Sorry, not sure what you mean. What is science telling us we can't do? Retain the ability to regrow muscle well into old age? I'm not challenging anything at this point, I'm just not clear on what you're saying.
Science has already shown us that most of our cells become filled with lipofucsins, coated in amyoloids and AGEs-crosslinks, mitochondrially challenged due to mito DNA destruction from free radicals, senescent, and die. Once you have addressed these issues (stem cell replacement is some of the solution) you know longer have the paranoia of science trying to sell you something. By the way science only investigates and educates while engineering solves the problem. It seems that your "fears of medical solutions and salesmanship" are baseless.
Speaking of "baseless" you have no basis whatsoever for putting words in my mouths such "fears of medical solutions and salesmanship" and "paranoia". Nice try attempting to discredit my statement but to pull ideas out of thin air and attribute them to my thinking is absurd, rude, ignorant and totally wrong. YOU have created this impression totally on your own in your attempt to discredit the fact that science is historically wrong time and again and is proven so when new information is presented at a later date. Or if you prefer, you can also believe the world is still flat in your estimation. Somebody of science was wrong there, too, wouldn't you say?
Please, show me where I stated that someone is trying to sell me something, show me the paranoia, show me the fear. You absolutely, positively cannot. Therefore you are full of holes in your statement and it is not valid, and I'd appreciate if you watch what you fantasize on your own and avoid trying to present your illusions as someone else's thoughts and statements.
Humans have amazing capacities that you apparently will never realize in your own being because your thinking is confined to what some guy in a lab coat told you.
"trying to convince us" is the sales job you insist you didn't imply and "Don't believe them" with absolutely no descriptive reason why is paranoia. No one is disputing "innate abilities" which is our incredible metabolism when it is up to the task. Unfortunately biological evolutions "innate ability" piles on with time creating lipofucsins, amyoloids, AGEs-crosslinks, mito DNA destruction , senescent cells, and cell death. If you are saying there is some "innate ability" that counters these deleterious effects, be specific. One or two sentences will do. You presented this "science is historically wrong time and again and is proven so when new information is presented at a later date" as a rational when someone could just as correctly say "science is historically right time and again" Your sweeping general statements that may be sometimes correct or sometimes wrong is what I get from that and I do "attribute them to my thinking". Let's make it easy, please discuss possible answers to stopping the destructive build up of our metabolism. Stem cell therapy is answering one of the most important metabolic problems, cell death. Organ farms, bioremediation, RNA interference, gene therapy, and limb regeneration are some of the "not innate solutions". I could choose not to believe in them because as you point out some scientists have been wrong some of the time. The only thing I should be thankful for as I write this post is that the computer scientists were right, but don't worry I won't tell anyone.
I agree, but science should be very cautious on changing the natural mechanisms of cell senescence, as those elicited by TGF, regarding harmful side-effects.
These are your interpretations of my general statements, Robin, which you are entitled to. I'm just trying to say that your statements are distorting what was intended and you can choose to make something else of it. I can only tell you that this was not what was meant by my original post. Interesting, any time one uses the word "don't" how the opposite ego takes that as a direct threat. It was just to say that there are other means, and that we don't need science to solve all of our problems for us, as great as it is at times. I like science, I just don't think that it supercedes the power of the universe.
And I provided a link to much reading on the subject that explains much better than I can state in a blog post, so before you go any further I just suggest, as I did already, that you study the ancient wisdom more closely and draw your own conclusions. Your attempt at making me look like I'm disputing even computer science is again quite the read-in. I hope common sense prevails, I mean no harm or ill will I assure you and apologize if there was any harsh tone to the criticism of the limitations of science that prompted you to attack the initial post in a way that I believe was unwarranted and was certainly an interpretation that was unintended by me. I just didn't appreciate the misinterpretation and it became a denial of what I was trying to say, but that's fine, too. It's your choice. There's plenty of information available that shows the direction to another way, and you are free to disagree with that, too.
Our science is only just now beginning to catch up with the situation but will never be able to provide the full answers. You can read about them and draw your own conclusions all for yourself in many of the writings of Deepak Chopra (and others dealing with ancient wisdom) - and especially Li Hongzi. Here is a link to all the writings of Li Hongzi which are provided for free download in .doc and .pdf as well as in .html by clicking on the titles:
Gosh, I didn't known Falun Gong practitioners were impervious to cell death. Thank you for your enlightenment. Please, allow us to humbly continue our base analysis of the physical world and we'll get back to you at a later date.
You're certainly welcome. It's unfortunate that you are implying some sort of "us and them" division. The reading is there, the points are made, and we are all one. Any implication of an "us and them" situation is your own interpretation, as we all have these abilities within us if we choose to cultivate them. I am you, you are me. Peace to us.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
johnalphonse
78
Science Fiction vs Fact