granpa

there is a lot of things I could say in response to that but since this whole thread just seems to be degenerating into nitpicking and trolling I dont want to take the chance. I think you might be on the right track though. (maybe protein production was a by product of rna replication)

and how did this 'analog world' work in your opinion? how did it lead to life and to the digital world. how does chemstry work in this 'tinkertoy/blueprint' world of your imagination? how is the rna world not digital in your opinion?

you obviously arent serious. you are trying to make me look foolish by baiting me into a ridiculous argument. the literal meaning of 'blueprint' and its metaphorical use are completetly different. once again I ask you what do you think came before the digital world? nobody I know of believes that there was ever such a world as you are describing. chemistry simply doesnt work that way. the rna world came first and rna is clearly digital. you seem to be the only person that believes that there ever was such a thing as this 'blueprint' chemistry. yet you are accusing others of believing that life still uses it. until you mentioned it I'd never heard anyone even suggest that such a thing was even possible.

tinkertoy chemistry? stereochemical process? what are you talking about? what do you think preceded the 'digital' codes that exist now? most scientists think the rna world came first. thats definitely digital. you are accused of trolling because you are misrepresenting the views of others. I've never heard of anyone that thinks that dna is a 'blueprint' in the sense that you are suggesting.

density waves:

half a mile tall! thats rather tall dont you think? closest cousin the sequoia? its not even a conifer.! I'd like to see a link to something about this otherwise I'm just going to assume this is a joke. I've heard of plants that colonize the tops of other trees that collect water like that though.

I was of the impression that sponges were the classic example of the colonial hypothesis. they've never impressed me much. I'm inclined to think that we evolved from some kind of worm which evolved from some sort of syncytial protozoa. I'm not sure exacly what kind of protozoa. it might have been something that no longer exists, having been outcompeted by its own descendants. the main clues are the flagellum on our sperm and the cilia in certain tissues of our bodies. I dont know much more than that.

In my very first post I said to look up 'acellular' or 'multinucleate' or 'syncytial organism' that shoud have made it clear what I meant by 'acellular'. then I explained myself fully in post 7. finally I gave a reference to a professional paper. what more do you want?

I think I explained myself pretty well in post 7. what part did you not understand? heres something I found on the web in about 1 minute that refers to the possibility of multicellular life arising through sycytial organisms. btw, post 5 was in response to the op. in case that wasnt clear.

you believe that we were already multicellular before we were even eukaryotes? thats laughable. how do you explain syncytial eukaryotic organisms?

see post 5

I think of g as a measure of how much curiousity you have

chill out. I was agreeing with you. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged the way I see it, nonstem cells are cheap disposable mass produced specialized cells that lack any cellular machinery that isnt essential. that includes the machinery to keep the telemeres the right length. so they can only reproduce so many times before they die.

Division of labour (through cellular specialization)? but complex cells have organelles. and acellular organisms also have organs. there is no sharp distinction here between cellular organisms and noncellular organisms. I think the question breaks down into 2 questions. why did single celled organisms become multinucleate? why did multinucleate organisms become cellular (with cell walls between nuclei)? cell walls in the interior of an organism would seem to just get in the way. but as a protection from viruses they would be very useful.

THATs the question!

look up 'acellular' or 'multinucleate' or 'syncytial organism'. then rethink how cellular organisms evolved. I dont doubt that in the past that simple cells fused and formed complex cells but I seriously doubt that it led directly to cellular organisms.

telemeres? then why do single celled organisms live forever. why are our gametes not likewise effected?

"Once religion gets involved, however, the acceptance of abiogenesis seems to decrease accordingly." and you base this conclusion on what exactly? have you actually gone to any religious forums and actually asked people what they think? I have and most religious people seem willing to accept the idea. but that is another thread so lets not get into it here. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged"The genes, which are purely digital information, are not “blueprints” of proteins—a common fallacy—but instead just coded instructions for making them." just coded instructions for making them? most normal english speaking people would call that a blueprint. you just seem to be nitpicking the arguments of others. that is definitely trolling.

ambien didnt do much for me. remeron works great though.

what pills do you take? have you tried remeron?

rem sleep occurs at the end of each cycle. but as the night wears on rem sleep becomes more dominant and regular sleep less dominant. 2 hours is not enough. see a doctor.

I read somewhere that gas falling into the center of the galaxy would form a gas disk and would have to lose 99.9% of its angular momentum before it could even get close to the black hole.

rem sleep, which is a necessity, occurs mainly at the end of our regular 6-8 hours of sleep.

here is something else I just found. Its not exactly what I'm talking about but it seems to be related if only in the most general way.

I already told you. the word is 'universal time'. thats all your idea boils down to. your concept of time is no different from anyone elses. you just have a preferred frame. a 'real' now.