yguy

http://sci-e-research.com/geophysics.html

"The main consequence of the above is that all heat generated inside Earth is of radionic origin. In other words, Earth in its entirety can be considered a nuclear reactor fuelled by spontaneous fission of various isotopes in the super-heavy inner core, as well as their daughter products of decay in the mantle and in the crust."

yguy

I'm not sure that I will. Reading them on the recommendation of a person who blithely declares that "There is no mystery as to the origin of life in the universe, but, there are lifetimes of details left to discover to interest and amuse us", and somehow fails to see the blatant self-contradiction in such a pronouncement, seems absurd.

Baloo

I'd like to point out that the source article for this quote, written by Thomas J. ChalkoI, was published in the NU Journal of Discovery. t is entitled: " Can Earth Explode as a result of Global Warming?" Based on the home page of this prestigous online journal (free access, check it out while you can), we see only two other papers have qualified for publication by the NU Journal of Discovery: "Can a Neutron Bomb accelerate Global Volcanic Activity" (by Thomas J. Chalko) and "Is Chance or Choice the essence of Nature?" (by Thomas J. Chalko).

The NU Journal of Discovery is published by the prestigious Natural University. Excerpted from the homepage of Natural University: At the bottom of the page is a link where you can access any enrolment [sic] information you might desire.

I think at one point this University had a really cool T-shirt free with admission... anyone ever seen the design?

EDIT: Found it:
Read more about this amazing shirt (modeled by Dr. Chalko himself) here.

By the way, don't bother wasting your time researching the matter any further. Tim Thompson has already wasted more than enough time tearing the article and the author to shreds in this thread:this thread .

LostGirl

yguy, if you prefer a little more spoonfeeding (as is understandable - I'll be saving that reference list for later research, so thank you! Dr.GH - but it's a little daunting) I'd reccommend a iniversity level evolution textbook like Evolutionary Analysis by Freeman and Herron with a chapter on abiogenesis. There, in about twenty pages of reading with pretty diagrams and pictures and such, will be an explanatory outline of the steps to cellular life that Dr. GH described above. I find the above textbook to come in very handy in discussions on this forum, but you could always *not* photocopy a chapter out of the reserve copy of any textbook at any university library for a few bucks, if you're a poor student like me who nonetheless shells out the $110 for the real thing.

I don't know of any links, but I'd second the suggestion to google "abiogenesis" and "polymerizat*" and "RNA world".

I'd love to discuss the particulars of the subject, but it would be nice to start with some basic commonality of knowledge, to know where everyone's coming from in terms of concepts.

yguy

I originally heard this a couple of years ago from a source who has been otherwise extremely credible, so I assumed this was an accepted fact, googled on some keywords, and picked one that looked OK at first glance. My mistake.

Here's a better link:

http://www.discover.com/aug_02/featplanet.html

If you care to debunk it, post a thread on it in the Sci forum, if you will.

yguy

Understood, ma'am. I'm not inclined just now to do any concentrated reading on the subject, so if you decline to intellectually condescend, that's OK. However, if you could indulge me by fielding a question or two, it appears that we've gotten as far as synthesizing the polio virus. How much of the synthesis was due to random acitivity comparable to what would have produced it 2 or 3 billion years ago? What is the possibility of a virus evolving into something more like a cell? And how long would it take?

Keep it simple.

Dr.GH

I am sure that you won't. And, I am fairly sure that you will not bother to read even those papers most relevent to the areas you might realize you are ignorant. And, I am fairly sure that you will continue to insist on the correctness of your ill-informed opinions as though they were supported by facts, and the critical study of thousands of scientists. That must be a very powerrful feeling.

So, I suggest that we proceed without whatzezname. What are the proposed modifications of the outline? What are the additional published articles? What does a web version look like?


I see yguy is still with us. The synthetic production of a virus is scary, but oddly not very significant scientifically in regards to the OOL research. This is because it is quite clear that prions and viruses would have been post, or peri cellular evolutionary results. That these are indeterminant is implicit from Woese and others in the articles that you don't need to read.

yguy

Sir, I am perfectly aware of my ignorance. That puts me light years ahead of most everyone on this forum.

Wounded King

Im sure that it is a good thing when people can acknowledge their own ignorance, I begin to worry when they seem proud of it.

Jabu Khan

I found the article it was in the February edition of the Journal of Biological Cemistery but it states that virus phi 29 uses a motor formed of six RNA molecules and fueled by ATP to shuffle its genes. Thats not exactly a smoking gun but I believe, from my miniscule knowledge on the subject that this is one of the steps predicted between RNA and DNA. I did several searches trying to find the article and still can't get a copy of it but Ifound that this virus is not alone in its ability to construct these motors. I thought ATP was only able to bind with proteins but this doesn't appear to be such new information after all. I origionally read about it in the April edition of Scientific American.