It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How you can tell if you are a victim of abduction.

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
A loss of Radiation in the body.




posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by granny smith


THIS IS THE OPEN MIND.
THIS IS RESERVATION OF JUDGEMENT
THIS IS WHAT IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE!


nice advice but do you honestly think that your approach in this and other threads really represents the embodiment of such values? (genuine question)


Sincere Response
YES. I DO. I want to hear what everybody has to say! It is CRUCIAL. Once you can pool ALL the evidence, then you can move forward. I have presented what has been put before me.

If you take the time to READ his book, then I would be GLAD to engage ANY AND ALL discussion regarding the WHOLE THING. I'm telling you, it's like reading a textbook about TRUTH.

DON'T TRUST ME. GO FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF. THEN come here and beat ME. BLUDGEON ME! WHATEVER! Just GET THE EVIDENCE FIRST! LOL!!!




It seems that you demand from others what you are unwilling to deliver yourself.


How so? If I've erred, I'll admit it first. Promise.



If I was to storm around the board shouting "ALIENS ARE NOT HERE AND ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE FAILS TO REALISE THAT i AM jOB - OR CASSANDRA OR SPARTACUS OR WHATEVER ....." you would rightly castigate me for closed mindedness, not reserving judgement etc.. What's the difference when the shoe is on the other foot?
.


Ummm. ?




Is 'keeping an open mind' the same thing as 'accepting everything Southpaw says is true' in your book?


NO. It means STEP UP.

SEPARATE THE PEOPLE FROM THE PROBLEM
STOP attacking each other. Is there a psychologist here regularly? If not, somebody might want to recruit one. You have NO IDEA what you are doing when you gang up on somebody who is sincerely opening up to reveal something EXTREMELY personal to a bunch of TOTAL strangers.

THAT is simply NOT fair. You are a BULLY if you think it is. IF this turns out to NOT be just some internet playground, but, in fact, a location where abductees tend to congregate... then YOU have COMPLETLEY discounted the emotions and feelings of those VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME.

Now... If YOU or anybody else thinks ET is here to teach us yoga, or build lincolnlog houses on the moon to save the beatles, or give us the answers to enlightenment... whatever it is.... GREAT! THAT is your belief.

MINE is that YOU have succumbed to a method of programming the human mind that has been mastered by even the CIA. It is proven. It is known. You CAN successfully alter seratonin and dopamine levels in a human being to successfully "drive" them. NOT KEWL.

MINE is that they are here destroying our DNA. And while people sit and throw tempertantrums... autism is now at a rate of 1:151. That means one autistic baby born in every 151. Sure... less than 1%, right? Okay... Now incorporate the part about how in 1996 is was 1:10,000. And how in the year 2000 it was 1:5000. And how in the year 2006 it was 1:166.

The Human Genome Project geneticists have come forward and PUBLICLY STATED that the "JunkDNA" found in Human DNA IS... not MAY BE... but IS... of extraterrestrial origin.

If you have NOT seen the movie TAKEN, go check it out. Spielberg did a GREAT job on that flick. It is the closest thing to reality that hollywood has produced. And it's confusing as all hell...


CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE
By the way, how can anyone say a WORD about "considering evidence" if you've not read the book I'm telling you has the answers? I come and share KNOWLEDGE. THEN... you CHOOSE not to look further. THEN we have MISUNDERSTANDING. What is the root of the problem?


RESERVE JUDGEMENT TIL THE END
And THAT means GATHER all the evidence. If YOU think MIB rape of 8 year old children does NOT occur, then I will say YOU simply don't have the EVIDENCE. K? Now, just b/c YOU have that ugly feeling of NOT knowing whether I am telling you the truth or not does NOT necessarily facilitate the TRUTH that I am LYING, correct?

In other words, just cuz YOU don't know it, don't mean that I DON'T KNOW IT TOO. Fair? The converse applies as well, so you're even include in the "cool".




[edit on 26-2-2007 by granny smith]

[edit on 26/202/07 by Southpaw11]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Fair enough - I'm not here to bully anyone. If abductees congregate here, all power to y'all but let's not attempt to fit everything to an agenda without proper analysis. Genuine advice : when 'evidence' is apparently 'everywhere' it is just as wise to check the veracity of one's methodology as to scream about all the 'evidence'.

Good luck, mate - I hope you find some truth and the strength to also find reconciliation to it.

GS


[edit on 26-2-2007 by granny smith]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
I wanted to go back and find a link or two to back up my response and here's what I've come up with-

resourcesforhistory.com...

Pretty interesting interactive map. You can click on a couple of different icons and see based upon a timeline what constituted Celtic areas.


I would not trust that map too much, it says Coimbra was a Celtic settlement when it was a Roman city (Conimbriga, and their ruins are still there). We have had other real Celtic settlements in Portugal, but not Coimbra.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I would not trust that map too much, it says Coimbra was a Celtic settlement when it was a Roman city (Conimbriga, and their ruins are still there). We have had other real Celtic settlements in Portugal, but not Coimbra.


I'll defer to you since you're there, but there are multiple links I can provide that claim Coimbra as a Celtic settlement.

Here's one-

[url=http://www.thereareplaces.com/Guidebook/pdest/popts.htm]>LINK



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southpaw11
The Human Genome Project geneticists have come forward and PUBLICLY STATED that the "JunkDNA" found in Human DNA IS... not MAY BE... but IS... of extraterrestrial origin.


Where did you see this statement. What do humans have that is extraterrestrial life or documents to compare and claim this anyway? Wouldn't this be a gigantic find for mankind?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel

Originally posted by Southpaw11
The Human Genome Project geneticists have come forward and PUBLICLY STATED that the "JunkDNA" found in Human DNA IS... not MAY BE... but IS... of extraterrestrial origin.


Where did you see this statement. What do humans have that is extraterrestrial life or documents to compare and claim this anyway? Wouldn't this be a gigantic find for mankind?



It's really quite fascinating. I'll go find a link, but just to give you a quick run down the genetecists at the Human Genome Project recently stated:

Junk DNA
Has its own arteries
Has its own veins
Has a VIGOROUS resistance to ALL anti-cancer meds

Again, don't have a link right at hand. I'll go grab it for ya though... Of course googling: JUNK DNA HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

That would probably get you the same thing... EASIER. I'll what I can round up for ya...

SPout


  • null



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   
It appears the findings you are refering to came from a bogus article. In searching for info on the people mentioned in that article I ran across an article Earthfiles. I do not know if all in it is true but it seems more likely that it is.

Human Genome Project: Junk DNA Is Still A Mystery

If the Genome Project came to that conclusion about our DNA, I would think it would be announced by the project and would make major headlines.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
It appears the findings you are refering to came from a bogus article. In searching for info on the people mentioned in that article I ran across an article Earthfiles. I do not know if all in it is true but it seems more likely that it is.

Human Genome Project: Junk DNA Is Still A Mystery

If the Genome Project came to that conclusion about our DNA, I would think it would be announced by the project and would make major headlines.




I have not found it yet... LOL... BUT... THIS is, word for word, what was spoken regarding this issue by ART BELL on the 14 January 2007 Coast to Coast show...


GENETIC MODIFICATIONS
Researchers working at the Human Genome Project made an astonishing scientific discovery.

They believe that 97% of Non Coding Sequences in Human DNA is no less than genetic code of extraterrestrial lifeforms.

The non coding sequences are common to all living organisms on Earth from mold, to fish, to humans. In Human DNA, they constitute a larger part of the total genome according to Professor Chiang (sp?) in Group Leader.

Non Coding Sequences, originally known as "junk DNA", were discovered years ago; and their function remained a mystery. The overwhelming majority of Human DNA is "off world" in origin. The apparent extraterrestrial "junk genes" merely "enjoy the ride" with hardworking active genes passed on from Human generation to generation.

After comprehensive analysis with the assistance of other scientists, computer programmers, mathematicians, and other learned scholars, Professor Chiang had wondered if the apparently "junk human DNA" might be created by some kind of extraterrestrial programmer.


The alien chunks within Human DNA, according to Professor Chiang, have its own veins, arteries, and its own immune system that vigorously resists all our "anti-cancer drugs".


Professor Chiang further stipulates that our hypothesis is that a higher extraterrestrial lifeform was engaged in creating new life then planting it on various planets. Earth is just one of them.

Perhaps after programming, our creators grow us the same way we would grow bacteria in petrie dishes. We can't know their motives - whether it was a scientific experiment of some sort - or perhaps a way of preparing new planets for colonization - or a long time ongoing business of seeding life in the Universe.

Professor Chiang further indicates, "If we think about it - in our "human terms" - the apparent extraterrestrial programmers were most probably working on one big code, consisting of several projects; and the projects should have produced various lifeforms for various planets."

They've also been trying various solutions. They wrote, "The Big Code" - executed it. Didn't like some function. Changed them - or added new ones. Executed again. Made more improvements. Tried again and again.

The apparent extraterrestrial programmers may have been ordered to cut all their idealistic plans for the future, when they concentrated on the "Earth Project" to meet the "pressing deadline". Very likely, in an apparent rush, the extraterrestrial programmers may have cut down drastically on "big code" and delivered basic program intended for Earth.

Professor Chiang is one of only many scientists and other researchers who've discovered extraterrestrial origins to humanity in the Human Genome Project.

Professor Chiang and his research collegues show that apparent extraterrestrial programming gaps in DNA sequencing precipitated by hypothesized rush to create human life on Earth, presented humankind with an illogical growth of mass cells that we now know and hate that is called CANCER.


source: www.coasttocoastam.com STREAMLINK


[edit on 26/202/07 by Southpaw11]

[edit on 26/202/07 by Southpaw11]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   
That is word for word, bogus.....despite the famously reputable source.


Only a tiny fraction, about 1.5 percent, of the human genome is comprised of protein-coding regions of the genome. The vast majority of the genome-more than 50 percent-consists of repetitive sequences, or "junk DNA," that have been hopping around the genome for 3 billion years.


Read the rest at the The Human Genome Project



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Alright conspiracy folks, the junk DNA stuff is obviously taken waaaayyyy out of context, so I asked my former Micro Biology teacher, who happens to be one of the first to work on the Human Genome Project. Please don't email him and bug him, he is very busy teaching and researching, but I will include the email he sent me regarding some questions about this. IF you want to argue about this stuff, you can take it up with each other or with me, BUT DO NOT EMAIL MY TEACHER. OK, I am sure some of you will , so I will with hold his name. I will say that he is a Biology teacher at Wright State U - that's right, just up the street from Wright Patt AFB, oooh, chew on that for awhile!!!
Here is what he said-----

I'll paste in what my BIO 211 lecture notes say about junk DNA at the end of this email -- that probably contains more than you want to know!


No DNA has its own actual veins and arteries and I cannot imagine how any DNA sequence itself could be resistant to a drug of any kind. I do not even know how a metaphor along those lines could work.


There is some speculation that life may have originated somewhere other than earth (perhaps being seeded on earth after being carried here on a comet for instance) but that would not apply to any specific DNA sequences. Some DNA sequences do migrate into genomes from other organisms -- that might be what was meant by "alien."

What is junk?

It is likely that as little as 0.5% of our DNA actually codes for proteins. The best estimate for the most amount of DNA that codes for proteins is 3%. Coding regions were naturally what scientists were first interested in because they contain the information that gives rise to proteins which are what do most of the work within cells. The overwhelming majority of genetic defects and cancers can be traced to mutations that have occurred within such coding regions. Since these were obviously important regions, everything else seemed to be “junk” in comparison. That name has stuck and actually been something that people who study non-coding sequences have become perversely proud of.

Another reason that junk DNA was thought to be unimportant was that non-coding DNA often appeared to be under much less functional constraint. (Non-coding regions are typically much more variable between individuals of the same species than coding regions and mutations in them appear to accumulate at a faster rate.) The idea was that a genome was a like an expensive watch – if you messed with something important you generally broke it. If messing with something did not break it (like poking a piece of lint inside the watch casing) it was probably dispensable and didn’t do anything very useful in the first place.

Renaturation kinetics

When the complementary strands of double-stranded DNA are separated by heat or alkali treatment, they can readily reform the double-stranded conformation upon incubation under the proper conditions of temperature and salt concentration. Before nucleotide sequence analysis was even a possibility, a surprisingly great amount was learned about the structure of genomes simply by examining the way in which denatured DNA from an organism renatured.

In the mid-1960’s it became clear that the time course of DNA renaturation could be conveniently described by a cot equation. The cot equation relates the fraction of single-stranded DNA remaining (c/c0) after t seconds of reaction multiplied by c0 and depends upon a second order rate constant, k2. A specific value, cot1/2, derived from such experiments can be specifically obtained for every organism and is directly proportional to the number of nucleotides of non-repeated sequence within the organism’s DNA.

OOPS, this is too big- more in the next post!!!



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Here is the rest of his discussion....

C0t1/2

If c = concentration of single-stranded DNA at time t, and c0 = concentration of single-stranded DNA at t = 0, then the second-order rate equation describing the loss of single-stranded DNA is:

–dc/dt = kc2

where k is the second-order rate constant. Rearranging the terms gives:

-dc/c2 = kdt

Integrating that equation gives:

1/c = kt + constant

and, at t = 0, c = c0, and therefore the constant = 1/c0. Substituting gives:

1/c = kt + 1/c0

and rearranging gives what is known as the cot equation:

c/c0 = 1/(1 + kc0t).

At half-renaturation, c/c0 = 0.5, and t = t1/2. Substituting those values into the cot equation gives:

0.5 = 1/(1 + kc0t1/2)

which rearranges to give:

c0t1/2 = 1/k.

Genomic complexity

Measuring the time (t1/2) required for one-half of the single-stranded DNA to renature (c/c0 = 0.5) allows an experimental determination of the total amount of unique genetic information encoded in a genome. Since the cot1/2 is the product of the concentration and time required to proceed halfway, a greater cot1/2 implies a slower reaction and reflects a situation in which there are fewer copies of any particular sequence within a given mass of DNA.

For example, if the c0 of DNA is 12 picograms (pg), it will contain 3000 copies of each sequence in a bacterial genome whose size is 0.004 pg, but will contain only 4 copies of each sequence present in a eukaryotic genome of size 3 pg. So, the same absolute concentration of DNA measured in moles of nucleotides per liter (the C0) will provide a concentration of each eukaryotic sequence that is 3000/4 = 750X lower than that of each bacterial sequence.

Since rate of renaturation depends on the concentration of complementary sequences, for the eukaryotic sequences to be present at the same relative concentration as the bacterial sequences, it is necessary to have 750X more DNA (or to incubate the same amount of DNA for 750 times as long). Thus, the cot1/2 of the eukaryotic reaction is 750X the cot1/2 of the bacterial reaction.

Cot1/2 therefore indicates the total length of different sequences within a genome and can be used to describe its complexity (usually in given in terms of base pairs). E. coli’s genome is often used as a standard and its complexity is taken as being identical with the length of its genome (implying that every sequence in the E. coli genome of 4.2 million nucleotides is unique. So the following equation can be used:

(c0t1/2 of any genome)/(c0t1/2 of E. coli DNA) = complexity of genome/4.2 million.

Genomic sequence components

When the DNA of eukaryotic genomes is characterized by renaturation kinetics, the reaction is usally found to occur with several plateaus since eukaryotic genomes typically include several components with different reassocation kinetics.

All mammalian genomes have reactions that fall into at least three distinct phases with plateaus separating each. For example, the following data could be collected:

component: fast intermediate slow

percent of genome: 25 30 45

cot1/2: 0.0013 1.9 630

complexity, bp: 340 600,000 300,000,000

fraction of genome: 20% 70% 10%

repetition frequency: 500,000 350 1

The clear conclusion is that some nucleotide sequences within mammalian genomes are very highly repeated wherease others are not.

Regulatory sequences

Initially, the term “junk DNA” really did encompass all nucleotide sequences that were non-coding despite the fact that some sequences in that category were clearly not “junk.” That definition turned out to not be very useful and it included sequences such as the promoter elements of genes, introns and 3’ untranslated sequences were included in that original definition though they are usually not today.

Uh- oh, another post is needed, stay tuned..



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Here's more- if I had more room, I could do it all at once!!

As our appreciation of nucleotide sequences and their information content increases, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find any sequences that are absolutely free of selective constraint – don’t try too hard to learn a hard and fast definition of this term.

We know of a very large number of nucleotide sequences that are non-coding yet play vitally important regulatory elements and are therefor under strong selective constraint – most are things you are already familiar with from this course and should not require much additional attention. They include: promoter elements, introns, and 3’ untranslated regions.

[Regarding introns: 1) The mouse and human introns for the T cell receptor complex genes were found to be very similar: over 70% identical. This implied that these introns must do something useful or else they would have been free to accumulate mutations without any constraints. Perhaps they too are important for regulation.

2) Another example of a set of genes that has been unambiguously shown to have introns that play a role in the regulation of gene expression are the alpha globin genes which have numerous Sp1 binding sites within their first introns.

3) Additionally, the introns might be important for exon shuffling. It has been hypothesized that exons correspond to a limited number of useful functional protein domains. Recombining these domains (much like recombining the words in our language) could give rise to proteins with different functions without having to “re-invent” a domain like a DNA binding site (or, using the previous analogy, without having to redefine a given word like “dog” every time you used it in a sentence).

4) Numerous other examples of sequences playing important regulatory roles that don’t fall neatly into any of the categories already described are also becoming known. For instance, Lin4 is a developmental control gene for C. elegans that does not code for a protein but does code for an RNA that binds to the mRNA of lin14 – interestingly, in its intron. XIST is a non-coding locus in the human genome but when its mRNA is made it binds to its parent chromosome and leads ultimately to the inactivation of both its own locus and the entire chromosome it is associated with – when it is not present on an X chromosome, Barr bodies cannot be formed.]

Pseudogenes and gene families

Gene duplication followed by the accumulation of mutations in one of the two copies has been a very important theme in the evolution of eukaryotic genomes. When genes are duplicated (often through a process of unequal crossing over – to be discussed in greater detail in Wednesday and Friday’s lectures) one of the two copies is usually no longer under selective constraint (only one copy of the gene is needed to carry out the job that the organism needs it to do) and is free to accumulate changes. Very often these mutations result in a non-functioning gene that eventually accumulates so many mutations that it is no longer recognizable as being related to the gene that is still under selective constraint. Occasionally however, the new mutations give rise to genes with subtly different and new functions and provide the organisms that possess them with a selective advantage.

Globin genes have been a classic example of just such an evolutionary history. Over a billion years ago the common ancestor of plants and animals all appear to have had a single globin gene. The plant globin went on to become the leghemoglobin used by plants to sequester oxygen today whereas the animal globin has become a complex family of alpha- and beta-like globin genes. Each of the two globin gene families in mammals has numerous relic pseudogenes as well as several different functional versions of globins that are expressed at different times in the course of the development of the organism.

Highly repetitive satellite DNA

Aside from the families of near-duplicate genes (such as the globin genes) and families of tandemly arranged, perfectly copied genes (such as tRNAs, rRNAs and histones), eukaryotic cells contain other regions of DNA that are generally referred to as repeated sequences or as repetitive DNA. Repetitive DNA falls into several different kinds of categories based largely on the manner in which the sequence is multiplied (copied) and the length of the repeating unit itself. Lengths of the repeated sequence can be just a few nucleotides (as in CA repeats) or a few hundred nucleotides (as in Alu repeats) to several thousand nucleotides (as in L1 repeats).

Isolation

The existence (and copious quantity of) repetitious DNA in mammals was first recognized when their denatured DNA was observed to renature very quickly in reassociation experiments. In these experiments a mammal’s total genomic DNA is randomly sheared into fragments approximately 1,000 nucleotides long. These double-stranded fragments are dissociated into single strands and then allowed to base pair again. Strands containing a repeated sequence would find a complementary partner to base pair with more quickly that strands without repeated sequences.

Two factors affect these reassociation kinetics: the initial concentration (C0) and time (t). A convenient term for comparisons of these reassociation rates is the C0t1/2 value – the C0t that allows one half of the DNA to become double stranded.

When these types of experiments were performed on a typical mammalian genome such as our own, about 10 to 15% of the DNA reassociates immediately, another 25 to 40% reassociates at an intermediate rate and the remaining 50 to 60% reassociated at a much slower rate (and is “single copy” DNA – most genes would fall in to this category).

Micro- and mini-satellites

The very first sequences to reassociate in C0t experiments are often found as part of micro- or mini-satellites. The term “micro-satellite” is commonly used to describe sequences with little information content composed of repeating units that are as short as one or two nucleotides in length and as long as seven nucleotides in length. The most abundant, stable and highly polymorphic microsatellites, for instance, are tandem copies of the di-nucleotide (CA)n which are present at between 50,000 and 100,000 copies in the human genome.

In addition to mammals, microsatellites have been found to be widely distributed in the genomes of several other “complex” eukaryotes including frogs (Xenopus), zebrafish and plants. In the past few years a number of microsatellite repeats have been found to be associated with SINEs and these SINEs have been postulated to play a role in the de novo creation of microsatellites (to be discussed shortly – in 1995, Deininger and Batzer reported that the microsatellites actually tend to spring up where the SINEs have inserted). Regions of the genome rich in homopurine or homopyrimidine nucleotides such as those associated with human Alu elements (the predominant SINE in primates) appear to be ideal hotspots for the genesis of microsatellite repeats.

The term “mini-satellite” has been arbitrarily used to describe sequences whose repeat units that are longer than seven base pairs and are typically in the size range of 15 to 30 nucleotides. These sequences are obviously not complex enough to encode any useful proteins and the number of copies of the repeated unit are typically variable from one individual to another (hence their use in DNA profiling settings) though they rarely exceed a couple thousand nucleotides in length. Such repeats are quite common in the sequence of the human genome and occur with a frequency of about once per 10,000 base pairs. It has recently (1994) been speculated that mini-satellites are the evolutionary progeny of micro-satellites (Wright, 1994).

This type of DNA was originally termed “satellite” DNA because some varieties of simple sequence DNA separates from the majority of DNA during equilibrium centrifugation in CsCl.

The high degree of polymorphism in the size and structure of these repeats have made them important tools in population studies, genetic linkage mapping and forensic identity testing. All the mechanisms by which these micro- and mini-satellites become so polymorphic may not have been elucidated yet but strand slippage during DNA replication (also defined as slipped-strand mispairing) and intra-allelic recombination have been shown to be at least partly responsible for the variability in the length and number of these repeats (Levinson and Gutman, 1987; Scholtterer and Tautz, 1992).

SINEs and LINEs

The portions of the genome that reassociate at an intermediate rate correspond to sequences present in multiple copies within the genome but which have longer stretches of sequences associated with the repeat units. These repetitive elements are typically broken in to two categories: short interspersed repetitive elements (SINEs) and long interspersed repetitive elements (LINEs).

Between 10 and 15% of mammalian genomes come from members of the SINE families of repeats and the repeats are usually distinctive of the mammalian order in which they are found. For instance, primates all have about half a million copies of a SINE called an Alu repeat per haploid genome while lagomorphs (rabbits) all have about one million copies of a repeat known as a C repeat. The members of both of these SINE families (and those of other mammalian orders) are about 300 nucleotides in length and can be actively transcribed by RNA polymerase III.

SINEs like Alu repeats can be divided into various subfamilies of distinct genetic ages based on the presence of commonly shared diagnostic mutations. Several groups have independently identified a series of subfamilies on the basis of these diagnotsic mutations. Although the vast majority of Alu repeats have amplified over the past 55 to 65 miliion years, there is evidence which indicates that retroposition of new Alu elements is still an active process. Some Alu insertions are so recent in human evolution that they are not fixed in human populations.

A total of 59 out of 345 (17%) of the (CA)n repeats that Deininger and Batzer studied were found to be in immediate association with Alu elements. Approximately 75% (44) of these Alu elements had (CA)n repeats as a part of their 3’ A-rich tails, approximately 24% (14) had them as a part of their middle A-rich region and a single Alu had the microsatellite repeat at its 5’ end. The position of the (CA)n repeats relative to Alu repeats is not random. Interestingly, the majority of the Alu elements identified in this search belong to the older subfamilies.

About 5% of mammalian genomes comes from the sequence of members of the LINE class of repeats. All mammalian orders have the same LINE, a repeat known as an L1 repeat. Full length L1s are typically about 7,000 nucleotides long and have at least two long open reading frames. They can be transcribed by RNA polymerase II and are likely to be a “captured” or “stranded” retrovirus.

Retrotransposition

Both SINEs and LINEs appear to propagate by a mechanism known as retrotransposition. They are first transcribed into an RNA molecule, then processed, then reverse-transcribed (made from RNA back in to DNA) and then reinserted into the genome at a distant site. Interestingly, the SINE families of repeats all bring with them all the sequences necessary for their own subsequent transcription (again, because RNA polymerase III’s promoters are internal to the transcript itself).

Evolutionary history

None the less, it appears as if there are only a limited number of both L1 and SINE repeats that can give rise to additional copies of themselves.

Alu repeats are mobile genetic elements in primates and provide a potentially good phylogenetic marker as they are highly stable once inserted. Furthermore, independent Alu insertions at the same chromosomal locations are extremely unlikely. Batzer et al. used four human specific Alu insertions to test the ‘out of Africa’ hypothesis of human origin. These Alu repeats have recently retrotransposed and are not yet fixed in humans, allowing screening for the presence or absence of the insertions. Distance-based maxium-likelihood trees divided 16 populations from around the world into four major groups: Africa, Europe, Asia/Americas and Australia/New Guinea. Human-specific Alu insertions provide the advantage that the ancestral state is known to be the absence of the insertion. Therefore a tree based on insertion polymorphism can be rooted without additional information or assumptions. The authors found the root to be placed within the African branch, suggesting an African origin of the polymorphic Alu insertions. (PNAS, 91:12288-12292).

Possible roles

There has been much speculation about the possible roles of these repeats. In many ways they appear to be the epitome of junk DNA in that they do not appear to be under selective constraint and appear to be dispensable. They have even been called the ultimate parasites in that they appear to be best at simply making copies of themselves without conferring any clear advantage to the organisms in which they are found.

That sort of thinking about SINEs at least has been changing in the last decade or so. They have been implicated as occasionally playing important roles in polyadenylation (by providing functioning polyadenylation signals to the genes into which they insert), possible sites that act as origins of replication, break points to homologous recombination, starting points for non-homologous recombination, “tire-patches” involved in the repair of DNA breaks, as transposable protein domains, and even simply by introducing variability to the genome upon which natural selection can act (for instance, some individuals have hemophilia B due to the insertion of a human-specific Alu subfamily member within the coding region of the clotting factor IX gene). Still a large fraction (probably greater than 50%) of SINE sequences are probably disposable.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   
OK. so anyone that has any knowledge of Biology can decipher this thing and pull out the relevant stuff. I merely wanted to give so info from someone that has been working in this field since the start, and was unaware about the ET talk in which I am currently embroiled. Good luck wading through this dense material.
-Mayor over and out!!!



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Outstanding information, Mayor!

I've been interested in this for only a short time. About as long as I've been attentive to the Honey Bee and the Autism Issues...

I believe there might be more to be known.

I wonder if anyone has checked out the story on the "fraudulent post". I'd like to know more about that. It seems a little strange that something like that would come up. Could be some "gaga" story... Who knows.

Does anybody know more about the "hoax"? WHO? WHERE? WHY? All that stuff...

SPout



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Gee Southpaw, first you post stating junkdna is proved to be extraterrestrial.
Now it looks like you on the not ET bandwagon. If you would have read the link I posted a few back, you would have answers to some of your

"more about the "hoax"? WHO? WHERE? WHY? All that stuff... "

question. Reading MrPenny's link could have given you some of that other background on reality.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   
There is one sure way of knowing if you have been abducted. Your belly-button goes from an innie to an outie. Or in the reverse depending on what would apply. To reverse the process you have to get abducted again.




posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
There is one sure way of knowing if you have been abducted. Your belly-button goes from an innie to an outie. Or in the reverse depending on what would apply. To reverse the process you have to get abducted again.



LMAO! Now that's funny! LOL!

Also, don't be afraid of that big needle thing that slowly drops down over your face... then penetrates to your optic nerve... that's normal. Just don't try to MOVE... the needle doesn't care about you... and sometimes GOOD PEOPLE end up BLIND in one eye b/c they MOVED and tried to GET AWAY when they should have just laid there...

LOL!

That's the other thing about the "Paw"... I'm blind in my left eye now. Permenantly. I have some "fun" memories that go along with that injury that was supposedly acquired in a "bike wreck".

HMMMMMM....

LOL! Yikes.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
Gee Southpaw, first you post stating junkdna is proved to be extraterrestrial.
Now it looks like you on the not ET bandwagon. If you would have read the link I posted a few back, you would have answers to some of your

"more about the "hoax"? WHO? WHERE? WHY? All that stuff... "

question. Reading MrPenny's link could have given you some of that other background on reality.



Actually, I really enjoyed the post from Earthfiles. I think Linda does an OUTSTANDING job at EVERYTHING she looks at.

By the way...

LINDA MOULTON HOWE. Of what genetic descent is that last name? HMMMM...

I think Linda was RIGHT to look where she did. I also find a couple of Mr. McPherson's responses to be completely "off the wall". I spoke with a couple of my own "science geeks". When they read that article they BOTH said the SAME THING INDEPENDANTLY. And, as I'd thought, they noted the SAME discrepancy that I had...

WHY would a hardcore genetecist like this guy say something like "Actually, I think it's kind of funny..." about something as SERIOUS as DNA tampering? Does that NOT strike you as "strange"?

And let's overlay "The Roswell Incident" on this matrix real quick for a "neat" feel...

1) USAF announces "Air Force Captures FLYING SAUCER!"
2) USAF changes their story within 24 hours to CREATE the conspiracy... PURPOSELY and WITH SPECIFIC INTENT.
3) Humanity is embroiled in conflict over IF instead of asking WHY

In THIS case...

A "leak" or an announcement was potentially released PREMATURELY or WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. JUST LIKE Gary McKinnon's theory about how that data belongs to HUMANITY (referring to what he was after in his "hack attack").

Perhaps it IS just as the good Doctor says, but if THREE separate EDUCATED people get the same feeling on this... that means I'm ready to look CLOSER at this matrix.

WHY would you just "leap at faith" with some scientist you've NEVER met? Yet... millions say "blind faith" is STUPID, right? I'm just saying APPLY THAT THEORY HERE to avoid "the deception". I don't know that guy. Got NO reason to trust him REGARDLESS of his credentials, at this juncture anyway.

Just looking at this like an INVESTIGATOR. You are assuming that guy is:
1) CORRECT
2) TELLING THE TRUTH

Now, I DEFINITELY appreciate the remark about how "they would tell humanity..." But don't you think that humanity would have told us about ANTI GRAV propulsion as well? Don't you think humanity would have told the truth in 1969 when the Apollo 11 was actually IN PROCESS of being escorted TO and FROM the Moon by "ET"? Yeah... me too. But they didn't, did they?

So, what makes you sooooo certain THIS guy is telling the truth? What PROOF do you have other than "testimony".

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF.

All I saw was WORDS. Text. And discussion that, to me, looked like a pretty savvy guy eluding the topic with CHARM. What if that guy got TOLD that the release was NOT supposed to be made. That CIA, NSA, DIA, Mossad, MI6, et al were crawling all over the Human Genome Project as soon as that information was released.

And is it REALLY to be expected that this ONE scientist KNOWS all 2800 OTHER scientists working on this project?

I say FIND "Sam Chiang". You find that guy... or the fact that he is "hypothetical"... in which case you find his "creator" and can get to the bottom of the "deception". Now, that case PRESUMES the deception exists. So, what we have to do is PROVE IT DOES NOT EXIST. Converse Investigation. It's locked up a bunch of "geniuses" to be certain! LOL!

So, respectfully, I disagree with you completely. In fact, I don't EITHER OF US are WRONG at this juncture. Do you? Sincerely? Meaning you KNOW you are right. NOT you "think" you are right based upon testimony of someone brought forward as an EXPERT.

Again, LINDA did her job, as she ALWAYS does. I love hearing her speak, and I believe she catches ALOT of crap about IRRELEVENT MATTERS. Her research speaks for itself. BUT... there ARE certain times, like THIS, where her SENSES are sooooooo sharp... but then, for some unknown reason, she simply STOPS, and accepts "maybe" as "YES" or "NO". Is this HER fault? I don't think so. That's why I don't bash HER nor any OTHER researcher of Irish, Celtic, or Native American descent. But that relation is CRAZY, right?

LOL!

SPout

[edit on 28/202/07 by Southpaw11]

[edit on 28/202/07 by Southpaw11]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
Gee Southpaw, first you post stating junkdna is proved to be extraterrestrial.
Now it looks like you on the not ET bandwagon. If you would have read the link I posted a few back, you would have answers to some of your

"more about the "hoax"? WHO? WHERE? WHY? All that stuff... "

question. Reading MrPenny's link could have given you some of that other background on reality.


And reading Alienhunter: The Evidence in Light will take you on a ride within the parameters of ESTABLISHED SCIENCE, statistical analysis performed based on THOUSANDS OF CASE FILES. NOT one or two... a couple or a few... not 10 or 20... not 100 or so.... THOUSANDS. He has MORE information than you and all the "internet surfers" combined.

Here's one for ya...

"X Files" calls SIMS the "Real Fox Mulder. HMMMMM... Now WHY would they do THAT? The movie "Taken" was pretty much based upon the Mil/Intel theories, hypotheses, and meticulous research of Derrel Sims over the past FORTY YEARS!

REALITY? Are you serious when you say that? LOL!

"Reality" is being found, on a DAILY BASIS, to be different than we had PRESUMED it to be. Yet, you are just sittin' there like you got it all figure out... LOL!

*sigh*

Well... yer not alone. There are literally millions of people that are wondering ALL the same things and more probably. I think that, in the end, we just have to make CERTAIN we SCRUTINIZE. I think that, if you were to take the time, you' see some very interesting synchronicities all around you that simply DO NOT ADD UP. And then you realize the whole thing is CONNECTED. Do you REALLY think it is a "coincidence" that there's a thread on ATS about that VERY point?

I know that's an isolated example, so it WILL be hard to grasp the "entire concept" based upon one little point. THAT is the secret to figuring the whole thing out. The problem with reaching resolution, understanding, and enlightenment for ALL Humanity? Arrogance.

SPout

[edit on 28/202/07 by Southpaw11]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join