Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code

This is very important information. I read it a couple of days ago. I have been comparing it to the knowledge I hold about many things since then. S&F for posting it.

We only tested things against the genetic code we assumed to be the only one that existed. This means medicines and food additives and food changes were not compared to this other code. There may be other codes we do not know about either. We cannot fathom the complexity of things associated with DNA that took millions of years to develop. This is also relevant to the food we feed the animals we consume. It is also relevant to the plants in the world. It is by no means limited to humans, if we change the plants that animals consume it may alter the quality of the meat they produce and may also cause complications that we cannot comprehend to the microbes.

Thinking we know what is real with the minute amount of knowledge we actually have, knowledge that is based on assumptions created long ago which we accepted as real , is going to cause us a lot of harm. Seems nobody questions the fundamentals of what we were taught much...we now have the ability to test this. We should reassess what we know and look for basic mistakes we have made and accepted as real.

We will bring on our own destruction, we do not need comets, asteroids, or other major disasters to occur. It will be slow and painful, and very expensive if we do not use information like this to investigate the safety of our foods. I suppose we deserve this, look at what we are doing. Alchemy has destroyed many a good people in the past, people who believed it was safe. When in fact it was used to get what they worked hard for for many years. It gave them a rush of energy and they felt great till the side effects of the change caused them more harm than good, then the people stood up and killed all the alchemists and witches that promoted the science. The problem is that some of it was good but all was abandoned. Our metabolism does take care of some of it but not all.

The good in a simple banana is about the same as the bad in it. This is just one example of how things get accepted and promoted till they cause problems. Eating a banana occasionally is of little concern but eating uncooked bananas too often can cause problems. Using moderation with everything is important. Knowing what should not be consumed with something else is important and understanding how cooking detoxes some things and causes toxins to be created in others is very important. Metabolic acidosis is bad.

soficrow

pandersway

GREAT find. Now I'm wondering about the relationship between epigenetic mechanisms and this hidden code.

reply to post by soficrow

 

By all means lead on. See where it takes us.

Not ready to lead at the moment. As I recall most if not all epigenetic mechanisms act on RNA and have to do with turning genes on and off. Perhaps environmental cues trigger epigenetic mechanisms that spur this 'hidden code' into action.

But I have to do a bit more research and thinking before I comment for real.

I think people jump at things to gain profits or prestige too much today. I read this stuff when it came out on Science Daily a few days ago but had to think about it a lot before I could assess the problems about it. I go to sleep at night thinking about these things and it seems that in the morning they are easier to apply to life.

I like when I hear someone say that they need to research something more and think about it for a while

reply to post by pandersway


Yeah and according to Atheist's it all occurred by random chance, or some claim it was little men from another planet, which only pushes the same problem to the alien planet, lol, unreal the length some people go too to deny God as the creator..

Amarri
reply to post by neoholographic

 

Loved your reply post. Check out the link I posted above. I do believe things from the largest scale to the smallest are pointing in that direction, however we may have to twist our heads around to see it. haha.

Thanks for the link and you're right. It will be hard to see but it's plain to see the evidence of intelligent design.

Nature can produce design but not intelligent design. Nature can produce a mountainside or a snowflake but it can't produce a snowflake that transcribes and translates regulatory sequences on another snowflake and then you will have a snowflake production factory.

This is intelligent design. Intelligence has to give meaning to the arrangement of letters and symbols and then build machinery to read the arrangement of letters and regulate the reading of these letters and symbols.

This is DNA. It transcribes, translates, error correction, gene regulation and gene expression.

You ever get the feeling that says "you shouldn't have done that" after doing something no matter how cool? These seems like one of those things for some reason. I applaud the scientists for making such an important discovery, but, like I said, you know?

By the way the ID or Random chance argument aside.

This has some really important implication with Cancer and Genetic diseases.

Especially Genetic diseases. Theirs a few floating around that we sort of know what causes them, but theirs something missing.

Also it could have some major implication in gene therapy as so far we have been getting mixed results with it. This could be a missing peace that can get it to work.

ElohimJD

benrl
Keep this in mind, and than think about Monsanto and Gmo...

We are modifying with out any knowledge of the potential side effects, we are modifying DNA when we just discovered this?

Something that could be a major component in the out come...

Exceptional contribution!

We had severely limit knowledge/understanding of DNA when we as a species decided we "knew it all" and "how to make it work for us".

We create crops that are missing half the story, with no idea how the long term effects of ingesting those crops can do to real live DNA over time.

I feel this same way toward nuclear energy. Just because we were given the knowledge of the power to create (DNA) and destroy (nuclear energy) doesn't mean we are capable of utilizing that knowledge in the manner it was designed.

How can a pot tell the potter how to make itself????

We were created/designed (a pot), knowing things does not make us a responsible practitioner of such things (potter).

If only our pride could be removed, so we could see the error of our intellectual vanity, before we destroy ourselves through our vain ignorance by claiming to "know it all".

God Bless,

edit on 13-12-2013 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)

One of the most "honest" and correct statements ever written down by man!!!!!

Swear to GOD ( I am not religious at all BTW)
OBLVION


I always assumed that they were simply experimenting on us at this moment, so that true understanding, and "worth" for the "elite" would come later on.

Ever notice they dont eat and drink the same crap as we "the little people"?

The GUT
Is this true?! Would we now have to embrace intelligent design if we're intellectually honest?

Ah if only,however,i.m afraid that the evolutionists will still take some convincing, whilst the creationists will only trumpet this as 'proof' of their god.

its frstrating how ya need to throw a bnch of cash at the pblishers to read scientific papers.

The GUT
Is this true?! Would we now have to embrace intelligent design if we're intellectually honest?

haha, how so? (not being facetious)

darkbake
That is ridiculous. As humans, we have only developed binary code. With binary code, each bit of information can only store two options - 0 or 1. A byte (8 bits) is like 0101 0001. That takes up 8 spaces and can hold 2^8, or 256 different options.

This is because with binary code, we are using electricity, which has an on and an off option (at least that is the property of electricity we are using). The DNA is using chemicals, with four different ones to choose from, as their main mechanism.

DNA already holds 4 different options per bit. So in one byte, it can have 4^8. or 65536 different commands. That is already ridiculously superior to computer code. To add another set of commands on top of the first is just outclasses computer code...

edit on 13pmFri, 13 Dec 2013 19:46:58 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

Within CPUs, GPUs, DSP's, and APU's, those bits and bytes are organised into things called "instruction sets" and data. There's a great debate called "RISC vs. CISC". Reduced Instruction Set Computers have a low number of instructions (< 100). Complex Instruction Set Computers have high number of instructions. But research demonstrated that compilers and programmers only used a small number of instructions, so all that those additional logic was wasted. Then there are other programming models like message passing systems.

At this level, a single cell as the equivalent of a single self-repairing CPU core. When you look at parallel processing algorithms, especially with supercomputers and GPU's consisting of thousands of cores, it requires a completely different level. Even then, all the other fields of science can only model small areas of consciousness; signal processing for hearing, sight and touch, chemistry for taste and smell, biology and psychology for hormones and emotions, robotics for motion, genetics for the immune system. We do know that there are various parts of the brain dedicated to doing things like processing facial expressions, body posture, recognising shapes, colors and objects as well as language.
Even with all that knowledge it still doesn't explain consciousness.

rickymouse

soficrow

pandersway

GREAT find. Now I'm wondering about the relationship between epigenetic mechanisms and this hidden code.

reply to post by soficrow

 

By all means lead on. See where it takes us.

Not ready to lead at the moment. As I recall most if not all epigenetic mechanisms act on RNA and have to do with turning genes on and off. Perhaps environmental cues trigger epigenetic mechanisms that spur this 'hidden code' into action.

But I have to do a bit more research and thinking before I comment for real.

I think people jump at things to gain profits or prestige too much today. I read this stuff when it came out on Science Daily a few days ago but had to think about it a lot before I could assess the problems about it. I go to sleep at night thinking about these things and it seems that in the morning they are easier to apply to life.

I like when I hear someone say that they need to research something more and think about it for a while

Thanks. ...FYI - I did not write the 3rd paragraph of the quote you attributed to me - is that your bit and you accidentally included it in the quote?

Anyway, I do think environmental cues trigger epigenetic mechanisms that spur this 'hidden code' (RNA) into action that turns genes off and on. ...The hypothetical 'messaging' diagram would look something like this:

Environment +-> Epigenetics +-> RNA +-> DNA = Phenotype

Elegant, don't you think?

reply to post by tsingtao

the dna can identify a single individual

Seems it can't always. Depends which part of the body you sample. Check this out:

Novel Genetic Patterns May Make Us Rethink Biology and Individuality

reply to post by soficrow


Thanks for the link. It reminds me of a poem.

'This being human is a guest house.
Every morning a new arrival.

A joy, a depression, a meanness,
some momentary awareness comes
as an unexpected visitor.

Welcome and entertain them all!
Even if they are a crowd of sorrows,
who violently sweep your house
empty of its furniture,
still, treat each guest honorably.
He may be clearing you out
for some new delight.

The dark thought, the shame, the malice.
meet them at the door laughing and invite them in.

Be grateful for whatever comes.
because each has been sent
as a guide from beyond.'

-Rumi

Sorry if I sound too insistent on this, but could someone please confirm the validity of the Forbes article and/or its rebuttal? Just to to clear things up a bit. Because right now there's two competing sides arguing about the philosophical implications of this discovery, while the basic facts are still unclear for laymen like me...

Cathcart
Because right now there's two competing sides arguing about the philosophical implications of this discovery, ..

In many ways, the "philosophical implications" are completely detached from the actual science.

What has happened here is that after the press release was issued, people with pre concieved ideas have merely taken the opportunity to say "*this* proves that I am right", without actually talking about the *this* part of it at all.

A few quotes from the thread so far:

This is a really big deal.
this is really big
this discovery
governments can use this
this discovery
this is intelligent design
This also means
this is news in which mainstream science admits were wrong
This is just more evidence of intelligent design.
this just demonstrates a lack of understanding about the evolutionary processes.
This is pretty ground breaking.
This is great that they are finally admitting this
this tells us
this is clear evidence of intelligent design
This is very important information.
This is intelligent design

So, everybody is claiming this as their own, but I do wonder how many of them even know what the hell they're talking about, because when it actually comes down to REALLY talking about this, being...
transcription-factor binding sites inside axons
... then its all chirping crickets and tumbleweeds.
Total silence.

soficrow
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Worth repeating:

Evolution and genetical research is all about the how

...the mechanisms of the universe, not the why.

Thank you.

UHHUH.

Its all about how, always start from a point that is PAST the starting point and work your ways backwards, great idea.

It shows us exactly how the NIST document leaves out all the important parts of the towers annihilation, THIS IS THE KEY TO EVERYTHING being so bloody insane on this planet.

Science is being held to the most retarded possible way of reaching a goal,

Without the WHY, WHO CARES about the mechanisms, and how could anyone possibly get to the bottom of it without finding out the WHY.

This DNA will likely show exactly why, why so many easily are trapped into such complex failing logic, because the coding they have , MAKES IT SO .

reply to post by mr10k


Not necessarily....

Breakthroughs are commonly exponential in result. Once AI is developed to a certain point, it will be able to write it's own code and develop it's self further. Once that happens it will either end up being the best thing for human kind or the stupidest thing we've ever done. Maybe that's what happened with humans. Maybe we killed god... Killing God is not possible since He is the conglomerate consciousness of all totality.

Jaden

benrl
Keep this in mind, and than think about Monsanto and Gmo...

We are modifying with out any knowledge of the potential side effects, we are modifying DNA when we just discovered this?

Something that could be a major component in the out come...

Oh WOW, the implications of this...

So, what happens when you take a gene, like that coding for the production of BT toxin which is put into corn to kill insects, and you put it into another organism? How does that affect the entire chromosome that it is inserted into, and all the genes coded for on it? Does it have the potential to affect *all* of the genes on that chromosome and how they are transcribed? Can it affect which genes are transcribed, how often, and when?

That *ONE* inserted gene could produce a domino effect on each and every other gene on the chromosome it is inserted into, simply because the context within which the DNA sequence appears is as important as the genetic information itself. As below, so above, so to speak.

I bet this puts to rest the mantra: "One gene, one protein."

No, you mess with ONE gene, you mess with them ALL!

The implications for this for corporations like Monsanto is HUGE, *HUGE*...but will they change their business acumen in light of this? Not as long as their legal department can continue to pile lawsuits on people faster than they can be responded to...but this paper, if corroborated, will change the game.

Completely.

reply to post by soficrow


That was supposed to be part of my comment. I don't know how I messed up getting it in with your stuff. Sorry about that. I used to do that before but I have been better at not having it happen lately. I guess I still mess up if the "quote" sign gets left below.