Re: History of science: muscle

[Guest guest]

Interesting, but some of it was nonsense. Complex systems or organs are not the

result of sudden, massive mutation, but small, gradual steps. This is a

favorite argument of creationists, and totally false. Check out Climbing

Mount Improbable by Dawkins for one of the best explanations of this

I've read.

From Publishers Weekly:

" While an enzyme molecule or an eye might seem supremely improbable in their

complexity, they are not accidental, nor need we assume that they are the

designed handiwork of a Creator, asserts Oxford biologist Dawkins (The

Selfish Gene). This foremost neo-Darwinian exponent explains the dazzling

array of living things as the result of natural selection?the slow,

cumulative, one-step-at-a-time, non-random survival of chance variants. Both

a frontal assault on creationism and an enthralling tour of the natural

world, this beautifully illustrated study is based on a set of BBC lectures,

imparting a tone at once conversational and magisterial. Dawkins explores

how ordered complexity arose by discussing spiders' web-building techniques,

the gradual evolution of elephant trunks and of wings (birds, he concludes,

evolved from two-legged dinosaurs, not from tree gliders) and the symbiotic

relationship between the 900 species of figs and their sole genetic

companions, the miniature wasps that pollinate specific fig species. Using

" computer biomorphs " (simulated creatures " bred " from a common ancestor),

Dawkins demonstrates how varieties of the same plant or animal species can

vary in shape because of differences in just a few genes. "

Drew Baye

Orlando, FL

www.baye.com

[Guest guest]

I agree. This is not science, but philosophical reflections of a

scientist. you know, even scientists can afford a poetic side, by time

in time.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

>

> Interesting, but some of it was nonsense. Complex systems or organs

are not the

> result of sudden, massive mutation, but small, gradual steps. This is a

> favorite argument of creationists, and totally false. Check out Climbing

> Mount Improbable by Dawkins for one of the best explanations

of this

> I've read.

>

> From Publishers Weekly:

> " While an enzyme molecule or an eye might seem supremely improbable

in their

> complexity, they are not accidental, nor need we assume that they

are the

> designed handiwork of a Creator, asserts Oxford biologist Dawkins (The

> Selfish Gene). This foremost neo-Darwinian exponent explains the

dazzling

> array of living things as the result of natural selection?the slow,

> cumulative, one-step-at-a-time, non-random survival of chance

variants. Both

> a frontal assault on creationism and an enthralling tour of the natural

> world, this beautifully illustrated study is based on a set of BBC

lectures,

> imparting a tone at once conversational and magisterial. Dawkins

explores

> how ordered complexity arose by discussing spiders' web-building

techniques,

> the gradual evolution of elephant trunks and of wings (birds, he

concludes,

> evolved from two-legged dinosaurs, not from tree gliders) and the

symbiotic

> relationship between the 900 species of figs and their sole genetic

> companions, the miniature wasps that pollinate specific fig species.

Using

> " computer biomorphs " (simulated creatures " bred " from a common

ancestor),

> Dawkins demonstrates how varieties of the same plant or animal

species can

> vary in shape because of differences in just a few genes. "

>

> Drew Baye

> Orlando, FL

> www.baye.com

>

[Guest guest]

Interesting scientist. He also codiscovered the Krebs cycle.

T. Oschmann, PhD, a student of his has dedicated his

extraordinary piece of science writing Energy Medicine in Therapeutics

and Human Performance to his mentor along with continuing his work.

Best work of science I've read in years.

best regards,

Ken O'Neill

Austin, Texas

>

> Those who are interested on the basic science side of things, here are

> some excerpts from the man who discovered the proteins of actin and

> myosin.Gyorgyi won a Nobel prize. He seemed to be a man interested in

> finding the truth without an agenda. He had ideas about muscle,

> cancer, vitamin C, quantum physics, and many other areas without

> commercial bias.

>

> Alber Szentz Gyorgyi:

>

> http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/WG/Views/Exhibit/documents/institute.html

> The below is not from this website.

>

> ... most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a

> chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most

> precisely, as the cog wheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so,

> then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the

> specific cog wheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system

> must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random

> mutation of one link ... (is) like saying you could improve a Swiss

> watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axles. To

> get a better watch all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to

> make a good fit again. (p. 18, 1977).

>

> ... " Herring gulls " have a red patch on their beak. This red patch has

> an important meaning, for the gull-feeds its babies by going out

> fishing and swallowing the fish it has caught. Then, on coming home,

> the hungry baby gull knocks at the red spot. This elicits a reflex of

> regurgitation in mama, and the baby takes the fish from her gullet.

> All this may sound very simple, but it involves a whole series of most

> complicated chain reactions with a horribly complex underlying nervous

> mechanism of the knocking baby and that of the regurgitating mother.

> All this had to be developed simultaneously, which, is a random

> mutation, has the probability of zero. I am unable to approach this

> problem without supposing an innate 'drive' in living matter to

> perfect itself. (p. 18-19, 1977).

>

> Transcript: secrets of nature

>

> I started with anatomy then shifted to function, to physiology and

> studied rabbits. But then I shifted to bacteriology hoping to find the

> secrets of life in those very small, tiny creatures. But later I

> found bacteria too complicated and shifted to molecules and began to

> study chemistry and few years after the war I was even condemned to be

> the professor of chemistry and taught chemistry for many years.

> About 15 years ago I found molecules too complex and then I shifted to

> electrons, what they call quantum mechanics – the behavior of

> electrons. So I went through the whole gamete of organization which

> was a vain effort so to say, because in the end I ended with electrons

> which have no life at all – molecules have no life – so life ran out

> between my fingers actually while I was studying it, trying to find

> it. But I don't think it was in vain because to understand life one

> must understand electrons too- and molecules and cells and even whole

> animals or people too.

>

>

>

> In today's world it seems that " science " can be bought with money. Dr.

> Giarnelli said that pharmaceutical companies employ most of the

> world's scientists.(correct me if I'm wrong.) Do you think that can

> impair our judgement on facts and science. The AMA doesn't think so.

> Do other scientific bodies think so? I believe that our " fabric of

> science " has been tainted by politics, professional idealogy, and just

> plain greed.

>

> I urge people to look him up. Do a google search and watch some of his

> video. He wasn't the first coach on performance, but he was the first

> scientist on muscle.

>

> Levi Alday

> Atlanta, Ga

>