.
.
http://merkaba.tribe.net...e-4a7a-9e43-beb61802d5b8


This article is a bit verbose but the idea is that the 'programmer' of our DNA "in a rush" junked a bunch of "coding" DNA by simply adding a "comment" function such as "/" is C++.

Interesting read but they come up with some pretty far out conclusions...aside from finding leukemia causing code!!!


ENJOY....


J
.
.

Yes LOTS of junk DNA as far as we know a small amount of the potential coding is used as "instructions" to build us as humans. I haven't read your link yet but will be doing so.

The Junk DNA would seem to point to the hypothesis that the DNA double helix was indeed random luck combined with the random mutations of time and evolution made all life on earth.

But in truth no one knows yet for sure, but the random information to me suggests the above as more likely possibility than a creator who programed the strand if you will and made mistakes or junk DNA.

Keep smoking DMT and you may solve the mystery! I know of at least two major advances in DNA research and technology that were spawned by psychedelic inspiration.

Scientist are getting closed and closer to creating simple life in the Lab. What will the Religious leaders think when they do? We have already answered that in another thread. Who cares what they think, most of them are a thorn in the foot of humanity slowing its journey forward.

I will be glad when the thorn is removed and we can pick up our forward pace, with out the pain of antiquated relegious influence and there threats of eternal damnation.

PEACE
MV

This article is more pseudoscientific garbage. I read it and its terrible and filled with misinformation.



No one programmed our DNA. It evolved. Because it evolved in a largely random way that's why junk DNA exists. Furthermore junk DNA has a number of potential functions.

The problem with junk DNA is the term 'junk'. Because scientists called it junk because they didn't know what it was for allowed a bunch of weirdos to make all kinds of absurd theories about why its there.

The real potential functions of junk DNA (also called non coding DNA) are the following:

Some used to be functional genes but now they are no longer coded because of whatever series of mutations. Some may one day become functional genes.

They could have regulatory functions for gene expression.

Parts of junk DNA could be important for interaction with enzymes that will read other sequences of DNA.

It could also simply be a way of protecting the coding parts of genes from mutations. If all your DNA had a vital function and it was mutated you'd be screwed evolutionarily. But if you have lots of useless DNA that could be mutated then you are less likely to experience dangerous mutations in coding sequences.



There is still much research to be done on non coding sequences of DNA. But to claim that because its there implies some kind of designer is completely absurd. Anyone who throws the words "design" and "programmer" around when talking about DNA and evolution is a creationist who ignores major aspects about evolution and molecular biology.

Interesting read but like you said jasons741 they really went out on a limb with some theories, still interesting however thanks for posting.

Lots of articles are full of bunk and sometimes that is there entertaining aspect. I read all kinds of stuff not just things that support my personal mythology.

PEACE
MV

gotta agree with burnt, junk dna is a very old and totally outdated term. It was coined at around the time of the release of the first draft of the human genome yet since then people have found much more info on "junk" DNA and what it does.

Just for the record, all organisms have junk DNA. It seems that more complex organisms have more of it, with bacteria having the least amount and higher plants and animals having the most.

This non-coding DNA does the following:

1. Contains regulatory sequences that control the expression of genes. In this way different cell types in an organism are different (e.g. epidermal cells are different from neurons etc.)

2. Other sequences are useful for attracting a special environment to make euchromatin/heterochromatin. Many of them are the remains of viruses that popped into the genome, got mutated and stayed there. (HIV is a type of virus that likes to pop its dna in and out of the human genome)

3. Other sequences are used to make the centromeres, the structures that hold chromosomal strands together during mitosis whereas others make the telomeres, the structures that protect the end of chromosomes and ensure their replication.

4. Others are the remains of no more active genes that serve as a "spares part list" for the potential creation of new genes. Something like the inventory of a workshop.

5....whereas other are tandem repeated short DNA sequences (which by their nature tend to expand or collapse) and whose function is still elusive.

Not much junk here therefore! the linked paper is total rubbish just for using this term to sensationalise on this issue!

Infundibulum
Thanks for the update.

BTW I enjoyed your life, your song! Very nice music but I could not understand a word of the lyrics. Where can I find a English translation?



PEACE
MV

thanks - Gotta ask my woman for a decent translation. It's all greek from the 1930s, basically speaks about the hard life of being a junkie, but it's also allegoric and extends on the difficulties of nit being mainstream. Don't take my word for it 100%!

.
.
Lets start by saying I am NO creationist. I understand many intricacies of evolution and can see quite clearly that we are merely a bump in the road. I simply offer the article for entertainment purposes only. Creationist is a four letter word where I come from so don't confuse the messenger with the message. I thought it would make interesting argument fodder and actually expected Burnt to answer with "pseudo-science", faster. Noone called the author on his grammer, though. Hmmm.

I do love to see knowledge layed out like cards in a game of rummy! Fascinating.

J
.
.

Actually just really enjoying reading Jeremy Narby's Cosmic Serpent - which touches on this. The cosmic serpent is DNA, by ancient tribes knew about it along time before our culture.

I am also extremely interested to research this 'double twisted language' which he describes shamans using;
apparently shamans from other cultures can understand it but members of the same village cannot?
like, its a language which becomes apparent to them under the influence of ayahusca!

OMG, LIKE HOLY WHATNESS?!
and there is *evidence* of this!!

I am highly skeptical of the claims in that book. I think serpents played such an important role in mythology of societies evolving in jungles people 1. snakes 2. vines that they eat and trip off of.

There is no evidence these people had any clue what DNA was. They didn't even know what bacteria were.