UK Eugenicists play God, Again: Synthetic DNA 'created.' Behold: The X-NASubmitted by AnCapMercenary on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 08:01
"There is nothing Goldilocks about DNA and RNA," Holliger told Science. "There is no overwhelming functional imperative for genetic systems or biology to be based on these two nucleic acids."
If that doesn't sum up the dangerous God Complex pandemic rampant amongst the Ruling Class and their sycophantic Enablers, I don't know what does.
They haven't got the SLIGHTEST clue on how one of the most fundamental forces at play in our universe called the Gravity works, yet they want to play god with the Natural Order.
Artificial genetic material – XNAs – expected to reveal how molecules first replicated and drive biotechnology research
Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 19 April 2012 14.28 EDT
Scientists have created artificial genetic material that can store information and evolve over generations in a similar way to DNA – a feat expected to drive research in medicine and biotechnology, and shed light on how molecules first replicated and assembled into life billions of years ago.
Ultimately, the creation of alternatives to DNA could enable scientists to make novel forms of life in the laboratory.
Researchers at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, in Cambridge, developed chemical procedures to turn DNA and RNA, the molecular blueprints for all known life, into six alternative genetic polymers called XNAs.
These arrogant monsters can't even explain what they're 'studying,' so being the 'objective' "scientists" that they are, they decided to moronically label something that they were completely clueless about in high Latin: "Junk DNA."
Sure, they believe in natural selection and evolution, yet cannot intellectually accept why Nature must have continued to evolve to KEEP parts of DNA that they cannot understand why we need it. So being the 'brilliantly objective scientists' that they are, what do they do? At the height of hypocrisy, when faced with something that they cannot fathom why, they decide the very Mother Nature that they worship, MUST be stupider than they are.
And what do insecure children do, when faced with something infinitely more brilliant than they are? Ridicule it: "junk," just because their neurotically childish and arrogant tiny little minds cannot fathom it.
Hm... what do you know: sounds just like how they treat Dr. Paul and the R3VOLution.
SO in their 'if we can't fathom it, it MUST be "junk"' so they decided they can and should create their own synthetic version of the DNA.
Just what is wrong with our species??
The arrogance of 'scientists' aka, the modern day Post-Vatican clergy, will be the downfall of us all!
Just you wait: like all things arrogant
scientists modern-clergy release into the world, like DU, nuclear weapons, GMO, once it enters into the biosphere, it will poison and doom us all, eventually.
Hopefully, the more sane American warning wins the day in this arena:
In his article on the Cambridge study [Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California's Gerald] Joyce alludes to the potential dangers of synthetic genetics. He writes: "As one contemplates all the alternative life forms that might be possible with XNAs and other more exotic genetic molecules, the words of Arthur C Clarke come to mind. In 2010: Odyssey Two, HAL the computer tells humanity, 'all these worlds are yours', but warns – 'except [Jupiter's moon] Europa, attempt no landings there'. Synthetic biologists are beginning to frolic on the worlds of alternative genetics but must not tread into areas that have the potential to harm our biology."
PS. On a side note, you'll see the vestiges of the British 'Aristocracy' funded Eugenics movement still rampant, and alive & well, if you regularly peruse The Nature, BBC, the Guardian, Telegraph, and DailyMail (the MOST important tabloid IMHO: along with their incessant & endless coverage of Pippa, Posh Spice, and the Kardashians, they manage to squeeze in some expose' that are astoundingly more NYT than what NYT should be or have become), like I do, you'll too soon conclude that MOST prolific eugenics news comes out of the UK press.
In fact, the Briton upper echelon inbreds are OBSESSED with it, still.
Hitler ain't got nothing on the Anglo eugenicists!
Well, not surprising since, as anyone who have researched the topic would already know, the Anglo-American banksters actively formulated and funded Mussolini, Mao, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler et al; hell practically almost every "-isms" of the last 150+ yrs were funded by 'them' as series of controlled oppositions.
UPDATE: A Personal Observation.
[** Please be advised. Yes, I tend to be verbose, and I sincerely thank you for responding. However, if you do want to respond, I'd ask that you kindly read through all of my rather long winded replies to see the context of the arguments being made, instead of deciding a priri, as if this is some groundless 'anti-science' thread. Thanks.]
Though NOT my intent, in light of how this particular topic of discussion inevitably, invariably DEVOLVE into a simplistic intellectual debate between Evolution vs. Creationism from a strictly Judeo-Christian worldview, let me make this clear:
I am NOT a strict "creationist" NOR an "evolutionist." PERIOD.
My simple contention is that we do not know for certain, either way. And if one were truly honest and humble, one would have to at least agree that we know nothing, in the aggregate.
And, that there are uncontrollable, inherent danger built-in, when you 'play God' with the Natural Order.
So in this case, if one truly researched into the Ruling Class' proven and admitted History Eugenics Agenda:
Eugenics in America & UK
Dangers of Nano Biotech
this should be clear: yes, this phase of eugenics progression is EVIL. Pure Evil.
No 'Good' people decide to play god with inherently irreversibly dangerous tech with matters they do not and cannot fully comprehend. Especially, one which even by libertarian/ancap free market model, these 'scientists' cannot fully control who, how or WHEN they will 'inadvertently' affect, nor one in which victims of their god experiment have any real recourse for.
Seriously, is there any amount of just compensation for generationally irreversible genetic mutation? Like derivatives fraud, this isn't a matter of if, but WHEN. Just look at the effects of mutagens like Depleted Uranium, TSA pornscanners/terahertz waves, and GMO toxins.
We're not talking about inanimate 'dangerous' objects like guns and ammo, which must be pointed by an individual targeting something or someone to cause damage. Genetic mutation, is transferable, and like a virus, once it enters our gene pool/biosphere, it's there, and while you maybe able to limit, but in the aggregate, you have absolutely NO control over it, period.
If one works in a field who purports to subscribe to ATCG as an eventual manifestation of that natural evolutionary process in which they hold dear, it is the height of cognitive dissonance to call what has evolved to be necessary via millions of yrs of evolution, as "junk."
Not sure if any critically thinking person should give any credence to any scientist who dare label what they do not know, a priori, as "junk."
To me, THEY are, who are the real junk.
I suppose I'm seeing the classic line drawn here within DailyPaul, as well:
any time the issue of genetics comes up it's divided strictly down the line between the 'creationists' and 'evolutionists,' as if they are only two options, or presumably the only two 'sides' that hold some credibility to resolve this issue.
Chances are the human evolution on Earth is probably due to pan-spermia, or some hybridization of sorts.
And chances are, humans have been here FAR longer than the current prevailing 'scientific' and archeological paradigms are willing to admit; perhaps even in successions of multiple rise and fall of numerous civilizations, and multiple CYCLES of Extinction Level Events. Our own remaining physical artifacts are telling us as much.
Just remember, we have a series of architectural artifacts that can be seen from space, laid out in almost perfect true North, East, West and South (coincidentally an acronym of which we get the etymology of the term "news" from), with an internal chamber that can ONLY be cut with some sort of laser like device, or industrial saw with carbide bits and humongous polishing wheel which cut walls the size of a huge cinema screen in a perfect perpendicularity, at a time when such technology supposedly couldn't exist.
Yet, it's just standing there, telling us, someone or something had the tech to build it then (whenever 'then' were), when WE CAN'T even replicate it, even with all our current hi tech tools and methods, today: the Giza Pyramids.
And yet, these 'scientists' ASSUME that the ancients MUST have been technologically inferior.
Our worldview, ie how the universe works, what causes physical phenomena, etc. by and large are determined by physicists of any given day.
But prevailing operative physics is only relevant as the next physicist who comes along to replace the last dead one.
And, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing 'scientific' about modern science.
It's PURE politics. Period.
On the most part, due to the sheer amount of costs involved in pursuing truly groundbreaking research, most modern 'scientists' are nothing more than grant-whores who live off of corporatist grants or, as has been the trend for many yrs, live off of DARPA and now DHS related grants/aids/loans/govt subsidies, which in some cases supposedly make up 70% of grants/aids/loans/govt subsidies that any university lab/corporatist private labs receive.
Before, we had the Vatican telling us that the Earth was flat.
Now, we have physicists telling us that the Universe is flat.
We just replaced one delusional, agenda-ed Clergy with another.
Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss.
To those who say there's proof that we 'naturally' evolved here on earth, well where's the proof?
Granted, there's some leeway to argue in terms of archeological proof, 'absence of evidence is not non-proof,' to a very limited range of species' evolutionary trajectory.
But, since NO ONE can replicate a 6million yr+ evolution cycle into a compact time frame in which we can all indisputably objectively observe, as such experiment proving such hypothesis is IMPOSSIBLE by the sheer nature of temporal limits alone, it will forever remain just that: a THEORY.
Even then, even in 'scientific' terms, a "theory" which erroneously people conclude as 'laws' of physics/universe, etc, is STILL just that: a theory, which by definition is merely a "proven hypothesis."
This, frankly is the same basis of the Global Warming hoax.
Climatology is one of the most complex fields of study, as it involves many uncontrollableS, lack of constants, and too many variables. Even more impossible: to postulate an exact cause & effect, and more specifically, to what extent.
That is why bulk of super computers have always been relegated to few areas: decryption, nuclear, and climatology.
You can set up a hundred football field sized warehouse full of whatever the latest iterations of Cray & IBM Big Blue supercomputers you have, you still won't be able to predict weather to a 100% perfection.
And, those simulations run on Crays are only as good as the fundamental basis in which your computer models are based on.
In fact, this notion shouldn't be such a difficult subject to grasp, IF you've come to conclude that the Austrian School of Economics is far more superior, more ethical, not to mention, much more realistically practical than Keynesian econ.
And, IF you've actually read or heard/viewed interviews with the author of the Black Swan, Nassim Taleb dismiss most economists as crackpots, you'd see that he does so for the same exact reason: what good is your mathematical econ computer model, if the algorithm to make that computer model is based on erroneous assumptions?
Sure, you can prove yourself right. But who can't, if you set up a program in which you'll be proven correct anyway?
So if one proves a self-imposed previous assumption to be true, informed or not, should that then MUST become a universal fact?
That's the same reason why I part ways with many libertarians including Stefan Molyneux, who for some reason views "science" AS IF it's some immutably truthful religion, the same way that he and others accuse their 'religious' detractors of doing; Stef has as much deductive rationale on this issue as the 'creationists' that he readily ridicules.
Actually if you guys get a chance, please check out this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVo3-wHdkfc
Sweden's Henrik Palmgren's Red Ice Radio's personal human origins understanding lie somewhere between modern science and Robert Schoch to Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, Michael Tsarion, Michael Cremo, Bruce Lipton, and Immanuel Velikovsky.
Even more reason why I commend both Palmgren and Molyneux for speaking to each other on a subject that they surely question each other's veracity on.
It's a complex topic no one knows for sure. Plus, what will either evolutionists and creationists do, when we meet other species from other parts of the universe?
Frankly, until the day in which we have 'First Contact' and exchange ideas of each other's worldview, compare who's more further along, and why, for SEVERAL generations of cross-species info exchange, we're not likely to come to a solid conclusion on just how the entire Universe/Multi-verse, or who or what made us the way we are on Earth, or species on other life-sustainable planetary bodies.
So to conclude that ideas like the Big Bang is what began everything, arrogantly, when the prevailing physicist cannot even explain what may have existed BEFORE the Big Bang, let alone ignoring their inability to describe where gravity comes from (iron ore, magma, soliton/graviton waves, Oh My! Yeah Right!), everything we postulate will forever be just theories, be they 'proven' hypotheses in which physicists simply wanted to be correct about something a priori, or transitional 'laws' like Newtonian Physics, which apparently was considered only wholly 'true' until Max Planck came along.
So go figure.
The best that scientists can do, is to simply be humble, keep toiling away best trying to explain the current natural world at large, before making rash universal statements like 'the Big Bang created the universe' or 'we came from tadpoles,' or conversely on the flipside,'God created Adam and Eve.'
Because the most HONEST thing ALL sides can certainly conclude for 100% certain, is that NONE of us know for certain. PERIOD.
And we're are not bound to know for certain either, for at least not until we actually can compare notes with other species in the future. And even then, it's never gonna be certain, until any one of us can be there to witness the birth of the Universe/Multi-verse, if in the unlikely day that we can make temporal jumps in a reality operating on 'TRILLIONS of light years'-capable travel methods.
Yeah. Sure. We 'know' how the universe works.
So in such reality, how truly confident should any of us be, when arrogant eugenicists who describe what they don't know as "junk" yet decide they know enough to create a wholly new synthetic XNA which inevitably will mix with our own DNA sometime down the line, when they haven't even figured out how to reverse the effects of already existent genetic mutagens like Depleted Uranium, TSA pornscanners/terahertz waves, and GMO toxins?
Shouldn't at least the rule of thumb be, create an antidote along with the toxin, at the same time?
So yeah, careless and callous arrogance at that level and to those degrees? Like dude, they're evil, PERIOD.