Tim_Lou Posted December 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 "They even captured information patterns of a particular DNA and transmitted it onto another, thus reprogramming cells to another genome. So they successfully transformed, for example, frog embryos to salamander embryos simply by transmitting the DNA information patterns! This way the entire information was transmitted without any of the side effects or disharmonies encountered when cutting out and re-introducing single genes from the DNA." I'm skeptic about this... how is frog embryos able to be transformed to salamander without any side effects??!? "While western researchers cut single genes from DNA strands and insert them elsewhere, the Russians enthusiastically created devices that influence cellular metabolism through modulated radio and light frequencies, thus repairing genetic defects."genetic defects?!?!!!! ok, all the people with down syndromes will be recovered?! is this source truthworthy?... sounds like a bit implausible to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted December 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 i did a research on google.. all i found is another website addressing the same idea... actually theyr identical!http://www.reikiempowermentseminars.com.au/sciencediscov.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted December 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 notice that both websites have somthing as following:"All information is from the book "Vernetzte Intelligenz" von Grazyna Fosar und Franz Bludorf, ISBN 3930243237" hmm, sources from one book only? the article may have some biases in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 "One of the attributes of what is imprinted upon your DNA at birth is the oldest science on Earth, and you have called it astrology. We have just given you science that explains astrology. Its science that is not fully understood or known, but it's science. When the “mother lode” physics formula is known regarding magnetics, gravity, time, and the location of matter, it will explain astrology." Also from the same site, at http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/the_grid_and_dna.htmThis site doesn't seem to use actual science, although it hides behind a facade of scientific words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexander Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Hey, I'm not arguing whether or not this is real science, just thought i'd note this though. If this information is actually a leak of Russia's(or any other countries in this case) cutting-edge research, i dont think that 1) there would be many sources, 2) there would be many people who'd know all the information and 3) since this research could be kept a secret, there could be people who are interested in keeping it that way, thus no research papers would be released to the public for a number of years. And another thing, this is a research, whoever said anything about having sources in a research and scientiffic experiments, its like asking Newton to provide sources to the materials that prove the existance of gravity at his time... Anyways, not saying that that research is true, i'm just saying that if it is true, it would provide clues as to where the concept of language and communication comes from, in other words proving that a group is only as good as its members...(whatever i meant by that) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted December 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 hmm, if the DNA-language association is right, we should have almost exact languages...but it is the opposite, such as the enormous differences between Chinese and English.English always represents how a word "sounds", or maybe a combination of roots, while Chinese is a combination of the actual picture of a thing, abstract ideas of roots and sometimes pronunciations. They are very different overall... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexander Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 However the concept of language is very much the same "system of communication or reasoning using representation along with metaphor and some manner of logical grammar all of which presuppose a historical and at least temporarily transcendent standard or truth from which it is derived. Many languages use gestures, sounds, symbols, or words, and aim at communicating concepts, ideas, meanings, and thoughts, though the problem of linguistic vagueness often rears its head when we try to distinguish between these things.". We really dont have a universal language, but maybe we just havent gotten to a point of making one. Actually i wonder, if someone could put thoughts directly in our mind, would that use one language for all of us (living and thinking things with brains on this planet)? kinda like assembly language, it is different for all the processors, yet there are very common commands that appear in most... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 i think if a human is never exposed to language, he would develope hes own.... just like the languages new born babies have...the "gibberish", hehe.Actually it has been found that children that are not exposed to "speech" until a later point in life, are never fully able to comprehnd it. The tests are problematic as it is unethoical to raise test subjects that way on purpose. But I read about a child that was locked away till teens and when found the efforts to educate confirmed predictions that speech skills need to be filled in early years. Further, about the only way a human would not be exposed to language is if they were not exposed to other humans. Lacking another human, there would not be a need for communications requiring development of a language. So there would not be an effort to develop one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 If language takes its roots from our DNA,Bogus site and concept. I do not find it's assertion to be proven. And most of the site is shear nonsense. Just because dna and language share common structure does not mean they are causally connected. A spiral staircase resembles a double helix but did not need dna to be known for it's design to develop., I think the commonality is based on functionally succesful patterns. A spiral staircase developed because it was a design that works well in our physical laws. Sea shells often follow a spiral design because it is an efficient shape. Some forms just work better in nature and the double spiral is an efficient storage design for the massive amount of data contained in dna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Actually it has been found that children that are not exposed to "speech" until a later point in life, are never fully able to comprehnd it. The tests are problematic as it is unethoical to raise test subjects that way on purpose. But I read about a child that was locked away till teens and when found the efforts to educate confirmed predictions that speech skills need to be filled in early years. Further, about the only way a human would not be exposed to language is if they were not exposed to other humans. Lacking another human, there would not be a need for communications requiring development of a language. So there would not be an effort to develop one. If language can only come from another human with an understanding of language, then how did we ever start talking? There had to be a first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Further, about the only way a human would not be exposed to language is if they were not exposed to other humans. Lacking another human, there would not be a need for communications requiring development of a language. So there would not be an effort to develop one.We also think using language. So even if we didn't need to communicate with others, we would need that symbolic language to think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 I don't know that we think using language if we never learn language to begin with. If we do, would that mean that all thinking animals think in a language? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 If language can only come from another human with an understanding of language, then how did we ever start talking? There had to be a first.1) what I was responding to was the assertion that a single person, all alone, would develop a language. Why would they? What value would the effort have? 2) This is the same problem a soul would have. Why would there be an arbitrary line to delineate language/ non-language humans? Why would we artificially seperate bird chirps, whale gunts or human speech? Yes there is differences in level of complexity, but not basic process. Human communications would easily be seen as a linear development path. Not a Yes/No hard line. There would not be a "first", just lots of "nexts". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 We also think using language. So even if we didn't need to communicate with others, we would need that symbolic language to think.Interesting point. What would "thought" be/ look like if a person did not have a specific language? Helen Keller before being taught sign. It would seem we could not know because it would take language to communicate with the person to find out what/ how they think and thus they would then have language. Hmmmmm. Would an "only person on earth" be able to think? It would seem obviously yes. But without need to communicate, would they have a "language"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 from a materialist's POV, language is simply a manifestation of material interaction. just as matter developed into higher levels of complexity, language must've also developed in sophistication. now what was it that i was thinking about....?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Interesting point. What would "thought" be/ look like if a person did not have a specific language? Helen Keller before being taught sign. Theoretically thought is not possible without language. (The Sapir/Wharf hypothesis) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Linda, it would really help if you avoid those one-liners you always give. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.