Eternal life - myth or...

[Sharing Lights]

Every cell in a human body is
replenished in about seven years.

Some replicate in hours, some in seven years.

We are the same people; yet, not exactly,
as we are replenished indeed, within.
It is expected of humans to live to, maybe,
80 years old, and, then to leave their body here,
while departing into another world.

It is expected because, we see such pattern consistently.

Yet, if we follow logic precisely, we should ask a
question, why do we have to depart at all, when
science proved that every cell has an ability
to replenish itself, while cells, are, practically, replicas
of the old ones appearing by a pre-determined pattern.

That is true in case of all adolescents for the
most parts.

Children's cells do not produce exact copies
since children grow and change.

The key word in their case is progress.

In case of the older people -
degeneration of cells and tissue.

Nevertheless, why do we have to depart?

Why doesn't the formation of new cells,
in us, continues forever?

Afterwords, old cells die; and the new ones are born.

Theoretically, logic tells us, we should live forever,
providing that there was no accident.

Practically, we do not.

Why not?

Our brain triggers a certain hormono-chemical
process that sets forth a chain reaction,
which prevents a perfect formation of the new cells.

With years, as we become older, that formation,
mutates slowly but surely.


Each new copy is less perfect than the previous one.

There is an internal mechanism in us,
which blocks that ability for a perfect replica.


Sagging skin, wrinkles, gray hair, etc, are all
the evidence of the less and less perfect
replication of cells.

Our brain, poisons us right after we reach our peak.

If we could find a

way to block that area of the brain
which triggers the signal to produce imperfect
copies of our cells, we would have lived forever

indeed, if there were no other factors:
as accidenta and any, violent events involved.


Even though, we may be far from, at least,
prolonging our age drastically, we should realize
that the

process of aging begins in our brain.

Would it not make sense, therefore, to try to keep a
positive and youthful outlook at least mentally,
then, as why not give the brain the positive signals,
while it, unloads more and more of negative ones, in
terms of replication process?

[Sharing Lights]

Part I

Deeper into science


You have a full set of chromosomes in each cell. But how did each cell receive a set?

You started as one cell, but then, how did you get more?

Here, we will go on an in-depth tour of a human cell's replication procedures.

You will learn how cells split and how DNA replicates.

When you were formed, you came from two merged cells, each with a set of chromosomes.

How do you get so many cells from just a single one?

The answer is a process called mitosis,
the splitting of human cells.

The reason your cells split is quite simple.

You need to grow, and since every human body is completely made up of cells,
you can't grow with just one cell.

By now, you all are probably wondering how each
and every cell has its own set of chromosomes if they split.

Wouldn't one cell split and leave the new cells made
from it with 1/2 a set of DNA? Mitosis is a more
complicated process than what you might think.

When a
cell splits, the entire set of DNA goes through a process
called replication.

The chromosomes line up inside the
nucleus of the cell and then each one splits in half.

The
DNA also splits in half, but what good
are two sets of
half-chromosomes made up of half-DNA
on a helix structure?


The DNA splits in half, but it has a way of replicating.
ga
Since thymine (T) can only chemically bond with
adenind (A), and cytosine (C) can only bond with
guanine (G), the DNA can very easily reprdouce itself.

The double helix figure splits down the middle, or unzips,
so there are two helixes.

The cells that are going through mitosis "know" that wherever there is a T on a helix,
on the other side there should be an A,
along with the appropriate nucleotide.
The same thing happens with C and G.

After the DNA has made copies of itself, each cell divides and becomes two cells.

As stated earlier, when you were created in your mother's womb, you started as a single cell.

This cell came from two sex cells, or gametes, merged together.

[Sharing Lights]

Gametes, from the ancient Greek γαμετης (spouse), are the specialized germ cells that come together during fertilization (conception) in organisms that reproduce sexually.

The creation of gametes is called gametogenesis, in which gametocytes divide by meiosis into various gametes.

In those species that produce two morphologically distinct types of gametes, and in which a particular individual produces only one type; "females" of the species produce the larger gamete called an ovum (or egg) and "males" produce the smaller gamete termed (in animals) a spermatozoon (or sperm cell).

The equivalent "male" structure in higher plants is called a pollen grain. Organs that produce gametes are called gonads in animals, and archegonia or antheridia in plants.

Gametes are haploid cells; that is, they contain one complete set of chromosomes (the actual number varies from species to species).

When two gametes unite (typically in animals, involving a sperm and an egg), they form a zygote — a cell having two complete sets of chromosomes and therefore diploid.

The zygote cell receives one set of chromosomes from each of the two gametes involved in the union.

After fusion of the two gamete nuclei, and after multiple cell divisions and cellular differentiation, a zygote develops, first into an embryo, and ultimately into a mature individual capable of producing gametes.


Gametes from a mature diploid individual will be produced in the gonadal tissue through meiosis—a process of cellular division that reduces the number of sets of chromosomes from two to one (i.e., produces haploid gametes).

The diploid somatic cells of an individual will contain one copy of the chromosome set from the sperm and one copy of the chromosome set from the egg—that is, the cells of the offspring will have genes expressing characteristics of both the father and the mother.

A gamete's chromosomes are not exact duplicates of either of the sets of chromosomes carried in the somatic cells of the individual that produced the gametes.

They can be hybrids produced through crossover (a form of genetic recombination) of chromosomes, something that takes place in meiosis.

This hybridization has a random element, and the chromosomes tend to be a little different in every gamete that an individual produces.

This recombination and the fact that the two chromosome sets ultimately have come from either a grandmother or a grandfather on each parental side account for the genetic dissimilarity of siblings.

[Sharing Lights]

But if all cells have two sets of twenty-three
chromosomes, then wouldn't your first cell
have had four sets of twenty-three chromosomes?

Mitosis isn't the only process where new cells are formed from old ones.

The gametes are formed in a process called meiosis.

Meiosis allows cells to only have one random set of twenty-three chromosomes.

This process is very much like mitosis, except the DNA doesn't need to replicate.

The cell begins to split, and a random set of twenty-three chromosomes goes into the new cell, while the other set stays in the old cell.

Now, instead of two new, normal cells, we have two gametes.

Now that you have learned about how a cell splits,
you will be able to move on to how protein is actually
made.

You can learn what we meant every time you
read "code for protein." You will finally be able to
understand how DNA controls every aspect
of your body.

Originally Posted by Sharing Lights

Each new copy is less perfect than the previous one.

Doesn't this disagree with "evolution?"

Nonetheless, you have contributed nice work in this thread.

[Sharing Lights]

Part I

Originally Posted by Sharing Lights but is quoted by HB only by part;
thus - incomplete.

See the actual and complete quote below! (*)

Version b)

HenryBowman:
Doesn't this disagree with "evolution?"

Nonetheless, you have contributed nice work in this thread.

==========================================
(*)

Version a)
"Sharing Lights: With years, as we become older, that formation,
mutates slowly but surely.

Each new copy is less perfect than the previous one."

==========================================


Are both versions: b)
and my a) - equal?

Which is accurate - mine as almost whole (closer to being completed)
or the presented one - by one part only and uncompleted?


My reply, concerns the issue of
accurate or inaccurate reference to the data/concept,
as that may affect considerable numbers of people.

That may refer to any subject, in any field
and to anyone.

As the bulk of the information on this Forum revolves
around law and people's rights, it is crucial
to be precise in any argument or reference
in Court or off-Court.As, we know, not much honesty can be expected
in the Courts' system , as it is run, mostly,
by not such, honest people, to start with.

Can you imagine how those individuals,
holding power and authority would jump on your case,
when you exhibit inaccuracies and fallacies?

These people would do so, even, in your
perfect arguments.

Yet, there you have truth on your side.

In fallacies and gross misconceptions,
you have nothing but
two alleys going for your throat:

1) the corrupt judges-lawyers and your,

2) own demise due to the above combination.


==========================================
Now, straight to the actual example, which
triggered this reply of the original subject.

In Brief:

The rules of logic dictate
reference to the idea - not a part of it.

An idea contains the sum of all of its parts.

If only one is chosen (arbitrarily,)
then the idea is altered and misrepresented.

When you have an allegation from a judge or lawyer,
or from any one, for that matter,
you have to refer to the comment/allegation
by the former and examine how that applies
to your idea.

In this example, the following has occurred:

"Each new copy is less perfect than the previous one."
Doesn't this disagree with "evolution?"

1) Was the statement copied from my Post:
Yes!

2) Is it copied accurately?
Yes!

3) Did 1) and 2) as they are, preserve, my idea,
which is simple and direct?

Absolutely not!

On the contrary, the question posted was selected
or manipulated to refer to only a part of the idea.


That becomes self evident, once I quote the idea,
itself, as, basically, the other phrase, being
of not any less importance has been,
deliberately, omitted.

Here is what should have been copied if any,
accuracy and fairness to be preserved.

With years, as we become older, that formation,
mutates slowly but surely.

Each new copy is less perfect than the previous one.

4) Does that make a difference?
Of course, it does!

Now, it conveys the idea - not some 50% of it.

Is any idea or concept whole or partial?
The answer is self-evident.

This logic is Universal, once again, and can and
should be applied in any matter, if we, ever,
wish to have success in anything.

Doesn't this disagree with "evolution?"

(as pertaining to the above.)

Answer:

When only 1) is selectively chosen, it may disagree
with anything at all, as a partial statement has no merit,
in Court or off-Court!

Only, when the statements, comprising an idea
and referred to such, become whole (or reasonably
close to that if the idea is a more complex one.)

Furthermore:

(*)

With years, as we become older, that formation,
mutates slowly but surely.

"Each new copy is less perfect than the previous one."

That, as is, clearly, conveys the concept that,
with years, as we become older,
which is a reality of life:

all organisms go through a sine wave-like cycle.

How many cycles there are is not in discussion
at this time.




sine wave

The sine wave or sinusoid is a function that occurs
often in mathematics, signal processing, and other
fields. Its most basic form is:




which describes a wavelike function of time () with:


peak deviation from center = (aka amplitude)

angular frequency (radians per second)

initial phase (t=0) =

is also referred to as a phase shift. E.g., when the
initial phase is negative, the entire waveform is shifted
toward future time (i.e. delayed).
The amount of delay, in seconds, is .

Electronics
sine wave

Wave whose amplitude is the sine of a linear function
of time.
It is plotted on a graph that plots amplitude
against time or radial degrees relative
to the angular rotation of an alternator.


Evolution and life, often, develop as a sine wave
with tis peaks and plunges, only to rise again.

Their resilience is astounding as, even, death, itself,
can not conquer it and the cycles continue.

[Sharing Lights]

Part II



Any organism grows and reaches certain summit of its
development (its peak) and, then, the arrow from that
apex of a pyramid, points downward, when it
comes to the physical body.

Spiritually, people may become stronger and stronger
but physically, they de-generate after some age
more than they re-generate.

Don't they?

How does an argument contradict Evolution is beyond me?

Does it prove existence of God, who is perfection,
implying we live perfectly eternally, then too?

Where does all that "logic" come from?

It proves nothing except a slow
and gradual development
triggered and monitored
by the opposing forces.

It does not disprove or prove existence of God.

If proves the wisdom of the God/Cosmos/Nature
to avoid shock and provide enough common sense
in unveiling powerful Cosmic forces in such way,
that they can sustain and develop life - not burn it
by the awesome powers, being released -
too much - too quickly!

We all can enjoy the sun rays in moderation.

If we fly to close to the Sun, the same Force
that gives us life, would evaporate us on the spot.

That is why gradually evolving, interacting, and experiencing the Forces
in proper timing and sequence
is absolutely necessary for any,
organic and, even non-organic structure to exist.


Improper timing and sequence would only destroy
what is being developed.

Can you imagine if babies were growing inside their mother's womb within one day
from a cell to a fully grown fetus that
is ready to come out.

What kind of mother could withstand such onslaught of life' speed?

I say there would be not mothers left as such shock to their system
and super fast drawing of their nutrients into
the fetus would destroy her body in few hours.

That is why God/Nature gave all enough time
to adjust gradually.

Adjusting gradually is what?

Exactly, it is the actual Evolution in its essence.

Peaks and plunges are always there and
there is no contradiction,
as life is a struggle for perfection.


The case is proved to all who
have common sense.
Those who do not possess it...

All know the answer to that -
it is useless, as their answers
may be, "God created man in one day as he is God and can do anything he wants!"


Then I reply, God is the ultimate wisdom and perfection!

Is he/she not?

How can such wisdom engage in such stupid act,
as torturing a poor mother with tiny cells growing
into a considerable size baby that would destroy
his/her own mother, a she can't keep up
with it that fast?

God cannot contradict wisdom and common sense
as he/she is such and
in the Ultimate degree and Absolute!

Therefore, he/she cannot contradict and defy him/herself!

Period!

Who can believe that God does absurd acts?
Only the people who believe in the absurd!

[Sharing Lights]

Part III

Even stars go through their peaks and plunges.

Cosmos evolves according to its, Eternal Laws and not according to miraculous seven days.


The only reason why it took billions of years to
form and evolve our Planet, is the Evolution.

Can anyone sane dispute the radiation-analysis and the actual age of the Earth?


Otherwise, it would have taken those, alleged seven days indeed.

Again, it takes about nine months for a human baby to be born.

Is he/she born as is conceived or evolves slowly in stages
in the mother's womb until assumes the form
and development when is ready to face the world?


Look at life's evolution as at a roller-coaster:

we are lifted higher and higher until reach
the highest point, then we plunge down until
we hit the lowest.

Does that contradict Evolution and reality of how
all organism develop and maintain their existence?

Absolutely not!

Evolution is a constant battle of re-generation and
de-generation, of + and -, day and night,
hot and cold....

All that is Evolution and forces that trigger it, as,
only, through the battle of opposing forces,
Evolution may even begin.

A Perfect symmetry means - no motion at all.

IN the Orient, the sages embraced the concept
of Evolution by the yin-yang principle.

In Esoterica, that is referred as the Law of Polarities
(or opposing forces-poles.)

We, all, evolve in some direction.
It is up and down process and not one-way street.

While some species evolve, they may even come
to a brink of extinction, before Nature "finds"
a new route for them to survive.


All life did evolve in water oceans.
When conditions allowed, much of it came to land.

Yet, there has been periods when some of that life
returned back to the oceans due to the changes
in the external factors, dictating that route,
as the best one of the survival of the species.

Whales and dolphins are the best examples to that.

They are mammals that became a part to
the aquatic life; yet, retained all the acquired
characteristics of mammals.

Did they de-evolve?

Of course not!

They adopted and took a new direction,
as Evolution is a way to move forward with life
and pass on that life further.

Evolution is based on adaptation and searching for
the ultimate ways in accordance with the Nature's laws.

Even our replies and their substance shows
whether we become better at it or degrade.

Evolution is a reality of life!

As for a freedom of choice
to see that or not, all do have a right
to close their eyes or open them.

That is given!



I would conclude with what I began:

In Brief:

The rules of logic dictate reference to the idea - not a part of it.
An idea contains the sum of all of its parts.
If only one is chosen (arbitrarily) then the idea is altered and misrepresented.


That explained it all; I only clarified and analyzed it in more details, in order
to avoid any ambiguity left if there was any.

[Sharing Lights]

The earth is estimated to be
4.5 billion to 5 billion years old, based on
radioactive dating of lunar rocks
and meteorites, which are thought to have formed
at the same time.

On the other hand, there are minerals that are
contained in the Earth itself and form its,
main structure.

It may not, yet, possible to calculate the exact
age of the Earth but it cold be, reasonably,
approximated by scientific methods.

One of the discrepancies is the fact that some of the
ingredients of Earth may be of extra-terrestrial origin i.e
remnants of meteorites and objects that managed to
reach the surface of the Earth.

They may be older than the earth, itself,
and that is self-evident.

Yet, once again, we can, take the age of the known
Earth deposits from a variety of regions to exclude
meteorite leftovers so that we can safely state the
minimum age of the Earth.


It appears that is not less than 4 billions of years.

I would give religious dogmatics a gift and knock off
one more billion.

Let's assume that te Earth is only 3 billions
of years old for a sake of argument.

How, in the world, 3 billions can fit
the seven days of Creation?

There is no possibility for that to be true at all.

Not one percent.

Common, now, even nine months of a fetus development
can't equate the seven days and nights.



The precise origin of the earth continues to be controversial.

Only precise one.

Among the theories as to its origin, the most
prominent are gravitational condensation hypotheses,
which suggest that the entire solar system was formed
at one time in a single series of processes resulting
in the accumulation of diffuse interstellar gases and
dust into a solar system of discrete bodies.

Older and now generally discredited theories
invoked extraordinary events, such as
the gravitational disruption of a star passing close
to the sun or the explosion of a companion star
to the sun.

[Sharing Lights]

The Earth's Crust and the Moho

The outer shell, or crust, varies from 5 to 25 mi (8 to 40 km) in thickness, and consists of the continents and ocean basins at the surface.

The continents are composed of rock types collectively called sial, a classification based on their densities and composition. Beneath the ocean basins and the sial of continents lie denser rock types called sima.

The sial and sima together form the crust, beneath which lies a shell called the mantle.

The boundary between the crust and the mantle is marked by a sharp alteration in the velocity of earthquake waves passing through that region.

This boundary layer is called the Mohorovičić discontinuity, or Moho.
The Earth's Mantle

Extending to a depth of c.1,800 mi (2,900 km), the mantle probably consists of very dense (average c.3.9) rock rich in iron and magnesium minerals.

Although temperatures increase with depth, the melting point of the rock is not reached because the melting temperature is raised by the great confining pressure.

At depths between c.60 mi and c.125 mi (100 and 200 km) in the mantle, a plastic zone, called the asthenosphere, is found to occur.

Presumably the rocks in this region are very close to melting, and the zone represents a fundamental boundary between the moving crustal plates of the earth's surface and the interior regions.

The molten magma that intrudes upward into crustal rocks or issues from a volcano in the form of lava may owe its origin to radioactive heating or to the relief of pressure in the lower crust and upper mantle caused by earthquake faulting of the overlying crustal rock.

Similarly, it is thought that the heat energy released in the upper part of the mantle has broken the earth's crust into vast plates that slide around on the plastic zone, setting up stresses along the plate margins that result in the formation of folds and faults (see plate tectonics).

The Earth's Core

Thought to be composed of iron and nickel, the dense (c.11.0) core of the earth lies below the mantle. The abrupt disappearance of direct compressional earthquake waves, which cannot travel through liquids, at depths below c.1,800 mi (2,900 km) indicates that the outer 1,380 mi (2,200 km) of the core are molten. It is thought, however, that the inner 780 mi (1,260 km) of the core are solid.

The outer core is thought to be the source of the earth's magnetic field: In the “dynamo theory” advanced by W. M. Elasser and E. Bullard, tidal energy or heat is converted to mechanical energy in the form of currents in the liquid core; this mechanical energy is then converted to electromagnetic energy, which we see as the magnetic field.


The magnetic field undergoes
periodic reversals of its polarity on a timescale
that ranges from a few thousand years to
35 million years.


The last reversal occurred some 780,000 years ago.


This magnetic reversals is one of the key points.
We would return to that later.