The origin of life is one of the great outstanding mysteries of
science.
How did a non-living mixture of molecules transform themselves
into a
living organism? What sort of mechanism might be responsible?
A century and a half ago,
Charles Darwin
produced a convincing explanation
for how life on Earth evolved from
simple microbes to the complexity of the
biosphere today, but he
pointedly left out how life got started in the first place.
"One might
as well speculate about the origin of matter," he quipped.
But that did
not stop generations of scientists from investigating the puzzle.
The
problem is, whatever took place happened billions of years ago, and all
traces long ago vanished – indeed, we may never have a blow-by-blow
account of the process. Nevertheless we may still be able to answer the
simpler question of whether life's origin was a freak series of events
that
happened only once, or an almost inevitable outcome of
intrinsically
life-friendly laws. On that answer hinges the question of
whether we are
alone in the universe, or whether our galaxy and others
are teeming with life.
Most research into life's murky origin has
been carried out by chemists.
They've tried a variety of approaches in
their attempts to recreate the
first steps on the road to life, but
little progress has been made. Perhaps that
is no surprise, given life's
stupendous complexity. Even the simplest bacterium
is incomparably more
complicated than any chemical brew ever studied.
But a more
fundamental obstacle stands in the way of attempts to cook up
life in
the chemistry lab. The language of chemistry simply does not mesh
with
that of biology. Chemistry is about substances and how they react,
whereas biology appeals to concepts such as information and
organisation.
Informational narratives permeate biology. DNA is
described as a genetic
"database", containing "instructions" on how to
build an organism. The genetic
"code" has to be "transcribed" and
"translated" before it can act. And so on.
If we cast the problem of
life's origin in computer jargon, attempts at chemical
synthesis focus
exclusively on the hardware – the chemical substrate of life
– but
ignore the software – the informational aspect. To explain how life
began
we need to understand how its unique management of information
came about.
In the 1940s, the mathematician
John von Neumann
compared life to a
mechanical constructor, and set out the logical
structure required for a
self-reproducing automaton to replicate both
its hardware and software.
But Von Neumann's analysis remained a
theoretical curiosity. Now a new
perspective has emerged from the work
of engineers, mathematicians and
computer scientists, studying the way
in which information flows through
complex systems such as communication
networks with feedback loops, logic
modules and control processes. What
is clear from their work is that the dynamics
of information flow
displays generic features that are independent of the specific
hardware
supporting the information.
Information theory has been
extensively applied to biological systems at many
levels from genomes to
ecosystems, but rarely to the problem of how life actually
began. Doing
so opens up an entirely new perspective on the problem. Rather than
the
answer being buried in some baffling chemical transformation, the key
to life's
origin lies instead with a transformation in the organisation
of information flow.
Sara Walker, a Nasa astrobiologist working at
Arizona State University, and I
have proposed that the significant
property of biological information is not its
complexity, great though
that may be, but the way it is organised hierarchically.
In all physical
systems there is a flow of information from the bottom upwards,
in the
sense that the components of a system serve to determine how the system
as a whole behaves. Thus if a meteorologist wants to predict the
weather, he may
start with local information, such as temperature and
air pressure, taken at various
locations, and calculate how the weather
system as a whole will move and change.
In living organisms, this
pattern of bottom-up information flow mingles with the inverse
- top-down information flow – so that what happens at the local level can
depend
on the global environment, as well as vice versa.
To take a
simple example; whether a cell expresses a gene can depend on
mechanical stresses or electric fields acting on the whole cell by its
environment.
Thus, a change in global information (a pattern of force)
at the macroscopic level
translates into a change in local information
movement at the microscopic level
(switching on a gene). More generally,
a range of signals received from its environment
help to dictate how a
cell's DNA is distributed and transcribed. Walker and I propose
that the
key transition on the road to life occurred when top-down information
flow first predominated. Based on simple mathematical models, we think
it may have happened
suddenly, analogously to a heated gas abruptly
bursting into flame.
There is a second distinctive way in which
life handles information processing. The
language of genes is digital,
consisting of discrete bits, cast in the language of a
four-letter
alphabet. By contrast, chemical processes are continuous. Continuous
variables
can also process information – so-called analogue computers
work that way – but less reliably than digital. Whatever chemical system
spawned life, it had to feature a transition from analogue to digital.
The
way life manages information involves a logical structure that differs
fundamentally
from mere complex chemistry. Therefore chemistry alone
will not explain life's origin,
any more than a study of silicon, copper
and plastic will explain how a computer can
execute a program. Our work
suggests that the answer will come from taking
information seriously as
a physical agency, with its own dynamics and causal
relationships
existing alongside those of the matter that embodies it – and that
life's origin can ultimately be explained by importing the language and
concepts
of biology into physics and chemistry, rather than the other
way round.
![Photo: The father of Adam Lanza is Peter Lanza, a VP and Tax Director at GE Financial, one of the many corporations owned and controlled by the international central banks, and was also a partner at Ernst & Young. ¹ The father of James Holmes is Robert Holmes, and, at the time of the shooting, the lead fraud scientist for the credit score company FICO. ²
FICO works with all major banks and is connected to the function of London Inter-Bank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, by way of the nature of their dealings in the industry. I have read the claim, in both cases, that these men were actually slated to testify in the LIBOR hearings before the U.S. Congress, but I have not been able to find anything substantial or conclusive to prove that. Both men, however, it has been evidenced, were quite knowledgeable on the LIBOR interest rate fixing scandal, with at least the potentiality to be subpoenaed for testimony in hearings regarding the fraudulent scheme.
16 international central banks have been implicated in this ongoing scandal, accused of rigging contracts worth trillions of dollars. This is assuredly the largest financial fraud scheme within our collective lifetimes, and I would venture to say, in the history of the world.
If you think that the international banking mafia/cartel is not capable of murder, and it all sounds too impossible to believe that these incidents are more than coincidences, consider the case of Kevin Krim. Kevin was a CNBC executive responsible for publishing news of a $43 trillion lawsuit that implicated "top government officials in the Obama White House along with several major US banks, bankers involved in the wrongdoing, and their profiteering cronies." ³
His family ended up murdered the day after with the mild-mannered, highly-praised nanny being blamed for the murders. If all of these situations sound more like coincidences rather than conspiracies to you, then it seems to me that you don't know exactly how ruthless these crooks are. Suffice it to say, that to compare them to the mafia in terms of murderous ruthlessness could best be paralleled by respectively comparing the New York Yankees to a Little League team.
They literally persuade governments to start wars, so that they can finance both sides, and no matter who wins or loses, they are always winners, because they will always be receiving their interest payments at the end of any given conflict. You need look no further than to investigate who financed the Nazis to build them up into a power that would be dangerous enough to justify a second world war, which they desperately sought, in order to increase support for the establishment of the UN, with the overall goal being one world government, otherwise known as the New World Order. The Rockefellers, the Morgans, and even Prescott Bush, father of George HW Bush, are all implicated in being party to the international banking cartel, and, at best, indirect financiers of Hitler's Nazi party.
Another factor of consideration is the fact that we have seen the most marked increase in "mass shootings," and incidents billed as "mass shootings," since the time that the UN small arms treaty has been being considered here in the US. Not only have these two incidents shown marked discrepancies between "official" accounts, the Sikh Temple shooting as well had eyewitness accounts of multiple suspects(four shooters with a paramilitary appearance, in this case), with the "official" story claiming that there was only one shooter.
As I understand it, one of the primary containments of the UN's global government grab is the fact that the US' citizenry is too heavily armed to force or coerce into the global government scheme without it becoming, most undoubtedly, the most monumental conflict in human history without a formal declaration of war. Any country, to the best of my knowledge, that has given up their gun rights, has experienced increased oppression and police brutality, as well as increased home invasions and gun related homicides perpetrated by outlaws.
Indeed, there is literally not much of an argument to make in the way of gun control, as most criminologists who were initially in favor of gun control, throughout their research on the subject, and their careers, have largely ended up supporting gun rights. 4 From the article that my annotation just referenced, this information is presented:
[Principal among the facts that [Dr.]Wolfgang [Kleck] was disappointed to learn, is that guns are used for self-defense between 2.1 million and 2.5 million times every year. The following facts from the Kleck/Gertz study, relate directly to this fact:
In the vast majority of those self-defense cases, the citizen will only brandish the gun or fire a warning shot.
In less than 8% of those self-defense cases will the citizen will even wound his attacker.
Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.
As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from home.
Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending themselves against sexual assault or abuse.
This means that guns are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of law-abiding citizens than to take a life.
At an estimated 263 million US population, in 1995, when the study was released, it also means that an average of 1 out of every 105 to 125 people that you know will use a gun for self-defense every year.
Dr. Kleck also wrote in his book titled "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Social Institutions and Social Change)" that burglars are more than three and a half times more likely to enter an occupied home in a gun control country than in the USA. Compare the 45% average rate of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands with the 12.7% of the USA. He continued to point out that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals every year as do police (1,527 to 606). In a related article titled, "Are We a Nation of Cowards'?" in the November 15, 1993 issue of Newsweek Magazine, George Will reported that police are more than 5 times more likely than a civilian to shoot an innocent person by mistake.]
In my opinion, these incidents, as well as discrediting and/or intimidating potential witnesses in the LIBOR scandal hearings, are poorly disguised attempts at manipulating the population of the US into a state of fear that will provide popular support for increased restrictions on gun rights, with the eventual goal being gun confiscation. We have certainly seen similar tactics used by our government in the OKC bombing, which was perpetrated to gain support for un-Constitutional "anti-terrorism" legislation being passed by the Clinton Administration. 5
If we allow this to happen, I believe it will not be too long before we find ourselves in a dystopian nightmare of oppression and tyranny imposed by a global communistic government, and we will only have ourselves to blame if we allow this to happen, as we have seen the warning signs before, if only we have been paying attention.
These incidents are aimed at causing fear and reaction, and we should not be afraid, we should be aware, because then false flag attacks will no longer be enticing to our government, and hopefully we can be spared tragedies like this and OKC from ever happening again...
¹ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/connecticut-shooter-adam-lanza/story?id=17975673#.UM-kh3fheSp
² http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021025002
³ http://www.nowpublic.com/world/children-cnbc-executive-murdered-day-after-lawsuit-announced
4 http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml
5 www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.500915613270502.129574.296076410421091&type=3
Supporting video evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGY8j7GJJI0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me-IQ8iWhTM
(6)](https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/318000_490528464321805_1116935629_n.jpg)