Checksum discovered in DNA: More evidence of Simulation Theory?

reply to post by alfa1


Nice find! I just hope I can comprehend most of it.

Seems to me that it's in our DNA to self-replicate parts of our body, like lizards do since the "checksum" is there to do so- but it's just switched "off" currently.
If scientists could figure out which sequence switch is responsible for that could also be responsible to regrow limbs, cure diseases and even make us nearly immortal!
Now it's possible that many centuries of in-breeding the human race has actually "turned off" that switch on their own, hence the Bible (in Genesis) claimed the 1st humans living living 600-900+ years.
I think Cancer is the closest thing to that, after all cancerous cells grow at alarming rates but they won't listen to the body's instructions to "turn off" along with not replicating and repairing the right cells as they should.
I believe that once scientists find out how to reprogram cancerous cells to repair good cells it will unlock that part of our "switched off" DNA that would allow us to live nearly 1,000 years- either that or we'll have #loads of ZOMBIES
walking the Earth after the same scientists infect themselves with hopes of living forever lol!

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by FlySolo

 

Nice post. I replied to a thread about this a few weeks ago. I did some basic 5-minute googling to find out about checksum. I did that here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It makes sense that if something works nature will use it. So humans create a program, so what? Why can't nature create programs too, through trial and error? It has billions of years and lights years of space, so why not? I think it's not weird that nature would do this. What's weird is the fractal-like nature of things. Most scientists believe the infinitely small (and large) are not fractal-like, though.

edit on 21-4-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

Inert matter cannot collapse the indeterminate wave of probability. Collapsing wave function theory demonstrates that it takes consciousness acting on matter to make a choice to change the states of matter with purpose. Additionally, entropy in information theory demonstrates that bits of information in nature will degrade over time. Life could have never risen to consciousness apart from the reversal of information entropy. Nothing rises above its source. Can a widget create a robot that can then create a different widget? No. All things in this reality flow from a source. The sun and moon cannot be our source. We are vastly more complex than the sun and the moon. What does that tell you about us and our source?

Originally posted by FlySolo
Nice find! I just hope I can comprehend most of it.

I'm not at all familiar with Dragon folding, which seems to be something that Martin Gardner popularised in Scientific American, so I'll skip that, but on the genetics...


What he seems to have done is to take the whole genome, and count sets of three, one base at a time. "Codon" is a poor word for that because the word "codon" specifically refers to an intermediate step in amino acid construction and he's not using it in that sense here.

eg. TACGGATGAC...
he counts TAC, then also ACG, then CGG, then GGA, and so forth, one step at a time, which is why he comes up with the total of 3 billion "codons" (his word), which isnt right because humans have 3 billion base pairs in total.

So at this point he's got 3 billion sets of three nucleotides, which in no way correspond to anything in biology, and proceeds to stuff those counts into the matrix specifically set out for amino acid coding... which has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

From here on he gets some nice numbers which match up to within 0.1 percent of "( 3 - Phi ) / 2" , but I cant see what the point of it all is.
Nor it is stated why he chose "( 3 - Phi ) / 2" as the goal. He probably just tried a bunch of different variations of formulas somehow related to phi, until he got a hit.

Still not seeing there's anything meaningful here.

P.S. Another copy of it can be found here , as a pdf file.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


You can't use the bible to prove that god exists because it's just a book written by humans with borrowed stories.

And the reason why nuclear power, which always leaks, plus fukushima, is so damaging; simply because it destroys dna. No checksum. Culminative.

reply to post by FlySolo

What does it mean? It very simply means that ALL things are connected. Once you figure that part out it makes life much easier to live and the questions less daunting.

So I'm a robit?
Explains why we have a hard time reaching consensus.

reply to post by alfa1


You know, I would really like to discuss this but sadly, this sh!t is way over my head. Very heavy reading. All I can really do is relay back what I found regarding the subject and give my opinion. I'm sure Perez has his criticisms within his circle. If he's not right, then I would expect to see others refuting him. If successful, then my mind will change. It's really not my place to say yes or no about it seeing I don't have a masters in microbiology. It's not even close to what I do for a living. So what can I say other than I believe in the results of his studies? To me. it resonates within me and makes sense. That's all I can offer.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by MichaelYoung
Sorry, but checksums in DNA are hardly evidence that the whole universe is a simulation.

It's far more likely that we were genetically engineered by aliens, IMO.

That's the sequel. Considering checksums aren't a natural occurrence, perhaps everything has been engineered

edit on 20-4-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)

What's your objective evidence that checksums aren't natural?

Computer code

It's a chemical process we humans DECIDE to express as a code. You can express pretty much everything you want with math

That's not evidence of a creator...

You can express anything mathematically because everything on every level has a value.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

You can't use the bible to prove that god exists because it's just a book written by humans with borrowed stories.

It's divinely inspired and none of the stories are borrowed.

Second line.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

You can't use the bible to prove that god exists because it's just a book written by humans with borrowed stories.

It's divinely inspired and none of the stories are borrowed. The biblical God is the one and only god.

Second line.

reply to post by Screwed


Meatsuit lol. 2nd line lol

This video right here is one hell of an eye opener. Highly relates to the OP's message indirectly.

reply to post by Mizzijr


Awesome, basically everything I've been saying for a while now on ATS... more so in conversations with others....

(credit: enochwasright presented the following on a different thread)

St. Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354 - 430) wrote " Numbers are the Universal language offered by the deity to humans as confirmation of the truth." Similar to Pythagoras, he too believed that everything had numerical relationships and it was up to the mind to seek and investigate the secrets of these relationships or have them revealed by divine grace. In 325 A.D., following the First Council of Nicaea, departures from the beliefs of the state Church were classified as civil violations within the Roman Empire. Numerology had not found favor with the Christian authority of the day and was assigned to the field of unapproved beliefs along with astrology and other forms of divination and "magic." Through this religious purging, the spiritual significance assigned to the heretofore "sacred" numbers began to disappear. An example of the influence of numerology in English literature is Sir Thomas Browne's 1658 Discourse The Garden of Cyrus. In it the author illustrates that the number five and related Quincunx pattern throughout art, nature and mysticism.

in which the following link was provided:
www.paralumun.com...

back on page 4 I explained how numbers progress, then I explained how a story line may be derived from it...

now lets think, has this ever been considered before?

EVERY ANCIENT PHILOSOPHER RECOGNIZED BY TODAY'S SCHOLARS INTENSELY STUDIED GEOMETRY... and you wonder how they came up with much that they did?

Sacred geometry is the geometry used in the planning and construction of religious structures such as churches, temples, mosques, religious monuments, altars, tabernacles; as well as for sacred spaces such as temenoi, sacred groves, village greens and holy wells, and the creation of religious art. In sacred geometry, symbolic and sacred meanings are ascribed to certain geometric shapes and certain geometric proportions. According to Paul Calter:[1] In the ancient world certain numbers had symbolic meaning, aside from their ordinary use for counting or calculating ... plane figures, the polygons, triangles, squares, hexagons, and so forth, were related to the numbers (three and the triangle, for example), were thought of in a similar way, and in fact, carried even more emotional value than the numbers themselves, because they were visual.

en.wikipedia.org...

I know I will regret posting the following images... but hey, what the heck...

philosophy routed in geometry, and the link towards god.



what's that a picture of on the bottom right? Figure it out and get a cookie

The next image, is an old one I created a while back, I have made a new version that accurately depicts the geometry, scaling, and proper terminology... but that's on reserve for now. Say what you will, but there's truth in it.




destroy at will, lol!

We are software.

That is only what I can say. Please understand.

Originally posted by FlySolo
Considering checksums aren't a natural occurrence, perhaps everything has been engineered

Everything is engineered, by us, one a constant basis. We create our collective reality with our collective ideas and actions. We are the engineers on this sad excuse for a reality.

That's why I don't take it seriously, at all, but will try to contribute, because it is right.

As long as I can get my blaze/drink on while I'm doing it.

Really interesting thanks OP.

I've been programming since i was 12 or 13 so this is a fascinating find.

I'll read up some more and p[ost anything meaningful.

Of course we're living in a simulation!

Thank God the secular folks are now discovering this,

it's just a shame they think it's some sort of alien race or advanced beings running the simulation,

folk,s that's wrong

The Conductor is THE SUPREME BEING, the LORD, YAHVEH.

The one pulling the strings and who implemented all the codes you found and who is driving nature,physics, evolution, and everything around us and in us, Jesus the Christ.....

The realm of Sheol is much realer than the Earth realm, believe me.....

Now it's time for everyone to catch up and give glory to our glorious Simulator!

Originally posted by alfa1
So at this point he's got 3 billion sets of three nucleotides, which in no way correspond to anything in biology, and proceeds to stuff those counts into the matrix specifically set out for amino acid coding... which has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Not only that, but it does not even reflect reality. No human genome assembly is 100% complete because with current technology, it's impossible to determine the exact length of long repetitive regions. These regions are very frequent, and obviously affect the derived triplets (by changing reading frames). More than that, insertions, deletions, duplications (all very frequent events in the human genome, also utilized for genetic finger printing via bar coding) make all human genomes unique (also different in length) which obviously again changes these derived triplets (i.e. every human genome would give totally different results from this type of analysis).

The only place where codon usage gives meaningful results is within protein-coding genes. It's meaningless elsewhere, and this paper is only about fitting data into a model, i.e. it's completely subjective. I wonder how the hell it managed to pass peer-review. It's a low impact factor computer science journal, so I guess the peers might have been computer scientists (and totally ignorant of what is meaningful and what is not in molecular biology). Summa summarum, subjective and meaningless analysis of meaningless data.