[Charles]

Originally Posted by PHC1

I’m not a scientist Charles. I don’t need to be a scientist to be curious, to read and to understand just enough of the topic to get a general picture without diving into advanced math or theories since I’m not involved with proving any theories myself.

I still don’t agree with your point of view of scientific research being a waste. If the funding is available, someone is interested enough in the topic, research away and see what comes out... But we can agree to disagree.

Perhaps the link below will serve as a thought on “what theoretical proposals achieve.” Imagine a world where scientific curiosity and experimentation is stifled because every scientist needs to be pragmatic and reasonable first and foremost.


“Advances in the knowledge of the laws of nature consisting either of experimental discoveries or theoretical proposals that were confirmed experimentally. “

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time...cs_discoveries

PHC1, if you are curious you are a scientist. Congratulations! I'm being serious, not sarcastic. I think the phrase "If you have the funding" is the key. In the current scientific environment if you don't base your research from an evolutionary viewpoint, you won't get any.

There are many of us who simply can't swallow evolution. It is far too unlikely. I hope you understand that evolution is an assumption. It is a paradigm. It cannot be proven but nevertheless has become a "fact" and our science has become diluted because of it.

Examples, the large hadron collider has been a complete bust. Solution, let's spend another 10-20 billion and build a larger one.

Another, the Hubble telescope hasn't found an earth 2.0. Solution, let's build another larger telescope, James Webb scheduled to be deployed in about 7-10 years. Maybe we will find one.

Another, let's go to Mars. Why? Maybe we will find life there. Question? How you gonna land since Mars has basically no atmosphere. Answer, we don't know but we are sure with enough money we will figure it out! In the meantime we can't even get a man in orbit around the earth, since the space shuttle went extinct.

Suppose I could tell you with 100% certainty life does not exist on Mars. What then would be the point of going? Answer: because it's there. How dumb and wasteful.

Let's begin by stating that all life as we know it is based on a very elegant code, the DNA Code. Does anyone think a code exists on Mars? Because if it doesn't, Life doesn't exist on Mars. I will put it to anyone on the website or anywhere else, that a code cannot evolve. It is impossible for evolution to produce a code, any code. I can't swallow evolution anymore because I know it's impossible for even a simple virus to evolve, much less the proverbial primordial "cell".

Next, if anybody on AA wants to know where the action is it is found in the last 2-3 hundred pages of a reference text biochemistry book. That's where the genome is explained and the DNA Code, molecule, and organization of the genome reside.

Perhaps before we go off on wild goose chases maybe just maybe we should focus much more of our attention to the production of vaccines and medical treatments that actually work. There's a lotta biochemistry in the back of the book that has been misinterpreted.

Suppose I was to tell you that a virologist that bases his research on an evolutionary paradigm doesn't even know what a virus fundamentally is. Why? Because a virus can't arise by random chance.

Again our science has been diluted and basically destroyed by a false paradigm. You say, "Charles, how dare you question the very foundation of what we all worship and take great pride in, the hallowed halls of science".

I say, sorry, when you can confidently say to me I can live to 120 years free of disease or pain, because of my science, then I might be a little impressed. But when you are 50 years old and you wake up with that hemorrhage or mass or pain and you go to your doctor who is in worse shape than you were before your current illness, and you discover you have a fatal malignancy, your revered science can't save you. Sorry, I'm singularly unimpressed by modern science.

When I was young I read every science fiction book available. I was convinced that science was the answer. I believed in evolution, worshiped evolution. I can absolutely explain our genome in terms of it. Makes perfect sense. However, I would be absolutely wrong. Evolution didn't happen so no matter how plausible it seems, my explanation would be incorrect.

Evolution prevents us from asking the questions that need to be asked about the biochemistry that exists in the back of the book and dilutes our science into numerous expensive dead ends. In the meantime we are dying from a weak ineffective medical science that is pathetic. Think about it: a cleverly packaged piece of DNA or RNA has felled us. If our science is so powerful, why are we afraid of covid 19?

An example of a question that ought to be asked: Why don't we have multiple alleles? If we did diseases like cystic fibrosis would not exist. It is very strange that for important proteins we don't have multiple redundant genes.

Another question: the cell is totally dependent on diffusion to transfer information from one place to another. Diffusion thus becomes very necessary for DNA replication, transcription, and translation to proceed. Diffusion is the root cause of mutation and errors in protein production. Why doesn't a better method of information transfer exist? Did it ever exist in human cells?

Why is 99% of our genome non coding? Seems like a waste of space. Hmmm, seems like I heard that phrase before.

Why DNA replication in only one direction, thus reducing our telomeres every time a cell divides until it can't divide anymore? Why don't the enzymes exist so that DNA can replicate in both directions?

Why no telomerase? We have the gene but it is inactive.

Could mutation itself be a disease? Could aging be a disease? Is our genome fundamentally malfunctioning? Was there ever a time when our genome was free of mutation and aging? Why heck no, Charles, how can you say that?? Mutation is how we got here in the first place!! Let's kick Charles off AA because he has committed heresy because he has come to the conclusion, we are not products of random chance. Conclusion of modern science: nothing that evolved can be malfunctioning or broken. Aging, disease, and death are natural evolutionary processes that make way for the next evolutionary advance. Thus we are dissolved and put back into the ground. You may "love" evolution. It ain't love'in you back I can tell you that.

These are some very important questions that are either glossed over or never asked because because evolution absolutely prevents them from being asked. If you are an evolutionary scientist, no matter your IQ or genius, you are in a box. You are in a cage. You interpret all your data and formulate all your theories on the basis of something that never happened: Evolution.

However, in the meantime Charles would say very humbly, we are dying at a very rapid rate. Our average lifespan is 78 years in the USA and decreasing.