PDA

View Full Version : Russian DNA Discoveries... pushing the boundaries of known science.



Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
05-04-2009, 02:58 PM
"The human DNA is a biological Internet and superior in many aspects to the artificial one. The latest Russian scientific research directly or indirectly explains phenomena such as clairvoyance, intuition, spontaneous and remote acts of healing, self healing, affirmation techniques, unusual light/auras around people (namely spiritual masters), mind's influence on weather patterns and much more."

The human DNA is a biological Internet and superior in many aspects to the artificial one. The latest Russian scientific research directly or indirectly explains phenomena such as clairvoyance, intuition, spontaneous and remote acts of healing, self healing, affirmation techniques, unusual light/auras around people (namely spiritual masters), mind's influence on weather patterns and much more.

In addition, there is evidence for a whole new type of medicine in which DNA can be influenced and reprogrammed by words and frequencies WITHOUT cutting out and replacing single genes. Only 10% of our DNA is being used for building proteins. It is this subset of DNA that is of interest to western researchers and is being examined and categorized. The other 90% are considered "junk DNA."

The Russian researchers, however, convinced that nature was not dumb, joined linguists and geneticists in a venture to explore that 90% of "junk DNA." Their results, findings and conclusions are simply revolutionary!

According to there findings, our DNA is not only responsible for the construction of our body but also serves as data storage and communication. The Russian linguists found that the genetic code —especially in the apparent "useless" 90%— follows the same rules as all our human languages.

To this end they compared the rules of syntax (the way in which words are put together to form phrases and sentences), semantics (the study of meaning in language forms) and the basic rules of grammar. They found that the alkalines of our DNA follow a regular grammar and do have set rules just like our languages. Therefore, human languages did not appear coincidentally but are a reflection of our inherent DNA.

More here (source) :
http://www.luisprad a.com/Protected/ russian_dna_ discoveries. htm (http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/russian_dna_discoveries.htm)

Okay everyone, share your thoughts...

Sascha
05-04-2009, 03:01 PM
Oh, that wacky DNA ... always getting credit (and blame) for more than it actually does ;)

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
05-04-2009, 03:10 PM
Well, at least people arent always blaming the devil anymore. Hey, got a thought: perhaps DNA is the 21st century incarnation of the devil... or not. :confused:


:biggrin:

Sascha
05-04-2009, 03:30 PM
Might actually help their case if they got the stats for protein-encoding genes correct; it's closer to 1.5% than 10% :P Also, the "junk" - non-protein-encoding - DNA has function in regulatory processes, controlling when proteins get created and in what types of cells.

Umiushi
05-05-2009, 02:13 AM
My first thought is that I'll believe it when I read the article in Nature.

William Murderface
06-06-2009, 10:46 PM
it also givs us more than language
think about the unused portion of brain
maybe it dosen't work for a reason

Panthro82
07-09-2009, 03:00 PM
Well they are still analyzing all the data from the Human Genome Project so there will be a few years at least until we can answer the majority of these questions...

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml

WCRPG Butcher
07-09-2009, 05:45 PM
Our DNA needs more volatile acid spitting.

mrken
07-09-2009, 06:58 PM
Perhaps this thing we call our body is way beyond what we think it is.

Panthro82
07-09-2009, 11:28 PM
Perhaps this thing we call our body is way beyond what we think it is.

I think so. If after all this time and all this technology we still haven't completely mapped it and figured it out then it must be much more elaborate than we think

XeroDrift
09-21-2009, 11:43 PM
The term "junk DNA" only reflects our relative ignorance. To assign a label of "uselessness" just because we havent figured out a purpose yet is pure human hubris. Nature doesnt waste space, if its there, it serves a purpose, or its (in an evolutionary sense) on its way out. We will continue to make "breakthrough discoveries" in this field for as long as we care to look and have the capacity to comprehend what we find.
--- Merged from Double Post ---

Well they are still analyzing all the data from the Human Genome Project so there will be a few years at least until we can answer the majority of these questions...

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml

Imagine the Human Genome Project as an orbital picture of earth, yes, perhaps we have an idea as to the scope of what we are looking at, but to "zoom in" and decipher and understand all the little roads and features that comprise the actual make up of the surface is a science still in its infancy. I believe these inquiries will almost certainly lead to an eventual ability to manipulate specific genetic codes; i.e. make people smarter, more capable, prettier, etc... (this is where philosophy, theology, etc... come into play, just because you CAN do something, does that mean you SHOULD? And what would be the outcome? I personally feel that philosophical and theological considerations, while important, should not interfere with the advancement of science and knowledge) An infinitely complicated matter in just about any way you look at it.

Crossroads_Wanderer
09-23-2009, 07:21 AM
From my understanding, some of the junk DNA is used in early development, but isn't used afterward, so it appears useless. This is probably just speculation that I've heard, but it makes logical sense to me.


it also givs us more than language
think about the unused portion of brain
maybe it dosen't work for a reason

We don't actually have an unused portion of our brain. That's just a myth.

Sascha
09-23-2009, 11:20 AM
From my understanding, some of the junk DNA is used in early development, but isn't used afterward, so it appears useless. This is probably just speculation that I've heard, but it makes logical sense to me.
As mentioned upthread, "junk" just refers to non-protein-encoding DNA sequences. It's constantly being used and referenced, not just in early development ;)

ncRNA (non-coding RNA): One-third, give or take, create RNA strands other than the mRNA that order up new proteins (quite a few of 'em, each with their own purposes).

Introns: Bits of a given gene that get edited out, before being turned into a given protein. Depending on the protein to be made, different introns will get cut from the strand, even from the same gene.

Regulatory genes: These create RNA strands that help guide the enzymes in replication (cloning the DNA strands), transcription (creating new RNA strands) and translation (synthesizing new proteins).

Repeats: Sections of DNA that, erm, repeat themselves. Their purpose, if any, isn't readily apparent (could be as simple as 'holding the rest together').

yukonhorror
09-23-2009, 01:06 PM
My first thought is that I'll believe it when I read the article in Nature.

or science

NathanLuna
09-25-2009, 08:12 AM
or science
why can't nature and science be the same thing on different scales, nature clearly has rules we can work to. some animals perform "jobs" in thier enviroment and we have seen the effect of taking them out or brining in another animal.

Sascha
09-25-2009, 11:17 AM
why can't nature and science be the same thing on different scales, nature clearly has rules we can work to. some animals perform "jobs" in thier enviroment and we have seen the effect of taking them out or brining in another animal.
Think both Science and Nature refer to the academic journals, not their abstract-concept counterparts ;)

XeroDrift
09-28-2009, 07:57 AM
why can't nature and science be the same thing on different scales, nature clearly has rules we can work to. some animals perform "jobs" in thier enviroment and we have seen the effect of taking them out or brining in another animal.

Science is our attempt to understand and define what Nature "is" and how it works (by "nature" I mean all matter, energy, and forces thereof). Science is only a quantification of our observations and ideas regarding existence. The practical application of which being an increasing facility with the manipulation of matter and energy. Science is an abstraction, an effort to define reality in a manner we can comprehend. It is a description of Nature, a part of it, in essence, they are the same thing. When Science seems nonsensical, it is either because we have the wrong idea, therefore contradicting what we observe in the Universe, or we just don't understand what we are seeing. I like to think that we will continue to advance in Science and paint for ourselves an ever clearer portrait of the truth of Nature.