jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (69 posts)

If Science Found Out For Sure That...

  1. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 24 months ago

    people were gay because of their DNA, would you realize it's out of their control?

    1. kess profile image60
      kessposted 24 months ago in reply to this

      DNA cannot be responsible for identity,
      Identity is develop by the living through their experience of being and discerning of what is and what isn't.

      Homosexuality is strictly an identity issue.
      Take note that to be classified as homosexual, you must first be a fully functional male. And if in a whim this male can be transformed into a homosexual by his DNA, without any adjustment or alteration to his functionalities which defines him as male , then it is possible this whim can make any and all probable combinations that could be imagined possible.
      For example it would be possible for a homosexual to be a lesbian.

      You realise then that we are led right back to the problem of dentity and defining what is and what isn't.
      Except at this point we can be sure that there isn't anything that can be correctly identified therefore nothing is.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 24 months ago in reply to this

        Sorry, DNA is as responsible for identity as environment.  A downs child (strictly DNA), for instance, will never be a genius. 

        As far as homosexuality, you obviously have almost no idea of what it even is, let alone what causes it.

        1. kess profile image60
          kessposted 24 months ago in reply to this

          Lol...what a thing.

          DNA seems very useful then, I am sure it can tell you that the paraplegic cannot walk and the deaf mute cannot speak

          Concerning my knowledge of homosexuality then I guess then it is reasonable for you to suggest that I am one.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 24 months ago in reply to this

            If you do not think that your physical body (determined by DNA) plays a large part in your identity you are solely mistaken. 

            I'll leave it to you to determine your own sexual preferences.  I have no idea and less interest.

            1. kess profile image60
              kessposted 24 months ago in reply to this

              Get DNA to confirm your identity as a perpetual doubter....

              ...and try not to doubt the result.

      2. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 24 months ago in reply to this

        You do know that there are both men and women homosexuals?

      3. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 24 months ago in reply to this

        I don't know where you got your pretend medical license

      4. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 24 months ago in reply to this

        DNA which is deoxyribonucleic acid,  is a self-replicating material (It reproduces itself) which is present in almost all living organisms as the main constituent of chromosomes. It is the carrier of genetic information.
        The chromosomes (two X chromosomes in females, one X and one Y in males) determines our sex (male/female)
        The XX-XY sex determination system is only one of a many of such systems. DNA plays a part in everything
        I'm sorry if you can't follow what is being said

        1. kess profile image60
          kessposted 24 months ago in reply to this

          Wish you we going somewhere with all this, plus you final statement taken at face value is blatantly ignorant.
          Maybe you should consider an edit so as to add some context/direction to your entire post.

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 24 months ago in reply to this

            Everything is in my post, and is complete. I'm a nurse and have my MSN, and my undergraduate is in biology, nothing I said is "ignorant" and stop calling me names, please
            You might want to read what I was replying to. DNA is responsible for our gender, and gender identity

            1. kess profile image60
              kessposted 24 months ago in reply to this

              From an ignorant statement to a dishonest post. Though I do note the adjustment made.
              Anyway I leave you to it...

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                I made no adjustment to what I said, and I am far from dishonest and ignorant. You do realize that my comment was 5 hours ago, and can't be edited after that long
                Edit: The mistake you made comes from not reading the entire comment before replying as I did to Aime's comment

                1. Aime F profile image83
                  Aime Fposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                  I would just ignore him as his original post was absolute nonsense... Pretty clear he has no real grasp on what's ignorant and what's not.

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                    Thank you, and I apologize for replying to your other comment smile

              2. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                Do you have a masters or PhD in anything ?

      5. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 24 months ago in reply to this

        You do realize that females can be homosexual too, and it's not just males?
        Edit: Something has indeed been identified! I said this in my second comment

      6. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 24 months ago in reply to this

        It is my observation, that our environment doesn't teach us what to react to, (or what gender we are), but rather, how to react to ourselves, others, and situations. They are learned responses, not innate ones.
        Being gay is not a learned response
        There is more than one medical reason it's not a choice

    2. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 24 months ago in reply to this

      As you can see, others have quickly let you know that DNA is not a probable culprit in the determination of homo or hetro sexuality.

      So, if your question were rephrased to ask if science could prove that homosexuality was not a controllable conscious choice... would the implications of that question be the same as the one you posed?

      Meaning, you seem to be asking if some proof were found contradicting a judgement that homosexuality is a conscious choice - would that make a difference to folks.

      Or have I misread your intent?

      GA

    3. the essayist profile image61
      the essayistposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      But science CANNOT prove that.

      So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. -  Genesis 1:27

      He didn't make any mistakes!

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        __________________________
        Oh yes they can, and they found it by mistake
        No he doesn't make mistakes, that's one reason we know, being gay isn't a mistake

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          God then intended to make people without arms, without a brain or some other gross malfunction?  He intended to make the AIDS virus?  God intends to make people incapable of determining right from wrong?

          There are an awful lot of "mistakes" out there for never making one...

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            _________________________
            No man made Aids, and those having promiscuous  relationships contracted it

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              ??  Are you saying man made the AIDS virus?  Because I indicated the religious belief that God made it.

              (You DO know that not everyone with aids got it from "promiscuous relationships"?)

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                _______________________________

                I am saying that a couple of types of monkeys can cause many serious diseases in humans.  Many viral diseases that cause very few problems in monkeys are severe, and most oft times fatal when the virus enters a human.

                The leading Aids scientists tried to promote two theories that aids came from monkeys (I believe Rhesus monkeys, and chimpanzees)..but in the late 80s researchers found those theories to be incorrect.

                In the early 60s, they began a government funded research program where they developed many animal viruses, those that would produce cancer, and immune system damage when it crossed over from animal, to human.
                This was done under the guise to study lymphoma (an immune cancer) and leukemia (a blood cancer)
                After a few years they included the study of many cancers, so they developed, and nurtured many more disease causing viruses.
                Later they decided to implement Biological Warfare research, and so they did....and the beat goes on
                ******************************
                Yes, I know that not everyone infected with HIV, got it from promiscuous  relationships
                When I said that I didn't realize how it sounded..but being promiscuous  didn't/doesn't help

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  I think you've been reading too many conspiracy theorists; people made life (AIDs virus), turned it into a biological weapon, and spread it through Africa.  Not!

                  Googling "origin of the aids virus" produces mostly that it came from monkeys in Africa.  One article toys with cancer research, but never produces a link between the two.  Just a rough time correlation with no other connection.

                  Another plays with polio and/or hepatitus, but again can produce no link.  Only speculation that it could have happened because, after all, everyone knows the British are out to get Africans.

                  I'll stick with the commonly accepted thinking: "There are two species of the virus, HIV-1 and HIV-2. The first evolved from a simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) found in chimpanzees, while the second came from an SIV in a type of monkey called the sooty mangabey." without trying to make it into a huge conspiracy.  (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline … igins.html)

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    I'm a nurse, and we discussed this, during classes to renew our license with the state
                    Maybe you should research the Special Virus Cancer Program
                    I haven't read a conspiracy theory in my life, much less too many
                    It seems you only believe the mundane...this is why I will not discuss my experiences with you

                  2. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    _________________________
                    Those theories were debunked in 1988, and I discussed this in my comment
                    Site
                    http://www.boydgraves.com/svcp/
                    Site
                    http://www.smokershistory.com/masquer.htm
                    Site
                    http://www.tetrahedron.org/gao_fraud.html

                    Google search
                    https://www.google.com/search?q=SVCP&am … er+Program

      2. Aime F profile image83
        Aime Fposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        So why is being homosexual a "mistake"?

  2. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 24 months ago

    There is probably a gene for stealing, Science calls it kleptomania. A gene for over-sexuality, Science calls it sex addiction. A gene for paraphilias; fetish. ... killing; psychopathic/anti-social... if the homosexual cannot help himself, he feels no conviction about it. It is natural for him.
    Knowledge of an issue, is reason for repentance. 
    When you seek God, you find him. Via your relationship, he corrects whatever he sees fit. He's a great dad. He hides A LOT of fault. He eases the pain.
    "One thing that i desire of the Lord. And that, will i seek after; that I may dwell..." it's in there.
    He turns no one away. His will is most important. So, we stay before him. And we pray... he judges the heart's intent... HIM alone, do we serve.

  3. Aime F profile image83
    Aime Fposted 24 months ago

    Anyone with even a basic understanding of Psychology will confirm that nature and nurture both play significant roles in how a person turns out.

    Heterosexuals who pretend it's a choice should probably enter into a relationship with someone of the same sex and see how easy it is for them to just 'choose' to be attracted to that person, to become sexually aroused by that person, to have intimate feelings for that person.

    While I wholeheartedly believe that there needs to be some biological factor present that determines sexual preference, it doesn't matter to me either way. Whether someone chooses to be gay, whether they were born that way... I could not care less. People should be with whoever makes them happy, it's got nothing to do with the rest of us.

    1. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 24 months ago in reply to this

      +1

    2. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 24 months ago in reply to this

      -100
      I'm not pretending, and neither is the medical field of doctors who discovered this truth, it's not a choice

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 24 months ago in reply to this

        What does it mean to you that it is not a choice? And why is it so important?

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 24 months ago in reply to this

          It's important because they are people with feelings, who have put up with a lot of attack from religious people
          It's not a choice because they are born homosexual

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 24 months ago in reply to this

            They put up with a lot of attack from all types. Just as heterosexual people do.
            The main reason for attack from religion is simply because the bible says...
            Just as the bible says... for heterosexual people, or thieving people, or hypersexual people, or whatever...
            Being born with a tendency to go against scripture means a life standing before God in prayer about it.
            Being born homosexual, does not nullify any rule about it.
            But this is only for those who want to adhere to whatever doctrine.
            If a person does not care what the bible says, none of the attacks profit.
            So, maybe it is my desire to be with women, but my God says no. That means adjustment on my part. Not his. If I do not want to adjust (even if it means no sex ever) I say no, to his will. But if I'm not Religious, what does it matter?

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 24 months ago in reply to this

              The bible does not teach that it is wrong to be homosexual, that belief is due to misinterpretation, and a lack of bible knowledge, plus hate in the hearts of people who think it is their place to judge others

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                Ok. If the bible does not teach that in your opinion,  it's God who judges.
                Hate probably has nothing to do with it. Judging others probably has nothing to do with it.
                Many people believe that the bible, in fact, does teach that homosexuality is wrong.
                But if one may take what the bible says about homosexuality and figure it to be something else, God judges.
                Only he reads the heart, its knowledge, and its intent. He has the final say.

                1. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                  I agree that God is all, in all

    3. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 24 months ago in reply to this

      That's not true of the heterosexuals or homosexuals. neither is made by our environment, and I have more than a basic knowledge of Psychology

      1. Aime F profile image83
        Aime Fposted 24 months ago in reply to this

        It was in reference to buddy's claim that identity is separate from biology.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image21
          Castlepalomaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Funny, I always think of myself as a biology organism being first not a Christian straight first. I could have the lesbian DNA in me, trap in a man's body. Don’t think I could choose men for sex if I can’t perform the first passionate first kiss.

  4. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 24 months ago

    Science has found a reason, and in the future you will probably hear more and more about it.
    They found it accidentally, and It has to do with the Chimeras. It isn't a choice

  5. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago

    ____________________________
    Wilderness..go to your local Library where maybe you'll trust the material. See the government doesn't put out a newsletter saying "look what we're doing.
    They teach facts in nursing classes, otherwise, it goes against the state laws,
    do you actually think this isn't true? Wow, you keep yourself separate from those things you don't agree with.
    No I would never express my experiences to you, not in a million years

    I wasn't pointing you to anything about aids, but to the fact that they harvest viruses, this thread isn't about aids...
    Do you actually think harvesting viruses is a conspiracy theory? Of course I see you are holding onto the
    outdated idea/theory,  that it came from monkeys..debunked in the eighties

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Oh, the experiences would be fine - we all have a myriad of experience ranging from mundane to downright weird.

      It's the conclusions those experiences have produced that we will inevitably differ on - that and the reasoning process used to get from experience to conclusion.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        ___________________________
        Because you are all seeing,  know all truths, know the true experiences of others, and you are never wrong, but everyone else is. I guess you are saying that you can't be taught anything, by anyone. I 've got you
        I believe you would argue about how to do heart surgery, with a Pulmonary, and Cardiovascular surgeon.
        Of course you would, especially if he was a hubber

        You might want to research mkultra project. You probably think that the government was innocent when Americans learned of the LSD project, that killed at least two

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          In the links you gave, can you give just ONE link proving that the AIDs virus was created in a lab doing biological warfare, or even cancer research?  Just ONE email, carefully hidden for decades, saying they had invented the AIDs virus?  ONE interoffice memo?  ONE research paper, written by the inventor?  Anything?

          That IS the claim, you know...that cancer research invented AIDs and it was turned into a biological weapon.

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            I didn't say it was turned into a biological weapon. I said " Later they decided to implement Biological Warfare research, RESEARCH and so they did....and the beat goes on"
            http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/127306? … ost2690169
            And I told you before to not put words in my mouth, I'm tired of it
            Do you actually think our government is above this? Still living in the 50s?

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              I don't see a link yet.  No email, no memo, no paper written up.  Does that mean you can't point to one and are just taking the word of someone else that also can't point to anything?

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                I learned it in classes, and I have told you what to look up at  the library
                You don't accept internet links

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  ??  Where do you get the idea I won't check a link?  Please stop putting words in my mouth.

                  You gave 4 links, but not a single one provided any proof whatsoever.  Some didn't mention your claim and the rest repeated it in general terms, but without proof of any kind.  We all understand that liars abound on the net, which is why something more than a simple claim is necessary for knowledge.  Or do you simply accept anything you read?

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    You might want to look it up under "The National Cancer Institute's Special Virus Cancer Program", that's how it is listed in my class notes

                    Look it up at the public library
                    I have no more to say about it, so no need to reply

  6. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 23 months ago

    I was always under the impression that Scientist used monkeys to infect with polio.
    Then removed the monkeys liver making a vaccine for polio.
    Then inoculating 100s of thousands of Africans with the vacine.
    And "IF" just one or two of these monkeys were of the infected kind; Then Aids would have inadvertently been introduced into Africa.

         I don't know !!    just seems more plausible to me than other theories I've heard.

         I don't know...  did they use monkey livers making vaccines.

  7. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago

    Medical Doctors, Scientist who worked within the SVCP program, aka  special virus cancer program
    Reference, and reading Material
    An Administrative History of the
    National Cancer Institute’s Viruses and Cancer Programs, 1950-1972
    By Carl G. Baker, M.D
    Dr. Baker was also made NCI Acting Scientific Director and represented the Institute at the NIH Scientific Directors meetings
    The NCI funding of the SVCP resources programs with contracts not only made possible more rapid scientific advances, but also led to the creation, as needs arose, of new commercial developments and even a whole new industry.
    The progress made in understanding cancer causation, especially with regard to the role
    of genetics, was outstanding between 1953 and 1972. Even more impressive has been the progress made after that period. Viral oncology efforts contributed greatly to this progress. The scientific aspects of these advances have been well documented. The science-administrative aspects and the managerial decisions behind these program developments, however, have not been well set forth. This manuscript attempts to correct this deficiency. Many people, especially the staff of the NCI, who played important roles in these developments, are identified. These developments made possible the decisions that gave stronger administrative support to viral oncology and the successful justifications for the requests for additional funding. The viral oncology Program and indeed the whole field of virology, benefited.
    The NCI funding of the SVCP resources programs with contracts not only made possible more rapid scientific advances, but also led to the creation, as needs arose, of new commercial developments and even a whole new industry.
    The 1969 discovery of oncogenes, viral and cellular, was an exceptionally important advance in cancer research because it demonstrated more concretely the role of genetics in cancer development at the molecular level. This finding, along with the discoveries of excision enzymes (allowing selective chemical dissection of DNA), and, later, cloning and oncogenes present in “normal” chromosomes, have led to explosive advances in cancer causation, genetics and developmental biology. Chemistry developments continue to yield new analytic procedures and syntheses (in the past 30 years the number of known chemical compounds has increased from 3 million to 23 million). Many signal chemical compounds that switch on or off reactions in the body’s metabolic pathways are being discovered. Other signal compounds switch off gene actions (repressor compounds) or switch on gene actions (derepressor compounds). Relationships between DNA coding and the protein structures are being worked out, and the way the proteins assume different configurations under different conditions and how the shapes affect the reactions are being discovered. Three dimensional computer imaging of these proteins is aiding drug discovery and development. Administrative decisions to put more funds into developing various resources needed for viral oncology research were also of great importance. These viral oncology program components made additional contributions to the laying of groundwork for further development of molecular biology and biotechnology. The current increased rapid rate of reporting of new findings is leading to greater understanding of cancer, one of mankind’s most feared enemies. NCI viral oncology activities in the years between 1953 and 1972 deserve to be recognized as a strong foundation for subsequent investigations in the virology area of research.
    Reading List
    1. Ackoff, R.L., Gupta, S.K. and Minas, J.S., Scientific Method: Optimizing Applied
    Research Decisions, John Wiley & Sons, New York (1962).
    2. Albritton, Jr., C.C., The Abyss of Time, Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc., Los Angeles (1986). 3. Bernard, C., An Introduction to the Study of Exprimental Medicine (first published in
    1865), Henry Schuman, Inc., New York (1949).
    4. Barrett, P., Editor, The Collected Papers of Charles Darwin, The University of
    Chicago Press, Chicago (1977).
    5. Bernstein, L., The Joy of Music, Simon and Schuster, New York (1959).
    6. Blum, H.F., Time’s Arrow and Evolution, 2nd Edition, Princeton University Press,
    Princeton (1955).
    7. Bonner, J.T., Morphogenesis, an Essay on Development, Princeton University Press,
    Princeton (1952); Reprinted by Atheneum, New York (1963).
    8. MA (1974).
    - On Development: The Biology of Form, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
    369
    9. - The Evolution of Complexity by Means of Natural Selection, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1988).
    10. Briggs, J., Fractals. The Patterns of Chaos, Simon and Schuster, New York (1992).
    11. Broda, E., Ludwig Boltzmann. Man – Physicist – Philosopher, Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, CT (1983).
    12. Bronowski, J., The Ascent of Man, Little, Brown and Company, Boston (1953).
    13. -
    14. -
    15. -
    The Common Sense of Science, Vantage Books, New York.
    A Sense of the Future, the MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1977).
    The Visionary Eye: Essays in the Arts, Literature, and Science, The MIT
    Press, Cambridge, MA (1978).
    16. - The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination, Yale University Press, New
    Haven (1978).
    17. Bronowski, J. and Mazlish, B., The Western Intellectual Tradition, Dorset Press
    (1986); first published by Harper & Brothers (1960).
    18. Brooks, D.R. and Wiley, E.O., Evolution as Entropy: Toward a Unified Theory of
    Biology, (Second Edition), The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, (1988).
    19. Burk, J.N., The Life and Works of Beethoven, Random House, New York (1943). 20. Burkhardt, F., Editor, Charles Darwin’s Letters. A Selection, Cambridge University
    Press, Cambridge (1996).
    21. Clark, K., Civilisation, Harper & Row, Publishers, New York (1969).
    22. Churchman, C.W., The Systems Approach, Dell Publishing Co., Inc., New York
    (1968).
    370
    23. Cleland, D.I. and King, W.R., Systems Analysis and Project Management, McGraw- Hill Book Company, New York (1968).
    24. Cooper, G.M., Oncogenes, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., Boston (1990).
    25. Darnell, J., Lodish, H. and Baltimore, D., Molecular Cell Biology, Scientific American Books, Inc., New York, (1986).
    26. Darwin, Charles, The Voyage of the Beagle, Bantam books, New York (1958) [The voyage lasted from 1831 to 1836].
    27. - Journal of Researches, P.F. Collier and Son, New York (1900 [Originally published in 1845].
    28. - The Origin of Species by Natural Selection or, The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, A.L. Burt Company, Publishers, New York (6th Edition) [The First Edition was published in 1859].
    29. - The Descent of Man and Selections in Relation to Sex, P.F. Collier and Son, New York (1900) [Originally published in 1871].
    30. - The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1986) [Based on the 1888 Edition; the First Edition was published in 1877].
    31. - The Autobiography of Charles Darwin and Selected Letters, Dover Publications, Inc., New York (1958) [Edited by Francis Darwin; first published in 1892].
    32. Davidson, M., Uncommon Sense. The Life and Thought of Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1972), Father of General Systems Theory, J.P. Tarcher, Inc., Los Angeles (1983).
    33. Dawkins, R., The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, New York (1976). 34. - The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton & Company, New York (1987).
    371
    35. - Unweaving the Rainbow, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston (1998).
    36. Dubos, R. J., The Professor, the Institute, and DNA, The Rockefeller University Press, New York, (1976).
    37. Einstein, A. and Infeld, L., The Evolution of Physics. The Growth of Ideas from Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Simon and Schuster, New York (1938).
    38. Elsasser, W.M., Reflections on a Theory of Organisms; Holism in Biology, The Johns Hopkins University press, Baltimore (1987).
    39. Farrant, P.A., Color in Nature, Cassel & Co., London (1999).
    40. Gallo, R., Virus Hunting; AIDS, Cancer, and the Human Retrovirus: A Story of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, New York, (1991).
    41. Company, 42.
    43.
    New York (1976).
    Gardner, M., Fractal Music, Hypercards and More . . . , W.H. Freeman and New York (1991).
    Gleick, J., Chaos, Penguin Books, New York (1987).
    Goodwin, B.C., Temporal Organization in Cells, Academic Press, New York (1963). 44. - Analytical Physiology of Cells and Developing Organisms, Academic Press,
    45.
    Norton & Company, Inc., New York (1989).
    Gould, S.J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and The Nature of History, W.W.
    46. Gross, L., Oncogenic Viruses, (Third Edition), Two Volumes, Pergamon Press, New York (1983).
    47. Groves, L., Now It Can Be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project, Harper, New York (1962) [Unabridged paperback edition with a new Introduction by Edward Teller, published by Da Capo Press, Inc. (1983)].
    48. Hanson, J.K. and Morrison, D., Of Kinkajous, Capybaras, Horned Beetles, Seladangs, and the Oddest and Most Wonderful Mammals, Insects, Birds, and Plants of Our World, HarperCollins Publishers, New York (1991).
    49. Helmholtz, H., On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music, Dover Publications, New York (1954) [Second English Edition, based on the last German Edition of 1877].
    50. Hiscocks, E.S., Laboratory Administration, Macmillan & Co, Ltd., London, England (1956).
    51. Hoeber, R., Physical Chemistry of Cells and Tissues (with the collaboration of Hitchcock, D., Bateman, J., Goddard, D., and Fenn, W.), The Blakiston Company, Philadelphia (1945).
    52. Hogben, L., Mathematics for the Million, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York (1940).
    53. - Mathematics in the Making, Crescent Books, Inc., London (1960).
    54. Kaandorp, J.A., Fractal Modelling. Growth and Form in Biology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1994).
    55. Kauffman, S.A., The Origins of Order, Oxford University Press, New York (1993).
    56. - At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity, Oxford University Press, New York (1995).
    57. Kuhn, T.S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1970).
    58. Laplace, P.S., A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities (translated from the Sixth French Edition; the Third Edition dates from 1820), Dover Publications, Inc., New York (1951).
    373
    59. Lavoisier, A., Elements of Chemistry (1789), Dover Publications, Inc., New York (1965).
    60. Lewis, G.N. and Randall, M. (revised by Pitzer, K.S. and Brewer, L.), Thermodynamics, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York (1961).
    61. Lindley, D., Boltsmann’s Atom, Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York (2001).
    62. Lotka, A.J., Elements of Mathematical Biology, Dover Publications, Inc., New York (1956) [Published in 1924 as Elements of Physical Biology].
    63. Luria, S.E., Life, The Unfinished Experiment, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York (1973).
    64. Lwoff, A., Biological Order, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1962).
    65. Mach, E., The Science of Mechanics. A Critical and Historical Account of its Development, 4th English Edition, The Open Court Publishing Co., Chicago (1919) [First Edition published in 1883].
    66. - The Analysis of Sensations, from the 5th German Edition of 1906, Dover Publications, Inc., New York (1959) [First Edition published in 1885].
    67. - Space and Geometry in the Light of Physiological, Psychological, and Physical Inquiry, The Open Court Publishing Company, LaSalle, Illinois (1906).
    68. Malthus, T., A Summary View of the Principle of Population, published in 1830, reprinted in Three Essays on Population by Thomas Malthus, Julian Huxley and Frederick Osborn, The New American Library of World Literature, Inc. (1960).
    69. Mandelbrot, B.B., The Fractal Geometry of Nature, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York (1997).
    70. Minsky, M., The Society of the Mind, Simon and Schuster, New York (1986). 374
    71. Monod, J., Chance and Necessity, Alfred A. Knopf, New York (1971).
    72. Needham, J., Order and Life, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1936).
    73. Newman, J.R., The World of Mathematics, Four Volumes, Simon and Schuster, New
    York (1956).
    74. Nicolis, G. and Prigogine, I., Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems. From
    Dissipative Structures to Order through Fluctuations, John Wiley & Sons, New York (1977). 75. Nossal, G.J.V. and Coppel, R.L., Reshaping Life, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University
    Press, Cambridge (1989).
    76. Pearson, K., The Grammar of Science, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London (1937) [First
    published 1892].
    77. Peitgen, H.-O. and Richter, P.H., The Beauty of Fractals, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
    (1986).
    78. Peitgen, H.-O. and Saupe, D., Editors, The Science of Fractal Images, Springer-
    Verlag, Berlin (1988).
    79. Pledge, H.T., Science Since 1500, Peter Smith, Gloucester, MA (1969).
    80. Posin, D.Q., Mendeleyev. The Story of a Great Scientist, McGraw-Hill book
    Company, Inc., New York (1948).
    81. Poston, T. and Stewart, I., Catastrophe Theory and Its Applications, Pitman
    Publishing Limited, London (1978).
    82. Prigogine, I., The End of Certainty, The Free Press, New York (1996).
    83. Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I., Order Out of Chaos, Bantam Books, Inc., New York,
    (1984).
    375
    84. Prusinkiewicz, P. and Lindenmayer, A., The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants, Springer- Verlag, Berlin (1990).
    85. Quastler, H., Editor, Information Theory in Biology, University of Illinois Press, Urbana (1953).
    86. Raff, R. A. and Kaufman, T. C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN (1991)
    87. Raff, R. A., The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1996).
    88. Rettig, R. A., Cancer Crusade: The Story of the National Cancer Act of 1971, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1977).
    89. Rosen, R., Dynamical System Theory in Biology. Stability Theory and Its Applications, Wiley-Interscience, New York (1970).
    90. Russell, B., A History of Western Philosophy, Simon and Schuster, New York (1945).
    91. Schoenheimer, R., The Dynamic State of Body Constituents, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1946).
    92. Schottenfeld, D. and Fraumeni, Jr., J., Editors, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Oxford University Press, New York (1996). 93. Schrodinger, E., What is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell, The Macmillan Company, New York (1945).
    94. Shimkin, M.B., Science and Cancer, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., (1964).
    376
    95. Smith, H.W., From Fish to Philosopher, The Natural History Library, Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York (1961).
    96. Smith, J. Maynard, The Problems of Biology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England (1986).
    97. Strickland, S.P., Politics, Science, and Dread Disease, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1972).
    98. Suner, A.P., Classics of Biology, Philosophical Library, New York (1955).
    99. Thom, R., Structural Stability and Morphogenesis, W.A. Benjamin, Inc., Reading, MA (1975).
    100. Thompson, D’Arcy W., On Growth and Form (Second Edition), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England (1942).
    101. Tufte, E.R., The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Graphics Press, Cheshire, Connecticut (1983).
    102. - Envisioning Information, Graphics Press, Cheshire, Connecticut (1990).
    103. Varmus, H. and Weinberg, R.A., Genes and the Biology of Cancer, Scientific American Library, New York (1993).
    104. Vogel, S., Life’s Devices: The Physical World of Animals and Plants, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1988).
    105. Von Bertalanffy, L., Problems of Life. An Evaluation of Modern Biological Thought, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1949).
    106. - Theoretische Biologie. Band II, Stoffwechsel, Wachstum, A. Franke, Bern (1951).
    377
    107. - Modern Theories of Development. An Introduction to Theoretical Biology, Harper & Brothers, New York (1962). [Originally published in 1933].
    108. Waddington, C.H., The Nature of Life, George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., London, England (1961).
    109. Waldrop, M.M., Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos, Simon & Schuster, New York (1992).
    110. Wallace, A.R., The Malay Archipelago. The Land of the Orang-Utan and the Bird of Paradise. A Narrative of Travel with Studies of Man and Nature, Dover Publications, Inc., New York (1962) [The Tenth Edition was published in 1890. Wallace dedicated the book to Charles Darwin. The First Edition was dated 1868].
    111. Watson, J.D., The Double Helix, The New American Library, New York (1968).
    112. Webb, J.E., Space Age Management: The Large Scale Approach, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1969).
    113. Wheeler, L.P., Josiah Willard Gibbs. The History of a Great Mind, Yale University Press, New Haven (1952).
    114. Whewell, W., Theory of Scientific Method, Edited by R.E. Butts, Hackett publishing Company, Indianapolis, Indiana (1989) [Largely based on Whewell’s History of the Inductive Sciences (1837), The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (1840), and other writings].
    115. Whitehead, A.N., Science and the Modern World, The Macmillan Company, New York (1925).
    116. - The Aims of Education, The Macmillan Company, New York (1929). 117. Wilson, E. O., The Diversity of Life, W.W. Norton & Company, New York (1992).

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Nice! 

      Now about that claim that cancer research produced the AID's virus in a test tube, whereupon it became a part of biological warfare...

      (Did you forget what you were trying to show?)

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        _______________________________________
        I never said that, stop misquoting me, and stop lying on me. Got proof that  I said that.? POST a link please, or take it back
        You asked for reference about the intentional production of animal viruses to generate diseases, under the guise of research cancer. I gave it,to you.  They also developed a research group to study and implement Biological Warfare.

        You seem to think everyone who believes in God is stupid, and when you find those you can't shake up, and rattle you become angry, it's obvious to me at least

        Oh, and the reason that when you Google the origin of Aids, it mostly points toward monkeys, is because although it was debunked in 1988, it wasn't really announced publicly. The people still stating it came from monkeys, are the ones who know the least about it, and are still hanging onto the monkey theory

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Then there is our misunderstanding, for I surely took your words to mean that AIDs was developed in a lab doing cancer research.

          "The leading Aids scientists tried to promote two theories that aids came from monkeys (I believe Rhesus monkeys, and chimpanzees)..but in the late 80s researchers found those theories to be incorrect.

          In the early 60s, they began a government funded research program where they developed many animal viruses, those that would produce cancer, and immune system damage when it crossed over from animal, to human."

          If you didn't mean that, I'm at a loss to understand why you went from "it wasn't in monkeys after all" directly to cancer research.  The words aren't there, but I thought I understood your inference that the research created the AIDs virus.

          http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/127306#post2690169

          You also continued in the same vein, saying that the theories were debunked and providing links to cancer research in succeeding posts.

          My apologies once more if that wasn't the thrust and you were instead instituting a total change of topic.

          But angry?  Not at all even though you have deteriorated in several posts to outright defamation and rudeness (and yes, I CAN quote those directly, including this one).

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            The theories that Aids came from monkeys were debunked in 1988
            How is that saying anything about aids being manufactured? (though I wouldn't put it past them)
            They developed animal viruses that cause diseases in human*, when the viruses cross from animals to humans. They did this under the guise of cancer research, but later developed a research group to study and implement Biological Warfare.
            *(such as cancer, and immunological breakdown)
            If you feel this is wrong, check the references I gave and written by those who participated

            I also said that many viral diseases that cause very few problems in monkeys are severe, and most often fatal when the virus enters a human.

            Why do you feel that the VIPs in America would never do this?
            Being in the medical field, I've seen many things the general public is unaware of. If I told you these things, you would say I'm lying because they are so horrific
            I worked for a major medical and research hospital

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              I know that.  What I didn't understand (and still don't) is what the cancer research comment had to do with debunking the monkey theory of aids.  You went from one to the other with zero explanation, and completely left the subject of AIDs origin in left field: I simply (and apparently mistakenly) connected the dots and put the two together.

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                ___________________
                I made my statement about the theories being debunked, and as I often do, I thought of something else, and I told you.
                The government seriously developed, and are concerned with Biological Warfare. I thought of one, which lead me to think of the other, and I wrote it down. You have your way of expression, I have mine

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  I see.  Well, I'm sorry for misunderstanding.

                  But it's Christmas Eve and time to relax with family and grandchildren.  You have a wonderful Christmas.

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    ____________
                    You have the great Christmas, while we enjoy Chanukkah

              2. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                _____________________________________
                Oh, by stating the lie that Aids came from monkeys...it.caused the public to vote/push for extra funds for the research, so the government could fund them.
                As I stated, the leading Aids scientists tried to promote two theories that aids came from monkeys, but that was fouled up when.researchers found those theories to be incorrect.

                It is the reason I jumped from Aids to cancer research, but you misunderstood, and started your attack, so I forgot to tell you to read it again, and try to understand what I wrote

      2. 0
        JoelMcLendonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        I'd like to have the link to this alleged statement myself. I believe she's answered your question

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          _____________________
          Thank you sweetheart smile
          I would like to spend some time talking to you!! big_smile

 
working