24 replies to this topic

[chimaybliss]

A top team of researchers in genetics is claiming that they have found proof of alien genetics here on Earth.  The team believes that these genetics were introduced sometime on Earth in the recent past (relatively speaking).

http://goo.gl/bd3WN

[trancelikestate]

sounds like some pretty bad science. "We don't know what these extra dna strands are from, they must be from outer space'

[TheMcGuffin]

My main question about this type of story has always been: How do we know that aliens even have DNA?

Why should they have a cellular structure like ours?  What can we really say about their paths of evolution?

[Archimedes]

It's a hoax.  Apparently there isn't any Sam Chang at the Human Genome Project and the story seems to have been fabricated outright.   It's an old story that has been discredited.

[Rlyeh]

I think I've read this before, its BS. They need alien genes to compare with, plus junk DNA doesn't have its own "veins, arteries, and immune system".

[Babe Ruth]

Old news.

The US Genome Project declared about 10 years ago, after many years of study and experiment, that the likely source of what is called 'junk DNA' is extraterrestial.

The term 'junk DNA' was being used in the 60's when I was enrolled in college biology.  That it is ET in nature would not suprise me in the least.

[Archimedes]

Babe Ruth, on 16 June 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

The US Genome Project declared about 10 years ago, after many years of study and experiment, that the likely source of what is called 'junk DNA' is extraterrestial.

They did?  Got a source for that claim?

[Hazzard]

Babe Ruth, on 16 June 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Old news.

The US Genome Project declared about 10 years ago, after many years of study and experiment, that the likely source of what is called 'junk DNA' is extraterrestial.

.....  That it is ET in nature would not suprise me in the least.

Are you serious?

[Rlyeh]

Calling "junk DNA" extraterrestial when many terrestial organisms possess it, is a rather big contradiction.

[TheMcGuffin]

Babe Ruth, on 16 June 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Old news.

The US Genome Project declared about 10 years ago, after many years of study and experiment, that the likely source of what is called 'junk DNA' is extraterrestial.

The term 'junk DNA' was being used in the 60's when I was enrolled in college biology.  That it is ET in nature would not suprise me in the least.

I'm a few decades out of date when it comes to genetics, since the last time I studied it was the third year of college.  I recall the experiments with the unfortunate fruit flies with their large chromosomes, and how mutations in DNA could be caused by radiation, chemicals, viruses, or most commonly, a breakdown in the machinery of replication, and how these were passed on to offspring.

I learned that most mutations were harmful or fatal to the organism.

I also recall these mysterious things called "insertion sequences" that seemed to jut be floating around, and how they could insert themselves into the DNA and cause mutations.  I don't recall the professor having an explanation for these, but only that they were just sort of there.

[TheMcGuffin]

I don't recall hearing the term "junk DNA" until fairly recent times.  Back when I was studying genetics, they were still in the infancy of trying to match genes to specific traits, and I'm not sure they had a real grasp of what the junk or the useless stuff was.

[antonT]

How come there has never been any evidence of alien visits to Earth apart from this?

[Archimedes]

Rlyeh, on 16 June 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

Calling "junk DNA" extraterrestial when many terrestial organisms possess it, is a rather big contradiction.

One of the interesting things about junk DNA is that there are shared sequences in it amongst species and groups of species that prove common descent amongst species.

Was ET monkeying around in the DNA of other species too?

edit: fixing my science!

Edited by Archimedes, 16 June 2012 - 08:06 PM.

[booNyzarC]

Archimedes, on 16 June 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

They did?  Got a source for that claim?

Speaking from experience, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you...

Hazzard, on 16 June 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

Are you serious?

I hope not, but then I'm rarely surprised by anything claimed by BR anymore.

[Bildr]

TheMcGuffin, on 16 June 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

I'm a few decades out of date when it comes to genetics, since the last time I studied it was the third year of college.  I recall the experiments with the unfortunate fruit flies with their large chromosomes, and how mutations in DNA could be caused by radiation, chemicals, viruses, or most commonly, a breakdown in the machinery of replication, and how these were passed on to offspring.

I learned that most mutations were harmful or fatal to the organism.

I also recall these mysterious things called "insertion sequences" that seemed to jut be floating around, and how they could insert themselves into the DNA and cause mutations.  I don't recall the professor having an explanation for these, but only that they were just sort of there.

Indeed, but what i don't understand is that if bacteria/Virus WOULD have transfer us the genes, that would meen we woul'dnt have 223 genes that are not found in ANY living organism we know and have labeled on earth, right? So if bacteria would have transfer genes to us we would have found similar genes in nature, right? But yet we haven't.

Quote

http://www.world-mys...s.com/sci_1.htm  


The “Head-scratching” Discovery

It was here, in tracing the vertical evolutionary record contained in the human and the other analyzed genomes, that the scientists ran into an enigma. The “head-scratching discovery by the public consortium,” as Science termed it, was that the human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree.
How did Man acquire such a bunch of enigmatic genes?

In the evolutionary progression from bacteria to invertebrates (such as the lineages of yeast, worms, flies or mustard weed – which have been deciphered) to vertebrates (mice, chimpanzees) and finally modern humans, these 223 genes are completely missing in the invertebrate phase. Therefore, the scientists can explain their presence in the human genome by a “rather recent” (in evolutionary time scales) “probable horizontal transfer from bacteria.”
In other words: At a relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a sideways insertion of genetic material from bacteria…

Edited by Bildr, 16 June 2012 - 08:13 PM.