hello to you all my name is ian that is all ill say on that mater call me paranoied and i probably am but i have seen and heard to many things to let people know who i am. i have read most of the topics on these furums now ive been folloing them for quite some time,hwere there are some obveus cases of hoexes there are cases of reall happenings.

i myself have been ubducted when i was 9 years old i remeber the exceriance also i didnt need hipnotherapy,in time i will tell you all about it but for now i cant.
just so you all know the x files are all based on true excperiences so if you have whatched it and thought why does that look familer you now know most people who have been abducted once are garented to be abducted again even when you dont know it, you could be driving and then bang they got you but you cant tell i would like people to email me and tell me about there exceriances.australiaabductee please email me i have some answers for you i have been studing the dna thery my email is ian_606@msn.com and good luck to you all 66844412228887500366
222 work it out

Ian,


Ummmm, I can't help but say, ok????????


Why would any of us here trust you with our experiences, when you seem to be a little more that paranoid? Writing cryptic messages,as if you shot straight out of an X files episode yourself... Just a little too dramatic for me...


What exactly have you studied/learned about a 'DNA Theory'? I am not going to be to critical with you now, just be careful how you answer.... There are very few fools here.


Reese

i am very happy that you are sceptical that is wht i had expected

I’m with Reese on this one. I’m afraid you haven’t really explained anything, or even any real information. Anyone can write anything on here, and without proof, that’s all it is - words!

And what makes it all the more strange, is the cryptic message at the end? We could spend hours working it out, and to be honest I even gave it a go! But a large number of letters or words can be made to fit almost any theory we make.
For instance, there’s all the numbers but 9, why. Is that the clue (because this was taken from a Michael Connelly thriller novel, where he used all the numbers but one! Which had some vague reason for doing so).
Or the numbers could simple add up to 96?
As I have already said, it can be made to mean anything… And frankly I don’t see what the mind games are all about?

Maybe it’s the number printed on your arm by your silver suited friends, or something you burned on yourself when you went into one of your funny dreams (sorry just a little joke to lighten the mood). Like I said, it could be anything, and you will have to excuse my scepticism, but the way you explain and conduct yourself you can expect no less.

Oh yes, you also say you have being doing some studying into DNA, for that you would need expensive machines, which are held in scientific buildings and research laboratories, that not just anybody can gain access too! So does this suggest you’re a scientist? Because anyone can play with DNA, by drawing interesting pictures on a scrap of paper, but to do it properly, as I have said you need equipment that coat 10’s, if not 100’s of thousand of dollars.

Because everyone knows that Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the chemical inside the nucleus of all cells that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms! DNA molecule consists of two strands that wrap around each other to resemble a twisted ladder (the image we see when describing DNA). The sides are made of sugar and phosphate molecules. The “rungs” (as they are called) are made of nitrogen-containing chemicals called bases. Each strand is composed of one sugar molecule, one phosphate molecule, and a base. Four different bases are present in DNA - adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine ©, and guanine (G) which we all have, obviously. The particular order of the bases arranged along the sugar - phosphate backbone is called the DNA sequence; the sequence specifies the exact genetic instructions required to create a particular organism with its own unique traits.

Also the Chromosomes, which are paired threadlike "packages" of long segments of DNA contained within the nucleus of each cell. In humans there are 23 pairs of chromosomes. In 22 pairs, both members are essentially identical, one deriving from the individual's mother, the other from the father. The 23rd pair is different. In females this pair has two like chromosomes called "X". In males it comprises one "X" and one "Y," two very dissimilar chromosomes. It is these chromosome differences which determine sex. Also which we all have, unless sadly you have Down syndrome, or otherwise known as Trisomy 21, because they have an extra twenty-first chromosome.

So what is it your working on that could help science understand this better? Please don’t take this the wrong way, (I mean no offence) if you are making progress in human DNA, which could benefit us all, we are indebted to you! But what is it you have learned?

I ask this being truly interested.

Okay, I've seen a lot of jokers in my time. I've know several personally, and even been myself once in a while. I am not, however, calling you a joker Ian. I am saying most professionals type far better than you do, simply out of habit. While I don't claim to be a professional, I try to type as nicely as I can for others and various other career focused reasons. That's my first problem with your story, your typing skills. Next, comes your paranoia. Basically there's two choices. Either you'r extremely paranoid and should perhaps seek the help of a mental professional, or you're acting. To be honest, I'm leaning to the latter. It almost seems like you're playing off the stereotypical Alien Abductee/Conspiracy paranoia one would expect to find on boards such as the Unexplained Mysteries Forums. However, I'm tired so it could just be that I'm not in the mood to be as...trusting...as my "peers". Still, some form of proof would be nice. We promise not to tell, and anything you think is secret the government probably already knows anyway. As for your cryptic message you use all multiples of 2. You use exactly 4 odd numbers and two zeros, making 6. To translate, I'd place the odds high that it's a string of at least semi-random numbers. I'm a trusting person, really I am, but only if someone is willing to take the effort to push aside their fears and present themselves in a fairly professional manner. Until you can do that, Ian, I shall call you a liar and a fraud. Good day, or evening if the case may be, and next time use binary.

[/QUOTE]

Ian, how can i say this without being negative... here goes that was the biggest crock of crap i have seen in a long while.... i feel my IQ has dropped just by reading it

It also helps if you spell the title of your post right mate, it matters.

uh...huh....

Yeah, someone's playing silly buggers If you ARE studying DNA theory...well...dude, study harder, you spelled "theory" wrong...for that matter, you also spelled "studying" wrong

But, since I believe in the theory of intellectual diffusion, I shall be forced to leave this topic alone, before my IQ begins to drop.

Ok, I didn't want to mention the spelling, call me nice, but I am soooo glad that all of you said what I was thinking......


Reese


(Prime example of how a troll starts out)

I didn't want to say anything, seeing as how I'm the one that started the thread about negativity, but I agree with everyone else, unless studying the dna sequence doesn't require any actual literacy, I think your full of bs, dude.

I just want to add that parental supervision is advised when your children are using the internet .....

also a dictionary ,allthough a boring gift, can be a very practicle christmas present . ......

Ian? My name is Nancy and that's all I can say about that, at least for now.

Have you ever had "one of THOSE days" where it seems the world is spinning and somehow, you're not? A massive headache, crushing your senses? Well, personally I've not been feeling well (I cannot go into detail)......

So? I find the "On" button to my computer and wander in here, to this magical place for solace, friendship and perhaps to learn a thing or two.

For several days, I've noticed your thread and finally my curiosity got the better of me.

What I found is a compilation of generous replies from other Members of UM. Please take all the advice given. If we have made a horrid error, I'm sure someday we will regret not knowing who you really are and how you could have saved humanity.

In the interum? Take Kismit's words to heart. She is a very wise woman! There is however, one flaw in her suggestion. In order to properly make good use of a dictionary, one has to have some idea of how to spell.

Ian? If Santa is good to you and you receive that dictionary? It will take days for you to find Page 1, still? Don't give up! A mind is a terrible thing to waist .... oops, waste.

Don't say anything bad about Ian's dictionary! The main thing is that you understand, he wanted to say, isn't it?
Ian,
I don't believe that X-files could be true, but I am ready to listen to your arguments in the future.

at Kismit.. You are too funny!!!

Nancy, you are too funny as well.

No one was saying anything bad about Ian's dictionary. I believe the dictionary got several compliments. It is Ian's spelling that was being critisized, and that is completely understandable. Maybe for you it is ok and credible to have someone talk about DNA, while not knowing how to spell, but not here. You can't make it past the first dance, like that.

I would love to know more of what he has learned about DNA. But, as he stated he 'can't tell us right now'.


Reese

Hey, I've had my licks at Ian so I guess I can't say anything more. However, has anyone else here noticed he has suddenly disappeared? From what I've seen, anyway, as soon as we started in he left. If he was what he claimed, he'd probably at least try and defend himself. My vote? Prankster. We'll probably get a comment once this thread "dies" about how stupid we all are, or something.

i am still here i have been away yes my spelling is not the best and yes belive it or not i am a scienctist i have never been good at spelling and i thank you for taking the piss out of me ok so you want some sort of proof of wht i am saying proof i cant give my theory i can.


A&S Research, working together with scientific groups such as N.I.D.S. and other scientists worldwide has set forth to compile and analyze physical evidence relating to various areas of Phenomenology. In the course of doing so, we were exposed to the aforementioned case approximately eight years ago. A& S Research has determined that this case comprises an abundance of additional physical evidence that remains to be examined.

Examples of Alleged Additional Physical Evidence not yet Subjected to Scientific Analysis:

Alleged anomalous magnetic or electromagnetic phenomena involving the encounter site.
Soil taken from the front yard involving landing traces.
Powdery substances covering a wristwatch.
Samples of fluorescence taken from the walls of the closet and bedroom.
Footprint castings.
Anomalous video footage.
Other Future Studies by A&S Research involve:

Wound analysis of body marks as well as physiological testing and blood analysis.
Analysis of the ambient background involving temperature fluctuations, electromagnetic anomalies, and light and sound affects.
Infared photography.
In actuality, the “Claw” is only one portion of this totality currently under investigation. The “Claw” was given priority given the importance of the possibility of finding nonterrestial DNA

It is also our opinion that this intensive and expensive scientific investigation serves as an example of how academic science can be mated with Phenomenology to produce clear-cut results. These results can then be subjected to the normal peer review processes with eventual publication in scientific literature.

This DNA study should also serve to illustrate why the current standard of research in numerous areas of Phenomenology lacks veracity and acceptance. What good does it do to make claims solely based on opinion and then publicize them through the media

Can you explain the sudden phenomenal improvement in your spelling ?

Chris Low.

and there is more on the theory of human and alien dna being mixed to make another being whislt this infornmation i am about to give you all may not seem relivent it is please be patiant and read it

Biology once was regarded as a languid, largely descriptive discipline, a passive science that was content, for much of its history, merely to observe the natural world rather than change it. No longer. Today biology, armed with the power of genetics, has replaced physics as the activist Science of the Century, and it stands poised to assume godlike powers of creation, calling forth artificial forms of life rather than undiscovered elements and subatomic particles. The initial steps toward this new Genesis have been widely touted in the press. It wasn't so long ago that Scottish scientists stunned the world with Dolly1, the fatherless sheep cloned directly from her mother's cells; these techniques have now been applied, unsuccessfully, to human cells. ANDi2, a photogenic rhesus monkey, recently was born carrying the gene of a luminescent jellyfish. Pigs now carry a gene for bovine growth hormone and show significant improvement in weight gain, feed efficiency, and reduced fat.3 Most soybean plants grown in the United States have been genetically engineered to survive the application of powerful herbicides. Corn plants now contain a bacterial gene that produces an insecticidal protein rendering them poisonous to earworms.4

Our leading scientists and scientific entrepreneurs (two labels that are increasingly interchangeable) assure us that these feats of technological prowess, though marvelous and complex, are nonetheless safe and reliable. We are told that everything is under control. Conveniently ignored, forgotten, or in some instances simply suppressed, are the caveats, the fine print, the flaws and spontaneous abortions. Most clones exhibit developmental failure before or soon after birth, and even apparently normal clones often suffer from kidney or brain malformations.5 ANDi, perversely, has failed to glow like a jellyfish. Genetically modified pigs have a high incidence of gastric ulcers, arthritis, cardiomegaly (enlarged heart), dermatitis, and renal disease. Despite the biotechnology industry's assurances that genetically engineered soybeans have been altered only by the presence of the alien gene, as a matter of fact the plant's own genetic system has been unwittingly altered as well, with potentially dangerous consequences.6 The list of malfunctions gets little notice; biotechnology companies are not in the habit of publicizing studies that question the efficacy of their miraculous products or suggest the presence of a serpent in the biotech garden.

Glossary of terms

Alternative splicing
Reshuffling of the RNA transcription of a gene's nucleotide sequence that generates multiple proteins.

Cell
The fundamental, irreducible unit of life.

Central dogma
A theory concerning the relation among DNA, RNA, and protein in which the nucleotide sequence of DNA exclusively governs its own replication and engenders a specific genetic code trait.

Chaperone protein
Folds new strung-out proteins into the ball-like structure that specifies their biochemical activity.

Gene
A term applied to segments of DNA that encode specific proteins that give rise to inherited traits. Human DNA contains about 30,000 genes. The term's meaning has become increasingly uncertain.

DNA
Deoxyribonucleic acid. A large molecule composed of a specific sequence of four kinds of nucleotides found in the nucleus of living cells.

Nucleotide
The four kinds of subunits of which nucleic acid is constructed.

RNA
Ribonucleic acid. Its various forms transmit genetic information from DNA to protein.

Spliceosome
A specialized group of proteins and ribonucleic acids that carries out alternate splicing.

The mistakes might be dismissed as the necessary errors that characterize scientific progress. But behind them lurks a more profound failure. 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.7 The premise, unhappily, is false. Tested between 1990 and 2001 in one of the largest and most highly publicized scientific undertakings of our time, the Human Genome Project, the theory collapsed under the weight of fact. There are far too few human genes to account for the complexity of our inherited traits or for the vast inherited differences between plants, say, and people. By any reasonable measure, the finding (published last February) signaled the downfall of the central dogma; it also destroyed the scientific foundation of genetic engineering and the validity of the biotechnology industry's widely advertised claim that its methods of genetically modifying food crops are "specific, precise, and predictable"8 and therefore safe. In short, the most dramatic achievement to date of the $3 billion Human Genome Project is the refutation of its own scientific rationale.

Since Crick first proposed it forty-four years ago, the central dogma has come to dominate biomedical research. Simple, elegant, and easily summarized, it seeks to reduce inheritance, a property that only living things possess, to molecular dimensions: The molecular agent of inheritance is DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, a very long, linear molecule tightly coiled within each cell's nucleus. DNA is made up of four different kinds of nucleotides, strung together in each gene in a particular linear order or sequence. Segments of DNA comprise the genes that, through a series of molecular processes, give rise to each- of our inherited traits:

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." It will yield, he claimed, the information "that determines if you have life as a fly, a carrot, or a man." Walter Gilbert, one of the project's earliest proponents, famously observed that the 3 billion nucleotides found in human DNA would easily fit on a compact disc, to which one could point and say, "Here is a human being; it's me!"9 President Bill Clinton described the human genome as "the language in which God created life."10 How could the minute dissection of human DNA into a sequence of 3 billion nucleotides support such hyperbolic claims? Crick's crisply stated theory attempts to answer that question. It hypothesizes a clear-cut chain of molecular processes that leads from a single DNA gene to the appearance of a particular inherited trait. The explanatory power of the theory is based on an extravagant proposition: that the DNA genes have unique, absolute, and universal control over the totality of inheritance in all forms of life.

In order to control inheritance, Crick reasoned, genes would need to govern the synthesis of protein, since proteins form the cell's internal structures and, as enzymes, catalyze the chemical events that produce specific inherited traits. The ability of DNA to govern the synthesis of protein is facilitated by their similar structures-both are linear molecules composed of specific sequences of subunits. A particular gene is distinguished from another by the precise linear order (sequence) in which the four different nucleotides appear in its DNA. In the same way, a particular protein is distinguished from another by the specific sequence of the twenty different kinds of amino acids of which it is made. The four kinds of nucleotides can be arranged in numerous possible sequences, and the choice of any one of them in the makeup of a particular gene represents its "genetic information" in the same sense that, in poker, the order of a hand of cards informs the player whether to bet high on a straight or drop out with a meaningless set of random numbers.

Crick's "sequence hypothesis" neatly links the gene to the protein: the sequence of the nucleotides in a gene "is a simple code for the amino acid sequence of a particular protein."11 This is shorthand for a series of well-documented molecular processes that transcribe the gene's DNA nucleotide sequence into a complementary sequence of ribonucleic acid (RNA) nucleotides that, in turn, delivers the gene's code to the site of protein formation, where it determines the sequential order in which the different amino acids are linked to form the protein. It follows that in each living thing there should be a one-to-one correspondence between the total number of genes and the total number of proteins. The entire array of human genes-that is, the genome must therefore represent the whole of a person's inheritance, which distinguishes a person from a fly, or Walter Gilbert from anyone else. Finally, because DNA is made of the same four nucleotides in every living thing, the genetic code is universal, which means that a gene should be capable of producing its particular protein wherever it happens to find itself, even in a different species.

Crick's theory includes a second doctrine, which he originally called the "central dogma" (though this term is now generally used to identify his theory as a whole). The hypothesis is typical Crick: simple, precise, and magisterial. "Once (sequential) information has passed into protein it cannot get out again."12 This means that genetic information originates in the DNA nucleotide sequence and terminates, unchanged, in the protein amino acid sequence. The pronouncement is crucial' to the explanatory power of the theory because it endows the gene with undiluted control over the identity of the protein and the inherited trait that the protein creates. To stress the importance of this genetic taboo, Crick bet the future of the entire enterprise on it, asserting that "the discovery of just one type of present-day cell" in which genetic information passed from protein to nucleic acid or from protein to protein "would shake the whole intellectual basis of molecular biology."13

Crick was aware of the brashness of his bet, for it was known that in living cells proteins come into promiscuous molecular contact with numerous other proteins and with molecules of DNA and RNA. His insistence that these interactions are genetically chaste was designed to protect the DNA's genetic message-the gene's nucleotide sequence-from molecular intruders that might change the sequence or add new ones as it was transferred, step by step, from gene to protein and thus destroy the theory's elegant simplicity.

Last February, Crick's gamble suffered a spectacular loss. In the journals Nature and Science and at joint press conferences and television appearances, the two genome research teams reported their results. The major result was "unexpected."14 Instead of the 100,000 or more genes predicted by the estimated number of human proteins, the gene count was only about 30,000. By this measure, people are only about as gene-rich as a mustard-like weed (which has 26,000 genes) and about twice as genetically endowed as a fruit fly or a primitive worm-hardly an adequate basis for distinguishing among "life as a fly, a carrot, or a man." In fact, an inattentive reader of genomic CDs might easily mistake Walter Gilbert for a mouse, 99 percent of whose genes have human counterparts.15

The surprising results contradicted the scientific premise on which the genome project was undertaken and dethroned its guiding theory, the central dogma. After all, if the human gene count is too low to match the number of proteins and the numerous inherited traits that they engender, and if it cannot explain the vast inherited difference between a weed and a person, there must be much more to the "ultimate description of life" than the genes, on their own, can tell us.

Scientists and journalists somehow failed to notice what had happened. The discovery that the human genome is not much different from the roundworm's led Dr. Eric Lander, one of the leaders of the project, to declare that humanity should learn "a lesson in humility."17 In the New York Times, Nicholas Wade merely observed that the project's surprising results will have an "impact on human pride" and that "human self-esteem may be in for further blows" from future genome analyses, which had already found that the genes of mice and men are very similar.16

The project's scientific reports offered little to explain the shortfall in the gene count. One of the possible explanations for why the gene count is "so discordant with our predictions" was described, in full, last February in Science as follows: "nearly 4096 of human genes are alternatively spliced."18 Properly understood, this modest, if esoteric, account fulfills Crick's dire prophecy: it "shakes the whole intellectual basis of molecular biology" and undermines the-scientific validity of its application to genetic engineering.

Alternative splicing is a startling departure from the orderly design of the central dogma, in which the distinctive nucleotide sequence of a single gene encodes the amino acid sequence of a single protein. According to Crick's sequence hypothesis, the gene's nucleotide sequence (i.e., its "genetic information") is transmitted, altered in form but not in content, through RNA intermediaries, to the distinctive amino acid sequence of a particular protein. In alternative splicing, however, the gene's original nucleotide sequence is split into fragments that are then recombined in different ways to encode a multiplicity of proteins, each of them different in their amino acid sequence from each other and from the sequence that the original gene, if left intact, would encode.

The molecular events that accomplish this genetic reshuffling are focused on a particular stage in the overall DNA-RNA-protein progression. It occurs when the DNA gene's nucleotide sequence is transferred to the next genetic carriermessenger RNA. A specialized group of fifty to sixty proteins, together with five small molecules of RNA-known as a "spliceosome"assembles at sites along the length of the messenger RNA, where it cuts apart various segments of the messenger RNA. Certain of these fragments are spliced together into a number of alternative combinations, which then have nucleotide sequences that differ from the gene's original one. These numerous, redesigned messenger RNAs govern the production of an equal number of proteins that differ in their amino acid sequence and hence in the inherited traits that they engender. For example, when the word TIME is rearranged to read MITE, EMIT, and ITEM, three alternative units of information are created from an original one. Although the original word (the unspliced messenger RNA nucleotide sequence) is essential to the process, so is the agent that performs the rearrangement (the spliceosome).19

Alternative splicing can have an extraordinary impact on the gene/protein ratio. We now know that a single gene originally believed to encode a single protein that occurs in cells of the inner ear of chicks (and of humans) gives rise to 576 variant proteins, differing in their amino acid sequences.20 The current record for the number of different proteins produced from a single gene by alternative splicing is held by the fruit fly, in which one gene generates up to 38,016 variant protein molecules.21

Alternative splicing thus has a devastating impact on Crick's theory: it breaks open the hypothesized isolation of the molecular system that transfers genetic information from a single gene to a single protein. By rearranging the single gene's nucleotide sequence into a multiplicity of new messenger RNA sequences, each of them different from the unspliced original, alternative splicing can be said to generate new genetic information. Certain of the spliceosome's proteins and RNA components have an affinity for particular sites and, binding to them, form an active catalyst that cuts the messenger RNA and then rejoins the resulting fragments. The spliceosome proteins thus contribute to the added genetic information that alternative splicing creates. But this conclusion conflicts with Crick's second hypothesisthat proteins cannot transmit genetic information to nucleic acid (in this case, messenger RNA)and shatters the elegant logic of Crick's interlocking duo of genetic hypotheses.22

The Precise Duplication of
DNA is accomplished by the
living cell, not by the DNA
molecule alone

The discovery of alternative splicing also bluntly contradicts the precept that motivated the genome project. It nullifies the exclusiveness of the gene's hold on the molecular process of inheritance and disproves the notion that by counting genes one can specify the array of proteins that define the scope of human inheritance. The gene's effect on inheritance thus cannot be predicted simply from its nucleotide sequencethe determination of which is one of the main purposes of the Human Genome Project. Perhaps this is why the crucial role of alternative splicing seems to have been ignored in the planning of the project and has been obscured by the cunning manner in which its chief result has been reported. Although the genome reports do not mention it, alternative splicing was discovered well before the genome project was even plannedin 1978 in virus replication23, and in 1981 in human cells.24 By 1989, when the Human Genome Project was still being debated among molecular biologists, its champions were surely aware that more than 200 scientific papers on alternative splicing of human genes had already been published.25 Thus, the shortfall in the human gene count couldindeed shouldhave been predicted. It is difficult to avoid the conclusiontroublesome 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 genomeor perhaps God speaking through it would tell us who we are.26

Alternative splicing is not the only discovery over the last forty years that has contradicted basic precepts of the central dogma. Other research has tended to erode the centrality of the DNA double helix itself, the theory's ubiquitous icon. In their original description of the discovery of DNA, Watson and Crick commented that the helix's structure "immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material." Such self-duplication is the crucial feature of life, and in ascribing it to DNA, Watson and Crick concluded, a bit prematurely, that they had discovered life's magic molecular key.27

Biological replication does include the precise duplication of DNA, but this is accomplished by the living cell, not by the DNA molecule alone. In the development of a person from a single fertilized egg, the egg cell and the multitude of succeeding cells divide in two. Each such division is preceded by a doubling of the cell's DNA; two new DNA strands are produced by attaching the necessary nucleotides (freely available in the cell), in the proper order, to each of the two DNA strands entwined in the double helix. As the single fertilized egg cell grows into an adult, the genome is replicated many billions of times, its precise sequence of three billion nucleotides retained with extraordinary fidelity.28 The rate of errorthat is, the insertion into the newly made DNA sequence of a nucleotide out of its proper orderis about one in 10 billion nucleotides. But on its own, DNA is incapable of such faithful replication; in a test-tube experiment, a DNA strand, provided with a mixture of its four constituent nucleotides, will line them up with about one in a hundred of them out of its proper place. On the other hand, when the appropriate protein enzymes are added to the test rube, the fidelity with which nucleotides are incorporated in the newly made DNA strand is greatly improved, reducing the error rate to one in 10 million. These remaining errors are finally reduced to one in 10 billion by a set of "repair" enzymes (also proteins) that detect and remove mismatched nucleotides from the newly synthesized DNA.29

GENETIC INFORMATION ARISES NOT
FROM DNA ALONE BUT THROUGH
ITS ESSENTIAL COLLABORATION
WITH PROTEIN ENZYMES

Thus, in the living cell the gene's nucleotide code can be replicated faithfully only because an array of specialized proteins intervenes to prevent most of the errorswhich DNA by itself is prone to makeand to repair the few remaining ones. Moreover, it has been known since the 1960s that the enzymes that synthesize DNA influence its nucleotide sequence. In this sense, genetic information: arises not from DNA alone but through its essential collaboration with protein enzymesa contradiction of the central dogma's precept that inheritance is uniquely governed by the self-replication of the DNA double helix.

Another important divergent observation is the following: in order to become biochemically active and actually generate the inherited trait, the newly made protein, a strung-out ribbon of a molecule, must be folded up into a precisely organized ball-like structure. The biochemical events that give rise to genetic traitsfor example, enzyme action that synthesizes a particular eye-color pigmenttake place at specific locations on the outer surface of the three-dimensional protein, which is created by the particular way in which the molecule is folded into that structure. To preserve the simplicity of the central dogma, Crick was required to assume, without any supporting evidence, that the nascent proteina linear moleculealways folded itself up in the right way once its amino acid sequence had been determined. In the 1980s, however, it was discovered that some nascent proteins are on their own likely to become misfoldedand therefore remain biochemically inactiveunless they come in contact with a special type of "chaperone" protein that property folds them.

The importance of these chaperones has been underlined in recent years by research on degenerative brain diseases that are caused by "prions," research that has produced some of the most disturbing evidence that the central dogma is dangerously misconceived.30 Crick's theory holds that biological replication, which is essential to an organism's ability to infect another organism, cannot occur without nucleic acid. Yet when scrapie, the earliest known such disease, was analyzed biochemically, no nucleic acidneither DNA nor RNAcould be found in the infectious material that transmitted the disease. In the 1980s, Stanley Prusiner confirmed that the infectious agents that cause scrapie, mad cow disease, and similar very rare but invariably fatal human diseases are indeed nucleic-acid-free proteins (he named them prions), which replicate in an entirely unprecedented way. Invading the brain, the prion encounters a normal brain protein, which it then refolds to match the prion's distinctive three-dimensional shape. The newly refolded protein itself becomes infectious and, acting on another molecule of the normal protein, sets up a chain reaction that propagates the disease to its fatal end.31

The prion's unusual behavior raises important questions about the connection between a protein's amino acid sequence and its biochemically active, folded-up structure. Crick assumed that the protein's active structure is automatically determined by its amino acid sequence (which is, after all, the sign of its genetic specificity), so that two proteins with the same sequence ought to be identical in their activity. The prion violates this rule. In a scrapie-infected sheep, the prion and the brain protein that it refolds have the same amino acid sequence, but one is a normal cellular component and the other is a fatal infectious agent. This suggests 'that the protein's folded-up configuration is, to some degree, independent of its amino acid sequence and therefore determined, in part, by something other than the DNA gene that governed the synthesis of that sequence. And since the prion protein's three-dimensional shape is endowed with transmissible genetic information, it violates another fundamental Crick precept as wellthe forbidden passage of genetic information from one protein to another.* Thus, what is known about the prion is a somber warning that processes far removed from the conceptual constraints of the central dogma are at work in molecular genetics and can lead to fatal disease.**


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Although Crick localizes the protein's genetic information in its amino acid sequence, it must also be found in the protein s three-dimensional folded structure, an the surface of which the highly specific biochemical activity that generates the inherited trait takes place.

** In 1997, when Prusiner was awarded the Nobel Prize, several scientists publicly denounced the decision because that the prion, through infectious, is a nucleic-acid-free protein contradicted the central dogma and was too controversial to warrant the award. This bias impeded not only scientific progress but human health as well. Although Prusiner's results explained why the prion's structure resists them, conventional sterilization procedures were nevertheless relied on to fight mad cow disease in Britain, with fatal results.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the mid 1980s, therefore, long before the $3 billion Human Genome Project was funded, and long before genetically modified crops began to appear in our fields, a series of protein-based processes had already intruded on the DNA gene's exclusive genetic franchise. An array of protein enzymes must repair the all-too-frequent mistakes in gene replication and in the transmission of the genetic code to proteins as well. Certain proteins, assembled in spliceosomes, can reshuffle the RNA transcripts, creating hundreds and even thousands of different proteins from a single gene. A family of chaperones, proteins that facilitate the proper folding and therefore the biochemical activityof newly made proteins, form an essential part of the gene-toprotein process. By any reasonable measure, these results contradict the central dogma's cardinal maxim: that a DNA gene exclusively governs the molecular processes that give rise to a particular inherited trait. The DNA gene clearly exerts an important influence on inheritance, but it is not unique in that respect and acts only in collaboration with a multitude of protein-based processes that prevent and repair incorrect sequences, transform the nascent protein into its folded, active form, and provide crucial added genetic information well beyond that originating in the gene itself. The net outcome is that no single DNA gene is the sole source of a given protein's genetic information and therefore of the inherited trait.

The credibility of the Human Genome Project is not the only casualty of the scientific community's stubborn resistance to experimental results that contradict the central dogma. Nor is it the most significant casualty. The fact that one gene can give rise to multiple proteins also destroys the theoretical foundation of a multibillion-dollar industry, `the genetic engineering of food crops. In genetic engineering it is assumed, without adequate experimental proof, that a bacterial gene for an insecticidal protein, for example, transferred to a corn plant, will produce precisely that protein and nothing else. Yet in that alien genetic environment, alternative splicing of the bacterial gene might give rise to multiple variants of the intended proteinor even to proteins bearing little structural relationship to the original one, with unpredictable effects on ecosystems and human health.

The delay in dethroning the all-powerful gene led in the 1990s to a massive invasion of genetic engineering into American agriculture, though its scientific justification had already been compromised a decade or more earlier. Nevertheless, ignoring the profound fact that in nature the normal exchange of genetic material occurs exclusively within a single species, biotech-industry executives have repeatedly boasted that, in comparison, moving a gene from one species to another is not only normal but also more specific, precise, and predictable. In only the last five years such transgenic crops have taken over 68 percent of the U.S. soybean acreage, 26 percent of the corn acreage, and more than 69 percent of the cotton acreage.32

That the industry is guided by the central dogma was made explicit by Ralph W.F. Hardy, president of the National Agricultural Biotechnology Council and formerly director of life sciences at DuPont, a major producer of genetically engineered seeds. In 1999, in Senate testimony, he succinctly described the industry's guiding theory this way: "DNA (top management molecules) directs RNA formation (middle management molecules) directs protein formation (worker molecules)."33 The outcome of transferring a bacterial gene into a corn plant is expected to be as predictable as the result of a corporate takeover: what the workers do will be determined precisely by what the new top management tells them to do. This Reaganesque version of the central dogma is the scientific foundation upon which each year billions of transgenic plants of soybeans, corn, and cotton are grown with the expectation that the particular alien gene in each of them will be faithfully replicated in each of the billions of cell divisions that occur as each plant develops; that in each of the resultant cells the alien gene will encode only a protein with precisely the amino acid sequence that it encodes in its original organism; and that throughout this biological saga, despite the alien presence, the plant's natural complement of DNA will itself be properly replicated with no abnormal changes in composition.

In an ordinary unmodified plant the reliability of this natural genetic process results from the compatibility between its gene system and its equally necessary protein-mediated systems. The harmonious relation between the two systems develops during their cohabitation, in the same species, over very long evolutionary periods, in which natural selection eliminates incompatible variants. In other words, within a single species the reliability of the successful outcome of the complex molecular process that gives rise to the inheritance of particular traits is guaranteed by many thousands of years of testing, in nature.

In a genetically engineered transgenic plant, however, the alien transplanted bacterial gene must properly interact with the plant's protein-mediated systems. Higher plants, such as corn, soybeans, and cotton, are known to possess proteins that repair DNA miscoding;34 proteins that alternatively splice messenger RNA and thereby produce a multiplicity of different proteins from a single gene;35 and proteins that chaperone the proper folding of other, nascent proteins.36 But the plant systems' evolutionary history is very different from the bacterial gene's. As a result, in the transgenic plant the harmonious interdependence of the alien gene and the new host's protein-mediated systems is likely to be disrupted in unspecified, imprecise, and inherently unpredictable ways. In practice, these disruptions are revealed by the numerous experimental failures that occur before a transgenic organism is actually produced and by unexpected genetic changes that occur even when the gene has been successfully transferred.37

Most alarming is the recent evidence that in a widely grown genetically modified food cropsoybeans containing an alien gene for herbicide resistancethe transgenic host plant's genome has itself been unwittingly altered. The Monsanto Company admitted in 2000 that its soybeans contained some extra fragments of the transferred gene, but nevertheless concluded that "no new proteins were expected or observed to be produced."38 A year later, Belgian researchers discovered that a segment of the plant's own DNA had been scrambled. The abnormal DNA was large enough to produce a new protein, a potentially harmful protein.39

One way that such mystery DNA might arise is suggested by a recent study showing that in some plants carrying a bacterial gene, the plant's enzymes that correct DNA replication errors rearrange the alien gene's nucleotide sequence.40 The consequences of such changes cannot be foreseen. The likelihood in genetically engineered crops of even exceedingly rare, disruptive effects of gene transfer is greatly amplified by the billions of individual transgenic plants already being grown annually in the United States.

The degree to which such disruptions do occur in genetically modified crops is not known at present, because the biotechnology industry is not required to provide even the most basic information about the actual composition of the transgenic plants to the regulatory agencies. No tests, for example, are required to show that the plant actually produces a protein with the same amino acid sequence as the original bacterial protein. Yet this information is the only way to confirm that the transferred gene does in fact yield the theory-predicted product. Moreover, there are no required studies based on detailed analysis of the molecular structure and biochemical activity of the alien gene and its protein product in the transgenic commercial crop. Given that some unexpected effects may develop very slowly, crop plants should be monitored in successive generations as well. None of these essential tests are being performed, and billions of transgenic plants are now being grown with only the most rudimentary knowledge about the resulting changes in their composition. Without detailed, ongoing analyses of the transgenic crops, there is no way of knowing if hazardous consequences might arise. Given the failure of the central dogma, there is no assurance that they will not. The genetically engineered crops now being grown represent a massive uncontrolled experiment whose outcome is inherently unpredictable. The results could be catastrophic.

Crick's central dogma has played a powerful role in creating both the Human Genome Project and the unregulated spread of genetically engineered food crops. Yet as evidence that contradicts this governing theory has accumulated, it has had no effect on the decisions that brought both of these monumental undertakings into being. It is true that most of the experimental results generated by the theory confirmed the concept that genetic information, in the form of DNA nucleotide sequences, is transmitted from DNA via RNA to protein. But other observations have contradicted the one-to-one correspondence of gene to protein and have broken the DNA gene's exclusive franchise on the molecular explanation of heredity. In the ordinary course of science, such new facts would be woven into the theory, adding to its complexity, redefining its meaning, or, as necessary, challenging its basic premise. 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.41 When life was first formed on the earth, proteins must have appeared before DNA because, unlike DNA, proteins have the catalytic ability to generate the chemical energy needed to assemble small ambient molecules into larger ones such as DNA. DNA is a mechanism created by the cell to store information produced by the cell. Early life survived because it grew, building up its characteristic array of complex molecules. It must have been a sloppy kind of growth; what was newly made did not exactly replicate what was already there. But once produced by the primitive cell, DNA could become a stable place to store structural information about the cell's chaotic chemistry, something like the minutes taken by a secretary at a noisy committee meeting. There can be no doubt that the emergence of DNA was a crucial stage in the development of life, but we must avoid the mistake of reducing life to a master molecule in order to satisfy our emotional need for unambiguous simplicity. The experimental data, shorn of dogmatic theories, points to the irreducibility of the living cell, the inherent complexity of which suggests that any artificially altered genetic system, given the magnitude of our ignorance, must sooner or later give rise to unintended, potentially disastrous, consequences. We must be willing to recognize how little we truly understand about the secrets of the cell, the fundamental unit of life.

DNA
did not create life;
life created DNA

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.

As a result, funding for molecular genetics has rapidly increased over the last twenty years; new academic institutions, many of them "genomic" variants of more mundane professions, such as public health, have proliferated. At Harvard and other universities, the biology curriculum has become centered on the genome. But beyond the traditional scientific economy of prestige and the generous funding that follows it as night follows day, money has distorted the scientific process as a once purely academic pursuit has been commercialized to an astonishing degree by the researchers themselves. Biology has become a glittering target for venture capital; each new discovery brings new patents, new partnerships, new corporate affiliations. But as the growing opposition to transgenic crops clearly shows, there is persistent public concern not only with the safety of genetically engineered foods but also) with the inherent dangers in arbitrarily overriding patterns of inheritance that are embedded in the natural world. through long evolutionary experience. Too often those concerns have been derided by industry scientists as the "irrational" fears of an uneducated public. The irony, of course, is that the biotechnology industry is based on science that is forty years old and conveniently devoid of more recent results, which show that there are strong reasons to fear the potential consequences of transferring a DNA gene between species. What the public fears is not the experimental science but the fundamentally irrational decision to let it out of the laboratory into the real world before we truly understand it.

References
1: Dolly.
Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KH. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature. 1997. 385(6619):810-3.

2: ANDi.
Chan AWS, Chong KY, Martinovich C, Simerly C, and Schatten G. Transgenic Monkeys Produced by Retroviral Gene Transfer into Mature Oocytes. Science. 2001. 291:309-312.

3: Pigs that carry a gene for bovine growth hormone.
Pursel VG, Pinkert CA, Miller KF, Bolt DJ, Campbell RG, Palmiter RD, Brinster RL, Hammer RE. Genetic engineering of livestock. Science. 1989. 244(4910):1281-8.

4: Genetically engineered corn and soybean plants.
Thayer AM. Agbiotech. Chem. Engin. News. Oct 2, 2000. page.....

5: Developmental failure and malformations in clones.
Jaenisch R and Wilmut I. Don't Clone Hunans. Science. 2001. 291:2552

6: Altered host genome in transgenic soybeans.
Windels P., Taverniers I., Depicker A., Van Bockstaele E., and De Loose M.. Characterisation of the Roundup Ready soybean insert. Eur Food Res Technol. 2001. 213:107-112

7: The central dogma.
Crick F.H.C. On Protein Synthesis. In: Symposium of the society for experimental biology XII, p153. New York: Academic Press, 1958. This carefully reasoned account describes the molecular processes, as then known, that enable the DNA gene to govern the synthesis of a specific protein. Crick's basic hypotheses, the Sequence Hypothesis and the Central Dogma, are summarized.

8: Watson quotation.
Gorner P., and Kotulak R. Life by Design. Chicago Tribune. Apr 8, 1990.

9: Gilbert quotation.
Gilbert W. A Vision of the Grail. In: Daniel J Kevles and Leroy Hoof, eds. The Code of Codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project, p96, Cambridge Harvard University Press. 1992.

10: Clinton quotation.
Press Conference, White House, Office of Press Secretary, June 26, 2000.

11: Crick quotation.
Crick 1958 (above), page 152.

12: Crick quotation.
Crick 1958 (above), page 153.

13: Crick quotation.
Crick F.H.C. The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. 1970, Nature 227:561-563 (see page 563).

14: Nature article on Human Genome Project (public funding).
International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature. 2001. 409(6822): 860-921

15: Science article on Human Genome Project (private funding).
Venter JC, Adams MD, Myers EW, et al. The Sequence of the Human Genome. Science. 2001. 291:1304-1351.

16: Wade quotation.
Wade N. Genetic Sequence of Mouse is also Decoded. New York Times. Feb 13, 2001.

17: Lander quotation.
Dentzer S. "Sequencing Life", PBS Online News Hour. Feb 12 2001.

18: Alternative splicing quotation.
Venter et al 2001 (above), page 1345.

19: The role of the spliceosome in alternative splicing.
Collins CA, and Guthrie C. Allelespecific genetic interactions between Prp8 and RNA active site residues suggest a function for Prp8 at the catalytic core of the spliceosome. Genes Dev. 1999. 13(15):1970-82.

20: Alternative splicing; 576 inner ear variant proteins.
Black DL. Splicing in the inner ear: a familiar tune, but what are the instruments? Neuron. 1998. 20(2):165-8.

21: Alternative splicing; 38,016 variant fruit fly proteins.
Schmucker D, Clemens JC, Shu H, Worby CA, Xiao J, Muda M, Dixon JE, Zipursky SL. Drosophila Dscam is an axon guidance receptor exhibiting extraordinary molecular diversity. Cell. 2000 Jun 9;101(6):671-84.

22: The role of spliceosome proteins in the genetic information created by alternative splicing.
See Collins et al 1999 (above).

23: Alternative splicing in virus replication, 1078.
Nevins R, and Darnell JE Jr. Steps in the processing of Ad2 mRNA: Poly(A)+ nuclear sequences are conserved and Poly(A) addition precedes splicing. Cell. 1978. 15:14771493.

24: Alternative splicing in human cells, 1981.
DeNoto FM, Moore DD, and Goodman HM. Human growth hormone DNA sequence and mRNA structure: possible alternative splicing. Nuc Acids Res. 1981. 9:3719-30.

25: Papers on alternative splicing in humans published by 1989.
Results of PubMed search for articles containing "alternative splicing" AND "human".

26: the $3 billion project Venter et al 2001 (above).
page 1305

27: Watson and Crick quotation.
Watson J.D. and Crick F.H.C. Molecular structure of nucleic acids: A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature. 1953. 171:737-738.

28: Processes that improve fidelity of DNA replication.
Radman M., and Wagner R. The High Fidelity of DNA Replication. Scientific American.1988. August:40-46

29: Enzymes that synthesize DNA influence its nucleotide sequence.
Commoner B. The roles of deoxyribonucleic acid in inheritance. Nature. 1964. 203:486-91 Commoner B. Failure of the WatsonCrick theory as a chemical explanation of inheritance. Nature. 1968. 220:334-340.

30: Chaperones. Ellis RJ. Proteins as molecular chaperones.
Nature. 1987. 328:378-379. Ellis RJ and Hemmingsen SM. Molecular chaperones: proteins essential for the biogenesis of some macromolecular structures. 1989. Trends Bioch Sci. 14(:339-42

31: Prions.
S.B. Prusiner. The Prion Diseases One Protein, Two Shapes. Scientific American. 1995. 272(1):48-57.

32: U.S. transgenic crops.
Report released by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Agricultural Statistics Board, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Acreage. June 29, 2001.

33: Hardy quotation.
Hardy RWF. In Agricultural Research and Development. Hearing, U.S Senate before Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. Oct 6, 1999.

34: DNA miscoding repair in plants.
Tuteja N, Singh MB, Misra MK, Bhalla PL, Tuteja R. Molecular mechanisms of damage and repair: progress in plants. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2001;36(4):337-97.

35: Alternatively splicing in plants.
Comelli P, Konig J, Werr W. Alternative splicing of two leading exons partitions promoter activity between the coding regions of the maize homeobox gene Zmhox1a and Trap (transposon-associated protein). Plant Mol Biol. 1999 Nov;41(5):615-25.

36: Chaperones in plants.
Lund AA, Blum PH, Bhattramakki D, Elthon TE. Heat-stress response of mitochondria. Plant Physiol. 1998 Mar;116(3):1097-110.

37: Experimental failures in transgenic organisms.
Pursel VG, Hammer RE, Bolt DJ, Palmiter RD, Brinster RL. Integration, expression and germ-line transmission of growth-related genes in pigs. Reprod Fertil Suppl . 1990;41:7787 Pursel VG, Rexroad CE Jr, Bolt DJ, Miller KF, Wall RJ, Hammer RE, Pinkert CA, Palmiter RD, Brinster RL. Progress on gene transfer in farm animals. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 1987 Dec;17(1-4):303-12

38: Monsanto quotation.
Monsanto Company Product Safety Center. Confidential Report (MSL-16712). Updated Molecular Characterization and Safety Assessment of Roundup Ready Soybean Event 403-2. Monsanto Company. St Louis, MO.

39: Abnormal host DNA in transgenic soybeans.
Windels et al 2001 (above).

40: Transgenic plant's enzymes rearrange the alien gene's nucleotide sequence.
Kohli A, Leech M, Vain P, Laurie DA, Christou P. Transgene organization in rice engineered through direct DNA transfer supports a two-phase integration mechanism mediated by the establishment of integration hot spots. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Jun 9;95(12):7203-8.

41: DNA did not create life; life created
DNA. Commoner B. Relationship between biological information and the origin of life. In: Matsuno K, Dose K, Harada K, Rohlfing DL, eds. Molecular Evolution and Protobiology, p283, Plenum Press. New York. 1984.

Commoner B. Biochemical, biological and atmospheric evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1965 Jun;53

lol, most certainly...unless we're supposed to believe that second post was written in the seven minutes after the first one.

I also notice there's no "Ian" on that site's personnel page...please, insane claims is one thing, but trying to pass off someone else's work as your own is quite another.

mmmm cut and paste caught in the act, how old are you ian? perhaps you still haven't left junior school yet. tell me do you understand any of what you just cut and pasted? IF you are a Dr in genetics then please tell us what qualifications you have to back up your ludicrous claims?

you also need to know this

WHAT IS ETIC?



ETIC stands for Extra-Terrestrial Investigation Center. It is generally believed that the government has established up to five such sites (including the one at the FBI Center in West Virginia -- See HeartBeat). These centers are equipped to research and study life from throughout the universe and are staffed with exobiologists, people with PhDs in extra-terrestrial biology. For the most part, these experts study the possibility of life beyond our planet and/or microbes which have entered our atmosphere on our own spacecraft. One center is reportedly studying the feasibility of life on Jupiter’s moon, Europa.



For more information visit the web site for the NASA Exobiology Branch of the Ames Research Center.





WHAT IS SEPIFX?



SEPIFX is the Strategic Exobiological Program for Identifying Foreign Xenium. Very little is known about this program, but it may be involved in research in cloning, time travel, and/or ways of contacting or identifying intelligent life forms.



WHAT IS GENETIC MEMORY?



Genetic Memory refers to the theory that DNA can record memories and that these memories can be passed from one generation to the next. Under this theory, you would posses the memories of your parents up to the time of your conception. They, in turn, would have their parents’ memories and so on. Thus, you actually have the records of ALL of your ancestors recorded on your DNA. (This theory may explain the source of what we call instinct and also supports Jung’s theory of a Collective Unconsciousness). Many scholars believe that genetic memories manifest themselves in our dreams and nightmares and may explain the belief in “previous lives” that many people uncover under hypnosis. That is, our awareness of previous lives may actually be our recall of memories of our ancestors.



WHAT IS GENETIC DONOR SURVIVAL?



If we accept the theory of Genetic Memories, then any organ transplant has the potential to transplant the memories of the organ’s donor as well. Heart transplants are particularly important to this theory, since the heart (1) is perceived to be the seat of emotions, (2) sends out rhythms, (3) circulates blood and it’s own DNA to other parts of the host’s body, and (4) establishes an electrical connection to the host’s body -- which may tie the donated heart to the host’s brain.

The ability for hosts to recall the memories and/or habits of their donors is further studied and documented in the book The Heart’s Code by Paul Pearsall
so this is my theory i have met a man that called him self michael he was about 6ft tallhe had told me that he had a criptic message and sent me that first on i had put down on these furums. infact i could ot work it out and he then told me that is what he wanted to here he also gave me this criptiv code and i cant work this one out either so i am hoping you people will be able to help me thank you in advance Ian and yes my spelling has changed

No, no it hasn't...the webmasters of the sites you're stealing this from just know what a spellchecker is

just to let you know the site i copied and pasted that from is MY SITE i wrote it you all allready know i am paranoid so why the hell would i give you my real name its not ian you can choose to belive me or not but to be honest for the type of furums these are your very sceptical

I don't think there's anything paranoid in wondering how you can spell "exobiologists", and yet not be able to spell "forums" in your next post.

Your 'theory' is also not relevant at all to the subject matter...aside from the obvious fact that they are ideas that have been floating around for years, and did not come from the same source...so suggesting that they're all 'your theories'...not that you are suggesting that, as we've seen you can't spell 'theory'...is perhaps a bit of a fib, ne?

All you're doing is copying massive volumes of wordy text in an effort to sound more educated than you are...please do not. You're not dealing with a forum full of idiots.

yes ok

izzy, your last posts, well, you can fit into the bible!

i feel your all very judge mental towards people who have dyslextia your ment to be belivers and i come say wht my theorys are and you down me for it but wht the hay i wont bother you again and by the way 48 years old not a child

happy sightings to you all im off

Just out of curiousity, what is the URL of your site, Izzy ?

well umm that wraps up that story for today, tea and biscuits anyone?

Just one last quick thing...

I'll apologise in advance if, in any of my posts, I seem harsh...but nature, I'm a very sarcastic person, and I don't deny I can be cruel on occassion...however, I don't have a great deal of patience for people trying to play me, or anyone else, for a fool.

This...child...obviously is doing so. I'll probably turn my attention elsewhere after this last post, but geez...word of advice Ian, there's nothing wrong with coming in as a normal person, and learning about things the way everyone else does...your 'theories' are taught in just about every biology class there is...I know this because, unlike you, a have an A in advanced higher biology, and am current studying applied biosciences in University...you, to be blunt, are not. I don't see why you feel compelled to pass yourself off as an expert, when the holes in your claim are so glaringly obvious...there's nothing wrong being a layman, because part of the reason for forums like this is to learn.

As should be obvious, nobody seems to be buying your story...which doesn't surprise me at all...but I'd suggest, intead of going on a hissy fit because we didn't buy into it, that you instead just try and have a little grace, and maybe hang around...you might actually be able to come up with some genuine theories of your own, if you give some of the things people have an ear.

Until then however...we're not fools, so don't treat us like it

I'm dyslexic too and because I'm over 30 it wasn't discovered untill I sort out help for myself at college. I don't recognise words so everytime I look at writing I have to sound out the letter. But I hate sloppy spelling so I have a spellchecker check everthing before I post, but I do occasionally make the odd mistake.
What I'm trying to say is, there is allways a solution and if you make an effort others will make one back!

fewww......izzy...u are actualy trying to be smart, that is not the way to post your topic...forum is place that u share your experience and your idea's...furthermore to learn something new every time... As friend i would like to say be more mature and this is just advice..we hope you can accept it...And keep on posting your post (more relevent one)

Well, maybe you're not a hoax exactly. Still, it seems as if I was close. I could go way off into my own theories, but uh...well atleast I wouldn't go from having crappy spelling and not knowing what the word "grammer" means to professional grade writing. Also, your explinations are rather lame and characteristic of someone who has been caught in a lie and is trying to cover their rear. Still, I'm not a bad person in my own opinon and would love it if you'd come back and talk with us somemore. To be honest, I've been rather ignored since I've been here. Does that stop me? Hells no, I keep right on going. It does take a level a maturity to post on message boards period, and I'm proud to see I've finally started to reach that. Anyway, I'll shut up now and leave you with this...you don't need to impress anyone Ian/Izzy. Come to us as you really are, and be honest and open with us and we'll welcome you. And if we don't...we'll we should be beat for being such jerks.

Well, seeing as I eluded to the fact this topic may have been started by a child I had better be adult about this and post a reply to your long winded posts izzy . Enjoy your time on the board and please feel free to prove me wrong on my theory that people who start threads spelling poorly and then go on to be able to spell much better later anrn't all telling a wee fib ..

Well then, I'm kinda new here, ok REALLY new here but I just had to give cudos to y'all, willfully plagerizing (I better use my spell checker ) somebody elses research and claiming its your own isnt only ethicly defunct but VERY illegal, Izzy buddy, I'm not going to even go into the obvious gaps and inconsistency of your post, Nor will I point out the multitude of spelling errors you made, All of that has been pretty much done for me.

All I can do for you chum is reassure you that the universe is really big, its got lots of bright shiny things called Stars, and around those stars are planets, I would suggest that you try to come back to the planet called earth. I'm not a negative person by nature but really, COME ON izzy, what youve managed to do here is insult the collective intelligence of everybody who read your post, thats probably what torqued everyone off chummer, let me give you some valuable advice, repost a retraction of your original post and fly your own colours, dont pretend to be something or somebody you are not, in the end your hurting yourself. Hey, I dont hold any grudges

Wait a minute...posting to a message board requires maturity? Then I'm gonna have to quit posting, I don't want any of that crazy adulthood going and killing my buzz.

Whoa Did I write all that down? Holy crap I must have been really lucid cuz that just isnt like me at all

I have seen this thread b4 but never really checked it out. Today I decide to take a look and after the 1st post i was a little skeptical but man is this guy crazy or what. this was a bull story from the beginning and is now making me think of the other threads. Are all the other ones this crazy or are there real accounts of things here. I posted in another thread believing other posters because of my own experiences, but this guy is whacked in the head or he should be.

Julian.... Welcome Aboard.......... Good to meet you.

I think the lack of postings from the original author is due to the brow beating and general lambasting he recieved, we should all be ashamed, hang your heads low, we have destroyed this poor fellow, Ok, so his language skills were questionable at best, and his inconsistant posts were dubious from the start, he ripped off legitimate research in an attempt to pass it off as his own, thinking that we are all complete morons, his mental stability was debatable and he didnt even have a cool name n'stuff.......uhm, where was I going with this posting?

Thank you nancy for the welcome.

I have talked to a couple people here that seem to be pretty good about this stuff. That guy scares me though. He makes me think are there government officials checking this stuff or something. Looking for people that they can use or shut up. Because I don't want to be approached by someone in a black coat asking me questions about something I have no idea about.

where is this time coming from. as i write this it is 3:15 in united states time on the east coast but my post says 7:15

Julian,

The forum clock is set at GMT as a default. You can change the clock settings using your controls option link at the top of the page.

MM