With the internet, the purposes of viruses are pretty random spanning
from a bored kid in study hall to network testing. The end result is
the same as what you are talking about: evolution of virus scanners
and computer security
>Last night I spent some time talking with an oncologist personally,http://swezlex.com
>not professionally, as I am fortunately in good health. We spoke in a
>relaxed setting. It is more difficult to talk one on one about this
>material because when you talk orally to someone, there is no chance
>to weigh your words, edit, and so forth. The discussion began over
>anti-oxidants and cancer.
>I am not sure whether I should try to put the conversation to you
>verbatim, or describe it with my eyes. For fair readers who have
>been tracking this discussion on a living earth and climate, tropical
>storm behaviors, you may find our conversation fascinating. But for
>the reader who is unfamiliar with what the heck I am talking about,
>they may find a discussion about oncology on a climate bb . . .
>well . . . crazy. Not relevant. So some explanation is required.
>Some basics. Oncology is the study of cancer. An oncologist is a
>cancer doctor. One of the first questions I asked the oncologist was
>how much time she spent treating patients and how much time she spent
>in 'research'. Her answer IMHO was typical of doctors today who are
>good and very busy--that most of her 'research', if you want to call
>it that is clinical and individual patient driven. IOWs, she spends
>a great deal of time thinking, researching about her individual
>patients and their cancer.
>What I asked the oncologist was if she was familiar with the debate
>over design and evolution. Her response was I suppose expected. An
>oncologist would deal with death all the time, with families in their
>grief, and so forth. She said that design was a religious question.
>I said, no, that's not what I was talking about. I am not talking
>about religion. I was asking a 'scientific' question, making a
>scientific point--about design. I asked her, specifically; what
>about cancer is part of design? I said, for example, what is the
>greater purpose of a virus? A virus and a host cell do not seem to
>share a common goal, or purpose. The virus destroys a cell in order
>to exist--you would think that after 3 billion years of evolution
>that the host cell would get the message and off the virus. Why is a
>virus part of design? What good, symbiotically, is a virus to a
>So the same question, I asked, about cancer. What about cancer is
>part of design? If you know the purpose of cancer, you can
>appreciate what cancer IS and it's design function, you can treat
>your patients better.
>Then I tried to explain that question better.
>I explained about my brother doing DNA research. How electrophoresis
>works, and how that ties in to cloud microphysics and abiogenesis.
>The idea is that with DNA, you can sort out individual sequences by
>putting a sample in a gel and putting a voltage potential on the gel,
>with a cathode and an anode creating a static field. The nucleotide
>complex then moves through the gel depending on the size, shape, mass
>and charge of the DNA complex. If you add a dye, the movement of the
>DNA shows up in 'bands' and that is how you can tell DNA samples
>apart. That's electrophoresis.
>Likewise, between the ionosphere and ocean there is a voltage
>potential and there were DNA complexes in water droplets that were
>super cooled. The ionosphere acts like a cathode and the ocean
>surface like an anode and the air like the gel. And that the China
>paper tells us that in a DC field ion water that is super cooled
>freezes with relative asymmetry. So that with DNA complexes in
>clouds, you would have a sort of control device and living controller
>on cloud microphysics based on the specific size, shape, charge and
>mass of the sample. And that is how life first became complex.
>So the context of the discussion, again, was anti-oxidants and
>cancer. The doctor began to discuss a double blind study that showed
>some significant result respecting anti oxidants. What it showed,
>ironically, was that an increase in anti oxidants increased cancer
>incidence. Which doesn't seem to make sense. So if you stop eating
>oranges -- you have a better shot at surviving cancer??? Well, as it
>turns out, maybe not. What the studies did not address is that
>during chemotherapy and radiation treatments, that the anti-oxidants
>were counterproductive of the purpose of those treatments. What the
>doctor prescribes, then, is during chemotherapy and radiation
>treatments--anti-oxidants are a no-no. But afterwards . . . is
>My theory of abiogenesis first requires life to be defined. Life, in
>my view, requires metabolism and repair, or as you may hear from a
>biologist, anabolism and catabolism. I make the case, here, that the
>earth was alive before life forms of smaller scale evolved.
>You had in fair weather zones areas where UV light struck the ocean
>surface and combined with formaldehyde to produce sugars. And under
>clouds the UV light is blocked, and, there, the sugars are oxidized
>back to CO2 exothermically. That CO2 bubbles up to the surface, and
>nucleotide complexes would have a tendency to be lifted on the
>surface tension of the CO2 gas and then be whisked into the air with
>winds associated with the convection and clouds to become part of
>microphysics processes. Such was the first symbiotic relationship of
>life--that between metabolism and nucleotide complex. Obviously, if
>DNA can be damaged by oxidation, and at the same time oxidation is
>required to turn a sugar to CO2, the emergence of antioxidants would
>have been a powerful evolutionary advance. At the same time, in the
>sorting process where nucleotide complexes where in the clouds and
>subject to these DC fields -- put these same complexes into regions
>where radiation levels, exposure to toxic chemistry may occur. While
>clouds would protect the complex from UV light and radiation, and
>clouds would contain fewer if any chemicals that were toxic, UV light
>was required for the creation of sugars.
>Today, the oceans are too saline for any organized cloud microphysics
>with nucleotide complexes. That's because in the DC field the salt
>ions will move and create more noise than a nucleotide complex
>commutation would achieve in signal. There could be no cloud
>modulation. Today, modulation occurs with life by cellular life.
>Cellular life contains chemistries over diffusion. Cellular life, in
>accumulation, on the ocean surface, causes the capacitate couplings
>to increase with direct decreases in resistance, plus localization of
>CO2 from out gassings dropping conductivities, plus life like diatoms
>which aid cloud nucleation rates.
>But somewhere in between, cellular life had its electrical role and
>bare nucleotide complexes could move inside a cloud by shape, charge,
>mass and size--altering cloud microphysics, and would have had an
>equal role. Cells, on the other hand, would not be able to 'sort'
>inside a cloud or move depending on the 'model' of what they were by
>size, shape, mass or charge. In my view, a symbiotic relationship
>makes perfect sense in this modulating context, and is where, I
>think, sexual reproduction evolved. Sexual reproduction is
>inefficient and takes longer than other forms of reproduction, but by
>maintaining a tap into intelligent design, was able to evolve against
>other forms of reproduction.
>And in so tapping into design, sexual reproduction taps into
>intelligence. If you look at our brains using modern imaging, you
>can see resonances called Schumann resonances. Those same resonances
>are found in the atmosphere. Every time a lightning strikes it rings
>the ionosphere like bell . . . Such frequencies vibrated with the
>nucleotide complexes in the clouds, and would have allowed the
>complexes to communicate with the EMF conditions, and act in
>community, and then, later, in community, communicate with each
>other. And in such communication, allow chemical feedbacks that
>would have further allowed complex responses to the on coming EMF
>conditions. Such complexity mimics our own thinking processes!
>So, to answer my first question, a virus did indeed, like the 'male'
>aspect of a symbiotic relationship with a 'female' cell, hold
>symbiotic relationship with a cell, but in that instance, the use of
>the cell ended essentially with the virus. To answer my second,
>cancer was a surviving trait on a living earth. Increases in
>selective mutations that enhanced a living earth. For instance,
>smoke from your cigarette causes deadly cancer but at the same time
>caused, on a living earth, specific increases in mutation rates that
>would have allowed changes to continue to modulate toward a living
>Today, such information is telling about climate. When Central and
>West Africa burned last winter, the spring was followed by a category
>one hurricane striking Brazil. Such are the design backgrounds, of a
>Yahoo! Groups Links
"Know how to listen, and you will profit even from those who talk