Has God's Signature been found in the Genetic Code

[alec cotton]

Perhaps genetic diseases and death itself are caused by mutations of an original code.

Sorry Craig, but I must offer a word of caution . It is unwise to use a broader brush on this forum Richard will so often demand the most meticulous detail and ask for Proof and precise source of information , whilst He himself makes sweeping ,unfounded statements and expects them to go unchallenged. Just now he wrote "lets suppose there are patterns". That word "suppose" is used to obscure the fact that there are patterns. The evidence is as obvious as it is conclusive. Now to circumvent the question which is on the tip of his tongue ( what is a pattern) A pattern is an arragement or sequence regularly found in comparable objects or events. He says that he would rather have questions that he can't answer than answers he can't question He cannot question that answer and so his solution is to turn away with his bottom lip stuck out like a garden spade. Then he says" If the purpoe of the D.N.A. is to code for the development of the body" ( Notice tht little word "if"?)
( The purpose of D.N.A is to code for the construction of the body.)then I don't see why we would expect to see any patterns. " What difference does it make whether we expect them or not?. They are there . They are plain for all to see. Then he finishes on a sour note. "So you think that God might have added in some extra D.N.A just to make these patterns work out. That is a childish ,foolish, petty question : Only worthy of a defeated , sulky .spoilt brat.. I suggest that the telescope be used , looking through the other end and get things in focus. To prevent genetic damage God gave specific instructions as to who should be married to whom. It is an absolute observable certainty that kin breeding brings about genetic disorders. Living by the divine law offers protection . There are many sexual diseases (some fatal) which cannot possibly exist without sexual immorality. The effects of some are felt to the third and fourth generation. Whilst examining the details , let us not lose sight of the big picture.
Alec

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sorry Craig, but I must offer a word of caution . It is unwise to use a broader brush on this forum Richard will so often demand the most meticulous detail and ask for Proof and precise source of information , whilst He himself makes sweeping ,unfounded statements and expects them to go unchallenged. Just now he wrote "lets suppose there are patterns". That word "suppose" is used to obscure the fact that there are patterns. The evidence is as obvious as it is conclusive.

That's not true Alec. You are the one making "sweeping, unfounded statements" which you refuse to support with any evidence.

But more to the point, you fail to understand the most basic elements of the English language. The evidence that Craig has presented is not "as obvious as it is conclusive." It is a project in progress and I have not taken the time to study it in sufficient depth to come to any conclusion. But I don't need to do that because it would add nothing fundamentally knew to my knowledge since I already have more than enough evidence that something "supernatural" is going on in the Bible. This proves your assertion is absurd - I have openly and repeatedly stated that there are plenty of supernatural patterns in the Bible, so it would be absurd to think that I am trying to "obscure" the patterns that Craig found. The reason I said "suppose" is obvious - I was conceding, for the sake of argument, that the patterns were real so we could talk about what they might mean. The fact that you failed to understand something as simple and obvious as this shows that your mind has been blinded by your irrational opposition to me as a person. You don't care about the truth of my arguments. You don't reply rationally to what I write. How pathetic.

Now to circumvent the question which is on the tip of his tongue ( what is a pattern) A pattern is an arragement or sequence regularly found in comparable objects or events. He says that he would rather have questions that he can't answer than answers he can't question He cannot question that answer and so his solution is to turn away with his bottom lip stuck out like a garden spade. Then he says" If the purpoe of the D.N.A. is to code for the development of the body" ( Notice tht little word "if"?)
( The purpose of D.N.A is to code for the construction of the body.)then I don't see why we would expect to see any patterns. " What difference does it make whether we expect them or not?. They are there . They are plain for all to see. Then he finishes on a sour note. "So you think that God might have added in some extra D.N.A just to make these patterns work out. That is a childish ,foolish, petty question : Only worthy of a defeated , sulky .spoilt brat..

Wrong. I had no intent of focusing on the definition of a pattern, but even if I did go that route, it is absurd to suggest it was wrong or a diversionary tactic. Again, you are revealing your gross ignorance. I have repeatedly stated that there are supernatural patterns in the Bible and that's why I don't need additional proof of more patterns! My problem is that I don't know what they mean and so that's what I wanted to discuss. But you can't see this because you are blinded by utterly irrational opposition to everything I say, even when I say that there are supernatural patterns in the Bible! What is wrong with your brain Alec? You oppose me even when I agree with you! Man ... you really need to get a grip on yourself.

All the best,

Richard

[Craig.Paardekooper]

It concerns a pattern discovered by Shcherbak -

This pattern is found on the last page of his paper - "The Arithmetical Origin of the Genetic Code" in the sub section called - "A Virtual Global Balance".

The genetic code table has 64 codons, each made of 3 bases, meaning that the 64 codons are made of a total of 192 bases (64 x 3) in total. There are 4 different types of bases - A, C, G, and T, so in the whole genetic code table each of these bases occurs 192/4 times = 48 times.

For each amino acid, Shcherbak made the following calculations -

Amino Acid Mass x Number of T bases in it's codons (let us call this number Alpha)
Amino Acid Mass x Number of C bases in it's codons (let us call this number Beta)
Amino Acid Mass x Number of A bases in it's codons (let us call this number Gamma)
Amino Acid Mass x Number of G bases in it's codons (let us call this number Delta)

When he had completed these calculations for all the amino acids, he added all the Alphas together in one group, and did the same for all the Betas, Gammas and Deltas.

What Shcherbak found was that the total Alpha for all the amino acids comes to a multiple of 37, expressed as a triple digit multiple.

Alpha side chains = 666 + 999 + 999
Alpha standard block = 45 x 74 = 3330

So the Total for Alpha is 3330 + 3 x 888

Shcherbak found these results for the Beta + Gamma + Delta groups. These too form multiples of 37 expressed as triple digits.

Beta + Gamma + Delta side chains = 222 + (10 x 999) - (3 x 888)
Beta + Gamma + Delta standard block = 222 + (10 x 999)

222 + (10 x 999) - (3 x 888) + 222 + (10 x 999) = 20 x 888



Here is the pattern -




So, in summary,

Shcherbak found a balance, His pattern just happens to be centred on -

1. multiples of 37
2. which are also triple digit multiples
3. and a significant triple digit multiple, namely 888

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Looks very interesting Craig. I look forward to your write-up.

In the meantime, I'll review this thread to get up to speed with what you have already presented.

[Craig.Paardekooper]

The Global balance is curious. I shall create a table where by the results for C, A and G are calculated individually. Perhaps there are interesting patterns to emerge in these sub groups. The table would be


Column 1 = Amino acid nucleon number

Column 2 = T count in codons for this amino acid

Column 3 = C count in codons for this amino acid

Column 4 = A count in codons for this amino acid

Column 5 = G count in codons for this amino acid



The total figures for C, A or G might also display interesting results.



I shall also start to look at the 23 chromosomes. These might also form a type of "Bible Wheel". We saw that their sum comes to 55500 x 55500. So it will be interesting to see what else emerges.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It concerns a pattern discovered by Shcherbak -

This pattern is found on the last page of his paper - "The Arithmetical Origin of the Genetic Code" in the sub section called - "A Virtual Global Balance".

The genetic code table has 64 codons, each made of 3 bases, meaning that the 64 codons are made of a total of 192 bases (64 x 3) in total. There are 4 different types of bases - A, C, G, and T, so in the whole genetic code table each of these bases occurs 192/4 times = 48 times.

For each amino acid, Shcherbak made the following calculations -

Amino Acid Mass x Number of T bases in it's codons (let us call this number Alpha)
Amino Acid Mass x Number of C bases in it's codons (let us call this number Beta)
Amino Acid Mass x Number of A bases in it's codons (let us call this number Gamma)
Amino Acid Mass x Number of G bases in it's codons (let us call this number Delta)

When he had completed these calculations for all the amino acids, he added all the Alphas together in one group, and did the same for all the Betas, Gammas and Deltas.

What Shcherbak found was that the total Alpha for all the amino acids comes to a multiple of 37, expressed as a triple digit multiple.

Alpha side chains = 666 + 999 + 999
Alpha standard block = 45 x 74 = 3330

So the Total for Alpha is 3330 + 3 x 888

Shcherbak found these results for the Beta + Gamma + Delta groups. These too form multiples of 37 expressed as triple digits.

Beta + Gamma + Delta side chains = 222 + (10 x 999) - (3 x 888)
Beta + Gamma + Delta standard block = 222 + (10 x 999)

222 + (10 x 999) - (3 x 888) + 222 + (10 x 999) = 20 x 888



Here is the pattern -




So, in summary,

Shcherbak found a balance, His pattern just happens to be centred on -

1. multiples of 37
2. which are also triple digit multiples
3. and a significant triple digit multiple, namely 888

Fascinating. You knew you could get my interest with that nice circular picture, didn't you?

My problem is that I don't know enough about genetics to have any confidence in these patterns. I would have to go back and confirm everything independently. I get the impression that all the "mainstream" geneticists have completely ignored his work. Is that correct?

[Craig.Paardekooper]

It is a truism that people only find things when they look, and "main stream" geneticists for the most part may not believe in the possibility of these mathematical patterns, so they simply haven't looked for them. The patterns are not hard to find.

Also "main stream" genetics tends to be less philosophical and more concerned with practical issues such as obtaining the complete sequence and determining the cause of diseases etc. Little funding is allotted for more philosophical pursuits. "Main stream" is usually synonymous with "career-focused" - and career is about making money, rather than pursuing philosophical ideals that challenge the current paradign.

Sometimes it takes someone on the fringes, who is free enough to be able to explore these things. It is noteworthy that Shcherbak has never been refuted, but rather has been cited in numerous academic papers..... including Vernon's

I wish you all the best in your endeavour to get to speed with this subject.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It is a truism that people only find things when they look, and "main stream" geneticists for the most part may not believe in the possibility of these mathematical patterns, so they simply haven't looked for them.

It's interesting that you mention that "people only find things when they look." I just read the same thing in Jill Taylor's fascinating book "My Stroke of Insight." She had a major stroke that disabled a lot of the functionality of her left hemisphere. On page 139 she wrote:

[O]ur minds are highly sophisticated "seek and ye shall find" instruments. We are designed to focus in on whatever we are looking for. Is I seek red in teh world then I will find it everywhere. Perhaps just a little in the beginning, but the longer I stay focused on looking for red, then before you know it, I will see red everywhere.

This is one of the primary arguments skeptics use against the patterns we have found in the Bible. Unfortunately, there is a lot of validity in it, so we have to be extra vigilant to be sure that we are not merely seeing things because of selective observation (aka "cherry picking").

In addition main stream geneticists have to tow the party line through fear of loss of funding or even loss of jobs. Much funding may be alotted by bodies when results seem likely to support the current paradigm. Sometimes it takes someone on the fringes, who is free enough to be able to explore these things. It is noteworthy that Shcherbak has never been refuted, but rather has been cited in numerous academic papers..... including Vernon's

I agree completely about the "party line" restrictions in science. This is because science is a human endeavor and humans fall in to "fads" and things like that. But on the other hand, scientific skepticism is required to keep it free from wacky ideas. Skepticism is the "antiseptic" of the mind. But too much antiseptic kills the good flora too ... so it should be used judicially.

Do you know of any "mainstream" genetic publications that deal with the discoveries of Shchebak et al?

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Richard,

The truth of Shcherbak's patterns are simple and self-evident. The vote of the majority is not required

Anyone can add up, and that's all that Shcherbak did.

Craig

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

The truth of Shcherbak's patterns are simple and self-evident. You simply don't need the vote of the majority.

Did you require the vote of the majority when you discovered the Bible Wheel?

Craig

It's not the "vote of the majority" I am looking for. I was just hoping for a confirmation that his tables and numbers were correct. There could be some subtle errors that I know nothing about. I didn't want to take the time to do the requisite background research to validate the facts he presents. I don't know if he left things out (cherry picking) or did funny little tricks to get the results he wanted. I've seen this so many times in things like this I was hoping for a confirmation from someone "in the know." It's not like the Bible Wheel which truly is simple and self-evident. I have to research the the tables and the numbers with sufficient understanding to know if there were any omissions or additions that would invalidate his conclusions.