What, In God's Name? by Michael Barry

[LanDroid]

The missing 24th human chromosome produces an organ that is attached to the human appendix tube.

I'm excited to hear his evidence for these claims.

Michael you claim science is a prominent part of your book so you have to answer questions like this one.

I believe that this organ produces ‘stem-like cell’ protection that keeps the human body perfect, young, healthy and happy, forever. Page 6

OK so you believe this about the organ that the 24th chromosome produces, but do you have any evidence for that function?

This is the ‘absolute’ golden rule throughout the entire universe - that no ‘sentient’ being will kill or harm another sentient being; and that no sentient being will eat another sentient being. The absolute first mammal DNA to be eaten by a human being destroyed the 24 th pair of chromosomes in the body cells, halting the ability to replicate the 24 th human chromosome to the reproductive sperm or egg cells. p. 10

So that's how humans lost the 24th chromosome and the new organ it produces. How on earth could something you eat radically change your DNA structure?

The appendix has no known function. It contains a large amount of lymphoid tissue which provides a defense against local infections. p20

Later on you claim the quote above is from a medical book. But that is contradictory since the second sentence lists a function for the appendix which the first sentence denies.

So what do you have to back up your claims about this entire area - the function of a missing 24th chromosome, the existence of the organ it produces, the function of that organ, and the loss of all this by eating animal flesh? I'm a little over half way through the book and haven't seen any specific evidence presented for those claims. Also can you explain why other apes have 24 chromosome pairs, but do not have this extra organ that provides eternal youth?

[Michael Barry]

If there was evidence, they wouldn't be UNPRECEDENTED claims, which means there would be no need for this book. Surely I don't have to define the word unprecedented?
Oh, come on, stop it. You know exactly what the medical description for the appendix tube really means, and do I seriously need to tell you that the ape genome is not the human genome? What part of 'Read the book and then comment on it' is so difficult to understand? Have you actually reached Genesis yet? The entire point of this book is an UNPRECEDENTED account of the first 'days' of Genesis. I feel like I have to carve that in wood before anyone here gets it?

What's the point in evaluating a book page by page, before its conclusion; it's futile? Let me spell it out... this is a 2016AD explanation for the 1500BC Moses account of the first 'days' of Genesis. I don't know how to make that any clearer? I'm stating MAMMAL flesh, not animal flesh. And if a reader has no interest in the first days of Genesis, then there's no point in reading this book.

For goodness sake Book Talkers, get a grip. This is not a battle, it's a harmless opinion to be liked or disliked; that's all it is. And I'm giving it freely... some gratitude would be nice?

Are there any other members here? Or is it just this little gang who jump on people to beat them up?

(I consolidated 4 posts into 1 to shorten the thread a bit. We only have 1 to discuss the book. LanDroid)

[LanDroid]

You mention science several times on the back cover, but you don't need evidence because this is just your "harmless opinion to be liked or disliked; that's all it is." Well, we must have misunderstood your intent. OK I guess we can read this almost like a rough draft of a science fiction novel then, not sure what else to make of it all yet...

You mention Genesis, but don't get to it until page 41. No comment allowed until we complete the book? Strange...

[Michael Barry]

Landroid, stop putting words in my mouth. I read a book. I liked it I din't like it. It's no big deal; I'm not looking for an agent. It's not Einstein's theory of relativity, it's a guy who's written a book. I've read hundreds of books that are tedious, ridiculous or extremely boring. Have a drink or something, chill out.

[Chris OConnor]

I'm stating MAMMAL flesh, not animal flesh.

All mammals are animals. How are we to not comment on each sentence when each sentence is flawed?

You can be defensive or actually learn from this interaction.

[Chris OConnor]

Michael, you volunteered to have your book discussed and now we're discussing it. You might not like what we have to say but you're getting what you signed up for.

Another helpful piece of criticism that you'll undoubtedly take as a personal jab pertains to your use of the question mark. You use a question mark instead of a period or exclamation point so frequently that reading your writing is extremely challenging.

And this is, after all, how life works?

Did you mean, "After all, isn't this how life works?"

It has to end with a highest life, somewhere?

I can't even fix this mess.

The point is you use question marks throughout this book incorrectly and as a result your reader is continuously confused.

Please don't be defensive. Use us as free editors and learn from this experience. Get someone to proof your book for readability before you share it any further. I don't mean find a ghostwriter.

[Chris OConnor]

We know that leaving/entering a solar system is via black holes, and we know that leaving/entering a galaxy is via bigger black holes, and we know that leaving/entering a universe is via even bigger black holes.

Literally every single sentence you type is word salad sprinkled with nonsense.

I can't read your "book" any further.

[geo]

I can't read your "book" any further.

I reached this point with the very first sentence of the blurb on the back cover.

"When it comes to explaining the meaning of life, religion and scientific division always make any single definition impossible."

Simply put, this is an awkward and grammatically incorrect sentence. The word "division" is unclear here. Is the author trying to say the division between science and religion? If so, both religion and science should be nouns or adjectives. But in this case, "religion" is a noun and "scientific" is an adjective. The phrase—"religion and scientific division"—is a mixed construction and grammatically incorrect.

Unless the author is trying to say "religion" as one thing and "scientific division" as another, but I don't think this is the case.

The rest of the sentence is also unclear. What is the author trying to say? Is he saying the division (or conflict) between science and religion makes any single definition impossible? Since the meaning of life is very subjective, I don't see how there can be a definition for it. We "define" words and simple ideas, not complex and usually rhetorical questions about human existence. So this seems a bad word choice not to mention an idea based on a faulty premise.

I believe the "author" is trying to say something like, the meaning of life cannot be satisfactorily explained by either science or religion. But again, I'm just guessing. The fact that it's the very first sentence of the blurb speaks volumes about this author's credibility and his inability to articulate ideas.

This is very harsh, I know. And for that I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Feel free to dismiss it entirely if this first sentence of the back cover blurb is merely an anomaly to an otherwise well written book.

[Chris OConnor]

Geo,

It is better that Michael hears the truth than further humiliate himself. I can assure you the sentence you take issue with is not nearly as bad as the majority of sentences within the book. For an experiment I suggest you download the PDF and pick any random page and read just one paragraph.

[Murmur]

Michael Barry, do you even want your book critiqued? Judging by your posts in this thread, you would prefer everyone to say how great your book is, rather than actual critiquing.