Thursday, June 22, 2006
Thought of the Day
If you want to have friends, you must be friendly. If you want to make peace, you must be peaceful.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Chromosome Fusion
The latest newsletter from Michael Tellinger :
"Evidence of DNA manipulation in our distant past?
The Human Genome Project has dished up some real surprises to scientists. The first surprise was the vast percentage of the human DNA that is inactive. It is estimated that at least 97% of our DNA is in actual fact a waste of space, as it does not contain any active genes that actually carry the code for any of our physical makeup. Then within the genes there are Introns – parts that do not carry any code; and Exons - sections that carry some sort of genetic code. The full length of our DNA is made up of some 20 000 genes that have now been identified. These genes carry the blueprint for the structure of our entire body. What is very puzzling is the fact that Homo sapiens, as the supposed pinnacle if civilized evolution on this planet, should have such large parts of unused DNA. We seem to have the longest DNA molecule among all other species, but we use the smallest part of it in proportion to the other species. In other words, all the other creatures use much more of their DNA than humans do. Some species use as much as 98% of their DNA.
This flies directly in the face of the principles of evolution. Humans should have the most complex and evolved DNA of all creatures, to have reached levels of civilization seemingly much higher than any other species on Earth over millions of years of evolution. What is even more curious is the predicted number of genes in species. The numbers seem to increase steadily from basic organisms to the most advanced. We would expect that humans should end up having most genes, but strangely this is not the case. Here are some examples of the predictions for total number of genes in species. Fruit Fly 21 000; Zebrafish 50 000; Chicken 76 000; Mouse 81 000; Chimp 130 000; Human 68 000.
Can you see the problem here? The Chimp is our closest know genetic relative and yet it has almost twice as many genes as humans. And then we get to the anomaly of the chromosomes. Our DNA is broken up into 23 pairs of chromosomes. By comparison, all apes have 24 pairs. One would expect that Homo erectus, our immediate evolutionary precursor would then also have had 24 chromosome pairs.
Just one year ago on 6 April 2005, researchers from the National Human Genome Research Institute announced that "A detailed analysis of chromosomes 2 and 4 has detected the largest "gene deserts" known in the human genome and uncovered more evidence that human chromosome 2 arose from the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes" as reported in Nature. It is also the second largest chromosome we possess and it seems to make no sense why 2 primordial chromosomes should have merged to make us human, if this new chromosome gives us no apparent advantage for survival.
So when we read in the Sumerian tablets that humans were cloned as a sub-species between Homo erectus and a more advanced human-like species that arrived on Earth some 400 000 years ago, it suddenly makes a little bit more sense. The tablets describe how our maker removed certain parts of the "Tree of life" to trim the ability of the new "creature" and how they struggled to make the perfect "primitive worker" so that it could understand commands but not be too smart to question their existence. Similar suggestions of genetic cloning are made in The Koran and Hindu Laws of Manu.
The Koran:
• Ya Sin: "Is man not aware that We created him from a little germ?"
• The Believers - God says almost verbatim what the Sumerian tablets tell us. "We first created man from an essence of clay; then placed him a living germ in a secure enclosure. The germ we made a clot of blood, and the clot a lump of flesh. This we fashioned into bones, then clothed the bones with flesh…"
Laws of Manu:
• 19. But from minute body (-framing) particles of these seven very powerful Purushas springs this (world), the perishable from the imperishable.
• 20. Among them each succeeding (element) acquires the quality of the preceding one, and whatever place (in the sequence) each of them occupies, even so many qualities it is declared to possess.
Notice the reference to "We" by the creator. The cloning of humans as a more primitive worker or "lulu amelu" suddenly does not seem so far fetched and the strange genetic anomalies seem to support some genetic manipulation in our distant past. The modern-day researchers go further to say that this "fusion" of our chromosome 2 is what makes us human.
Are we getting closer to proving that humans were created by his MAKER as slaves to work in the early gold mines on Earth? It certainly seems like it."
"Evidence of DNA manipulation in our distant past?
The Human Genome Project has dished up some real surprises to scientists. The first surprise was the vast percentage of the human DNA that is inactive. It is estimated that at least 97% of our DNA is in actual fact a waste of space, as it does not contain any active genes that actually carry the code for any of our physical makeup. Then within the genes there are Introns – parts that do not carry any code; and Exons - sections that carry some sort of genetic code. The full length of our DNA is made up of some 20 000 genes that have now been identified. These genes carry the blueprint for the structure of our entire body. What is very puzzling is the fact that Homo sapiens, as the supposed pinnacle if civilized evolution on this planet, should have such large parts of unused DNA. We seem to have the longest DNA molecule among all other species, but we use the smallest part of it in proportion to the other species. In other words, all the other creatures use much more of their DNA than humans do. Some species use as much as 98% of their DNA.
This flies directly in the face of the principles of evolution. Humans should have the most complex and evolved DNA of all creatures, to have reached levels of civilization seemingly much higher than any other species on Earth over millions of years of evolution. What is even more curious is the predicted number of genes in species. The numbers seem to increase steadily from basic organisms to the most advanced. We would expect that humans should end up having most genes, but strangely this is not the case. Here are some examples of the predictions for total number of genes in species. Fruit Fly 21 000; Zebrafish 50 000; Chicken 76 000; Mouse 81 000; Chimp 130 000; Human 68 000.
Can you see the problem here? The Chimp is our closest know genetic relative and yet it has almost twice as many genes as humans. And then we get to the anomaly of the chromosomes. Our DNA is broken up into 23 pairs of chromosomes. By comparison, all apes have 24 pairs. One would expect that Homo erectus, our immediate evolutionary precursor would then also have had 24 chromosome pairs.
Just one year ago on 6 April 2005, researchers from the National Human Genome Research Institute announced that "A detailed analysis of chromosomes 2 and 4 has detected the largest "gene deserts" known in the human genome and uncovered more evidence that human chromosome 2 arose from the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes" as reported in Nature. It is also the second largest chromosome we possess and it seems to make no sense why 2 primordial chromosomes should have merged to make us human, if this new chromosome gives us no apparent advantage for survival.
So when we read in the Sumerian tablets that humans were cloned as a sub-species between Homo erectus and a more advanced human-like species that arrived on Earth some 400 000 years ago, it suddenly makes a little bit more sense. The tablets describe how our maker removed certain parts of the "Tree of life" to trim the ability of the new "creature" and how they struggled to make the perfect "primitive worker" so that it could understand commands but not be too smart to question their existence. Similar suggestions of genetic cloning are made in The Koran and Hindu Laws of Manu.
The Koran:
• Ya Sin: "Is man not aware that We created him from a little germ?"
• The Believers - God says almost verbatim what the Sumerian tablets tell us. "We first created man from an essence of clay; then placed him a living germ in a secure enclosure. The germ we made a clot of blood, and the clot a lump of flesh. This we fashioned into bones, then clothed the bones with flesh…"
Laws of Manu:
• 19. But from minute body (-framing) particles of these seven very powerful Purushas springs this (world), the perishable from the imperishable.
• 20. Among them each succeeding (element) acquires the quality of the preceding one, and whatever place (in the sequence) each of them occupies, even so many qualities it is declared to possess.
Notice the reference to "We" by the creator. The cloning of humans as a more primitive worker or "lulu amelu" suddenly does not seem so far fetched and the strange genetic anomalies seem to support some genetic manipulation in our distant past. The modern-day researchers go further to say that this "fusion" of our chromosome 2 is what makes us human.
Are we getting closer to proving that humans were created by his MAKER as slaves to work in the early gold mines on Earth? It certainly seems like it."
Monday, June 12, 2006
'Hobbit' hominids
This is an interesting find that adds to my previous post that may bring more of the puzzle pieces together:
"'Hobbit' hominids trigger giant row
Thu, 01 Jun 2006
Anthropologists have traded new blows over the remains of dwarf humans whose discovery on a remote Indonesian island blasted a hole in theories about the Ascent of Man.
Dubbed "hobbits" after the wee folk of J.R.R. Tolkien's tale, the hominids, discovered in 2003, measured only about a metre tall and had a skull about the size of a grapefruit.
The bones of at least nine individuals were found in a cave in the island of Flores, lying in sediments carbon-dated to around 18 000 years old. Near these remains were sophisticated stone tools and butchered animals, including a now-extinct miniature elephant.
Their discoverers claim the hominid, which they have honoured as Homo floresiensis, was a separate species of human who descended from Homo erectus, which is also the ancestor of modern man.
That assertion ignited a fierce row.
If true, it would mean that Homo sapiens, who are believed to have been around for 150 000 — 200 000 years, would have shared the planet with rival humans far more recently than anyone had thought.
And it would raise the vexing question as to whether H. sapiens and H. floresiensis interbred, which would presumably have left "hobbit" genes in our genetic code today.
In the past months, the scientific journals have blazed with debate. The exchange has sometimes seethed with barbed accusations about denial of access to the Liang Bua cave and to the now-famous fossils themselves.
Three weeks ago, primatologists led by Robert Martin of the highly regarded Field Museum in Chicago savaged the Flores claims as "media hype" and — the thermonuclear insult in anthropology — as bad science.
Martin said the Flores hominids were not a separate species but quite simply Homo sapiens who suffered from a pathological condition called microcephaly, which results in a small brain and body.
And he rubbished the notion that the large, complex tools found in the cave could have been created and used by a species with such tiny brains.
Given the dating of these tools, only H. sapiens, who presumably came to the cave after the pint-sized hominids had left or died out, could have had this ability, he said.
The rebuttal has been almost instant.
In a paper published on Thursday in the British science journal Nature, a team led by Adam Brumm of the Australian National University in Canberra take aim at what they call "lingering doubts" about the tools.
Their team — who include Mike Morwood, a University of New England professor who directed the original dig — examined 507 artefacts found at Mata Menge, 50 kilometres from the Liang Bua cave and dated as more than 800 000 years old.
Even though hundreds of thousands of years separate the Mata Menga and Liang Bua artefacts, there are remarkable similarities in the flint tools, in the choice of material and the angle and shape of the blade.
For Brumm, this means that H. floresiensis picked up the tool-making skills from their ancestors, H. erectus, who lived on Flores before changes in food supply forced the hominids to gradually downsize, becoming the little people found in 2003.
The study fires an appropriately lapidary volley at Hobbit-doubters.
"Pronouncements that H. floresiensis lacked the brain size necessary to make stone artefacts are... based on preconceptions rather than actual evidence," it says."
View Article Here
"'Hobbit' hominids trigger giant row
Thu, 01 Jun 2006
Anthropologists have traded new blows over the remains of dwarf humans whose discovery on a remote Indonesian island blasted a hole in theories about the Ascent of Man.
Dubbed "hobbits" after the wee folk of J.R.R. Tolkien's tale, the hominids, discovered in 2003, measured only about a metre tall and had a skull about the size of a grapefruit.
The bones of at least nine individuals were found in a cave in the island of Flores, lying in sediments carbon-dated to around 18 000 years old. Near these remains were sophisticated stone tools and butchered animals, including a now-extinct miniature elephant.
Their discoverers claim the hominid, which they have honoured as Homo floresiensis, was a separate species of human who descended from Homo erectus, which is also the ancestor of modern man.
That assertion ignited a fierce row.
If true, it would mean that Homo sapiens, who are believed to have been around for 150 000 — 200 000 years, would have shared the planet with rival humans far more recently than anyone had thought.
And it would raise the vexing question as to whether H. sapiens and H. floresiensis interbred, which would presumably have left "hobbit" genes in our genetic code today.
In the past months, the scientific journals have blazed with debate. The exchange has sometimes seethed with barbed accusations about denial of access to the Liang Bua cave and to the now-famous fossils themselves.
Three weeks ago, primatologists led by Robert Martin of the highly regarded Field Museum in Chicago savaged the Flores claims as "media hype" and — the thermonuclear insult in anthropology — as bad science.
Martin said the Flores hominids were not a separate species but quite simply Homo sapiens who suffered from a pathological condition called microcephaly, which results in a small brain and body.
And he rubbished the notion that the large, complex tools found in the cave could have been created and used by a species with such tiny brains.
Given the dating of these tools, only H. sapiens, who presumably came to the cave after the pint-sized hominids had left or died out, could have had this ability, he said.
The rebuttal has been almost instant.
In a paper published on Thursday in the British science journal Nature, a team led by Adam Brumm of the Australian National University in Canberra take aim at what they call "lingering doubts" about the tools.
Their team — who include Mike Morwood, a University of New England professor who directed the original dig — examined 507 artefacts found at Mata Menge, 50 kilometres from the Liang Bua cave and dated as more than 800 000 years old.
Even though hundreds of thousands of years separate the Mata Menga and Liang Bua artefacts, there are remarkable similarities in the flint tools, in the choice of material and the angle and shape of the blade.
For Brumm, this means that H. floresiensis picked up the tool-making skills from their ancestors, H. erectus, who lived on Flores before changes in food supply forced the hominids to gradually downsize, becoming the little people found in 2003.
The study fires an appropriately lapidary volley at Hobbit-doubters.
"Pronouncements that H. floresiensis lacked the brain size necessary to make stone artefacts are... based on preconceptions rather than actual evidence," it says."
View Article Here
More on Slave Species
I quote the other interesting comment on Slave Species of God here as well :
"Michael Tellinger has started a monthly newsletter where he sends out information of the latest discoveries regarding the topics he talks about in his book. I found a few articles this week myself on Google news that slowly makes the puzzle of our murky past seems like it is not so far fetched after all?? I strongly suggest that you go to the Slave Species website and subscribe.
I include the article from the Washington post to wet your appetite. Keep exploring.
HUMAN ANCESTORS MAY HAVE INTERBRED WITH CHIMPANZEES
When Nick Patterson of MIT and his colleagues at the Broad Institute compared the genes of humans and chimps, they found that one of the chromosomes -- the female sex chromosome X -- was 1.2 million years younger than the others. It appeared the two species shared a common ancestor who gave them both their X chromosomes, and did so more recently than the ancestors who gave them all the other chromosomes.
The best explanation, the scientists think, is that ancient humans and chimps broke away from each other not once, but twice. The first time was more than 6.3 million years ago. The second time was at least a million years later. What probably happened was that some of the evolving human ancestors bred with the evolving chimps. This was perhaps not as strange as it seems, for although there were some physical differences between the two groups, "the early humans must have looked pretty much like chimpanzees," said Mallet, the London geneticist.
Males have only one X chromosome, which is necessary for reproduction. As is often the case with hybrids, the male offspring from these unions would probably have been infertile.
But the females, which have two X chromosomes, would have been fertile. If some of those hybrid females then bred with proto-chimp males, some of their male offspring would have received a working X from the chimp side of the family. They would have been fertile -- and with them the hybrid line would have been off and reproducing on its own.
The evolutionary clock indicates this happened no more than 6.3 million years ago, and perhaps as recently as 5.4 million years ago. In that case, the fossils of older species -- such as Toumai, or Sahelanthropus tchadensis, a proto-man from Chad that had a humanlike brow and probably walked on two feet -- must have belonged to descendants of the first human-chimp divergence.
That line must have died out. If it had not, modern man's X chromosome would look as old (or nearly as old) as the other chromosomes.
"I think the most interesting thing [is] this idea that long, extended gene flow seems to have occurred and that this might be a creative mode of evolution," said David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School. He is one of the authors of the study, which appears in today's issue of the journal Nature.
The idea that new species emerge in a slow and stuttering fashion was favored by Charles Darwin, Mallet said. But in the early part of the 20th century, biologists came to favor the idea of clean breaks, with the "pure" lines of emerging species being stronger and fitter than hybrids.
In fact, Mallet said, about 10 percent of animal species are capable of interbreeding with related species, even though the number that do so in any population is very small.
By David Brown Washington Post Staff Writer - Thursday, May 18, 2006"
"Michael Tellinger has started a monthly newsletter where he sends out information of the latest discoveries regarding the topics he talks about in his book. I found a few articles this week myself on Google news that slowly makes the puzzle of our murky past seems like it is not so far fetched after all?? I strongly suggest that you go to the Slave Species website and subscribe.
I include the article from the Washington post to wet your appetite. Keep exploring.
HUMAN ANCESTORS MAY HAVE INTERBRED WITH CHIMPANZEES
When Nick Patterson of MIT and his colleagues at the Broad Institute compared the genes of humans and chimps, they found that one of the chromosomes -- the female sex chromosome X -- was 1.2 million years younger than the others. It appeared the two species shared a common ancestor who gave them both their X chromosomes, and did so more recently than the ancestors who gave them all the other chromosomes.
The best explanation, the scientists think, is that ancient humans and chimps broke away from each other not once, but twice. The first time was more than 6.3 million years ago. The second time was at least a million years later. What probably happened was that some of the evolving human ancestors bred with the evolving chimps. This was perhaps not as strange as it seems, for although there were some physical differences between the two groups, "the early humans must have looked pretty much like chimpanzees," said Mallet, the London geneticist.
Males have only one X chromosome, which is necessary for reproduction. As is often the case with hybrids, the male offspring from these unions would probably have been infertile.
But the females, which have two X chromosomes, would have been fertile. If some of those hybrid females then bred with proto-chimp males, some of their male offspring would have received a working X from the chimp side of the family. They would have been fertile -- and with them the hybrid line would have been off and reproducing on its own.
The evolutionary clock indicates this happened no more than 6.3 million years ago, and perhaps as recently as 5.4 million years ago. In that case, the fossils of older species -- such as Toumai, or Sahelanthropus tchadensis, a proto-man from Chad that had a humanlike brow and probably walked on two feet -- must have belonged to descendants of the first human-chimp divergence.
That line must have died out. If it had not, modern man's X chromosome would look as old (or nearly as old) as the other chromosomes.
"I think the most interesting thing [is] this idea that long, extended gene flow seems to have occurred and that this might be a creative mode of evolution," said David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School. He is one of the authors of the study, which appears in today's issue of the journal Nature.
The idea that new species emerge in a slow and stuttering fashion was favored by Charles Darwin, Mallet said. But in the early part of the 20th century, biologists came to favor the idea of clean breaks, with the "pure" lines of emerging species being stronger and fitter than hybrids.
In fact, Mallet said, about 10 percent of animal species are capable of interbreeding with related species, even though the number that do so in any population is very small.
By David Brown Washington Post Staff Writer - Thursday, May 18, 2006"
Friday, June 09, 2006
Slave Species of God Revisited
I have recently been honored by a few great posts on my previous reference to Michael Tellinger's book "Slave Species of God". I have read through to whole book and couldn't wait to pass the information on. I will be reading through the boook again. It has some great content for the free mind. Please note as well that Michael has his own great website now. Click here to go there. I repeat some of the post content here :
"podcast intro - Slave Species of God
Hi Everyone please come and have a listen to my first Pod cast .Its an introduction to my book and will help get you into the debate that the book is stirring up around the world.
Podcast Intro to Slave Species of God
just copy and paste it into your browser
best wishes
Michael Tellinger"
"podcast intro - Slave Species of God
Hi Everyone please come and have a listen to my first Pod cast .Its an introduction to my book and will help get you into the debate that the book is stirring up around the world.
Podcast Intro to Slave Species of God
just copy and paste it into your browser
best wishes
Michael Tellinger"
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Discarding of nonsensical worries
Once upon a time, there were two monks who went on a pilgrimage across the country together. One day, they came to a river bank and saw a beautiful girl who was unable to cross the river.
Seeing her difficulty, the elder monk volunteered to carry her across the river on his back while the younger one looked on in consternation.
When the sun went down, the monks came upon a dilapidated shack and decided to stay there for the night. The elder monk quickly fell asleep while the younger one twisted around, unable to calm his mind. Finally, he woke up the elder monk and reprimanded him for what happened during the day, "As monks, we are supposed to keep away from women. I am really ashamed and troubled by what you did today!"
The elder monk looked at his friend and a smile broke up on his face, "Oh, so that has been bothering you! Brother, I have left the girl behind by the river bank, why are you still carrying her around?"
Seeing her difficulty, the elder monk volunteered to carry her across the river on his back while the younger one looked on in consternation.
When the sun went down, the monks came upon a dilapidated shack and decided to stay there for the night. The elder monk quickly fell asleep while the younger one twisted around, unable to calm his mind. Finally, he woke up the elder monk and reprimanded him for what happened during the day, "As monks, we are supposed to keep away from women. I am really ashamed and troubled by what you did today!"
The elder monk looked at his friend and a smile broke up on his face, "Oh, so that has been bothering you! Brother, I have left the girl behind by the river bank, why are you still carrying her around?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
