Biological Nanobot Responds To DNA Signals: New Meaning To…

DNA3

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 15, 2017

Nanotechnology has taken another significant step in the technology tree to becoming a reality for medicinal (and other) purposes, according to this article shared by Mr. V.K.:

Shape-shifting molecular robots respond to DNA signals

Note some intriguing things here, from the beginning of the article:

A research group at Tohoku University and Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology has developed a molecular robot consisting of biomolecules, such as DNA and protein. The molecular robot was developed by integrating molecular machines into an artificial cell membrane. It can start and stop its shape-changing function in response to a specific DNA signal.

This is the first time that a molecular robotic system has been able to recognize signals and control its shape-changing function. What this means is that molecular robots could, in the near future, function in a way similar to living organisms.

According to the article, this little nano-bot is only one millionth of a meter in diameter. This may seem significant, until one recalls in his 1986 nanotechnology classic, Engines of Creation, Eric Drexler noted that IBM had been successful in spelling its name with 35 xenon atoms, and, even more breathtakingly, AT&T had constructed the first artificial atom. That was in 1986!

But to return to the article, why is a shape-changing nanobot significant? The answer:

The realization of a molecular robot whose components are designed at a molecular level and who can function in a small and complicated environment, such as the human body, is expected to significantly expand the possibilities of robotics engineering. The results of this study could lead to technological developments that could help solve important medical issues — such as a treatment robot for live culturing cells and a monitoring robot for checking environmental pollution.

“The paper by Nomura and coworkers represents a major step towards the development of autonomous soft microrobots,” says Dr. Friedrich Simmel, professor at the Technische Universität München. “Based on this achievement, in the future similar systems could be developed that display artificial phototaxis or chemotaxis, or similar ‘intelligent’ behavior.”

Indulging in a bit of high octane speculation, one can envision that such technologies could be made to change shape and latch onto various pathogens, which have their own peculiar shapes that some believe allows then to attack human cells; AIDS and cancer cells could thus, by the DNA signals that they give, attract such nanobots which could then attach themselves to the disease cells and literally attack them, injecting them with terminal drugs. In short, a major step in the technology tree has been taken, proven, and the door is open to modifications of the basic technology that would conceivably usher in a very new and very different kind of chemotherapy.

And of course, if one indulges high octane speculation a little further, this is the ultimate biological weapons possibility, for programmable nanobots could conceivably be designed to attack only certain kinds of genetic signatures. One might go so far as to envision such technologies that could be injected into a target population and activated at a later date by the introduction of chemical triggering agents or electromagnetic signaling, giving a new, literal, and terrifying meaning to the term “sleeper cells.”

And if we can think of it, one can rest assured “they” have as well. In this respect, it’s worth recalling once again what my co-author Scott deHart and I wrote in Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas, for we pointed out there that a key area of research for DARPA, the Defense Advance Projects Research Agency, or as we like to call it following a suggestion of Mr. J.B., the Diabolically Apocalyptic Research Projects Agency, is nanotechnology.

…and with enough black funds, and people, and time…

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Genetics Is Giving Way to a New Science of Life

Genetics Is Giving Way to a New Science of Life
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Jonathan Latham Ph.D.
February 8, 2017

Originally published on IndependentScienceNews.org.

Test your understanding of the living world with this simple question. What kind of biomolecule is found in all living organisms? If your answer is “DNA”, you are incorrect.

The mistake is very forgiveable though. The standard English-language biology education casts DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid) as the master molecule of life, coordinating and controlling most, if not all, living functions. This master molecule concept is popular. It is plausible. It is taught in every university and high school. But it is wrong. DNA is no master controller, nor is it even at the centre of biology. Instead, science overwhelmingly shows that life is self-organised and thus the pieces are in place for biology to undergo the ultimate paradigm shift.

The mythologising of DNA

Highly respected scientists make very strong claims for the powers of DNA. In his autobiography, Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis called it “The King of molecules” and “The big one”. Maybe he read DNA: The Secret of Life, a popular science book that calls DNA the molecule that “holds the key to the very nature of living things”. Its author should know. He is Nobel Laureate, James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. Even institutions have strong opinions when it comes to DNA; the website of the US National Institutes of Health claims “Genes are at the center of everything that makes us human”.

My edition of The Secret of Life features on its back cover Eric Lander. Lander is the celebrated brains behind modern human genetics. He is also the head of the Broad Institute at MIT. In his blurb, Lander endorses “The secret of life” trope. Just below him on the jacket is Professor of genetics Mary-Claire King. She writes: “This is the story of DNA and therefore the story of life, history, sex, money, drugs, and still-to-be-revealed secrets.” According to Prof. King, DNA is life.

The Watson view of genetics dominates education too. The standard US high school biology textbook “Life“, of which we own the 1997 edition, frames the entirety of biology around DNA, thereby giving it the biochemical status of life’s centrepiece.

Meanwhile, Francis Collins, longstanding head of the National Institutes of Health, has published bestselling books about DNA with titles like The Language of Life and the Language of God. It should be no surprise then that the idea of DNA as a master molecule is one of the dominant ideas of our age.

Some biologists will say that these views are extreme and unrepresentative. They are, and part of this article is to explain why extreme views about DNA dominate the public discourse. But its main purpose is to contrast the portrayal of DNA by virtually all biologists with the narrow scientific treatment they apply to other biological molecules. Our existence also depends on proteins, fats, carbohydrates and RNA (Ribonucleic Acid); but no one says “it’s in my protein”. But here is a question: is it any less scientifically preposterous to say something “is in my DNA”?

To take a ruthless look at that question is thus the purpose of this article. Does DNA have any claim to being in control? Or at the centre of biological organisation?

The answer is that DNA is none of the things Watson, Lander, and Collins claim, and that even the standard nuanced biologist’s view of life is wrong. This is provable in many ways but mainly by a new science of life that is emerging from almost complete obscurity. This new science explains the features of living beings in productive new ways that DNA-centric, genetic determinist, biology has not, and cannot. DNA is not the language of God. It is not even the language of biology.

Organisms are systems

The evidence that DNA is not a biological controller begins with the fact that biological organisms are complex systems. Outside of biology, when we consider any complex system, such as the climate, or computers, or the economy, we would not normally ask whether one component has primacy over all the others. We consider it obvious that complex systems are composed of subsystems, each being necessary for the larger whole. Each subsystem has its specific niche but no one subsystem exerts a privileged level of causation.

The same applies to living organisms. At the level of the physiology of an individual organism we do not apply an exclusive or special causative role to the heart, the liver, the skin, or the brain, because a body is a system. All parts are necessary.

At the smaller biological scales of organs too, distinct cell types maintain, operate, and repair themselves and each other. Similarly, at the cellular level, no one disagrees that organelles and other molecular structures are interacting but independent subparts of the whole.

At the level of macromolecules, however, a curious thing happens. Biologists abandon systems thinking entirely. Instead, we apply the famous central dogma of biology, which is that DNA makes RNA makes Protein (Crick, 1970). This formulation creates an origin story that begins with DNA.

The first mistake of the dogma, however, is to call it “central”. If an organism is a system, then there is no centre. The second error is that the pathway described is factually incorrect. The pathway should be a loop since the DNA does not come from nowhere: to make every DNA molecule requires proteins and RNA and DNA. More broadly, the synthesis of DNA cannot be done without a whole cell, just as the making of any RNA or any protein also takes a whole cell.

If we wanted to be more accurate still, we would say it takes a whole organism to make each of these components. Even this description would be incomplete, since, undeniably, it takes an ecosystem, including, in the case of humans, a gut microbiota and a food supply. The full formulation of the central dogma is therefore a loop embedded in a web. But the central dogma taught to millions of students every year takes an entirely different intellectual path. It arbitrarily confers on DNA a special place: firstly, by not closing the loop, and second, by placing DNA at its beginning. The central dogma is thus merely a representation formed from arbitrarily constructed boundaries. It is not biological reality.

Geneticists, and sometimes other biologists, make this linear interpretation seem plausible, not with experiments—since their results contradict it—but by using highly active verbs in their references to DNA. DNA, according to them, “controls”, “governs”, and “regulates” cellular processes, while nouns like “expression” are also commonly used to ascribe functions to DNA. Biologists thus confer activist and willful superpowers on DNA. Ultimately, this can create circular arguments. DNA controls embryonic development or organism health because genes express themselves. QED.

However, there is no specific science that demonstrates that DNA plays the dominant role these words imply. Quite the opposite. For example, a recent publication in Nature magazine posited “An emerging consensus that much of the protein constituent of the cell is buffered against transcriptional variation.” i.e. is insulated from direct genetic quantitative influence (Chick et al., 2016). This buffering is nicely demonstrated by many experiments. One is the demonstration that the circadian rhythm of a bacterium can be reproduced, in the absence of any DNA, by just three proteins mixed together in a test tube. The rhythm was maintained for three days, even in the face of temperature changes (Nakjima et al., 2005).

Inevitably, any language used to describe DNA will necessarily be metaphorical and be of limited accuracy, but words like “govern” and “control” literally invent attributes for DNA (Noble, 2003). A much more precise metaphor for DNA would compare it to the library of Congress, since cells use DNA primarily as a storehouse of information. Consider that  biologists could apply more neutral verbs such as “use”, as in “cells use DNA to create proteins”. If so, they would have created a very different status for DNA. Only librarians would have T-shirts saying “its in my DNA”.

If we shed the wild metaphors and the central dogma, a more accurate way to think about biology emerges. If every molecule and every subsystem, regardless of scale, constrains and potentiates the other parts, then there is no need to infer a central controller. We can replace the DNA-centric model of biology with a relational model of complex interplay of feedback systems and emergent properties, of which the library of DNA is just one component. In this model, RNA is simply one of the inputs needed to make proteins and DNA is just one of the inputs needed to make RNA, and so on. Unlike the central dogma, such a proposition is consistent with the known facts of biology.

The formulation encapsulated by the central dogma and by biology textbooks is therefore an illusion. They are a classic case of what microbiologist Carl Woese has called the “reductionist fundamentalism”. Reductionist fundamentalism differs from simple reductionism in that whereas simple reductionism is a valid scientific method, the former is an ideological preference for a simplistic explanation when a more holistic one is better supported by the evidence. In this case, the assigning of superpowers to DNA to explain observed biological activities when a better explanation would accept that many biochemical events have multiple causes and contributors. Oxford physiologist Denis Noble describes this fallacy as conferring on DNA “a privileged level of causation”.

If not DNA, is there a “molecule of life”?

Many plant-infecting viruses lack DNA. They base their lifecycles on protein and they use RNA as their heritable material.

There are also plant pathogens, called viroids, that lack both DNA and protein. Viroids are thus composed solely of non-coding RNA. Lifeforms can therefore exist without either DNA or proteins—but there are none that that lack RNA.

Therefore, the answer to the opening question: “what kind of biomolecule is possessed by all living organisms?” is RNA. RNA stands for Ribonucleic Acid and for many reasons it is a better candidate for being a universal biomolecule than DNA.

RNA and DNA are chemically very similar. Even scientists confuse them, but their modest chemical distinctions confer very different properties. RNA is structurally very flexible (bendy), whereas DNA is highly inflexible; RNA is unstable and chemically reactive, whereas DNA is highly inert. A key difference is the number of chemical modifications that cells are able make to their four bases. In the case of DNA (whose bases are the nucleotides A,C,G and T), just two modifications are possible in most cells. These modifications are called methylation and acetylation. These two modifications alter the properties of DNA bases and they are the primary basis of the fashionable science of epigenetics.

RNA also has four bases (A, C, G, and U). But cells make more than one hundred comparable chemical modifications to them. The roles of these modifications are essentially a mystery, but presumably they help RNA perform its many cellular tasks.

RNA is also misunderstood. In a typical human cell, less than 1% of it makes proteins. The remaining 99% has a huge variety of structural, regulatory, and enzymatic functions. Most biologists though might as well be slaves to the central dogma in thinking that RNA is just the intermediate between DNA and protein. Only recently has RNA begun emerging from the shadow of DNA as a far more interesting molecule.

The deep explanation of these molecular differences is that RNA existed long before DNA. RNA probably predated even the invention of cells. It is enormously old. In consequence, it is so deeply and structurally embedded in living systems that it is very hard to study. Thus the paradoxical reason why we don’t know much about RNA is not because it is unimportant, but because, unlike DNA, RNA is too important to cell function to selectively remove at will.

Consequently, to conform with current evolutionary understanding, we should really invert standard teaching and insist that the proper way to think about DNA is that it is a specialised form of RNA. DNA evolved structural rigidity and chemical inertness to make itself a more staid librarian for the safe storing of heritable information.

So, over evolutionary time DNA was chosen as a better librarian (this library metaphor originates with Colin Tudge and his excellent book Why DNA isn’t selfish and people are nice); proteins turned out to be superior catalysts of chemical reactions; but RNA is more likely to have been the biomolecule around which life was really built. But RNA is no more a controller than is DNA.

Nor is DNA the centre of evolution

A common explanation for organising biology around DNA, and the one given by the authors of “Life“, the textbook, is DNA’s supposed role in the theory of evolution. For two reasons this explanation is highly questionable, however. Both reasons exemplify pervasive misunderstandings of the theory of evolution. One of these misunderstandings exaggerates the significance of Darwin’s theory and the second, once again, gives to DNA credit it doesn’t deserve.

The first misunderstanding is to assume that evolutionary theory is an explanation of life. Life, however, began long before Darwinian evolution and some of its fundamental patterns (cells, proteins, energy metabolism) emerged—so far as we can tell—long before DNA became the molecule of heredity (Carter, 2016). This distinction is important. In a textbook about “Life“, for example, it is important to separate the origin of life from its maintenance so as not to unhelpfully exaggerate (i.e. confuse) what Darwin’s theory explains; but in conflating the two, “Life” is only reflecting the misunderstanding of most biologists.

Second, the pre-Darwinian life of cells and metabolism arose thanks to the fact that complex systems have emergent and self-organising properties (e.g. Kauffman, 1993; Carter, 2016). The advent of DNA into these systems allowed Darwinian evolution to accelerate, but it did not eradicate emergent and self-organising properties. Rather, it colluded with them and helped create new ones. This means such properties are the likeliest explanation of large areas of biology. “Self-organization proposes what natural selection disposes” is how Batten and colleagues quaintly summarise alternatives to standard evolutionary theory which is pretty much rigidly genetic determinist (Batten et al., 2008).

A classic emergent property is the folding of proteins. DNA encodes the linear sequence of amino acids that constitute proteins, but every protein adopts one (or usually more) highly complex three dimensional shape (Munson et al., 1996). These shapes, along with charge and solubility, are largely responsible for a protein’s properties. It is habitually, but lazily, presumed that DNA specifies all the information necessary for the formation of a protein, but that is not true. All protein shapes depend also on the integration of multiple sources of information. These sources include temperature, other cellular molecules like water and mineral ions, pH, energy molecules like ATP, protein folding aids called chaperones, and so forth. Beyond this, many proteins have functions, such as to be molecular channels and pumps, that emerge only at higher levels of structure, such as in the presence of other proteins.

Thus DNA specifies proteins and their functions only up to a very limited point. It is possible to disregard all such non-genetic contributions and ascribe to DNA all the properties of a protein or a process (or a whole organism). Most scientists do, but doing so is an ultra-determinist position. It writes emergent properties, such as protein folding, entirely out of the functioning of life. It again confers onto DNA superpowers it does not have.

Emergent properties are only one example of why the relationship between DNA and evolution is much more tenuous than is normally portrayed. Patrick Bateson of Cambridge University, whose perspective is not emergent properties but animal behaviour, explained evolution much more accurately than most when he wrote: “Whole organisms survive and reproduce differentially and the winners drag their genotypes with them. This is the engine of Darwinian evolution“.

Thus we can explain why Charles Darwin invented his theory of evolution without knowing DNA even existed, because, even for evolution, DNA still is not “The big one”, but it is standard for biologists to teach that DNA is more important to evolution than any other component of living organisms.

Explaining genocentric biology

When Dorothy journeyed to the Emerald City she discovered that The Wizard of Oz was only “a common man”. He was devoid of magic powers and so could not help her friends. But there was at least something behind the facade. The same is true for DNA.

Most cellular molecules are highly reactive and transient chemical substances. That means they are difficult to extract, and hard to study. So it is with RNA and proteins.

DNA, however, is a much more practical point of intervention in biology. It is stable and robust and simple enough to be isolated on a reproducible basis and copied precisely. With an hour of training, high school students can do it. With a bit more training, DNA can be altered and, in some species, replaced. Hence the alarm over garage hacking of DNA.

This explains, in a nutshell, why our understanding of gene regulatory networks runs far ahead of our understanding of other disciplines of biology. It is because DNA is the low hanging fruit of biology.

Scientific dissent around DNA

“The human body completely changes the matter it is made of roughly every 8 weeks, through metabolism, replication and repair. Yet, you’re still you –with all your memories, your personality… If science insists on chasing particles, they will follow them right through an organism and miss the organism entirely.”

Mathematical biologist Robert Rosen is supposed to have said. And indeed, examine any multicellular organism and concealed under its relatively calm surface are circulatory systems, churning stomachs, lymphatic drainage systems, electrical impulses, biomolecular machines and so forth.

These systems cause every part of an organism to continuously move, contract, twist, vibrate, strain and grow. What defines living organisms, in the final analysis, is their dynamic and  animate nature. This is why, when we want to know if an organism has legally died we don’t examine its DNA, we measure its heartbeat or brain function. Animate properties require animate components, like RNA and proteins.

Yet by organizing our understanding of life largely around DNA (recall Mary-Claire King’s “DNA is life”), biologists have curiously chosen the cellular constituent that is probably the least representative of life’s dynamic nature.

For this reason there are dissenters in biology. Some are prominent. Some are not. They all have questioned whether biology is not much more complex and interesting than our present DNA-based framing can make room for (e.g. Kaufman, 1993; Strohman, 1997; Rose, 1999; Woese 2004; Annila and Baverstock 2014; Friston et al., 2015).

These dissenters like to note, for example, the general absence of medico-scientific breakthroughs following the sequencing of the human genome and the ever-more-detailed-analysis-of-tiny-scraps-of-human-DNA (Ioannidis, 2007Dermitzakis and Clark, 2009Manolio et al., 2009).

Some go much further in their critiques than others. Carl Woese, perhaps the best known bacteriologist since Pasteur, argued before his death that genetic determinism is a dead end, its vision of biology is “spent” (Woese, 2004).

There perhaps is no finer example of this than the field of tissue engineering. Tissue engineers claim to have made “incredible” progress making whole human organs in vitro for transplanting and other medical uses, yet these organs are all non-functional (Badylak, 2016). They don’t have blood vessels or immune systems or nerve networks, they are just human cells on an ear-shaped scaffold or a hand-shaped scaffold and so, among their many deficiencies, they are short-lived because they have no regenerative properties.

Many biologists suspect at least part of this paradigm problem, but they rarely act on it. The sole noticeable official response to the obvious fact that organisms are highly complex systems has been to shovel modest funding in the direction of ‘systems biology’.

One is bound to note that even this systems biology is rarely the study of systems. Instead, biologists have overwhelmingly used systems biology funds not to further the understanding of complex systems but to scale up and mechanise their reductionism.

Thus no scientific specialism or institution has articulated the profound inadequacy of viewing organisms as collections of gene regulatory networks or moved towards assembling an alternative paradigm (or paradigms) to replace it (Strohman, 1997).

This intellectual near-vacuum is nevertheless being steadily filled by individual scientists, mostly on the margins, with promising, even revolutionary, theoretical developments and experimental findings that explain biological phenomena in ways that transcend genetics.

A short guide to alternative paradigms of life

A Helmholtz machine is a sensory device that makes a prediction about reality and crosschecks it against that reality. It then estimates the difference between the two. Bayesian statistics is a mathematical method of doing the same: estimating differences between expectation and reality.

A new theory of neurobiology, called the Bayesian brain theory, proposes that the brain is the biological equivalent of these (reviewed in Clark, 2013). Brains make predictions, measure the mismatches with their expectations and pass those mismatches up to higher neural circuits. These higher circuits repeat the process and if mismatches persist then these are passed on to yet ‘higher’ mental levels.

The Bayesian brain hypothesis is quite new and predictive neurons might seem superficially improbable, yet the hypothesis appears to explain numerous aspects of brain structure and brain function; for example, how the brain can treat widely different stimuli (visual, sensual, oral, aural, etc.) essentially with the same neural mechanisms and structures. It also appears to show how the brain can integrate action and perception. The theory also provides a substantive explanation of learning: learning is the updating of the predictive model. The Bayesian brain hypothesis may even  explain how brains evolved higher levels of consciousness over evolutionary time periods: by adding new layers of prediction.

A particular strength of the Bayesian brain hypothesis is that it corresponds to the actual spatial organisation of neurons in the primate cortex in which ranks of “predictive” neurons and “sensory” neurons send signals in opposing directions which lets them cancel each other out (except for the mismatches).

The structure-based predictive learning system proposed by the Bayesian brain hypothesis is of interest here because it relegates detailed genetic explanations of many phenomena, including arguably all consciousness, to the margins (Friston, 2010). Genes and proteins may fill in the details but many of the key elements of brain function: learning, action, and perception, derive primarily from structure alone. I.e., like protein folding, they are emergent properties of organisation.

Emergent properties are equally important in other areas of biology. An example is the vascular system of plants. Trees can transport water from unsaturated sources hundreds of feet into the air. Transpiration, as it is called, requires no energy input. Rather, it takes advantage purely physical properties of hydrophilic xylem tissues (tubes) and the properties of water itself. Without transpiration, which already operates, but only very weakly, in soils, plants could not exceed a couple of inches in height, nor tolerate dry conditions (Wheeler and Stroock, 2008). Thus, the defining characteristic of plants (apart from photosynthesis) is their clever exploitation of a simple physical property of water.

A further example is the arches of the human foot. These are longitudinal and transverse diaphragms composed of bone and connective tissue whose emergent property is both to dissipate forces at impact and operate as springs to transfer energy from impact into forward motion. Arches reduce the energy needed to walk or run.

In the discipline of biochemistry, a recent development is the proposed existence of metabolons. Metabolons are three-dimensional spatial arrangements of enzymes. Metabolons explain how the product of an ostensibly minor metabolic pathway can nevertheless constitute 30% of the weight of a seedling and so drive away pests (Laursen et al., 2017).

A more conventional class of self-organising properties found in biology are homeostatic feedback loops. They too are phenomena largely independent of gene functions with key roles in explaining the activities and properties of living organisms. The three proteins noted earlier that can recreate a bacterial circadian rhythm are just one example (Nakajima et al., 2005).

At more elemental and universal levels of life are unifying theories of cells and metabolism, many of which relate life to the operation of fundamental physical forces. The father of all such theories was arguably Nicolas Rashevsky, who died in 1972. He is survived by his students Robert Rosen and AH Louie. Others include physicist Erwin Schrödinger, author of “What is life?“; Stuart Kauffman, author of “The Origins of Order” (1993); Steven Rose “Lifelines: Biology beyond determinism” (1997); Enrico Coen “The Art of Genes” (1999); Denis Noble, “The Music of Life” (2003) and Dance to the Tune of Life: Biological Relativity (2017); and Annila and Baverstock who argue life is the inevitable outcome of the second law of thermodynamics (Annila and Baverstock, 2014; see also Friston et al., 2015). These, and other omitted thinkers, have gone far in assembling the potential raw material for a scientific revolution. One that leaves the framework of gene regulatory networks far behind.

The closest that of any of these theories come to definitively falsifying genetic determinism as a life-concept, however, would be a theory of the origin of life itself that positions metabolism at the centre.

Readers may be familiar with the concept of the RNA world, which is theorised to have predated the supposed “modern DNA world”. But more convincing than an RNA world, for which there is little evidence, is a new theory, the peptide-RNA world.

The central piece of evidence of the peptide-RNA origin thesis (Carter, 2016) is that the enzyme (called aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase) that nowadays links RNA to proteins—and which therefore connects the RNA world to the protein world—comes in two basic forms (in all organisms). The evolutionary origin of these two forms (called Class I and Class II enzymes), however, is strangely irreconcilable. Class I and II molecules perform almost identical functions (though with different amino acids) yet have nothing structurally in common. Except for one thing. Their most conserved aminoacids, those at their active catalytic centre, can be derived from opposite strands of the same small RNA molecule (Carter 2016). In other words, the two proteins that let RNA make all modern proteins are derived from opposite strands of a single very primitive small RNA molecule that encoded them both.

The implication of this compelling observation is to intimately link metabolism and replication at a very early stage of life’s origins. RNA was the assembler of primitive proteins and the purpose of those proteins was catalysis, i.e. to guide and enhance metabolism. What the peptide-RNA origin thesis therefore does is to replaces the RNA world—which is a replication-first theory—with a metabolism-first theory in that RNA is enhancing a metabolism that already predated it.

DNA and politics

“Human biology is actually far more complicated than we imagine. Everybody talks about the genes that they received from their mother and father, for this trait or the other. But in reality, those genes have very little impact on life outcomes. Our biology is way too complicated for that and deals with hundreds of thousands of independent factors. Genes are absolutely not our fate. They can give us useful information about the increased risk of a disease, but in most cases they will not determine the actual cause of the disease, or the actual incidence of somebody getting it. Most biology will come from the complex interaction of all the proteins and cells working with environmental factors, not driven directly by the genetic code”. (Anand et al., 2008)

This quotation, spoken (but not written), by Craig Venter, the legendary genome sequencer, suggests that even many geneticists secretly appreciate a clear need for alternative paradigms.

At the same timethe Venter quote prompts a deep question: How is it that, if organisms are the principal objects of biological study, and the standard explanation of their origin and operation is so scientifically weak that it has to award DNA imaginary superpowers of “expression” and “control” to paper over the cracks, have scientists nevertheless clung to it?

Why is it that, rather than celebrating and investing in Rashevsky, Kauffman, Noble, et al., as pioneers of necessary and potentially fruitful and unifying paradigms, have these researchers been ignored by mainstream biology?

What is the big attraction of genetic determinism?

A compelling and non-intuitive explanation for the monomania of biology does exist. It is set out in a second and forthcoming article: The Meaning of Life. It is an explanation that requires going behind the window dressing of science and examining its active and symbiotic relation to power in modern political systems.

References

Anand et al (2008) Cancer is a Preventable Disease that Requires Major Lifestyle Changes. Pharm Research 25: 2097–2116.
Annila, A and Baverstock K (2014) Genes without prominence: a reappraisal of the foundations of biology. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2013.1017
Badylak, S (2016) Work with, not against, biology. Nature 540: S55 doi:10.1038/540S55a
Batten, D, S Salthe, F Boschetti (2008) Visions of evolution: self-organization proposes what natural selection disposes. Biological Theory 3: 17–29.
Carter, C (2016) An Alternative to the RNA World. Natural History Dec 2016/Jan 2017 28-33.
Chick JM, Munger SC, Simecek P, et al. (2016) Defining the consequences of genetic variation on a proteome-wide scale. Nature 534: 500-505.
Clark A, (2013) Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioural and Brain Sciences
Coen, E (1999) The Art of Genes. Oxford University Press.
Crick, F (1970) Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. Nature 227: 56–63.
Dermitzakis E.T. and Clark A.G. (2009) Life after GWA studies. Science 326: 239-240.
Friston K. (2010) The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11, 127-138 doi:10.1038/nrn2787
Friston K, M Levin, B Sengupta, G Pezzulo (2015) Knowing one’s place: a free-energy approach to pattern regulation.
Ioannidis J.P., Non-replication and inconsistency in the genome-wide association setting. Hum Hered, 2007. 64(4): p. 203-13.
Kaufman S (1993) The Origins of Order. Oxford University Press.
Laursen et al., (2017) Characterization of a dynamic metabolon producing the defense compound dhurrin in sorghum. Science 354: 890-895.
Manolio T. et al. (2009) Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 461: 747-753.
Mullis K Dancing Naked in the Mind Field. 1998, Vintage Books.
M Munson, S Balasubramanian, KG Fleming et al. (1996) What makes a protein a protein? Hydrophobic core designs that specify stability and structural properties. Protein Science 5: 1584-1593.
Nakajima M. et al., (2005) Reconstitution of Circadian Oscillation of Cyanobacterial KaiC Phosphorylation in Vitro. Science 308: 414-15.
Noble D (2003) The music of life. Biology Beyond Genes. Oxford University Press.
Noble D (2017) Dance to the Tune of Life: Biological Relativity. Cambridge University Press.
Rose S (1997) Lifelines: Biology beyond Determinism. Oxford University Press.
Strohman RC (1997) The coming Kuhnian Revolution in biology. Nature Biotechnology 15: 194-200.
Tudge, Colin (2013) Why Genes are not Selfish and People are Nice. Floris books.
Watson JD (2003) DNA: The Secret of Life. Alfred A. Knopf.
Wheeler TD and A Stroock (2008) The transpiration of water at negative pressures in a synthetic tree. Nature 455, 208-212 doi:10.1038/nature07226
Woese CR (2004) A new biology for a new century. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 68: 173-186.

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com
______________________________________________________

 

TSA Scanners Can Tear Apart DNA (And you won’t believe what X-rays find in carry-on luggage!)

Source: TheTrutherGirls
Sonia
March 5, 2017

First of all, the scanners have been found to tear apart human DNA. It is much worse than we could have ever expected! Second, what the TSA finds in people’s bags is crazy- and sometimes hilarious!
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2…
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/41…
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/201…
http://blog.tsa.gov/2016/01/tsa-2015-…
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/po…
http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/30…

Towards The Electronic DNA Switch

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 4, 2017

A few weeks ago, you might recall, I blogged about the latest diabolical gimick being cooked up in the bubbling cauldrons of Muck Pharmaceuticals, our euphemistic code name for Big Pharma. What was the gimick? Vaccines that literally modified a person’s sneeze with more of the same muck. The plan is relatively simple: (1) take a vaccine, (2) sneeze, and (3) thereby spread the vaccine to other people, who may not even want it. Add this to the arm’s length long list of other technologies – nano-technology, genetic engineering, CRISPR and so on – and one has a veritable witches brew of all manner of mischief. Then of course, we have the lunacy of the transhumanists who want to chip everyone (hmmm, that sounds vaguely familiar), and put computer-brain interfaces inside you and everyone will be happy and there will be population control and world peace. Think of it as “the electronic LSD trip”.

The hang up of course, has been that pesky stuff called DNA.

Until now, for according to this article kindly shared by Mr. M.B., scientists at the university of Arizona have come up with… well, read for yourself:

Scientists Create Active Controllable Electronic DNA Switch

DNA has unique electrical properties that have for years interested pioneering engineers trying to advance the development of tiny, low-cost electronic devices. Now, a research team led by scientists at Arizona State University (ASU) have developed the first controllable DNA switch to regulate the flow of electricity within a single, atomic-sized molecule—much like flipping your light switch at home, only on a scale 1000 times smaller than a human hair.

“It has been established that charge transport is possible in DNA, but for a useful device one wants to be able to turn the charge transport on and off. We achieved this goal by chemically modifying DNA,” explained senior study investigator Nongjian Tao, Ph.D., professor of electrical engineering and director of the Center for Biosensors and Bioelectronics within the Biodesign Institute at ASU. “Not only that, but we can also adapt the modified DNA as a probe to measure reactions at the single-molecule level. This provides a unique way for studying important reactions implicated in disease, or photosynthesis reactions for novel renewable energy applications.”

There’s another statement that’s important here, a little further in the article:

To accomplish their goal, the investigators modified just one of the double-stranded DNA’s standard bases (A, T, C, or G) with another chemical group, called anthraquinone (Aq). Anthraquinone is a three-ringed carbon structure that can be inserted in between DNA base pairs but contains what chemists call a redox group (short for reduction, or gaining electrons, and oxidation, losing electrons).

Why is this statement important? Because it opens the door to how this new ability will be “sold” to the public: “Why, it will potentially help us be able to combat or even cure diseases with a known or suspected link to oxidation problems, cancer for example. Why, potentially, one might even be able to use the technique to repair or remake neural pathways. It’s hard to tell where this might go, we’re just beginning.” Now lest my usual trademark high octane speculation here might seem a bit over-the-top, it should be pointed out that in the very next sentence, the technique of how this will be “sold” to the public is clearly implicated:

Redox groups are also the foundation for how our bodies'(sic) convert chemical energy through switches that send all of the electrical pulses in our brains and hearts and communicate signals within every cell that may be implicated in the most prevalent diseases.
(Emphasis added)

Of course, the flip side of this switch is that if this technology impinges upon the switches “that send all of the electrical pulses in our brains and hearts” then it also has the potential to be that proverbial “kill switch” I and others have been warning about for a while.

Add this technology to the “sneeze vaccine” and voila, one has a pretty handy tool for all sorts of mischief.

So while Muck Pharmaceuticals may run commercials about this new wonder cure, also remember the darker potentials…

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Rappaport On DNA-Altering Vaccines: My High Octane Speculations…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
February 26, 2017

I am increasingly alarmed at the amount of power people are willing to surrender to big corporations, and to the GMO-pharmaceutical complex. Over the years I’ve been attempting to alert people not only to the dangers of these products, but more importantly, to the dangers of the mercantilist policies and corporate-government linkage that has been erected to protect them. Recently, one commentator on one of my blogs on this subject pointed out that one of my blogs contained an error: I had maintained a speculative scenario in which big pharma could be sued. The individual pointed out that vaccine makers cannot be sued under current law. Well, to be frank, I knew that, though I was not clear about that in my blog. But the commentator raised the point I was trying to make anyway: such a policy enshrined as a “law” is another case of the same mercantilism at work; and in the absence of the protection of law, and without recourse in complaints before the courts, pharmaceutical companies can, in effect, put whatever they please into their vaccines (and it appears they’ve been doing just that), and turn entire populations into their lab rats. They then control the discussion through control of journals and paid-for “science”, and work to mandate vaccinations in the general population.

The question is why? What’s the purpose, beyond keeping people sick and selling pharmaceutical “cures” to problems which they very well may have created (think of the vaccines-autism link)? Many would argue it’s because vaccines are viewed as a surreptitious way of enforcing population control, and indeed, there are some suggestive statements from vaccine advocates to this effect:

4 times Bill Gates said vaccines would reduce world population

It’s hard to follow Mr. Gates’ logic here: he seems, on the one hand, to be genuinely concerned to reduce childhood mortality from illnesses via vaccinations, but at the same time is heard advocating “reproductive health services,” a convenient euphemism for you-know-what, and is also heard implying that this will cut down on population growth. To be sure, in areas where infant and childhood mortality is high, people tend to have more children. And this appears to be Mr. Gates’ real point, taken out of context in the video clips. Nonetheless, when billionaire busybodies smile reassuringly, I tend to shudder, for like it or not, he does couple vaccination with population reduction.  In any case, I use these remarks merely to illustrate what many out there believe the real covert agenda to be: population control and reduction through vaccination, and that implies covert ingredients to do just that. Another theory is that vaccines are being used as a wealth-harvesting mechanism: make people sick – with autism for example – and then harvest that family’s wealth thereafter by selling the expensive drugs that “treat” the condition.

However, there may be yet another agenda, suggested to me for today’s high octane speculation by the following article by Mr. Jon Rappaport, and shared by Mr. S.F.:

ALERT: New vaccines will permanently alter your DNA

Mr. Rappaport states something quite profound, and quite disturbing:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was nearly two years ago.]

“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.”

Alteration of the human genetic makeup.

Not just a “visit.” Permanent residence. And once a person’s DNA is changed, doesn’t it follow that he/she will pass on that change to the next generation of children, and so on, down the line? (Emphases added)

So where’s my high octane speculation? In my book Genes, Giants, Monsters and Men I pointed out that the prospect of genetic engineering and the current legal practice literally allows corporations to own their genetic patents. I argued that, because of this, it is conceivable that someone receiving or experiencing a genetic modification to their DNA via one of these patented programs could, conceivably, end up having to pay for the privilege of such modification by becoming a permanent rentier of the modification, paying, in effect, a royalty or license fee to the company that owned the patent on it, for as long as that person exhibited the modification, and potentially for the rest of their lives. Think of it as the genetic version of what the GMO companies have managed to do with their seeds. Add to this the possibility that this modification could be passed to their children, and one gets the idea. A massive system of serfdom and wealth-harvesting could be introduced via gene-altering vaccines. Such a draconian system would, in effect, make everyone vassals to the company for their modifications; indeed, it is conceivable that so long as their DNA alterations exhibit the patented modifications, that they in effect become the property of the patent-holder.

Call it: “Slavery through genetic modification via vaccines.”

As Mr. Rappaport says at the end of his article:

If you’re going to alter humans, for example, to make many of them more docile and weak, and some of them stronger, in order to restructure society, you want everyone under the umbrella. No exceptions. No exemptions.

The freedom and the right to refuse vaccines has always been vital. It is more vital than ever now.

And I would argue, that the sinister toad squatting in the middle of all of this is precisely current patent law, and what that might imply for the long-term goals of billionaire busybodies and their vaccine advocacy: it’s another way of “perfecting slavery collateral” in reducing everyone to feudal vassals, and increasing their own wealth. But this is all high octane speculation, to be sure. We’ll know if it’s true if, in fact, these billionaire busybodies and pharmaceutical companies start talking about “individual health care savings accounts” – which will be mandated of course – to pay for long term medical care and fees, which would cover payments of permanent royalty fees for the privilege of having one’s DNA modified by (mandated) vaccines.

What’s next to roll off the assembly line of designer drugs, therapies, and humans? Watch for it: cannibalism: in the form of stem cells being included in vaccines. And while we’re at it, let’s make them oral vaccines, just for good measure.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Genetic Manipulation Of Humans: Jeff Rense and Jon Rappoport

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 23, 2017

Listen to a brand new conversation between Jeff Rense and Jon Rappoport, on the subject of new vaccines that will permanently change the DNA of humans. This is vital information.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.