text:
A Monkey's Uncle
Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Moderator: BioTeam
A Monkey's Uncle
It has been reported recently that the time-difference between the chimpanzee and us splitting from a common ancestor is closer by a few million years than previously thought. Other apes, gorilla and the Orang, went their separate way several millions of years earlier still.
The chimpanzee is, we are told by those who delight in telling us such things, a very close cousin. We and the chimp have an astonishing number of genes in common. But I don't believe that we are related in any way whatsoever. No, this is not an argument against Darwinian theory. I just think we have it wrong. I think we are being just a little too egocentric in our explanation and application of the theory.
In fact, I don't think we are related to any of the creatures that we parade in progression in our timeline of life on earth. It is not us who evolve, that is the egocentric part. It is DNA that is favoured by evolution. The only life that persists on this planet is DNA. We and every other organism are simply the expression of DNA as it stands today. Nor do I believe that evolution (in terms of the theory) works from the primitive to the complex. That would make it a pyramid and we place ourselves smilingly at the apex thinking it doesn't get any better than us.
If an organism can evolve then it must be capable of devolving as well, otherwise it simply paints itself into a corner to ultimately expire. There are many examples where this was the probable result when conditions changed and the existing DNA models couldn't cope. And there are examples of devolution as well. There are shrimp, insects and fish living in dark caves that have simply gone blind where the same species elsewhere have eyes. It is explained away by a couple of theories: one being that an error occurs at the molecular level of the gene in replication. The error (read mutation) does not alter the expression of the gene so it is not favoured in any form of selection: hence it is neutral. Eventually it becomes statistically numerous and finally the only gene for that expression. In the case of the fish, it didn't matter if they had vision because they couldn't use it. Whether they now lack eyes because of the neutral gene theory (a little too convenient for my liking) or because there was some selective advantage/disadvantage to having eyes doesn't matter. There is obviously a process.
I said that I don't agree that evolution works from primitive to complex. If it did, then we should not have any primitive examples of DNA (or organisms if you aren't ready to consider my argument) left on earth but we do. We have an overabundance of very primitive (non-complex) organisms and we also have very complex organisms. And it seems that darn near as far back as the fossil record allows us to go, we find a lot of organisms that are far from simple. I think we need to look at evolution as a lateral form of development rather than the upward concept we now hold. There isn't much that is more primitive than a bacterium. However, it is possible that bacteria have simply reached their pinnacle of complexity. They may have painted themselves into a corner from which they cannot escape. However, since bacteria live anywhere they like, that they may be dead-ended doesn't matter because to DNA, it still exists and that is all that is important. It is simply success or extinction and neither is important to the DNA so long as it still abounds.
The North American Passenger pigeon went extinct when the last one died, in captivity, in 1914. It went extinct basically because we made it happen. It was hunted ferociously because it seemed there was an endless supply (much like Cod a few years back) and no one thought it would matter. Apparently, according to accounts, the pigeons were so numerous that flocks would literally darken the sky with their passing and their passing sometimes took days. It is reported that barrels of Passenger pigeon tongues, and only the tongues, were sent back to England in shipload quantities. By the time any alarm bells began to ring, it was already too late. The Passenger pigeon only bred in huge flocks and there were none of those left anymore. The whole niche was collapsing. I don't think we need to mourn their passing other than a sense of guilt over our part in their extinction. Can you imagine what they would have done to our crops and what would have happened if an avian flu had developed? Not to mention the damage to the trees in which they roosted and nested and the vermin they would have carried and the destruction caused by their droppings. However, they went extinct. They are no more. So surely there must have been some massive and therefore readily noticeable change as a result of this ecological disaster? Undoubtedly there was but nothing so serious that it made much of a stir. Life went on. It did not create a hole. Some things changed maybe for the worse and some things changed maybe for the better but it didn't matter a bit either way to DNA. It was simply an unsuccessful line of endeavour and other organisms would make up the numbers.
While it is true that we were the trigger for the disaster that befell the Passenger pigeon, the fault must surely lie within its genes. Somehow, the genes coded only for breeding in vast flocks. So how did this come about? There are as many varieties of pigeons as there are niches to fill, so when did the Passenger pigeon develop this fatal flaw? Was it a strategy of a common ancestor and passed down to the Passenger pigeon like a hereditary curse but, fortunately, to no others? I can find nothing to support it in my limited research. So, if the Passenger pigeon developed the coding error down the track (much further for there wouldn't have been the huge flocks necessary to trigger this behaviour otherwise) then it belies the notion that evolution follows a path ever upward, 'new and improved'. Neutral gene theory must almost certainly be brought in to explain it and it implies that there must be more advantage for this process and less disadvantage, otherwise we should expect some method or other of self-correction of mutated genes.
I'm about to take you away from this line of argument but first let me implant the germ of an idea. I doubt that I can support it or even debate it with much persuasion. But let me slip gradually into the hot water by noting that you (and maybe that should be in capital letters like YOU) have teeth, bones, finger and toenails, hair, cilia and an assortment of soft tissue. None of these things have a great deal in common but they all started with one single cell loosely called a stem cell. Before that it was simply a haploid cell (only half of the genes necessary for life and patently useless on its own) until it could infect or be infected by its opposite half. Everything that you are from brain to buttocks from pinnae to patella is basically one organism built to a design by your DNA for the sole purpose of transporting DNA to find its opposite. It's a huge investment. So there must be some distinct advantage for the DNA. It would be simpler to let pollen float on air or milt to swirl in ocean currents. The advantage is that a mobile organism can carry the DNA further to all parts of the planet and it can be selective in the quest for quality or desirable genetic matching. This allows for rapid change and, I suspect, changes of some magnitude in the gene codes. This doesn't matter a bit to a toad or a gnu or even a chimpanzee and it wouldn't matter to us except for an accident of chance that gave us the ability to ask questions. It matters only to DNA. That germ of an idea that I wanted to implant is this: I am strongly coming to the belief that there is only one single organism on this planet, one single entity, and that is the collective molecules of DNA.
The Selfish Gene theory suggests that not only do genes dictate our (I mean by this all sentient organisms) physical attributes but also our behaviour. According to the Selfish Gene theory, if it were possible for me to save only one of two people from a burning house, and one of those just happened to be my brother, then I would save my brother because he and I share more genes. It goes on to explain stotting antelope. The antelope that stots draws attention to it (and away from the rest of the herd) and was considered to be, therefore, an example of altruism. The theorists point out that the stotting antelope is also declaring it fit and healthy so as to give the predator second thoughts about chasing it down. The theorists also describe, statistically, what happens if all of the antelope become stotters or if none draw such attention. Extensions to the theory also explain away sectarian violence, crimes and even wars. One might suppose that since we have lost entire generations to war over thousands of years we would have expunged all those with such genetic predilection but that is clearly not the case. It can be done somehow, because the chimpanzees we claim as kin are capable of both behaviours. There is one group that goes out almost every afternoon to hunt for monkeys in a murderous pursuit and whose actions tend to display our own aggressiveness. There is another group (curiously a matriarchy) who do not hunt for meat and display an altogether more peaceable demeanour. But what if the theorists are wrong? I don't mean the theory. That is well supported by the mathematics involved and even by some recorded evidence. What if none of it matters at all? What if we are the only ones concerned by it? And we are only concerned because we are capable of asking questions? What if it doesn't matter because it is no loss whatsoever to DNA? Are you at all concerned by the follicle loss from a haircut or those fingernail parings? If, as I contend, DNA were simply one entity, one planet-engulfing organism then such things as wars and animal extinctions wouldn't matter a whit.
Just drop the organisms and step over here for a moment. Let us suppose that an anthropologist decided to study a Model-T Ford and a current Cadillac (Yes, I know it's absurd) to determine if they had a common ancestor. He would certainly note the similarities. They both had two headlights, four wheels, doors, a windshield, a dashboard, a steering wheel, a tail pipe, and pedals on the floor and they were configured much the same way. There would also be many differences such as a vastly improved braking system, a better driveshaft and differential and many changes to the motor. But clearly, while the Cadillac may not necessarily have evolved from the Model-T, they must have had a common ancestor. If you didn't know better, and if it was being taught, say, as part of Biology 101, you would be obliged to accept this verdict.
Let's talk about chimpanzees again. Chimps are smart. They are self-aware for they know what a mirror is and they have a good memory and are able to use deductive reasoning. They are also capable of sentence structure and of using a language and they can learn and do so rather readily. They don't have a larynx so they can't talk. They can be taught to communicate with sign language and to use computer based communicators. Moreover, they can teach other chimps to do so, although it is probably more accurate to say that the other chimps watch and learn. Chimps have been communicating with their handlers for at least a couple of decades but not once, that I am aware of, have they ever asked an embarrassing question. They have not once asked why they are being held captive or what effect global warming will have on the African chimp population or even, addressing the handler, who the heck are you? That's because they are chimps. They are tool users and toolmakers. Rocks they used for cracking nuts have been found in ancient chimp campsites. Till then no one was sure if they used rocks to crack nuts because they had seen man doing it or if it was a skill they learned by themselves. Clearly, they have the ability to figure it all out for themselves. Just like us. And that is where the similarity ends, in my opinion. There is no evidence that chimps are capable of napping (shaping flints into tools) or of creating a tool from more than one element. Nor do they see obvious advantages to crafted items. Clay pottery has been an element of human culture almost as far back as we can trace. Even if chimps were able to create such pots (and I do not doubt they could if shown how) they would not instantly see that water could be carried for long distances or food items kept safe from predators. It should be a eureka moment. Human babies learn early on that they can carry more than one thing at a time if placed in a plastic bucket. Chimps are similar to humans only where the matching genes are turned on. We are two quite different automobiles, if you will allow me the metaphor.
There is a perception that caveman as we depict him was a brute of low intellect able only to grunt as a form of communication. We like to smugly believe that modern human is significantly more highly evolved. That perception is slowly changing as serious paleoanthropologists begin to craft a clearer picture of their attributes. It is self-evident that we have long had, if not always had, the ability to communicate with speech. It is also clear from the artefacts that we were highly skilled with tools and able to not only manufacture them but to design them. Needles show that we were able to tailor clothing rather than the common perception of a raggedy animal skin wrapped clumsily about our body. Coprolites show that we not only ate animal flesh but grains. This indicates that we either grew them or carried them with us. Cave paintings show that we were able to spend a lot of time engaged in activity other than hunting or to find food so we either had some good organisational skills or we were clever enough to store food in the good times. These were not skills that we learned in a scant few hundred years or even a few millennia. We could not have been able to do them if we were not equipped to do them. We have always been able, for example, to speak. If the larynx was a very recent development then we would have used some other method of communication. Drums can be used to convey complex messages and instructions. Sign languages can be used cross-culturally. One other thing we can do that chimps cannot, is whistle. There is one small group of people who use that ability to convey information over a distance that their voice cannot carry. Clearly we have the ability as well as a need to communicate complex thoughts. Chimpanzees do not and cannot and don't even know there is a difference.
Modern human shared living space with Neanderthal. Whether we co-habited is not definitely known. Neanderthal was capable of either learning from us or we from them for certain burials were ritualised in a like manner. Or we simply thought along similar lines. It is also not known for sure if we interbred. There is no evidence to confirm or disprove it. However, since man is known to fornicate with almost anything that is animate (and many that aren't) at the urging of his DNA, then it is likely it was tried if the opportunity arose. We have been able to extract some mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthal bones. The similarities in sequencing place us a long, long way from a common ancestor. We are as likely to be more closely related to the Galapagos tortoise. [That comment is intended to be flippant] The common ancestor to the chimpanzee and Neanderthal is even more distant than the chimp to us. I just don't believe that evolution takes us along the path that curves upward. Nor do I believe that evolution places any pressure on an organism to do better, it is simply a consequence. And evolution can take us to a dangerous place of complacency. If the dodo could fly when humans arrived in Mauritius, then it might not be extinct today. However, it had no predators and no need to take flight and, either through neutral gene theory or some other mechanism of devolvement, it lost the ability to fly. We hunted it to extinction.
Accepted theory is that all mammals derived from a small shrew-like animal that existed at the time of the dinosaurs. When the dinosaurs vacated the countryside (for whatever theory you prefer) the shrew-like animal got to run rampant. Consensus says evolution kicked in and one line gave rise to Rodentia another line gave rise to Marsupialia and another line began to spew out apes and so forth. But those are just convenient classifications and there may not have been a more recent common ancestor than that original shrew-like animal. Our general perception of the event is that this animal simply gave rise to a series of others that went on to form the various Linnean (Carl Von Linné) orders and classes that we stuff the botanical and zoological organisms into today (even if they don't fit). I appreciate that I am leaving myself wide-open here for a scathing attack. But just because it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it doesn't follow that it simply has to be a duck. Look at how difficult it was to convince the learned know-it-all scientific community that there was such a thing as a monotreme. Two books in a library will contain many identical words and even sentences. It also doesn't follow that both books must be written by the same author or even, if written by two different authors, that those authors had to be related.
The stranded human DNA contains a large quantity of junk DNA. That is not the same as discarded rubbish. It is simply DNA sequencing that is not, apparently, coded for anything. It isn't turned on. And we don't, as far as I know, even know how it gets turned on. But it sure would be interesting to connect a couple up and see what happens. I wanted to retrofit a piece of electronic equipment to my car. I went to see the people who sold the equipment to get some idea of how difficult (expensive) it would be to retrofit the item and how long would it take. The salesman said in effect that if I bought the item from them they would fit it free and they could do it while I hung about and had a cup of coffee. The dashboards in most cars these days have several snap-out panels to accept retrofitted devices. Some are equipped with mounting slots and all have access to the car's wiring harness and even that is separately fused. So, in my case it was a simple matter of locating it, screwing it down and plugging it in. I suspect that is what junk DNA represents. All that is needed is the right piece of equipment to come along, and it is already pre-wired and ready to go. In fact, if we can find a way to turn the sequence on, it might just start pumping out the proteins and peptides to build the necessary piece of equipment all by itself. If you happen to be reading this and you happen to work in a lab and your face has just contorted with horror, yes I am being facetious and certainly do not advocate such fooling around, even if it were possible.
It is also likely that much of the junk DNA is the product of neutral gene theory or the product of a faulty (in terms of it not doing what the parent organism did) gene. We already know what happens when the body doesn't produce certain hormones such as insulin and what happens when certain proteins are blocked or not suppressed. Much of the junk DNA may well be sequences that have been turned off, which has made us more like what we are today. The sequences may have suppressed hormones or produced hormones and these may have shaped our very existence. That may matter to us, as I doubt we would like too many changes, especially radical ones to our genome, but I doubt that it makes a particle of difference to DNA. I say again that DNA is one planet-engulfing organism.
People who study the early earth of billions of years ago tell us that it was simply not able to harbour life, as we know it. And many terra-like planets seem to remain that way. So, what happened here to give us the goldilocks effect? Not too warm not too cold but everything just right? We have already discovered that DNA is able to survive in some very inhospitable situations. Bacteria can live in boiling geysers. Shrimp can live in water so salty that it poisons everything else. Shrimp and bacteria can live next to deep ocean vents that should cook them and the pressure should squash them. There are insects and worms that live in solid ice and in water that should freeze them into oblivion. So, what are they doing there? They exist and their very existence is bringing about minute changes that burgeon and multiply into massive changes. DNA is making the planet more hospitable for it.
We are about to go planet hopping. We have speculated about terra-forming planets to make us more comfortable. I don't think that's necessary if we have enough time up our sleeve for I suspect if DNA infects another planet, it will make it not only hospitable for DNA but comfortable for all of its vessels as well.
I am not convinced that trying to find a common ancestor to explain all of us is anything other than pointless. Like Neanderthal, I don't think the other early hominids are related to us. I think Australopithecus and the others (even though we name them, like Lucy) are simply different models that dead-ended and have nothing to do with us. And, even though the average chimp may be prettier than me, I still don't think we are in any way related.
I'm not quite sure that I follow your argument, but here are a couple of points:
- Yes, evolution does not go from simple to complex. There is, however, a general trend toward increasing complexity.
I'd cite hominids as an example, though I'm not sure if you'd believe me, so try instead parasites and hosts. Both (according to the Red Queen hypothesis) continually develop new attack and defense mechanism is response to each other. They exhibit more derived features (different to their ancestors). Complex? Depends on the individual example, but often yes.
- Informed people do not believe that cavemen were stupid. However, you have made assumptions. As evolution is not instantaneous, there was not suddenly a moment where we started chatting away. It is speculated (I can't provide evidence at the moment) that the language systems of the brain and the vocal organs were part of a feedback loop, developing together.
Sadly we cannot see many of the supposed evolutionary intermediates, they happen to be dead.
- To cover a number of points in your text, I ask you to remember that we evolved to deal with life yesterday, in response to the selective pressures on our parents. Passenger pigeons were successful until humans developed a taste for them, and that happened faster than they could evolve.
It's a case of what survived from before, which brings us neatly to DNA. Organisms are not DNA transporters. DNA is selected by successful replication, not by spreading out as you may be suggesting. And what do you define as its opposite?
I haven't covered these points in as much detail as I'd like, but this is a start. Others can cover the epigenetics.
"...which brings us neatly to DNA. Organisms are not DNA transporters. DNA is selected by successful replication, not by spreading out as you may be suggesting. And what do you define as its opposite? "
I have no argument with the mechanics of evolution. That is pretty much self-evident. I do though have a problem with the theory. Lots of theory is wrong.
Until we understood about chorophyll and mitochondria just a few years back, there were several theories to account for the Autumnal change to the leaves of trees. The mechanics still worked. But the theory was absurd despite the weight of academic utterance and textbook doctrine.
My personal favourite is Phlogiston. Why did things burn and some not? The theory was the presence of a mysterious element called Phlogiston. If something had it, then it could burn the Phlogiston (that is why there was always some residue left in the form of ash) and if Phlogiston wasn't present, then it couldn't burn. The theory still actually works if you are prepared to accept that we just haven't been able to isolate Phlogiston as yet.
We now know that theory is wrong. But the mechanics worked just fine despite it.
Back to your comment. I think (maybe) that organisms are DNA transporters. And as for the opposite...well, just what we think today. If we are thinking incorrectly, that won't change the facts nor the mechanics of how it is achieved.
A bunch of years ago, a science fiction writer (maybe Asimov because he was a favourite of mine) wrote a story where some other world intelligence sent a probe to this planet to determine if life existed. When the data was collected and finally transmitted back to the waiting scientists, it turned out that the dominant life-form on the planet was the automobile and plans should be put into effect to attempt some sort of dialogue with them.
If the mechanics work just fine, then maybe we should stop trying to make things fit theory and start looking at alternate possibilities.
I could swear I've read this before word-for-word somewhere... but that could just be deja-vu.
You wander around a lot in your essay, and at times it's pretty hard to remember what your argument or your thesis is.
My understanding of your thesis is:
Organisms are ultimatlely expressions of DNA, and classifying them as seperate entities or establishing evolutionary timelines to determine their heredity creates a false paradigm for true scientific thinking.
Is this anywhere near what you're getting at?
Are you saying that humans and chimps are not "related" in the sense that they have a relatively recent common ancestor? If so, are you saying that there is no common ancestor, or that the existance of a common ancestor doesn't make us "related"?
As far as the complexity issue is concerned: Evolution has been demonstrated to result in greater complexity in certain cases(though complexity is a tricky thing to define concerning organisms). A simple example is polyploidy in plants. However, to say that evolution progresses in ANY direction is to imply that there is a purpose to the process of evolution, which there isn't. Still, considering how life must have (probably) evolved from an extremely simple proto-cell, even the most basic life on earth today is more complex than it's earliest ancestor. So, it's easy to define a trend, and say evolution tends to result in more complexity. Are there exceptions? Yes of course, plenty. This has been known for a long time.
I have an issue with your treatment of human-caused extinction. Yes, there have been species that have cause other species to go extinct before. Extinction is part of evolution, and natural ecological function on earth. You treat it as simply one form of DNA wiping out another, with little to no net effect.
There is a reason the passenger-pidgeon is the poster-child for conservation.
First: The mass-roosting and migration behavior is a very effective survival mechanism, as it decreases predation rates. This is, sadly, why humans were so fond of killing the birds, as it seemed to have little impact on the population. However, humans were capable of killing off the birds in far greater quantities, and by far more devious/insidious methods than any other natural predator. If we look to any of the most effective predators on earth, ever, we probably couldn't find one that could have wiped out the passenger pigeons as effectively or quickly as we did. In fact, predators rarely cause extinction. It's really not in the predators best interest to extirpate its source of food. Most commonly it is competition or change in environment that causes extinction.
Second: It exemplified humanity's attitude toward it's environment, as a limitless resource, designed specifically for human consumption. This trend in behavior, if left unchecked, could cause mass-extinctions globally, and eventually an almost complete loss of biodiversity. Ecology was still merely in its infancy, and there were few, if any people that cared enough to consider things such as migration routes, breeding grounds, or minimum viable populations. Even today, though, we wait until an animal is "endangered" and then "protect" it, rather than adjusting the way we live to fit with the natural world we live in.
So... hopefully, even in your context of DNA being the ultimate organism, you can see how the extinction of the passenger pigeon was not just a meaningless event. An entire genome of a species was wiped out, not because it was outcompeted, or its environment changed, or EVEN because of mass predation. It was wiped out because of the WHIM of another species. For the pleasure, if you will. The reason sportsmen shoot "clay-pidgeons" is because they already shot all the real passenger pidgeons. As far as I know, no other species has ever done that. No other species has ever wielded as much power as humans do, and it is our responsibility to not abuse that power.
Anyway, I think that ultimately, your idea that DNA is the one-true-organism is pretty much a moot point as long as it is the basic unit of all known living life. Perhaps it will become something to consider if we ever discover life (or life discovers us) that is based on something other than DNA.
Why not say since DNA is made of nucleotides that we're all just part of a big nucleotide organism. Or better yet, since nucleotides are made of atoms, we're all just a big atom organism. It really doesn't matter. What matters is that organisms, NOT DNA, are what interact with the environment and each-other, and thus any and all value judgements are based on those interactions, not the mute contributions of the underlying DNA.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
JDavidE, a theory is based on fact but is not immutable. Theories aren't always perfect, and if contradictory evidence comes to light then you revise or scrap your theory. You still need to show evidence for scrapping the idea that Pan and Homo are related.
An interesting point - one naturalist stated that, on average, all living things are insects.
are you basing your entire theory on sociobiology's selfish gene theory?
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."
A Monkey's Uncle
Astus Aleator:
I could swear I've read this before word-for-word somewhere....
I posted the identical blog (apart from some sloppy grammar I discovered) in a couple of places including my own blog page.
I was hoping to get some reply; in particular a blistering paragraph or two that would tear my hypothesis to shreds. It's lonely standing out here. If you are implying that someone else may be responsible for the outburst, I don't think anyone with any reputation would like to own up to it or express it in such a scatty manner.
You wander around a lot in your essay, and at times it's pretty hard to remember what your argument or your thesis is
Sorry about that but I am not good at this. I tried to make it brief but had to keep going back to make another point.
My understanding of your thesis is:
Organisms are ultimatlely expressions of DNA, and classifying them as seperate entities or establishing evolutionary timelines to determine their heredity creates a false paradigm for true scientific thinking
Gee, I hope I didn't say that. We can classify things till the cows come home as far as I'm concerned. Some people even have different sock drawers. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose. Let me put it this way though and use another absurdity. Let's suppose that contemporary climatology was based on the theory that the snorting of a mythical celestial dragon was responsible for tornadoes and cyclonic weather patterns. It would be pretty hard to refute and half the researchers would be looking for dragon poop (and probably finding some specimens that almost everyone agreed likely was) and the other half would be researching other weather phenomena that could be attributed to the bodily functions of the mythical dragon. Anyone trying to prove that simple heat exchange was the basis for all weather would likely get covered in some of that dragon poop. The apt expression from the computer world is: garbage in, garbage out. I just think we are looking in the wrong direction.
Are you saying that humans and chimps are not "related" in the sense that they have a relatively recent common ancestor?
Huh? I'm saying that humans and chimps are not necessarily related even if they do have a common ancestor, which I doubt. How do we know it was a common ancestor? DNA sequencing? I don't think that proves a relationship other than we happen to have a lot of the same hardware. Let's get silly again. You and 29 other people wander into a shop that sells electrical gadgets. All of you make several or many purchases from the trays lying about. By the time you have all finished shopping, it is dark outside. So, those who happen to have bought flashlights will turn them on. The rest will remain in the dark. If you compare purchases, you might discover that many people not only have the identical gadgets but that many may have most. Does that make you all related in the genetic sense? (Yes, I do appreciate that is woefully simplistic).
DNA, even in fairly simple organisms, has a lot of coding that is not 'in use'. This just may be remnant or it may be dormant or it just may be a box full of one-time useful hardware. All that is needed (maybe) is some way to turn it back on.
However, to say that evolution progresses in ANY direction is to imply that there is a purpose to the process of evolution,
No it doesn't. Grand Old Darwin should never have used the word evolution because everybody thinks it means it has to be better and stronger. We have got to get away from thinking that evolution always works upward. It simply means the differentiation or mutation from a parent organism. There are several examples of atavism, especially in the plant kingdom. To suggest that evolution doesn't work laterally as well is fuzzy thinking. Picture an arid zone. Picture all of the plants growing there in the arid zone. They will have many, many features in common to enable them to capture water, retain water, reflect heat, redirect heat and to source nutrient in the soil (often by way of a symbiotic mycelium). Does this suppose that they all had a recent common ancestor? As for purpose, that supposes creationism and that is even stupider than my hypothesis that DNA is one single organism, and we are in the belly of the beast.
I have an issue with your treatment of human-caused extinction. Yes, there have been species that have cause other species to go extinct before. Extinction is part of evolution, [Really? Why should that be so? That presupposes grand design and is rather a wastefully stupid idea if it is.] and natural ecological function on earth. You treat it as simply one form of DNA wiping out another, with little to no net effect.
No I don't. I do not suggest anywhere that one form of DNA wipes out another form. Firstly, DNA is DNA and doesn't come in different guises or forms (or flavours). If DNA is the only life form (creature) on earth, which I contend, then the loss of an entire species (our terminology) is no more meaningful to DNA than the Autumnal loss of leaves to a tree.
The mass-roosting and migration behavior is a very effective survival mechanism, as it decreases predation rates. The underscore is mine.
Sorry, that is simply wrong. Having read your whole comment on conservation issues, I think it is probably safe to say that you are not a member of the NRA. Such behaviour does not decrease predation rates it only enhances the odds that the individual will not be eaten. In fact, where huge food sources are available, even seasonally, it simply increases the number of predators (who seem to know when and where) and the amount of predation. But it still is better odds for the individual than being the only bird in the tree when a hungry snake is slithering about.
Take, for example the seventeen-year cicada. The larval form stays in the ground attuned to some biological clock that has the alarm set for 17 circuits of the sun. When the alarm goes off, every larvae tunnels to the surface, emerges and heads for the nearest tree or high object. Predators have arrived, in advance, in great numbers and they gorge themselves. They eat and eat until each one swears they couldn't hold another cicada nymph for at least seventeen years. They haven't made a dent in the swath of nymphs. The sheer number of the insects simply overwhelms the predators. The cicada adults emerge from the pupae and take off to spend the night in an orgy of procreation. The females lay their eggs…and then every cicada dies. Isn't that bizarre? If a misguided conservationist happened on the scene to find the entire forest floor carpeted several deep in dead adult cicadas, we might expect to hear some Chicken Little dialogue. The sky is not falling however. Nor was it falling when the Passenger pigeon got extincted by us (I just made that word up for the fun of it) in the space of a few hundred years. It should have been an ecological disaster. So why wasn't it? It didn't lead to global warming, or another interglacial and didn't seem to have any appreciable impact at all. So why not? I think it only makes a difference to us because we can take notes. It wouldn't matter a damn to a chimpanzee and I don't think it matters to DNA either.
As for extinctions, I am really sorry to see it happen to any species, especially if it was caused or facilitated by us. Having said that, I am rather glad that velociraptor didn't get to hang about.
It really doesn't matter. What matters is that organisms, NOT DNA, are what interact with the environment and each-other, and thus any and all value judgements are based on those interactions, not the mute contributions of the underlying DNA.
Mebbe so. And maybe a mythical dragon causes tornadoes.
Small note: I just reread everything here and some of my responses seem to be a little curt. They are not intended to be and I have absolutely no wish to belittle or deride. I am just trying to avoid pages of argument where a simple response should do it well enough. The whole purpose of the blog really was to get the con argument so I could refine my direction on the hypothesis.
…a theory is based on fact but is not immutable. Theories aren't always perfect, and if contradictory evidence comes to light then you revise or scrap your theory. You still need to show evidence for scrapping the idea that Pan and Homo are related.
Hmmm. Well, no I don't. I simply don't think the relationship exists in terms of we must have evolved from some fossilised look-alike. As for DNA sequencing tying us together, I don't think we are adept enough yet to say anything other than (at best) likely.
A recent study into Polynesian ancestry using DNA sequencing made the rather startling discovery that the Polynesian was a descendant of Chinese origin. In fact, it went on, from memory, to suggest that it was from two Chinese areas, one being Hong Kong. (If that isn't correct then ignore the reference). I simply took the research on board as an interesting fact and used it to tease a few of my Maori friends. The matter really isn't worth pursuing but it suddenly struck me that there was a flaw somewhere in that contention. Captain James Cook took some natives from Tahiti with him on the rest of his voyage. They, or at least one of them, were able to converse with the Maori in New Zealand. Language has a way of changing rather rapidly in isolation. Both countries were basically isolated from the other. So, if the language hadn't altered to a point where it was unintelligible, each to the other, then the separation hadn't been of great duration. This supposes then that both Maori and Tahitian both came from a much larger population. And some of that larger population's language should reflect some Chinese origin as well. Well, checking out instances of Polynesian culture across the Pacific, it doesn't seem to. Nor do any of their art forms. So the only 'proof' seems to be a newly acquired art of DNA sequencing.
In either event it doesn't matter. If we can tie a string from us to some tree dwelling ape wondering what to do with his opposable thumb, that is fine by me. It just is that you are going to have to really convince me you have it right. Not just suppose it's right because it fits contemporary theory. And I reiterate; DNA couldn't care less, not even about us. No more than you stop to consider the feelings of your automobile.
…are you basing your entire theory on sociobiology's selfish gene theory?
Firstly, it's a little presumptuous to call mine a theory and, yes, I do subscribe to the selfish gene theory ever since I read Richard Dawkins' book, The Selfish Gene, at Capricornia. I found I was nodding my head as I turned each page and muttering things like, 'Of course, of course' and 'That's obvious (now that you have pointed it out)'. Yet I do not believe I have used the argument to supplement mine other than in an illustrative way to make a point.
Nice username.
Old expression, many variants:
An individual is just a zygote's way to making another zygote.
This is yet another variant, substituting DNA. It's valid, but not intrinsically useful. Just labels.
That seems a little cynical, Darby. I'm not trying to promote anything here. Perhaps you can expand on the 'old expression, many variants' with some examples so I can see if we are on the same page. As for the second line, it is basically incorrect. An individual (not to put too fine a point on it) can only provide a haploid cell, not a zygote.
It is kind of you to even suggest my argument is valid for I am far from convinced myself. Can you expound further as to why it may be valid?
A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg.
You can pick at the particulars, but it doesn't alter the sayings. Or the basic concept behind them.
If you want to see all of biology as being driven by DNA competition, there's a hint of validity to it. But, as in much bad biology, including a lot of stuff that derives from Dawkins (who wasn't making anything like the sweeping simplification you're making here), it's just a bit of a much bigger picture.
As for some of your specific points, you are confusing analogies with homologies, rolling back taxonomic thought a couple of millenia. And even homologies, a much surer way to establish legitimate relationships, is limited, as is DNA correlations.
And it's not like all of that non-coding DNA are dormant codes. Coding DNA has particular features, and although there are some stretches like that, they often are recognizable as viral or plasmid codes, inactivated, or codes that are degraded. It's not an infinite grab-bag of possibilities that would allow a sponge to be a pear tree if only certain ones were expressed.
I've got to say, I may not completely understand the basic point you're trying to make here.
the thoughts im expressing in this reply are based on the ideas of Pierre Tielhard de Chardin as well as the teachings of Australian biologist Jeremy Griffith. His work can be found on his organisation's website:
- It isn't simply DNA that is favoured by evolution, but certain arangements of DNA. DNA is an information processing mechanism. What is sorts is matter. and to what end does it sort? it sorts according to stability, certain arrangements that are found to be more stable persist.
- Again, we are expressions of certain arrangements of DNA, not simply DNA unto itself. Every living thing is an idea, a unique arrangement and it persisted because of its physical stability and its stability within an ecosystem. stability = order. The journey of Earth has always been towards more and more order.
- primitive to complex is not the transitional language i would use. i would say either simple -> complex, or primitive -> advanced. but anyway, the idea that is being communicated here is that of a building up of smaller units into larger units. The heirarchy of matter stands as: fundamental particle > simple nuclei > complex nuclei > atoms > molecules > compounds > virus-like organisms > single-celled organisms > multicellular organisms. my question here is, what is the alternative to a building up in evolution? A sudden appearance of multicellular organisms?
- i dont know where you are going with this paragraph. i can just reinforce what i think you are saying.
- evolve and devolve are essentially the same things. except devolve has some irrelevant connotations associated with it. with your example, since the fish needed no eyes they evolved into this new form, but because the change includes a change that we would interpret as 'bad' it is now labeled 'devolution'. and these dead end changes occur in many species which obviously lowers its fitness if the environment were to change rapidly. in its current form it is fitted perfectly to its environment.
- why not? who layed down the law on this assumption? why cant complex matter coexist with simple matter? infact this summises that laws of building-up can't exist with laws of breaking-down. We know they can, ie. second law of thermodynamics and its partner the second path to the second law of thermodynamics have been proven.
- the physical adaptations of animals correlate to their environment. it is irrelevant to say that one species is better than another because of its physiology when both are adapted perfectly to their own individual environments and niches. we know this. its also irrelevent to say that one species is better than another because of the complexity, or lack there of, of its physiology when both may support the same ecosystem yet at different levels. we know this. on this level of understanding i agree that life has spread and changed and covered earth in a wholey lateral way.
- this statement is also charged with non-purpose. it implies no direction in evolution. but there is one anatomical feature that has been steadily developing during the evolution of animals on earth. when single celled organisms first joined to become a community they needed to communicate and what developed was a rudimentary nervous system called a nerve net. over time parts of the nerve net have joined to form nerve chords and ganglia, never going backwards in this developement, always bigger and more centrated nervous systems, until you get to the mammals with their comparitively enormous brains. this is a uni-directional developement that is never admitted. why? the implications of larger more efficient brains are very important in developement such as more complex behaviour -> complex social structure. the next step in the heirarchy of matter. this is our upward march, this is why we are the pinnicle.
- so beacause DNA persists when one organism or species dies implies the meaning of life is for DNA to persist/survive?
- and??
(i must admit that this part is very funny imo, you are giving DNA an emotive character, "DNA didnt care for the death of the species, for he persisted as he always will, for his own ends. mwahahah!!")
- one thing you must know about life. life tries everything to know everything. what we see around us now are the arrangements of DNA, the unique ideas that have survived. some species are going down dead ends as we speak, others are at their end now, and still others are just blossoming from the tree of life. if we knew every unique organism that evolution has ever sprouted we would hardly have the space to record the tree of life.
- this is such a round-about conclusion based on conveniantly set up information. i can tackle this by actually telling you what the purpose of reproduction is.. firstly, the purpose of reproduciton is not a scheme by DNA. like ive said, DNA is a mechanism for ordering matter. once life has found a unique sequence of DNA that is stable/orderly ie. species, it works to further organise this unique sequence. how it does this is through sexual reproduction of individuals within the species. one half of the genetic sequence from two individuals come together to furhter order the information. what results are more individuals of the species that are slightly different and so their survival will depend on these differences. the offspring are experiments or 'life trying eveything to know everything'. certain arrangements of matter (individuals) wont survive because the arrangement is found not to be stable enough to persist. this is the point of reproduction, to find arrangements that are better suited than previous ones. which is why we dont just reproduce by fragmentation which would be far easier for this selfcontrived DNA you speak of.
- if the only thing that mattered was the persistance of DNA then what we would find (or not find sisnce we wouldnt exist) is that only raw DNA existed. why would a DNA molecule want to traverse the globe within a lifetime? surely it has all the time in the world? why create unique carriers? why create such intricate/complex ecosystems? organisms are active within the ecosystem, changing it, why would DNA have changed earth to such a degree? the atmosphere? the soil? the water? why all these changes towards complexity when all it wants to do is exist? at the birth of life - of DNA - why not just keep all these environments the same?
- i find it a human low point to believe that we are an accident.
- what youve done here is set up a favourable argument. you know very well you have the choice to save both people, or at least try. ive already talked about selfishness and ultruism concerning humans and the differences between animals. maybe look it up.
- the selfish gene theory is a squewed interpretation of human behaviour. the author ive cited in the beginning of this post (Jeremy Griffith) explains why in is writings. check it out.
- bonobos have now been classified into their own species. extensive research is being done on bonobo behaviour and social organisation. have you read any research by naturalists? Dianne Fossey on gorrilas and Eugene Marais on baboons. ultruistic behaviour. social organisation. mate slection. plz read. if its bonobo behaviour you are wanting a biological explanation for read Jeremy Griffith. there is a clear and concise biological step by step process that occured which led to altruistic behaviour (not psuedo-ultruistic) in bonobos and humans. (why we dont actually act selflessly all the time is also covered in his books. psychological factors are included in our behaviour which you might want to think about.)
- this is a case of psuedo-stupidity. not actually being stupid but pretending you are because its easier. what if im not that intelligent and am being duped by DNA molecules??!.... plz no
- and?? yes we are different to chimps. you chose the right things to highlight our differences. This is an example of us not knowing everything, not an example of everything we've learnt about our animal heritage being wrong.
- and?? these lengthy paragraphs aren't proving or disproving anything. so weve learnt and gained a clearer picture of the past?
- how do you know we have always been able to speak? What do you mean by always? what do you mean by speak - to form sentences/have language? or just to vocalise?
- indeed they dont. once again, and? youve pointed out every way chimpanzees are different from humans, we know this. we also know that there is genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees that has been found and confirmed by scientists. its simply a case of finding out what led to us being so different. "i dont know" is a better conclusion for now than, "DNA is using organisms as shuttling devices" imo.
- why did we need complex modes of communication before consciousness? no other animal needs it, why would we have? we have the need to communicate complex thoughts now but why do you think we have always had this need? do you think we have always been conscious to the degree we are now?
- this is not fact. how do you know our current sexual preoccupancy is not because of other factors, such as psychological, since that is the main springboard for action in conscious creatures like ourselves?
- i would like to see the reference for this comment plz.
- the points in this para have been covered in previous paragraphs.
- i think you should take your own advice. what you have here is a new classification system that sheds no new knowledge. which is what people are trying to tell you. i can make one up too on levels higher or lower than that of DNA.
- irrelevant. bad analogy
- this information is nonconsequential in relation to your argument. im not sure if it has any truth involved since i dont know much about genes.
- again, conveniantly setup information as well as guessing, strung together.
- second path to the second law of thermodynamics, look it up.
- i sincerely regret replying to this whole post.
- my friend likened this idea to scientology's believe that we are vessels for aliens.
- your thinking is so crippled in the line from question to solution my brain was about to ESPLODE.
- im sorry i lost my patience
- your analogies dont apply to your argument at all, revise them.
- why do you discard the small questions in favour of out-of-this-world all encompassing theories?
- if you ever write something like this up again plz save us the time and leave out all intellectual extravagances, present your argument succinctly, not drawn out.
- alot of the stuff you are saying leaves me asking where did he get that from? in places where you think the audience will ask this question for sure, leave a reference. or just do it all the time if you want.
- also alot of the information (almost all of it) you give provides no evidence to support your argument. like dead end developement in animal evolution. just because these species have become extinct and others have not doesnt mean DNA is using organisms as shuttling devices.
- also you points are based on points are based on points that are unsubstantiated. i can imagine this whole thing sprouting from the mind of someone reading about selfish gene theory...
Last edited by narrowstaircase on Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."
Re: A Monkey's Uncle
- that is exactly what you're saying, and including the dragon analogy reinforces this - new models of classification, yet no new knowledge or better understanding.
this analogy is entirely wrong, to rectify it, we are the collection of gadgets, not the people collecting them, so yes, we are all related since our parts are all from the same place.
dude, creationism is looking pretty hawt right now.
the simple fact is that DNA does come in different forms. you dont want to accept that fact. guess waht we did to all strings of acid made from (A,T,G,C) nucleotides? we labelled them DNA. because they all fall under this classification doesnt mean they are all the same. they are unique.
- we already know that within an ecosystem there are species that are important for the functioning of that ecosystem, they are called key-stone species. we can make an inference on this observation of passenger pigeon extinction, the species was not a key-stone species.
nice sidestep of a relevant point.
to reiterate what 45561 said, you still need to show evidence for scrapping the idea that pan and homo are related...
science is a human endevour and when you slander it you disrespect the long line of people before us that devoted their lives to increasing human knowledge. if we cant trust ourselves within reason why dont we just stare at the ceiling and dribble on our chests all day. sure we should question everything, but all you are doing is slandering.
DNA doesn't care. thats the thing. it cant. and the string you talk about isnt some feeble irrelevant guess work. its conclusions based on many observations over hundreds of years.
darby explains your idea perfectly. we are left with one last thing to consider, how to make a blind man see.
Last edited by narrowstaircase on Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."
Well narrowstaircase has addressed a few points in response already, but I'll take my stab:
The problem with this analogy is that it is an analogy. The reality is much more complex. Observable patterns are science's greatest ally. In your analogy, anyone looking for patterns would have a hard time missing the correlation between temperature, season, and weather patterns, regardless of how much dragon poop they were or weren't finding. The evolutionary relationships that are part of current theory are based on decades of intense study and observation. That's not to say that they're correct, but from what we are able to observe, they make the most sense. And, unlike your dragon poop, there are plenty of people trying to refute evolution.
Anyway, what "direction" do you think we should look, to discern how evolution has occured, and is occuring?
As far as analogies go, narrowstaircases version is more accurate. At least you acknowledge the simplicity of the example. If we see two species of finches, similar in almost every regard except the shape of their beaks, we can hypothesize that they share a recent common ancestor. The only other explanation i could think of is that every species on earth evolved independenty from its own original proto-cell. Or possibly, there was a common ancestor farther back than hypothesized, and the two species evolved in a parallel fashion. That still calls for a common ancestor though. Evolutionary theory (especially cladistics) generally follows the most parsimonious path (to weigh options, not discount them).
Actually I believe the association of "better, stronger" comes from post-darwin treatment of the word evolution. I could be wrong though. As far as "direction" is concerned, I think we misunderstood each other. It's common knowledge that evolution is not a linear progression (such as shown in charts of human evolution) but a branching, sprawling, haphazard phenomenon that is difficult to demonstrate visually. In fact, we really don't have any methods perfected for the visualization of evolutionary relationships. Cladistics is probably the closest, but even it has its flaws.
No, analogous features do not necessarily indicate organisms are closely related. For example, dolphins and sharks are not closely related, even though they both have dorsal fins. However, we can probably conclude that a dolphin and a shark are more closely related than a shark and a starfish.
While you can have adaptation and speciation without extinction, it is a fundamental aspect of evolution. If you can't understand this... ask yourself what would happen if no species ever went extinct. I am in no way indicating that there is a "grand design". It's just how things work.
I will sub-quote what you originally said about the pidgeons:
I think narrowstaircase dealt quite well with this portion. You're anthropomorphizing DNA, and at the same time, pidgeon-holing it as a catch-all entity, rather than what it really is. There are variations on DNA. Disagree? compare viral dna to bacterial, or bacterial to mitochondrial, or mitochondrial to nucleic mammal.
I'll take the high-road on your first comments, and not be mean. "predation rate" means the ratio of individuals killed by predators. Yes, more predators show up for these swarms, but the predator to prey ratio (and thus the predation rate) is still lower than if they were spread out over a large area and time. I think you probably just misunderstood me, since you mention the decreased chance of the individual being killed.
I'm not going to try to go into the ethics of conservation with you, as you obviously seem to have your mind made up (and no, i'm not in the NRA). However, I was talking to DNA the other day, and it was really pissed off about the pidgeon thing... yeah... Something about genocide. I dunno. Must be a cultural thing.
try again.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
© Biology-Online.org. All Rights Reserved. Register | Login | About Us | Contact Us | Link to Us | Privacy Policy |


text: Shuttle services help you get from one location to the next, quickly and efficiently. They can range from taking a shuttle bus from the airport parking lot to the actual airport, to calling a taxicab to drive you around town. Read below to learn some of the more popular terms associated with shuttle services.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Poisoned by antibiotics...can anyone help?
Human Anatomy, Physiology, and Medicine. Anything human!
Moderator: BioTeam
Poisoned by antibiotics...can anyone help?
I am suffering from my second case of acute progressive Central Nervous System Toxicity (poisoning) caused by what I now know to be either:
(a) an adverse reaction to Amoxcillin possibly combined with Metriniadazole, or
(b) too high dosage of Amoxcillin on it's own or possibly combined with Metriniadazole.
I have never had this diagnosis confirmed by any doctor, cardiologist or neurologist, and have come to this conclusion from searching the internet for information.
I appreciate that patients who are too clever....who self diagnose from the internet or other resources can be a problem for the medical profession; but in this case I genuinely know I have discovered what happened to cause my illness. But no one will take me seriously.
It seems they firmly believe that a 'simple' antibiotic cannot cause these long lasting arrythmias, insomnia, parasthesias, neuropathies, altered brain chemistry, and all the other severe mental and health problems that I have experienced. Perhaps I am just someone who is a 'poor metabolizer'...i.e, my liver cannot break down the drug properly so it builds up into toxic concentrations. Perhaps my alcohol consumption in the past has something do do with this. Perhaps this antibiotic was prescribed by my dentist without taking taking into account the prior ingestion of antibiotics and its cumulative effects on me. Whatever the reason, I know my own body, and know I have been poisioned. Anti-biotics 'kill life'...that is what the two words mean. They kill organisms, and the human body is just one huge organism. I have had too much of a toxic substance and I need help to get rid of it.
My story starts in June 2000 when I was on a long course of 1500mg daily Amoxicillin after two bad dental abcesses. Approximately three weeks after finishing the course I presented at my Health Centre with numbness and tingling in the hands, forearms and backs of shoulders. I actually thought I had had some sort of stroke. I had tingling skin - a creeping feeling on the skin like the start of flu - muscle twitching, extreme muscle weakness, sudden parathesias (areas of skin suddenly falling asleep for no reason) numb hands upon waking, insomnia, cardiospasm, gastrointestinal disturbance, 'waves' of chest stomach pain, chest/sternum pain, severe panic attacks and palpitations. I would wake in the middle of the night with an odd and very frightening 'wave' in my chest. I don't know how else to describe it. Like an electrical 'hiccup'. Apparently, I know know it is extreme irritation or 'exitability' of the vagus nerve. I also would be on the point of sleep...just as you move from consiousness into sleep, and would suddenly be jolted violently awake by what felt like an electric shock in the centre of my brain. Like a cattle prod. I would hear a loud zzzzzzap or an explosion. I also had hallucinations on the point of sleep.. it was like being in the movies. I would 'see' sudden pictures in my head....an angry face, or people whispering, a dog with it's legs crossed. Tall ships in a harbour, men rushing at each other with spears. I know this sounds totally mad, but it is true. I was told these were all symptoms of anxiety and was given an anti anxiety pill - Zisprin. Over the next four months my heart symptoms got worse, and I would feel flutterings and palpitations. I repeatedly asked that my chest pain and heart symptoms be taken seriously but my heart was never listened to, nor was I given an ECG. After a few weeks I began having what I presume to be mild seizures (awareness of eyes being drawn upward in head and biting tongue but being unable to control it) and acute psychotic episodes (chemical imbalance in brain causing a series of crippling 'panic' attacks and feelings of impending doom lasting two hours each. These were no ordinary panic attacks. I would pace the room paranoid, convinced I was going to die and had a feeing of horror and impending doom like i have never experienced before or since. ) I was told my tingling limbs and hands were due to simple anxiety.
Finally in August 2000 after a month of severe palpitations and chest pain I had a terrible episode of arrythmia in the middle of the night - my heart rate was over 200 bpm. I was admitted to the Coronary Care Unit where I was told I had had a recent heart attack. I was also told that I had an abnormal ECG, and there had been a major and unexplained electrical disturbance in my heart causing this long term cardiac arrythmia and prolongation of the QT wave. I was told I may need a pacemaker and given Propranolol. After one week of treatment I was sent home. I was also diagnosed with a bruit, and a heart murmer and told to take an anitibiotic prophylactic before any any invasive or deep dental procedure in the future. I had various tests including echocardiogram and regular holter monitor testing at home. In October 2000 my symptoms subsided and I gradually stopped taking the propranolol. Life got back to normal.
I never ever made the connection between the Amoxicillin and my problems.
Starting in June 2009 I had at least three very long courses of 500mg Amoxicillin for dental abcess, followed by another long course of Metrinidazole (Flagyl) after three dental implants, and three seperate occasions of 3mg Amoxil as prophylactic before hygienist visit for deep cleaning. Approximately two weeks after cessation of these antibiotics in August I began having the exact symptoms as in 2000 starting with numbness and tingling. I then made the definite connection between my symptoms and both long courses of strong antibiotic nine years apart.
I researched the internet, and discovered that strong courses of antibiotics (quinolones) can cause exactly the progressive symptoms I had had in 2000, and am having now. Although I had never ingested a quinolone, I had been on an extremely strong course of Amoxicillin coupled with Flagyl, which amounts to the same thing. Toxic poison. These concerns have not been taken seriously by my GP.
I now know some classes of antibiotics affect bacterial cell physiology. Their mechanism of action at the cellular level is to selectively bind certain ions creating intra- and extracellular biochemical disturbances. The ions bound vary with different members of this class of drug, with salinomycin preferentially binding potassium. This interferes with potassium transport across mitchondrial membranes, resulting in low intracellular energy production. The Na+/Ca2+ exchange mechanism may also be disrupted allowing a fatal accumulation of intracellular calcium.1 This mechanism particularly affects skeletal muscle and cardiac muscle. This can affect the function of acetylcholine , a neurostransmitter which has actions on CNS (nerve) and heart tissue.
Acetylcholine has functions both in the peripheral nervous system (PNS) and in the central nervous system (CNS) as a neuromodulator.
In the PNS, acetylcholine activates muscles, and is a major neurotransmitter in the autonomic nervous system.
In the CNS, acetylcholine and the associated neurons form a neurotransmitter system, the cholinergic system, which tends to cause excitatory actions.
Well, unless you do not have cell wall, amoxicillin should not affect you.
With the second antibiotics, I guess you mean
as nothing like you wrote has been found by Google which is used to treat anaerobes
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
It is interesting that you focused on the amoxicillin, and not on why you have had so many dental surgeries. I would wonder why I have so many problems with my teeth and mouth. Usually teeth/mouth problems can be a symptom to something more elusive in the body. Something possibly made even more problematic when antibiotics are used.
You can't have the same problems, the two posts above you already state it's quite unlikely for the antibiotics to be responsible.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
I dont realy care what the post above say i know that i have had the same symptoms as lesley !!! from takeing sulfa for a uti i have had these symptoms for 2 months and slowly have gotten better !!!!! i was told by my dr it was brain toxcemia. Does anyone have any info on brain toxcemia???
If you're sick, we should find you help. But let's get you the right kind of help. How is the wrong diagnosis going to help you? There's no point in blaming antibiotics if they're not responsible.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Well the drs have tested everything you can test pretty much !!! i have been fuzzy headed slow thinking!!! and very weak and tired!!! feelings of doom nite sweats chest has been feeling tight !!!just dont feel myself .. these symptoms are the ones that im still having i have alot of symptoms of thyroid i was tested and it was ok!!!i need ansers but am not gettting any????????
Re: Poisoned by antibiotics...can anyone help?
I am not a doctor but you present exactly like having late stage Lyme Disease with possible co-infections. By taking antibiotics for short periods of time for unrelated reasons, you may be undertreating a lyme infection which just makes it worse. With that many symptoms in so many different areas of the body, I would think that any doctor with a clue would test for tick borne illness as it presents as an imitator of many other illnesses all at the same time. You may want to get tested for tick borne illness by a good lab as it is a very serious condition that you don't want to just let get worse as the human immune system doesn't seem to be able to fight it off very well. If you have a TBI and take occasional rounds of antibiotics, I can see how it would seem that the antibiotics are the cause of your misery, but that may not be the case. Unfortunately most doctors don't know anything about zoonotic illness so they tend to be hopeless with patients having zoonotic vector-borne diseases that can imitate many other more pedestrian illnesses.
Good luck!
I agree. While it has been proven that oral health problems can lead to something more, this can work the other way as well: many diseases have symptoms that manifest as oral health problems.
Last edited by JackBean on Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: spam removed
I'm not a doctor either, but it sounds like you have: *duh duh duh dummmm...* anxiety. Seriously, the way you have stated it = anxiety. The biting tongue problem? I have it all the time. Zap is tinnitus i.e. ringing in the ears. Heart defects are as such, heart defects. Nothing to do with amoxicillin. Amoxicillin is very commonly used, and considerably safe. Stop stressing, 'cos there is absolutely no way amo can be responsible for you condition. You should take anxiety as a proper disease and get it treated. Relax. Stop worrying. And trust me, everything would be better once you continue and forget about it. And there is a reason why the GP doesn't take you seriously. If you really want to "prove", test yourself, and have yourself monitored for several weeks after taking Amo, and then see.
Dear Lesley,
I just stumbled upon your post. I haven't been on this site in quite awhile so I'm sorry that I was not able to get to you sooner. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE AN AXIETY DISORDER AND I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE HAVING SEVERE MEDICAL PROBLEMS .
I believe there is a very good chance that you are experiencing the after effects of a severe allergic reaction to the antibiotics you were prescribed. I am not a doctor, but I have consulted with a close friend of mine who is a pharmacy tech and he is quite worried about your symptoms as well. He advised me to tell you that if you still have any antibiotics left over that you did not finish to have someone else dispose of them for you immediately. Any tablets that may have been broken or crushed will generate a dust. Simply inhaling or experiencing contact with your eyes, skin, or clothing could trigger a reaction if you are very allergic.
Individuals who are sensitive to beta lactam antibiotics, both penicillins and cephalosporins can experience anaphylaxis, heart failure, kidney failure, liver failure, and adrenal failure, all of which can be potentially life threatening. Ever year around 300 people die from these reactions.
Some brand names that you should avoid include: methotrexate (Rheumatrex, Trexall), probenecid (Benemid), a sulfa drug (such as Bactrim or Septra), an antibiotic such as azithromycin (Zithromax), clarithromycin (Biaxin), erythromycin (E.E.S., E-Mycin, Ery-Tab, Erythrocin), or telithromycin (Ketek); or a tetracycline antibiotic such as demeclocycline (Declomycin), doxycycline (Adoxa, Doryx, Oracea, Vibramycin), minocycline (Dynacin, Minocin, Solodyn, Vectrin), or tetracycline (Brodspec, Panmycin, Sumycin, Tetracap), ampicillin (Omnipen, Principen), dicloxacillin (Dycill, Dynapen), oxacillin (Bactocill), penicillin (Beepen-VK, Ledercillin VK, Pen-V, Pen-Vee K, Pfizerpen, V-Cillin K, Veetids), and any drug that contains cephalosporins such as Ceclor, Ceftin, Duricef, Keflex, and many other antibiotics beginning with "cef-" or "ceph-". Imipenem may also cause allergic reactions in people with penicillin allergy and should be avoided.
You did not specify whether or not you may have consumed any alcohol while taking these antibiotics, but Metronidazole in particular when combined with alcohol can cause tachycardia and shortness of breath--similar to the heart attack/panic attack feelings you may have experienced. Metronidazole also has a nasty reaction to SSRI/SNRI drugs such as Prozac, Lexapro, Celexa, Zoloft, Effexor, Cymbalta, etc.
High doses of Metronidazole also can cause peripheral neuropathy which could be the cause of the weakness and sensory changes you described such as the muscle weakness, tingling/spasms, loss of sensation in your extremities, and the intense nerve pain that you describe as feeling like you were jolted awake by an "electrical shock". It can also cause paraesthesia, which can also cause limbs to fall asleep or for you to experience a "pins and needles" feeling on your skin.
Overdoses of amoxicillin can cause strong behavior changes, confusion, dizziness, black outs, seizures, agitation, ususual thoughts or hallucinations--(suicidal thoughts, depression, anxiety, lightheadedness, sensitivity to light & sound) stomach pain, fever, rashes, body aches/flu symptoms, nausea/vomiting, difficulty breathing, hepatitis, and death.
The best initial fix is to stop taking any of these medications, never take them ever again, and remove all remnants of them from your home and sanitize your household. For yourself, the best recommendation I can give is total body detoxification. There are many different ways to detox the body, but in a case as severe as yours I would suggest consulting with a doctor and possibly getting a hair sample test to determine if intravenous chelation may be appropriate.
I don't know if any of this helps, but my best friend's brother was in immense pain and felt like he was dying for two years before he was diagnosed with having a heart murmur. He had been to countless hospitals in various states and had seen over 20 different doctors who all told him that nothing was wrong with him. Finally, he luckily found a cardiologist who knew exactly what was wrong with him, immediately scheduled him for surgery, and installed a pacemaker. Before that most of the doctors told him that he had an anxiety disorder, that it was "all in his head" and one doctor flat out told him that he was crazy.
Only you know your own body and you know if something is wrong with it. If one doctor doesn't have the answer, don't give up. Someone eventually will.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
© Biology-Online.org. All Rights Reserved. Register | Login | About Us | Contact Us | Link to Us | Privacy Policy |


text:
Blanchard Cable Companies
Find Cable Service Providers in Blanchard, MI
Looking for the best cable deals in Blanchard, Michigan? Then you'll love our comprehensive directory of Blanchard cable companies. Browse the list below to locate cable providers in your area, read reviews and get Free Quotes to find the cable service provider with the best offer.
We're sorry, there are currently no listings for this city. Please click here to search again.


text:
Your Views: Republican Party needs true conservatives
A couple of decades ago, the Republican party had a platform of small government and strong constitutional views. Since then, the GOP has been infiltrated with neoconservatives, causing the party to split between those with conservative, tea party-type views and those that support the UN: pre-emptive wars, international treaties, and basically globalist views.
�Congressman Paul Ryan is a textbook example. He beats the drum of constitutional, conservative views, but in reality, his voting record speaks otherwise. He is a classic neoconservative. We must for the state of our nation judge our politicians by what they vote on not by what they say.
Most recently, his support for amnesty for illegal aliens is justified by saying that "if there's a fine, then it's not amnesty." Really Paul? It's a typical political solution. The fact is that if they get in back of the line, then maybe it's not amnesty.
The bottom line is that the only way to fix this nation is to replace these rank-and-file GOP globalists with true conservatives who aren't afraid to implement the Constitution and who know the separation of powers so they can restrain the executive branch.
This growing, activist government has been stifling our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It's destroying the American Dream with Marxist/Leninist policies. Divide and conquer is their m.o., and we haven't been this divided since the Civil War, and this is by design. Only Godly statesmen and our Constitution can save us now.


text:
The gulf between bulls and bears has never widened so quickly in the $12 trillion market for U.S. government bonds.
The proportion of investors betting on gains or losses in Treasuries, rather than holding a neutral view, almost doubled this year to 51 percent, a client survey by JPMorgan Chase & Co. showed. The 23 percentage-point jump is the most for the period since the top-ranked firm for U.S. fixed-income research by Institutional Investor magazine began its weekly survey in 2003.
With Treasury yields at historically low levels, the stakes are rising as the Federal Reserve cuts back the bond buying that's held down borrowing costs on trillions of dollars of debt from governments to companies and individuals. The debate pits Pacific Investment Management Co.'s Bill Gross, who says yields can stay low because growth and interest rates won't return to pre-crisis levels, against market-rules theorist Robert Farrell, who contends asset prices always revert toward the average.
"With yield levels so low it's very difficult to be neutral," Jack McIntyre, a money manager at Brandywine Global Investment Management LLC, which oversees $44.5 billion, said in a telephone interview from Philadelphia on May 30. "At this point in the game, you either believe or you don't."
McIntyre, who runs a global bond fund, prefers Treasuries to other high-quality government debt such as German bunds.
The 2.81 percent return on Treasuries this year, the biggest over the period since 2010 based on the Bloomberg U.S. Treasury Bond Index, has been propelled as uneven jobs growth, a lack of inflation and the conflict in Ukraine burnished the appeal of U.S. government debt.
The gains upended the predictions of most forecasters, who foresaw losses pushing yields higher for a second straight year as the Fed pared its $85 billion-a-month bond buying program and the five-year U.S. expansion finally took hold.
Yields on the 10-year note, the benchmark for everything from mortgages to corporate bonds and emerging-market government debt, have fallen instead. From the start of the year, they have decreased a half-percentage point to end at 2.59 percent last week, close to average since the recession ended in June 2009. The yield was 2.61 percent today as of 9:48 a.m. in New York.
In each of the three prior U.S. expansions dating back to 1982, 10-year yields averaged more than 4 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
'Disorienting Environment'
With yields so low, the divide among bulls and bears has increased. While more than 70 percent of respondents to JPMorgan's weekly survey—which includes institutions as varied as hedge funds, pensions, and central banks—held a neutral view on Treasuries at the start of 2014, a majority now anticipate either gains or losses.
At the same time, the percentage with bearish outlooks has more than doubled to an almost eight-year high of 40 percent.
"It's been a disorienting environment," Robert Tipp, the chief investment strategist at Prudential Financial Inc.'s fixed-income unit, which oversees $335 billion, said in a telephone interview on June 2.
He said yields can stay low because lackluster growth in the U.S. economy, which contracted in the first quarter, means there won't be enough inflation to compel the Fed to raise interest rates much before stopping.
The Fed has held its benchmark rate close to zero since 2008, and trading in the futures and swaps markets suggest the rate will remain below 2 percent through March 2017.
One reason the Fed's preferred measure of inflation has failed to reach its 2 percent goal for 24 consecutive months is because wage growth has been slow to rebound.
Hourly earnings have increased 2.1 percent on average since the recession ended, a percentage point less than during the prior expansion, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The lack of pricing pressure aligns with the "new neutral" view on rates and the economy that Gross, the Newport Beach, California-based co-founder of Pimco, the world's biggest bond fund manager, says will remain in place for years to come.
The European Central Bank's unprecedented package of stimulus measures introduced last week, including its decision to cut the deposit rate to minus 0.1 percent, is also helping make Treasuries more attractive on a relative basis.
Treasury 10-year notes yield 1.24 percentage points more than German bunds, the most since 1999, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Italian and Spanish bond yields ended below 3 percent for the first time on record last month, while yields on French notes fell to an all-time low of 1.656 percent last week.
The extra yield that benchmark 10-year notes offer over their Group-of-Seven counterparts reached 71 basis points, the most since April 2010,
"Treasuries are in a good spot," Jeffrey Rosenberg, the chief investment strategist for fixed income at BlackRock Inc., the world's largest asset manager overseeing $4.4 trillion, said by telephone on June 6. In an environment of zero rates, "the relative yield conversation dominates the agenda."
For the bears, investors in Treasuries risk being lulled into complacency by failing to realize how far yields have fallen from historical averages as the U.S. economy strengthens, according to David Rosenberg, the chief economist at Gluskin Sheff & Associates and a disciple of Farrell.
Rosenberg predicts U.S. consumer prices will reach 3 percent in the next 12 months to 24 months. The consumer price index measured by the Labor Department rose 2 percent in April from a year earlier, the most since July.
"The bond market is divorced from economic reality," he said by phone on May 30. "There are hurdles in the post-crisis world and the economy still has warts, but this is not 2008."
'Substantial Risk'
Employment gains in May pushed U.S. payrolls past their pre-recession peak and the jobless rate held at an almost six-year low. Forecasters are also sticking to their calls that the world's largest economy will expand 3.1 percent next year, the fastest pace in a decade, a Bloomberg survey showed.
The notion that yields, which never dipped below 3 percent in the half century before the credit crisis, can stay this low would also violate one of Farrell's market rules that stipulates markets always revert to long-run averages.
The rules, developed during his 25-year stint as chief strategist at Merrill Lynch from 1967 to 1992, helped earn him Institutional Investor's award for overall market direction 16 times over 17 years. Farrell, who has since retired, declined to comment on the direction of yields.
"There is substantial risk being bullish on Treasuries," Jennifer Vail, the Minneapolis-based head of fixed-income research at U.S. Bank Wealth Management, which oversees $112 billion, said on June 6. "Rates are absolutely headed higher."
She said yields on the 10-year note will rise to 3.4 percent by the end of the year.
Growth and demand haven't picked up enough to abandon Treasuries, especially when Fed Chair Janet Yellen said on May 7 that there will be "considerable time" before the central bank raises interest rates, according to Tad Rivelle, the Los Angeles-based chief investment officer for U.S. fixed-income securities at TCW Group Inc., which manages more than $130 billion and holds shorter-term Treasuries.
"This is no time to be a hero," he said in an interview at Bloomberg's New York headquarters on May 29.


text:
County G crash reroutes traffic
Monday, December 9, 2013
JANESVILLE—Northbound traffic on County G between Janesville and Beloit was being rerouted this morning because of a traffic accident with injuries.
A dispatcher with the Rock County Communications Center said the accident was reported at 5:24 a.m.
The accident scene is the Sherman Bridge in the 4900 block of County G in the town of Rock. Scanner chatter indicated northbound traffic was being detoured to Sunny Lane while southbound traffic was being allowed through on County G.
No other details were available.


text:
Highway 14 reopened after accident
Gazette staff
Monday, January 20, 2014
Highway 14 east of Emerald Grove has been reopened to motorists after a two-vehicle accident Monday night.
The accident occurred about 8:10 p.m. on the highway near Kemp Road. Ambulances and rescue units were called to the scene from Clinton and Janesville, according to the Rock County 911 Center.
The highway was closed and traffic rerouted for more than an hour.
Emergency communications monitored by the Gazette indicated at least two and maybe three persons injured, but the 911 center would not confirm those.
Last updated: 8:58 pm Monday, January 20, 2014


text:
Global regulators published details of their plans to overhaul foreign-exchange (FX) benchmarks in response to allegations that traders colluded to manipulate rates in the $5.3 trillion-a-day currency market.
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) proposed changing how the most popular rates, from WM/Reuters, are calculated by extending the length of the one-minute windows on which the benchmark is based, and requiring firms to install systems to address potential conflicts of interest with clients. The Basel, Switzerland-based FSB set an Aug. 12 deadline for comments on the plan.
There are "clear benefits to having a wider window," the FSB said in its report. "More data points would be available to help fix the rate, and it would be harder to manipulate."
At least a dozen regulators on three continents are investigating whether traders in the world's largest financial market colluded with counterparts at other firms to manipulate benchmarks such as WM/Reuters rates, which are used by money managers and pension funds to determine what they pay for foreign currency. More than 25 traders have been fired or suspended across the industry.
The FSB, led by Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, is also analyzing whether there's a need for "alternative benchmark calculations" prepared over longer time periods of as much as 24 hours, according to a statement posted on the group's website today.
ACI International, an association representing people working in foreign exchange, said regulators should focus on people who abuse the system rather than changing the rate-setting process.
"It is the manner in which it is used by certain market participants that must be scrutinized," Marshall Bailey, president of the Paris-based association, said in an e-mail. "It comes down to the behavior of individual market participants, and the ability of their supervisors to enforce high standards through effective oversight and governance."
The FSB consists of regulators and central bankers from around the world who seek to harmonize global financial rules. The board, which reports to the Group of 20 nations, set up a task force last year to try to repair or replace tarnished benchmarks in the wake of attempts to manipulate the London interbank offered rate, or Libor. It said in February that it would extend this work into currency-market benchmarks.
Benchmark Manipulation
"There will always be a temptation to manipulate financial benchmarks, as there is with the results of sporting events," Michael Wainwright, a partner at law firm Dentons in London, said by e-mail. "The challenge for those who construct and administer a benchmark is to minimize the temptation by making the benchmark inherently resistant to manipulation."
The proposals are among 15 recommendations put forward by the group to transform rate setting and bolster safeguards against manipulation. The plans were prepared by an expert group at the FSB led by Paul Fisher, deputy head of the Prudential Regulation Authority at the Bank of England, and Guy Debelle, assistant governor at the Reserve Bank of Australia.
The group stopped short of proposing guidelines for central banks that publish reference rates, saying "it is the responsibility of each to set internal procedures."
WM/Reuters rates are published hourly for 160 currencies and half-hourly for the 21 most-traded. The benchmarks are based on trades in a minute-long period starting 30 seconds before the beginning of each half-hour. The most widely used is the so-called 4 p.m. London fix.
There is a "concentration of trading by dealers during the calculation window, although trading volumes start to rise shortly ahead of the fixing time," the FSB said.
"At a minimum, this creates optics of dealers 'trading ahead' of the fix even if the dealer is managing the risk in relation to their client orders," it said. "Worse, it can also create an opportunity and an incentive for those dealers to manipulate the market to make it more likely that the market price at the fix generates a rate which results in a profit from their fix trading."
Traders used chat rooms to share information about their clients' positions with counterparts at other banks in the minutes before 4 p.m., and agreed to push trades through together during the fix to maximize their impact on the benchmark, Bloomberg News reported last year.
The Bank of England said in February that it's reviewing allegations that its officials condoned sharing client information going into the fix as it could reduce volatility.
Sensitive Time
The FSB is seeking views on whether the fix should start or end exactly on the hour, rather than be centered around it, and whether the time should be moved from its 4 p.m. spot.
"Market-making dealers should generally be aware of which times of day are most likely to be disrupted by news releases, and clients should be advised not to use fix rates at those times or when important data is due," the FSB said.
Further recommendations for the setting of WM/Reuters rates are being prepared by the International Organization of Securities Commissions, a global association of market regulators, the FSB said.
Bloomberg LP competes with Thomson Reuters in providing news and information, as well as currency-trading systems and pricing data. Bloomberg LP also distributes the WM/Reuters rates on Bloomberg terminals.
The FSB is also "interested in seeking feedback from market participants on the development of a global/central utility for order-matching to facilitate fixing orders from any market participants," the FSB said.
Such a facility would need to be "well governed and capitalized, with the risks understood," ACI's Bailey said. "The unintended consequences of further concentration of FX flows may not be what the regulators and supervisors want."


text:
State looks to commit Rock County man for sex offenses
JANESVILLE—The state Department of Justice hopes to commit a Rock County sex offender for treatment rather than releasing him after his prison sentence ended this week, according to a news release.
Richard A. Isabell, 53, was convicted of first-degree sexual assault of a child in Rock County more than 20 years ago, authorities said. After his probation was revoked in 2003, Isabell was sentenced to prison time and was to be released Tuesday, according to the state Department of Justice.
Instead of releasing him, however, the Department of Justice has filed a petition claiming Isabell is a sexually violent person, authorities said, and asking to commit him to the custody of the Department of Health Services for treatment.
Isabell is being held at a DHS facility as a judge reviews the state's case, according to the release.
A probable cause hearing for the petition has been set for next week.


text:
If your mobile phone is locked to one particular service provider you may want to look into mobile phone unlocking if you want to change carrier, here at Review Centre we bring you reviews of the best mobile phone unlocking sites. Whether you are willing to pay or want free phone unlocking, we have hundreds of reviews to help you find out which site is best and where you can get phone unlocking software from, but if you know any other gems then don't be afraid to leave your review here at Review Centre.
From 4506 reviews
From 582 reviews
From 355 reviews
From 10342 reviews
From 895 reviews
From 3940 reviews
From 1018 reviews
From 1144 reviews
From 761 reviews
From 984 reviews
As rated by our community of reviewers


text:
The WiKID Strong Authentication System is a highly scalable, secure, self-hosted two-factor authentication system. It is simple to implement and maintain, allows users to be validated automatically, requires no hardware tokens, has a simple API for application support (via Ruby, PHP, Java, COM, Python, etc.), supports multiple domains, and supports replication for fault tolerance and scalability. It also supports mutual /host and transaction authentication, wireless tokens only domains, locked tokens (to your PC), anti-keystroke logger keypad PIN entry, etc.
OpenLiteSpeed Web Server is a high-performance, secure, easy-to-use Web server, which maintains many Apache compatible features. It supports HTTP/1.1, SSL, CGI, FastCGI, LSAPI, PHP, JSP, Servlets, GZIP compression, chroot, IP level throttling, connection accounting, DoS attack prevention, and instant recovery mechanisms. With its Apache compatible rewrite engine, migration is quick and easy. A Web interface is included for administration and configuration. It can be used as a content accelerator, compression proxy, or a security guard running in front of any Web and application server.
Rainbows! is an HTTP server for sleepy Rack applications. It is based on Unicorn, but designed to handle applications that expect long request/response times and/or slow clients. For Rack applications not heavily bound by slow external network dependencies, consider Unicorn instead as it simpler and easier to debug.
Eric is a full featured Python and Ruby editor and IDE, written in Python. It is based on the cross platform Qt GUI toolkit, integrating the highly flexible Scintilla editor control. It is designed to be usable as an everyday quick and dirty editor as well as being usable as a professional project management tool, integrating many advanced features that Python offers the professional coder. Eric includes a plug-in system, which allows easy extension of the IDE functionality with plug-ins downloadable from the net. Current stable versions are Eric4 based on Qt4 and Python 2 and Eric5 based on Python 3 and Qt4.
Coquelicot is a "one-click" file sharing Web application with a focus on protecting users' privacy. Its basic principle is that users can upload a file to the server, and in return they get a unique URL which can be shared with others in order to download the file. Coquelicot aims to protect, to some extent, users and system administrators from disclosure of the files exchanged from passive and not-so-active attackers.
Unicorn is a Unix and LAN/localhost-optimized fork of the Mongrel HTTP server. It takes full advantage of functionality exclusive to Unix-like operating systems. It will reap and restart workers that die from broken apps, and there is no need to manage multiple processes yourself. Load balancing is done entirely by the operating system kernel. Requests never pile up behind a busy worker. The server does not care if your application is thread-safe or not, as workers all run within their own isolated address space and only serve one client at a time. All Rack applications are supported along with pre-Rack versions of Ruby on Rails via a Rack wrapper. It also supports atomic log cycling, nginx-style binary re-execution without losing connections, before_fork and after_fork hooks, and optional copy-on-write-friendly memory management.
An automated solver for the "Black Hole" and "All in a Row" solitaire/patience card games.
A distributed fault-tolerant Jabber/XMPP server.