Bloxy's Bloxy's at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 30 23:58:16 EST 1998

In article <3639c986.0 at ns2.wsg.net>, "Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net> wrote:
>Jim Balter wrote in message <36395A34.4F58BF9F at sandpiper.net>...
>>Neil Rickert wrote:
>>> My disagreement is that you seem to have been making claims which
>>> discount the signal energy and put the DNA in charge of everything.

They deny the very existance of electromagnetic influences,
that could be at the very core of it all.

The very energy, emanating from the mother is what?

This sucky doc, who seem to have forgotten the experiments,
going back almost 50 years ago, on babies, not being cared
for by the mother, and simply kept in well maintained medical
isolation chamber.

Now, those babies never got healthy, intelligent, and many
other things.

And why?
You see, dr. sux, they were kept in the best possible medical
conditions in the hospital. All they were missing is love
of another human being, caring for them.

And what happened to these babies.

You own these people here, dr. sux, aka ray scanlon,
to report the results of those many studies, you old cunt.

All your horseshit about DNA is just that, pure horseshit.
Stating of obvious, at the very best.

>>> However, you are also ignoring other sources of variation during the
>>> development process, which have effects other than through the signal
>>> energy and DNA.  For example, how well nourished the child is will
>>> also have effects on development, including neural wiring.
>>In fact there are cases of identical twins where one has a brain and
>>one doesn't.   Scanlon's claim that identical twins have identical
>>neural topology is a matter of quasi-religious dogma contrary to fact.
>Good Lord, did I say that? My mind must be slipping, I will be 77 next
>month! I have never heard of a scientific investigation of the brain wiring
>of identical twins as opposed to fraternal twins or the population in
>general. I would very much like to hear if someone has done it and how they
>did it.
>I do suspect that because of the way in which DNA constructs

Utter horseshit.
To assert that DNA CONSTRUCTS the body, you must be an utter
idiot of a scientist.


And there is nothing beyond the DNA, right?
And there is no essense, standing at the very intent
of every moment of everybody's life, right?

Just a stupid, utterly programmed, completely idiotic
building block, that is all there is to it, right?

So, what follows from that, dr. sux?

>the body that
>the brains of identical twins would resemble each other in the same way that
>hair color, height, and body proportions resemble each other. But that is
>just idle speculation on my part. I repeat: idle, idle, idle speculation.

You can mental master-bate here till all yer DNA turns blue.
And yet, you won't prove ANYTHING of what you are trying to peddle
here with all your purely mechanical system of programmed
bio-robotic existance.

>In particular, I am not pushing any religious dogma, quasi- or otherwise.

Pure horseshit.
What you have is nothing but a pure religious dogma,
and that is why you and the others of your kind were called
"new superpriests of the age of corruption".

You replaced the religious priest, but you peddle just the
same grade of ideas.
At least the old priest was a little bit more humble and
allow for something greater, than a pure bio-robotic existance.

And YOU don't allow ANYTHING, but a completely brainless
How can brain develop into anything different, if it is all
already prewired?
Do you have ANY active neurons on line?
Do you realize that what are you peddling here is the lowest
grade of fatalism?

Russians have been through this problem hundreds of years ago.

>The nucleotides in DNA make codons in mRNA and the human body results,
>teeth, esophagus, and brain. I don't preach it, I just marvel.

Not the nucleotides MAKE, but USED [in order to make].

>Of course, the environment is part of the equation, I never said or thought
>otherwise. With a specific person, we may speculate on the relative
>importance of DNA versus environment and that too is interesting.

Then that invalidates your entire claim, dr. sux.

If environment has ANY influence, than the DNA is not the
predetermining factor.

And if you can not even assert the degree to which "environment",
which is a gross oversimplification on the first place,
affects the development of life, than on what basis are you
going to make a claim that DNA rewls the game?

What do you know of ANY significance in development of

> I do take
>exception when people say that the brain is fundamentally different from the
>pancreas, that DNA does not construct both.
>On the question of signal energy. Of course it is important, overwhelmingly

Sure, dr. sux. It is not even clear at the moment
what is the overriding factor in this entire process.
You have not outline the exact and specific steps in
development of organs.

On the fist place, the same DNA is present in ALL various
bodily organs. Then how is it possible?
If the same DNA has the same program, it should develop
one particular organ, and thats it?

On what basis certain cells in the body rush toward the wound
to save the entire body?
If DNA predetermines everything, then ALL cells should rush
toward the wound?
On what basis there is ANY discrimination or dedication of

And on, and on and on.

> The DNA sets up the rules

Horseshit of the lowest grade.

> for the general wiring and incoming signal
>energy alters the fine structure of the brain.

That signal energy directly affects the neural structure,
controlling vessels, and the rest of it.
Your DNA has no chance to even move unless the passages
are open.

> That's the way it works, is
>this preaching?

It is NOTHING, but preaching.

> Hubel and Wiesel demonstrated this over forty years ago,
>it's time we all accepted it.

First, you have to report the results of multiple studies
on babies, as outlined above.
Then you have to report the results of patients being
healed by the dogs and cats.

And then you have to admit that you know NOTHING.
[of which you speak]
But the most rudimentary and mechanical aspects


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list