https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200611104804.htm

"A key set of proteins that help regulate hormones necessary for many essential functions in humans and other vertebrates have ancient origins in much simpler creatures such as sea cucumbers, says a new study published today in eLife.

"The kisspeptin system consists of a group of proteins that help control hormones released by trio of organs: the hypothalamus, the pituitary gland and the testicles in men or the ovaries in women. This trio regulates reproduction, metabolism, the immune system and other important body functions. Tracing the evolutionary origins of the kisspeptin proteins may help scientists learn more about why they developed and how they work.

***

"Wang and his colleagues searched for kisspeptin system genes in the sea cucumber, a very simple sea creature with no spinal cord. They identified equivalents of the kisspeptin genes in the sea cucumber.

***

"Next, they found that administering kisspeptin-like cucumber proteins to mammal cells causes them to release calcium, similar to how human versions of the protein would behave. The sea cucumber proteins were also able to interact with receptors in the human cells, suggesting that little has changed in these proteins over the course of evolution.

"Finally, the team carried out a series of experiments where they activated or blocked this signalling system in sea cucumbers. This showed that these proteins are crucial for reproduction and metabolism in the creatures.

"These experiments suggest that the kisspeptin system predates the evolution of the spinal cord in animals and that it will also be present in other creatures closely related to the sea cucumber, according to senior author Naiming Zhou, Professor at the Institute of Biochemistry, Zhejiang University, China.

"'Our findings indicate the existence of a kisspeptin signaling system in a very simple organism lacking a spinal cord," Zhou concludes. "They provide new evidence to support the ancient evolutionary origin of the physiological functions in vertebrates that are controlled by the kisspeptin system.'"

Comment: Evolution is a system of taking from the past and repurposing in the future. It took 3.8 billion years to get from bacteria to humans.It is obvious the time was required.


> Therefore SEM matter (primal matter) has 36 quadrants and 36 particle types while EM matter has 32. Both M matter and E matter have 28 quadrants and 28 particle types. Matter as we understand it, has 24 quadrants and 24 particle types.
> 
> I hope this clarifies things a bit.-This does not fit any currectly accepted science. It just changes your statements.

xeno6696: &quot;But did you account for multiple, parallel, simultaneous trials?<--If you answer nothing, answer that. As a computer scientist I&apos;m well aware of the power of an exponential growth of adding &quot;processors&quot; to a problem. The impossible becomes probable. The probable becomes likely. The likely becomes routine.&quot;

I used a conventional analysis. Statistics are not my strong point, and I try to use only those tools I understand.

I have seen computer models where books and phrases are &quot;randomly&quot; written by measuring the random code generated by a &quot;measure of correctness&quot; (i.e. the answer your looking for). I find this approach conceptually flawed, however I don&apos;t know anything about the techniques that you mentioned so I cannot venture a comment about the appropriateness of their use in resolving this problem.

Math and probability are precisely my strong point. I&apos;ll tell you my thoughts directly. (It will save you time in looking for old posts of mine.)

1. Every statistical argument for (or against) a creator to date I have read has been absolutely naive.

When I say naive, I mean it in the technical sense of mathematics: An analysis working from incomplete data and little knowledge.

I asked the question about parallelism because of this:

A one in a million chance event happens 8x a day in NYC. Most statistical analyses that try to talk about the origin of life (especially from writers like Dembski) compute the odds by asserting only a single event at each step of the process. They do this on purpose in order to build a better statistical argument. It looks better for their case.

Lets take a 1:10 chance. Lets assume that our event happens whenever the dice rolls to a 1.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

What are the odds of choosing 8? 8 is still technically a failed event, but your chance of picking it is 1:10, just like your success.

This leads in to the fallacy that most atheists trip into:

All chances are equal. In dice, yes, in life, no. Our 10-sided die is loaded to almost never pick 1.

However--and this is the argument that IS NOT a fallacy from the atheistic side, if you instead roll 1M (M = million) 10-sided die, many, many, times--you will undoubtedly get a 1 eventually.

I make it clear that this statistical analysis can ONLY be resolved IF (and only if) we are successful in creating life from scratch, meaning abiogenesis. Until then, as far as I&apos;m concerned, statistical arguments for or against have no merit for any discussion whatsoever beyond the hypothetical.

What are the odds of life occurring by chance? We literally don&apos;t know. We don&apos;t know the odds of life occurring by design any better.

I&apos;d personally be very interested to see tri-nucleic cells of any type, as I&apos;ve never seen them before. I honestly wasn&apos;t aware that they even existed, so this thread has definitely educated me about some things about which I was unaware.

I knew of syncytial cells with multiple nuclei, but I have learned also. I will describe what I see when they get here.

However, just so there is no uncertainty, yes, I would tell a fat person that they are fat, an ugly person that they are ugly(though to me ugliness is based more on personality than visual appearance), and an idiot that they are being idiotic. I would tell them not out of spite, but out of love. A fat person should be made aware, if not already, that their condition seriously depreciates the quality and quantity of their life. Along with telling them, I would also likely tender either some offer of assistance in rectifying the situation, or some friendly advice on things they can do for themselves without overly disrupting their lifestyle. More to the point, I would also try to understand WHY they are the way they are. All of that can be confirmed by the simple expediency of asking Dragonsheart82, who has known me since our freshman year in college, and remains one of my closest companions and confidants to this day.

I think it is also worth noting that this has nothing to do with being American, or English, but rather it deals with being a decent human being. Perhaps if more people were willing to take on the unpleasant task of telling others that what they are saying or doing is wrong, hurtful, or destructive the world would be a better place.

I wanted to say that while it may seem at first like I am hostile towards you, I assure you that I am not. I do understand how it is to be passionate about a subject and even to firmly believe in something despite heavy criticism and opposition. Nor do I want, in any way, to drive you away from posting here. Quite the opposite, honestly. Fresh ideas and perspectives are always welcome.

However, despite our varied backgrounds and beliefs, one of the fundamental hallmarks of this site which I have come to deeply appreciate is an atmosphere of open-mindedness moderated by skepticism and a thorough examination. Belief without questioning is not something that you will find from any of our regulars.

Whatever you post here will be examined under a microscope, turn inside out, around and upside down. Don&apos;t take it personally. Instead, embrace it as a way of refining your own thoughts and ideas. Examine the responses you get with the same open-mindedness that you expect us to show when examining your ideas.

All and all, I think you will find that the experience is a thousand times more rewarding this way.

Regards,
Tony

I Just how polite of an Englishman are you? And what do Englishmen call derision?

Abel, you need to read closely. B_M is American; his address in the messages tells you that.

All it proves is that those cells under the microscope are tri-nucleic. It does NOT, however, prove that they are YOURS.

I know DH, but let me take a look.

David: &quot;google saysachyhuman. The stones there are blocks of 20x20x20 feet. It is other than catapults. And how about the stone walls of buildings in Cuzco, interlocking and earthquake proof. How do I know. they are still totally intact.&quot;

Moving a stone of these dimensions would only require a different array of catapults that do not actually pull the load under the axis but simply towards the catapults. Using modern day materials, a stone the size of the Empire State building could be moved if you really wanted to do it.

Interesting conjecture. Enough catapult leverage would work.

Thank you David, I was unaware that there certain types of cells such as osteoblasts in animals that have more than one nuclei, however there are no animals that have three nuclei in all of their terminally differentiated tissues. The sample that I will send you will be intact skin samples stained with eosin, if this is to your liking.

Please send the slides to 40316 Wildlife Run, Hempstead, TX 77445.

The address, I think, is on my website, but also on my email, which is why I make it public here also..

http://www.geopolymer.org/fichiers_pdf/pyramid_chapt1.pdf
http://digg.com/news/story/Pyramid_Stones_Were_Poured_Not_Quarried

Not only have the quarries been discovered, and the tell-tale field spar found around the sites, but also it is able to determine the composition of the stone under a microscope, and it has been proven as a re-amalgamated stone(A.K.A. Concrete). A small fraction of the number of slaves could have built the pyramids in a fraction of the time.

So personally, I would hire the intelligent chemist that came up with their concrete, and use slave labor so that I could avoid having to pay the well-intentioned wise craftsman. (Ok... so may not ALL slave labor. You would need a few overseers and what not too. :P)

All of that aside, you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Wisdom and Intellect, while loosely related are not the same, nor are they mutually inclusive or exclusive.

I had meant that to go to Abel, not directly at you. My apologies if it&apos;s confusing.

I consider it derisive to tell a man that has presented a theory whose components are basically the same as those used by many others, that his argument lacks &quot;any coherence&quot;. I could be typing random letters and words and that would lack any coherence. And even if you did believe what you wrote was true, would you also call fat women fat, ugly people ugly and stupid people stupid because it is also true? Just how polite of an Englishman are you? And what do Englishmen call derision?

Then by all means present your argument in a cohesive fashion. Start from the beginning. Present your argument in step one, step two fashion. Ensure that there are no logical jumps between steps. Saying that there is a lack of coherence in your writing is not derisive, it is informative, also known as constructive criticism. I am not DHW, and I read your arguments straight through, one after another, and you are positively dizzying. You jump from topic to topic without rhyme, reason, or pattern. That, sir, is not how to present an argument unless your sole purpose is to keep the audience so confused that they are too bewildered by your randomness to respond, thereby making you the default winner and your own eyes and foolish in everyone else&apos;s. How else do you expect reasonable rational people to respond to such a maelstrom?

Moving a stone of these dimensions would only require a different array of catapults that do not actually pull the load under the axis but simply towards the catapults. Using modern day materials, a stone the size of the Empire State building could be moved if you really wanted to do it.

Some cells in plants and animals have more than one nucleus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coenocyte

Thank you David, I was unaware that there certain types of cells such as osteoblasts in animals that have more than one nuclei, however there are no animals that have three nuclei in all of their terminally differentiated tissues. The sample that I will send you will be intact skin samples stained with eosin, if this is to your liking.

[DragonsHeart: &quot;To be the devil&apos;s advocate here, but how would he actually know that the cells came from your skin? Unless he took the skin cells from you himself, he wouldn&apos;t. Having some person send you &quot;skin cells&quot; in the mail isn&apos;t empirical evidence. Unless he could, without a doubt, identify where the cells came from, just looking at cells under a microscope proves nothing.&quot;[/i]

Looking under a microscope to see conjoined tri-nucleated skin cells which exists in no other animal on the planet, does prove something. However I guess you could believe that I just had access to a non-human that didn&apos;t mind me pulling flesh off of him. I do have trouble convincing regular advocates though, much less the devil&apos;s.

To illustrate how much a catapult can lift or move, we will use the example of a man who can move 100 pounds. With a 10:1 lever ratio on the catapult arm, that man could lift 1000 pounds. Given a load ratio of 6:1 on the catapult&apos;s axle and a gear ratio of 3:1, means that one man moving 100 lbs can generate 18,000 lbs of pulling torque. Two men can generate 36,000 pounds, which almost enough to lift a 25 ton obelisk much less move it. Those people cited in Wikipedia, were only generating about a third of this force.

google saysachyhuman. The stones there are blocks of 20x20x20 feet. It is other than catapults. And how about the stone walls of buildings in Cuzco, interlocking and earthquake proof. How do I know. they are still totally intact.