SURVIVAL ADAPTATION: Compound CX-324 stimulates a Global-systemic Hyper 
Immune/defacto-Vaccination onslaught to EVERY VIRUS & RETRO-VIRUSthat is in the 
body at the time of ingestion/vaccination as well as THE SAME HYPER IMMUNE 
ONSLAUGHT to any and every malignant cancer that is known that might be within 
the subject.(including HIV per the BUSH-CLINTON AIDS initiative in Africa/MSNBC 
SEARCH FOR THE CURE/JAPAN's 800,000 subject CX-324-AIDS TRIAL IN THAILAND about 
a decade ago(stunningly successful in Thailand & Africa AND the reason St. 
Jude's Childrens Cancer Centers & Cancer Treatment Centers of America upped 
their CURE rate claims from 7.4% to 98.7%. . . Thailand was slated for 
EXTINCTION by 2005; but NOW LAUGHS OFF HIV as being a threat. WITHIN MALARIAL 
VECTOR-SPREAD ZONES HIV piggy-backs with the Malarial Parasite(JAMA-1995). Per 
the discussion:  Botulism & several other highly virulent Bacterial-Infections 
are NOT VIRULENT unless they also 'contain-piggy-back fashion' an accompanying 
specific 'virus' hitch-hicker that work in symbiosis to create their 
characteristic disease-toxicity effect(s) aka FATALITIES. * * * OLD SPECIES vs 
NEW SPECIES:  ANY GROUP that adopts a SPECIFIC BEHAVIOR that dictates 
EXTINCTION within their BEHAVIORALLY-MALADAPTIVE SUBSET in effect becomes a 
defacto EXTINCT SPECIES because of said NON-ADAPTIVE/OVERSPECIALIZED 
traits/behaviors/responses TO CHANGE------>(?CHOICE?) ESPECIALLY IS THE ABOVE 
TRUE if proven that they ALSO EXHIBIT a BIO-ORGANIC VARIATION(were born that 
way with NO REAL CHOICE relative to their BEHAVIORAL VARIANCE)----------very 
interesting. . . BUT SCHTUPID. . . and DARWINIAN; go figure. WE 'CONTAIN' 
NEANDERTHALs but Neanderthals as a specific SPECIE-VARIANT are extinct.  
Perhaps occaissionally global stressors cause a spontaneous recapitulation of 
'extinct-trait-regressive-suppressed-recessive-DNA' in large numbers of 
individuals. . . that ONCE AGAIN DIE OFF EN-MASS as a Bio-Global 
Pressure-Relief mechanism to perhaps OVERPOPULATION . . . .. . . Hense 
'black-death' & 'spanish-flu' type of massive die-offs etc. not to mention 
UGANDA-RUANDA/AM-CIVIL WAR/WW-II etc./STALIN/POL-POT/JIHAD etc. etc. . . ad 
nauseum. . . ?HIGHLANDERS:  ?IS THERE AMONG US a defacto NEW SPECIES who 
spontaneously COLLECTIVELY INTUITS and thus AVOIDS & SURVIVES THE ABOVE types 
of GLOBAL CATASTROPHE?  Homo Sapiens Noviensis. . . NON POLITICAL ANIMALS . . . 
overtly meek while hyper-aware/// remote-viewer level anticipators // 
Environmental Psycho-Social Chess Masters. . . Be subtle as serpents, but 
harmless as doves. . .  ?Have they been with us all along hiding their 
chronicals & physics as 'Holy Books;'  THAT THE IGNORANTLY CONDEMNED SCOFF & 
RAGE AT. . . ?
 From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 06:54:55 +0800








Yes, DNA is an amazing thing.  I am not 
disputing what you are saying below.  What I am disputing is your 
attribution of it to Darwinian Evolution.
 
I will be explaining the difference between 
Mircroevolution (Adaptation) vs. Macroevolution (Darwinian Evolution).  
Maybe after I explain it, the difference will be clearer and I would have 
answered your contention below.
 
 
Jojo
 
 
 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  Axil Axil 
  
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 6:44 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of 
  Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
  

  Human DNA holds far more capacity to adapt then can be expressed in any 
  given individual. This DNA is like a large toolkit, where tools can lay 
  dormant until needed.   
  For example, in the battle against Aids, scientists have acquired what 
  looks like a potent new weapon. HIV, the virus that causes Aids, doesn’t 
  infect everybody. Some people are simply born immune. 
  It’s all down to their particular genetic make-up and researchers are 
  beginning to understand where that genetic protection comes from.
  Stephen O’Brien from the US National Cancer Institute has discovered that a 
  mutant form of one particular gene, called CCR5, confers protection against 
  HIV. 
  That same gene variant may well have arisen in Europe, as a direct response 
  to the Black Death. 
  Genetic distribution
 
The idea comes from a careful analysis of 
  where in the world this particular gene variant shows up. 
  According to the researchers the mutation is absent in Africa and 
  throughout East Asian populations and evident in varying amounts across 
  Europe. O’Brien explains:
  ‘It was present as high as 15% in Scandinavia; it was less in Europe, about 
  10% in France, Germany and England. Further south it was 5% and in Saudi 
  Arabia and Sub-Saharan Africa it was 0%.’
  Believing that this ‘genetic drift’ was probably not random, the scientists 
  looked to their history books to find out when this mutation was last 
  prevalent in human history and what conditions may have favoured it.
  The Black Death
 
Using the tools of molecular population 
  genetics to identify exactly when the allele was last in force, the 
  researchers were able to estimate that the gene variant was under a strong 
  selection advantage approximately 700 years ago. 
  This period coincided with the period in history when bubonic plague was 
  sweeping through Europe. 
  The Black Death, as it was known, started in Italy in 1347 and during the 
  next three years it moved across Europe, killing perhaps as many as 
  three-quarters of the people it infected. 
  The disease itself is thought to be bubonic plague, which is caused by a 
  bacterium carried on the backs of rats. It can also be passed directly from 
  human to human, which can result in death occurring within three days.
  The Black Death was so named as sufferers displayed a range of symptoms 
  including the lymph nodes swelling with pus and breaking the blood vessels 
  under the skin. This caused internal bleeding and turned the skin black.
  This outbreak of the Black Death lasted for over 300 years, killing at 
  least 25 million people until it disappeared in 1670. However bubonic plague 
  is a disease that still shows up every year in thousands of cases throughout 
  Africa, Asia and the Americas.
  Bacterial similarities
 
Even through the researchers can not be 
  certain that bubonic plague drove the mutated gene to such a high level, the 
  study has unearthed some intriguing similarities between Aids and the Black 
  Death. O’Brien explains:
  ‘There are hundreds of different tissues that viruses or bacteria can 
  infect. Both HIV and yersinia pestis, the bacteria that causes Black Death, 
  interestingly attack exactly the same tissues.’
  
‘The fact that precisely the same cells are the targets of this virus, 
  the fact that the timing of this mutation is exactly when there was Black 
  Death maybe indirect, but I think that they are telling coincidences that 
make 
  the Black Death the most likely candidate for selective pressure.’
  O’Brien now plans to work with scientists in Paris to establish if the 
  presence of CCR5 in mice will lead them to be resistant to plague infection. 
  
  Meanwhile it is hoped that this research could have implications for new 
  approaches to HIV- Aids treatments. Which could be good news for those in 
  areas of the world, such as Africa, where levels of CCR5 in its mutant form 
  are known to be low.
  

 
  On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote:

  
    
    Yes, our genone (DNA) is complex, such that it is 
    impossible to explain its existence as a series of random accumulations of 
    minute changes.  
     
    If anything, the presence of Information within our 
    DNA should be enough to totally discredit Darwinian 
    Evolution.
     
     
     
    Jojo
     
     
     
    
      
      ----- 
      Original Message ----- 
      From: 
      Axil Axil 
      To: 
      [email protected] 
      
      Sent: 
      Saturday, August 04, 2012 1:17 AM
      Subject: 
      Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
      

      
      
      The genome of an organism is more complex and adaptive then the 
      creationist’s arguments assume and are embodied in the genetic concept of 
      Epigenesis.
      Though the theory seems an obvious fact to us in today's genetic age, 
      however, the theory was not given much credence in former times because 
of 
      the dominance for many centuries of Creationist theories of life's 
      origins.
      In the same way that a stem cell can form many cell types: skin, heart, 
      nerve… and so on, so an organism can adapt to its environment through 
      epigenetic expression.


      On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote:

      
        
        Darwinian 
        Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is small, and the 
        mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of natural 
        selection.  In other words, a new trait must not be so 
        complex and the change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there 
        might be some directed process, or an Intelligence causing the 
        change;  other than natural selection that would cause 
        the change.
         
        Evolution 
        says that it is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a fully 
        developed human eye in a single generation.  The 
        development of a complex organ must take place slowly, one minor change 
        at a time, one minor change per generation.  This also 
        implies that the minor changes must be commulative, or 
        additive.  One small minor change within each 
        generation that adds up generation after generation until it becomes an 
        organ as complex as an eye.  
         
        I 
        reject the basis of your argument. The above  is an 
        archaic assumption as follows.
         
        Punctuated 
        equilibrium
        Punctuated 
        equilibrium (also called punctuated 
        equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that 
        most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of 
        their geological history, remaining in an extended state called 
        stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory 
        proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid 
        events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the 
        process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather 
than 
        one species gradually transforming into another. 
        
        Punctuated 
        equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic 
        gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and 
        by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called 
        anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and 
        continuous.
        In 1972, 
        paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a 
        landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated 
        equilibria. Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic 
        speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic 
        homeostasis,[4] as well as their own 
        empirical research. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of 
        gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually 
        nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history 
        of most fossil species.
        
        
         


        On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote:

        
          
          Hello gang,
           
          In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first 
          post on the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution.   Before 
          I continue, I would like to lay the ground work and define a few 
basic 
          terms that we will be using in my series of posts.  Hopefully, 
          people read this post so that I do not have to redefine my 
          terms repeatedly.  I do hope Jed engages me in a Debate 
          between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design.  Maybe I'll 
          learn something.  I hope that if you decide to engage in this 
          discussion, that you would keep the exchange civil.  I will not 
          initiate an Ad hominem attack unless attacked first.  Let's 
          discuss your ideas and why you absolutely believe in Darwinian 
          Evolution and I'll discuss my belief in Intelligent Design.  But 
          if you want to exchange insults, I can surely accomodate 
          you.
           
          What is Darwinian Evolution?
           
          Darwinian Evolution is the theory of evolution 
          espoused by Charles Darwin in his book "The Origin of 
          Species".  Later he wrote "The Descent of Man" specifically to 
          address man's evolution from lower life forms.  The basic Tenet 
          of Darwinian Evolution is a random mutation process that results in 
          "features" that allow an individual animal or plant life to survive a 
          stress in its environment.  When it survives, it passes down this 
          "Trait" to its progeny thereby allowing its progeny to successfully 
          live in this new stressful environment thereby passing this trait 
down 
          to its progeny also.  The trait enables the individual to survive 
          hence the term "Survival of the Fittest", or "Natural 
          Selection".  Darwin then takes this idea of Natural Selection one 
          step further and hypothesizes that this natural selection process is 
          the means by which variouis species emerge.  Hence species A 
          mutates, survives, passes on its traits, then after several 
          generations. becomes another species B - hence the term "The 
          origin of Species". The nature or origin or 
          mechanism of the mutation was unknown to Darwin.  DNA was not 
          discovered in his lifetime.  
           
          Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the 
          mutation or the change is small, and the mutation process in passed 
          down only via the mechanism of natural selection.  In other 
          words, a new trait must not be so complex and the change so huge as 
to 
          cause people to suspect that there might be some directed process, or 
          an Intelligence causing the change;  other than natural selection 
          that would cause the change.  In other words, Darwinian Evolution 
          says that it is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a fully 
          developed human eye in a single generation.  The development of a 
          complex organ must take place slowly, one minor change at a time, one 
          minor change per generation.  This also implies that the minor 
          changes must be commulative, or additive.  One small minor change 
          within each generation that adds up generation after generation until 
          it becomes an organ as complex as an eye.  
           
          Darwinian Evolution implies the 
          following:
           
          1.  The change must be small and minor 
          and slow in an individual.  The mutation results in a small 
          change or small feature.  If the change is big, there must be 
          some other mechanism or directed Intelligence behind that 
          change.  Darwin recognized this and said so in his 
          book.
           
          2.  The change or the new trait or feature 
          must confer to that individual a survival advantage.  Otherwise, 
          that useful trait will simply die with that individual.  A trait 
          that may be useful but does not confer a survival advantage is a 
          trait that does not result in natural selection hence Darwinian 
          Evolution is NOT in operation here.
           
          3.  The trait must not cause any impairment 
          or susceptibility to the individual.  In other words, a trait 
          that confer an increased survival advantage but also causes an 
          increased susceptibility to some other stress will not result in 
          natural selection.  For example, a trait that results in an 
          individual to survive a drought in food must not make that same 
          individual be more susceptible to Cold weather.  If it does, the 
          chances of the trait being sucessfully passed down commulatively 
          generation after generation is minimized and the survival of that 
          individual will not be any better statistically compared to another 
          individual without that mutated trait.
           
          4.  The trait or change must be 
          permanent.  In other words, the change must not revert back or 
          disappear once the stress is removed.  If it does, it will not be 
          additive and hence can not result in a complex organ like an 
          eye.  This will result in natural selection only for a few 
          generations and then that advantage dissappears and other individuals 
          can compete again which will result in a dilution of that trait in 
the 
          general population.
           
          5.  Each successive additive change must 
          confer a survival advantage each and every step until a complex organ 
          results.  To illustrate, lets say it takes 5 steps to develop an 
          eye.  Change A, Change B, Change C, Change D and Change E results 
          in a fully developed eye.  (I am using only 5 steps to simplify 
          the discussion.  In reality, the steps required to develop a 
          human eye requires billions of steps.)   Change A must 
          confer a survival advantage to the individual.  An additive 
          change B is added to change A that results in his children having a 
          survival advantage also.  Change C is added and must also confer 
          a survival advantage to his grandchildren.  Change D must also 
          confer a survival advantage to his great grandchildren and change E 
          results in a fully developed eye conferring a survival advantage 
          also.  Each additive change must confer a survival advantage for 
          natural selection to work.  If only one step in the chain does 
          not confer a sruvival advantage, the entire series of changes 
previous 
          to the change could be lost when that individual does not outperform 
          the rest of the population. All the hard work and useful changes will 
          simply be diluted in the population again.  Natural selection is 
          broken and a complex organ can not develop.
           
          6.  The evolution process occurs and 
          operates over many generations.  An evolution or mutation that 
          occurs in one individual is NOT Darwinian Evolution, since no Natural 
          selection is in operation. 
           
          7. The change or trait must not affect an 
          individual's reproductive ability.  If there is no 
          reproduction, there is no natural selection, hence no 
          Darwinian Evolution.
           
          8.  The change must have a random 
          mechanism.  If the cause of the change is not random, that 
          evolution is NOT Darwinian Evolution by definition.
           
          9.  Natural Selection is the only mechanism 
          that will differentiate one change from another change.  In other 
          words, within an individual we can not say a change is useful or not, 
          until it enables that individual to have a survival advantage.  
          Hence, natural selection operates between generations, not within a 
          single generation.  There is not natural selection process within 
          a generation or within an individual.  Natural selection 
          can not be invoked within a generation to explain 
          what mutation is useful and what is not useful.   A 
          process that operates within a generation is NOT natural 
          selection.  A process that does not confer a survival advantage 
          is NOT natural selection.  Survival is the criteria for natural 
          selection.  An individual has no mechanism wherein it can decide 
          which change to retain or to not retain.  The change is retained 
          and acts only if the individual survives.  I can not emphasize this 
enough.
           
          10. The change must enable the individual to 
          "outsurvive" other individuals in his group.  It is not enough to 
          merely allow the individual to survive, but it must cause that 
          individual to "outsurvive" others.  If it is not outsurviving 
          other individuals, the change will merely get diluted in the gene 
pool 
          and lost.
           
           
          In the next post, I will define the difference between 
          Microevolution (aka Adaptation) and Macroevolution (aka Darwinian 
          Evolution).
           
           
          Enjoy
           
          Jojo
           
           


                                          

Reply via email to