How can science recover from this?

emergentmind.org/gariaev06.htm

more information on what science can't explain with current model.

>science is wrong BTFO
>by the way DNA absorb light and the light host the information
>have an open mind dude
Haha, we really need to slaughter subhumans like you.

The paper is a bunch of pseudoscientific gibberish. Back to with you.

arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1012/1012.5166v1.pdf
emergentmind.org/gariaev06.htm

explain that.

>there's no enough room in the DNA to produce all proteins
>huh duh is not real
>le x boogeyman
how do you explain it then?

I'd much prefer to open your skull and reduce your brain to an homogenous mush tbf

No offense.

>huh duh we live in a computer simulation
>huh duh is impossible to conceive therefore digital biology as some kind of cosmic radiation
>there's experiments where cancer is transported using light in biological beings
>but all is X shit

...

>there's no enough room in the DNA to produce all proteins
Anyone who has taken an introductory course in biology would know that a gene can encode more than one protein. Some genes encode 1000s of proteins. This is possible because of chemical regulation in development (for example, when a fetus is developing, cells with the exact same genes react differently because they are on different places in the body which experience different chemical gradients) and non-coding regulation (the noncoding DNA affects the transcription of the coding DNA into proteins). So the "premises" of your argument are laughably ignorant and outdated. The number of genes is not a measurement of information. If you had bothered to do a simple google search of the subject you would have learned this. But you didn't. You swallowed whole a quack youtube video and proved yourself an idiot. Now go back you insufferable waste of brain matter

>5 minutes in the video
>5000 years of the cabal, the elite world leaders who destroyed mars and then migrated to the moon and got attacked there and migrated to the earth

>muh natural philosophy
>everything is /x/
watch the conference retards, is pretty good.

>but you're an idiot
>implying I believe in it

No one is watching your tinfoil youtubes, moron. You have a mental problem.

>implying I believe in it

I just want to talk about his research.

I've discussed it enough. His "research" is not science.

Pseudoscience is discussed on

RNA can be edited after it is transcribed from DNA, so a single gene in DNA can end up as a bunch of different proteins. You have to remember that these are chemical systems which arose from evolutionary processes, not purpose-designed computers or electronic or logical systems with extreme "exactness." There is a lot of shit going on simultaneously and we still don't have it all figured out.

>he thinks pseudoscience is not science
>have threads talking that social sciences and other legit scientific areas are pseudoscience
>have no arguments to explain why his claims are wrong
watch the video.

OK, I can see this is pointless.

>No, pseudoscience is not a science.
>You can't tell the difference between memes and reality
>I just explained exactly why you're wrong, and why this is a waste of time since you have neither the ability nor the inclination to understand the subject you're attempting to talk about.

This is my last reply. I suggest you seek a psychiatrist since you don't seem able to think clearly.

>he thinks I'm retarded enough to believe in his shit
>he doesn't know I enjoy to watch it as some kind of sci fi shit

can't we talk about sci fi shit here and give scientific explanations?

what happened to this board?
don't want to talk about science?

too ignorant to explain why some claims are wrong and talk about them?

maybe you wanna talk about IQ again, right?

>what is post-transcriptional modification

I see this board doesn't want to talk about science.

schizophrenic nigger.

>he thinks I believe in it

Can I get a link to the actual scientific paper? This seems interesting and I want to read up on it.

elliot.tribarstudios.com/2013/02/inducible-gene-expression.html

can't find the proper paper, but this blog post explain the process.

This is just someone using GFP quantification to test an inducible protein-silencing mechanism. I want to know about the experiment where they removed the eye genes from the drosophila and the drosophila regained eyes after 5 generations.

I couldn't find it, but maybe you know better than me and know how to search for it.

are u watching the video?

maybe you can find it by googling about regression to the mean in genetic experiments.

I watched the video for like 30 minutes but I stopped because frankly this guy is a clown. I'm pretty open-minded (for example, I think things like ESP might be possible) but this guy just clearly doesn't understand anything about genetics.

you don't need to take it seriously.

even if it's all BS, is a pretty nice BS.

I used to do the same when I tried to read the bible until I realized it was fantasy.

I agree that BS can be interesting but the speaker's arrogance and stupid sense of humor is just off-putting. His whole "lol le scientists are dumb not like me I outsmarted them" attitude is just annoying. I prefer the spiritscience guy, he's more chill.

yeah, but david comes as more scientific than spirit guy, at least david tries to cite studies and comes as more legit.

spirit science just goes into one hour and try to summarize all the new age shit into something that comes as nonsense.

Doesn't need enough information to build a human in detail. At a low level, a lot of structures are self-organizing in a fractal sort of way. Look at the patterns of river systems, veins in a leaf, tree branches, capillary networks, bronchii, filaments of a Mandelbrot figure - they all organize themselves in field gradients of one sort or another and don't need to be specified in detail. The genetic code is not a detailed blueprint for physical structures - more an architectural drawing.

I think you're too late.

>david wilcock
wtf are you doing here, you inferior and stupid travesty troglodyte?

>>he thinks pseudoscience is not science

>what are you supposing? god? magic? why have genes at all in that case?
This is science.

>I don't know
>Therefore I'm right

>have no arguments to explain why his claims are wrong

nigga you are retarded

alternative splicing, look it up and it will explain everything.