Scientists postulate Extraterrestrial genes in Human DNA

[DreamsInDigital]

I trust my sources, which includes 27yrs of contact with an Off World Humanoid Race. But, hey it's still a free-ish country. If you don't want to believe it, that's your choice.

[Seikou-Kishi]

Posted by onawah (here)
I would just add to this that as with most revolutionary theories, entrenched academia resists until they can resist no more.
And whatever research has or is being done along these lines is probably not being shared with the public.
TPTW don't want us to know about our ET origins, anymore than they want us to know about ETs.
I should think that would be amply clear by now to anyone who reads this forum, at least.
Unless, again, you are simply unwilling to think outside the box, in which case, again, I respectfully suggest that you are on the wrong forum.

I read once that the scientific community doesn't become more moderate over time, but that the old scientists who were entrenched in their views die off and are replaced by more open-minded scientists (who likewise become entrenched in their views) and that the change in the scientific consensus is a result of all these Scientific Fundamentalists dying off and being replaced. Either way, I think you're right about the scientific community opposing nearly anything new.

[BlueGem]

I was thinking about this topic again today, and I remebered reading something about DNA.

If our DNA is used to manifest our physical body through the expression of genes, then 97% of our genetic make-up is not expressed through any perception of ours. Ie, the 5-sense construct of our physical body. DNA is how beings decode the energy around them, and formulate physicality from various energy fields. So what if this 97% is doing something, just not something we're distinctly aware of?

And even if they are dormant/extinct remains of past genetic manipulation, it just goes to show how much potential we have... given we're only running at 3% capacity.

[MMA_Fan]

Posted by Aetheric Traveler (here)
Evolution is provable??? !!!!


Thanks a lot. NOW, I had my gut-busting belly laugh for a whole day!!!

Just look at Genome Number 2 and ask how supposedly Darwinian evolution can combine 2 genes at the telemeres to make man from a 24 chromosome pair animal into a 23 chromosome pair animal.

I've heard and seen all the ridiculuous stab-in-the-dark conjecture about how it's part of natural selection- BUNK BUNK BUNK.

It's no different than claiming your computer running windows 98SE crashed it's operating system, restarted itself and changed it's written in stone programming to Windows Vista Professional all by itself.

The only thing that evolves is Spirit. Spirit is what manifests matter. Matter cannot evolve. It can only be changed by Spirit.

Failures in the Gene Code are almost always detrimental, usually fatal and certainly don't create billions of code changes that are positive to create species after species.

I'm sorry in advance for this next comment, but anyone who believes in Darwinian Evolution after learning about Genome #2 and manifestation of matter from spirit is a lost soul, refusing to see the light of his own Divine Grandeur. The punishment is carried with the belief. Argue for your limitations and they shall certainly be yours.

Cheers,
AT

It's provable. To claim otherwise is just ignorance. Yes spirit evolves I agree with you but so does biology. You say 'matter' but remember that biology and chemistry use matter as the sum of it's parts.
As for the vista / 98 comparison well, that is daft.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Seikou-Kishi (here)

Posted by onawah (here)
I would just add to this that as with most revolutionary theories, entrenched academia resists until they can resist no more.
And whatever research has or is being done along these lines is probably not being shared with the public.
TPTW don't want us to know about our ET origins, anymore than they want us to know about ETs.
I should think that would be amply clear by now to anyone who reads this forum, at least.
Unless, again, you are simply unwilling to think outside the box, in which case, again, I respectfully suggest that you are on the wrong forum.

I read once that the scientific community doesn't become more moderate over time, but that the old scientists who were entrenched in their views die off and are replaced by more open-minded scientists (who likewise become entrenched in their views) and that the change in the scientific consensus is a result of all these Scientific Fundamentalists dying off and being replaced. Either way, I think you're right about the scientific community opposing nearly anything new.

Probably more down to funding and laws than anything else.

[MMA_Fan]

Posted by onawah (here)
I would just add to this that as with most revolutionary theories, entrenched academia resists until they can resist no more.
And whatever research has or is being done along these lines is probably not being shared with the public.
TPTW don't want us to know about our ET origins, anymore than they want us to know about ETs.
I should think that would be amply clear by now to anyone who reads this forum, at least.
Unless, again, you are simply unwilling to think outside the box, in which case, again, I respectfully suggest that you are on the wrong forum.

I am thinking outside the box. The 'box' as you call it is the cult mentality that manifests on alternative forums that refuses to accept that mainstream science is sometimes correct. Because thousands of smart people have spent years researching things over and over and shared knowledge across the planet only to be called liars or idiots by those who watched a youtube vid and read an alternative book.
Many posts on here have proved that quite well so thank you for that.

[Aetheric Traveler]

Evolution has never been proven. Claiming it to be so leads to incessant ranting of pure conjecture. To each his own.
Cheers,
AT

[OnyxKnight]

Posted by apokalypse (here)
from one of the lyricusmagna post on David Icke forums who known as OnyxKnight which correlate with Alex Collier and it make sense.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthrea...133901&page=16

Thanks Apokalypse

I was wondering where my notes on the Logos conversations went, I am not able to find them home, so the only other place is the vault. I was looking for them since somebody few days ago asked me where the green skinned humans were from (Atlantis or Lemuria - I had forgotten).

______________________________________________

About the rest of the topic - yall haven't done your homework - regarding scientific evidence of this, or how how science papers are made to look for public eyes. Of course they won't use definite and absolute phrases when it comes to this kind of topic.

That there has been tampering with our genetic pool (however it was before - yall can adopt any theory you want - IT WASN'T LIKE THE ONE TODAY, THAT'S FOR SURE), will show you the simple fact that we have something called "Junk DNA" and another one - that rice has more genes that we do!!!

Some speculate that what has kept us for so long is a vastly stronger immune system than the rest of the life forms here on Earth. If our immune system is this strong with active genetics that barely sustain us in the form we are today, then what will it be when all our genetic "lego cubes" from the Junk DNA come in place one day?

What's missing from this is the introduction of epigenetic markers. Those are what make certain genes active or inactive (from the present bunch, or the Junk DNA sea swimming in us).

For example - this is why there are high cancer rates in USA. Yall been fed with food that knocks off a particular epigenetic marker. And when that ones is missing, you develop cancer at some point in your life.

Same goes with HIV. Its not at all how they present it to be.

Some of our epigenetic markers reside in our cell's mitochondria. If they find a way to limit their function in the cell (and I'm sure they work on that very hard) - WE ARE DONE FOR.

I wish I could say more, but I'm unable at this point, I need to get going, I said enough I think.

Till next time, take care (and do your homework!)

[mountain_jim]

Well, I am late to this party, but I believe it was in Hancock's FingerPrints of the Gods where I learned of Crick's beliefs regarding the probabilities of the building blocks of life assembling themselves by accident, and what I learned there and since was that Evolution fails to explain this huge leap of how these things happened by chance. I think MMA_Fan might want to expand his reading list to understand why great scientists such as Crick came by this point of view, using reason and probability given the age of the Earth to refute Evolution via chance from basic chemicals to protiens to the DNA code of Life we currently find.

While this line of reasoning does not prove ET involvement, I think it demolishes the theory of Evolution as Cause.

To say Evolution is proven as Cause is a joke. In a few years, no scientists will still hold to this belief system, I predict.

Nobel laureate Francis Crick calculated nature’s chances of producing one small protein: 1 in 10 to the 260th power.(10) Crick reminds us there are only 10 to the 80th power (1 followed by 80 zeros) atoms in the whole universe(11); he concludes even the elementary components of life "cannot have arisen by pure chance."(12) Mathematician Emile Borel states an event will never happen when the odds are less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power.(13) Sir Fred Hoyle calculated nature’s chances of producing the 2000 enzymes found in life: 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power.(14) He states: "The Darwinian theory of evolution is shown to be plainly wrong."(15) He concludes: "Life cannot have had a random beginning(16)...but must have come from a cosmic intelligence."(17) Nobel laureate Ernst Chain said: "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconciliable with the facts."

http://darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_15.html

DNA Cannot Be Explained by Non-Design
At this point, there is an important detail that deserves attention. An error in the sequence of the nucleotides making up a gene would render that gene completely useless. When it is considered that there are 200,000 genes in the human body, it becomes clearer how impossible it is for the millions of nucleotides making up these genes to have been formed, in the right sequence, by chance. The evolutionary biologist Frank Salisbury has comments on this impossibility:

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41,000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension.264

The number 41,000 is the equivalent of 10600. This means 1 followed by 600 zeros. As 1 with 12 zeros after it indicates a trillion, 600 zeros represents an inconceivable number.

The impossibility of the formation of RNA and DNA by a coincidental accumulation of nucleotides is expressed by the French scientist Paul Auger in this way:

We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of complex molecules such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production of nucleotides one by one-which is possible-and the combination of these within very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible.265

For many years, Francis Crick believed in the theory of molecular evolution, but eventually even he had to admit to himself that such a complex molecule could not have emerged spontaneously by chance, as the result of an evolutionary process:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.266

The Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following confession on the issue:

In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic.267

A very interesting paradox emerges at this point: While DNA can only replicate with the help of special proteins (enzymes), the synthesis of these proteins can only be realized by the information encoded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. Science writer John Horgan explains the dilemma in this way:

DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalyticproteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins.268

This situation once again undermines the scenario that life could have come about by accident. Homer Jacobson, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, comments:

Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance...269

The quotation above was written two years after the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. But despite all the developments in science, this problem for evolutionists remains unsolved. This is why German biochemist Douglas R. Hofstadter says:

'How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?' For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer.270

Stanley Miller and Francis Crick's close associate from the University of San Diego, California, the highly reputed evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel says in an article published in 1994:

It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.271

Alongside all of this, it is chemically impossible for nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, which possess a definite string of information, to have emerged by chance, or for even one of the nucleotides which compose them to have come about by accident and to have survived and maintained its unadulterated state under the conditions of the primordial world. Even the famous journal Scientific American, which follows an evolutionist line, has been obliged to confess the doubts of evolutionists on this subject:

Even the simpler molecules are produced only in small amounts in realistic experiments simulating possible primitive earth conditions. What is worse, these molecules are generally minor constituents of tars: It remains problematical how they could have been separated and purified through geochemical processes whose normal effects are to make organic mixtures more and more of a jumble. With somewhat more complex molecules these difficulties rapidly increase. In particular a purely geochemical origin of nucleotides (the subunits of DNA and RNA) presents great difficulties.272

Of course, the statement "it is quite impossible for life to have emerged by chemical means" simply means that life is the product of an intelligent design. This "chemical evolution" that evolutionists have been talking about since the beginning of the last century never happened, and is nothing but a myth.

But most evolutionists believe in this and similar totally unscientific fairy tales as if they were true, because accepting intelligent design means accepting creation-and they have conditioned themselves not to accept this truth. One famous biologist from Australia, Michael Denton, discusses the subject in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:

To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of 1,000 volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!273



264 Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336.
265 Paul Auger, De La Physique Theorique a la Biologie, 1970, p. 118.
266 Francis Crick, Life Itself: It's Origin and Nature, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88. (emphasis added)
267 Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publishing Co., Ankara, 1984, p. 39.
268 John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119. (emphasis added)
269 Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life," American Scientist, January 1955, p. 121.
270 Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Vintage Books, New York, 1980, p. 548. (emphasis added)
271 Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American, vol. 271, October 1994, p. 78. (emphasis added)
272 Cairns-Smith, Alexander G., "The First Organisms," Scientific American, 252: 90, June 1985. (emphasis added)
273 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351.

[Maia Gabrial]

I absolutely disagree with you. Seriously what do you REALLY think all that 'Junk' DNA is for then? It's not Junk DNA, it's part of the 22-24 different races that contributed to our DNA/Genetics when we were engineered as a race. The variances were later caused by different ET/ED races influencing different regions of the planet. Do you know with a little DNA re-sequencing we would seriously be able to have the ability to breath in both air and water. That's just one of the things we have the genetics for.

I'm just wondering if they're just telling US that it's junk DNA.... but they've been keeping the truth to themselves....? I never believed the junk theory anyway. But what I did believe was that God didn't create junk - EVER. And that we're awesome creatures....!

[MMA_Fan]

Posted by mountain_jim (here)
Well, I am late to this party, but I believe it was in Hancock's FingerPrints of the Gods where I learned of Crick's beliefs regarding the probabilities of the building blocks of life assembling themselves by accident, and what I learned there and since was that Evolution fails to explain this huge leap of how these things happened by chance. I think MMA_Fan might want to expand his reading list to understand why great scientists such as Crick came by this point of view, using reason and probability given the age of the Earth to refute Evolution via chance from basic chemicals to protiens to the DNA code of Life we currently find.

While this line of reasoning does not prove ET involvement, I think it demolishes the theory of Evolution as Cause.

To say Evolution is proven as Cause is a joke. In a few years, no scientists will still hold to this belief system, I predict.

Crick actually believed in Evolution;

In Crick’s view, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel’s genetics and knowledge of the molecular basis of genetics, when combined, revealed the secret of life.

Crick felt that it was important that evolution by natural selection be taught in schools and that it was regrettable that English schools had compulsory religious instruction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Creationism

BTW I read Hancock and listen to his interviews.

[mountain_jim]

My reading though was Crick did not feel Earth had been around long enough for Evolution to have produced all the life found here from scratch - thus his speculations about PanSpermia - this is the distinction I make about Evolution - it works as an ongoing process but Life did not arise on Earth - it came from elsewhere, I suspect.

I understand he particularly supported teaching Evolution in schools to counteract the Religious Fundamental Creationists who were trying to use his statements and speculations to support their positions.

It will not be much longer before Biological Life is shown to be much older than Earth, I suspect.

[WhiteFeather]

If it is part of the "...22-24 different races that contributed to our DNA/Genetics when we were engineered as a race" - why was it 'turned off'?

IMO,,,They needed us to mine for them, as worker ants if you will.

[OnyxKnight]

Don't be quick to dismiss "evolution" as a mechanism for propagation and development of life forms (it is but one example how life forms appear, develop and continue to exist).

I think what the majority of you dismiss is the natural selection aspect of evolution. Or our place on the tree of life.

Evolution explains (to some point ) the branching and complexity of life forms today, but it doesn't explain human origins. From all life on the evolutionary tree, we stand out, and in a bad way (as if we don't belong here).

[MMA_Fan]

Posted by OnyxKnight (here)
Don't be quick to dismiss "evolution" as a mechanism for propagation and development of life forms (it is but one example how life forms appear, develop and continue to exist).

I think what the majority of you dismiss is the natural selection aspect of evolution. Or our place on the tree of life.

Evolution explains (to some point ) the branching and complexity of life forms today, but it doesn't explain human origins. From all life on the evolutionary tree, we stand out, and in a bad way (as if we don't belong here).

We stand out because we have branched off so far from our animal cousins. Ever since we played with stone and fire we have been on a journey where we alter the environment around us.
Animals such as otters and capuchins use technology as well. As do beavers and diving spiders. Given enough time and the right context they too might end up on the internet or in space.

[OnyxKnight]

Posted by MMA_Fan (here)
We stand out because we have branched off so far from our animal cousins. Ever since we played with stone and fire we have been on a journey where we alter the environment around us.
Animals such as otters and capuchins use technology as well. As do beavers and diving spiders. Given enough time and the right context they too might end up on the internet or in space.

In other words, you find evolution to be a perfect explanation for human origins?

[Aetheric Traveler]

Once a person with any sense does the mathematics involved regarding the supposed evolution of complex proteins into gene sequences that evolve into other gene sequences that supposedly give rise to entirely new organisms,........

You SIMPLY CANNOT CONCLUDE THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IS OLD ENOUGH TO BE AROUND FOR THE TINIEST FRACTION OF THE GREAT LIE CALLED EVOLUTION, much less the Earth which is not as old as the Universe itself.

If you conclude otherwise, then, you as a human being have now missed out on the greatest opportunity of your life, which is it investigate your own DIVINITY!!!

And this friends, is why the Powers That Were, paid Darwin to come up with a theory that could be used to brainwash, whitewash, divert the truth and subjagate humanity into not looking to experience SELF-REALIZATION for themselves. ....... and they have been quite successful at it, haven't they?

Never once has there been the tiniest bit of proof of any of these so-called protein or gene evolutions. For people who don't particularly believe in God, this represents the largest Irony of Leaps of Faith ever.

But the ruse goes on......

Cheers,
AT

[MMA_Fan]

Posted by OnyxKnight (here)

Posted by MMA_Fan (here)
We stand out because we have branched off so far from our animal cousins. Ever since we played with stone and fire we have been on a journey where we alter the environment around us.
Animals such as otters and capuchins use technology as well. As do beavers and diving spiders. Given enough time and the right context they too might end up on the internet or in space.

In other words, you find evolution to be a perfect explanation for human origins?

It is the best explanation with all the evidence that we have (at this time). I only believe it is the process though and not some accident.

[OnyxKnight]

Posted by MMA_Fan (here)
It is the best explanation with all the evidence that we have (at this time). I only believe it is the process though and not some accident.

Alright, now the logical question - How did evolution cause the 'Junk DNA' phenomena?

[NeoEmc2]

Posted by MMA_Fan (here)
It's bunk. No evidence (unfortunately).

Please don't feed the trolls ^

[MMA_Fan]

Posted by OnyxKnight (here)

Posted by MMA_Fan (here)
It is the best explanation with all the evidence that we have (at this time). I only believe it is the process though and not some accident.

Alright, now the logical question - How did evolution cause the 'Junk DNA' phenomena?

By lifeforms dumping DNA when they didn't need it any more or having the potential there and not making use of it as they branched.

The term 'Junk DNA' is 40 years old now and only refers to the parts that no use has yet been found for.
That list is still getting smaller - so junk DNA may actually be a misnomer.