12 Strands DNA Silicate Matrix

How factual is this? Can anyone tell me how this is done?

Sauce: ascensionglossary.com/index.php/Silicate_Matrix

The original human DNA pattern is arranged into 12 dimensionalized mathematical programs, each of which set the Blueprint for one DNA Strand.Each strand is composed of 12 base magnetic (Mion) female codes, and 12 base-electrical (Dion) male acceleration Codes. The 12 Base Codes and 12 Acceleration Codes hold the mathematical program for each Double-Helix strand, which combine to form a set of 12 Vector Codes. One Base Code plus one Acceleration Code is equal to one Vector Code.The 12 Vector Codes of the human genome manifests as 12 nucleotides that form the Nucleotide Base Pairs which are the entire DNA Strands are composed. Due to the NDC also called the Checkerboard Mutation unnatural sonic control program installed in the planetary field, only four of the Vector Codes have been active in biological Earth life since the Luciferian Rebellion. The foundations of human DNA is miniaturized crystallized frequency, that is, patterns of electromagnetic light that magnetically group into crystalline form. These multidimensional crystalline templates are referred to as DNA Seed Codes. The DNA Seed Code, the template for one DNA strand is composed of 12 magnetic particle units and 12 electrical anti-particle units. Each DNA strand is composed of the frequency patterns and light spectrum of one dimensional band. Each DNA Strand represents a Fire Letters Code program sequence corresponding to one dimensional frequency band of Consciousness. (24 Seed Codes = 1 DNA strand). The level of frequencies that are accreted into the personal Morphogenetic Field will determine the level of DNA strand assembly that you posses. As a person pulls in more frequency bands from the dimensional Unified Fields, the personal frequency accretion level rises, and thus, more DNA codes can assemble and activate.

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5632952/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378016/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4704998/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3687557/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4426271/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5602094/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4482073/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526142/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5577920/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3446320/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4730250/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3850988/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3321218/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389685/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4648177/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4009608/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3674688/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5294800/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

This is absolute faggotery.
user, Ph. D.

I'm also interested in this. How can such a small number of chromosomes lead to the sheer complexity of, and number of proteins in, the human body?

I'm beginning to think Rupert Sheldrake must be right. No one else has come up with an even remotely suitable explanation.

How so?

>How so?

>How can such a small number of chromosomes lead to the sheer complexity of, and number of proteins in, the human body?

first of all neither the number of chromosomes nor its length have to do with the amount of coding genes

second of all each gene could undergo alternative splicing
>pic related
resulting in a massive increase of proteins available via genome

get educated before you start believing some pseudoscience, brainlet

>second of all each gene could undergo alternative splicing

But there isn't any evidence for this, is there? Why would you promote one scientific theory over another when either could be true?

>But there isn't any evidence for this, is there?

Ask me why the lowest possible energy level of a single string is -1/12.

Checkmate athiests.

>there isn't any evidence for this

this has to be bait, but i'll bite in case you're absolutely retarded

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5632952/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378016/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4704998/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3687557/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4426271/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5602094/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4482073/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526142/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5577920/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3446320/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4730250/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4730250/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3850988/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3321218/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389685/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4648177/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4009608/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3674688/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5294800/

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5632952/

"Most of the splicing isoforms are only known through sequence comparison"

"Despite more than 20,000 publications dealing with alternative splicing, we still do not know the function of most alternative exons."

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378016/

"we assumed that alternative splicing may play a key role in generation of genomic diversity"

And those are just from the first two on the list. Should I even bother when the first two on the list admit it hasn't been proven despite 20,000 papers on the subject?

It hasn't been proven, geneticists admit it hasn't been proven, and they can't provide evidence to explain most of the things Sheldrake's does, making his the better theory.

>"Despite more than 20,000 publications dealing with alternative splicing, we still do not know the function of most alternative exons."

>"Despite more than 20,000 publications dealing with alternative splicing, we still do not know the function of most alternative exons."

>"Despite more than 20,000 publications dealing with alternative splicing, we still do not know the function of most alternative exons."

>"Despite more than 20,000 publications dealing with alternative splicing, we still do not know the function of most alternative exons."

>"Despite more than 20,000 publications dealing with alternative splicing, we still do not know the function of most alternative exons."

because studying even a single alternate splice form takes a single lab dedicating years of work and hundreds of thousands of dollars. We don't have the knowledge because the task is just too big.

>We don't have the knowledge because the task is just too big.

Excuses, excuses.

Anyways, then we don't know anything about gene splicing; even the scientific papers can only meekly "assume" its existence even after 20,000 papers.

Sounds like pretty weak evidence to me.

wtf is someone arguing that alternative splicing doesn't exist?
>insulin

God you're a brainlet
get off a science board if you're into pseudoscience
Initially you argued how it's impossible to have so many genes from a genome

so I introduced gene splicing to you
yes its functionality isn't fully understood but its existence has been proven

I'll believe it's real when I see the evidence.

If you're still arguing for a theory's existence when 20,000 papers have disproved it, you're the fucking insulin.

...

Why is this a gif you fucking brainlet?
KYS

no, the existence of alternative splicing is easily demonstrable. the function of any alternative splice form is what is unknown.

i hate threads like these, brainlets pour in showboating their understanding of basic stuff when they turn out to be brainlets themselves with a poor understanding of the stuff they're calling others brainlets merely for asking questions about

Did you read ehat you posted?

Go back fag

stop acting like a child just because OP is asking a question, this would be an interesting thread if you weren't acting like such a petulant bitch.

p.s. you're not nearly as intelligent or informed as you think are

>I'm just asking a question!!!11111
>Mountain of schizophrenic gibberish

post it again lol

>The original human DNA pattern is arranged into 12 dimensionalized mathematical programs, each of which set the Blueprint for one DNA Strand.Each strand is composed of 12 base magnetic (Mion) female codes, and 12 base-electrical (Dion) male acceleration Codes. The 12 Base Codes and 12 Acceleration Codes hold the mathematical program for each Double-Helix strand, which combine to form a set of 12 Vector Codes. One Base Code plus one Acceleration Code is equal to one Vector Code.The 12 Vector Codes of the human genome manifests as 12 nucleotides that form the Nucleotide Base Pairs which are the entire DNA Strands are composed. Due to the NDC also called the Checkerboard Mutation unnatural sonic control program installed in the planetary field, only four of the Vector Codes have been active in biological Earth life since the Luciferian Rebellion. The foundations of human DNA is miniaturized crystallized frequency, that is, patterns of electromagnetic light that magnetically group into crystalline form. These multidimensional crystalline templates are referred to as DNA Seed Codes. The DNA Seed Code, the template for one DNA strand is composed of 12 magnetic particle units and 12 electrical anti-particle units. Each DNA strand is composed of the frequency patterns and light spectrum of one dimensional band. Each DNA Strand represents a Fire Letters Code program sequence corresponding to one dimensional frequency band of Consciousness. (24 Seed Codes = 1 DNA strand). The level of frequencies that are accreted into the personal Morphogenetic Field will determine the level of DNA strand assembly that you posses. As a person pulls in more frequency bands from the dimensional Unified Fields, the personal frequency accretion level rises, and thus, more DNA codes can assemble and activate.
>Rupert Sheldrake

tell me to go to /x/ again brainlet, lol

...

post it again brainlet lol

...

post it again brainlet, lmao

See

post it again, brainlet

No, I don't think so. How do I ehat what I post?

This board is so retarded.

But do they account for all off the proteins in the body?

When also including post-translstional modification, yes, or at least we haven't found a polypeptide not ultimately encoded by a gene.

But have you ever found a protein not encoded by a gene?

>we haven't found a polypeptide not ultimately encoded by a gene

I think you're in a little over your head if you can't understand that statement. It implies that the polypeptide portion of proteins is encoded. The only part of a protein that isn't encoded are things such as inorganic prosthetic groups.

DNA -> RNA -> Protein, the central dogma. This is bio 101 stuff.

its something called reading frames and splicing

prions iirc