Top Microbiologist: Darwin was a priest

footnote to the exchange of information on the cellular level:

Paramecium caudatum can communicate with neighbors using a non-molecular method, probably photons. The cell populations were separated either with glass allowing photon transmission from 340 nm to longer waves, or quartz being transmittable from 150 nm, i.e. from UVlight to longer waves. Energy uptake, cell division rate and growth correlation were influenced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium_caudatum Some extremely interesting experiments were performed by V.P. Kaznacheyev et al regarding the paranormal transmission of death by light inter-organism communication. http://www.viewzone2.com/dna-deathsignal.jpg Briefly, two groups of cells were selected from the same cell culture and one sample placed on each side of a window joining two environmentally shielded rooms. The cell cultures were in quartz containers. One cell culture was used as the initiation sample and was subjected to a deadly mechanism - virus, germ, chemical poison, irradiation, ultraviolet rays, etc. The second cell culture was observed, to ascertain any transmitted effects from the culture sample being killed. When the window was made of ordinary glass, the second sample remained alive and healthy. When the window was made of quartz, the second sample sickened and died with the same symptoms as the primary sample. The experiments were done in darkness, and over 5,000 were reported by Kaznacheyev and his colleagues. The onset of induced complementary sickness and death in the second culture followed a reasonable time -- say two to four hours -- behind sickness and death in the primary culture. The major transmission difference between window glass and quartz is that quartz transmits both ultraviolet and infrared well, while glass is relatively opaque to ultraviolet and infrared. Both quartz and glass transmit visible light. In 1950, Western researchers found that cells could be killed in darkness with ultraviolet radiation, kept shielded from visible light for twenty-four hours or longer, and then if radiated with visible light the cells would start reviving by hundreds of thousands even though they had been clinically dead. Specifically, every cell emits mitogenetic radiation in the ultraviolet range twice: when it is born and when it dies. The UV photon emitted at death contains the exact virtual state pattern of the condition of the cell at death. The healthy cells are bombarded with death messages from those that are dying, and this diffuses the death pattern throughout the healthy culture, eventually kindling into the same death pattern there. [V.P. Kaznacheyev et al, "Distant Intercellular Interactions in a System of Two Tissue Cultures," Psychoenergetic Systems, Vol. 1, No. 3, March 1976, pp 141-142.] http://viewzone2.com/dna.html

bornagain77

March 6, 2012

March

03

Mar

6

06

2012

04:03 AM

4

04

03

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

here is the entire quote from ENV:

"Darwin was a priest," Raoult says, claiming that the image of the tree of life that Darwin proposed is inspired from the Bible. "It also is too simplistic." Raoult questions several other tenets of modern evolutionary theory, including the importance of natural selection. He says recent discoveries in genetics show how frequently genes are exchanged not just between different microbial species but also between microbes and complex organisms, for instance, in the human gut. That means de novo creation of entirely new species is possible, Raoult argues, and Darwin's branching tree of life should be replaced by a network of interconnected species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/the_most_produc057081.html

Yeah so what??? Computers share information with other devices and even with other computers, but that doesn't, even for a instance, begin to explain where the computers or the devices came from in the first place. Not to mention the obvious fact that simply exchanging information does not explain the origination of that information being exchanged by those computers or devices in the first place! notes:

A New Model for Evolution: A Rhizome - Didier Raoult- May 2010 - Excerpt: Thus we cannot currently identify a single common ancestor for the gene repertoire of any organism.,,, Overall, it is now thought that there are no two genes that have a similar history along the phylogenic tree.,,,Therefore the representation of the evolutionary pathway as a tree leading to a single common ancestor on the basis of the analysis of one or more genes provides an incorrect representation of the stability and hierarchy of evolution. Finally, genome analyses have revealed that a very high proportion of genes are likely to be newly created,,, and that some genes are only found in one organism (named ORFans). These genes do not belong to any phylogenic tree and represent new genetic creations. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-model-for-evolution-rhizome.html Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681

Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,

‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009)

So, just as with Shapiro's 'natural genetic engineering' which skirted this issue, the burning question for Didier Raoult 'interconnected web' once again becomes, "Where is the information coming from?", in the first place.

Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video http://vimeo.com/32148403

Verse and Music:

John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. The Word - Sara Groves - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ofE-GZ8zTU

bornagain77

March 6, 2012

March

03

Mar

6

06

2012

03:29 AM

3

03

29

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link