyment, to help lead up to water. The driver of the carriage or natural instinct has the final goal in mind, but the horse only the sees the carrot. Culture fixates on the many ways we can get the carrot, and in the process, the driver leads the horse to water. Because the carrot is a trick or special affect to fool the horse, the silly human critter comes up with endless ways to achieve this short term goal. I suppose there is nothing wrong with how the horse twists and contorts to get the carrot as long there is forward progress. Some of the techniques even get the carrot to swing so the horse gets a nibble here and there. But other times, the horse is too preoccupied and takes too long to reach water. If you look at furry in a symbolic way, it suggests an inner urge to be more like animals. Or it is an impulse to hook up with natural instinct. This is actually healthy. The problem is the science can't define instinct maybe due to social pressures. Because horse and carrot science is acceptable the furry people get stuck at the horse and carrot and don't reach water. It could be economics. There is only one goal for food, for example. But there are endless horse and carrots scenarios. This is big business in all ways.

If I was to guess, humans began to eat meat sometime during the last ice age. The most logical scenario resulted from the affects of global cooling which meant less rain and cooling temperature. The result was less plant growth, drought and brush and forest fires. It may have been simple like, while scavenging for their veggie food in the rubble, they came across cooked animals. It smelled good and being hungry some began to eat. After that they gradually recognized these were animals, which were plentiful, since many can get by with scrub food. Hunting would have been easy at first because humans were not a natural enemy to any animal, so most other animals had little fear when then they approached. But as they hunted more, the animals began to learn to avoid them, causing the pre-human hunting skill level to need to gradually rise. Harnessing fire may have been nothing more than keeping a pile of embers going from a forest fire. And then placing their animal booty into the fire to simulate those original tasty meals. This also evolved with time due to the requirement of more wandering to catch the animals who were now being more evasive. They had to learn to transport and then make fire.

Our finite universe has space-time, while outside the finite universe is just space without time. Gravity works on space-time not on space that has no connection to time.

Hydrogen bonding is cooperative. What that means is if we form a chain of hydrogen bonds, such as in water, the bond strength gets stronger and stronger as the chain lengthens. When you get water added to an extended structure of water, the energy given off is higher that the typical dimer of one hydrogen bond. One simple model proposed due to observation data, is liquid water exists in high and low density domains. The low density is hydrogen bonded while the high density are much less so, allowing the hydrogen to get closer where the bonds are not optimized. Snapping back and forth between domains gives or releases energy. Back to the original question, which was RNA primers, the existing wisdom doesn't have any. The reason it doesn't, is it leaves out a variable. The rest of the stuff doesn't add up. We know how but why is mysterious almost like magic when you leave out variables.

Traditionally and historically, heaven was perfect and hell was for all the deviates. The Devil or Satan was the principle that adds confusion to the universe. He tempted Eve and Adam to remove the optimization of paradise, etc. If you look at Genesis, to be able to form the universe in one day, hypothetically, implies or requires, zero confusion or zero uncertainty. The more confusion you add the longer it is going to take. God was assumed zero confusion so he could do it. I am not supporting this creationist model but the historical efficiency implies perfect ordering and not a bunch random throws of the dice. Physics took the path of the traditional devil principle partly because of the uncertainty principle. Rather than look for a logical explanation to give this a sense of order, it was swallowed whole in favor the devil principle. Einstein worked under the assumption of rational order, which was the basis for the age of enlightenment. This was the end of that. Physics decided to use a confusion principle, which had been used before the age of enlightenment. Now the Satan principle is trying to get rid of order, by designing confusion into everything, even though the forces of nature are designed to attract and create order. We are now postulating a universal repulsive force to expand the universe so the devil wins. But tradition also says the devil is the master of illusions using half truths, tricks and special affects. So far the analogy is good, so maybe we should extrapolate the analogy all the way. The logical explanation of uncertainty is two references, one for electrons and one for nuclei. One runs into the problem of trying to use the nuclei or stationary reference clock to describe both references. The fast electron reference will be uncertain. Try this conceptual analysis. We have train moving near C. The only clock you we are allowed to use is the stationary clock. The other constraint is we are not allow to use SR. There will be uncertainty in the train's position when you set the experiment in the same way as the uncertainty principle. It is one of those special affects.

Enzymes will not work properly, if at all, in any solvent but water. With any other solvent the energetic don't add up. Enzymes will also not work in air, or without a solvent, especially water. When we tweak the water we are altering the local solvent properties, although it it more complicated than that. With RNA and DNA primers the extended water structure will look different. Particular enzymes are optimized to each of these micro-solvents. The energetics are due to hydrogen bonding which has about the same energy as the ATP molecule, more or less.

There are many affects at work. First papers are written for a target audience with editors often experts in their fields. Based on that, you don't wish to treat the editor like a layman, since it is up to him to grant you this privilege. He might take it personally or may even assume you are not qualified to publish. There is a snob requirement. Say you you went to a star trek convention and didn't speak Klingon properly, there will be a certain reaction by the experts who will dwell on your poor accent and forget what you are trying to say. Another consideration has to do with the degree of innovation. If you got controlled fusion to work, you could present anyway you want, including stick figure drawings, since the data and accomplishment speaks for itself. But if you tweak the knob a new way, you got to fluff. It is analogous to a woman putting on make-up. The prettier she is the less she will need to use. The third consideration is, presenting ideas in the simplest terms is harder to do. It is like the difference between describing an event in one sentence or one paragraph. You would need to be able to present complicated things in a simple way that will inform all levels of audience. It is not easy. That is why text book authors are sort of a rare breed. The fourth has to do with scientists not being the best writers. They are not English majors who specialize more in writing. Ask any technical university about this concern. Technical students often avoid enough training to spend more time on their interests. So there is often a cookie cutter approach to technical writing with set templates to bridge the gap. The templates are often more concise and clear that what you normally might get.

I agree that race horse breeding will produce better race horses than plow horse breeding, but say we extrapolate this observation to a herd a deer. The triple crown winner of this years mating olympics may not sire the next triple crown winner. It could come from one of the deer who was knocked out in the preliminaries. A few years later, this buck offspring wins, but his offspring aren't champions either, etc. The winner may get the choice of females, but it doesn't guarantee anything after that. Maybe the slow speed of evolution demonstrates that affect. In other words, in the ideal Darwin, maybe the speed of evolution should be faster if we work under assumption of a long lineage of triple crown families. But because this does not occur with any reliability, it shifts around causing the genes to evolve much slower than expect, more in line with the slow evolutionary pace. Instead of perfection, maybe nature choses diversity so all will evolve.

If you compare RNA to DNA (as single helixes) DNA creates slightly more surface tension in water. The sugar on RNA has an extra polar OH group and one of the bases of DNA has an extra -CH3 group. Pound for pound DNA is more non polar. The DNA double helix reflects this, sort of beads up into the double helix. RNA does not bead as much and will form a single helix. What the slightly lower surface tension of the RNA primer does is lower the hydrogen bonding potential in the water near the RNA primer. This appears to create the proper configurational equilibrium for DNA polymerase. If you started with a DNA primer, the equilibrium enzyme configuration in that local water would need to have a higher hydrogen bonding potential. This will form a better equilibrium with the endonuclease. If you look at either enzyme, the total affect is more than an enzyme. Both have hydrated water forming an enzyme-water composite. This water has to match the primer's water for the enzyme to become optimize for its specific task. Physical chemists have demonstrated enzyme reactions do not form a proper energy balance unless you include the energetic of this local water. The matching water enzyme-primer, also prevents traffic jams but causing the proper enzyme to be in the right place, most of the time, so proper enzyme fires bulls eye, with minimum wrong enzyme duds.