Posted on 02/27/2005 12:55:27 PM PST by betty boop
FYI ... if you have the time and interest!
Every once in a while somebody decides we know all the physical laws and the physics budget can safely be eliminated. Then somebody notices something that doesn't fit and it's off to the races once more.
So the above statement might be true in 952 AD, in 1750, in 1885, again in 1904, again in 1943, again in 1967, and again in 2112. In the inbetween years there are some loose ends and the statement is not true. It is not true in 2005, everything is up in the air again.
"... we can draw quantitative consequences with regard to the static and dynamic information content of DNA. We estimated that the information necessary to govern the >105 chemical reactions sec–1 cell–1 in the 6*1013 human cells requires >1019 bits sec–1 that cannot be supplied from the static sequential information content of DNA ~109 bits for more than 10–10 sec."
to
"... we can draw quantitative consequences with regard to the static and dynamic information content of DNA. We estimated that the information necessary to govern the >105 chemical reactions sec–1 cell–1 in the 6*1013 human cells requires >1019 bits sec–1 that cannot be supplied from the static sequential information content of DNA ~109 bits for more than 10–10 sec."
So sorry! -- bb.
Thanks for the ping. You are indeed a wonder!
Per Bruce Lipton, DNA does not control cell processing, but it has a different function and normally remains dormant.
Glad to hear it, RightWhale! Thanks for writing.
That's very interesting, RW. I guess I'm going to have to buy Lipton's book. He's not alone in suspecting that DNA's role is not that of control, but of facilitation. But for DNA to "remain dormant" under normal conditions seems to be a very striking claim.... When it's not dormant, what is it doing, do you think?
Anyway, I have printed out this epochial piece and will peruse it later while waiting for rehearsal to begin.
For the record, I have no interest in such twaddle.
OK balrog666, noted.
Amazing. Both of you.
I would sincerely appreciate both of your undertaking a brief summary (abstract) of this article to insure I'm correctly following it....and then post them, of course.
How does DNA "tap" into the force field of life? is a question that came to my mind, but I'm not sure I'm imagining in the right direction.
"In him was life, and the life was the light of men..." Any "life" given us is a share in a field of already existing life?
I still suspect that there is a dimension as real as dimension time or dimension space, called the dimension of life force (having variable expressions, will, emotion, mind, for want of better terms); when complexity of the physical (non-living) universe reached a threshold, the dimension of life force had a 'hook' upon which the variable expressions of that dimension could then be mixed into the total expressions occurring in the universe of our perception. [I use the term 'continuum' to denote the mixings of variable expressions of the temporal and spatial, and then the temporal, spatial, life force. A fourth dimension I call 'spirit' (for want of better term) would be the current extent of dimensional manifestations we may perceive. Human beings are the only creatures as yet possessing the other three dimensional characteristics; Angels may have dimesnion spirit integrated into their nature, but they lack something of the 'lesser' dimensions to which they are tied (or we are tied, while alive on this planet). Thopught I'd toss that goop into the mix you've posted, with your permission. Noew, to print out the posted document and read it thoroughly. BTW, thanks for posting this thread!
It seems that one cannot understand the beginnings of life without understanding the end. Thus despite all the electical currents through the primordial ooze (Miller, Urey, et al.), I personally doubt whether we will ever penetrate the mind of God (with apologies to Paul Davies) to this extent.
All in Him that made all....
I am just reading (again) about Kurt Godel and the Uncertainty Principle. It is a proven theorem in mathematics that posits that some truths can be true but unprovable. Also there is no way to identify or predict unprovable truths. I think there may be a conection with some of this reasoning. It seems intuitively true that the Monist view might explain all but it might never be possible to provide a proof.
Ya'll are just awesome!
I'll have to digest this and post later.
I thought I was a grump. You're a gump's grump.
When your time runs short, you hate to waste it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.