History of science: muscle

[Guest guest]

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