It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Checksum discovered in DNA: More evidence of Simulation Theory?

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 07:54 PM
That's pretty awesome, my question is, how are some people born with deformities and disabilities if there is a very specific "check sum" that the DNA uses? Does that suggest that at some point the DNA itself was corrupted and those people will have inherent defects throughout their family tree?

Forgive me if the question was already posed, I tend to read the original post then comment.

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 07:59 PM

Originally posted by FlySolo
You did a quick check using a website chart in under 5 minutes. And you want to call years of research by a known scientist with peer reviewed published papers pseudoscience?

Its called "replicating an experiment". A fundamental point of science.
A specific claim was made, a specific claim was tested.
His total of "years of research" was not under test here, just that one specific claim.

BTW, "appeal to authority" is a poor argument practise. Even people with years of experience can make mistakes.

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 08:06 PM
If we go way back to prehistoric cave art we see even then man tried to understand how God works. Before visiting this thread I was over reading the Aleister Crowley's Thelema thread.

Flother found some interesting information:

In the Renaissance, a character named "Thelemia" represents will or desire in the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili of the Dominican monk Francesco Colonna. The protagonist, Poliphilo has two allegorical guides, Logistica (reason) and Thelemia (will or desire). When forced to choose, he chooses fulfillment of his sexual will over logic.[14]

This probably goes back to the Socrates allegory of the light horse of reason and the dark horse of irrational passions. I took a look at the "Stella of revealing" which was an Egyptian piece that inspired Crowley. I'm assuming the enthroned party on the left is female.. Looks like math only tells half the story there.

By the time western dualism was firmly established the Pythagoreans had invented all kinds of mathematical representations to explain the universe. As above so below, that's the way they believed that God worked. The patterns seen in the heavens would reappear on Earth.

So in understanding how god encoded genetic information Its probably true that to some extent the DNA researchers cherry picked the data that fit their model. Many theories are projected onto the data in this way even if they don't completely make a perfect fit they still give us a better understanding.

How far do you suppose the Pythagoreans got? There was so much hidden from the masses when Rome fell. Who knows where they moved all that stuff from the library of Alexandria.

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 08:10 PM
reply to post by alfa1

Yes, people make mistakes.
I just came across this.

1991: The "DNA SUPRACODE": Relative proportions of TCAG nucleotides within DNA Genetic coding obey the same proportions as Fibonacci's numbers

For example: 144 contiguous TCAG nucleotides have exactly 55 T nucleotides and 89 A or C or G nucleotides. Then a resonance exists with an the Golden ratio as defined in the Methods section: 55, 89 and 144 are consecutive Fibonacci numbers following the Golden Ratio.

This was 21 years ago and can still be found on wiki with no citation to refute otherwise. Plus he's got loads of studies done. 1997: "NUMBERS in ATOMS" - a basic NUMERICAL FORMULA PREDICTS the whole STRUCTURE of MENDELEEV's PERIODIC TABLE.


posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 08:39 PM

Originally posted by FlySolo

1991: The "DNA SUPRACODE": Relative proportions of TCAG nucleotides within DNA Genetic coding obey the same proportions as Fibonacci's numbers

Ah, that explains it then.
No wonder it cant be replicated.
Back in 1991, WAY before the human genome had been anywhere near completely sequenced, he managed to find partial bits (only 144 nucleotides in length) of DNA that fit his theories.

He wasnt using a genome at all, as you asserted in the original posting...

Perez then counted the triplets in a single genome (1 billion)...

So that seems to be where it stands. If you pick and choose which bits of DNA you're interested in, then you get the "golden circle" result you want, but if you use the entire genome, you fail.

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 08:42 PM
Creation theory... evolution theory... its a good thing that genetics isn't just a theory, huh?
OP said it: Genetic Code. It is encoded, right?

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by FlySolo

Also, consider DNA. There are 22 amino acids that create the Proteins in your body. There are two sets 22+22. Thats 44. Add two sex chromosomes. 46. There are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. There are two added to the Greek. That makes a total of 46 letters. The Hebrew half is the concrete and literal description of our world. The Greek is the abstract and mathematical (WIKI) Consider the right and left brain. Proteins start in sets of three, making the roots of what follows in chains of sentences to make the form of the body from information. Light works the same way. In Hebrews, the roots are parent and child. With photons, it is parent and daughter. Light is a particle and wave from what science states. I say it is particle (Father), Son (Wave / Word) and Holy Spirit (Consciousness). Thank about the trinity as light. God is one. Our body is particle and wave with consciousness. We are also one, yet all three. DNA is the tree of life.

Carbon is the Marker of mankind. Carbon has 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons. We are challenged to overcome the beast. How do we do it?

777 is nitrogen and 888 is oxygen. The breath God gave us speaks the Word. The Living Word is Christ. What is a word? Information. All things were made with the Word. Creation by the Numbers

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

He asks for our repentance and for us to bear fruit. The way to bear fruit is in my signature.

edit on 21-4-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 09:00 PM
reply to post by alfa1

There was another study done in 2009. The first part of my op came from a different site. It was my first stop in this thread research. I don't know what Perez was doing all those years and I certainly doubt it's that easy to debunk.
There's lots of material to go through. Years of it.

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 09:08 PM
My personal opinion that I believe fully to be true is probably controversial. There is, or was, a computer somewhere that can read DNA and modify life. The DNA is probably brought into a friendly user-interface, like something Adobe would make, where you can click and drag, and edit things, then it all gets saved back to the DNA. These kind of things are unintentional imprints left by the way the computer program is set up.

edit on 21-4-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by EnochWasRight

I don't buy into the organized religion aspect of God. Especially when Christ is mentioned. No offense. I think "god" goes beyond any church or holy book. God is in within us all, we are god. This goes against any christian teachings. I prefer to think as god as in having nothing to do with mankind and couldn't care less. God only rolled the ball and the universe is on it's own. Given all those late nights up coding pays off

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 09:10 PM
A checksum discovered is only a "well we finally found it" moment.

We've known for over a decade about the Telomere's which are used to HOLD the DNA while processing snippets and in replication -- so it only stands to reason that there is such at thing as an organic checksum because reading the entire DNA every time you wanted to CHECK to see if it was accurate is energy intensive.

We've found that nature is very efficient in regards to physics -- so anything like a checksum is inevitable.

I'm pretty DANG sure this isn't a simulation -- if a simulation has consequences like LIFE and DEATH, and we care about the outcome -- it's as real as anything we can possibly experience. I think we may one day find that higher life forms EXPERIENCE life via us lower life forms as a proxy -- and they may also manipulate outcomes. But isn't that what a soul is?

Religions talk of beings that manipulate destiny. They talk of life after death. Some of them talk about being part of something greater, or reincarnation. I figure that -- despite the BS they all try and sell us -- they might all be right in a way. Personally, I think the ancient Greeks got closer than anyone.

If we look how our own culture, technology, and minds are developing -- we create better simulations. We are curious and make zoos, and manipulate creatures and make toys for our amusement. Any being that gets beyond stone tools is going to likewise be curious. With a Universe that is over 13 billion years old -- it's likely some of these beings are older than us -- or perhaps outlived the "last" Universe -- or came from another. Give humans a million years, and we will be playing with galaxies.

Reality is "not a simulation" because that connotes something that SIMULATES something real -- if there is NOTHING more real than the consequences of this -- whatever we call life -- it's pointless to say it is a "MATRIX" or simulation.

Reality might be in the minds of higher beings -- or the Universe is something affected by the minds of higher beings -- that doesn't make it NOT real -- not even in the slightest. God is inevitable -- but God is also evolution. As we progress further we will manipulate life, and computer sentience, and we will likely manipulate ourselves to keep up with our technology. Eventually, humans and technology will merge or one will extinguish the other. Whatever results will be a more advance sentience -- and when it has solved death, and defeated want, it will move onto the only game that matters; "life."

Maybe we are the playthings of Gods -- or maybe the "gods" are inside of us -- trying to experience a life where they don't know the outcome, and life and death matters. The best you can do is live an INTERESTING existence, and not spoil it for the higher being that you are part of.

If there is such a thing as a soul -- it's only because a "technology" created it. You may live on in the thoughts of a higher being, or you may be their appendage. If you aren't part of that -- then after you die you are probably dust.

A "simulation of life" is an oxymoron -- but not an impossibility nor the worst type of existence. It's far better than a stale concept of "Heaven" where you sing with angels for eternity and there is no struggle.

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 09:25 PM
reply to post by FlySolo

As much as I find this absolutely fascinating and a really great theory with some seriously convincing evidence and explanations, how ever I am going to provide you with another theory using the very same evidence as proof. We are all very well aware that man created both technology and computer coding. So my only question with this theory is why would this Code be anything like the code we created? If we were really all part of some kind of Masterful computer simulation why would it in any way resemble programming recognizable by any man with in it? I do believe anything is possible and we very well could all be bits in some computer system some where, how ever I have a more likely theory for you. Computers and the programs they run are basically artificial solutions to human problems. So it makes sense to me that programs and the coding they are made of would resemble Nature in some ways, so does it sound like a more logical solution that by some fluke the programming we wrote resembles nature or the more fantastical, and the latter that we are all part of some Masterful computer program. Oh and just for the laughs of the programmer, they program us to create the technology ourselves, and later discover we are part of a program, that's basics are composed of the same code...... If that was the case, wouldn't it make sense that a program that had an artificial consciousness, upon discovering it was a program either crash or rewrite it's own programming? There are computer virus' that react and change based on how the user tries to deal with it. Saving itself in different folders, changing user administrative options. It's a fascinating subject and I do love this theory, but I have yet to see any fundamental proof other than the same basic principles that rule nature, are used in our own technology, which is pretty common. We base our airplanes on the same principles flying animals wings work. Not an exact match but the same principles are there, and the closer we make technology to nature the more efficient it seems to become, it's simply a matter we are unable to replicate movements, or materials with the right strength to weight ratio for that technology to be useful to us in some way.

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 09:27 PM

Originally posted by FlySolo
There was another study done in 2009. The first part of my op came from a different site.

Going back through your first reference, his primary reference is “Codon Populations in Single-stranded Whole Human Genome DNA Are Fractal and Fine-tuned by the Golden Ratio 1.618″, and although he gives links, those are behind paywalls and thus impossible to read.

However, I've managed to find a complete copy of the whole thing HERE.

Have not had a chance to read it yet, but throught you might be interested since this is the basic keystone of your opening post.

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 09:29 PM

Originally posted by FlySolo

Look familiar?

Flower of Life anyone?

Flower of Life Google

And one of the best threads on ATS by none other than BP.

edit on 21-4-2012 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 09:31 PM

if math is a tool like a microscope, then you deny what you see through it.

oooh, look at me being so poetic, or smug...sorry.

simply put, numbers don't create the patterns and order that exists, but they're a way of defining them.

our particular method of expressing numbers, such as "2" apples is "an apple and an apple" side by side was invented by us, but the concept of things having values exists outside the way we've chosen to express them.

Whoa! stars for that one lol. I couldn't have made it clearer myself... ahh man, I don't like being the only one making sense!

jk, ATS'ers, you all make 100% sense, just only 60% of the time.

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 09:38 PM

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by EnochWasRight

I don't buy into the organized religion aspect of God. Especially when Christ is mentioned. No offense. I think "god" goes beyond any church or holy book. God is in within us all, we are god. This goes against any christian teachings. I prefer to think as god as in having nothing to do with mankind and couldn't care less. God only rolled the ball and the universe is on it's own. Given all those late nights up coding pays off

It continues to amaze me to hear this response over and over again from members on ATS. The evidence for God being what He states is in our face, yet we choose to raise our own conceptions above what is seen plainly. I was able to recognize God before I knew that the Hebrew language had the same morphology as DNA. Before I know that Genesis 1:1 stated what Einstein stated, I had faith locked on God's truth. After I knew, the million other evidences keep pouring in. How can this be missed?

Genesis 1:1

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

We now have the ability to translate what Genesis 1:27 says, yet we still doubt.

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

We try and reason away the enigma of the Bible, yet it continues to demonstrate itself plainly. How can you walk away from a book that tells you that we are INSIDE an image and the image of God himself? How is this possible to miss?

Hebrews 11

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

What other book gives you the conclusion to the matter?

Carbon is 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons.

Nitrogen is 7 protons, 7 electrons and 7 neutrons.

Oxygen is 888. It so happens that 777 is God's mark in the Bible. 888 is Jesus in Greek Gematria. The signatures of both of these are in the breath (air we breathe), in the Word's that speak and in the Written Word in our Bible and in our DNA. HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN IT GET?

1 Colossians 1:

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

666 is the Beast to Overcome. We are the Beast until we overcome. How much clearer can it get?

18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.[e-or mark of mankind] That number is 666.

We see the History that the Bible tell us is coming. Revelation was written by John from Jesus after resurrection. How can we doubt that God has power to raise a body again in a digital universe?

I am so curious. How can anyone deny this when it is so evident? Please. Can someone tell me?

Romans 1

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Let me give you my answer to this:

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

Wouldn't a being capable of programming a universe in a hologram already be Holy? Would he construct the universe to move us that direction? YES! Again, I am dumbfounded at how this can be missed and dismissed so easily. Please fill me in.

edit on 21-4-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 09:44 PM
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

Just read the entire thread and really do like your train of thought.Higher beings experiencing LIFE through us...their way of an adventure holiday/entertainment!

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 09:48 PM
reply to post by FlySolo

Nice post. I replied to a thread about this a few weeks ago. I did some basic 5-minute googling to find out about checksum. I did that here:

It makes sense that if something works nature will use it. So humans create a program, so what? Why can't nature create programs too, through trial and error? It has billions of years and lights years of space, so why not? I think it's not weird that nature would do this. What's weird is the fractal-like nature of things. Most scientists believe the infinitely small (and large) are not fractal-like, though.
edit on 21-4-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 09:48 PM

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
There are 22 amino acids that create the Proteins in your body.

Care to list them? I don't agree with the number. I think it's either 20, or 21. I'm fairly certain humans don't use pyrrolysine and not sure about selenocysteine..
edit on 21-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 09:52 PM
reply to post by silversurfer6161

It's a ridiculous thought. But what if our universe is finite and there's no way out? What if higher forms of life get trapped and there's nothing more to learn? Maybe they get bored? Maybe they get so bored that they choose to forget their memories (for a time) and to live a simpler life.
edit on 21-4-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in