DNA Technology

Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda
Posts: 496
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Unread post by Seneca » Wed Feb 25, 2015 2:32 pm

Thanks for the clarification. :)

Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: DNA Technology

Unread post by Farcevalue » Wed Feb 25, 2015 2:54 pm

There is a chicken/egg paradox where universities are concerned: where do those conferring the absolution of diplomas on those who have matriculated through these institutions derive the authority to do so?

An examination of the history of the university institution itself provides insight into the similarities between higher education and religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... iversities

An interesting excerpt from this Wiki entry:

".. Prof. Walter Rüegg, editor of A History of the University in Europe, reports that universities then only trained students to become clerics, lawyers, civil servants, and physicians."

Interesting bedfellows for physicians.

I tip my hat to SMJ and ICFreely for piquing my interest in the pedigrees of those tasked with the creation of the myths that are promoted to explain the undetectable.

God Particle, indeed.

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Unread post by ICfreely » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:26 pm

Right on farcevalue! I have no doubt in my mind that other conscientiously curious people out there will do the same. As they say, “The truth is like a lion. You don’t have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself!”

I’m posting excerpts from a mainstream mag to demonstrate that it’s not only fringe scientists or 'DNA deniers' who question Crick’s central dogma. The dogma's been dead for quite some time. DNA profiling & gene 'therapy' are baseless. CSI is sci-fi!

Unraveling The DNA Myth: The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering

BARRY COMMONER / Harper's Magazine Feb02

The wonders of genetic science are all founded on the discovery of the DNA double helix-by Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953-and they proceed from the premise that this molecular structure is the exclusive agent of inheritance in all living things: in the kingdom of molecular genetics, the DNA gene is absolute monarch. Known to molecular biologists as the "central dogma," the premise assumes that an organism's genome-its total complement of DNA genes---should fully account for its characteristic assemblage of inherited traits. The premise, unhappily, is false.

Guided by Crick's theory, the Human Genome Project was intended to identify and enumerate all of the genes in the human body by working out the sequence of the three billion nucleotides in human DNA. In 1990, James Watson described the Human Genome Project as "the ultimate description of life."

the conclusion—troublesome as it is that the project's planners knew in advance that the mismatch between the numbers of genes and proteins in the human genome was to be expected, and that the $3 billion project could not be justified by the extravagant claims that the genome—or perhaps God speaking through it would tell us who we are.

Scientific theories are meant to be falsifiable; this is precisely what makes them scientific theories. The central dogma has been immune to this process. Divergent evidence is duly reported and, often enough, generates intense research, but its clash with the governing theory is almost never noted.

Because of their commitment to an obsolete theory, most molecular biologists operate under the assumption that DNA is the secret of life, whereas the careful observation of the hierarchy of living processes strongly suggests that it is the other way around: DNA did not create life; life created DNA.

We must be willing to recognize how little we truly understand about the secrets of the cell, the fundamental unit of life.

Why, then, has the central dogma continued to stand? To some degree die theory has been protected from criticism by a device more common to religion than science: dissent, or merely the discovery of a discordant fact, is a punishable offense, a heresy that might easily lead to professional ostracism. Much of this bias can be attributed to institutional inertia, a failure of rigor, but there are other, more insidious, reasons why molecular geneticists might be satisfied with the status quo; the central dogma has given them such a satisfying, seductively simplistic explanation of heredity that it seemed sacrilegious to entertain doubts. The central dogma was simply too good not to be true.

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/DNA-Myt ... rFeb02.htm

“Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.” Oscar Wilde

Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:29 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Unread post by smj » Wed Mar 18, 2015 3:31 pm


Gregor(y) Bateson is the son of William Bateson, the man who taught us to say "genetics". William was the english-speaking world's evangelist for an unassuming austrian monk named Gregor who grew peas in the garden of his abbey. He was the Mendelian genetics side of the dialectic against Raphael Weldon's, Francis Galton's (Francis taught us to say "eugenics") and Karl Pearson's (Karl wrote the Grammar of Science, a book that Einstein really enjoyed we are told) biometrika side of the saltation/ hard inheritance debate. The likes of RA Fisher, Haldane, Julian Huxley, and fruit flies would create the art of population genetics as the solution to the dialectic contrived by Gregor(y)'s ole man.

http://archives.jic.ac.uk/2012/07/bates ... mendelism/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evo ... _synthesis

So is it any wonder that the o.s.s. man, the godfather of nlp, the husband of Marge Mead, the co-founder of cybernetics, the friend of Stewart Brand, a regent of the University of California, and the nasa contractor that did some really strange shit with dolphins who happens to be named after an austrian monk would give us the theory of the double bind and that novel term "schismogenesis"?

http://pressblog.uchicago.edu/2012/06/1 ... heart.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... o-loved-me

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Unread post by ICfreely » Thu Mar 19, 2015 5:43 pm

These hoaxes are so intertwined that ‘staying on subject’ is often difficult. The Huxley & Darwin dynasties, in particular, are renowned in the annals of pseudoscience. It’s helpful, at times, to place an event/topic within the larger context of world history. I’m adding the following excerpts to demonstrate the far reaching impact of some of the characters smj mentioned and why their ‘science’ shouldn’t be trusted.

The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship
The new secular church and clergy of the elite originated within the walls of the British Royal Society. The creators of the Royal Society were also members of the Masonic Lodge.
'The British Royal Society of the late seventeenth century was the forerunner of much of the media manipulation that was to follow'
With the effective enshrinement of metaphysical naturalism, the British Royal Society prepared to unleash their next golem.
However, this golem would be an artificially created ape-man presented to the public imagination under the appellation of Darwinism.
Eugenics finds its origins with [Charles] Darwin's [FRS] cousin, Sir Francis Galton [FRS]. Galton first introduced the concept of eugenics in Hereditary Genius, a racist polemic advocating a system of selective breeding for the purposes of providing 'more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing over the less suitable' (Galton, 24).
In truth, Galton was not the originator of this concept. Sordid traditions of selective breeding and inbreeding had long been practiced by the ruling class to maintain the 'genetic purity' of their future stock. Galton merely assigned this tradition the appellation of 'eugenics' and popularized it as a legitimate science.
T.H. Huxley was a Freemason and, with no apparent achievements to claim as his own, was made a Fellow of the Royal Society at the age of 26 (Daniel, 34). T.H. Huxley tutored Freemason H.G. Wells, who would later teach Huxley's two grandsons, Julian and Aldous. Both Julian and Aldous were Freemasons (Daniel, 147).
Aldous Huxley first presented the 'scientific dictatorship' to the public imagination in his book Brave New World.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... orship.htm

-Thomas Henry Huxley FRS was the master debater who established the Religion of Evolution which earned him the title “Darwin’s bulldog.” Initially, Darwin’s faithful followers were convinced that natural selection ‘proved’ evolution.

Beaks and Birds: Darwin’s Finches
A quarter of a century before Darwin published The Origin of Species, he was formulating his ideas as a naturalist aboard the British survey ship H.M.S. Beagle. When the Beagle visited the Galapagos Islands in 1835, Darwin collected specimens of the local wildlife, including some finches.
Though the finches had little in fact to do with Darwin’s development of evolutionary theory, they have attracted considerable attention from modern evolutionary biologists as further evidence of natural selection. In the 1970s, Peter and Rosemary Grant and their colleagues noted a 5 percent increase in beak size after a severe drought, because the finches were left with only hard-tocrack seeds. The change, though significant, was small; yet some Darwinists claim it explains how finch species originated in the first place.
A 1999 booklet published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences describes Darwin’s finches as “a particularly compelling example” of the origin of species. The booklet cites the Grants’ work, and explains how “a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches.” The booklet also calculates that “if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”
But the booklet fails to point out that the finches’ beaks returned to normal after the rains returned. No net evolution occurred. In fact, several finch species now appear to be merging through hybridization, rather than diverging through natural selection as Darwin’s theory requires.
Withholding evidence in order to give the impression that Darwin’s finches confirm evolutionary theory borders on scientific misconduct.
As Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 1999: “When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble.”

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/P ... Fakest.pdf

-Mendel’s genetic experiments contradicted the natural selection theory of evolution.

Mendel and Genetics
The time he [Abbé Gregor Mendel] began to experiment was also particularly fortunate, five or six years before he became aware of Darwin's theory, which he read in the German edition of the Origin, published in 1860. Had he not begun the work when he did, it is possible that he may never have done it at all, because he later became oriented towards the evolutionary views of Darwin.
By 1900 Darwin's theory of natural selection was found to be deficient, principally because there was absolutely no evidence that one species could become another by the accumulation of minute variation. Breeding experiments had shown time after time that the species barrier could not be permanently crossed. The appeal to untold millions of years simply evaded the possibility of proof, while the abundant evidence expected in the fossil record turned out to be conspicuously absent. It was evident that Darwinian evolution was now even more difficult to explain in terms of Mendel's genetics. And as the principles of inheritance were beginning to be understood by the new generation of scientists, the time was ripe for another theory to explain the mechanism of evolution.

-Darwin’s followers, like all religious fundamentalists, simply ignored the natural selection problem & moved on to mutation.

Mutation: For the Worse or for the Better?
About the turn of the century, a Dutch botanist named Hugo de Vries proposed his mutation theory as the mechanism of evolving one species into another. However, de Vries' theory was short-lived and by 1914 was discredited by Jeffrey (1914) who showed that all he had discovered in his experiments with primroses was a previously unknown variety within the species. He thought that the new variety was a "mutant" or new species, but the idea of "mutations" did set the stage for further work.
After half a century of work on fruit flies bombarded with all kinds of radiation, many mutant types have been produced with different colored eyes, with different sizes of eyes, with no eyes, and with variations in the wings, but throughout, the creatures have steadfastly remained fruit flies. No new species has ever been produced, while the mutants have invariably been deformed or in some way are less than normal. This is perhaps not too surprising when one thinks of the lead-shield protection given to our reproductive organs when we have an X ray examination, since this is specifically to prevent mutant or damaged offspring. There is a tendency in biological textbooks to make supposition appear as fact by suggesting that some mutations have been for the better by increased wing muscles, etc., and the reader should be careful to understand what has, in fact, been observed and what is being supposed.

Neo-Darwinian or Synthetic Theory
By the 1930s the classical Darwinian theory was being supplanted by the neo-Darwinian theory in which it was thought that mutant genes of a favorable type played a decisive part. The mutant genes were believed to be produced by radiation such as cosmic rays rather than X rays. In 1942 Julian Huxley coined the term modern synthesis for the same idea, and it is the neo-Darwinian theory or synthetic theory that has dominated evolutionary thinking for the past forty years.
The neo-Darwinian school began to have its dissenters in the 1960s. The feeling at the time was marked by the Wistar Institute Symposium held in Philadelphia, in April 1966, where the chairman, Sir Peter Medawar, made the following opening remarks: "The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory" (Medawar 1967, xi). By 1980 the neo-Darwinian theory was struggling for survival in the battle of belief against a rising new theory for the mechanism of evolution. The new and latest theory is the brainchild of paleontologists Eldredge and Gould, which they call "punctuated equilibria".

http://www.creationism.org/books/Taylor ... IMMf06.htm

- Hardcore evolutionists, undeterred, moved on to new explanations.

Life in a Bottle
Anyone old enough in 1953 [the same year Watson & Crick ‘elucidated’ the structure of DNA] to understand the import of the news remembers how shocking, and to many, exhilarating, it was. Scientists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey had succeeded in creating “the building blocks” of life in a flask. Mimicking what were believed to be the natural conditions of the early Earth’s atmosphere, and then sending an electric spark through it, Miller and Urey had formed simple amino acids. As amino acids are the “building blocks” of life, it was thought just a matter of time before scientists could themselves create living organisms.
There were problems, however. Scientists were never able to get beyond the simplest amino acids in their simulated primordial environment, and the creation of proteins began to seem not a small step or couple of steps, but a great, perhaps impassable, divide.
Most textbooks also go on to tell students that origin-of-life researchers have found a wealth of other evidence to explain how life originated spontaneously – but they don’t tell students that the researchers themselves now acknowledge that the explanation still eludes them.

What’s Going on Here?
So how do we explain such a pervasive and long-standing distortion of the specific facts used to support evolutionary theory?

-Evolution is a religion.

According to the news media, only religious fundamentalists question Darwinian evolution. People who criticize Darwinism, we are told, want to bomb science back to the Stone Age and replace it with the Bible. The growing body of scientific evidence contradicting Darwinian claims is steadfastly ignored.

-Leave it to the news media to distort facts.

Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology is characteristic of this, informing students that “it was Darwin’s theory of evolution,” together with Marx’s theory of history and Freud’s theory of human nature, “that provided a crucial plank to the platform of mechanism and materialism” that has since been “the stage of most Western thought.”


These are obviously philosophical rather than scientific views. Futuyma, Gould, and Dawkins have a right to their philosophy. But they do not have the right to teach it as though it were science. In science, all theories – including Darwinian evolution – must be tested against the evidence.

-They’ve already been tested & have been conclusively falsified.

The misrepresentations and omissions I’ve examined here are just a small sampling. There are many more. For too long the debate about evolution has assumed“facts” that aren’t true. It’s time to clear away the lies that obstruct popular discussion of evolution, and insist that theories conform to the evidence. In other words, it’s time to do science as it’s supposed to be done.

-Here, here!

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/P ... Fakest.pdf

Dear reader, I tell you this as a person who does not believe in ANY religion, modern science is a full-fledged religion. Please don’t take my word for it. Look into it for yourself. The sooner you see it for what it is the better off you’ll be.

For more on the Huxley’s I offer you the following:

Tavistock All Stars
The "Case Officer" for Britain's Opium War was Aldous Huxley. He spearheaded Tavistock's plan for pharmaceutical control with LSD's mindbending results which led to the counterculture, the dialectical response to culture on the way to a totally controlled society.
The popularization of cannabinol, LSD, and other strongly psychotropic drugs, including the highly destructive use of Ritalin among primary and secondary students, are intended to replicate the fictional role of "soma" depicted in Aldous Huxley's cult-novel, Brave New World.


The Aquarian Conspiracy
[Aldous] Huxley expanded his own LSD-mescaline project in California by recruiting several individuals who had been initially drawn into the cult circles he helped establish during his earlier stay. The two most prominent individuals were Alan Watts and the late Dr. Gregory Bateson (the former husband of Dame Margaret Mead).
Under Bateson's auspices, the initiating "cadre" of the LSD cult -- the hippies -- were programmed.
The ostensible topic of the Harvard seminar was "Religion and its Significance in the Modern Age."
The seminar was actually a planning session for the "acid rock" counterculture.

The Beatles and the Aquarian Conspiracy
The newly-created group and its "lifestyle" swept millions of young Americans into the cult. American youth underwent a radical revolution without ever being aware of it, while the older generation stood by helplessly, unable to identify the source of the crisis, and thus reacting in a maladaptive manner against its manifestation…
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/colemanb ... ar07.shtml

1975 ‘Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference - Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born
“Global Warming” is, and always was, a policy for genocidal reduction of the world’s population. The preposterous claim that human-produced carbon dioxide will broil the Earth, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life, came out of a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, organized by the influential anthropologist Margaret

Mead, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in 1974.
Mead—whose 1928 book on the sex life of South Pacific Islanders was later found to be a fraud—recruited like-minded anti-population hoaxsters to the cause: Sow enough fear of man caused climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development. Mead’s leading recruits at the 1975 conference were climate scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak biologist George Woodwell, and the current AAAS president John Holdren—all three of them disciples of Malthusian fanatic Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb. Guided by luminaries like these, conference discussion focused on the absurd choice of either feeding people or “saving the environment.

Mead’s population-control policy was firmly based in the post-Hitler eugenics movement, which took on the more palatable names of “conservation” and “environmentalism” in the post-World War II period. As Julian Huxley, the vice president of Britain’s Eugenics Society (1937-1944), had announced in 1946, “even though it is quite true that radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” Huxley was then director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2 ... 55_723.pdf

“You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. These people went to the same universities and fraternities, they're on the same boards of directors, they're on the same country clubs, they have like-interests. They don't need to call a meeting; they know what is good for THEM, and they are getting it.”
–George Carlin (Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher - May 16, 2001)

Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:29 am

This is epic stuff, and it's very understandable that you can't entirely stay 'on topic' to the DNA theme.

Perhaps it would be helpful to rename the thread to something closer to the subject matter, like "The rise of DNA Technology and other modern legends" or merge it with "Sci-fi fathers ..." or something. It's all so interwoven, it's hard to pick!

Anyway, thanks for the work. Eye-opening presentation, too.

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Unread post by ICfreely » Fri Mar 20, 2015 6:16 pm

That’s a tough one hoi. Imo, history (starting with Epic of Gilgamesh & Enuma Elish) is replete with sci-fi/mythology. Maybe something like, “Evolution of Eugenics, Genetics and the rise of DNA Technology”? I’m not sure. DNA should definitely have its own thread due to the ever growing industries of genetic ‘therapy’ and DNA faux-rensics. A thread like this may help readers separate the wheat from the chaff. The hoaxmasters, as smj alluded to (Grammar of Science/dialectics), have legitimized sci-fi with clever use of semantics. I lack the communication skills to effectively get through to people. That’s why I envy wordsmiths like you. When I tell people vaccination is a fraud or AIDS, osteoporosis and ‘bad’ cholesterol are myths I know I come off paranoid. The ironic thing is, I’m the least paranoid person you’ll come across. Recognizing the hoaxers/hoaxes for what they are is actually quite palliative.

Simon & company have done (and continue to do) an amazing job exposing some of the biggest hoaxes of our times. If it weren’t for CF I would have never known about the nuke, dinosaur, satellite, space shuttle (Wonderbolt ;)) and many other hoaxes. I didn’t come to the conclusion that modern science is a religion overnight. The Newtonian/Darwinian ideologies, I believe, go hand-in-hand and are at the core of it. I know it’s a touchy subject. I’ll try to elaborate in the “gods of science” thread sometime in the future. By the way, my posts on that thread are solely my opinions. Clues Forum, by giving me the latitude to express my opinions, does not (nor should it) in any way endorse them.

Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:41 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Unread post by ReadyToBeDeployed » Mon Apr 20, 2015 1:18 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/cri ... story.html

"Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far."

I always suspected DNA testing was a hoax.

They know nothing, their machines can't see or differentiate anything.

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Unread post by ICfreely » Fri Feb 12, 2016 6:39 am

Copernicus's remains laid to rest – again

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mgeabpk_2A4

1:11 - An image of what Old Nick may have looked like.

1:27 - Goran Hendriksson: "I just opened the book and in the middle of the book I saw immediately a hair. We found nine hairs and two of them matched perfectly – the DNA…"

Go on Goran. What a stroke of ‘luck.’ Anyhow, it turns out the two hairs didn't match so perfectly after all.

Genetic identification of putative remains of the famous astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus

Nicolaus Copernicus died at age 70 in the year 1543, and was buried in the Frombork Cathedral. Unfortunately, Frombork Cathedral has _100 tombs, and the majority are unnamed. Nevertheless, for over 200 years, attempts have been made to find Copernicus’ grave. Even Napoleon played a part in these efforts when he ordered one of his officers to perform such a search in 1807 (1). In 2004 a group of Polish scientists launched a new search for Copernicus’ grave. The exact location was uncertain, but it has been thought that the grave could be located near the St. Cross Altar because Copernicus was in charge of this altar during his tenure as priest at the Cathedral (2).

Analysis of the SNP position located in the HERC2 revealed the homozygous C/C genotype, which is the predominant genotype among blue or gray-eyed humans (_80%). This genotype is rare among people with dark iris coloration (8, 20, 21). The result indicates that Copernicus might have had light iris color, a finding that is rather unexpected given that he is usually shown in portraits with dark eyes. Nevertheless, it is difficult to unambiguously interpret this finding because, although it is significantly less probable, the genotype C/C in rs12913832 can be associated with dark (but not brown/black) irises. One possible explanation for the discrepancy is that early portraits of Copernicus, i.e., those made during his lifetime, were often made using a chalcography technique, which does not reflect actual colors. Thus, it is possible that the initial impression of dark eye color created by a faulty technique color could have been replicated by other artists.

Taking all data into consideration, i.e., the identical genetical profiles in the skeletal remains and reference hairs along with the other anthropological and archeological information, we conclude that the skeletal remains derived from the St. Cross Altar tomb at Frombork Cathedral are those of the great Polish astronomer, Nicolaus Copernicus. This is the end of a search that has lasted for at least 2 centuries, and a clear demonstration of the value of using both molecular and morphological approaches in the investigation of historical remains.


Here’s the most prominent color portrait of 'the father of astronomy':

ICfreely wrote:
A portrait of the Primate of Poland credited to an unknown artist. The Shroud of Turin Toruń?


“To boast of one’s teachers is to try to give credence to one’s own words.”--
Taoist belief

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 9#p2394489

In that post, I neglected to mention that the aforementioned portrait was purportedly painted 37 years after his alleged death.

1580 portrait (artist unknown) in the Old Town City Hall, Toruń


I wouldn’t be surprised if a color portrait of a blue-eyed Copper Knickers (painted during his ‘lifetime’) is eventually ‘discovered.’ History has shown that people have a propensity for bending reality to fit their preconceived theories so anything is possible.

Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:20 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Unread post by fubarfuthark » Sun Feb 28, 2016 3:37 pm

Very good and intriguing information here.

Have any forum members been noticing the subtle reintroduction of the 'telegonic' message?

here is the sewer media promoting the idea
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science ... ldren.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... x-research

Wackopedo has an extensive article, including its reintroduction by some elements of eastern orthodoxy

There are links to scientific journals. What i am trying to ascertain is, if much of the science upon which the 'rediscoveries' is said to rest is questionable, to say the least, how should we view this development?

This is, to quote, Flann O'Brien, a difficult pancake. It is, of course, like manna from heaven for the Men's Rights/antifeminist movement (whilst probably being utterly chilling to their WN component!). The question of certain things that are inherited down the female line must be inevitably be raised!

Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:20 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Unread post by fubarfuthark » Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:07 pm

OK nobody is going to bite on Telegony.

It IS in the book of Deuteronomy by the way!

I was thinking about trying to set out to prove my reasoning on this, but not being a trained biologist (whatever the hell that means) I am not sure where to start. It would start with finding things that we can agree are incontrovertible, like, for example that semen contains sperms that swim about and that these fertilise eggs. I dont think there is anybody on this forum who thinks that human pregnancy is a psyop and that people shoot undifferentiated ceremonial porridge out of their johnsons.

It would then involve figuring out what happens during mitosis, what actually determines what a baby is like, what the term 'gene' even means (i have to say i have my doubt about 'genes' existing as anything more than a metaphor, similar to atoms). I have tried to understand the work of Franklin, Watson et al and indeed, some cell biology text books. But I am literally none the wiser. There are so many questions. Is the Endoplasmic Reticulum a real thing? Eukaryotes seem to me to be, as an idea, to be quite dodgy due to their association with the world of bacteriology. Here are a few things that I dont really understand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_f ... d_sequence

This guy, discoverer of the Endolplasmic Reticulum (ER, as wikipedia stresses, remember that the addition of unnecessary acronyms are a sure sign of bullshit) seems extremely dubious. His backstory and his discoveries smell very wrong.

These are just some issues that showed up in some university textbooks I tried to read.

Isn't ICFreely a biologist? Perhaps he has some ideas

My thinking would arrive somewhere at the idea that there is also a sort of exchange at some kind of energy level, but also that a certain, sometimes ambient, sometimes greater epigenetic change is happening in all organisms. Like through food, and air and possibly even thought. Maybe this is nonsense, but its no less nonsense than the arrant nonsense that seems to be being pushed in the world of Biology and Biochemistry. I dont know if anyone here has ever experienced the feeling of thwarted intellectual curiosity, diving bright-eyed and bushy-tailed into a textbook with a genuine thirst for knowledge and coming away with the feeling that you are being laughed at, or that you will never know what is actually the case.

Anyway, it seems like you can use 'DNA' to prove anything these days. Meet...the black Vikings!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/TRUE-MYTH-BLACK ... 1466960035

I can never figure this one out. Why, when Africa and Afro-Caribbean culture is so rich in interesting stories, myths, music, would anyone not focus on these, preserving and deepening them than start running around with some black Hebrew Israelite nonsense? Even the biblical argumentation attached this black Hebrew thing is a total fehlgeburt. IF you believe that this sort of thing is important, then Esau and Jacob can not represent black and white. It makes no sense. They are twins.

Not only this, but the black Hebrew Israelite idea promotes some twisted nonsense about modern Hebrew being a form of Yiddish and the Ashkenazim actually being German and some other impossible claims which sort of connect to the 'Khazaria' thing but dont follow the logic to the end, that is to say, IF you believe any of this is important (and some people do, I personally dont give a fuck, I am just a connoisseur of different beliefs of all stripes) then Khazaria IS Edom. Another totally impossible issue to consider is, if the seed of Jacob and Esau is black and white, then where do all the other people come from, like, for example, the japanese, the south american tribes? Isnt Esau supposed to have been also the one who cursed his line by race-mixing? It would hardly make sense to attribute this particular issue to 'white' people (whatever this means). The problem with dealing with topics like this is that, for me, for example, I would rather not even have to care. But other people DO care, quite a lot of them. And some of them are promoting these ideas all over the place. Using 'DNA proof'.

who might be promoting it? Aha, Gilad Atzmon, the 'anti-Zionist'.
http://www.shoah.org.uk/2015/10/13/hist ... americans/

This is actually shocking. Not only does it display a completely cavalier and openly racist attitude towards the existence and claims of actual American Indians, it also contains blatant photo-shopping. I just hope black people possess enough independence of mind not to be led by this crap. But after seeing this 'Oscars too white' thing, I am starting to wonder where this is all headed. I mean, seriously! Of all things, to consider getting an Oscar as a mark racial achievement or not getting one to be racial discrimination? Not to mention the fact that the enjoyment of American cinema is one of the signs of a person/civilisation that is beyond help. Hell, if I were black, I would be proud NOT to have my people associated with the Holywood bullshit propaganda industry, just like, if I were from Africa, I would be proud that my people were NOT getting involved in such nonsense as Nobel Prize chemistry, rocket launches (except Nigeria) and had held, even tenuously, onto some shamanistic and animistic traditions, which are genuine human treasures. Even if this means being called stupid by that old fraud James Watson

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 94898.html

Sometimes I seriously hope that the Chinese will just see the morally-bankrupt, squabbling state of Europe, its useless gutter press and self-hating, intellectually moribund 'universities' and simply invade.

I would have no problem shuffling between the Mosque and the Foxconn factory, hell I probably deserve it.

Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Unread post by patrix » Sun Dec 09, 2018 7:45 pm

[Admin Notice (SCS): Dear Patrix, I took the liberty of moving your post here, since it seems more “topic appropriate.” Hope that is okay with you. :) ]

Very interesting ICFreely and Kham.

Virus and DNA appears to be sketchy science and the discoverer of nucleic acids (the substance DNA strains is said to be made of) seems to be of Jewish ancestry.
Biography Miescher isolated various phosphate-rich chemicals, which he called nuclein (now nucleic acids), ... Born to a prominent British Jewish family
Note: I searched for Miesher and the abbreviated search result mentioned his ancestry, but interestingly I could not find this piece of information on the page referred and neither on his Wikipedia article.

Edit: It seems the text above refers to Rosalind Franklin. Another prominent figure in the history of DNA and virus research

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Unread post by ICfreely » Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:27 am

Chapter 5 - Genes and the Law

Besides blazing new paths in health science, genetics is transforming the way in which criminal investigations and trials are conducted. The importance of DNA evidence rests on a single but crucial fact: Every individual's DNA is unique (except in the case of identical twins, who have identical genomes). A person's DNA profile can be used like a fingerprint to link suspects to crime scenes and victims. DNA profiling—also called DNA fingerprinting or DNA typing—has been responsible for overturning verdicts and saving innocent people from execution. The process is complicated and controversial. Nevertheless, it has earned itself a place in police probes and courtroom proceedings, and the science behind it is compelling enough that it is likely to play a major role in the future.

The Battle over DNA

Proponents of DNA analysis had to fight against strenuous opposition before the judicial system consented to recognize its validity in courtroom proceedings. "In its early days, DNA was highly controversial and not always accepted by the courts," says James F. Crow of the Genetics Department at the University of Wisconsin in Madison:
http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech ... z5hYFcv9aI

The OJ Simpson trial helped settle the “science” of DNA fingerprinting once and for all.
(viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1758&p=2399961&hil ... s#p2399961)

The DNA “Wars” Are Over
Excerpted from “Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science”
(National Institute of Justice, 1996)

Perhaps the most significant advance in criminal investigation since the advent of fingerprint identification is the use of DNA technology to help convict criminals or eliminate persons as suspects. DNA analyses on saliva, skin tissue, blood, hair, and semen can now be reliably used to link criminals to crimes. Increasingly accepted during the past 10 years, DNA technology is now widely used by police, prosecutors, defense counsel, and courts in the United States.

An authoritative study on the forensic uses of DNA, conducted by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, has noted that:

...the reliability of DNA evidence will permit it to exonerate some people who would have been wrongfully accused or convicted without it.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin ... /wars.html

With regards to identical twins having identical “genomes” the “science” isn’t quite settled...yet.

Twins get some 'mystifying' results when they put 5 DNA ancestry kits to the test

Geneticist at a popular ancestry company admits it's 'kind of a science and an art'

Charlsie Agro, Luke Denne • CBC News • Posted: Jan 18, 2019

One set of identical twins, two different ancestry profiles.

At least that's the suggestion from one of the world's largest ancestry DNA testing companies.

Last spring, Marketplace host Charlsie Agro and her twin sister, Carly, bought home kits from AncestryDNA, MyHeritage, 23andMe, FamilyTreeDNA and Living DNA, and mailed samples of their DNA to each company for analysis.

Despite having virtually identical DNA, the twins did not receive matching results from any of the companies.

In most cases, the results from the same company traced each sister's ancestry to the same parts of the world — albeit by varying percentages.

But the results from California-based 23andMe seemed to suggest each twin had unique twists in their ancestry composition.

According to 23andMe's findings, Charlsie has nearly 10 per cent less "broadly European" ancestry than Carly. She also has French and German ancestry (2.6 per cent) that her sister doesn't share.

The identical twins also apparently have different degrees of Eastern European heritage — 28 per cent for Charlsie compared to 24.7 per cent for Carly. And while Carly's Eastern European ancestry was linked to Poland, the country was listed as "not detected" in Charlsie's results.

"The fact that they present different results for you and your sister, I find very mystifying," said Dr. Mark Gerstein, a computational biologist at Yale University.

Twins' DNA 'shockingly similar'

Marketplace sent the results from all five companies to Gerstein's team for analysis.

He says any results the Agro twins received from the same DNA testing company should have been identical.

And there's a simple reason for that: The raw data collected from both sisters' DNA is nearly exactly the same.
"It's shockingly similar," he said.

The team at Yale was able to download and analyze the raw data set that each company used to perform its calculations.

An entire DNA sample is made up of about three billion parts, but companies that provide ancestry tests look at about 700,000 of those to spot genetic differences.

According to the raw data from 23andMe, 99.6 per cent of those parts were the same, which is why Gerstein and his team were so confused by the results. They concluded the raw data used by the other four companies was also statistically identical.

Still, none of the five companies provided the same ancestry breakdown for the twins.

"We think the numbers should be spot on the same," Gerstein said.

While he can't say for certain what accounts for the difference, Gerstein suspects it has to do with the algorithms each company uses to crunch the DNA data.

"The story has to be the calculation. The way these calculations are run are different."

When asked why the twins didn't get the same results given the fact their DNA is so similar, 23andMe told Marketplace in an email that even those minor variations can lead its algorithm to assign slightly different ancestry estimates.

The company said it approaches the development of its tools and reports with scientific rigour, but admits its results are "statistical estimates."

Differences across all 5 companies

Family had told the Agro sisters their ancestors come from Sicily, Poland and Ukraine.

However, the results each sister received from the ancestry companies revealed some surprising — and, in some cases, conflicting — family history.

AncestryDNA found the twins have predominantly Eastern European ancestry (38 per cent for Carly and 39 per cent for Charlsie).

But the results from MyHeritage trace the majority of their ancestry to the Balkans (60.6 per cent for Carly and 60.7 per cent for Charlsie).

One of the more surprising findings was in Living DNA's results, which pointed to a small percentage of ancestry from England for Carly, but Scotland and Ireland for Charlsie.

Another twist came courtesy of FamilyTreeDNA, which assigned 13-14 per cent of the twins' ancestry to the Middle East — significantly more than the other four companies, two of which found no trace at all.

Dr. Paul Maier, population geneticist at FamilyTreeDNA, acknowledges that identifying genetic distinctions in people from different places is a challenge.

"Finding the boundaries is itself kind of a frontiering science, so I would say that makes it kind of a science and an art," Maier said in a phone interview.

How it works

In order to determine someone's ancestry, companies like 23andMe compare a DNA sample to what is commonly referred to as a reference panel. A reference panel is made up of a select number of DNA samples, from previous customers who have taken the test and/or from publicly available DNA databases.

Dr. Simon Gravel, a population geneticist with McGill University who is also part of the 1000 Genomes Project, says ancestry companies will take 700,000 or so of your DNA segments and use an algorithm to compare your segments to those in their reference panel.

"They're going to match it to different parts of the world," he said. "In the end, there's going to be some overall of these [reference panel] contributions where your DNA matched better, and that's going to be their estimate of how much ancestry you have."

Different companies use different panels, so they're each likely to provide the same customer with different ancestry results.

In a statement to Marketplace, AncestryDNA acknowledged that the size of the reference panel is key. The company said it is "always working to improve its science" and that its "new, larger reference panel will give customers more precise results."

Why so different?

There are a variety of factors that can affect the accuracy of results from an ancestry company, Gravel says, but of particular importance is the size and quality of its reference panel. The larger and more representative it is, the more accurate the results, he says.

"If you have fewer people that you can compare to, then you make more shortcuts," he said.

"You also run more of a risk of having missed diversity that you might not know existed in one particular region."

Another reason for discrepancies in the results from different companies is the arbitrary way each company defines the world's regions, Gravel says.

"They kind of need to take a pencil more or less and say, 'That's a region.' And different companies draw different circles."

Gravel also says the tests tend to be more accurate for people with European ancestry, as more people with that particular background have been tested.

He cautions people not to interpret their test results as definitive. He says a testing company can use DNA ancestry kits to trace a person's ancestry to a particular continent with statistical accuracy, but anything more specific than that, like pinpointing a country or town, is less reliable.

Lack of oversight

The biggest DNA ancestry companies have tested millions of people. MyHeritage, for example, says it expects sales of well over $100 million this year.

Despite the popularity of ancestry testing, there is absolutely no government or professional oversight of the industry to ensure the validity of the results.

It's a situation Gravel finds troubling.

"Usually in science we have a process like peer review and make the data accessible, and make the algorithms accessible, that's how we ensure the high quality of the data," he said.

"In this case, we don't have access to that because the companies keep the data private."

That's why Gravel says consumers should take the results generated by these tests with a grain of salt. People need to understand these tests are not subject to the same standard as diagnostic medical testing. They are more like a "recreational scientific activity," he said.

Similar to 23andMe, MyHeritage says its results are "ethnicity estimates."

When spokesperson Rafi Mendelson was then asked why MyHeritage presents results with such certainty — video results sent to customers declare, "You are," before listing a person's ancestry — he said he believes the messaging is clear, that results are only estimates, and that North American consumers are especially clear on this.

Results subject to change

Whatever your ancestry results, don't get too attached to them. They could change.

In September, AncestryDNA informed customers that it had updated their estimates with the following message:

"Your DNA doesn't change, but we now have 13,000 additional reference samples and powerful, new science to give you better ethnicity results."

The ancestry estimates used in this story are from Nov. 6, 2018, after the company updated the twins' results.

The new estimates included previously undetected ancestral ties to Russia, Greece, the Balkans and Baltics.

— With files from Jeannie Stiglic

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/dna- ... -1.4980976

The “lack of oversight” and need for “governmental/professional oversight” arguments were used to legalize “DNA fingerprinting” in the first place. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences will, no doubt, use the same arguments to iron out these mystifying twists. :rolleyes:

Report: A DNA Testing Company Could Not Tell the Difference Between Human and Dog DNA
https://gizmodo.com/report-a-dna-testin ... 1825715321

Posts: 252
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Unread post by sharpstuff » Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:34 pm

Biological (analogue) Systems v. Manufactured (digital) Systems

Biological systems have been created by 'Nature' or the 'world' into which we are placed.

Manufactured systems have been created from biological systems into a 'World' into which we are also placed but which are not 'Natural'.

It is important to recognise the difference, otherwise we find ourselves in a construct that has preferred the manufactured over the natural by those who impel us to abide by their interpretations and controlling machinations.

However 'clever' we think we are as life-forms to contemplate such, we can never 'beat' natural events in the long run.

For example, however you try to resist the evacuation of your bladder after a few beers or coffee, 'Nature' will win every time...

This silly joke is the essence of the 'power' of Nature.

As already stated, Nature is analogue or continuous (without interruption). Manufactured is digital (with interruption), however small the interruption.

A biological analogue cannot be made into a digital construct and replicate the original analogue. Something is missing. The missing is the important part.

The notion that a biological event (such as a bud growing into a leaf) is not possible in the digital domain is because the budding of the leaf (in the analogue) is continuous and must necessarily be in Nature. It is a continuous iterative process that, apart from deliberate destruction, cannot be stopped except by its own volition.

Digital devices may be stopped because we can/may be able to interfere in the space between the digits and therefore disrupt an analogue process.

In the context of the D.N.A./gene arena, we have serious problems even imagining the beliefs in such. We have tried to make biological systems into mechanical ones which we can take apart and reconstruct.

Mechanical objects (digital, if you will) can be taken apart and new and exciting things can be produced from them.

The same in not true for biological systems.

In simple, one might invite a form of alchemy (combining digital elements for an unknown) called 'cooking'. We invite several ingredients to combine together (by whatever means available) and produce a new product called a 'cake'. We might assume that the ingredients are separate (flour, water, fillings) but when applied to a natural form of 'heat', they combine to create our wanted 'cake'). Thereafter, it is impossible to separate out those individual ingredients to their original state.

This same alchemical treatment by 'Nature' is apparent in all biological systems. Once created (by whatever means) the ingredients cannot be separated to expose their original content.

The notion, therefore, that a substance such as what is called D.N.A. can be extracted from a biological organism (flora or fauna) 'dead' or 'alive' and can be deconstructed into 'genes' is a total nonsense.

For example: One might consider a micro-chip, which once constructed cannot be 'unconstructed'/'disconstructed' to its basic elements.

It would, of course, be naiive to suggest that certain 'traits' are not carried on from parents to their progeny (flora or fauna), however, we may never know how this is achieved and does it really matter?


Find the anomalies (e.g. lack of verifiable evidence) in the following links, which are typical of the results you will find searching the now corporate Internet...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ne ... extraction

Explainer: what is a gene?
http://theconversation.com/explainer-w ... gene-12951

Be well,

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: DNA Technology

Unread post by ICfreely » Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:59 am

AncestryDNA® gives you much more than just the places you're from.

With precise geographic detail and clear-cut historical insights, we connect you to the places in the world where your story started—from unique regions to living relatives.

Scheck Family History

Scheck Name Meaning

German: metonymic occupational name for a jacket maker and also for an armorer, from Middle High German schecke ‘quilted jacket’, ‘coat of mail’. Jewish (Ashkenazic): ornamental name from German Schecke ‘dappled horse’ or ‘spotted ox or bull’.

Source: Dictionary of American Family Names ©2013, Oxford University Press

Similar surnames: Schenk, Schieck, Schick, Schneck, Scheid, Schock, Speck, Schmuck

Simpson's Former Lawyer Is Helping The Wrongfully Accused
By Lindsay Denninger
June 17 2016

When the O.J. Simpson trial was captivating audiences way back in 1994, not much was known about DNA testing. Sure, people knew vaguely what it was, but CSI: Crime Scene Investigation wouldn’t premiere for another 6 years (that was how everyone became armchair experts in hair follicle matching). Who did know about DNA, though, was O.J. Simpson defense attorney Barry Scheck. A sort of smoking gun on Simpson’s team, Scheck, according to CBS News, attacked the LAPD’s methods of evidence collection as well as the prosecution’s forensic case. But where is Barry Scheck today? Bustle reached out to Scheck for comment on what he's doing now and has not yet received a response.

According to Biography, Scheck got his law degree in 1974, headed for the high-profile cases, and never looked back. He started as a Legal Aid attorney, but when he gained a spot on the staff of New York’s Cardozo School of Law, Scheck could finally spend time on cases that were important to him, such as defending Hedda Nussbaum in 1988. That case made him a notable name in the world of law, but when he was added to the roster of Simpson’s defense team, Scheck became an international name.

During the trial, Scheck meticulously attacked the forensic evidence that prosecutor Marcia Clark was using against Simpson. Scheck later told The Los Angeles Times:
It was a watershed case, but not in ways that people suspect. ;) We did not challenge the underlying reliability of DNA testing methods; we attacked the way that evidence was gathered and processed. We had a 21st century technology and 19th century evidence collection methods.”
Scheck claimed that the LAPD criminalists were gathering different pieces of evidence without changing their gloves, contaminating and mixing samples, according to the same Los Angeles Times article. To today’s police force and jury, that may seem like a shocking mistake, but again, DNA was still a new science in 1994. According to CBS News, Scheck was among the first lawyers to take difficult, DNA-heavy evidence and present it to jurors. “In the Simpson case, some issues — the mixtures and statistics— seemed complicated at the time,” Scheck told the LA Times, “but the key points about cross-contamination were very straightforward. That's why it did change the way people [now collect] crime scene evidence.

Scheck already had years of experience with DNA evidence. In 1992, he and Peter Neufeld founded the Innocence Project, a nonprofit devoted to overturning the convictions of wrongly accused men and women, especially on Death Row, using DNA evidence. According to the Innocence Project's website, 342 people have been exonerated thanks to DNA evidence in the United States since 1989.

While his recognition as a part of the Simpson trial promoted a kind of infamy in the late 1990s, Scheck told The Los Angeles Times that that’s all changed. “When you have the opportunity to be in the public spotlight in America, you've got to make good use of that," Scheck said. "People recognize me now more for the work of the Innocence Project.” And that's certainly an admirable legacy.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/166815- ... ly-accused



informal•North American

noun: schmuck; plural noun: schmucks

1. a foolish or contemptible person.

"you've really got to be some schmuck to fall for that one"

Post Reply