On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:09:08 -0600, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:



Monique Reed wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Viruses do not pose a challenge because they are thought of as transposons
or mobile genes and belong to the same genome which they parasitize.


So is West Nile virus a bird, a horse, a human, or...?

M. Reed

The nice and awful thing about biology is that there are never any absolutes.
There is always fuzziness and haze at the edges. In physics we talk of
probability density that a particle is 90% in this region. In biology as soon
as you give a definition there are things that crop up that call the definition
into question.

In answer to your question, a virus that attacks humans is part of the human
genome. A virus is a highly ordered transposon. A virus that attacks humans and
placed into a petri dish is no more a living entity than cutting off a piece of
human skin and placed in a petri dish is a living entity.

So the West Nile virus is not a living organism but a debris particle of birds,
of horses and of humans. Bacteria is a living organism. Viruses are not.

So a complete genome of humans would include the viral transposon of West Nile.
The complete genome of birds would include the West Nile viral transposon.

Viruses are biological hazards and they are not living organisms.

What this Quantum Duality of Biology theory wants to show is that if a entity
is living means it has a dual species. All bacteria have dual species and thus
are living. Viruses do not have dual species and thus are not alive.
###
On second thought I may have the above all turned around. Perhaps retroviruses
live on other viruses.

In this view viruses have dual partners. If that is the case then the first
life on Earth from a stopped neutrino was viruses of all kinds and they just
floated around until they found something to "eat". Once they ate something
they multiplied and changed into other forms.

Thanks, for maybe the first life on Earth were viruses and that stopped
neutrinos even today could transform into brand new viruses that Earth has
never before seen.

So the question I have is whether those Rockeaters have viruses that attack
them?

Anyone know that answer?

P.S. I thought the wine I drank tonight in celebration would affect my thinking
adversely and obviously it has done the opposite in facilitating.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Sorry, I don't buy it. Your theory is just a bunch of hand waving.
You have to keep rationalizing that viruses are this and bacteria are
that just to try to keep your theory together.
There is no experiment that you can do to test your theory, and you
cannot make any predictions based on the theory, so it is useless and
it is not even reallly a scientific theory, since it is untestable.
Darwinism has always been consistent with experimental data, and all
of the millions of tests of Darwinism have supported the theory.
Darwinism can be used to predict what the results of an experiment
will be, so it is useful. It also is logical and is the simplest
solution given the data at hand (i.e., it satisfies Occom's razor).

someone wrote:


Sorry, I don't buy it. Your theory is just a bunch of hand waving.
You have to keep rationalizing that viruses are this and bacteria are
that just to try to keep your theory together.

No, I am exploring, initial exploring but you seem too dense to see that.


There is no experiment that you can do to test your theory, and you

No, there is a great experiment of that of taking a 100% sterile life free flask or
drum and have a cosmic ray of 10^14 MeV transit the flask and if there is life
where previously there was none would prove the theory. Another route to proof
would be if Moon rocks or Mars rocks or Mercury rocks contained fossil life but
never had evolved-life.

But I brought up the poison thread because I want a new route to proving the
Quantum Dual theory


cannot make any predictions based on the theory, so it is useless and
it is not even reallly a scientific theory, since it is untestable.
Darwinism has always been consistent with experimental data, and all
of the millions of tests of Darwinism have supported the theory.
Darwinism can be used to predict what the results of an experiment
will be, so it is useful. It also is logical and is the simplest
solution given the data at hand (i.e., it satisfies Occom's razor).

But you seem too dense and opinionated to understand. No reply needed.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

someone wrote:


Sorry, I don't buy it. Your theory is just a bunch of hand waving.
You have to keep rationalizing that viruses are this and bacteria are
that just to try to keep your theory together.

No, I am exploring, initial exploring but you seem too dense to see that.


There is no experiment that you can do to test your theory, and you

No, there is a great experiment of that of taking a 100% sterile life free flask or
drum and have a cosmic ray of 10^14 MeV transit the flask and if there is life
where previously there was none would prove the theory. Another route to proof
would be if Moon rocks or Mars rocks or Mercury rocks contained fossil life but
never had evolved-life.


In fact, the news today has quite a bit of information concerning cosmic rays. And I
am going to quote it in full in order to point out some missing information which will
discovered in the future.

There are too many cosmic rays to be accountable by supernova alone and these
overabundant cosmic rays, I am confident will be attributed as originating from the
Nucleus of the AtomTotality.

The below article also fails to address the twin facts of that cosmic rays are so
uniformily fluxed over the night sky and that there energies seem unlimited in that
they can pack a 10^14 MeV or even go up to a recordholding 10^21 MeV as was reported
sometime not long ago. If a cosmic ray of 10^21 MeV or higher ever was stopped near
our solar system it could extinct life of Earth.

I am not questioning that cosmic rays are produced from Supernova, for that to me is a
given. What I am questioning from this report is that cosmic rays are so much more
abundant than this report wants to admit and so uniform density in the cosmos and that
many pack energies that supernova source is not the full picture. I contend that some
come from supernova but the majority come from the Nucleus of the AtomTotality of
231Pu.

And in context with this thread on Quantum Dual of Biology. An experiment such as the
Fly-Eye conducted in the desert of Utah should be extended to searching for a device
or equipment where a cosmic ray is captured in a container that is 100% absent of life
forms such as even viral DNA. Because I speculate that such a device will find a new
viral or bacterial DNA after a cosmic ray transits the device. I contend that when a
cosmic ray of 10^14 MeV is stopped in a device that a new virus or bacteria will be
found wherein the cosmic ray neutrino has internal parts of *perfect DNA* and by
stopping the ray will dress that internal DNA and become a viral entity or new
bacteria.

Another means of doing this experiment is to find out if viruses and bacteria can be
fossilized and the Moon is lifeless but it has cosmic ray bombardment. So that a
typical pile of Moon rock should contain many viral fossils that were created from
cosmic rays.

--- quoting Reuters on cosmic ray ---

Scientists Close in on Source of Cosmic
Rays

Wed Nov 3, 1:01 PM ET


Science - Reuters



LONDON (Reuters) - An international team of astronomers
believe they have solved a
mystery that has been perplexing scientists for 100 years
-- the origin of cosmic rays.

Scientists first discovered the
energetic particles that
bombard the Earth nearly a
century ago but where they
come from has been one of the
big questions in
astrophysics.

Using an array of four
telescopes in Africa, the
scientists produced the first
image showing that the
source of cosmic rays could be
the remnant of a
supernova, a powerful explosion
of a star at the end of
its life.

"This is the first time we were
able to take an image of
the source," David Berge, an
astrophysicist at the Max
Planck Institute in Heidelberg,
Germany, told Reuters.

Scientists had long thought
that supernova explosions
were indeed the source, but did
not have evidence to
support it, according to Berge,
who reported the
findings in the science journal
Nature.

He and colleagues from Britain, Armenia, France, Ireland,
Namibia, South Africa and the
Czech Republic studied the remnant of a supernova that
exploded about 1,000 years ago
and left a shell of debris.

"Because the energy density in cosmic rays is so large,
they play an important role in the
development of our galaxy," said Berge.

"We are now at a stage where we seem to be able to prove
cosmic rays come from
supernova remnants."

Professor Ian Halliday, head of the Particle Physics and
Astronomy Research Council
(PPARC) which funds research, welcomed the findings.

"These results provide the first unequivocal proof that
supernovae are capable of
producing large quantities of galactic cosmic rays --
something we have long suspected,
but never been able to confirm," he said in a statement.
--- end quoting ---

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies