Human DNA - just elaborate computer code?

[Sammy]

Originally Posted by seekerscientist

By saying this is "silly", you are denying the fact that a sequence of random chemical reactions is governed by the laws of probability.

You might want to take a look at the article "Life on Earth" in the September 2009 special issue of Scientific American on Origins. It may be that the first living protocells were based upon RNA rather than DNA, but then one is still faced with the very low probability of assembling RNA (not to mention the proto-proteins) from random chemical reactions.

I would also suggest that you read the following excellent article article, which does an excellent job of addressing the probability issues for random chemical processes in protocells:

D.J. Mullan, "Probability of randomly assembling a primitive cell on Earth", Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, vol. 1, 1-47 (Oct-Dec 2002).

If you cannot locate this article, send me an email and I will forward you a copy. Once you have read it, then we can discuss this topic further in a less "silly" way.

My opinion, given the low probability of random chemical reactions, is that life got to this planet from somewhere else.

Ofcourse life here came from somewhere else, just how life on other planets would be from somewhere else. The elements here have mixed and stirred for who knows how long. These elements provide the blueprints for how life is to survive "if at all". The facts of how we differ from animals, and animals to reptiles, it doesnt discount our cominalities. At the base of our life systems we all have the same functions. Blood flow, oxygen flow, eating, and drinking. The height in which that life proceeds is beyond the point, that life exists. For it to exist it has gained against the elements, creating the life and leaves it a platform to do so again creating growth. Starting the cycle around existence/will.

As a side note, those 4 things cycling around a point (living being) would be the spiral pattern again. Mostly we just focus on eating/drinking though.

They suspect 75% of all matter in existance is hydrogen, second is helium. 46% of earths mass is oxygen.

Originally Posted by seekerscientist

By saying this is "silly", you are denying the fact that a sequence of random chemical reactions is governed by the laws of probability.

No, not at all. I am saying the analogy is silly because it is comparing an all-or-nothing leap from junk to airplane to a process with intermediate steps.

Generally, the trouble with origin-of-life probability arguments is that you can reach wildly differing conclusions based on small changes in your assumptions.

Originally Posted by seekerscientist

My opinion, given the low probability of random chemical reactions, is that life got to this planet from somewhere else.

Life absolutely could have gotten to this planet from somewhere else. The nice thing about current models of abiogenesis, though, is that they start simple (chemicals) and gradually build to the complex (life). In my opinion, this is much more conceptually satisfying than inventing some divine cause which obviously must have been more complicated than current life (to have the capacity to create life), and is therefore itself even more improbable.

[hybrid]

Human dna - is just an elaborate computer code with consciousness.
Consciousness is the flowering of matter and evolution.
If an asteroid did not hit earth millions of years ago. . .
The dominant specie today will be reptilian humanoid and not monkey looking humans.

[John32241]

Originally Posted by QuantumKev

For me, I think the real importance in this comes down to this : the theory that instead of "seeing is believing", it is actually "believing is seeing." In other words, if someone doesn't believe something can happen, if that person refuses to believe it can, I think their lack of belief can actually influence what happens and decrease the chances that it will happen. By the same token, if someone truly believes something can happen, I think that belief increases the chances that it can happen. And while I cannot provide "proof" of this, I think most psychologists and others would agree that our beliefs can affect our reality.

SOOOO, rather than plod along not believing anything that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I like to keep an open mind, while at the same time knowing enough science and other knowledge to be able to 'separate the chaff from the wheat' as it were ; )

Many Blessings,

QuanKev

Well if you have reached this point then it may be a good time to examine the channelled Kryon material about this subject.

The last book from Kryon about DNA may be the best place to start.
https://www.kryon.com/k_66.html

Some written information about these concepts are on the web site.
http://www.kryon.com/k_25.html

There is also an audio MP3 only page which includes those messages not transcribed to visual presentations.
https://www.kryon.com/k_freeaudio.html

I have worked as a programmer for a good part of my life. My focus at this time involves using the assembly language FASM. It is foundational to languages like C#. So is this Kryon information.

I hope you find this material worthwhile.

John

[John32241]

I am thinking that those links about Kryon were not specific enough for this thread. So I picked out one of the many messages on this subject.
http://www.kryon.com/k_channel10_melbourne_1.html

I hope this particular insight will be informative.

John

QuanKev...

I did not read the entire thread, but just wanted to support you. I too am a programmer, and the more I read and learn, the similarities to Object Oriented Programming are astounding.

If you haven't already, I think you would enjoy books written by channeled entity Seth. These were done in the 60's I believe, but it will knock you out with the deep details of the inner workings of things. Just his constant use of the word "Framework" alone parallels programming knowledge of today, and they did not have that when these books were written.

Also, everyone is not on the same spiritual level. No matter how clear something is to you, you can draw diagrams, flowharts, etc of it, someone who is not spiritually on a level to receive such knowledge will not get it, no matter how hard you try. Knowing this can save lots of futile debates/fights/frustrations. And it does not matter any way if they get it, all will evolve in this or another lifetime.

Have fun on this path.

DNA and genetics is a difficult one, our DNA isn't set in stone when we are born, some can vary and be 'turned on and off' if you will due to childhood situations and experiences. In coding I suppose this would be almost like an IF statement.

IF such and such happens, turn on this gene, ELSE keep turned off etc. Its very interesting research really.

Originally Posted by SoulOfNaa

I too am a programmer, and the more I read and learn, the similarities to Object Oriented Programming are astounding.

The similarities between OOP and what?

Originally Posted by SoulOfNaa

Also, everyone is not on the same spiritual level. No matter how clear something is to you, you can draw diagrams, flowharts, etc of it, someone who is not spiritually on a level to receive such knowledge will not get it, no matter how hard you try. Knowing this can save lots of futile debates/fights/frustrations.

This seems like a rather convenient way of dismissing dissenting viewpoints. I could easily say the same thing about anyone who disagrees with my posts. That's fine, but in my opinion, discussion boards are about discussions, and such dismissals tend to kill discussion.

Originally Posted by SpiralNature

DNA and genetics is a difficult one, our DNA isn't set in stone when we are born, some can vary and be 'turned on and off' if you will due to childhood situations and experiences. In coding I suppose this would be almost like an IF statement.

IF such and such happens, turn on this gene, ELSE keep turned off etc. Its very interesting research really.

Sure, a change in DNA due to some stimuli could be modeled as an IF statement. I guess where my view differs from others in this forum is that when considering this analogy, I have to ask "Okay, so what?" Such a general conditional statement can describe all kinds of situations. Why is it surprising, or interesting, that it can also describe something that involves DNA?



(For what it's worth, I also have some programming experience. As an undergraduate, and currently continuing as a graduate student, I spend time coding condensed matter physics models which include some crazy blend of FORTRAN (yes, people still use it, haha), python, perl and Linux shell scripts.)

Originally Posted by SpiralNature

DNA and genetics is a difficult one, our DNA isn't set in stone when we are born, some can vary and be 'turned on and off' if you will due to childhood situations and experiences. In coding I suppose this would be almost like an IF statement.

IF such and such happens, turn on this gene, ELSE keep turned off etc. Its very interesting research really.

About simple If-Else: kinda but not really. In object oriented programming there are objects that have properties, events and methods. It kinda takes care of itself.

True about the not set in stone. That would suck.

Originally Posted by QuantumKev

That's an interesting analogy Sammy. I have always thought it interesting too just how much the structure of DNA resembles the Caduceus staff, which represented Hermes, and "by extension trades, occupations or undertakings associated with the god" (Wikipedia).

Definitely lots to think about. I am curious to see what our resident skeptic Kepler has to say about the fact that 98% percent of our DNA is what is referred to as non-coding, or 'junk' DNA...? Why would evolution create so much of something so complex that isn't needed, or used?

Many Blessings,

QuanKev

sadly i dont have enough time nor patience to read everything in this thread, but i must agree with what you said in the first post.

and with some few other affirmations i managed to read. i must say that for our scientists, the junk DNA seems this way because us, humans, didnt find a use for it yet.

However, if a stuy were to be conducted on those with special abilities, like on those who can divinate correctly, or on those who excel in something, maybe their DNA is better used, as in, they may have less junk DNA. but one cant know this, and it may never be found out, because we need say, at least 100 people to conduct a study and all of them should also have the same ability..or something - for the most accurate result, and not say its a coincidence.

in addition, i believe that the way life and nature is today, is a result of a trial and error experiment as well. survival of the fittest is also a trial and error kind of thing.
and to prove you that this theory fits right in with yours, think a bit about how even programmers dont always get the software they design to work from first try. or any other scientist.. ;)