Hacking the Genome

In pondering genome structure and function, evolutionary geneticist Laurence Hurst has arrived at some unanticipated conclusions about how natural selection has molded our DNA.

By | June 1, 2012

Laurence D. Hurst, Laboratory of Evolutionary Genetics and Genomics, Department of Biology and Biochemistry,
University of BathNick Morrish Photography

Laurence D. Hurst, Laboratory of Evolutionary Genetics and Genomics, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath NICK MORRISH PHOTOGRAPHY

These days Laurence Hurst pores over data sets. As a kid, he pored over bones. “You find plenty of dead sheep on the moors down in Cornwall,” he says. “I’d go out collecting these stinky sheep bones and bury them in the garden. I was utterly fascinated by the idea that every bone had a name.”

He was also mesmerized by microbes. “I remember the shock I felt the first time I looked in a microscope and saw a Euglena swimming away. There was this whole other world sitting there. That was pretty mind-blowing. To this day I have a love of protists, in no small part because I’ve always gravitated toward simple problems to answer big questions.”

The biggest question of all: Is the genome like an exquisitely engineered Swiss watch, in which carefully crafted parts fit together perfectly and every feature is optimized to function flawlessly? Or, as Hurst puts it, “is it just some cheap Mickey Mouse watch that’ll tell you the time, but its components are poor-quality and it includes lots of crap that’s frankly unnecessary?”

Hurst would like to know. “Looking at the genome, the question comes up again and again. And the reason I get very excited about it is, we really don’t know the answer. But now, for the first time, we’re drowning in the data we can use to address the issue. We just have to be clever about it.”

So far, Hurst—who in 1997 became a full professor at the University of Bath at the age of 31—has made clever use of the data to address why there are two sexes, why the genetic code was no accident, why gene order matters, and why RNAs with no function are functionally important. Here he contemplates new ways to teach evolution, the joys of throwing a javelin, and where to put the coffeepot.


The other Cambridge. After completing his undergraduate studies at the University of Cambridge in 1987, Hurst landed a fellowship that allowed him to spend a year at Harvard. “I loved the rush of new ideas, new ways to look at evolution. You go to a given university and they teach you their view of the world. This was first time I’d ever got to see there are other places that have completely other views—not just different, but really disagreeing with what I’d been taught as an undergraduate. I found that really exciting.”

“It was originally asserted that gene order in mammals is random. This was before anybody even had a complete eukaryotic genome, which was theoretical hubris taken to the nth degree.

Battle of the sexes. As a graduate student working with Bill Hamilton and Alan Grafen at the University of Oxford, Hurst tackled the age-old question: Why are there two sexes? “Imagine you’re a protist swimming in a pond. Since you can’t mate with anybody who’s the same as you, the best solution would be to have as many mating types as possible—to boost the odds of success. Two is the worst solution because you’ll only succeed half the time. Yet two is what protists have got.” Why? “The answer we came up with has to do with coordinating the uniparental inheritance of organelles.” In many organisms, for example, mitochondria are passed down from the mother. Having more than two sexes could introduce confusion about whose organelles are going to make it to the next generation, a situation that could be deleterious. The study—published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society in 1992—got written up in Science. “Only later did I realize that having a two-page article about you in Science as a graduate student is breathtakingly unusual.”

One in a million. When scientists first started sequencing collections of human proteins, they noticed that in situations where an amino acid had been changed, it was often replaced by one that was chemically similar. “There could be two explanations,” says Hurst. “One is that if substitutions are not chemically similar, then selection simply gets rid of them and you don’t see them in the population. The other is that it’s a property of the genetic code—that most mutations will produce amino acids that are chemically similar.” To find out, Hurst fired up a computer and scrambled the genetic code—keeping start and stop codons the same, but jumbling the rest of the codons so, for example, UUU might no longer code for phenylalanine. For each of these “alternative codes,” he assessed the effect of mistranslation—whether reading one of the three base pairs in a codon incorrectly would dramatically change the chemical character of the amino acid it encodes. “We simulated a million different genetic codes, and it turned out not one was as good as the real genetic code in terms of its ability to minimize the effect of translation errors.” The resulting paper, “The genetic code is one in a million,” appeared in the Journal of Molecular Evolution in 1998.

You say potato. Until recently, evolutionary biologists asserted that synonymous mutations—changes in nucleotide sequence that do not change the amino acid sequence of an encoded protein—were selectively neutral. In other words, they don’t benefit an organism, but they aren’t particularly harmful, either. Hurst found otherwise. “In mammals, the ends of our exons are defined by splicing enhancer motifs. These motifs are 6 to 8 nucleotides long and the more of these motifs you have in an exon, the more accurate splicing is. Now, if we suppose that splicing is done for a good reason, and if you don’t do it properly it’s going to be bad for you, it’s obvious that a mutation that changes a splicing enhancer motif to something that is not a splicing enhancer motif is going to be deleterious”—even if that mutation is ‘synonymous’ in the sense that if a protein were produced from that exon, it would still have the correct amino acid sequence. “And that’s what we found. Working with sequence data, we estimated that about 9 or 10 percent of mutations in mammals could disrupt splicing enhancer motifs, and be deleterious, while at the same time being synonymous”—which means they could be acted on by selection. “The paper was initially rejected because the editor said, ‘It is well known that, in mammals, synonymous mutations are not under selection.’ To this day I think I still have that e-mail.”

Keeping up with the Joneses. “It was originally asserted that gene order in mammals is random. This was before anybody even had a complete eukaryotic genome, which was theoretical hubris taken to the nth degree.” But Hurst suspected that gene order might matter. He had noticed that in the yeast genome, many pairs of neighboring genes were transcribed from a single, bidirectional promoter. When one was turned on, so was the other. And he wondered: Could their positioning be a happy accident? To find out, Hurst and colleagues compared the genomes of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candida albicans. They asked: If two genes are coexpressed in S. cerevisiae, are they more likely to be neighbors? And will neighbors in S. cerevisiae have counterparts that also cozy up in C. albicans? “What we got was an unambiguous, lovely, delicious signal showing that genes that sit next door to each other and are highly coexpressed in yeast tend to stay next door to each other and stay highly coexpressed” in C. albicans—suggesting that their proximity is purposeful.

“I keep the coffee machine in with my graduate students. Sometimes you get students who are a little reluctant to chat. Grabbing a coffee is a good excuse to go talk with them about this, that, and the other.”

CUTting-edge research. “Recently we got the idea that bidirectional promoters are actually little devices that ensure consistently open chromatin. And we found a really cute explanation for how this works.” That cute explanation involves cryptic unstable transcripts, or CUTs. “They’re small RNAs, found in yeast, which are made at high levels and destroyed the second that they’re made. It’s a classic example of: Is this a Mickey Mouse watch and you’re just generating rubbish? Or is it a Swiss watch, the mechanism of which we don’t yet understand? In this case, I’m fairly certain we’re looking at a Swiss watch and I think we now understand what’s going on. Imagine you’ve got an essential gene that really has to be upregulated when it’s needed. When a transcription factor comes along, it would be a bit of a disaster if that promoter is stuck away in closed chromatin.” To solve that problem, Hurst discovered, yeast tend to put essential genes next to genes that encode CUTs. “By continually making these CUTs, you keep that chromatin in an open configuration, which promotes expression of the essential gene next door”—work published in Genome Biology and Evolution in 2011.

First things first. Hurst recently launched an experimental project to determine the best way to teach evolution to teens. “The hypothesis I’m working on came from something I read in Science, which said that if you look across cultures, it turns out there’s a good correlation between people’s understanding of evolution and their understanding of genetics. It could be that if you understand genetics—you know about alleles and you understand that alleles can change in frequency—then evolution is just the next logical next step. So the hypothesis we’re going to test is: if we teach genetics first, then kids will get evolution better than if we teach evolution first and genetics second. If that works, we should be able to put together some materials we can take to schools to help the teachers teach.”


Eureka! “Darwin spends the first chapter of The Origin of Species discussing pigeons. He knew he was about to overturn a world view, yet he doesn’t start off with a great big theological debate. He starts off talking about pigeons. Fantastic! The first few chapters of The Origin of Species are actually the most impressive bit of writing.  The way Darwin establishes the argument in those first four chapters is just wonderful: there’s heritability, there’s variation, there’s a process of selection, there’s mortality. So by the end of Chapter 4, you end up going, ‘Ooh, I’ve got a really good idea! I know how evolution works!’ Of course it’s Darwin’s idea, but he’s put it into your brain in a most fantastic fashion.”

History in the making. “There’s an energy you get around the Harvard campus which I never see in Oxford and Cambridge or the British university system as a whole. To some extent we may be inhibited in Britain because our traditions are just so old and so deep, it’s almost as if change is unimaginable. Everything is so rooted in history, you can’t see how the world could be any different. Whereas at Harvard, I got the distinct impression that they wanted to be making history, rather than sitting on top of history.”

Cheap, fast, and fun. “I think with the $1,000 genome we can now start to do playful science. Say you want to know which cell type gives rise to which other cell type. There’s two ways to do it. With the classic developmental approach, you have to track the damn things as they divide. Now, you just sequence them all up in a given individual, and because in every cell division you get mutations, you can construct not a phylogenetic tree but an ontogenetic tree. That ontogenetic tree will tell you the series of cell divisions that gave rise to every cell in the body. Wouldn’t that be fantastic?”

Insider info. Hurst revels in grant review panels. “You can learn a lot from listening to your colleagues talk about grants. You’ve got the world’s experts telling you what the problems might be with a particular analysis or why a certain data set is not going to do what you think it will do. How valuable is that? I sit on a lot of editorial boards, as well. It’s a very good way to keep up with the zeitgeist.”

Coffee talk. “I keep the coffee machine in with my graduate students. Sometimes you get students who are a little reluctant to chat. Grabbing a coffee is a good excuse to go talk with them about this, that, and the other, and see how things are going. That would be my advice to new supervisors: put your coffeepot in with your graduate students.”


Hurst the hurler. “At age 13, I was given a javelin—as was the rest of my class. They told me to throw it, and discovered that I could throw it twice as far as anybody else. It was very good when I got bored [with studying] for my exams as a schoolkid. We lived in a house that had an open field next to it, and I would take out the javelin to blow off some steam.”

Lip service. Hurst and his daughter play trumpet in her primary-school orchestra. “I dropped trumpet at the age of 14 because I never really had the lips for it. But when I heard that the orchestra encourages parents to come and play, I bought a trumpet and discovered that I could remember the fingering. At the moment we’re doing the James Bond theme. So most evenings you’ll find me just tootling away.”

Out of (i)touch. “The reason I don’t have an iPhone is that I know I’d be eternally checking my e-mail if I did. I love being on vacation with my family, completely cut off from the rest of the world. During those 2 weeks, you can e-mail me as much as you like—I will be utterly oblivious to it. There’s more to life than science.”


Add a Comment

Avatar of: You



Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo


Avatar of: dovhenis


Posts: 97

June 6, 2012

“Hacking the Genome
In pondering genome structure and function, evolutionary geneticist Laurence Hurst has arrived at some unanticipated conclusions about how natural selection has molded our DNA.
By Karen Hopkin | June 1, 2012 “
Our genome has not “been moldedâ€쳌.
Our genomes, ALL DNA and RNA genomes,  are BEING molded.
Genomes are ORGANISMS, template organisms evolved by-for Earthlife’s primal organisms the RNA nucleotide genes that evolved by natural selection of-from RNA.
Plain and obvious, supported by sleep and chirality data and by all evolutionary biology data applied in depth all the way down to the RNA nucleotides.
Dov Henis
(comments from 22nd century)

June 13, 2012

It is baffling to see how our planet earth is carrying so many mysteries in her bosom with so many life forms and so many copies of genomes that cover the surface and depth of the universe. With modern technology and the curiosity to know what it our genome made up of two scientists Prof Francis Collins and Dr.Craig Venter have sequenced human genome.  What is the rationale or scientific basis behind this study- to know what we are made up of; how strong or weak we are; how we can handle life or what drugs we can take or how much we can take or how we can stop genetic disorders or how we could sharpen our genetic make up to stay alive in this world or what we can do to protect our blue print of our life from epigenetic or biological weaponry or many more expectations- this is the basis of all our scientific endeavours. The intellectual human journey have made this modern life with so many advancements and technology based life. Yet we need to be careful and give room for nature to provide answers for our lives for we have to live with nature. We cannot create or live in a brave new world with machines and gadgets or genetically complete humans. Variety is the very spice of life and you and me could live on this earth on the terms of Nature. Nature cannot live on our terms. Yet we salute great scientific minds and great planners of life on earth on futuristic expectations. Yet as an ordinary man I stand bewildered to see the mysterious secrets of life woven in the bases of DNA and the culture medium of Love that nurtures the DNA into loving and living human being. ds sheriff

Avatar of: Guest


June 15, 2012

What is THIS marvelous thing?  Someone is coming up with the notion that it might be more scientifically feasible to let the findings of research begin to lead our perceptions about how the findings fit together?????????????????  as opposed to taking the materialist doctrine of St. Darwin and his revisionist apostles such as Dawkins (focusing in upon the gene as the driver of all change in living things, rather than the species) whereby it is preached that all new findings must fit one myopic doctrine or re-worked doctrine? More and more evidence pours in to indicate that it is the interplay between a vast spectrum (possibly infinite?) of dissimilar dynamics that drives change in life morphologies on Earth, or drives anything and everything else,in this OUR universe, or island among multiverses, and not domination by any one. (Space here does not allow full treatment of the E. pluribus unum possibility, but another time perhaps.) And the diversity among dynamics of difference relative size scales and frames of reference among parallel frames and scales in physics, physical chemistry, quantum physics... dance with the dynamics of intra-species happenings, inter-species happenings, geographical happenings, intra-species happenings of biota, inter-species happenings of biota, diverse kinds of whole-body homeostases, ... with no one of these calling all the shots. (Mankind is the measure of all things OF MANKIND... not all things of the universe or universes, no matter how egocentric may be our coping-bias.

Who is incapable among us of realizing that there is, as yet, no single theoretical framework that can encompass everything. With so many diverse kinds of dynamics all dancing with one another, and with our being IGNORANT of no telling how much else beyond what we can establish for certain, how can there be a set of rules for which all other dynamical sets are subsets. And what chance has a narrow conceptualization of how and why nature works withing the narrow confines of only the class of dynamical structures known to play roles in biological change over time, contain and explain every twit of new data coming out now, or that will come out in the future. Hopefully a newer, broader synthesis will come to improve upon it in this century, so that all the flood of new findings in each and all the sciences will not be expected to be cramable into its exoskeletal limits as they are today. Science is open ended, or it is in a cage.

Man's will and man's abilities (and limits thereof)to manipulate things is a unique dynamic, too, plays a role with all the other dynamics cited above in all this, too). But no one dynamic, though unique in its set of factors and operations whereby they interact, out of a whole bunch of entra-scalar diversities of dynamics, calls all the shots for all the others. They ALL participate, each in its own way, in a dance beyond human capacity to observe and measure it all, and interpret in accordance with all there is of it. We don't KNOW all there is of it, nor even have any way of knowing what do DON'T know of it.

What a BREATH OF FRESH SCIENTIFIC AIR that along comes a "teacher" who acknowledges that there are multiple worldviews, none of which is the only one, and that the FINDINGS of science can guide us toward learning something, without forcing us to contemplate either than there only can be one or, if so, then WHICH one, among unfalsifiable alternatives.

Could this be, at last, a slight crack in the entrenched dogma wall of how some individuals view themselves as veritable guardians of "the truth," when the only truth they guard is as unfalsifiable as any other?

If there is anything I would wish for those working in science professions and science academia in the twenty-first century, it would be this -- that they might update the language and the metaphors of bio-evolutionary rhetoric to make them less doctrinaire, an more (you gotta love this...) more ADAPTIVE, more currently science literate, and thence more flexible?

The most current dynamic of interest is inter-cellular. Why? Because the interplay between science, mathematics and technology has brought us to the point of being able now, for the first time EVER, to BEGIN to see things going on inside a single cell, to sequence individual cells,to observe and/or measure the intracellular mechanisms as separate and distinct from mere intercellular phenomena, and THENCE to get a fresh new look at how the one relates to and impacts, and is impacted by, the other. Bio-evolutionary theory neither informs this new learning nor predicts it. So what's the use of all the quibbling and squabbling between materialist dynamic untestables and any other metaphysics. Why should we not just say, we DO NOT KNOW all the answers, and get on into seeking to find out more that we CAN find out?

Nothing insults the intelligence of an objective approach to learning about nature (which some of us believe is what science should be about, as opposed to being about defending castles of rigorous entrenchment in a framework of not-yet-proved nor disproved assumptions). 

Here, at long, long last comes a teacher who recognizes that there is more than one "worldview" about what nature is, does, means... and WHY so.  We don't have any empirical test of how to disprove one worldview, much less prove another, where that extends outside the box of what we can demonstrate empirically.

Actually I would have no problem with bio-evolutionary theory, and those who feel that reason itself is threatened by any OTHER meta-science. (After all, what we can neither prove nor disprove as to WHETHER materialism is all there is, or some other thing is all there is... when neither is falsifiable... why not let science just seek more information without being FORCED into one unfalsifiable box or the other, and just DO science and SEE WHERE IT LEADS US.

What is gained scientifically by insisting that a conceptual framework to hang things on HAS TO BE the only framework, and insisting that all new data MUST be hung on one rack and must NOT (any one worldview) and not on any other unfalsifiable one.

What it "means" and why one OPINION about what it means is rational while another OPINION before EITHER has been ruled in as a certainty and the other ruled out as a certainty, is unproductive of science. And, as for personal philosophical or metaphysical explanations (including materialist dynamism), or any other that can neither rule itself in empirically, or the other out empirically... for the one or the other to win out in a shouting match establishes NOTHING that helps in the pursuit of learning about what CAN be learned about.

Of course if, somewhere along the line, the materialist's opinions DO get ruled in or ruled out, that'll be that.
Meantime, ANY opinion is just that: opinion.

Take away the metaphors of unfalsifiable assumptions of much of the rhetoric about biological evolution, and it becomes something of a veritable catch-all framework onto which we can find a place for just about anything at the human-centered spectrum of things that are and things that happen in the universe. When our learning GETS us there, there won't be anything left to argue about. So why not focus mainly on all this flood of new data, and trying to find answers in IT, instead of trying to fit IT to any prejudices we might prefer in the interim.

But when the framework we have invented begins to wag the tail of our interpretations of new data, in such a way as to force them to fit one unknown, unfalsifiable structure or the other, that IS NOT SCIENCE. It's insisting that one individual's opinion of what is the shape of what lies beyond what we know is better than another individual's opinion of the shape of what lies beyond what we do not know.

The reason assumptions are useful and even necessary is because we absolutely must have some kind of working hypotheses to give any kind of order to what data we have.  And the reason our assumptive frameworks need to be FLEXIBLE is because we otherwise can end up stunting our ability to let new data guide the search for more new data (and the technology to access it).

Throughout the history of science, the recurring theme that has marked progress has been been comparable to what a crab does with its exoskeleton when it can't get any bigger. It SHEDS it.

Whether our view of science be built, as it were, around what might be better metaphorically described as an endoskeletal conceptual framework or an exoskeletal framework, either kind of skeleton, if it stops growing, constrains what the organism (real or abstract) can do going forward.

Yet there are those who, by being entrenched and defensive about whose unknowns have a right to be right, and whose do not, must be dragged kicking and screaming into any and every attempt at examining the possibility that there may be more in, or happening in, the universe or multiverses, than EITHER envelope would contain.

So why not learn more about little details we CAN access, and see where THAT leads us.

Objective science (hey, is there any other kind?) is science that can bend its rationales around new evidence -- not bend new evidence around an increasingly obsolescent grand doctrine.

We already have entered, in the twenty-first century, upon a new and different way of learning about nature.  Whereas science has progressed primarily on basis of hypothesis-driven driving, mankind's best minds are becoming increasingly aware that data crunching technology, together with technology that enables us to see farther and farther outward from the envelope of experience bound by the grossly small spectra of direct, everyday human experience, into ever stranger..., ever more surprising information... we now can access at scale billions of times larger and billions of times smaller than what our our senses and our imaginations, unaided by such technology, are capable of observing and measuring.  (Indeed we cannot observe anything directly even at the level of everyday experience but interpret from proxies... such as bounced light waves, vibrations of molecules of liquids or solids or gas..., so it is only by successive levels of proxy that we reach still farther than everyday experience, to indirectly observe, measure, contemplate and utilize for our coping purposes, more and more remote scale-levels of nature than our ancestors ever even dreamed of.

We do not gain anything by allowing doctrine to force new data obtained about the expanding frontiers of learning to conform to narratives built to accommodate only things we did not yet know yesterday, last week, last month... or over a century ago.

Hopefully the twenty-first century will see those inside and outside science research and academia relaxing their/our demand that everything fit an increasingly obsolescent structure that, while it has guided some working hypotheses that served a purpose in the past, may merely impede progress in our thinking from this point forward.

Any of us who genuinely and objectively WANT TO LEARN MORE about reality need to let what we learn drive our conceptual models... not let our conceptual models constrain our interpretation of things that exceed its envelope.

Avatar of: alexandru


Posts: 1457

June 17, 2012

Thank you to THE SCIENTIST for "the skilful debaters of this world"!


“There could be two explanations,â€쳌 says Hurst,
or maybe three, I said in 2009 in my poem "The genetic war":

"There are three genders in the world
Which manages the words foretold:
The Masculine is proud and power
Because he is speaking from a tower;
The Female is the organic governor,
She is the nice, the fast and honour;
The Neutral is like nobody on the maps
Because Its engine is disconected from driven parts.
It doesn’t look to be present in the mailing,
It is only waiting for the fault signaling.

Genetically there are two gender’
Separated from the beginning by the Father
And put down, by soft install,
In the egg of man and the egg of girl.
The Neutral is not insight of them,
It looks like an ancient totem.
In fecundation, when we combine X and Y,
There is a combination which only private eye
Give us the real decodification,
Which is different from the synthetic installation."

Now I can say that the computer evolution is similar to life evolution. The biggest difference is that the computer is not capable to reproduce (to transcribe information on its DNA), because it has not *life-giving spirit*.

Because I consider Charles Darwin one of the grate kings of the science ("We honour God for what he conceals, we honour kings for what they explain." -Proverbs 25.2) I set up a new concept *EXPLORE - EDIFY - BELIEVE* and because in the Bible I found some information about EVOLUTION I developed the Assisted Evolutionary Creation, firstly by God and than by man and I explained this in my four books:
1. A brief history of the man creation, From Adam to The Revelation - ISBN 978-606-92107-0-3;
2. Mitochondrial Adam DNA data transmission theory - ISBN 978-606-92107-1-0;
3. Genetically modified divine harmonies, From the word of God in the word of man - ISBN 978-606-92107-2-7;
4. Genesis and genetics, Privatizing the ether - ISBN 978-606-92107-3-4

I do not get into your attention the scientific information that confirm the EVOLUTION because it is not necessary.
I supose is better to get the Bible information that confirm the Evolution:

Daniel 7.2-4 - "Winds were blowing from all directions and lashing the surface of the ocean. Four huge beasts came up out of the ocean, each one different from the others. The first one looked like a lion, but had wings like an eagle. While I was watching, the wings were torn off. The beast was lifted up and made to stand like a man. And then a human mind was given to it."
Paul, 1.Corinthians, 15.45-47 - "The first man, Adam, was created a living being; but the last Adam is the life-giving spirit. It is not the spiritual that comes first, but the physical, and then the spiritual.The first Adam, made of earth, came from the earth; the second Adam came from heaven."

In addition, the Bible accepts better the rationally knowledge than the foolishness concept BELIEVE and do not SEARCH:
Paul, 1Corinthians 1.20-21 - "So then, were does that leave the wise? or the scholars? or the skilful debaters of this world? God has shown that this world's wisdom is foolishness! For God in his wisdom made it impossible for people to know him by means of their own wisdom. Instead, by means of so-called foolish message we preach, God decided to save those who believe."
Luke 11.52 - "How terrible for you teachers of the Law! You have kept the key that opens the door to the house of knowledge; you yourselves will not go in, and you stop thouse who are trying to go in!"
Proverbs 1.22 - "Foolish people! How long do you want to be foolish? How long will you enjoy pouring scorn on knowledge? Will you never learn?"
Proverbs 25.2 - “We honour God for what He conceals; we honour kings for what they explain!â€쳌
Paul, Romans 12.2 - "Do not conform yourselves to the standards of this world, but let God transform you inwardly by a complete change of your mind. Then you will be able to know the will of God - what is good and is pleasing to Him and is perfect."
Proverbs 8.10-12 - "Choose my instruction instead of silver; choose knowledge rather than finest gold. I am wisdom and I have knowledge and sound judgement insight."

And, moreover, because in the Bible I found the only information about the God capacity to write words on the human DNA (Paul, 2 Corinthians 3.3 and Paul,
Hebrew 4.12) my conclusion is that the scientists are on the good or God way!

Let's explain my conclusion.

Eve mtDNA theory: *Mitochondria are inherited from only the mother. Although sperm have mitochondria, they degenerate shortly after fertilization of the egg.*

This is the biggest mistake produced by geneticists!!!!

The prevention is the mother of knowledge to harmonize Evolution!

Who get back in the sperm of the natural born boys, not in vitro made, the paternal mitochondria at the puberty?

Because the sperm mitochondria, that give sperm motility, are passed down via father I developed five years ago "the inheritance of father mitochondria theory" that GENETICALLY confirm GENESIS!

Abstract: Mitochondrial Adam DNA data transmissions theory
*The necessary and sufficient processes to a well function of the human body are meticulous arranged by specific organizational cells, so called process bio-managers, using interconditioned procedures, transmitted through three ways of communication: chemical or “protein channelâ€쳌, electrical or “ion channelâ€쳌 and mitochondrial or “EMF wireless channelâ€쳌. The third type is out of the visible and measurable spectrum and raises a new challenge to the scientist. For this type of bio communication we bring a new theoretical hypothesis, based on the managerial multidisciplinary analysis of a cybernetic model proposed by us, by simulating the human body function with the virtual computerized system based on the management of its total knowledge and its perfect quality way of function. The main "bricks" used for this virtual construction are: the brain, as main bio-processor, and Eve mtDNA and Adam mtDNA, as bio-antennas. This assembly of the total knowledge, build with “brain reasoning, biological feeling, and unlimited soul feelingâ€쳌, is called by us “main decision triangle, IQ-EQ-CQâ€쳌. The main principle of the management of the total knowledge imposes us to not neglect the information produced by man during the time, even if it seems creasy at the beginning (see brainstorming definition). Because in the natural fertilisation the spermatozoids are naturally equipped with the paternal mtDNA (it looks like reflex klystron power amplifier, KPA = a veritable main bio-GPS), we consider that the paternal mitochondria DNA have a very important role in the evolution of the human being life quality and we have developed a new hypothesis, “Adam mtDNA theoryâ€쳌, in addition to “Eve mtDNA theoryâ€쳌. (Keywords: brain, mitochondria, maternal, paternal)*

Adam mtDNA exist only in xiphoid process in combination with Eve mtDNA, like a husband and wife couple, and manage the spermatogenesis and oogenesis and are responsible for immunity (see the disease feedback in stem cells technology and other transplants) and control the heart puls.

In contradiction with Eve mtDNA theory, Raoul Robacki said ("The anatomy" -Anatomia funcţională a omului, Ed. Scrisul Românesc 1985): "Fusion between the sperm and oocyte plasma membranes follows, allowing the entry of the sperm head and father mitochondria middle piece into the oocyte (the tail penetration is blocked), and appears an oocyte contraction because the superficially potential decrease. Now starts the embryos development procedure: dissolution of the sperm head, rotation 180° of the middle piece and it placement near the nucleus. The zygote begins to divide and form a blastocyst and when it reaches the uterus, it performs the implantation in the endometrium. At this point, we said the female is pregnant."
In 1973 I learned from my EMF teachers that "The macroscopic study of the electrically and magnetically activities is subordinated to the mechanically and thermal body response study, because the electric and magnetic body states identification and the primary measurements level necessaries for their characterization are not directly accessible to the human sensual and become visible indirectly by the help of analyzing their new geometrical, mechanical and thermal properties. The electrically and magnetically body state is apparently extrinsic and temporary. Described electrically and magnetically body states can be voluntary communicated to the body and removed (pulled back) from the body to give him back the old state. The discovery of this news electrically and magnetically body properties was made observing that the body real feed-back characteristic as a result to the specific known action is not fully described, doesn’t respect prescribed traceability, and there is not enough information to assure the future evolution (attraction, orientation, and so on). In this new states the body has new properties not concluded to the known geometrical, mechanical and thermal properties, and it is necessary to introduce new types of primary body characteristics: electrical and magnetically. This is not a very simple question, because to identify the electrically and magnetically body states we reach the conclusion that the body communicates with an invisible and distinct physic system, outspreaded in the environment and around the body, which mediates the long distance wireless transmission of the voluntary action as power and coupling communication, called electromagnetic field.â€쳌 (Alexandru Timotin, V. Hortopan, A.Ifrim, M. Preda – EMF basic lessons -LecÅ£ii de Bazele electrotehnicii, EDP 1970)
In 2005, Eugen Simion, The President of the Romanian Academy, during a conference put the question: "Does the Religion can bring the information that cannot be obtained by rationality?"

My question is does the Genesis bring us the knowledge toolkit in our effort to provide policy makers in life evolution?

To solve the controversy between Raul Robaky and Eve mtDNA theory, in 2007, using genetic interpretation of the Genesis with EMF help, I found this plus information:
Genesis 2.21-24: "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man. And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh."
Mathew 19.16: "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
Paul, 2 Corinthians 3.3: "It is clear that Christ himself wrote this letter and sent it by us. It is written, not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, and not on stone tablets but on human hearts."
Paul, Hebrew 4.12: "The word of God is alive and active, sharper than any double-edged sword. It cuts all the way through, to where soul and spirit meet, to where joints and marrow come together. It judges the desires and thoughts of man's heart. There is nothing that can be hidden from God; everything in all creation is exposed and lies open before his eyes. And it is to him that we must all give an account of ourselves."

In medicine "sternum" is called "double-edged sword".
In Hellenic "xiphos" mens the "pinpoint". (sharper)
To harmonize the proportion and the function of the body we shall use the combination of Eve mtDNA with Adam mtDNA existed only in xifoid process.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, an independent and influential think tank based in the United Kingdom, released a report in order to propose mitochondria transplant.
It is known that mitochondria are organelles that provide cells with energy.
My research conduct me to the conclusion that mitochnodria is a communication bio-equipment and changing ovule mitochondria means SOUL TRANSPLANT. (Yin - female soul created trough Eve mtDNA - microbiome or body energy aura).
Because the SPIRIT (Yang "black box" - male or life giving soul connected with God trough Adam mtDNA) transplant it is not possible the geneticist decided until 1978, without referendum, to eliminate trough IVF technology the main bio-translator of the words of God, Adam mtDNA.
According to Luke 8.11 ("Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.") the result of seeds genetically modifications was far exceed by Jesus in Mathew 15.13 ("Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.")
*When the people heard this, they said: 'Surely not!'* (Luke 20.16)

Avatar of: Guest


July 12, 2012

Weird comments... very, very weird. And unworthy of reply. St Dawkins, indeed!

What place does biblical ranting have in this forum, and how on earth did you get 4 books published?

Avatar of: ben naya

ben naya

Posts: 1

December 8, 2012


Hello.. Hi there, simply just turned into became was become changed into aware of alert to  your blog weblog thru through via Google, and found and located that it is it's really truly informative. I'm gonna going to watch out be careful for brussels. I will I'll appreciate be grateful if you should you when you in the event you in case you for those who if you happen to continue proceed this in future. Will be back again} to get more. great info. Thank you.  ________________________ Commonwealth Life Perusahaan Asuransi Jiwa Terbaik Indonesia  

Popular Now

  1. Scientists Continue to Use Outdated Methods
  2. Secret Eugenics Conference Uncovered at University College London
  3. Like Humans, Walruses and Bats Cuddle Infants on Their Left Sides
  4. How Do Infant Immune Systems Learn to Tolerate Gut Bacteria?