Originally posted by Boatphone
Has any read the book, "Supernatural", by Graham Hancock?
It is highly interesting, and talks about messages in our DNA. The so called "junk DNA" that is not used for coding protiens. I am wondering if
people think this could be true, or have heard of this before.
Also, it explians that the man who discovered DNA (Dr. F. Crick) did so while on '___'.
I have never heard such a story, and it wasn't crick. The discovery of the structure of DNA (DNA itself had been discovered long before crick and
watson) involved a series of studies and papers and different research groups. It wasn't an 'epiphany' type of thing.
The structure of benzene
might be what Hancock is confusing here. Kekule was a chemical researcher at the end of the 1800s. He was trying to
figure out the structure of benzene, which was very bizzare and somethign that people were honestly puzzled by. The story goes that kekule had a
dream about a serpent eating its own tail and chasing itself around in a circle. This 'hit it' for him and he realized that c.f. this was the
However I am not even sure of the veracity of that story, and of course it required some actual testing and explanations to demonstrate that it was
Could God has created DNA to create us?
Sure. But so could've the invisible pink unicorn have created DNA to create us. Or god could've created DNA to create beetles. Beetles are the
most diverse and specious group on the planet. If god designed the universe, he spent an embarassing amount of time and detail on beetles. Man, he
just took a chimp mould and forgot to add the fur.
Rosalind Franklin introduced X-ray diffraction method imaging and was the first to discover the actual structure of DNA
Franklin didn't discover the structure of DNA. She was vital to the eventual discovery of it.
I do believe that not all drugs are bad, they are just made out to be bad
Just a note, if you or anyone else starts discussing using drugs, this thread will be closed and possibly trashed altogether, so lets stick to the
Also, it came out in 2005, but is VERY hard to find, this seems really odd to me.
Why is this odd? Lots of crappy mumbo jumbo type books are hard to find. Hancock isn't exactly a well respected researcher. He probably couldn't
get a good publisher.
Boatphone, I haven't read the book, so i can only suppose. But what did you find most convincing about it?
Junk DNA is what these long stretches of non-coding genetic material are called. That is, they don't get read by the genetic machinery and produce
proteins. At first this was interpreted as meaning that they have no purpose. However, it was eventually understood that "Junk DNA", while
non-coding, has a variety of uses. I wouldn't want to give you the impression that the stuff is understood completely, because that would be
What is also misleading is saying that we know its evidence of god/aliens and man-kind's purpose. If Hancock is saying that, which I gather from
your description, well, he is misleading you.