date:20140827

OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist?  Julian 
Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by 
chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000.  That's a number with 300,000 
zeroes.  Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in the 
Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you say?

This just goes to show that those who are experts and have studied the math 
acknowledge that the mechanism for Darwinian Evolution just won't happen.  Only 
ignorant folks like you mouth off as if you knew something

Here's further reading if you are inclined to continue embarrassing yourself.

http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability

http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/



Jojo


PS:  I can already predict your reaction.  

You:  Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to 
debate this anymore.  I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic 
science.

Me:  Whatever!!!  LOL...


  - Original Message - 
  From: Sunil Shah 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.


  This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have ever 
seen.
  Surely you can do BETTER than this?  It's a bleedin' disgrace..
  And stop misusing the proof word all the time : D

  I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again in 
arguments like these:
  The failure to realize what a big number is.

  First of all, you have assumed SERIAL changes, ONE at a time.
  Secondly you assume there is only ONE entity.
  Thirdly, you claimed your calculation just proved something.
  May I suggest:  The calculation PROVES you are a TROLL.

  So have another go, but scale things up a bit before you do.

  (It takes today's bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce, so I don't see why one 
change every 140 hours is fast.)

  Why are you assuming changes are sustained? 
  Why are you assuming changes are observable?
  The math would say: A very small change x A rather long time (from your 
perspective) = An unobservably small change.

  /Sunil





--
  From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
  Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:26:39 +0800


  Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 
16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds)

  Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform.

  Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform 
vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and 
single cell lifeform.)

  This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days 
(504576/1) for it to evolve into Man.

  This is absolutely ridiculous.  Evolution rates this fast must surely be 
observable.  Where are the observable changes we can see?

  Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet 
we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it.  I truly wonder why that is 
the case.




  Jojo



- Original Message - 
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:


  To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:

  I have a simple question:

  1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? 


There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian 
evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like 
questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease.


I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this 
level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and 
micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious 
creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic 
deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just 
as a trick to fool us.


If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't 
annoy people who know the subject.


I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have 
learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about 
evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to 
educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of 
thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no 
chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain 
it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion,

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium


Hi Nigel,

Thanks again for your reply but it seems like you were answering someone 
else's query.  I did not remotely suggest recent creation and did not 
think that I promoted alien impregnation.  The alien impregnation that I 
spoke of was of the sexual variety and is a well known case that even 
the Wikipedia defenders of the faith cannot build much of a case against.


Evolution really can't even get started until you have a 
self-replicating cell, so evolution as such cannot have any explanation 
for where the first self-replicating cell came from. Many (if not most?) 
mainline scientists accept this fact and some well known ones go so far 
as to even suggest an off-world (ie alien) source.  I am not concerned 
whether the source was alien impregnation or whatever other mechanism 
you happen to think might have produced the first self-replicating 
cell.  This is something we may never know.  But if even one of the 
alien visitation cases turns out to be true (and it would seem that this 
could happen any day if certain governments would allow it), then I 
think it must have an enormous impact on the theory of evolution and 
thus maybe even impact your job.


So my hope was that you might follow this possibly impending scenario 
through to a logical conclusion.  Suppose tomorrow that we find out that 
there really was a crash at Roswell, and we really did meet live aliens 
or have dead alien bodies to dissect (the sort of stuff that this list 
enjoys dreaming about), it either points to the process of evolution 
being incredibly convergent (and how could that work!), or that the 
process was largely programmed into the first self-replicating cell.


So my question again is: from your knowledge of the DNA of the earliest 
known forms of life, is there sufficient information content to almost 
guarantee that humanoid life-forms (very similar to us and even sexually 
compatible) will finally evolve?  Or does the minimal state of the DNA 
of early life forms strongly suggest that there must be some emergent 
phenomenon or meddling along the way in order to produce in the end 
such similar humanoid life forms?


John

On 27/08/2014 4:08 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote:

Hi John et al
It can be shown logically that it is impossible to argue against the 
hypothesis that God created the world in 4004 BC such that it had all 
the appearance of there having been Darwinian Evolution up until that 
point, as I have discovered previously.  The possibility that life 
appeared in various other ways (actions of elves, visits from aliens) 
is also difficult/impossible to argue against.   From my perspective, 
all of the evidence that I work with does not require such outside 
interference in order to explain what we have found so far.   We 
cannot explain everything, but each time we get to the bottom of some 
new aspect of what we find, it fits into the self-contained 
evolutionary hypothesis. If we find something that does not, I will be 
one of the first to spread the news as I am more than happy to 
consider alternative ideas (water, bio-photons, cold fusion etc).   So 
far, the theory of evolution does not seem to require any significant 
additons. I regard punctuated equilibrium as a minor tweak which I now 
see as almost having been proposed by Darwin.   The bit that will 
(imho) require something new is our understanding of how evolution 
stores distributed information in the DNA.  But if creationists and 
alien impregnators want to get all hung up on evolution then I am 
quite happy to leave them be: I have DNA sequences to analyse.


We can see the impact of the first land animals in the genetics of 
plants.  They have many defence mechanisms to deal with pests etc, but 
it can be shown that land plants spent millions of years not having to 
deal with the problem of animals eating them as the defence mechanisms 
that exist today as defence against animal action in land plants 
evolved comparitively late on. During this period the plants just died 
and became coal.  The phylogenetic trees suggest a time that is 
consistent with the best understanding of when the animals arrived on 
land and started eating the plants.  This can be shown by looking at 
the relationship between the different proteins that are involved in 
this process.   This is one of countless bits of information that I 
work with on a daily basis where everything fits snuggly together 
based on evolutionary ideas.


But God could have created the whole thing in 4004BC such that 
everything had the appearance of having evolved like this.   Who am I 
to argue?


Nigel

On 27/08/2014 04:40, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote:

Hi Nigel,

Thanks for your erudite and interesting answers.  However I don't 
think you really answered the question I was interested in because 
you are so saturated with the current paradigm.  I sense from your 
answer that you are happy with the idea that given an *actually* 
simple (in comparison to later more complex)

[Vo]:Re: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-27 Thread pjvannoorden

Jojo
I will send only one email about this subject. 

The fact that a stucture like DNA is involved increases the chances to produce 
new lifeforms  dramatically.
If there were only atoms and molecules involved and no mechanism to arrange 
them the chance of creating a horse would indeed be very small
as you describe. 
It would correspond to the chance of creating an aircraft by letting a twister 
pass over a junkyard.

You can ofcourse ask me where DNA originated from and that the chance to 
produce it is to small to happen by chance.
According to R.Mills we live in a indefinitely oscillating universe. That makes 
it more plausible that life developed naturally without any intelligent design 
by a God
bcs there is no time restriction.
It could be that primitive life (bacteria) is present in many parts of the 
universe and
survives on for instance frozen comets and is seeded over and over on fertile 
planets and also destroyed  many times. 

Peter



From: Jojo Iznart 
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist?  Julian 
Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by 
chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000.  That's a number with 300,000 
zeroes.  Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in the 
Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you say?

This just goes to show that those who are experts and have studied the math 
acknowledge that the mechanism for Darwinian Evolution just won't happen.  Only 
ignorant folks like you mouth off as if you knew something

Here's further reading if you are inclined to continue embarrassing yourself.

http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability

http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/



Jojo


PS:  I can already predict your reaction.  

You:  Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to 
debate this anymore.  I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic 
science.

Me:  Whatever!!!  LOL...


  - Original Message - 
  From: Sunil Shah 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

  This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have ever 
seen.
  Surely you can do BETTER than this?  It's a bleedin' disgrace..
  And stop misusing the proof word all the time : D

  I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again in 
arguments like these:
  The failure to realize what a big number is.

  First of all, you have assumed SERIAL changes, ONE at a time.
  Secondly you assume there is only ONE entity.
  Thirdly, you claimed your calculation just proved something.
  May I suggest:  The calculation PROVES you are a TROLL.

  So have another go, but scale things up a bit before you do.

  (It takes today's bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce, so I don't see why one 
change every 140 hours is fast.)

  Why are you assuming changes are sustained? 
  Why are you assuming changes are observable?
  The math would say: A very small change x A rather long time (from your 
perspective) = An unobservably small change.

  /Sunil





--
  From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
  Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:26:39 +0800


  Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 
16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds)

  Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform.

  Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform 
vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and 
single cell lifeform.)

  This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days 
(504576/1) for it to evolve into Man.

  This is absolutely ridiculous.  Evolution rates this fast must surely be 
observable.  Where are the observable changes we can see?

  Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet 
we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it.  I truly wonder why that is 
the case.




  Jojo



- Original Message - 
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:


  To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:

  I have a simple question:

  1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? 

There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian 
evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like 
questioning Newton's law of

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

2014-08-27 Thread Jack Cole

Dear Bob, David, and Jojo,

Thank your for your suggestions.

Since the electrodes are removable, I was planning to attach a length of
heavy conductor where the electrodes are attached (probably automotive
battery cables).  That way, the welder doesn't have to be mounted over the
cell.  The welder is light enough to carry, but probably weighs 40-50 lbs.
 I figure the effect in water is likely to be rather dramatic with a lot of
movement, boiling, and so forth.  That's why I want to control the pulsing
to cut down the frequency.  Otherwise, rapid destruction of the electrodes
would be likely in addition to evolving levels of oxygen and hydrogen that
would be out of my comfort zone (not to mention the speed with which the
water would disappear due to electrolysis and boiling).  Anyway, I'm
thinking this may be more interesting for LENR than looking at whatever
Mills is doing.

Jack


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 Water that does not contain contaminants is a good insulator.  Regular tap
 water around here is highly resistive and would not short out the welder if
 the electrodes were emerged within it.  The low voltage generated by the
 welder would not be much of a hazard to people.  Of course I would refrain
 from holding on to the electrodes with or without water just in principle.

 Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 10:49 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

   On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  If you embed the electrodes reasonably well into the water, you may be
 able to avoid most of the error for the heat that goes into the electrodes.


  Asking as someone who knows little about electronics, what are the
 hazards of submerging the electrodes of a spot welder and then turning it
 on?

  Eric

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium

2014-08-27 Thread Nigel Dyer


Hi John

Evolutionary principles can help understand how the first self 
replicating cell originated.   For example all the evidence suggests 
that it came from an RNA based predecessor, where RNA is replicated and 
splits into chunks to form enzymes etc.   We are currently finding RNA 
has far more roles than we had previously realised, plenty of scope for 
RNA based lifeforms.


As for whether there is an inevitability of humanoid based life forms, 
no there is nothing that suggests that we were inevitable. In 10 million 
years time it might be that the descendants of todays mice (see Douglas 
Adams) or dolphins who are in many ways as advanced as we are might be 
asking themselves the same question, and they are not sexually 
compatible with us.


There is an emergent phenomena that gives rise to more complex life 
forms that are better fitted than their predecessors to survive. Darwin 
describes well the process that makes this happen, and all that we have 
found in genetics supports and can be understood based this idea.


However, the more find out about biological processes, the more we seem 
to rule out alternative none DNA/RNA ways that life could occur.   
Basically evolution (and our chemists) seems to have explored just about 
every available option, and there is nothing else that comes close to 
doing what DNA/RNA can do.   If life exists elsewhere, I find it 
increasingly difficult to see how it can be anything other than DNA/RNA 
based.  If it is DNA/RNA based then that would therefore just be an 
example of parallel evolution, which we already have lots of examples of 
within nature. What will then be interesting will be to see what the 
similarities and differences are in the way that the DNA/RNA encodes 
information (e.g. coding for proteins, which is more abitary), which 
would be the only way that we could determine whether there was a common 
ancester.


My particular heresy/unproven hypothesis is that I beleive that some of 
the information in DNA is stored in a 'non-local' form (similar to  
Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields), so in principle could be shared with 
an alien DNA based life form, which could mean that the aliens might 
indeed turn out to be hairy humanoids.  I await the arrival of aliens 
with interest so that these various hypothesies can be tested.


Nigel

On 27/08/2014 10:52, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote:

Hi Nigel,

Thanks again for your reply but it seems like you were answering 
someone else's query.  I did not remotely suggest recent creation and 
did not think that I promoted alien impregnation. The alien 
impregnation that I spoke of was of the sexual variety and is a well 
known case that even the Wikipedia defenders of the faith cannot 
build much of a case against.


Evolution really can't even get started until you have a 
self-replicating cell, so evolution as such cannot have any 
explanation for where the first self-replicating cell came from.  Many 
(if not most?) mainline scientists accept this fact and some well 
known ones go so far as to even suggest an off-world (ie alien) 
source.  I am not concerned whether the source was alien 
impregnation or whatever other mechanism you happen to think might 
have produced the first self-replicating cell.  This is something we 
may never know.  But if even one of the alien visitation cases turns 
out to be true (and it would seem that this could happen any day if 
certain governments would allow it), then I think it must have an 
enormous impact on the theory of evolution and thus maybe even impact 
your job.


So my hope was that you might follow this possibly impending scenario 
through to a logical conclusion.  Suppose tomorrow that we find out 
that there really was a crash at Roswell, and we really did meet live 
aliens or have dead alien bodies to dissect (the sort of stuff that 
this list enjoys dreaming about), it either points to the process of 
evolution being incredibly convergent (and how could that work!), or 
that the process was largely programmed into the first 
self-replicating cell.


So my question again is: from your knowledge of the DNA of the 
earliest known forms of life, is there sufficient information content 
to almost guarantee that humanoid life-forms (very similar to us and 
even sexually compatible) will finally evolve?  Or does the minimal 
state of the DNA of early life forms strongly suggest that there must 
be some emergent phenomenon or meddling along the way in order to 
produce in the end such similar humanoid life forms?


John

Re: [Vo]:Re: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

Actually, my friend, DNA vastly complicates Macro-Evolution because DNA is 
essentially a repository of Information.  

Try scrambling a few letters in a book and see if you come up with more 
information.  No, you will not, information is lost everytime there is s 
mutation.  Information which is the outward manifestation of order never 
increases due to a random process.

Darwinian Evolution is wrong for a lot of reasons, one of the strongest of 
which is it can not explain the origin of information in our DNA.

Panspermia (life from outer space) faces the same Abiogenesis problem we face 
here.  It does not matter where in the Universe you think the first life 
originated, it is still constrained by the limitations of probability and time. 
 The probabilities are huge and there is not enough time.  16 billion years may 
seem long to us, but in the realm of random processes, it is but a tick of time.


Jojo

PS.  Do you think Julian Huxley was unaware of DNA when he made his 
calculations?  Au contraire, he was accutely aware of it and its limitations 
which contributed to the huge probability number he came up with.



  - Original Message - 
  From: pjvannoor...@caiway.nl 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:44 PM
  Subject: [Vo]:Re: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.


  Jojo
  I will send only one email about this subject. 

  The fact that a stucture like DNA is involved increases the chances to 
produce new lifeforms  dramatically.
  If there were only atoms and molecules involved and no mechanism to arrange 
them the chance of creating a horse would indeed be very small
  as you describe. 
  It would correspond to the chance of creating an aircraft by letting a 
twister pass over a junkyard.

  You can ofcourse ask me where DNA originated from and that the chance to 
produce it is to small to happen by chance.
  According to R.Mills we live in a indefinitely oscillating universe. That 
makes it more plausible that life developed naturally without any intelligent 
design by a God
  bcs there is no time restriction.
  It could be that primitive life (bacteria) is present in many parts of the 
universe and
  survives on for instance frozen comets and is seeded over and over on fertile 
planets and also destroyed  many times. 

  Peter



  From: Jojo Iznart 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:58 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

  OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist?  Julian 
Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by 
chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000.  That's a number with 300,000 
zeroes.  Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in the 
Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you say?

  This just goes to show that those who are experts and have studied the math 
acknowledge that the mechanism for Darwinian Evolution just won't happen.  Only 
ignorant folks like you mouth off as if you knew something

  Here's further reading if you are inclined to continue embarrassing yourself.

  http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability

  http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/



  Jojo


  PS:  I can already predict your reaction.  

  You:  Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to 
debate this anymore.  I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic 
science.

  Me:  Whatever!!!  LOL...


- Original Message - 
From: Sunil Shah 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have 
ever seen.
Surely you can do BETTER than this?  It's a bleedin' disgrace..
And stop misusing the proof word all the time : D

I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again in 
arguments like these:
The failure to realize what a big number is.

First of all, you have assumed SERIAL changes, ONE at a time.
Secondly you assume there is only ONE entity.
Thirdly, you claimed your calculation just proved something.
May I suggest:  The calculation PROVES you are a TROLL.

So have another go, but scale things up a bit before you do.

(It takes today's bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce, so I don't see why one 
change every 140 hours is fast.)

Why are you assuming changes are sustained? 
Why are you assuming changes are observable?
The math would say: A very small change x A rather long time (from your 
perspective) = An unobservably small change.

/Sunil






From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:26:39

RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

2014-08-27 Thread Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson

Thanks for giving me a specific time-frame within the you tube link to fast 
forward to. Right now I don't have the time to wade through the entire lecture, 
but I did listen to the specific section about disproving the horse evolution 
theory. I did perform a spot check here and there. I do see the lecturer has a 
lot of charisma. Possessing charisma always helps to persuade the audience.  
Using a healthy dose of ridicule is always entertaining too. As for me, using 
ridicule to insinuate we are trying to create a whale from corn is not likely 
to convince me that evolution is a failed theory, 41:15.

 

I think you would enjoy reading Forbidden Archeology, if you haven't already. 
I think there are some intriguing, as well as controversial, findings listed in 
this book.

 

http://books.google.com/books/about/Forbidden_Archeology.html?id=vhV9MAAJ

 

http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409142589sr=1-1keywords=forbidden+archeology

 

In your personal opinion, how long do you think the Earth has been around?

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

From: Jojo Iznart [mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:47 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

 

Actually, reproduction by cellular mitosis would favor evolution.  If 
Macro-evolution is occuring, cellular mitosis should prove it quickly.  Why?  
Because one one set of genes can produce a trait that would confer a survival 
advantage.

 

If reproduction is by cellular meiosis. both mutations have to be compatible 
for it to generate a trait.  This task is more difficult and will occur at less 
probability compounding the long long long odds already facing Macro-Evolution.

 

Regarding Horse Evolution, that was debunked about 5 decades ago.  I have a 
video for that but it is long.  Horse evolution discussion starts at time 
41:26.  It talks about the Equus seris of horse evolution in your article.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk

 

 

Jojo

 

 

- Original Message - 

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson mailto:orionwo...@charter.net  

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:18 AM

Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

 

From: Jojo

 

 Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we

 subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. 

 These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years

 of natural selection.  And yet, what did we find?  We find that the 

 bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same

 bacteria.  This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.  The bacteria

 was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA.

 No mutation.  

 

 In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained

 resistance to penicilin.  That is adaptation,no macro evolution.  In

 the end, E. Coli was still E. Coli.  the same bacteria.  No species

 jump.  It did not become some other kind of mold or something.

 

 And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population

 then reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible again. 

 Natural selection was clearly not operative here.

 

 Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on

 people.

 

Interesting experiment. I know I also suggested using bacteria in a previous 
post. I'm glad someone has actually conducted it using bacteria. Do you know 
how long the experiment was conducted? I do see a problem with this particular 
experiment, even though I think it was a good stab at trying to observe 
evolution working. Bacteria don't reproduce sexually. They clone themselves. 
It's a much more simplified carbon-copy process of perpetuating the species. 
There's far less potential to introduce mutation and other genetic changes with 
each successive generation. There is very little chance for the random exchange 
of genes between two organisms. Introducing random genetic change is, IMO, 
crucial for the theory of evolution to work effectively.  I would like to see 
an equivalent experiment done with a much more complex organism, say a simple 
animal, a Planarian. They are fascinating little creatures. They are simple 
animals but complex multi-cellular organisms nevertheless. But if you split 
them part way down the middle down their length starting with the head they 
will eventually split apart completely and become two individuated worms. You 
wouldn't think a complex multi-cellular animal organism would be capable of 
doing that, not after they have been hatched! Alas, I'm not sure this kind of 
an experiment would work because of the time frames involved. It would have to 
take decades of persistent research in order to possibly notice if we could 
eventually create a new species of worm that is

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

2014-08-27 Thread Jack Cole

I also previously developed a method for running standard electrolysis and
attempting to trigger LENR with pulses.  The way it works is to place the
active cathode (say some type of nickel) in between two additional
electrodes in the cell.  In this case, the nickel electrode would be placed
in between the welder electrodes (resulting in the current going through
the water to go through that cathode).  With a control system, the
electrolysis can be turned off for that brief period of time when the pulse
is fired and immediately resume after the pulse stops.  I can program the
frequency with which that happens.  Of course those high levels of current
are likely to be destructive to the nickel.


On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:

 Dear Bob, David, and Jojo,

 Thank your for your suggestions.

 Since the electrodes are removable, I was planning to attach a length of
 heavy conductor where the electrodes are attached (probably automotive
 battery cables).  That way, the welder doesn't have to be mounted over the
 cell.  The welder is light enough to carry, but probably weighs 40-50 lbs.
  I figure the effect in water is likely to be rather dramatic with a lot of
 movement, boiling, and so forth.  That's why I want to control the pulsing
 to cut down the frequency.  Otherwise, rapid destruction of the electrodes
 would be likely in addition to evolving levels of oxygen and hydrogen that
 would be out of my comfort zone (not to mention the speed with which the
 water would disappear due to electrolysis and boiling).  Anyway, I'm
 thinking this may be more interesting for LENR than looking at whatever
 Mills is doing.

 Jack


 On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 Water that does not contain contaminants is a good insulator.  Regular
 tap water around here is highly resistive and would not short out the
 welder if the electrodes were emerged within it.  The low voltage generated
 by the welder would not be much of a hazard to people.  Of course I would
 refrain from holding on to the electrodes with or without water just in
 principle.

 Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 10:49 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

   On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  If you embed the electrodes reasonably well into the water, you may be
 able to avoid most of the error for the heat that goes into the electrodes.


  Asking as someone who knows little about electronics, what are the
 hazards of submerging the electrodes of a spot welder and then turning it
 on?

  Eric

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

I believe in the Bible fully from cover to cover.  The Bible says the Universe 
and the Earth was created in 6 literal days.  Now, the day may not necessarily 
be 24 hours but the idea was that God created everything in a short time.

When he did that is not revealed in the Bible.  Many Biblical scholars claim 
that they can backtrace the genealogy and concluded that it is currently about 
6000 years old.  I have no reason to doubt them although I fully admit that 
they could be wrong.  After all, they are all human and their calculation is 
not from God.  Also, this is a rough estimate.  No exact dates are provided in 
reference to major events.  Just hints here and there that place the event in 
its historical context.

Also, Biblical scholars who study Eschatology (study of End times, like 
Armageddon, 2nd Coming of Christ, Millenial Kingdom, etc.) sometimes apply 
prophecy to Biblical history.  This is a valid Bible Study technique, since 
Prophecy is Prologue.  What that means is that many events that occur in the 
Bible always have prophetic significance one way or another.   Many scholars 
equate a 7-day prophecy to our history.  1 day is prophecied to be equal to 
1000 years.  Many prophecies put us on the 6th day.  That is also where the 
6000 years came from.  The 7th day is the day of rest which they equate to the 
Millenial reign of King Christ from a literal throne in Jerusalem.

So, if you ask me what I believe, there it is.




Jojo


PS.  BTW, as a believer, the Bible says that I am a King and Priest.  So, I 
will be running a city and/or a church in the Millenium.  Most likely just a 
city cause there would only be one church.

So, I'll be looking up some of you who have been nasty to me.  (In case you 
missed it, IM JOKING)






  - Original Message - 
  From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:44 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


  Thanks for giving me a specific time-frame within the you tube link to fast 
forward to. Right now I don't have the time to wade through the entire lecture, 
but I did listen to the specific section about disproving the horse evolution 
theory. I did perform a spot check here and there. I do see the lecturer has a 
lot of charisma. Possessing charisma always helps to persuade the audience.  
Using a healthy dose of ridicule is always entertaining too. As for me, using 
ridicule to insinuate we are trying to create a whale from corn is not likely 
to convince me that evolution is a failed theory, 41:15.

   

  I think you would enjoy reading Forbidden Archeology, if you haven't 
already. I think there are some intriguing, as well as controversial, findings 
listed in this book.

   

  http://books.google.com/books/about/Forbidden_Archeology.html?id=vhV9MAAJ

   

  
http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409142589sr=1-1keywords=forbidden+archeology

   

  In your personal opinion, how long do you think the Earth has been around?

   

  Regards,

  Steven Vincent Johnson

  svjart.orionworks.com

  zazzle.com/orionworks

   

  From: Jojo Iznart [mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com] 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:47 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

   

  Actually, reproduction by cellular mitosis would favor evolution.  If 
Macro-evolution is occuring, cellular mitosis should prove it quickly.  Why?  
Because one one set of genes can produce a trait that would confer a survival 
advantage.

   

  If reproduction is by cellular meiosis. both mutations have to be compatible 
for it to generate a trait.  This task is more difficult and will occur at less 
probability compounding the long long long odds already facing Macro-Evolution.

   

  Regarding Horse Evolution, that was debunked about 5 decades ago.  I have a 
video for that but it is long.  Horse evolution discussion starts at time 
41:26.  It talks about the Equus seris of horse evolution in your article.

   

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk

   

   

  Jojo

   

   

- Original Message - 

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:18 AM

Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

 

From: Jojo

 

 Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we

 subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. 

 These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years

 of natural selection.  And yet, what did we find?  We find that the 

 bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same

 bacteria.  This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.  The bacteria

 was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA.

 No mutation.  

 

 In this particular experiment

Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

Do you have a free copy of this Forbidden Archeology book.

The Bible teaches us to hear (eaxmine) the matter before asnswering 
(concluding) it.  So, I'd like to read this on my spare time if I have access 
to a free copy.  I am not willing to pay for one.




Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:44 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


  Thanks for giving me a specific time-frame within the you tube link to fast 
forward to. Right now I don't have the time to wade through the entire lecture, 
but I did listen to the specific section about disproving the horse evolution 
theory. I did perform a spot check here and there. I do see the lecturer has a 
lot of charisma. Possessing charisma always helps to persuade the audience.  
Using a healthy dose of ridicule is always entertaining too. As for me, using 
ridicule to insinuate we are trying to create a whale from corn is not likely 
to convince me that evolution is a failed theory, 41:15.

   

  I think you would enjoy reading Forbidden Archeology, if you haven't 
already. I think there are some intriguing, as well as controversial, findings 
listed in this book.

   

  http://books.google.com/books/about/Forbidden_Archeology.html?id=vhV9MAAJ

   

  
http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409142589sr=1-1keywords=forbidden+archeology

   

  In your personal opinion, how long do you think the Earth has been around?

   

  Regards,

  Steven Vincent Johnson

  svjart.orionworks.com

  zazzle.com/orionworks

   

  From: Jojo Iznart [mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com] 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:47 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

   

  Actually, reproduction by cellular mitosis would favor evolution.  If 
Macro-evolution is occuring, cellular mitosis should prove it quickly.  Why?  
Because one one set of genes can produce a trait that would confer a survival 
advantage.

   

  If reproduction is by cellular meiosis. both mutations have to be compatible 
for it to generate a trait.  This task is more difficult and will occur at less 
probability compounding the long long long odds already facing Macro-Evolution.

   

  Regarding Horse Evolution, that was debunked about 5 decades ago.  I have a 
video for that but it is long.  Horse evolution discussion starts at time 
41:26.  It talks about the Equus seris of horse evolution in your article.

   

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk

   

   

  Jojo

   

   

- Original Message - 

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:18 AM

Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

 

From: Jojo

 

 Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we

 subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. 

 These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years

 of natural selection.  And yet, what did we find?  We find that the 

 bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same

 bacteria.  This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.  The bacteria

 was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA.

 No mutation.  

 

 In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained

 resistance to penicilin.  That is adaptation,no macro evolution.  In

 the end, E. Coli was still E. Coli.  the same bacteria.  No species

 jump.  It did not become some other kind of mold or something.

 

 And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population

 then reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible 
again. 

 Natural selection was clearly not operative here.

 

 Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on

 people.

 

Interesting experiment. I know I also suggested using bacteria in a 
previous post. I'm glad someone has actually conducted it using bacteria. Do 
you know how long the experiment was conducted? I do see a problem with this 
particular experiment, even though I think it was a good stab at trying to 
observe evolution working. Bacteria don't reproduce sexually. They clone 
themselves. It's a much more simplified carbon-copy process of perpetuating the 
species. There's far less potential to introduce mutation and other genetic 
changes with each successive generation. There is very little chance for the 
random exchange of genes between two organisms. Introducing random genetic 
change is, IMO, crucial for the theory of evolution to work effectively.  I 
would like to see an equivalent experiment done with a much more complex 
organism, say a simple animal, a Planarian. They are fascinating little 
creatures.

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

Last night it struck me that these voltage measurements are going to
require a compensating loop to subtract out the induced voltage in the
measurement loops.  If you had a simple twisted pair wire to make the
measurement, you would still end up with a measurement loop through which
the magnetic fields from the welding action will flow. These magnetic
fields will induce a voltage in the measurement loop, even if the voltage
across the gap is 0V. To get rid of this error voltage, you need to make
the measurements with a compensating loop present. The compensating loop
will cancel this induced voltage by being connected in anti-series with the
measurement connection.  I have never had to do this in other experiments
because the currents were so low in those cases, but it is probably
necessary in this case.  I don't know if Mills' team knew to do this.

Also, it would be possible to measure the current with a clip-on probe.
 Such a probe only measures AC, so you would have to integrate the waveform
that you measure and use the condition that at t=0, the current was 0.  You
would also have to calibrate with an AC current.  It would probably be
useful to do both current measurements.

Just doing a control calorimetry experiment is not good enough.  Let's say
you are using a porous titanium particle to hold the milligrams of water
that supposedly compose the hydrino reaction.  Encapsulate a dry particle
in wax and detonate it underwater and measure the energy that heated the
water.  Then, add the water to the titanium particle and encapsulate it in
wax [one way to do this might be to freeze the particle with its water and
then coat it with wax].  Then repeat the experiment and see how the energy
obtained from the temperature rise in the water compared.  This comparison
is simple only if the electrical energy input in both cases was the same -
which is not likely.  So you would still need to measure the electrical
energy from the current and voltage waveforms to make sense of the results.

These are the kinds of details that go into research that is unassailable -
it is meticulous work.

Bob Higgins

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Jumping over the precipice, you will need to use one of the big copper
 arms as a current shunt.  Connect a lead across two points on one arm.  Use
 another calibrated source to run X known amps (lets say 10A) of current
 across the two points and see what voltage you get out.  Calculate the
 shunt resistance as a calibration factor.  Now you can use a digital
 storage oscilloscope to measure the differential voltage and capture the
 current waveshape.  Next you need an oscilloscope connection across the two
 arms to simulaneously (with the current measurement) measure the voltage
 across the contacts - the connections don't have to be super close to the
 contacts because the voltage drop across the big conductors will be small.
  Then you can capture the voltage waveform.  I don't think it will exceed
 50V.  To test, you can put a diode to capacitor across the gap and capture
 the peak voltage to know what you will need to protect against.  You will
 need the simultaneous voltage and current waveform to calculate the input
 energy.  There are other ways to do this, but this provides a lot of
 information.

RE: [Vo]:global warming?

2014-08-27 Thread Chris Zell

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140821-global-warming-hiatus-climate-change-ocean-science/

So, the mainstream now says no global warming for 10 - 15 years?

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-27 Thread Sunil Shah

Well, your prediction is wrong.

Yes, why would I not believe that the number 10^300,000 is correct?  But who is 
to say that Huxley et al are answering the right question??

First of all they are making assumptions about certain small numbers 
(probabilities that things will occur). Large errors in small numbers tend to 
make equations explode you know. Secondly, and much, much worse, is that they 
are making assumptions about How Things Work. In other words, they are most 
likely using the wrong algorithm, the wrong equation, the wrong mechanism!  
Since we (humans) don't KNOW what equations to use for things like Life, we 
make assumptions, and that is what Huxley et al are doing.  They are picking 
numbers and equations as they seem fit!  Are they correct? Try this: 
http://www.amazon.com/Reviews-Creationist-Books-Liz-Hughes/dp/0939873524/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409140674sr=1-1

You see, you have fallen into the same trap that many do, namely accepting the 
results of one person/team as correct. To be honest, most science doesn't work 
like that.

Best Regards,
Sunil

From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:58:30 +0800








OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch 
evolutionist?  Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds 
for evolving a horse by chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000.  
That's a number with 300,000 zeroes.  Considering that there are only 10^94 
subatomic particles in the 
Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you say?
 
This just goes to show that those who are experts 
and have studied the math acknowledge that the mechanism for Darwinian 
Evolution 
just won't happen.  Only ignorant folks like you mouth off as if you knew 
something
 
Here's further reading if you are inclined to 
continue embarrassing yourself.
 
http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability
 
http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/
 
 
 
Jojo
 
 
PS:  I can already predict your 
reaction.  
 
You:  Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is 
settled science, I am not going to debate this anymore.  I will not debate 
with someone who can't accept basic science.
 
Me:  Whatever!!!  LOL...
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Sunil 
  Shah 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:12 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of 
  Darwinian Evolution.
  

  This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities 
  I have ever seen.
Surely you can do BETTER than this?  It's a bleedin' 
  disgrace..
And stop misusing the proof word all the time : D

I do 
  recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again in 
  arguments like these:
The failure to realize what a big number 
  is.

First of all, you have assumed SERIAL changes, ONE at a 
  time.
Secondly you assume there is only ONE entity.
Thirdly, you claimed 
  your calculation just proved something.
May I suggest:  The 
  calculation PROVES you are a TROLL.

So have another go, but scale 
  things up a bit before you do.

(It takes today's bacteria 20 minutes to 
  reproduce, so I don't see why one change every 140 hours is fast.)

Why 
  are you assuming changes are sustained? 
Why are you assuming changes are 
  observable?
The math would say: A very small change x A rather long time 
  (from your perspective) = An unobservably small 
  change.

/Sunil




  
  
  From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: 
  The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:26:39 
  +0800


  

  Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age 
  of the Universe being 16,000,000,000 years. (504576 
  seconds)
   
  Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there 
  was a single cell lifeform.
   
  Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes 
  from a single cell lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion 
  differences between man and single cell lifeform.)
   
  This single lifeform must produce a change every 
  140 hours or 5.84 days (504576/1) for it to 
  evolve into Man.
   
  This is absolutely ridiculous.  Evolution 
  rates this fast must surely be observable.  Where are the observable 
  changes we can see?
   
  Simple math like this clearly prove that 
  Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet we have intelligent people like Jed 
arguing 
  for it.  I truly wonder why that is the case.
   
   
   
   
  Jojo
   
   
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 
AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As 
Idiots




Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:



  
  To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists 
  here:
   
  I have a simple question:
   
  1.  What is

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

You have a point. 

Though my view is, it may not be worth making these elaborate modifications.  
Are we striving for superaccuracy, or are we just trying to hit it in the 
ballpark?  To me, the most important question is to see if the input power is 
in the vicinity of 5J.  If it is, that would be a slam dunk for Mills cause you 
can't deny the output power.  Those Solar panels have known efficiency figures. 
 So, output power appears to be more or less accurate, which would bring the 
COP to 100 or more - more or less.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Higgins 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:28 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  Last night it struck me that these voltage measurements are going to require 
a compensating loop to subtract out the induced voltage in the measurement 
loops.  If you had a simple twisted pair wire to make the measurement, you 
would still end up with a measurement loop through which the magnetic fields 
from the welding action will flow. These magnetic fields will induce a voltage 
in the measurement loop, even if the voltage across the gap is 0V. To get rid 
of this error voltage, you need to make the measurements with a compensating 
loop present. The compensating loop will cancel this induced voltage by being 
connected in anti-series with the measurement connection.  I have never had to 
do this in other experiments because the currents were so low in those cases, 
but it is probably necessary in this case.  I don't know if Mills' team knew to 
do this.


  Also, it would be possible to measure the current with a clip-on probe.  Such 
a probe only measures AC, so you would have to integrate the waveform that you 
measure and use the condition that at t=0, the current was 0.  You would also 
have to calibrate with an AC current.  It would probably be useful to do both 
current measurements.


  Just doing a control calorimetry experiment is not good enough.  Let's say 
you are using a porous titanium particle to hold the milligrams of water that 
supposedly compose the hydrino reaction.  Encapsulate a dry particle in wax and 
detonate it underwater and measure the energy that heated the water.  Then, add 
the water to the titanium particle and encapsulate it in wax [one way to do 
this might be to freeze the particle with its water and then coat it with wax]. 
 Then repeat the experiment and see how the energy obtained from the 
temperature rise in the water compared.  This comparison is simple only if the 
electrical energy input in both cases was the same - which is not likely.  So 
you would still need to measure the electrical energy from the current and 
voltage waveforms to make sense of the results.



  These are the kinds of details that go into research that is unassailable - 
it is meticulous work.


  Bob Higgins


  On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote:

Jumping over the precipice, you will need to use one of the big copper arms 
as a current shunt.  Connect a lead across two points on one arm.  Use another 
calibrated source to run X known amps (lets say 10A) of current across the two 
points and see what voltage you get out.  Calculate the shunt resistance as a 
calibration factor.  Now you can use a digital storage oscilloscope to measure 
the differential voltage and capture the current waveshape.  Next you need an 
oscilloscope connection across the two arms to simulaneously (with the current 
measurement) measure the voltage across the contacts - the connections don't 
have to be super close to the contacts because the voltage drop across the big 
conductors will be small.  Then you can capture the voltage waveform.  I don't 
think it will exceed 50V.  To test, you can put a diode to capacitor across the 
gap and capture the peak voltage to know what you will need to protect against. 
 You will need the simultaneous voltage and current waveform to calculate the 
input energy.  There are other ways to do this, but this provides a lot of 
information.

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

This type of spot welder is likely to deliver something in the range of
50-300 joules, without any means of controlling it (but measurable).  Mills
only claims that he should be able to detonate his wet particles with 5
joules and get the same output, but has never demonstrated this AFAIK.  The
claim of 100 COP would only be if he got the *same output* with an input of
5 joules; which, as far as I can tell, he has only speculated and not
demonstrated.

With the equipment Jack has, he will not be able to adjust his spot welder
for a 5 joule input.  He will only be able to replicate what Mills has
done, which is with an input of about 200 joules.

Bob Higgins

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

  You have a point.

 Though my view is, it may not be worth making these elaborate
 modifications.  Are we striving for superaccuracy, or are we just trying to
 hit it in the ballpark?  To me, the most important question is to see if
 the input power is in the vicinity of 5J.  If it is, that would be a slam
 dunk for Mills cause you can't deny the output power.  Those Solar panels
 have known efficiency figures.  So, output power appears to be more or less
 accurate, which would bring the COP to 100 or more - more or less.


 Jojo

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

You illustrate a typical denial reaction that seems to have taken hold here in 
Vortex.  If you do not like the result, you say it is an error or an outlier or 
incompetence.  (my friend Jed does that a lot.)  If Huxley was a creationist, 
you would say he is biased and not objective or not honest.  But since Huxley 
is a known staunch Darwinian Evolutionist, you say he is incompetent.  How can 
one discuss science in the face of such INTRACTABLE RIDICULOUSNESS.

Do you honestly feel that you are more qualified to make the computations than 
Julian Huxley, who is a long term researcher in this field?  

OK, I'll bite.  How off do you think Huxley was in his computations.  Was he 
off by a factor of  10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000,  200,000?  Even if he was 
off by a factor of 299,000 (we take out 299,000 zeroes from the number), that 
probability is still 10^1000.  Still impossible.  (I presume you know that 
there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in our Universe and that anything 
above 10^50 is considered a impossible event.)   Any sensible man would 
recognize the mathematical improbability of Darwinian Evolution.

My friend, if you are objective, you need to accept all results whether you 
like it or not.  



Jojo


PS:  Did you even read my first link?  If you did, you would realize that I do 
not accept the result of one man only, as that first link contains computations 
from many people.  In fact, I deliberately included another link to illustrate 
more computations, this time from another man.


Wait  Wait  Wait for it ... Here it comes:

You:  Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to 
debate this anymore.  I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic 
science.  You should be banned from this forum because you do not accept basic 
science.

Me:  Whatever!!!  LOL...




  - Original Message - 
  From: Sunil Shah 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:44 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.


  Well, your prediction is wrong.

  Yes, why would I not believe that the number 10^300,000 is correct?  But who 
is to say that Huxley et al are answering the right question??

  First of all they are making assumptions about certain small numbers 
(probabilities that things will occur). Large errors in small numbers tend to 
make equations explode you know. Secondly, and much, much worse, is that they 
are making assumptions about How Things Work. In other words, they are most 
likely using the wrong algorithm, the wrong equation, the wrong mechanism!  
Since we (humans) don't KNOW what equations to use for things like Life, we 
make assumptions, and that is what Huxley et al are doing.  They are picking 
numbers and equations as they seem fit!  Are they correct? Try this: 
http://www.amazon.com/Reviews-Creationist-Books-Liz-Hughes/dp/0939873524/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409140674sr=1-1

  You see, you have fallen into the same trap that many do, namely accepting 
the results of one person/team as correct. To be honest, most science doesn't 
work like that.

  Best Regards,
  Sunil



--
  From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
  Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:58:30 +0800


  OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist?  Julian 
Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by 
chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000.  That's a number with 300,000 
zeroes.  Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in the 
Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you say?

  This just goes to show that those who are experts and have studied the math 
acknowledge that the mechanism for Darwinian Evolution just won't happen.  Only 
ignorant folks like you mouth off as if you knew something

  Here's further reading if you are inclined to continue embarrassing yourself.

  http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability

  http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/



  Jojo


  PS:  I can already predict your reaction.  

  You:  Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to 
debate this anymore.  I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic 
science.

  Me:  Whatever!!!  LOL...


- Original Message - 
From: Sunil Shah 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.


This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have 
ever seen.
Surely you can do BETTER than this?  It's a bleedin' disgrace..
And stop misusing the proof word all the time : D

I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again in 
arguments like these:
The failure to realize what a

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-27 Thread ChemE Stewart

The universe is in a constant state of creation, evolution and decay. The
past, present and future are just humanities attempt to pin it down, like
wrestling a greased pig. God has big fuzzy dice and rolls them every day.

I hope that clears things up.

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

You illustrate a typical denial reaction that seems to have taken hold
here in Vortex. If you do not like the result, you say it is an error or
an outlier or incompetence. (my friend Jed does that a lot.) If Huxley
was a creationist, you would say he is biased and not objective or not
honest. But since Huxley is a known staunch Darwinian Evolutionist, you
say he is incompetent. How can one discuss science in the face of such
INTRACTABLE RIDICULOUSNESS.

Do you honestly feel that you are more qualified to make the computations
than Julian Huxley, who is a long term researcher in this field?

OK, I'll bite. How off do you think Huxley was in his computations. Was
he off by a factor of 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, 200,000? Even if
he was off by a factor of 299,000 (we take out 299,000 zeroes from the
number), that probability is still 10^1000. Still impossible. (I presume
you know that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in our Universe and
that anything above 10^50 is considered a impossible event.) Any sensible
man would recognize the mathematical improbability of Darwinian Evolution.

My friend, if you are objective, you need to accept all results whether
you like it or not.

Jojo

PS: Did you even read my first link? If you did, you would realize that
I do not accept the result of one man only, as that first link contains
computations from many people. In fact, I deliberately included another
link to illustrate more computations, this time from another man.

Wait Wait Wait for it ... Here it comes:

You: Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going
to debate this anymore. I will not debate with someone who can't accept
basic science. You should be banned from this forum because you do not
accept basic science.

Me: Whatever!!! LOL...

- Original Message -
*From:* Sunil Shah javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','s.u.n@hotmail.com');
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vortex-l@eskimo.com');
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:44 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

Well, your prediction is wrong.

Yes, why would I not believe that the number 10^300,000 is correct? But
who is to say that Huxley et al are answering the right question??

First of all they are making assumptions about certain small numbers
(probabilities that things will occur). Large errors in small numbers tend
to make equations explode you know. Secondly, and much, much worse, is that
they are making assumptions about How Things Work. In other words, they are
most likely using the wrong algorithm, the wrong equation, the wrong
mechanism! Since we (humans) don't KNOW what equations to use for things
like Life, we make assumptions, and that is what Huxley et al are doing.
They are picking numbers and equations as they seem fit! Are they correct?
Try this:
http://www.amazon.com/Reviews-Creationist-Books-Liz-Hughes/dp/0939873524/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409140674sr=1-1

You see, you have fallen into the same trap that many do, namely accepting
the results of one person/team as correct. To be honest, most science
doesn't work like that.

Best Regards,
Sunil

--
From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jojoiznar...@gmail.com');
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vortex-l@eskimo.com');
Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:58:30 +0800

OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist? Julian
Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by
chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000. That's a number with
300,000 zeroes. Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic
particles in the Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you
say?

This just goes to show that those who are experts and have studied the
math acknowledge that the mechanism for Darwinian Evolution just won't
happen. Only ignorant folks like you mouth off as if you knew something

Here's further reading if you are inclined to continue embarrassing
yourself.

*http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability
http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability*

http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/

Jojo

PS: I can already predict your reaction.

You: Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to
debate this anymore. I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic
science.

Me:

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

In his bomb calorimetry demo, he demonstrated an input of about 200+ J.  

Correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm working from memory here.  In the bomb 
calorimetry, they seems to have demonstrated a COP of 4+


I think the spot welder need to be modified to maintain a fix gap between the 
electrodes where the fuel pellet needs to be slightly wedged in.  This way, as 
soon as the fuel pellet detonates, that automatically stops the welder from 
delivering more power, since there would be a gap where no further current can 
flow.  The open voltage of the welder would not jump the gap.   If we did this, 
we can control how much input energy is being delivered.  From there, we can 
verify the 5J claim.



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Higgins 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  This type of spot welder is likely to deliver something in the range of 
50-300 joules, without any means of controlling it (but measurable).  Mills 
only claims that he should be able to detonate his wet particles with 5 
joules and get the same output, but has never demonstrated this AFAIK.  The 
claim of 100 COP would only be if he got the same output with an input of 5 
joules; which, as far as I can tell, he has only speculated and not 
demonstrated.


  With the equipment Jack has, he will not be able to adjust his spot welder 
for a 5 joule input.  He will only be able to replicate what Mills has done, 
which is with an input of about 200 joules.


  Bob Higgins


  On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

You have a point. 

Though my view is, it may not be worth making these elaborate 
modifications.  Are we striving for superaccuracy, or are we just trying to hit 
it in the ballpark?  To me, the most important question is to see if the input 
power is in the vicinity of 5J.  If it is, that would be a slam dunk for Mills 
cause you can't deny the output power.  Those Solar panels have known 
efficiency figures.  So, output power appears to be more or less accurate, 
which would bring the COP to 100 or more - more or less.


Jojo

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

In his previous bomb calorimetry, only a COP of about 2 was reported.  I
have previously pointed out in detail the flaw in this calorimetry owing to
the variable heat taken away by the large copper electrodes between the
control and the actual experiment.  Because of this flaw, the COP could be
substantially over-estimated - easily by a factor of 2.  Thus, even the COP
of 2 was not demonstrated.

I think it extremely unlikely that by controlling the gap you could tune
the energy delivered down by even 50%.  This type of welder has no separate
means of initiating plasma - it requires the contact.  It probably has a
saturable core to limit the current flow.  A special apparatus would be
needed to deliver an ignition pulse and then a controlled energy in the
plasma conduction.  This would probably be a regulated capacitor discharge
circuitry to get to the very high current, but short pulse needed to create
a 5 joule ignition.  I think there is no chance to verify a 5 joule
ignition with this spot welder setup.

Best case is to replicate what Mills has done with ~200 joule input and
with better calorimetry (for example, doing it with the electrodes under
water).

Bob Higgins

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

  In his bomb calorimetry demo, he demonstrated an input of about 200+ J.

 Correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm working from memory here.  In the bomb
 calorimetry, they seems to have demonstrated a COP of 4+

 I think the spot welder need to be modified to maintain a fix gap between
 the electrodes where the fuel pellet needs to be slightly wedged in.  This
 way, as soon as the fuel pellet detonates, that automatically stops the
 welder from delivering more power, since there would be a gap where no
 further current can flow.  The open voltage of the welder would not jump
 the gap.   If we did this, we can control how much input energy is being
 delivered.  From there, we can verify the 5J claim.

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

In my opinion.  Calorimetry using water is a non-starter.  There is just to 
many points of entry where error can creep in.  The biggest of which would be, 
will a hydrino transition even occur under water.  It seems to me that it would 
electrolyze and split the water first before it initiates a hydrino transition 
reaction.  Remember Ed's mantra - you can not ignore the Chemical environment.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Higgins 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 11:01 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  In his previous bomb calorimetry, only a COP of about 2 was reported.  I have 
previously pointed out in detail the flaw in this calorimetry owing to the 
variable heat taken away by the large copper electrodes between the control and 
the actual experiment.  Because of this flaw, the COP could be substantially 
over-estimated - easily by a factor of 2.  Thus, even the COP of 2 was not 
demonstrated.


  I think it extremely unlikely that by controlling the gap you could tune the 
energy delivered down by even 50%.  This type of welder has no separate means 
of initiating plasma - it requires the contact.  It probably has a saturable 
core to limit the current flow.  A special apparatus would be needed to deliver 
an ignition pulse and then a controlled energy in the plasma conduction.  This 
would probably be a regulated capacitor discharge circuitry to get to the very 
high current, but short pulse needed to create a 5 joule ignition.  I think 
there is no chance to verify a 5 joule ignition with this spot welder setup.


  Best case is to replicate what Mills has done with ~200 joule input and with 
better calorimetry (for example, doing it with the electrodes under water).


  Bob Higgins


  On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

In his bomb calorimetry demo, he demonstrated an input of about 200+ J.  

Correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm working from memory here.  In the bomb 
calorimetry, they seems to have demonstrated a COP of 4+ 

I think the spot welder need to be modified to maintain a fix gap between 
the electrodes where the fuel pellet needs to be slightly wedged in.  This way, 
as soon as the fuel pellet detonates, that automatically stops the welder from 
delivering more power, since there would be a gap where no further current can 
flow.  The open voltage of the welder would not jump the gap.   If we did this, 
we can control how much input energy is being delivered.  From there, we can 
verify the 5J claim.

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium


Hi Nigel,

Thanks again for your answer, but again I cannot find the data point I 
am after in all the interesting information you have provided!  So I 
will try again.


Purely as an illustration or analogy, consider the growth of the human 
body.  It starts at conception having many embryonic _stem_ cells.  
These all have the potential to differentiate into the many varieties of 
cell types that are required to form all the organs in the body.  Once 
they have fully _differentiated_, they seem to lose the plasticity that 
they once had when stem cells and can no longer go back and reproduce 
into different types of organ cells.


Elements in the phylogenetic tree (made up of life forms instead of 
cells) seems to possess similar traits.  There are elements such as the 
coelacanth which has reproduced itself for ~350 million years with 
scarcely a whisker out of place, while the offspring of some very near 
neighbour has crawled out of the water onto dry land and formed into all 
the reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and finally as human, looked 
back at its own evolutionary history.  I think all must agree that this 
enormous difference in the evolutionary potential of such near 
neighbours is truly remarkable!  If this has an explanation I would love 
to hear it. But I am getting sidetracked.


My point is that there are some life forms which seem to be like stem 
cells and have the plasticity to evolve into a countless variety of 
other life forms.  And there are others which seem to be like fully 
differentiated cells which have spent their evolutionary potential and 
can no longer produce other forms.  So if one draws the phylogenetic 
tree, there must be a trunk (or root) of simple life forms at the centre 
from which all large branches proceed, leading finally to leaves at the 
outer extremities where the fully complex but often evolutionarily spent 
life forms exist.


One could put the first creature that crawled from the sea (which you 
failed to name but which I might call a proto-frog) as one of the major 
branches, and things like the bat (which seems have remained unchanged 
for 50 million years)  as one of the leaves.


What I would mostly like to find out is whether the DNA information 
content seems to increase or decrease as we go from trunk to leaves?  I 
appreciate it may be difficult to know the information content when you 
can't pick the difference between random numbers and vital information.  
But if one was to zip or compress the DNA letters so as to at least 
get rid of duplicates and repetitive strings, that would provide an 
upper limit.


So do simple organisms like stromatolites and cyanobacteria seem to 
have significantly more, or significantly less DNA information than 
complex organisms like vertebrates?


John

On 27/08/2014 7:35 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote:

Hi John

Evolutionary principles can help understand how the first self 
replicating cell originated.   For example all the evidence suggests 
that it came from an RNA based predecessor, where RNA is replicated 
and splits into chunks to form enzymes etc.   We are currently finding 
RNA has far more roles than we had previously realised, plenty of 
scope for RNA based lifeforms.


As for whether there is an inevitability of humanoid based life forms, 
no there is nothing that suggests that we were inevitable. In 10 
million years time it might be that the descendants of todays mice 
(see Douglas Adams) or dolphins who are in many ways as advanced as we 
are might be asking themselves the same question, and they are not 
sexually compatible with us.


There is an emergent phenomena that gives rise to more complex life 
forms that are better fitted than their predecessors to survive.  
Darwin describes well the process that makes this happen, and all that 
we have found in genetics supports and can be understood based this idea.
OK this is something that I would like to find out.  I can see no 
ratchet mechanism to help complexity develop from simplicity rather than 
vice-versa.  Every molecular level mutation that you can imagine must be 
effectively reversible.  Thus every micro-evolutionary step must also be 
reversible.  Thus every macro-evolutionary change must also be 
reversible _if the selection pressure is removed or reversed_ - No?


We have a similar situation in physics:  Every microscopic interaction 
is time reversible, therefore you would expect that every macroscopic 
event can happen just as well in reverse.  And indeed it could, but in 
practice it doesn't.  You can very quickly pick whether a film is being 
run in reverse or in the forward direction.  So what determines the 
arrow of time?   The way that this is usually explained is with 
probability - the second law of thermodynamics - the inevitable increase 
of entropy.  This is what ensures for instance that objects that are 
hotter than their environment will cool towards their environment rather 
than warm up even more.


If you were to apply

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium

John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis.  Your 
unyielding adherence to Darwinian dogma is blinding you and preventing you from 
asking the right questions.  You assume Darwinian Evolution is true first and 
that skews your analysis.

For example, you assume that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old.  How do 
you know that?  You know that only because Darwinian Evolution theory told you 
so.  Since your first assumption is that Darwinian Evolution is true, you can 
liberally conclude that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old.  Then a wrong 
question stems from this wrong understanding - wrong assumption.  You then ask 
why the coelacanth stopped evolving?  This of course is the wrong question 
that you are trying to answer.

What you should do is not assume anything.  You then look at the data and see 
if Darwinian Evolution fits the data.  Can Darwinian Evolution explain the 
existence of the Coelacanth up to today and why it hasn't evolved?  If not, 
Darwinian Evolution theory is wrong.

Instead, you ask, how could the Coelacanth exist unchanged for 350 million 
years?  This is the wrong questions that should not have been asked if your 
initial assumptions did not screw with your analysis.




Jojo


PS: I'm really at a loss understanding why people can't seem to see the 
stupidities of their belief in Darwinian Evolution - why they can see that 
Darwinian Evolution could be wrong.





  - Original Message - 
  From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:50 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium


  Hi Nigel,

  Thanks again for your answer, but again I cannot find the data point I am 
after in all the interesting information you have provided!  So I will try 
again.

  Purely as an illustration or analogy, consider the growth of the human body.  
It starts at conception having many embryonic stem cells.  These all have the 
potential to differentiate into the many varieties of cell types that are 
required to form all the organs in the body.  Once they have fully 
differentiated, they seem to lose the plasticity that they once had when stem 
cells and can no longer go back and reproduce into different types of organ 
cells.

  Elements in the phylogenetic tree (made up of life forms instead of cells) 
seems to possess similar traits.  There are elements such as the coelacanth 
which has reproduced itself for ~350 million years with scarcely a whisker out 
of place, while the offspring of some very near neighbour has crawled out of 
the water onto dry land and formed into all the reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, 
mammals, and finally as human, looked back at its own evolutionary history.  I 
think all must agree that this enormous difference in the evolutionary 
potential of such near neighbours is truly remarkable!  If this has an 
explanation I would love to hear it.  But I am getting sidetracked.

  My point is that there are some life forms which seem to be like stem cells 
and have the plasticity to evolve into a countless variety of other life forms. 
 And there are others which seem to be like fully differentiated cells which 
have spent their evolutionary potential and can no longer produce other forms.  
So if one draws the phylogenetic tree, there must be a trunk (or root) of 
simple life forms at the centre from which all large branches proceed, leading 
finally to leaves at the outer extremities where the fully complex but often 
evolutionarily spent life forms exist.

  One could put the first creature that crawled from the sea (which you failed 
to name but which I might call a proto-frog) as one of the major branches, and 
things like the bat (which seems have remained unchanged for 50 million years)  
as one of the leaves.

  What I would mostly like to find out is whether the DNA information content 
seems to increase or decrease as we go from trunk to leaves?  I appreciate it 
may be difficult to know the information content when you can't pick the 
difference between random numbers and vital information.  But if one was to 
zip or compress the DNA letters so as to at least get rid of duplicates and 
repetitive strings, that would provide an upper limit.

  So do simple organisms like stromatolites and cyanobacteria seem to have 
significantly more, or significantly less DNA information than complex 
organisms like vertebrates?

  John

  On 27/08/2014 7:35 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote:

Hi John

Evolutionary principles can help understand how the first self replicating 
cell originated.   For example all the evidence suggests that it came from an 
RNA based predecessor, where RNA is replicated and splits into chunks to form 
enzymes etc.   We are currently finding RNA has far more roles than we had 
previously realised, plenty of scope for RNA based lifeforms.

As for whether there is an inevitability of humanoid based life forms, no 
there is nothing that suggests that we were

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium

If evolution is driven by a random process via random mutations, then evolution 
can not be reversible, since it is unlikely that a random mutation would occur 
that cancels out a previous random mutation.  The odds are astronomical for 
that to occur.

The fact that we see E. Coli gain penicilin resistance and then loose it again 
simply means that this micro-evolution variation is reversible and thus not 
based on a random mutation process.  This conclusion can not be denied.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:50 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium


  Hi Nigel,

  Thanks again for your answer, but again I cannot find the data point I am 
after in all the interesting information you have provided!  So I will try 
again.

  Purely as an illustration or analogy, consider the growth of the human body.  
It starts at conception having many embryonic stem cells.  These all have the 
potential to differentiate into the many varieties of cell types that are 
required to form all the organs in the body.  Once they have fully 
differentiated, they seem to lose the plasticity that they once had when stem 
cells and can no longer go back and reproduce into different types of organ 
cells.

  Elements in the phylogenetic tree (made up of life forms instead of cells) 
seems to possess similar traits.  There are elements such as the coelacanth 
which has reproduced itself for ~350 million years with scarcely a whisker out 
of place, while the offspring of some very near neighbour has crawled out of 
the water onto dry land and formed into all the reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, 
mammals, and finally as human, looked back at its own evolutionary history.  I 
think all must agree that this enormous difference in the evolutionary 
potential of such near neighbours is truly remarkable!  If this has an 
explanation I would love to hear it.  But I am getting sidetracked.

  My point is that there are some life forms which seem to be like stem cells 
and have the plasticity to evolve into a countless variety of other life forms. 
 And there are others which seem to be like fully differentiated cells which 
have spent their evolutionary potential and can no longer produce other forms.  
So if one draws the phylogenetic tree, there must be a trunk (or root) of 
simple life forms at the centre from which all large branches proceed, leading 
finally to leaves at the outer extremities where the fully complex but often 
evolutionarily spent life forms exist.

  One could put the first creature that crawled from the sea (which you failed 
to name but which I might call a proto-frog) as one of the major branches, and 
things like the bat (which seems have remained unchanged for 50 million years)  
as one of the leaves.

  What I would mostly like to find out is whether the DNA information content 
seems to increase or decrease as we go from trunk to leaves?  I appreciate it 
may be difficult to know the information content when you can't pick the 
difference between random numbers and vital information.  But if one was to 
zip or compress the DNA letters so as to at least get rid of duplicates and 
repetitive strings, that would provide an upper limit.

  So do simple organisms like stromatolites and cyanobacteria seem to have 
significantly more, or significantly less DNA information than complex 
organisms like vertebrates?

  John

  On 27/08/2014 7:35 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote:

Hi John

Evolutionary principles can help understand how the first self replicating 
cell originated.   For example all the evidence suggests that it came from an 
RNA based predecessor, where RNA is replicated and splits into chunks to form 
enzymes etc.   We are currently finding RNA has far more roles than we had 
previously realised, plenty of scope for RNA based lifeforms.

As for whether there is an inevitability of humanoid based life forms, no 
there is nothing that suggests that we were inevitable.  In 10 million years 
time it might be that the descendants of todays mice (see Douglas Adams) or 
dolphins who are in many ways as advanced as we are might be asking themselves 
the same question, and they are not sexually compatible with us.

There is an emergent phenomena that gives rise to more complex life forms 
that are better fitted than their predecessors to survive.  Darwin describes 
well the process that makes this happen, and all that we have found in genetics 
supports and can be understood based this idea.

  OK this is something that I would like to find out.  I can see no ratchet 
mechanism to help complexity develop from simplicity rather than vice-versa.  
Every molecular level mutation that you can imagine must be effectively 
reversible.  Thus every micro-evolutionary step must also be reversible.  Thus 
every macro-evolutionary change must also be reversible if the selection 
pressure is removed or reversed

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

It would appear that you are not qualified to say that calorimetry using
water is a non-starter.  First, in DI water there is no electrolyte added
(just the opposite) and there will be no current flowing through this water
being used to capture the heat and thermalize the UV.  The DI water has no
current, hence not hydrolysis.  Second, Mills' experiment begins with
water.  Within the high current flow, the water in the porous metal
container (particle) is thermally and electrically decomposed into various
hydrogen, oxygen, and hydroxide species both neutral and ionized, though
the voltage is specifically held low to help prevent impact ionization of
the hydrogen (the hydrino state requires the electron).  I proposed
isolating the test pellet in a wax container so that the DI water does not
contaminate the water in the test pellet, though that may not be necessary.

If Mills is correct, the whole reaction is chemical.  If you have a better
idea for calorimetry, describe it.

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

  In my opinion.  Calorimetry using water is a non-starter.  There is just
 to many points of entry where error can creep in.  The biggest of which
 would be, will a hydrino transition even occur under water.  It seems to me
 that it would electrolyze and split the water first before it initiates a
 hydrino transition reaction.  Remember Ed's mantra - you can not ignore the
 Chemical environment.

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

First, you can not guarantee that the water is 100% deionized, can you?  DI 
water sold in stores is not completely Deionized.

Second, because you can not guarantee number 1 above, you can not guarantee 
that no electrolysis will occur.  If there is current flowing thru that water, 
it will electrolyze water, possibly preventing enough energy to catalyze a 
hydrino transition.  Water will electrolyze first before doing a hydrino 
transition.  That is the chemical environment you are putting your electrodes 
in.  You can not ignore this chemical process that will always take precedence 
over your hydrino transition.

Bottom line is, you can not guarantee a hydrino transition under water.  If you 
can not guarantee a hydrino transition, what then are you measuring with your 
water bath?  You would just be measuring the heat of your electrolysis.

This is the reason why I believe it won't work - it's a non-starter.

I believe a better approach is simply follow Mill's lead.  Use solar panels to 
measure output.  Like I asked before, what is our goal?  Is it to figure out a 
complete energy balance accounting or simply to verify certain aspects of 
Mill's claims.  Jack needs to answer this for himself so that he can decide 
which direction to go.  This is his experiment after all.




Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Higgins 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 1:18 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  It would appear that you are not qualified to say that calorimetry using 
water is a non-starter.  First, in DI water there is no electrolyte added 
(just the opposite) and there will be no current flowing through this water 
being used to capture the heat and thermalize the UV.  The DI water has no 
current, hence not hydrolysis.  Second, Mills' experiment begins with water.  
Within the high current flow, the water in the porous metal container 
(particle) is thermally and electrically decomposed into various hydrogen, 
oxygen, and hydroxide species both neutral and ionized, though the voltage is 
specifically held low to help prevent impact ionization of the hydrogen (the 
hydrino state requires the electron).  I proposed isolating the test pellet in 
a wax container so that the DI water does not contaminate the water in the test 
pellet, though that may not be necessary.


  If Mills is correct, the whole reaction is chemical.  If you have a better 
idea for calorimetry, describe it.


  On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

In my opinion.  Calorimetry using water is a non-starter.  There is just to 
many points of entry where error can creep in.  The biggest of which would be, 
will a hydrino transition even occur under water.  It seems to me that it would 
electrolyze and split the water first before it initiates a hydrino transition 
reaction.  Remember Ed's mantra - you can not ignore the Chemical environment.

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

You do not appear to know what you are talking about; except in one
respect:  You are correct that it is Jack's experiment and his course of
action is absolutely his choice.

My inputs to this topic are terminated.  I have no intention to
contributing to this becoming a flame like some of the other off-topic junk
showing up on Vortex-L (to which you seem to be contributing).

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
wrote:

  First, you can not guarantee that the water is 100% deionized, can you?
 DI water sold in stores is not completely Deionized.

 Second, because you can not guarantee number 1 above, you can not
 guarantee that no electrolysis will occur.  If there is current flowing
 thru that water, it will electrolyze water, possibly preventing enough
 energy to catalyze a hydrino transition.  Water will electrolyze first
 before doing a hydrino transition.  That is the chemical environment you
 are putting your electrodes in.  You can not ignore this chemical process
 that will always take precedence over your hydrino transition.

 Bottom line is, you can not guarantee a hydrino transition under water.
 If you can not guarantee a hydrino transition, what then are you measuring
 with your water bath?  You would just be measuring the heat of your
 electrolysis.

 This is the reason why I believe it won't work - it's a non-starter.

 I believe a better approach is simply follow Mill's lead.  Use solar
 panels to measure output.  Like I asked before, what is our goal?  Is it to
 figure out a complete energy balance accounting or simply to verify certain
 aspects of Mill's claims.  Jack needs to answer this for himself so that he
 can decide which direction to go.  This is his experiment after all.

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

2014-08-27 Thread Axil Axil

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-scientists-human-worm-genomes-biology.html

Scientists looking across human, fly and worm genomes find shared biology

Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that these
species have a number of key genomic processes in common, reflecting their
shared ancestry. The findings, appearing Aug. 28, 2014, in the journal
*Nature*, offer insights into embryonic development, gene regulation and
other biological processes vital to understanding human biology and
disease.

Consortium studied how gene expression
http://phys.org/tags/gene+expression/ patterns and regulatory proteins
that help determine cell fate often share common features. Investigators
also detailed the similar ways in which the three species use protein
packaging to compact DNA into the cell nucleus and to regulate genome
function by controlling access to DNA.

 The insights gained about the workings of model organisms' genomes
greatly help to inform our understanding of human biology.

 One way to describe and understand the human genome is through
comparative genomics and studying model organisms, said Mark Gerstein,
Ph.D., Albert L. Williams Professor of Biomedical Informatics at Yale
University in New Haven, Connecticut, and the lead author on one of the
papers. The special thing about the worm and fly is that they are very
distant from humans evolutionarily, so finding something conserved across
all three – human, fly and worm – tells us it is a very ancient,
fundamental process.



Investigators showed that the ways in which DNA is packaged in the cell are
similar in many respects, and, in many cases, the species share programs
for turning on and off genes in a coordinated manner. More specifically,
they used gene expression patterns
http://phys.org/tags/gene+expression+patterns/ to match the stages of
worm and fly development and found sets of genes that parallel each other
in their usage. They also found the genes specifically expressed in the
worm and fly embryos are re-expressed in the fly pupae, the stage between
larva and adult.

The researchers found that in all three organisms, the gene expression
levels http://phys.org/tags/gene+expression+levels/ for both
protein-coding and non-protein-coding genes could be quantitatively
predicted from chromatin features at the promoters of genes. A gene's
promoter tells the cell's machinery where to begin copying DNA into RNA,
which can be used to make proteins. DNA is packaged into chromatin in
cells, and changes in this packaging can regulate gene function.


If Darwinian Evolution was considered an Absurdity, this work would not
have been done. Such is the danger of religious precipice in science.





On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:42 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 The universe is in a constant state of creation, evolution and decay.  The
 past, present and future are just humanities attempt to pin it down, like
 wrestling a greased pig.  God has big fuzzy dice and rolls them every day.

 I hope that clears things up.


 On Wednesday, August 27, 2014, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

  You illustrate a typical denial reaction that seems to have taken hold
 here in Vortex.  If you do not like the result, you say it is an error or
 an outlier or incompetence.  (my friend Jed does that a lot.)  If Huxley
 was a creationist, you would say he is biased and not objective or not
 honest.  But since Huxley is a known staunch Darwinian Evolutionist, you
 say he is incompetent.  How can one discuss science in the face of such
 INTRACTABLE RIDICULOUSNESS.

 Do you honestly feel that you are more qualified to make the computations
 than Julian Huxley, who is a long term researcher in this field?

 OK, I'll bite.  How off do you think Huxley was in his computations.  Was
 he off by a factor of  10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000,  200,000?  Even if
 he was off by a factor of 299,000 (we take out 299,000 zeroes from the
 number), that probability is still 10^1000.  Still impossible.  (I presume
 you know that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in our Universe and
 that anything above 10^50 is considered a impossible event.)   Any sensible
 man would recognize the mathematical improbability of Darwinian Evolution.

 My friend, if you are objective, you need to accept all results whether
 you like it or not.



 Jojo


 PS:  Did you even read my first link?  If you did, you would realize that
 I do not accept the result of one man only, as that first link contains
 computations from many people.  In fact, I deliberately included another
 link to illustrate more computations, this time from another man.


 Wait  Wait  Wait for it ... Here it comes:

  You:  Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going
 to debate this anymore.  I will not debate with someone who can't accept
 basic science.  You should be banned from this forum because you do not
 accept basic science.

 Me:  Whatever!!!  LOL...





 -

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium


On 28/08/2014 1:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis. 
Your unyielding adherence to Darwinian dogma
You are mistaken.  I have no adherence to Darwinian dogma whatsoever.  
If Darwinian dogma (whatever that is) happens to coincide with my 
understanding - well maybe its right.
is blinding you and preventing you from asking the right questions.  
You assume Darwinian Evolution is true first and that skews your analysis.
For example, you assume that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old.  
How do you know that?
We have been over this ad nauseum.  I accept radiometric dating.  In 
many cases it is simply superb.  You are welcome to continue rubbishing 
it but you should be aware that in the almost unanimous view of 
intelligent and well educated people you are thereby only rubbishing 
yourself.
You know that only because Darwinian Evolution theory told you so.  
Since your first assumption is that Darwinian Evolution is true, you 
can liberally conclude that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old.  
Then a wrong question stems from this wrong understanding - wrong 
assumption.  You then ask why the coelacanth stopped evolving?  This 
of course is the wrong question that you are trying to answer.
What you should do is not assume anything.  You then look at the data 
and see if Darwinian Evolution fits the data.
What about you?  You make one massive assumption (that the history and 
legends brought back by the Jews after their exile in Babylon has to be 
completely inerrant), and then you look at the data and no matter how 
good it is, you toss it out if you can't make it fit that massive 
assumption.
Can Darwinian Evolution explain the existence of the Coelacanth up to 
today and why it hasn't evolved?  If not, Darwinian Evolution theory 
is wrong.
Instead, you ask, how could the Coelacanth exist unchanged for 350 
million years?  This is the wrong questions that should not have been 
asked if your initial assumptions did not screw with your analysis.

Jojo
PS: I'm really at a loss understanding why people can't seem to see 
the stupidities of their belief in Darwinian Evolution - why they can 
see that Darwinian Evolution could be wrong.
Take out the plank that is in your own eye, and then you can see better 
to pick specks of dust from others assumptions.

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium


On 28/08/2014 1:17 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
If evolution is driven by a random process via random mutations, then 
evolution _can not be reversible_, since it is _unlikely_ that a 
random mutation would occur that cancels out a previous random 
mutation.  The odds are astronomical for that to occur.
If it is unlikely, then it is possible!  But my point is not that a 
random mutation might actually reverse, my point is that there is _no 
preferred directionality_ to the process.  Evolutionists try to come up 
with random processes that can produce more complex proteins and 
structures from simpler ones (climbing mount improbable), without it 
seems, ever considering that the reverse path is just as possible in 
every case and typically many many orders of magnitude more probable 
(rolling down mount improbable).
The fact that we see E. Coli gain penicilin resistance and then loose 
it again simply means that this micro-evolution variation is 
reversible and thus not based on a random mutation process.  This 
conclusion can not be denied.
Sorry but I can see no reason why this effect cannot occur by a random 
mutation processes?  Some mutation can allow resistance and a different 
mutation prevent it again.  I don't know whether penicillin resistance 
requires something to work, or requires something to be prevented from 
working.  But there are often many ways to switch on some gene to get 
it working (eg by clobbering whatever is preventing it), and an infinity 
of ways of breaking something to stop it working.

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium

2014-08-27 Thread Ken Deboer

Jojo,
Here's one (actually a few ): clymene dolphin
plus 2-4% of all flowering plants, inc. many sunflowers, and many crop
species.

BTW.  This whole 'odds' thing is a joke.  Julian Huxley, for example, did
not state his opinion re; the astronomical 'odds' of a horse, but did
ridicule the guy that did. It appears, for example, that the odds that you
and I could ever agree on most anything is, let's see, 80 billion neuronal
actions per sec X  80 billion neurons actions per sec by you  X 30 years =
  (I'm not too good at math, you do the math).

From a former biology teacher, ken
PS.  don't call me, I'll call you back.


On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote:

  On 28/08/2014 1:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:

 John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis.
 Your unyielding adherence to Darwinian dogma

 You are mistaken.  I have no adherence to Darwinian dogma whatsoever.  If
 Darwinian dogma (whatever that is) happens to coincide with my
 understanding - well maybe its right.

  is blinding you and preventing you from asking the right questions.  You
 assume Darwinian Evolution is true first and that skews your analysis.

 For example, you assume that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old.  How
 do you know that?

 We have been over this ad nauseum.  I accept radiometric dating.  In many
 cases it is simply superb.  You are welcome to continue rubbishing it but
 you should be aware that in the almost unanimous view of intelligent and
 well educated people you are thereby only rubbishing yourself.

  You know that only because Darwinian Evolution theory told you so.
 Since your first assumption is that Darwinian Evolution is true, you can
 liberally conclude that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old.  Then a
 wrong question stems from this wrong understanding - wrong assumption.  You
 then ask why the coelacanth stopped evolving?  This of course is the
 wrong question that you are trying to answer.

 What you should do is not assume anything.  You then look at the data and
 see if Darwinian Evolution fits the data.

 What about you?  You make one massive assumption (that the history and
 legends brought back by the Jews after their exile in Babylon has to be
 completely inerrant), and then you look at the data and no matter how good
 it is, you toss it out if you can't make it fit that massive assumption.

  Can Darwinian Evolution explain the existence of the Coelacanth up to
 today and why it hasn't evolved?  If not, Darwinian Evolution theory is
 wrong.

 Instead, you ask, how could the Coelacanth exist unchanged for 350 million
 years?  This is the wrong questions that should not have been asked if your
 initial assumptions did not screw with your analysis.

 Jojo

 PS: I'm really at a loss understanding why people can't seem to see the
 stupidities of their belief in Darwinian Evolution - why they can see that
 Darwinian Evolution could be wrong.

 Take out the plank that is in your own eye, and then you can see better to
 pick specks of dust from others assumptions.

Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe

2014-08-27 Thread Jed Rothwell

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:

 Thanks to all who noticed and kindly commented on my leaving the Vortex-L
 list (apparently actually getting off the list takes rather longer than I
 expected …).


You will never leave by this method. You are trapped! It is like walking
into the closet instead of out of the front door.



 To unsubscribe, send a *blank* message to:
  vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com
  Put the single word unsubscribe in the subject line of the header.  No
  quotes around unsubscribe, of course.

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium

As pointed out, the odds for a mutation occuring that would result in a feature 
that is useful enough is astronomical.  (See my first link).  Its like 
fllipping 1000 consecutive heads followed by 1000 consecutive tails.  Unlikely 
does not mean possible.  It depends on the odds.  If it is greater than 10^50, 
it is considered impossible.

The concept of reversing the change is just as improbable because the mechanism 
is random.  There is no such thing as rolling downhill.  The process is the 
same in both directions.  This idea of reversibility in itself is already a 
violation of one of the tenets of Darwinian Theory.  Darwinian Theory says the 
change must be persistent.  If the reverse is easier than the forward change, 
it violates the persistence requirement.

Regarding E. Coli resistance.  You are correct in that the resistance is 
conferred by an expression of a gene.  In this case, just a single gene which 
creates a single protein on the cell wall of the bacteria that prevents the 
antibiotic from attaching itself to the bacteria which prevents the 
denaturing/splitting of the bacteria cell wall.  But this is precisely my 
argument for the difference between micro from macro-evolution.  The mechanism 
for expressing a trait is already encoded in the DNA in micro-evolution - it is 
adaptation.  There is no mutation that needs to confer a survival advantage.  
Everything the bacteria needs to mount a defense is already encoded.  That is 
why you will never find E. Coli that is resistant to Chlorine for example.  
Chlorine will always kill E. Coli, because E.Coli does not have a gene that it 
can express to confer Chlorine resistance.  The extent of what E. Coli can be 
resistant to is determined by its genetic tool box.  It can never be resistant 
to something that is not in its tool box.





Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:38 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium


  On 28/08/2014 1:17 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:

If evolution is driven by a random process via random mutations, then 
evolution can not be reversible, since it is unlikely that a random mutation 
would occur that cancels out a previous random mutation.  The odds are 
astronomical for that to occur.
  If it is unlikely, then it is possible!  But my point is not that a random 
mutation might actually reverse, my point is that there is no preferred 
directionality to the process.  Evolutionists try to come up with random 
processes that can produce more complex proteins and structures from simpler 
ones (climbing mount improbable), without it seems, ever considering that the 
reverse path is just as possible in every case and typically many many orders 
of magnitude more probable (rolling down mount improbable).


The fact that we see E. Coli gain penicilin resistance and then loose it 
again simply means that this micro-evolution variation is reversible and thus 
not based on a random mutation process.  This conclusion can not be denied.
  Sorry but I can see no reason why this effect cannot occur by a random 
mutation processes?  Some mutation can allow resistance and a different 
mutation prevent it again.  I don't know whether penicillin resistance requires 
something to work, or requires something to be prevented from working.  But 
there are often many ways to switch on some gene to get it working (eg by 
clobbering whatever is preventing it), and an infinity of ways of breaking 
something to stop it working.

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium

You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350 million years 
old from radiometric dating techniques.  Please do tell, what sort of 
radiometric dating tells you that it is 350 million years old?


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium



For example, you assume that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old.  How 
do you know that?
  We have been over this ad nauseum.  I accept radiometric dating.  In many 
cases it is simply superb.  You are welcome to continue rubbishing it but you 
should be aware that in the almost unanimous view of intelligent and well 
educated people you are thereby only rubbishing yourself.

[Vo]:Elon Would Invest in LENR

2014-08-27 Thread Terry Blanton

If it could be shown it could be used for propulsion.  His five dreams:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/27/technology/elon-musk/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

Look my friend, you and I appear to have a difference in what we think should 
be the goal of this replication attempt.  That is why I said, we need to step 
back and think about this before we (or Jack) embark on an elaborate 
modification plan to build whatever it is he decides.


1.  If Jack wants to characterize the energy balance completely down to the mW 
level, then a calorimeter water bath may be necessary, which would not 
guarantee a hydrino transition (so what are we testing..)  and would complicate 
the procedure openning up this replication attempt to myriads of criticisms.

2.  If on the other hand, Jack simply wants to verify certain aspects of the 
Mill's claims, then a simpler modification is in order.  Solar panels will 
verify the output to a reasonalbe degree of accuracy while simple modifications 
to the electrodes with an oscilloscope can verify the input power.


It's a matter of goals.  What are we trying to achieve?  We have a reasonable 
disagreement in philosophical outlook that does not need to turn to personal 
innuendos and insults.

I do not know why you are reacting this way.  Maybe because you take personal 
offense when I said that a water bath is a non-starter.  That statement refers 
to the impracticality of the water bath calorimeter, not an attack on your 
character or your personal beliefs.  It does not need to get personal.  



Jojo


PS.  Most of my responses are answers to queries.  Carbon Dating is science 
(supposedly) and Darwinian Evolution is science (as Jed would claim) so what 
off topic flame are you referring to.  Responses to religious questions to me 
have been few and far between.


  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Higgins 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 1:52 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt


  You do not appear to know what you are talking about; except in one respect:  
You are correct that it is Jack's experiment and his course of action is 
absolutely his choice.


  My inputs to this topic are terminated.  I have no intention to contributing 
to this becoming a flame like some of the other off-topic junk showing up on 
Vortex-L (to which you seem to be contributing).



  On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

First, you can not guarantee that the water is 100% deionized, can you?  DI 
water sold in stores is not completely Deionized.

Second, because you can not guarantee number 1 above, you can not guarantee 
that no electrolysis will occur.  If there is current flowing thru that water, 
it will electrolyze water, possibly preventing enough energy to catalyze a 
hydrino transition.  Water will electrolyze first before doing a hydrino 
transition.  That is the chemical environment you are putting your electrodes 
in.  You can not ignore this chemical process that will always take precedence 
over your hydrino transition.

Bottom line is, you can not guarantee a hydrino transition under water.  If 
you can not guarantee a hydrino transition, what then are you measuring with 
your water bath?  You would just be measuring the heat of your electrolysis.

This is the reason why I believe it won't work - it's a non-starter.

I believe a better approach is simply follow Mill's lead.  Use solar panels 
to measure output.  Like I asked before, what is our goal?  Is it to figure out 
a complete energy balance accounting or simply to verify certain aspects of 
Mill's claims.  Jack needs to answer this for himself so that he can decide 
which direction to go.  This is his experiment after all.

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium

Ken, are you saying the Clymene dolphin is an example of Macro-evolution.  It 
seems to me that it is just a variation of the spinner dolphin.  Not sure what 
you are claiming here.

Which 2%-4% of flowering plants are you referring to?  Please be specific so 
that I can research it to see if you are right.

So, you people make fun of my probability calculation so I pointed out the 
probability calculation of a staunch evolutionists who have already considered 
many of your objections.  Now, you make fun of him (Julian Huxley).  What level 
of proof or which personality would you really consider credible?  Whose proof 
is acceptable to you?  Please don't just say there are thousands of textbooks.  
If there are thousands of proofs, it shouldn't be difficult for you to point 
out one example of an observable macro-evolution event.

Though I can understand part of your problem.  As a biology teacher, you have 
been totally immersed in this Darwinian paradigm.  Like Huzienga, it is very 
difficult for you to change your mind or to admit that what you believed your 
entire life has been a lie.

Me?  I will accept Darwinian Evolution today if someone can show me concrete 
proof.  Not conjectures, and imaginations and suppositions and speculations and 
interpretations.  I challenged Nigel to do just that, but it seems he could not.



Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Ken Deboer 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:49 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium


  Jojo,
  Here's one (actually a few ): clymene dolphin
  plus 2-4% of all flowering plants, inc. many sunflowers, and many crop 
species.


  BTW.  This whole 'odds' thing is a joke.  Julian Huxley, for example, did not 
state his opinion re; the astronomical 'odds' of a horse, but did ridicule the 
guy that did. It appears, for example, that the odds that you and I could ever 
agree on most anything is, let's see, 80 billion neuronal actions per sec X  80 
billion neurons actions per sec by you  X 30 years =   (I'm not too good at 
math, you do the math).


  From a former biology teacher, ken
  PS.  don't call me, I'll call you back.



  On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au wrote:

On 28/08/2014 1:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:

  John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis.  Your 
unyielding adherence to Darwinian dogma
You are mistaken.  I have no adherence to Darwinian dogma whatsoever.  If 
Darwinian dogma (whatever that is) happens to coincide with my understanding 
- well maybe its right.


  is blinding you and preventing you from asking the right questions.  You 
assume Darwinian Evolution is true first and that skews your analysis.

  For example, you assume that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old.  
How do you know that?
We have been over this ad nauseum.  I accept radiometric dating.  In many 
cases it is simply superb.  You are welcome to continue rubbishing it but you 
should be aware that in the almost unanimous view of intelligent and well 
educated people you are thereby only rubbishing yourself.


  You know that only because Darwinian Evolution theory told you so.  Since 
your first assumption is that Darwinian Evolution is true, you can liberally 
conclude that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old.  Then a wrong question 
stems from this wrong understanding - wrong assumption.  You then ask why the 
coelacanth stopped evolving?  This of course is the wrong question that you 
are trying to answer.

  What you should do is not assume anything.  You then look at the data and 
see if Darwinian Evolution fits the data.
What about you?  You make one massive assumption (that the history and 
legends brought back by the Jews after their exile in Babylon has to be 
completely inerrant), and then you look at the data and no matter how good it 
is, you toss it out if you can't make it fit that massive assumption.


  Can Darwinian Evolution explain the existence of the Coelacanth up to 
today and why it hasn't evolved?  If not, Darwinian Evolution theory is wrong.

  Instead, you ask, how could the Coelacanth exist unchanged for 350 
million years?  This is the wrong questions that should not have been asked if 
your initial assumptions did not screw with your analysis.  
  
  Jojo

  PS: I'm really at a loss understanding why people can't seem to see the 
stupidities of their belief in Darwinian Evolution - why they can see that 
Darwinian Evolution could be wrong.
Take out the plank that is in your own eye, and then you can see better to 
pick specks of dust from others assumptions.

Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

There are facts here.  The facts are that human, fly and worm appears to have 
some common genomic processes.  These are facts that I will not deny.

This is the interpretation.  That human, fly and worm have a common ancestor.  
The interpretation of the facts is just an opinion.  It is not a fact that 
human, fly and worm have a common ancestry.  That is simply an interpretation, 
a conclusion, of what the person thinks it means.

Evolutionist like to conflate their interpretation with the facts and promote 
their interpretation as fact.  This is the reason why so many people are 
deluded.  They do not think enough to separate the facts from the 
interpretation of what the facts mean.


If you are still confused as what my point is:


FACT:  Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that 
these species have a number of key genomic processes in common

INTERPRETATION:  reflecting their shared ancestry.


I could just as easily said:


MY INTERPRETATION: reflecting a common designer.


Hence: 

YOUR VIEW:  Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that 
these species have a number of key genomic processes in common, reflecting 
their shared ancestry.


MY VIEW:   Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that 
these species have a number of key genomic processes in common, reflecting a 
common designer.





Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:01 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.


  http://phys.org/news/2014-08-scientists-human-worm-genomes-biology.html


  Scientists looking across human, fly and worm genomes find shared biology


  Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that these 
species have a number of key genomic processes in common, reflecting their 
shared ancestry. The findings, appearing Aug. 28, 2014, in the journal Nature, 
offer insights into embryonic development, gene regulation and other biological 
processes vital to understanding human biology and disease. 

  Consortium studied how gene expression patterns and regulatory proteins that 
help determine cell fate often share common features. Investigators also 
detailed the similar ways in which the three species use protein packaging to 
compact DNA into the cell nucleus and to regulate genome function by 
controlling access to DNA.

   The insights gained about the workings of model organisms' genomes greatly 
help to inform our understanding of human biology.

   One way to describe and understand the human genome is through comparative 
genomics and studying model organisms, said Mark Gerstein, Ph.D., Albert L. 
Williams Professor of Biomedical Informatics at Yale University in New Haven, 
Connecticut, and the lead author on one of the papers. The special thing about 
the worm and fly is that they are very distant from humans evolutionarily, so 
finding something conserved across all three – human, fly and worm – tells us 
it is a very ancient, fundamental process.

   
  Investigators showed that the ways in which DNA is packaged in the cell are 
similar in many respects, and, in many cases, the species share programs for 
turning on and off genes in a coordinated manner. More specifically, they used 
gene expression patterns to match the stages of worm and fly development and 
found sets of genes that parallel each other in their usage. They also found 
the genes specifically expressed in the worm and fly embryos are re-expressed 
in the fly pupae, the stage between larva and adult.

  The researchers found that in all three organisms, the gene expression levels 
for both protein-coding and non-protein-coding genes could be quantitatively 
predicted from chromatin features at the promoters of genes. A gene's promoter 
tells the cell's machinery where to begin copying DNA into RNA, which can be 
used to make proteins. DNA is packaged into chromatin in cells, and changes in 
this packaging can regulate gene function.




  If Darwinian Evolution was considered an Absurdity, this work would not have 
been done. Such is the danger of religious precipice in science. 



   



  On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:42 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

The universe is in a constant state of creation, evolution and decay.  The 
past, present and future are just humanities attempt to pin it down, like 
wrestling a greased pig.  God has big fuzzy dice and rolls them every day.


I hope that clears things up.


On Wednesday, August 27, 2014, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

  You illustrate a typical denial reaction that seems to have taken hold 
here in Vortex.  If you do not like the result, you say it is an error or an 
outlier or incompetence.  (my friend Jed does that a lot.)  If Huxley was a 
creationist, you would say he is biased and not objective or not honest.  But

Re: [Vo]:Elon Would Invest in LENR

2014-08-27 Thread ucar

Just I was the middle of viewing several interviews with him and figured out 
that he is aware of all things, however try to find out an evolutionary 
(smooth) way to change the world. I believe Tesla Motors name is not 
coincidental this way.

Do you recall R. Stiffler? At 1996, we are corresponding and that time he 
designed an new coil oscillator making some watts and he did send them to a 
lab by epoxying them. After a while he wrote me that the lab returned his 
device to him 'untested' because they scared of strong em interference which 
they unable to shield!  Not much after than he wrote me that officials of 
three letter acronym had seized his work an he no longer talk about it.

I was also doing similar experiments and also get some curious results but 
not so much em interference maybe because he is using terrific fast diode 
1N5811 on his oscillator, but I had not.

Now, even you know that three letter acronym is, please dont write 
corresponding words directly here, in orderkeep its familiarity low as 
before and keeping out from Google searches. Dont expose it please, please. 
This is the key.

OK the three letters are India, Sierra, Alpha. Is it familiar to you? If you 
know you may write last letters of each words.

Why i am talking of this acronym, unless you dont have such a issue, 
possibly you never know its meaning. I  had discovered last year by chance, 
he had never told me. I think this a kind of proof of all this had happened.

So It would be nice that Elon will be aware of R. Stiffler story and may 
meet him if he alive.


-Original Message-

From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 20:15:58 -0400

Subject: [Vo]:Elon Would Invest in LENR




If it could be shown it could be used for propulsion.  His five dreams:



http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/27/technology/elon-musk/index.html?hpt=hp_t4 
[http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/27/technology/elon-musk/index.html?hpt=hp_t4]

RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

2014-08-27 Thread Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson

Thank you for your candor, Jojo. Appreciate it.

 

I have no desire to challenge your beliefs. It's pretty clear to me that your 
beliefs are very important to you, as are my own. I can respect that. Under the 
circumstances I think it only appropriate that I comment (or critique) my own 
personal beliefs... assuming I'm willing to share some of them.

 

You might be surprised to realize that I'm open to a form of Intelligent 
Design, but not the kind taught by Christian fundamentalism. Personally, I 
think whatever one wants to call the Supreme Being, such an Entity does play 
dice with the universe. I think many intelligent entities, both great and 
small, do because of the creative surprises random choices offer. As such, I 
continue to find the macro evolution theory as it is currently described (warts 
and all) very appealing. IMO, macro-evolution allows for all sorts of random 
surprises to happen, and that that is a very good thing. I still think the 
theory (warts and all) does a good job of explaining how different kinds of 
species most likely came into existence. But like most theories that have 
managed to gain a lot of traction, it is still being refined. There is still 
much more to learn about the underlying mechanisms of macro-evolution. One 
thing is abundantly clear to me however - for macro-evolution to work, one has 
to have a LOT of patience and time on their hands. Macro-evolution ain't going 
to happen in 6,000, or 60,000 years. Much longer time-frames are necessary. ;-)

 

Correct me if I'm wrong on this point but I'll assume that the actual length of 
time needed (i.e. millions of years) is probably another gross misconception 
you believe we macro evolutionists have made about how the age of the Universe.

 

What's your best-guess as to the age of the Universe?

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

 

From: Jojo Iznart [mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:10 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

 

I believe in the Bible fully from cover to cover.  The Bible says the Universe 
and the Earth was created in 6 literal days.  Now, the day may not necessarily 
be 24 hours but the idea was that God created everything in a short time.

 

When he did that is not revealed in the Bible.  Many Biblical scholars claim 
that they can backtrace the genealogy and concluded that it is currently about 
6000 years old.  I have no reason to doubt them although I fully admit that 
they could be wrong.  After all, they are all human and their calculation is 
not from God.  Also, this is a rough estimate.  No exact dates are provided in 
reference to major events.  Just hints here and there that place the event in 
its historical context.

 

Also, Biblical scholars who study Eschatology (study of End times, like 
Armageddon, 2nd Coming of Christ, Millenial Kingdom, etc.) sometimes apply 
prophecy to Biblical history.  This is a valid Bible Study technique, since 
Prophecy is Prologue.  What that means is that many events that occur in the 
Bible always have prophetic significance one way or another.   Many scholars 
equate a 7-day prophecy to our history.  1 day is prophecied to be equal to 
1000 years.  Many prophecies put us on the 6th day.  That is also where the 
6000 years came from.  The 7th day is the day of rest which they equate to the 
Millenial reign of King Christ from a literal throne in Jerusalem.

 

So, if you ask me what I believe, there it is.

 

 

 

 

Jojo

 

 

PS.  BTW, as a believer, the Bible says that I am a King and Priest.  So, I 
will be running a city and/or a church in the Millenium.  Most likely just a 
city cause there would only be one church.

 

So, I'll be looking up some of you who have been nasty to me.  (In case you 
missed it, IM JOKING)

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Original Message - 

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson mailto:orionwo...@charter.net  

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:44 PM

Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

 

Thanks for giving me a specific time-frame within the you tube link to fast 
forward to. Right now I don't have the time to wade through the entire lecture, 
but I did listen to the specific section about disproving the horse evolution 
theory. I did perform a spot check here and there. I do see the lecturer has a 
lot of charisma. Possessing charisma always helps to persuade the audience.  
Using a healthy dose of ridicule is always entertaining too. As for me, using 
ridicule to insinuate we are trying to create a whale from corn is not likely 
to convince me that evolution is a failed theory, 41:15.

 

I think you would enjoy reading Forbidden Archeology, if you haven't already. 
I think there are some intriguing, as well as controversial, findings listed in 
this book.

 

http://books.google.com/books/about/Forbidden_Archeology.html?id=vhV9MAAJ

RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

2014-08-27 Thread Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson

From: Jojo

 

 Do you have a free copy of this Forbidden Archeology book.

  

 The Bible teaches us to hear (eaxmine) the matter before asnswering

 (concluding) it.  So, I'd like to read this on my spare time if I have

 access to a free copy.  I am not willing to pay for one.

 

Alas, an Amazon copy is around $32. I actually toyed with the idea of buying a 
copy and shipping it to you, but at the moment I really need to focus on some 
personal expenses. I just paid a $2500 surgery bill for one of our cats who 
seriously dislocated a hind leg two weeks ago. Terry knows a little about the 
cat I'm talking about - an abandoned cat we rescued up at a desert rest stop in 
Idaho two years ago. She would have been a gonner had we not had an RFID 
locator attached to her collar. (See www.loc8tor.com) We were able to locate 
her hiding under some corrugated sheet metal. She was trying to die, quietly, 
away from jaws of other predators. Fortunately, she is now recovering. Someday, 
so will my wallet.

 

In the meantime, read the reviews on Forbidden Archeology. Perhaps they might 
whet your appetite.

http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949

 

There is also a website:

 

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/

 

Have fun! It's free!

 

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:SunCell - Initial Replication Attempt

2014-08-27 Thread Eric Walker

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:

 PS.  Most of my responses are answers to queries.  Carbon Dating is
 science (supposedly) and Darwinian Evolution is science (as Jed would
 claim) so what off topic flame are you referring to.  Responses to
 religious questions to me have been few and far between.


Jojo, you're one of the main drivers behind the off topic threads of late.
 You should take the temperature in the room.  People are starting to find
your participation a burden.  This may or may not matter to you.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium


On 28/08/2014 7:59 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350 
million years old from radiometric dating techniques.  Please do tell, 
what sort of radiometric dating tells you that it is 350 million years 
old?
I don't know how these particular fossils were dated, but I know how 
this field of science works in general and have been highly impressed at 
the quality of some of the data.  I have no argument with sincere 
scientists doing the job the best way they know how. Mistakes can be 
made but with enough diverse minds at work on the same problems the 
truth usually ends up prevailing.  I'm really not interested in being 
told that one or two interesting anomalies renders this whole field of 
science invalid.

Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium