lundi 22 juin 2015

Triple Helix DNA? Probably Never Existed

I just saw another blog in which it was speculated nephelim genome as directly non-human such was a triple helix.

As far as I know, this is not possible. The reason is this: the double helix goes with a paired DNA code. If "left" part of helix has adenine in a place, "right" part has thymine, if instead "left" part has thymine, "right" part has adenine. There are two other bases that form such pairs, guanine and cytosine.

So, when one strand has this:

ATCGATTGAGCTCTAGCG (example taken from wikipedia)

the other strand should have this:


Now, imagine there are three strands. Each strand connects to other two. ATCGATT on one duly corresponds to TAGCTAA on the next - but what should the third strand have? Should it start with T because of A in the first line? Or should it start with A because of T in the second line? One position cannot have both an A and a T, so neither is viable. And if it is anything else than A or T, the coding is broken.

The utmost possibility would be a strand with four other bases we don't know - or a strand which makes other base pairs contrary to known ones. So, it would be pretty hard to imagine not just nephelim getting born with triple helix, but also (according to some) Nimrod acquiring a triple helix.*

No, the nature of nephelim would be other** and I don't think angels have DNA.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Pauline of Nola

* After being born with a normally paired double one. ** Probably, anyway. See however:

Wiki : Hoogsteen base pair

It seems triple helix has been observed "in vivo" (not in lab manipulated examples) only in E. coli, one process.

Why Evolution is NOT a Fairy Tale for Grownups

First of all, fairy tales per se are not for children exclusively or primarily. It is a recent fashion which stamped them as such. So adding "for grownups" is not necessary. And children are learning evolution too. I started learning it at six, before I came to Christianity three years later. But this was to the lesser red herring. Here is to the greater one.

Little Red Riding Hood has some useful morals. It has perhaps inspired more than one girl to be wary of flattering men trying to get her off her path set by obedience.

It has also very much not inspired any genocide on either Herero or Gipsy or Jew. No sterilisation of Lapps or Amerindians, of Blacks or Esquimaux.

Jack the Giant Killer might one day inspire violence against giants - if ever we see such. And if they behave like the one in the story.

But it has inspired no "dignicide" against priest or military or Czar or landlord or shop owner or Kulak.

Hitler believed in some kind of evolution, whether the Darwin or the Blavatsky kind - or some combination. Galton (who inspired non-Nazi genocides and atrocities of sterilisation) was relative of Darwin and an eager Darwinist.

Stalin at least professed to believe and encouraged belief in precisely the Darwinist evolution - he even wrote he changed his mind on God and Church in seminary while reading precisely Darwin.

Bottom line, heresies do not qualify as fairy tales just because they include counterfactual statements. There is a gigantic difference if a counterfactual statement is in the idea itself someone embraces or as an artistic shorthand illustration he sometimes uses for it. Besides, statements don't automatically become counterfactual just because they remind of fairy tales (it is a heresy to say they do).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Pauline of Nola