Are instincts a program or a developed coincidence

[Ophiolite]

I am unaware of any evolutionary scientists who believes evolution to be a random process. It is a process wherein random variations are selected.

Interesting, since I never said or implied that evolution (as a whole) is a random process (nice twist though), but also think about what you have said here...So again, how did the referenced instructions within the code arise? Selection among RANDOM variations? Okay then how did these RANDOM variations arise, and do we KNOW of any alternatives that actually existed that were not selected? Or must we assume they must have existed?

Consider genetic drift as one characteristic mechanism of evolution. Understanding Evolution says "Genetic drift affects the genetic makeup of the population but, unlike natural selection, through an entirely random process." How about mutations? Random or not random? Most are clearly random so natural selection then genetically works on that which is originally random.

Then you could read Evolutionary Biologist, John Tyler Bonner's book, Randomness in Evolution. Obviously natural selection makes sense (that the best suited or healthiest would pass on their genes as opposed to the least suited and unhealthy) but it must select from among these random variations produced by the appearance and effect of random mutations that had arisen.

Epigenetic factors do not offer any long-term, significant mechanism for the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

I did not mention “acquired characteristics” (nice twist #2 though), just heritable changes in functions within the genome that effect phenotypical characteristics (these do not necessarily make changes in the DNA itself, mostly just how it functions in different organisms of the same species). They are however evidence of environmental influence which may affect transmission of certain propensities and talents. This is a really new but intriguing subject (I am keeping watch).

Those who could not swim would have died in their own generation, as would their offspring (if they even could have survived to reproduce), and we have no examples that such fish (or fishy creatures) even existed let alone became swimming fish.

But if you are saying swimming fish also existed with these non-swimming fishy types, and thus were selected, we have two issues to consider. One is that this would mean they already had the “referenced instructions” in their genetic code (which was my point and again where did these come from, how did they arise), or that there were others without these instructions or with alternate instructions, but to know this, we would have to have examples (unless we are to assume it), and there are none (I have looked for them).

Snide remarks lacking substance are unwelcome. You very clearly implied that evolution was random in the post which I complained about. Prevaricating now does not alter the evidence.

As a matter of principle I will disccus issues only with people whose posts are honest and well intentioned. Your persistent equivocation loses you that privilege.

 

[pshun2404]

Snide remarks lacking substance are unwelcome. You very clearly implied that evolution was random in the post which I complained about. Prevaricating now does not alter the evidence.

As a matter of principle I will disccus issues only with people whose posts are honest and well intentioned. Your persistent equivocation loses you that privilege.

Well if people either do not understand what was said, or try and make it appear that something was said that was not said or implied, then I tend to point it out. In your case I did call it a "twist" because I think you clearly understood and then misrepresented the point.

And yes, that one out of context statement about random was not the generalization you implied that I had implied...(plus I offered one of the other possible views). The indication made later by Lynn Margulis and James Shapiro indicate that indeed there are/were some who lean toward this random explanation (she claiming to have been taught it all her life). I personally do not agree with those people's perspective that Margulis and Shapiro's research demolishes.

I believe that each species has had specific "referenced instructions" since they first appeared (ex. Fish could always swim) and are such that those in the code of insects only produce the trachae, never gills or lungs (each of those sets of referenced instructions are specific to their species).

Here is the context for late readers (it was a question):

"Should one really just assume that such pre-coded knowledge, unique yet specifically essential to each different type of organism, just came about by random coincidence and mutation? If random as opposed to specific instructions were in play, I would suggest a far wider range of difference would occur within each species.

What do you think?"

You originally agreed that it is not random using the words I keep repeating (instructions, code). I have been consistent in this and have not equivocated, but if you no longer want to weigh in that is YOUR privilege!

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm so sorry you don't seem to care for them.

Not sure why you would conclude I don't care about past cancer victims, given my strong emotional attachment to the subject in general. Did you assume -_- was a smile or something?

To want what is best for them.
The schools you went to (you admitted you went there)
taught you very common falsehoods about ... well, man's ways opposed to healthy ways that are natural inexpensive non-harmful and true - that have been true for thousands of years.

Oh, everyone knows that chemotherapy hurts you BADLY and that radiation treatment can result in a different type of cancer developing. That's openly spoken about. If people thought that these treatments were ideal, people wouldn't waste their time researching new treatments. Aside from the removal of solid tumors and the fairly recent strides in immunotherapy, cancer treatments that are intended for long term survival amount to "try to kill off the cancer cells faster than the treatment kills off healthy cells enough that the patient has a chance of surviving the process". The closer a disease is to healthy human cells, the worse the treatment tends to be and the more likely healthy cells are going to be casualties. And since cancer cells in human bodies ARE still human cells, it is extremely difficult to kill off significant numbers of cancer cells without killing off a ton of healthy cells too. Fast dividing cells, like those in the stomach lining, tend to be the worst affected, which is why gastrointestinal problems are so common in patients being given chemotherapy.

"The schools I admitted to going to", as if having an education was the same as belonging to a cult or something. The "cult" of mainstream medicine, I guess. I have no idea why you think I wouldn't have been informed about how much various cancer treatments inflict bodily harm in class, but even if I hadn't, the horrific side effects are such common knowledge and easy to observe that I'd have to be a complete idiot not to know something about it. Seriously, who doesn't know that chemotherapy makes you feel like death?

Can you ever even hope to realize this ?

Not if you don't say it.

Or to ever even hope to learn how to help those if you care for them, in the ways God provided instead of harmful and greedy ways ?

Not if you don't say it. You do realize that there are plenty of other people on here aside from me, right? Are you going to refrain from actually describing your treatment on the grounds of deeming me unworthy without considering everyone else?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"The schools I admitted to going to", as if having an education was the same as belonging to a cult or something. The "cult" of mainstream medicine, I guess.

hint: here you are on to something far more truthful than any of your other posts. If you don't trust Jesus, if you don't trust God, at least maybe you could look for the truth, eh? (instead of blindly accepting the lies used to to deceive mainstream for profit) Not everyone, but some have escaped when they found out their teachers lied , knowing or not, and the much better health practices from the past centuries are not only ignored, but vehemently denied, on purpose because of greed.......
You don't need to look at any of my posts nor references nor suggestions to
find out FOR YOURSELF, do your own search this summer, next winter, next summer...... at least KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN (yes, that's all that's needed!!! KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN) Then, if you don't see the truth, there's nothing else to do. But if you don't keep your eyes open, you remain as you are, totally deceived.

What is the chance of you discovering the proven known cure for anything that was published around 1940 ? zero ,

if you don't search.

100% if you do.

 

[pitabread]

Not if you don't say it. You do realize that there are plenty of other people on here aside from me, right? Are you going to refrain from actually describing your treatment on the grounds of deeming me unworthy without considering everyone else?

I've been kinda curious what he's been going on about as well, but based on his continued evasion in answering the question, I doubt he'll be giving an answer.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Genetics is hardware only.

So in your opinion Ophiolite was incorrect? There are no "referenced instructions" in the genetic code, specific to each species (for example manifesting Trachae in Beetles, but a Gill system in fish, or the specific type of functional Lungs all us humans share in common)?

Sorry...on this one I would have to defend the "referenced instructions" insight...which is the software aspect. Ignore the obvious if you wish.

A software and hardware distinction would mean that you can take the hardware and load it up with OTHER software.

You can't do that with life. Because the software IS the hardware.
DNA is a physical molecule. The "instructions" are determined by the physical properties and order of that molecule. To "change the instructions" would literally mean to change that physical molecule.

Yes, it's all hardware. There is no software.

 

[pshun2404]

A software and hardware distinction would mean that you can take the hardware and load it up with OTHER software.

You can't do that with life. Because the software IS the hardware.
DNA is a physical molecule. The "instructions" are determined by the physical properties and order of that molecule. To "change the instructions" would literally mean to change that physical molecule.

Yes, it's all hardware. There is no software.

A software and hardware distinction would mean that you can take the hardware and load it up with OTHER software.

Ah yes, like genetic engineering? I realize we are speaking of a biological system not a mechanical system. In the mechanical systems we are attempting to copy such things we see in biological systems (extension of strength, sight, hearing, sensitivity, analysis, AI, and so on) even manufacturing takes what one or a group of people can or are required to do and does it faster with more precision and multiple times. All mechanical systems mimic or extend what is natural in living systems. Besides, it was an analogy.

The idea is that there is specific INFORMATION that guides the processes and development of these functions and forms that is specific and essential to those functions and forms.

Of course this information is far beyond anything we can mimic or make in the physical world. That which is fish ever makes and produces fish...mutations and adaptations come in and produce variety of fish but the program for fish is predominate in the code. Thus fish will always have gills, not trachae or real lungs, and will always be able to swim (not grow legs and feet) because their program is pre-coded to suit them to their environment. Insect code always produces insect, reptile always reptile, etc.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A software and hardware distinction would mean that you can take the hardware and load it up with OTHER software.

Ah yes, like genetic engineering?

No. That would be changing the hardware.

I can take my PC, remove windows and install Linux. The hardware would remain untouched.
You can't do that with DNA. Another "instruction set" would literally mean another molecule.

You can "whipe" a computer by removing all the software.
You can't "whipe" a DNA molecule. That would effectively mean, destroying it.
There's no such thing as a "blank" DNA molecule.

I realize we are speaking of a biological system not a mechanical system. In the mechanical systems we are attempting to copy such things we see in biological systems (extension of strength, sight, hearing, sensitivity, analysis, AI, and so on) even manufacturing takes what one or a group of people can or are required to do and does it faster with more precision and multiple times. All mechanical systems mimic or extend what is natural in living systems. Besides, it was an analogy.

You took the analogy too far, is what I'm saying.

The idea is that there is specific INFORMATION that guides the processes and development of these functions and forms that is specific and essential to those functions and forms.

Sure. In the exact same way as in all of chemistry, albeit at different levels of complexity.
There is nothing going on on the molecular level of life, that doesn't follow the relatively simple rules of physics and chemistry.

 

[pshun2404]

There is nothing going on on the molecular level of life, that doesn't follow the relatively simple rules of physics and chemistry.

The information based in the genetic code that produces and makes the types of distinctions I have mentioned is far too complex and specific, and so as one said, with which I agreed, “it is not by random coincidence” (say like Dawkin’s happy little accidents).

By analogy again, this is like when those who do, allege that, given enough chimps with enough time pounding away at a keyboards, that one would produce a Shakespearean play (even though the probabilities are 100s of times greater than the probabilities for the number of atoms on the universe).

The problem here is this super highly improbable solution still relies on the pre-existence of life and at least a minimal degree or intelligence being responsible for the product.

On the other hand, if one defends that it would happen merely by chance (supported by the lack of intent or purpose in the actions of these chimps) then one is actually supporting the random coincidence model whether they know it or not. Thus, even if it did come about by selected accidents, or chance plus natural selection, a great chimp or chimps (only analogous) did something to the materials available to bring about such specific and essential instructions (even if it/they did so without intent or purpose).

So this leaves me with three possibilities to consider:

a) That this information (the referenced instructions in the code) did come about by chance over a long period of time, or

b) That the information came about by directed intent, or

c) That it came about as an interaction of both factors (which is my position)

There could be more alternatives, but at the moment they allude me.

But note how you said FOLLOW the rules of (laws, principles, etc.). Yes all matter/energy FOLLOWS these RULES (universally applicable guidelines and instructions for the production of all levels of formation and function that we perceive). What we see happening, our reality, is the effect not the cause...these governed the material formations from the start and did not come from the subsequent formations.

Covalent, Ionic, Hydrogen, metallic bonds, etc., all exist because there are principles in place that govern the formation of these products. Sorry, but as I see it this just confirms my view. Without these principles and laws in place, everywhere, who knows what a strange unrecognizable universe would exist.

Putting the laws and governing principles into words is on us but that was only from first discovering they exist. The covalent bond would not exist if the process were not so governed, neither would stars exist as what we call stars. This should be obvious, but I remember when it was not, so I know you will disagree.

 

[PsychoSarah]

hint: here you are on to something far more truthful than any of your other posts.

-_- not sure how it would be more "truthful" than any of my other posts, considering I am fairly honest in most of them. The exceptions are when I view a debate partner as so unchallenging that I post something not fully accurate to see if they are even knowledgeable enough to notice.

If you don't trust Jesus, if you don't trust God, at least maybe you could look for the truth, eh? (instead of blindly accepting the lies used to to deceive mainstream for profit)

-_- and which lies would that be exactly? The well known fact that an alarmingly high portion of results related to the medical sciences are not reproducible, which is something I was taught in school? Or how about the fact that a lot of people that are essentially lost causes are given medications that will extend their lives only a few months more, but will make the remainder of their lives extremely painful and the cost of the medications can financially ruin their families? Oh look, another unappealing truth taught to me in school. My offer to stream "Cancer, the Emperor of all Maladies" still stands. And that's a PBS series, which I would consider to be pretty mainstream.

Not everyone, but some have escaped when they found out their teachers lied , knowing or not, and the much better health practices from the past centuries are not only ignored, but vehemently denied, on purpose because of greed.......

Just so you are aware, the bible doesn't explicitly mention cancer at all. However, historical accounts of the disease from far back into the past do exist, and the ancient Greek treatment of simply removing the tumor is still practiced, albeit in a more sterile setting. Some of the ancient Egyptian ones are super weird, like crushing up a rock and forcing the pebbles into the vagina for cancers in that region of the body. I don't think either of us would argue something like that would help more than removing the tumor.

I found this page which makes some interpretive stretches to assert that the bible tells people to eat seeds from things such as apricots to prevent cancer, but it makes quite a few demonstrably incorrect statements Bible Verses to eat apricot seeds to cure diseases and cancer
Also, the "vitamin" B-17 it mentions is a compound that's converted to cyanide in the human body. Treating the cancer with toxic chemicals is what chemotherapy is, so I don't get why people would think this is different. But letting individuals determine the dose they get like that is super dangerous. For example, the range of the number of chewed apple seeds needed to kill an adult is 150-1000+ and it depends on the apple variety.

Even if that isn't the one you were going for (I sure hope it wasn't), it's plain to see that a lot of alternative methods of cancer treatment are super dangerous. Letting people go on a wild goose chase rather than getting to the point can kill them. If you know something that actually works, just state it. What better way to convert people to your religion?

You don't need to look at any of my posts nor references nor suggestions to
find out FOR YOURSELF, do your own search this summer, next winter, next summer...... at least KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN (yes, that's all that's needed!!! KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN)

-_- and then my childhood friend dies of cancer before I find the answer, because despite the fact that you already know it, you would refuse to inform people because of some perceived benefit of them "finding it for themselves". Have you considered the possibility that this isn't for me? Would you demand a person dying of malaria to learn for themselves how to treat it, forcing them to waste precious time while you could have just told them? What's the point of knowledge if you aren't willing to share it?

Then, if you don't see the truth, there's nothing else to do. But if you don't keep your eyes open, you remain as you are, totally deceived.

Dude, there are so many different alternative medicine treatments for cancer, many of which are religiously affiliated, so I have no idea what particular one you are talking about, if any of them.

What is the chance of you discovering the proven known cure for anything that was published around 1940 ? zero ,

if you don't search.

Leukemia was named in 1847, and the symptoms were defined in 1825 (yes, the symptoms were officially defined over 20 years before it got a name, it happens) you are off by 100 years.

If you are referencing effective treatments, it is true that the first attempts at using chemotherapy for leukemia began in the 1940s, but consistent positive results wouldn't come until much, much later. Also, treatment, not cure. No treatment is known to guarantee a patient's recovery from cancer, even if you want to get specific about the types.

100% if you do.

So are you going to say what your treatment is or not? Even if I find the same answer as you at some point in my life, I'll never know it if you don't say it.

To be capable of saving others with no risk to oneself, yet refraining from doing so, is akin to murder in my eyes.

Personally, I am currently in favor of immunotherapy, but it will be quite some time before that leaves the trial stage. If you want to know more about that, feel free to ask since I won't demand that you research it for yourself, nor would I ever discourage you from researching it for yourself. Some things are better learned when someone else is there to help.

 

[pitabread]

No. That would be changing the hardware.

I can take my PC, remove windows and install Linux. The hardware would remain untouched.
You can't do that with DNA. Another "instruction set" would literally mean another molecule.

I suppose if one wanted to get really technical, the storage medium itself undergoes physical changes when one changes the software on a computer. In that sense, one could argue that "software" itself doesn't actually exist is a discrete sense.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

not sure how it would be more "truthful" than any of my other posts, considering I am fairly honest in most of them.

You may or may not believe you are honest. That has no relation to how truthful you are at all.
A lot of your knowledge for instance, you speak about 'honestly' even when it is completely false knowledge.

I never considered if someone really honest could be tricked completely by the world's "professionals"......
I mean, if they were truly honest, the multitudes who are deceived, would they still continue to be deceived ? I don't know. The definition or the quality of "honest" ..... if it can co-exist with so many deceptions in the government and corporate world , and so forth....

I know when politicians say something they believe, they claim to be honest, even if it is all politic/ spin.

But they are not truthful. What they say, and why they say it, is often wrong.

The "instincts"/ "programming"(rather use a better word, but this is this thread after all) of mankind are evil to the core. They can't help this. There's nothing they can do about this to change this.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Personally, I am currently in favor of immunotherapy, but it will be quite some time before that leaves the trial stage. If you want to know more about that, feel free to ask since I won't demand that you research it for yourself, nor would I ever discourage you from researching it for yourself. Some things are better learned when someone else is there to help.

This is both at least a little encouraging, depending on your growth the next few days and weeks and years... and discouraging for many reasons also...

I learned about immunotherapy before they called it that, when I was employed working as a pharmacist after schooling. It is like the honest doctors said from 1940 to 1970-
the coverup of the truth will last about 50 to 100 years they said,
and then the claim will be made like this : "Based on NEW studies....." in order not to be embarrassed and also to totally try to protect the enormous profits (beyond belief@!)

THEN they will introduce "NEW" treatments sometimes not as toxic as the old treatments were, but charge 1000 times as much as it cost 50 to 100 years ago, and likewise
many times more than it cost in other countries....

So, gradually, again lying saying it is "Based on NEW studies", the various protocols will be introduced ...... and on it goes, continuing under their control.....

 

[tas8831]

Examples include why Marsupials naturally know to climb into their mother’s pouch,

Yet momma marsupials often 'lick a path' for them to follow.

or why all animal infants naturally suck or go for the breast,

Do you not have children? Not only did mine exhibit this, but human infants will try to suckle anything of a certain shape.

These are complex systems of behavior automatically specific to each particular species.

Or present, in greater or lesser degrees, in all members of a larger clade, e.g., all mammals.

It even plays out in later ritually fathomed behaviors like courting rituals and the determination of social status within the group.

Which also tend to be present in much larger groups (again, e.g., all mammals) to a greater or lesser degree.

It is directly analogous to how a software might be specific to a particular hardware.

Huh...

Some of these that we label “fixed action patterns” appear to be initiated by a type of “sign stimulus” having once occurred kicks off the remaining or subsequent program function until it plays out to perform its intended end result or purpose (see the work of Konrad Lorenz). Therefore, though to call this “part of the design of each species” (though it would offend some depending on their paradigm) is not at all unlike a predetermined programming which is simply far beyond our ability to figure out at this time, and thus predetermined or pre-coded design is a possibility equally plausible to any other explanation of the actual data we observe. However, though present and observable in all primates and all great apes just as in all lesser species, human beings alone exhibit no such FAP’s.

Human infants exhibit (a rather wimpy version of) the grasping reflex - very pronounced in our monkey and ape cousins, in which this is employed to hang on to momma.

Should one really just assume that such pre-coded knowledge, unique yet specifically essential to each different type of organism, just came about by random coincidence and mutation?

Better question - should one really just assume that hyperbolic language used in a 'question' to convey a certain implication would go unnoticed?

If random as opposed to specific instructions were in play, I would suggest a far wider range of difference would occur within each species.

What do you think?

I think that you purposefully imply that evolution is mere randomness and chaos and contrast it with more 'tidy' and efficient and specific 'design' in order to sway perceptions - almost like we might expect from someone who once boasted of studying brainwashing techniques for years.

If selection had "produced", say, a grasping reflex in a basal Primate, why should one expect that no other Primates would be in possession of at least some version of this?

 

[tas8831]

Probably in reference to "just came about by random coincidence and mutation?"

Which was mentioned merely as one alternative plausibility...

As opposed to, say, random mutation and non-random selection, I suppose.

 

[tas8831]

Snide remarks lacking substance are unwelcome. You very clearly implied that evolution was random in the post which I complained about. Prevaricating now does not alter the evidence.

As a matter of principle I will disccus issues only with people whose posts are honest and well intentioned. Your persistent equivocation loses you that privilege.

I am forever dumbfounded by the near universal refusal of creationists to admit to even trivial errors or untoward acts. Even when the documentation is staring them in the face.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This is both at least a little encouraging, depending on your growth the next few days and weeks and years... and discouraging for many reasons also...

Dude, just tell everyone the treatment and get on with it, or cease to claim that you know about one while refraining from sharing. I could claim to know the secrets of the universe if I wanted to, but no one in their right mind should view that claim as legitimate if I am not willing to share any of them.

I learned about immunotherapy before they called it that, when I was employed working as a pharmacist after schooling.

Hmm, so you are over 100 years old? Not my fault you didn't realize the term was in use by 1910. Perhaps you are thinking of the resurgence of interest in it around 1976? Though, the prevailing research organization for immunotherapy was founded in 1953, so you must be quite old to have been employed as a pharmacist before that. Immunotherapy didn't catch on as a treatment for cancer early because old methods essentially involved infecting cancer patients with certain bacterial diseases in the hopes that they would go into remission, which seemed to be correlated. It was too dangerous and inconsistent to become regularly used.

Also, a regular pharmacist wouldn't be exposed to most modern methods of cancer immunotherapy because it involves growing a culture of trained immune cells from the patient and injecting it into them. You could have handled immunotherapy drugs for other illnesses, however.

But hey, since you are a trained pharmacist, I suppose a simple pharmacy question could be answered by you, right? Here it is: If I take two different prescription medications, one which I take twice a day, the other once a day, and the pills are too similar in appearance to tell apart, if I spilled both bottles all over the floor and had to sort them, how could I accomplish it? If you neglect to answer this question in your response to my post, I will view that as an admission that you have never worked as a pharmacist. After all, a real pharmacist would be able to answer it easily.

It is like the honest doctors said from 1940 to 1970-
the coverup of the truth will last about 50 to 100 years they said,
and then the claim will be made like this : "Based on NEW studies....." in order not to be embarrassed and also to totally try to protect the enormous profits (beyond belief@!)

-_- doctors you decide not to name so I have no idea if they are even real people, much less credible people. The "cancer cure has already been discovered and covered up" conspiracy has existed for a long time, but your claim goes further in that you say that you know what the cure is. I am going to start tallying the number of cancer deaths in what I assume is your home country, the United States, for every day, starting yesterday, that you refrained from revealing the cure you claim to know: about 1,600 deaths occurred that you could have prevented thus far. How high will you let that number go?

THEN they will introduce "NEW" treatments sometimes not as toxic as the old treatments were, but charge 1000 times as much as it cost 50 to 100 years ago, and likewise
many times more than it cost in other countries....

Ah, you must be from the United States. The history behind why medicine and medical procedures cost so much more in that country than others is actually thanks to deals insurance companies made and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists, among other things. I hope you are accounting for inflation and increased costs in actually performing the research in that "1000 times" bit, though. I'm sure it is a nasty number regardless.

But you can always rebel by taking a vacation in Spain to get your hip replaced if you have terrible insurance; a week stay plus the actual surgery is cheaper there than getting it in the United States usually is. Money talks, and if this system leads people to pay elsewhere, it has no choice but to change.

So, gradually, again lying saying it is "Based on NEW studies", the various protocols will be introduced ...... and on it goes, continuing under their control.....

-_- the leading research group in the United States for immunotherapy isn't a pharmaceutical company, nor is it a government organization. It's the Cancer Research Institute based in New York, and it is a nonprofit charity organization.
Home

I hear they are in need of more people for trials.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

the treatment

Well, you mentioned it once or twice, but apparently believed the bigdollars when they tried to discredit it. They never, no one ever, proved it didn't work or anything close to that even.
So, if you truly want to know, find the oldest books you can about amygdalin (which was for thousands of years "NON-TOXIC" until after it was proven to cure cancer. ) ....
So realize, if there is any way for you , that after it was proven to cure cancer, it was opposed greatly by bigdollars, (like many things are that would be good for people everywhere ) ......
Find doctors who used it effectively. FInd patients/ testimonies who were ecstatic after they were healed, and for good reason , since they had been given a virtual death sentence before they found out.

Yet, still, if you don't want to know, as most people don't want to know, then no worries, you won't know. Perhaps in the future, (hope never dies?) a glimmer of truth will get through though, even if you don't want to know today or tomorrow or the next day.

 

[Ophiolite]

I never considered if someone really honest could be tricked completely by the world's "professionals"......

What is the motive of those professionals who research and publish on evolution?

The "instincts"/ "programming"(rather use a better word, but this is this thread after all) of mankind are evil to the core. They can't help this. There's nothing they can do about this to change this.

I can see that this might apply to some people, but perhaps you can yet be saved. Don't give up. Follow your own advice. Look for the Truth that your God has embedded everywhere in the natural world. You are likely to be astounded and delighted if you look with an honest heart.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, you mentioned it once or twice, but apparently believed the bigdollars when they tried to discredit it. They never, no one ever, proved it didn't work or anything close to that even.
So, if you truly want to know, find the oldest books you can about amygdalin (which was for thousands of years "NON-TOXIC" until after it was proven to cure cancer. ) ....

-_- if I were a worse person, I'd ask you to eat 2000 apple seeds to demonstrate that it isn't toxic, but I'd rather you not die. But, I'll explain the cyanide thing nevertheless.

this is amygdalin:

Obviously, sugar pills don't cure cancer, so those glucose groups do nothing. The other chemical groups are benzene and cyanide with an extra carbon between them. Now, I am not dismissing cyanide outright as a chemical that could be used to treat cancer; after all, one of the earliest chemicals used in chemotherapy for leukemia was one present in mustard gas and chemotherapy chemicals are generally nasty. Rather, I don't think people could give themselves consistent doses of the stuff by chewing on seeds because the amounts within them are so variable.

The compound undergoes hydrolysis fairly readily in the intestines, with the reaction depicted in this image:

The products are glucose (obviously not the active molecule for cancer treatment), benzaldehyde (used in some cancer treatments and considered for them since at least the 1980s Antitumor activity of benzaldehyde. - PubMed - NCBI), and hydrogen cyanide (what you don't want to consider present for some reason).

So realize, if there is any way for you , that after it was proven to cure cancer, it was opposed greatly by bigdollars, (like many things are that would be good for people everywhere ) ......

-_- benzaldehyde has been investigated for cancer treatment since before I was born, and the rest of the molecule is glucose and cyanide.

Find doctors who used it effectively. FInd patients/ testimonies who were ecstatic after they were healed, and for good reason , since they had been given a virtual death sentence before they found out.

I'm pretty sure that the active ingredient is the benzaldehyde, but the cyanide also present and the variability of the amount of amygdalin within seeds would make it impractical to dose oneself properly. Plus, my family has a long running bad habit of chewing up and swallowing fruit seeds rather than disposing of them, and the people that do include individuals that had cancer. I don't see the point of doing it this way, just take benzaldehyde pills, because it is very clear that even if this would help, people cannot get a proper dose chewing up seeds. By the way, you do have to chew them for the amygdalin to even be exposed to your body, swallowing seeds whole does nothing.

If the cyanide is the active ingredient, or the combination of it and benzaldehyde are what help, it's likely that the ideal ratio of those compounds isn't introduced into the body via amygdalin, and further testing would absolutely be necessary.

Yet, still, if you don't want to know, as most people don't want to know, then no worries, you won't know. Perhaps in the future, (hope never dies?) a glimmer of truth will get through though, even if you don't want to know today or tomorrow or the next day.

I take back my death counter; this would kill more people than the cancer by itself would.

Oh, and "the man" is hiding the truth? Did you feel like not mentioning Laetrile?

It's made from amygdalin and has representations of all relevant chemical groups and actually comes in controlled doses. Why wouldn't you mention that? True, it's still dangerous woo that can kill a person, but if you aren't willing to acknowledge what is actually in this stuff how the heck are you going to avoid killing yourself with an overdose? Why not at least mention the pill form, which does give reasonably consistent doses compared to chewing on seeds?

Here is a patent for it GB788855A - Improvements in or relating to mandelo-nitrile-glucuronosides and method of making the same - Google Patents,
and there is a patent that references it as recent as 2013. I don't think anyone is hiding anything, it's just a dangerous way of giving people benzaldehyde. Which can also kill healthy cells, by the way. In the end, this is just another chemotherapy with questionable effectiveness at best and difficulty with giving an effective dose.

In modern times, people sell it under the label of supplement because regulation laws in the United States in regards to supplements are far looser than those for prescription drugs. You'd actually be amazed at how inconsistent the labels and the actual contents can be for supplements, I have no idea why the laws are so lax, it's terrifying.

Even if I was unaware of this stuff before, this took less than 1 day to research. It's possibly the deadliest woo I've ever seen. Most of them will just do nothing, like crystals and whatnot, but this one can actually kill you faster than cancer. It was considered too poisonous of a cancer treatment in the United States in the 1920s. The freaking 1920s. It's all the danger of chemotherapy amplified and little to none of the benefit.