Michael Patterson
Member
What is the protocol?
Precisely!
What is the protocol?
So, Jim, what's your take on Rodwell? I personally have an issue with lay people weaving what they think is science into their arguments, without actually knowing what the hell they are talking about.
There is a big problem with this approach. It is fundamentally intellectually dishonest, and because of that dishonesty it weakens what might be a legitimate argument. Rodwell, I think, errs in evoking scientific terminology to back up what is essentially an ethnographic inquiry. She didn't need to bring genetics to the table at all.
What we call 'science' has a well established place in our culture, but we too often are induced to believe that 'science' is the only means of validation knowledge and/or experience - which is so manifestly untrue. I think this is the trap Rodwell fell into. She could do an ethnographic inquiry and interpret it legitimately using a form of discourse analysis. Instead she switches between modes and gives reason to discount her work.
For example, her reference to genetics has distracted us already.
TESXC will, no doubt, frame this concern of mine in an eruditely technical fashion.
It would be interesting if she could relate sociological trends to what her research is showing and make testable predictions about future trends.
As far as fixing human DNA, I am all for it. A glance at the daily news is enough to tell you it needs major renovation.
I have little doubt humans are a created species because all species were created. Someone had do to it, why not space aliens? You would need entities that can interact with the physical universe but are not stuck around one planet.
I'm not sure it is possible for us to tell who are the good aliens and who are the bad aliens, or if their interventions are good or bad. You have to understand things from the point of view of the spirit realm to really understand what is happening on the earth plane. What might not seem to be in your personal interest might be for a higher good we know nothing about and cannot understand. Just the fact that we agree to incarnate here where there is so much suffering shows there is a huge difference in perspective about what is good for us in the spirit realm compared to the physical realm.
I think some kind of intervention in our civilization is necessary because human civilization is degenerating. People today don't understand the history of why things are they way they are and in their ignorance they want to change things that will result in us repeating the forgotten horrors of the past.
This is from a video that is no longer on youtube...
https://www.nbc26.com/news/national...ok-at-effects-of-cell-phones-on-kids-national
http://nypost.com/2016/06/18/our-cellphones-are-killing-us/
Sean Parker, the founding president of Facebook, said
https://www.axios.com/sean-parker-unloads-on-facebook-2508036343.html
These Tech Insiders Are Shielding Their Children From The Technology They Work With
https://www.sciencealert.com/tech-insiders-are-shielding-their-children-from-the-tech-they-work-with
What is the point of calling her a liar when whatever science she quotes is just as likely to be a lie as the truth?
I personally have an issue with lay people weaving what they think is science into their arguments, without actually knowing what the hell they are talking about.
great. much appreciated. I have a lot to catch up on here. I think this area is really important and have booked a futrue guest to explore:The data are interesting and I am open minded to what she describes, but as someone who worked for five years in genome research I cringed at her ignorance of the science - it does her no service. Francis Crick (the "co-founder of DNA", whatever that means) was absolutely not a believer in intelligent design, as the full quote at https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Francis_Crick makes clear (the first part is often mined by creationists to give the opposite impression, so perhaps she only saw that). And I don't know what she meant by the 223 genes that occur in homo sapiens and no other species. That's pretty unlikely, if only on the grounds that our genome is 99% identical to chimpanzee and 223 genes would be 1% of our genome. There was a claim in the original human genome sequence paper in 2001 that 223 genes appeared to have been acquired by horizontal transfer from bacteria (i.e. from other species) but even that now appears highly dubious (https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-017-1214-2). And the idea that the vast majority of our genome is "junk DNA" and that nobody knows what it does is decades out of date - there is now considerable understanding of the roles of much of what used to be seen as "junk", see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA. These things are not hard to check, and if she's going to make claims about genetics she needs to do her homework to be taken seriously by people with some knowledge of the science.
excellent! many good questions for upcoming interviews.If we are the result of alien experimentation (I don’t subscribe to this idea but certainly do not rule it out), an interesting question would be, “how does this square and harmonize with the metaphysical information we get from channeled sources, NDEs, OBEs, religious saints and sages etc, which all tell us about our purpose here?”
On one hand, according to many metaphysical sources, we are here to love, grow, experience and learn. Would these “creator aliens” be in line with this purpose? Or is the aforementioned purpose unrelated to the creator aliens purpose? It seems strange to me that our creators (creators of our physical body of course) might have created us though some ulterior motive, while we (spiritually inclined folk) are totally engaged in something different which has nothing to do with our creators purpose. OR, perhaps our purposes are more closely linked than we would think.
Similarly one could ponder the metaphysical implications and purpose of the domesticated dog. We separately wonder what the spiritual purpose of a dog might be while at the same time we engineer them for a specific purpose of our own. But (those of us who spiritually aware) even if we breed a dog for a certain purpose of our own, we would likely simultaneously hold the idea that the dog has its own metaphysical right, implication, and purpose of existence which is separate from our implied physical purpose. But again, maybe these two separate purposes are more linked than I would think.
I’m imagining a scenario where aliens are creating physical vehicles for some unknown purpose. And on top of it I am imagining conscious beings saying, “these creatures (what we call aliens) are creating these physical vessels for some purpose. Let’s incarnate into these physical bodies which they are creating (for whatever purpose) so that we may learn, grow, and experience.” That seems odd to me. But if Mary is right, and all the metaphysical data we got from experiencers and sages alike are right, there’s may be some truth to this scenario.
Going to listen to the interview now
good questions. thx.Have only started the interview but there seems to be an issue here which may not have been directly addressed... what is the importance of the physical body as compared with the soul?
I am assuming that we have both and that they have different origins. And that genes apply only to the first.
now we're getting somewhere :) TES I would really like to pull you into my upcoming interview:223 genes would be 1% of our exome, not our genome. There are an estimated 20,000-25,000 human protein-coding genes (exome). But you are correct, we have mistakenly frothed over this rather small and perfunctory segment of our genome. Protein interactions, post-synthesis, intron influences and epigenetics are much more important factors in speciation and ordination.
Our genome overlaps with Chimpanzee, via LUCA, save for thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. So we differ in genome (not 'genes'), about 1.2-1.4%, depending upon how you tally the latter two categories of variances. However, most science communicators also forget that ~7.5% of our human genome has not been sequenced.
Also, we must be aware that a critical portion of this differential is wound up in 43+ Human Accelerated Regions of our genome. These are not shared with any other species in GenBank.
Horizontal genomic transfer by virus (not prokaryotes) was popular in the early 2000's (Darwin's Radio, etc.). It remains an interesting topic, but does bear the burden of deductive evidence yet to be produced. However, to say that such as thing has been dismissed by comparative matrix 'bit scores', is a layman's approach to DNA comparatives. One frameshift shared between low-LUCA species, 'in context' will be white-crow falsifying in terms of horizontal transfer, but will not bear a high bit score and subsequently not pass Salzberg's bit score test (Plus, Salzberg also calls this 'horizontal gene transfer' and uses a Wittgenstein incoherency as the very basis of a scientific study - not good science, especially in a modus absens claim).
The issue would now be horizontal replication of single nucleotide polymorphisms and replication of the following. The phrase '223 genes appeared to have been acquired by horizontal transfer from bacteria' is not a coherent statement of genetics - and agreed - not even possible. The following variances are coherent potential transfer mechanisms, and not 'genes'.
Base Substitutions:Silent - single nucleotide (letter) change, does not materially alter the amino acid expressedMissense - single nucleotide (letter) change, alters the amino acid expressedNonsense - single nucleotide (letter) change, results in insertion of a codon stop or methionine startJibberish - single nucleotide (letter) change, results in a chemical coupling which is not A, C, T nor GBase Mispairing - any form of anti-parallel base coupling which does not conform to the Watson-Crick rule (A-C, T-G)Structure Changes:Insertion - increases a contiguous number of codon bases inside a gene, at a specific edit locationDeletion - remove a contiguous number of codon bases inside a gene, resplice the new regions on either sideDuplication - an insertion which is an exact copy of another codon segment of DNAFrameshift - an insertion or deletion which does not adhere to a triplet (3 letter) codon basis, thereby changing the frame of codon referenceRepeat Expansion - an insertion which replicates one codon which is adjacent to the insertion point, a number of timesDirect Repeat - replication of an identical codon sequence in the same orientation (5' to 3'), inside the same geneCodon Substitution - a non-frameshift segment of DNA is deleted and an insertion is placed into the splice where it residedInversion - a segment of DNA is rotated from its 5' to 3' orientation, by 180 degrees
Michael,
Can you elaborate on where you think she is making scientific arguments without knowing what she is talking about?
Thanks
Sure Jim. Essentially the DNA stuff. My take on it is that you actually do have to do a bunch of reading on the subject to know WTF you are talking about. I have read a bit, and while I think I get the drift there's no way I am talking about it in anything I write. My brother is into it and he is gentle with me. I thought that Rodwell erred in even raising it.
There was a comment that her research is 'scientific' and that's a load term that can be misleading. An ethnographic study is scientific in my view, but the materialists get upset about that - and I don't care. Even so it has to be methodologically sound. From what I gather the FREE study was a genuine academic study - and if Rodwell was part of that study it does not mean she can claim what she does is 'scientific' without being very clear about her method.
She several times referred to academic quals in ways that validly established her right to speak and be treated as a serious investigator. But I was bothered when she said she didn't interpret. I noticed a comment on the forum about it seeming like she accepted what she was told as true - and when she spoke she certainly interpreted what she was told. So that, to me, was a touch messy.
I got the impression that Rodwell wanted us to see her as a 'scientific' inquirer, but I felt she strayed into more journalism than formal inquiry. I do not want to seem as if I am trying to tear her down. I am familiar enough with her domain of inquiry to think she as something to say that is worth listening to.
I don't think she should have talked DNA, and in a controversial subject like this I think she should have had a clearer and cleaner articulation of method and approach. My sense was that she had an excellent ethnographic study here, but she (for me) messed that up with an ill-disciplined description of what she was about. So I'd have to add that maybe she doesn't sufficiently understand science.
Probably for most of her audience/market this does not matter.
would really like to ask her what she meant by multi-dimensional cells. Any idea?
I have felt the same way in the past. Academic qualifications don't impress me
The stuff about 'star children' I get it, but let's put that in perspective. A 77 year old friend of mine insists she is from X, and I do believe her for complex reasons I won't go into detail here. So its nothing new. What may be new is that more kids are claiming this, but given this is maybe the first time this kind inquiry has been undertaken we really can't say that there is an increase - there is no baseline measure.
By multi dimensional cells I think she might be thinking in terms of Theosophy, Micheal. This is a spiritual philosophy originating with a woman named Helen Blavatsky and is derived from Eastern Mysticism (as I understand) Their belief is that a human being consists of six (or maybe seven) bodies each of which belong in a separate dimension, one here, the others in the afterlife. If I remember correctly Blavatsky was not a supporter of Spiritism as she felt it interfered with the natural process of the human being's decomposition. As with Spiritism Theosophy is a set of beliefs which I think might better be termed, assumptions or maybe suspicions. Personally I'm gonna stick with the non religious instructions of Jesus.And this is another reason I have an issue with Rodwell. What the hell does she think she is doing talking about multi-dimensional cells in the first place. She must know her audience will not know that that means.
I am very familiar with theosophy. It would be boring if she is using theosophical terminology and not declaring it. Its a minority taste, and I would expect she would know that.By multi dimensional cells I think she might be thinking in terms of Theosophy,
I would even say that having a Masters or PhD does not (in and of itself) mean that one is necessarily much smarter than the average Joe.
The book references an article about this paper:
https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.6739v1.pdf
The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic codeVladimir I. shCherbaka and Maxim A. Makukovb*Department of Mathematics, al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Republic of KazakhstanFesenkov Astrophysical Institute, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan
It has been repeatedly proposed to expand the scope for SETI, and one of the suggested alternatives to radio is the biological media. Genomic DNA is already used on Earth to store nonbiological information. Though smaller in capacity, but stronger in noise immunity is the genetic code. The code is a flexible mapping between codons and amino acids, and this flexibility allows modifying the code artificially. But once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known. Therefore it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature, if that conforms to biological and thermodynamic requirements. As the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out. A statistically strong intelligent-like “signal” in the genetic code is then a testable consequence of such scenario. Here we show that the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin. Plausible way of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to store non-biological information.
I haven't studied the article I am posting it to show that when ordinary people have unconventional ideas and claim there is scientific evidence supporting their ideas there may be some actual scientific research they are referring to.