salt linked to Cambrian explosion of life? Earth surface 70% water; animals 70% water

The reason I put salt with Cambrian life explosion was because salt water allows electrolyte-action to life forms. Allowing electrolytes is allowing electricity to life. Allowing electricity to life forms

Rupert Sheldrake's work is relevant.

The 'blueprint' coming out of random action still would viloate probability and the 2nd law, etc.

PBS no longer seems to be displaying prominently boards for posting opinions on shows. If I'm overlooking it you may see parts of this post there as well.

The Tuesday or Wednesday night segment presented an animated illustration of how one gene effects a fruit fly's thorax, of how another effects eyes, etc. Indeed, it was inferred the eye gene creates the eyes or dictates the morphology of the eyes. I view such a gene, rather, as a switch. But then you must ask, from whence the current?

If you break down a 'gene' into its smallest mutable unit, you might, for instance, get a segment of DNA with 40 base pairs (I'm looking at a diagram of a minute segment of T4 bacteriophage DNA, six twists, I guess about 400 atoms; it's the A5c2a2 segment of the rII region). I may be confused, but the text seems to imply this segment is a 'word' that dictates ONE amino acid placement in a polypeptide chain (a protein molecule). I'm estimating 7200 'words' in the rII region. If you call this region a 'gene,' then this gene gives you a template for 7200 links in a molecule, or for 7200 links maybe amongst various molecules. If this were an eye gene, I'd say where's the rest? I know, you'll say it's a virus gene. Go ahead, tell me how many 'words' are in a fruit fly eye gene (should a flatworm's work for an eagle?). At any rate, from my frame of reference it seems the students who wanted both viewpoints represented might very well NOT have stealth agenda or be evolving into reactionaries.

From whence the current? Many say the current comes from something impersonal. Many say from something personal. 'Consciousness' I think is a good start, but personally I shy away from generic consciousness. A lot of people get paid to do string theory science, and yet a guy like Richard Feynman seems to say it's far from 'real' science (so the debate over what's legal may never end). Regardless of my personal leanings or anybody else's, if you want to bring 'scientific' observation to bear on all this, it's good to get Rupert Sheldrake's input. I'm hoping they will, or did do so and I missed it. Aurobindo also voiced the above critique and James Eden is still doing so (see his book Energetic Healing).

[snip]

Bullshit. Yours is a statement of profound error.

Equilibrium thermodynamics is inapplicable outside its many constraining boundary conditions. Illya Prigogine's non-equilibrium thermodynamics is then applicable - with astoundingly different predictions. Energy-rich systems with positive feedback are spontaneously self-ordering. You can do it in a Petri dish or test tube, git.

Google 'Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction' 955 hits

distilled water (no chloride allowed) concentrated sulfuric acid malonic acid sodium bromate cerium sulfate Ferroin indicator

In bulk solution you get synchronous red-green color oscillation (the 'traffic light). In millimeter thin layers you get spontaneous generation of multiple propagating colored wavefronts in homogeneous solution. Mix it up and its redox gradients spontaneously reorder. There are hundreds if not thousands of of recipes including fluorescent and gas-phase variants. The scholarly litearture is dripping with mathematical modelings.

If you like red/blue instead of red/green, leave out the cerium sulfate. Your spew would be an embarassment in the 19th century. It is wholly unacceptable and laughable in the 21st. We are star tar. Take a planet with liquid water and energy input (open system). Life is the default option.

Uncle Al ays, 'the strongest pillar of faith is ignorance.'

Regarding salty water of the Cambrian period allowed the creation of the myriad life forms, I’m not saying this didn’t contribute, but not the saltiness…not anything else changes much the improbabability of ONLY random/mass action cooking up proteins, much less everything up to shelled life forms, much less the latter.

The Tuesday or Wednesday night segment presented an animated illustration of how one gene effects a fruit fly's thorax, of how another effects eyes, etc. Indeed, it was inferred the eye gene creates the eyes or dictates the morphology of the eyes (since a transplanted 'eye gene' of one species will trigger creation of the appropriate eye in another that is deficient for its eye gene, having no eyes). I view such a gene, rather, as a switch. But then you have to ask, from whence the current?

Bear with me. If you break down a 'gene' into its smallest mutable unit, you might, for instance, get a segment of DNA with 40 base pairs (I'm looking at a diagram of a minute segment of T4 bacteriophage DNA, six twists, I guess about 400 atoms...it's the A5c2a2 segment of the rII region). I may be confused, but the text seems to imply this segment constitutes a 'word' that dictates ONE amino acid placement in a polypeptide chain (a protein molecule). I'm estimating 7200 'words' in the rII region. If you call this region a 'gene,' then this gene gives you 7200 links in a molecule, or 7200 links amidst various molecules. If this were a so-called eye gene, I'd say...where's the rest? I know, you'll say it's a virus gene. Go ahead, tell me how many 'words' are in a fruit fly eye gene. At any rate, from my frame of reference it seems the students who wanted both viewpoints represented might very well NOT have stealth agenda or be evolving into reactionaries.

From whence the current? Many say it comes from something impersonal. Many say from something personal. 'Consciousness' I think is a good start, but personally I shy away from generic consciousness. A lot of people get paid to do string theory science, and yet a guy like Richard Feynman seems to be saying it's far from 'real' science (so the debate over what's legal may never end). Regardless of my personal leanings or anybody else's, if you want to bring 'scientific' observation to bear on all this, it's good to get Rupert Sheldrake's input. Also relevant are Aurobindo and James Eden (the latter wrote Energetic Healing).

This may be a REAL long shot (or a strength of the series), but did anyone else think of Book of the Hopi while watching the mammals situation prior to the comet?

It is hard for people of the 20th and 21st centuries to understand that Darwin Evolution theory is already disproven. Hard because the majority of people on Earth find the illusions of religion more comforting than science. And so for someone to claim that even Darwin Evolution is false is too much for the mass public who believe in religion and the scientists who believe in evolution.

If someone had come along ten years after Newton pronounced the laws of Newtonian physics and said 'Newtonian Mechanics was an algorithm' and that the truer laws of physics were Quantum Mechanics way back in 1690. Few would have believed or accepted it. Simply because they had a difficult time of understanding Newtonian Mechanics itself.

In the 1990s I have proclaimed that Darwin Evolution has been proven wrong by the physics experiments of the Bell Inequality. But humanity as a whole is too stupid to understand that Darwin Evolution theory has already been proven wrong. That Evolution theory is like Newtonian Mechanics

It took about three billion years of life and countless quinttrillions of organisms to get to that stage. Enough to come with a design.

And nature is not that comprecious. Its basically used that same set of genes for segmented body parts for animals for the last 600 million years- from worms to humans. Humans share almost half heir gene proteins with yeast. Nature is conservative and recycles alot.