making a case for GE's

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Something that has always bugged me about genes, and DNA is how on earth can two cells (egg and sperm) contain enough data to form a complete functioning human (or other) organism. There are sooooo many functions in a human body it staggers the mind.

Take the eye:
it has a certain shape so it can focus the light on the retina, the retina has two types of light receiving cells, one for bright and one for low light - night vision, the lens has to be able to focus continuously usually with out conscious control, the iris has to open and close according to light levels, they have to track simultaneously, they have to track and follow moving objects, scan the environment around it, blood needs to be supplied and removed to nourish the cells, the retina has to convert light into data sent to the brain. The eyes have to function in pairs, to give a good 3D vision. And I am scratching the surface of the functions and there is all of the structure, millions of cells, each specialized to perform all of these functions. Not to mention it is self repairing (within reason), and the cells self replace.

It boggles the mind.

How is it possible for the DNA to have all of that data? If it can't, how does one explain the body? Perhaps Hub was right - there is an entity that makes up the body. Or perhaps there is a template, in an electronic (or "theta" energy) form that the DNA triggers and while the DNA may code stuff like Ginger hair, Blue eyes, small Ta Ta's - whatever and the template organizes the cell growth to create the body one is wearing to conform to that selection.

Thoughts? A good explanation how it is possible for the DNA to have enough data to completely form the body and all of it's structure?

Mimsey

[Hatshepsut]

That's a really deep can of worms. It's all living databases and schematics!

I brought this subject up in almost the same exact way back in the early eighties. I was arguing for the fact that I thought I'd been the recipient of several extra banks added to my repetoire of 'organ' entities after having sex with a staff member. These actually seemed to be the 'minds' of certain organs. Each one of these was flashing very hot memories of abuse at me. The abuses were wild implants and surgical operations done 'to' them in another era. Their anihilator was this staff member. I was now holding all of these banks come alive and screaming. I never adequacy figured out the exchange of valences.

Body organs seem to have their own memories as well as that inner map on how to function. I wonder how many surgeons are haunted by the ghosts of living tissues they've ripped from someones' body. I know my dentist died early at 51 from a heart attack. He'd make a huge hole out of a microdot spec and charge for the silver by its size. My endocrinologist died around the same age from a heart attack. He cut out a chunk of my healthy thyroid when it was just a fluid filled cyst encroaching from a strep tonsil.

I bring this up because I was doubted after a questionable handling with 3 S&Ds. My argument was that if pre-programmed information enough to build the complex body can be passed loaded in the ejaculate, what OTHER kinds of information may ride along. I definitely felt I was experiencing the holographically re-enacted memories of another in my space. And since these were all end-of-life (call it murder) scenarios, panic and nervousness ensued.

If one can inherit 'life attributes' from a person they received an organ from it's possible that the animating 'minds' of organs can affect others in a discarnate state also.

To watch one of these documentaries about life in the womb where they begin with showing the sperm burrowing into the egg, and to watch the electric living synthesis explode into Life...and it all knows exactly what to do!!!! Kidney cells, toe cells, brain cells! That's a LOT of coding. WHO did that? No accident there I'd say. And of all the intelligences out there in the universe what's not to say that some 'specialists' could not have added secretly to the existing codes, slipping it into the genes of the human race just so. Isn't that the idea perpetrated in R6 myth with the Jesus implant?

Last week I was reading up on Franz Bardon and this week I found some information on the Chaldean Oracles. These people were tracing down
the roots of subtle life behind manifest life. The science of the engineering is intentional. There seem to be many godlike intelligences collaborating spectacularly.

[Ogsonofgroo]

DNA is all a part of what it took for us to touch eachother on a different level, but~~

Always remember tho....

[Ogsonofgroo]

And.... this can happen`


lots of takes on it, but Mims, its physically mostly figured out

[Innominate Dude]

Something that has always bugged me about genes, and DNA is how on earth can two cells (egg and sperm) contain enough data to form a complete functioning human (or other) organism. There are sooooo many functions in a human body it staggers the mind.

The evolutionary answer is "endless trillions of trials produces a winner". Evolution has been going on for a long time, and an astonishing number of "tries" finds a winner, which replicates better than others, and that winner in turn undergoes a new set of fresh innovations which yields a winner, etc. Each new variation of a biological specimen "stands on the shoulders" of the best the last round offered, so a very dense and useful information structure arises.

It boggles the mind.

Think of it this way: it boggles the mind for someone to walk on their hands from LA to New York, but not so much to do it for 2 to 3 feet. Well LA to New York is just an endless succession of 2 or 3 feet at a time. Similarly, each new amazing feature of a biological specimen gets to emerge a little at a time.

How is it possible for the DNA to have all of that data?

You need to have a passion for math to grasp this. Here's a familiar math example: if you place one grain on the first chess square, then two on the second, then four on the third, etc - you eventually wind up with more grain than exists in the world by the final chess board square. Data exists each time you specify a 1 or zero in relation to all the other 1 and zero positions in a "word" of data. Data can get intensely dense quickly as you increase "word" size. DNA is one hell of a long word, datawise. No mere puny little 256-bit bandwidth to DNA - it's enormous in word size.

Perhaps Hub was right - there is an entity that makes up the body.

"Always consider each possibility" is the scientific way, settling on an answer only when enough facts are at hand. Here's a thing to think about on a GE as the guiding model for the body though:

<<========================================>>

Doesn't a GE require even more data than DNA to correctly sort out THIS particular body from all the alleged prior bodies it was GE to? I would say so, personally. DNA is much more compact than something that served as the design guide for some endless succession of prior bodies and is now able to keep straight what it is to manifest in the present.

<<========================================>>

Argue what the data structure of the GE is and then you have a basis to compare it to DNA as the better or worse answer. But we need some "nuts and bolts" details about the GE to know what it's data structure is like. Hubby wasn't always good at the details: better at selling the sizzle than dissecting the steak. I know how DNA writes its zeros and ones, and how a computer does it, but I'm clueless about how a GE does it, so I don't know its word size and data structure.

Without some metric for the GE's data storage, and how it copes with extra information about the past that DNA might not have, is the real puzzle facing you I'd say.

A good explanation how it is possible for the DNA to have enough data to completely form the body and all of it's structure?

Mimsey

Unfortunately this is a topic where the only good explanations are basically mathematical. The familiar chess board example from combinatorics is a good start though.

[Student of Trinity]

[H]ow on earth can two cells ... contain enough data to form a complete functioning human ...?

This is a really good question. I have been calling it the Lara Croft paradox for years. The human genome is digital: the information is all in the sequence of DNA base pairs, of which there are four possibilities. So it's straightforward to quantify the total information contained in the human genome, once you actually know how many units there are. I forget the exact figure, since it has been revised a couple of times, but I believe it's only a gigabyte or two. A lot of video games take more disk space than that. This seems to imply that it takes more information to specify a game character than it does to specify me.

Okay, some of those game characters look a lot better than me. Maybe you just get what you pay for. Still, they're not real. Their games do not normally require them to simulate digestive systems, or immune systems, or any internal details at all, in fact. Why am I still so apparently easier to specify?

The answer is that quantifying information is actually tricky. There are formulas that call themselves 'information' or 'entropy', but the sense in which they really mean that is very narrow. The wild card in the story is: coding. What meaning do you attach to the different symbols that you are varying in your text?

For instance, Tolstoy's War and Peace is a long book. It takes a long string of letters to specify it — when you try to spell it out in normal words. But imagine a couple of professors of Russian literature having a discussion by e-mail. They both know Tolstoy's entire oeuvre by heart. They have evolved a simple code to refer to Tolstoy in briefer form, and all they have to do to communicate the entire long story to each other is to send two letters: WP.

The reason this works is that their situation, in discussing Tolstoy, is quite different from yours or mine. If you want to tell me about War and Peace, you're going to have to refresh me on most of the details of the book. But these two Tolstoy professors are already both experts. Each of them already knows pretty much everything that there is to be said about War and Peace. The only thing they need to hear from each other is a pointer, saying which of the things they already know is being brought into that day's conversation.

Well, reproduction is like that. Despite the careless things you read in the media, DNA does not contain all the information to specify a human. Most of the information that produces a human being is already present in a human womb. The reproductive system in a female adult 'knows', so to speak, how to produce many different human fetuses. All it needs from the zygote DNA is a tip as to which of those options to go with. The factory is already fully tooled up to generate human eyes, for instance, like a Ford plant ready to run. It's not waiting to be told by DNA how to put together an eye. It's just waiting to be told what color.

Furthermore, a lot of small details in the final product are decided by the workers on the factory floor, because they aren't even mentioned in the blueprint. That is, a lot of small details in a human body are determined by the accidents of gestation, not by DNA. Identical twins have identical DNA, but they do not have identical fingerprints, and they certainly don't have identical brains.

[Ogsonofgroo]

Originally Posted by Mimsey Borogrove View Post
[H]ow on earth can two cells ... contain enough data to form a complete functioning human ...?

If the stars could look at us..... its like how we look at a cell. There are universes in a grain of sand.

[Mimsey Borogrove]

So, Student of Trinity, it is a chicken and egg proposition - which came first the womb factory or the fertilized egg? That brings to mind another question - if the chicken is a scaled down T-Rex, why can't it be reverse engineered by tweaking the DNA? Doesn't the bird egg start out as a single cell - there is no womb to facilitate the construction of the long island red - it is all happening within the egg shell.

To some extent that is messing with your womb factory proposition, or am I all wet?

If they succeed in getting mammoth DNA and slip it into a elephant egg - will the womb produce a hairy elephant or an actual mammoth?

I'm just full of questions tonight!

Mimsey

[Student of Trinity]

I'm not an expert on bird biology, but the distinction between womb and egg is not really significant for this issue. An egg doesn't just form in a hen as an empty shell with a single cell in the middle. The hen's body — in whatever part is analogous to a mammalian womb — forms the shell around a big and complicated blob of tissue and nutrients and I don't know what. Whatever it is, it's the stuff that tastes good fried up with bacon. But if the egg were fertilized, and if I let it stay just nicely warm long enough, instead of cooking it, then all the zillions of complex molecules in that eggy goop would play the part of the womb/factory for the developing chick. I hope this doesn't put you off breakfast.

Yes, the whole scenario is a chicken-and-egg question. And it has the same answer. The whole system evolved together over very many millions of years, and with zillions of organisms all exploring parameter space in parallel.

The evolution of the genetic code was part of that process. But the bulk of the iceberg, so to speak, was and is all the ways in which cell biochemistry responds to DNA, and then all the ways that larger scale biology is built up out of cells. There is very, very much more information, by any reasonable definition of that term, in all that biochemistry, than there is in any organism's DNA.

What carries all that extra information? Simply the fundamental particles of matter, interacting under the laws of nature. Chemistry and physics. Unimaginably many electrons and protons all swirling around quantum mechanically. No computer on earth can accurately simulate more than a tiny fraction of the chemical reactions in a tiny part of a single cell, over a very short time. The actual electrons, however, don't need to simulate. They just do it, by their zillions, all the time.

The information content of reality is really enormous. Our pathetic 'virtual realities' are really pathetic in comparison; the fact that we can simulate environments that seem convincing to a few human senses really only shows how extremely limited our human senses are.

I have no idea what would happen with mammoth DNA in an elephant. What you read in the media seems to suggest that of course you'll get a prehistoric mammoth, just as it would have been tens of thousands of years ago. But from my understanding, that's quite unlikely. In the first place, DNA needs at least one living cell to sit inside — if you pour a bunch of DNA into a test-tube all by itself, nothing at all happens. But even if we can extract or re-construct mammoth DNA, we don't have any live mammoth cells. So we'd have to insert the mammoth DNA in (presumably) an elephant zygote. Already that makes something unlike any historical mammoth zygote, and it's not clear that it would survive and grow at all. But maybe it would, if elephant and mammoth are similar enough. Then the result, if that elephant zygote with mammoth DNA developed in an elephant womb, would essentially be an elephant-ized re-imagining of a mammoth, even if it had pure mammoth DNA. How close it would be to an original mammoth would depend on just how different elephants and mammoths are/were.

After all, if we ever get a bunch of mammoth DNA, we could just as easily use it to replace the chipmunk DNA of a fertilized chipmunk zygote, and implant it into a chipmunk womb. Clearly no mammoth could possibly result. The wildest possibility would be some kind of tiny version of a mammoth, but that seems fantastically unlikely — like feeding 747 blueprints into a gumball factory and expecting to see little toy planes roll out. Almost certainly the poor chipmunk-mammoth hybrid would spontaneously abort at a very early stage. The same thing might very well still happen with an elephant.

[guanoloco]

So, Student of Trinity, it is a chicken and egg proposition - which came first the womb factory or the fertilized egg? That brings to mind another question - if the chicken is a scaled down T-Rex, why can't it be reverse engineered by tweaking the DNA? Doesn't the bird egg start out as a single cell - there is no womb to facilitate the construction of the long island red - it is all happening within the egg shell.

To some extent that is messing with your womb factory proposition, or am I all wet?

If they succeed in getting mammoth DNA and slip it into a elephant egg - will the womb produce a hairy elephant or an actual mammoth?

I'm just full of questions tonight!

Mimsey

I suspect that the chicken and the egg connotation comes from a common lay perspective that everything in evolution has a common root. I'm beginning to believe that this is false understanding.

For instance, apparently the eyeball has independently evolved 32 different times. That is to say that a single random event or anomaly did not result in the progenitor of what became an eye and then was passed on down the line.

There is also the theory that the human race evolved independently 5 times or more. These theories have generated from within the scientific community and are taken seriously - they are not crackpot theories.

How something can independently evolve 5 times and be able to breed I don't understand but it suggests to me that the chicken/egg thing really isn't that smiting of a question.

It also strongly suggests to me some sort of intelligent design. (I prefer interstellar crash test dummies in some celestial laboratory - but that's just me.)

The reverse engineering of a T- Rex from a chicken DNA is already underway. Discovery magazine will most likely have everything I wrote, that and National Geographic.

Another misunderstanding I had regarding evolution was that contrary to what I thought I understood it apparently does not continue. Some forms reach an end point and then merely specialize which, apparently, is not considered evolution. For instance the cat form is apparently done but the canine form isn't. Some other "done" forms are the shark, crocodile and scorpion.

I've noticed most people quoting evolution don't understand much more than I thought I did and I'm just now learning it's quite a bit more.