Has God's Signature been found in the Genetic Code

**Craig.Paardekooper** · 06-11-2012, 04:09 AM

Well, I have to choose a genome to search for the Signature. There are many complete genomes to choose from.

Here is the NCBI index page for complete genomes - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome

As you can see, I can choose any of the following - Human, microbes, organelles, plants, viruses.

I have decided to use a microbe genome to start with - mainly because these are smaller and so are easier to search.

Choosing a Microbe

BY clicking on the microbes link on the above page you will be directed to a database of all sequenced microbes - here - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/...l_taxtree.html

Go to the "Collapsing Level" dropdown box - and choose - LIMIT BY PHYLUM

You will then see that all the sequenced microbes fall into 47 phylum.

I am going to choose the microbe phylum :Thermodesulfobacteria. This phylum contains 3 sequences that you can view by clicking the small + sign to the left.

I will choose the sequence Thermodesulfobacterium sp. OPB45, complete genome

This genome has a length of 1634377 bases. That is quite big enough to start with.

So What is a Thermodesulfobacterium ?

These are bacterium that inhabitat aquatic enviroments. They are found in volcanic hot springs, and deep-sea hydrothermal vents.

Name: typbacteria.jpg
Views: 92
Size: 13.0 KB

Name: typbacteria.jpg
Views: 92
Size: 13.0 KB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D69hG...DD25A79A0C91BF

Viewing the Microbe Sequence

Here is the complete DNA sequence for this creature - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/...1?report=fasta

If you would like the sequence in a txt notepad format then you can download it here -

http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/ThermoSulphoMicrobe.txt

So, all I am going to do is apply the search code to this sequence and see if the Signature appears.

Results

The nucleotide sequence forms 31855 codons that translate into 31855 aminoacids/stop signals
The software was only searching for any 28 letter sequence where the same letter occurred in the position occupied by Aleph in Genesis 1.

It found one instance in the first reading frame - Position : 7049
VQLQIEYFLLGHS1LLCLFRLQLVNLHY

And I found one instance in the third reading frame - Position : 8906
VFL1FLTQLLVGPFLSPE1V1LLL1LQY

In both of these cases, the same amino acid occurs in the same positions as the positions of Aleph in Genesis 1 v 1

Oddly enough, both instances begin and end with the same amino acids, and the amino acid that matches with the positions of Aleph is the same in both cases.

Having said that, the amino acid L occurs more times than the number of Alephs in Genesis 1 v 1, so the result is that no sequence of aminoacids matching Genesis1 v 1 has been found.

I checked all three reading frames in reverse too. In this case there was only one instance in the third reading frame - Position : 2949
IKSFTTYTSSFSFCSDISSILCS11SLK

Here, the aminoacid S occupies the same positions as Aleph, but once again there are more S occurences than there are Alephs in Genesis 1 v 1

Discussion

It may be that I should include spaces between words as a character - so I will rerun the test allowing for this.

I re-ran the test allowing for spaces, and the software did not locate any strings that match Genesis1.

My next test will be to use a different symbol for each of the 64 codons, and see if the same symbols occur in same letter positions.

Actually, there exists a 64 letter alphabet already - unicode - A-Z + a-z + 0-9 = 64, so I'll use these symbols for the code. Actually, this is quite a good idea since it does not assume any redundancy at all, which was always a big assumption when we were trying to use the amino acids as the alphabet.

**jce** · 06-11-2012, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

Yes, a connection between Genesis and Genetics would be intriguing indeed!

My research confirms the results found by Vernon Jenkins but also enters into territory that he has not explored as far as I know. It concerns the idea of creation as an act of dividing the primal unity. The alphanumeric structure of Genesis 1:1 involves primes that are generated when unity (the number 1) is divided by an integer in base 10. Consider unity divided by 7:

1/7 = 0.142857 142857 142857 142857 142857 ... repeated forever.

If we now multiply by 7 to "restore unity" we get this:

1 = 7 x (1/7) = 0.999999 999999 999999 999999 ... repeated forever.

Similar patterns are found for any number not containing a 2 or 5 (the prime factors of the base 10 = 2 x 5).

So the process of dividing and reuniting unity involves "repdigits" like 99, 999, 9999, 99999, etc. And as it turns out, the primes found in the alphanumeric structure of Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5 are the very primes that are the facts of small repdigits. Specifically, the alphanumeric structure of the Creation Holograph is based on what I call the Holographic Generating Set (A = 27, B = 37, C = 73) and the sum of those numbers A + B + C = D = 137 (a prime, and also the first approximation to the fine structure constant which governs the interaction between matter and light).

The product of the first two numbers give the third repdigit 999 = 27 x 37 = AB.

The second two numbers are factors in the eighth repdigit = 99999999 = 9999 x 10001 = 9999 x 73 x 137 = 9999 x CD.

Products from the GenSet are closely related to Base 10, and the set is almost closed (differing from multiples of itself by +/- 1):

AB = 999 = 1000 - 1

BC = 2701 = 100A + 1

AD = 3699 = 100B - 1

BB = 1369 = 10D - 1

Using the GenSet, we can express the detailed structures of Genesis 1:1- and John 1:1-5 in many ways:

Gen 1:1 = 2701 = 100A + 1 = BC = T(C) = T(B) + 2AB

John 1:1 = 3627 = 100B - C

Gen 1:1 + AB = 3700 = 100B = John 1:1 + C

So from this, and many other identities, I concluded that the creation passages mimic the mathematical patterns generated when dividing unity. It still makes a lot of sense to me.

It is encouraging that your findings confirm theirs, or vise versa.

It's odd that you speak of people "predisposed to the idea that Bible has nothing to offer science" given that you yourself have stated that "the Bible is not a book of science." And I agree with you on that point.

You are correct. It was not my intent to imply that the Bible is a science book, but rather the notion that it supplies ultimate answers such as the "Who" and "what" origin question answered in Genesis 1:1, a starting point rejected by some secular scientists and scholars. Based on that answer however, many have moved forward seeking answers to the more specific questions such as the "when" and "how" of it all.

The problem is that the Bible contains mythology that is indistinguishable from the common mythology of the time it was written. So if you interpret, for example, the idea of "stretching the heavens like a tent" as insight into modern cosmology, then you are attributing that idea to the common mythology of the time when the phrase was commonly used by other cultures.

Analogy or mythology? How can you distinguish between the two? This Book has not been entirely deciphered yet and you speak as one predisposed to its discordance as offering anything relevant.

And I don't think it is accurate to suggest that scientists are "proud" - on the contrary, scientists are the most humble in as much as they defer to reality and evidence rather than their own opinion (which is the hallmark of dogmatists).

It is you who have erroneously lumped them all together, not I. Do you not know even one arrogant and proud researcher who acts and writes in such a way as to demonstrate their superior knowledge at the expense of the unlearned?

I don't see how this kind of evidence could ever support the traditional dogmatic interpretation of the Bible.

Do I sound like one who has a traditional dogmatic approach to the Bible? If so, I have misspoken. I am humbled by its ability to lift me up with inspiration in one passage, and then utterly debase me in another. It is so rich in symbolism and prophesy that it continues to challenge even the most enlightened scholars who are greatly familiar with its content. If I am dogmatic, it is in this way, I am confident in God's extraordinary and supernatural ability to ultimately unify Biblical Truth with Reason. To me, that is a reasonable Biblical dogma.

I accept the evidence of the Bible Wheel, but I do not accept that it implies traditional Christianity is true.

You are simply exercising that a wonderful gift of liberty bestowed upon you by your creator.

It's a very strange paradox, but I have no choice.

Of course you do, it's called "Fatih" or "Trust" if you prefer.

Great chatting, as always,

Richard

Thanks Richard for always making me feel welcome here.

Your friend,

John

**Richard Amiel McGough** · 06-11-2012, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by jce

It is encouraging that your findings confirm theirs, or vise versa.

That is the KEY to knowledge. We don't have much trouble with confirmation in science. But in religion it's one rare bird.

Originally Posted by jce

You are correct. It was not my intent to imply that the Bible is a science book, but rather the notion that it supplies ultimate answers such as the "Who" and "what" origin question answered in Genesis 1:1, a starting point rejected by some secular scientists and scholars. Based on that answer however, many have moved forward seeking answers to the more specific questions such as the "when" and "how" of it all.

The Biblical answers to the "who" and "what" questions don't seem like answers at all because of the lack of authentic answers to the "when" and "how" questions.

Mere saying "God did it" doesn't mean much, especially when the same book has misled people for thousands of years concerning the "when" and the "how" of creation.

Originally Posted by jce

Analogy or mythology? How can you distinguish between the two? This Book has not been entirely deciphered yet and you speak as one predisposed to its discordance as offering anything relevant.

Good point. I am happy to admit that much of the language is poetic. But on the other hand, it seems hard to deny that the world-view of the Bible writers was the standard ignorant mythological world-view common at the time of composition.

Originally Posted by jce

It is you who have erroneously lumped them all together, not I. Do you not know even one arrogant and proud researcher who acts and writes in such a way as to demonstrate their superior knowledge at the expense of the unlearned?

I think we agree that individual scientists and believers can span the spectrum of arrogance. I was just responding to your comment that "God reveals His secrets to the humble and hides them from the proud" which I thought you were applying to scientists as if they were different than others.

Originally Posted by jce

Do I sound like one who has a traditional dogmatic approach to the Bible? If so, I have misspoken. I am humbled by its ability to lift me up with inspiration in one passage, and then utterly debase me in another. It is so rich in symbolism and prophesy that it continues to challenge even the most enlightened scholars who are greatly familiar with its content. If I am dogmatic, it is in this way, I am confident in God's extraordinary and supernatural ability to ultimately unify Biblical Truth with Reason. To me, that is a reasonable Biblical dogma.

When I speak of "dogma" I'm talking about the doctrines that you accept because they are taught by your religion. For example, the doctrine that the Bible is the Word of God is a dogma that you have accepted. The doctrine of the Trinity is a dogma. Things like that.

Your desire to see a unity of Biblical Truth with Reason is admirable. But I think it will require a total reworking of your concept of "Biblical Truth." This is what happened to me. I still have all the evidence I ever had for the truth of the Bible, but I just can't believe what the Bible actually says. I could have retained all the concepts I liked - Jesus as God Incarnate, Love, the Alpha Omega, etc. - and then just made up my own interpretation of all the problematic things. But in so doing I'd just be making up my own religion. I've seen it done a thousand times, and think it is ridiculous. So I just dropped it all as obviously not important since if God really is the author of the Bible, he obviously doesn't care what people believe! Else he would have made himself a little more clear.

Originally Posted by jce

I accept the evidence of the Bible Wheel, but I do not accept that it implies traditional Christianity is true.

You are simply exercising that a wonderful gift of liberty bestowed upon you by your creator.

That's not true at all. I have no "liberty" to believe things that I don't believe! This reveals the fundamental error of Christianity and all dogmatic religions that claim a person can choose what they believe, and are damned if they don't believe the correct dogma.

Originally Posted by jce

Of course you do, it's called "Fatih" or "Trust" if you prefer.

Again, that's not true. Could you "choose" to really believe in Allah? The Tooth Fairy? Santa Clause? Scientology? What makes you think humans are free to believe things they don't believe? That's a contradiction.

Originally Posted by jce

Thanks Richard for always making me feel welcome here.

Your friend,

John

Your contributions are truly excellent my friend.

**Craig.Paardekooper** · 06-14-2012, 07:34 AM

**Craig.Paardekooper** · 06-18-2012, 12:06 PM

Here is the complete sequence for Chromosome 1 of human DNA

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/...0?report=fasta

Chromosome 1 is 249,250,621 bases long.

10 million bytes = 6 million bases approximately, so the complete chromosome will have a download size of about 400 megabytes, which is quite big.

I have searched the first 6.5 million bases of Chromosome 1 for any pattern of aminoacids that would match the Genesis1 sequence of letters.

There is no match between aminoacids sequence and Genesis1 letter sequence within the part of Chromosome 1 searched.

If there was a match then in any 28 amino acid string, the positions of the same letters should be occupied by the same aminoacid. I isolated every 28 aminoacid sequence within the first 6.5 million bases, and none of them corresponded to the 28 letters of Genesis1. I repeated this allowing for spaces between words. No match was found.

**Craig.Paardekooper** · 06-19-2012, 11:50 AM

I have obtained the entire Y Chromosome in FASTA format. It has a size of 57.7 megabytes and a length of 60,561,044 bases

I found it here - http://hgdownload.cse.ucsc.edu/golde...9/chromosomes/

The software will convert these bases into an array of codon triplets, then convert these triplets into a string of single letter amino acids. It will then search every possible 28 letter string of amino acids, to see if the same aminoacids occur in the positions of same letters in Genesis 1. I will also have to rerun this to allow for a space between the words in Genesis 1.

I am not sure how long the program will have to run - most likely all night. I possibly could decrease this time by using threading. Or I may break up the sequence into 60 shorter sequences, and test each one in turn.

Chromosome Y is the shortest Chromosome, so it is a good place to start.

**Richard Amiel McGough** · 06-19-2012, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper

I have obtained the entire Y Chromosome in FASTA format. It has a size of 57.7 megabytes and a length of 60,561,044 bases

The software will convert these bases into an array of codon triplets, then convert these triplets into a string of single letter amino acids. It will then search every possible 28 letter string of amino acids, to see if the same aminoacids occur in the positions of same letters in Genesis 1. I will also have to rerun this to allow for a space between the words in Genesis 1.

I am not sure how long the program will have to run - most likely all night. I possibly could decrease this time by using threading. Or I may break up the sequence into 60 shorter sequences, and test each one in turn.

Chromosome Y is the shortest Chromosome, so it is a good place to start.

What programming language are you using?

You could skip one step and go directly from bases to single letter codons.

And I wouldn't add spaces. There are ancient texts where there are no spaces. They are needed only for interpretation, to make it clear where words end and start. If there is not a codon interpreted as a space, then how can you add them?

Also, you don't need to restrict yourself to 28 letter sequences. Just do a search for any substring anywhere that matches the regular expression specifying the same letter at positions of aleph in Genesis 1:1. This way it doesn't matter which codon corresponds to which letter. On the contrary, if you find a verse that has the same letters in the aleph positions, you can then check to see if it has the same letters in the bet positions and so on and you will be able to determine the letter-codon correlation.

**Craig.Paardekooper** · 06-19-2012, 02:03 PM

What programming language are you using?

You could skip one step and go directly from bases to single letter codons.

And I wouldn't add spaces. There are ancient texts where there are no spaces. They are needed only for interpretation, to make it clear where words end and start. If there is not a codon interpreted as a space, then how can you add them?

Also, you don't need to restrict yourself to 28 letter sequences. Just do a search for any substring anywhere that matches the regular expression specifying the same letter at positions of aleph in Genesis 1:1. This way it doesn't matter which codon corresponds to which letter. On the contrary, if you find a verse that has the same letters in the aleph positions, you can then check to see if it has the same letters in the bet positions and so on and you will be able to determine the letter-codon correlation.

Hi Richard,

I am using visual basic. I am going straight from bases to single letter amino acids. The computer creates an array of codons from the bases, then replaces the three letter codon with a single letter aminoacid.

I will miss out the spaces then. It occurred to me that there are three possible reading frames for DNA, depending on where you start reading from - so I will have to search in each reading frame as well.

Thanks for your suggestions

Craig

**Craig.Paardekooper** · 06-20-2012, 11:33 AM

I searched for all 28 letter sequences where -

the single amino acid occupied all positions as the first letter of Genesis 1 - positions 1 and 7
the different single amino acid occupied all positions as the second letter of Genesis 1 - positions 2, 8 and 22
the different single amino acid occupied all positions as the third letter of Genesis 1 - positions 3, 9, 10, 15, 23, 26

The chances of all these conditions being met is quite small. However, a search of the first 3 million bases of the Y Chromosome found one instance -

Position : 515305
TYLYLSTYLLSIYYLSIIYIIYLIYLLS

However, though promising, you can see that the first letter occurs twice, the second letter occurs 8 times and the third letter occurs 8 times. This exceeds the number of occurrences of these letters in Genesis1, so there are no instances in this part of the Y Chromosome

I will proceed with the next batch of 3 million bases.

**Richard Amiel McGough** · 06-20-2012, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper

I searched for all 28 letter sequences where -

the single amino acid occupied all positions as the first letter of Genesis 1 - positions 1 and 7
the different single amino acid occupied all positions as the second letter of Genesis 1 - positions 2, 8 and 22
the different single amino acid occupied all positions as the third letter of Genesis 1 - positions 3, 9, 10, 15, 23, 26

The chances of all these conditions being met is quite small. However, a search of the first 3 million bases of the Y Chromosome found one instance -

Position : 515305
TYLYLSTYLLSIYYLSIIYIIYLIYLLS

However, though promising, you can see that the first letter occurs twice, the second letter occurs 8 times and the third letter occurs 8 times. This exceeds the number of occurrences of these letters in Genesis1, so there are no instances in this part of the Y Chromosome

I will proceed with the next batch of 3 million bases.

Thanks for the report.

But there is an error in your statement that the second letter (resh) should appear in positions 2, 8, and 22. It should be 2, 8, and 27.

Here is what you found, with the Hebrew letters represented below. The hits are marked red, the error large bold:

TYLYLS TYL LSIYY LS IIYII YLI YLLS
BRASYT BRA ALHYM AT HSMYM VAT HARZ

As you can see, your program erred on the second letter (corresponding to resh). It is aligned with "L" which corresponds to Aleph. But position 22 is a Y which corresponds to Resh so it looks like you programmed for positions (2, 8, 22). You need to rerun it with the correct values.

BTW - how long did it take for your program to process those 3 million bases?

I like pattern finding! I was wondering what we would find if we wrote Pi in base 22 and looked for Hebrew words. It might be fun.

Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

Thread: Has God's Signature been found in the Genetic Code

Thread Tools

Display

Choosing a Genome as a Test Specimen

Using a 64 Symbol Alphabet to represent DNA

Searching the Human Genome

Searching the entire Y Chromosome

Results for first 3 million bases of Y Chromosome

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions