Chromosomes similar construction to electrical transformer..?

#1
Interesting paper from last year, suggesting that the coiled DNA structures of the chromosome, bear a striking resemblance both to the tightly coupled windings of a Conventional transformer, and also to the loosely coupled windings of a Tesla coil transformer.

You can download the paper here:
http://journals.sfu.ca/rncsb/index.php/csbj/article/download/csbj.201303007/273

It is already known that Chromosomes can be charged. Barbara McClintock also demonstrated a phenomena known as satellite association, where the charged satellites of two or more chromosomes are attracted.

The authors discuss the similarities (generators, chargers, conductors, capacitors (condensers), switches, transmitters, receivers, transformers, currents, and electric grids), and present a very interesting and persuasive argument.

I found the paper fascinating reading, considering growing evidence for non-chemical and non-contact cell-to-cell communication, recent studies showing epigenetic inheritance effects, observations about the properties of microtubules, and the seeming sensory and processing capabilities of centrioles etc.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#2
Interesting; printed to read. I'm a little suspicious of statements like:

"Heterochromatin, which comprises about 97% of the building materials of human chromosomes, has been considered to be unimportant, inert, genetically inactive, barren, non-functional and useless “junk” DNA."

I don't think so.

~~ Paul
 
#3
Interesting; printed to read. I'm a little suspicious of statements like:

"Heterochromatin, which comprises about 97% of the building materials of human chromosomes, has been considered to be unimportant, inert, genetically inactive, barren, non-functional and useless “junk” DNA."

I don't think so.
I suspect it depends on when the study was written up. At one point a lot of DNA was considered junk, which was then considered further proof of evolution-by-random-mutation; at least until it was discovered that junk DNA was really inactive DNA waiting to be switched back on should it ever be required.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#4
I suspect it depends on when the study was written up. At one point a lot of DNA was considered junk, which was then considered further proof of evolution-by-random-mutation; at least until it was discovered that junk DNA was really inactive DNA waiting to be switched back on should it ever be required.
Heterochromatin is a packed form of DNA, not simply DNA, so I'm not sure what the sentence means. Even so, no one considers it useless or inactive.

We have not discovered that junk DNA is inactive DNA waiting to be switched on. That is certainly a possibility for some noncoding DNA, such as pseudogenes, but much of it really is junk. Repeats and transposons are almost certainly junk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA

Watch the ENCODE guys squirm:

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/17/6131.long

~~ Paul
 
#5
We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5' untranslated regions (UTRs).
....
Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome. These data suggest that ERVs may regulate human transcription on a large scale.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18535086

Retrotransposons including endogenous retroviruses and their solitary long terminal repeats (LTRs) compose >40% of the human genome. Many of them are located in intergenic regions far from genes. Whether these intergenic retrotransposons serve beneficial host functions is not known. Here we show that an LTR retrotransposon of ERV-9 human endogenous retrovirus located 40--70 kb upstream of the human fetal γ- and adult β-globin genes serves a long-range, host function. The ERV-9 LTR contains multiple CCAAT and GATA motifs and competitively recruits a high concentration of NF-Y and GATA-2 present in low abundance in adult erythroid cells to assemble an LTR/RNA polymerase II complex. The LTR complex transcribes intergenic RNAs unidirectionally through the intervening DNA to loop with and modulate transcription factor occupancies at the far downstream globin promoters, thereby modulating globin gene switching by a competitive mechanism.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/07/01/1004139107.short

Although repetitive elements pervade mammalian genomes, their overall contribution to transcriptional activity is poorly defined. Here, as part of the FANTOM4 project, we report that 6–30% of cap-selected mouse and human RNA transcripts initiate within repetitive elements. Analysis of approximately 250,000 retrotransposon-derived transcription start sites shows that the associated transcripts are generally tissue specific, coincide with gene-dense regions and form pronounced clusters when aligned to full-length retrotransposon sequences. Retrotransposons located immediately 5' of protein-coding loci frequently function as alternative promoters and/or express noncoding RNAs. More than a quarter of RefSeqs possess a retrotransposon in their 3' UTR, with strong evidence for the reduced expression of these transcripts relative to retrotransposon-free transcripts. Finally, a genome-wide screen identifies 23,000 candidate regulatory regions derived from retrotransposons, in addition to more than 2,000 examples of bidirectional transcription. We conclude that retrotransposon transcription has a key influence upon the transcriptional output of the mammalian genome.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v41/n5/abs/ng.368.html

Just a few, there are hundreds more.
Another failed prediction for Darwinists.
 
#6
Absolutely fascinating, thanks for posting Max.

I was only just commenting on the electricity of life in another thread, in the context of an electrical universe! Bio electric signals have been discovered in the embryology of tadpoles in spectacular fashion. With the signal preceding structural formation!
 
#7
Here it is the electric face of a frog.

I think there may be a connection here.

Morphogenic fields has been a concept in embryology for a long time. This is not the same as Rupert's idea though but similar in some respects, perhaps it is where he got the idea?

It is clear that there is long range signalling going on, the fact that the electrical signal precedes cell differentiation should be a huge clue.
 
Last edited:
#8
Here it is the electric face of a frog.

I think there may be a connection here.

Morphogenic fields has been a concept in embryology for a long time. This is not the same as Rupert's idea though but similar in some respects, perhaps it is where he got the idea?

It is clear that there is long range signalling going on, the fact that the electrical signal precedes cell differentiation should be a huge clue.
I hadn't known about this time lapse video by Adams and Vandenburg, or their work, that's quite a shocking video! I believe this is their paper, I haven't read it yet, but will do later...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dvdy.22685/pdf

A brief university release is here...

http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2011/planet-tufts/findings.html


I stumbled across H.S. Burr's theory of electric fields, which he called 'L-Fields' this time last year (for the life of me I can't find my copy of his 1970's book though). I'm not sure I'd go along with all his work, but his work measuring and marking voltage gradients between where the head and tail would later form in a fertilized frogs egg, looked perfectly sound to me. I seem to remember that he later claimed that this gradient was even present in the unfertilized egg, but I was never able to find any further research corroborating his findings. I see somebody has posted his whole book here...

http://issuu.com/scottjenson/docs/harold_saxton_burr_-_blueprint_for_

Rupert Sheldrake made just one brief reference to Burr in his Morphic Resonance book, a single sentence, and only to claim that his, and Burr's theories were completely different. I have to say I wasn't entirely convinced.
 
Last edited:
#9
A fascinating book I read years ago.

The Body Electric tells the fascinating story of our bioelectric selves. Robert O. Becker, a pioneer in the filed of regeneration and its relationship to electrical currents in living things, challenges the established mechanistic understanding of the body. He found clues to the healing process in the long-discarded theory that electricity is vital to life. But as exciting as Becker's discoveries are, pointing to the day when human limbs, spinal cords, and organs may be regenerated after they have been damaged, equally fascinating is the story of Becker's struggle to do such original work. The Body Electric explores new pathways in our understanding of evolution, acupuncture, psychic phenomena, and healing.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Body-Electric-Electromagnetism-Foundation/dp/0688069711
 
Last edited:
#10
I have been talking plasma physics lately. From the cosmos to life and the essence of matter, it is electric.

The purpose of this paper is to show that plasma physics can be useful in the investigation of the physical properties of living cells. Concepts like charge neutrality, Debye length, and double layer are very useful to explain the electrical properties of a cellularmembrane. It is hoped that examples of physics applications to biology can be useful in giving students of physics courses new motivations to study physics and to carry out interdisciplinary studies. This paper can be easily understood by students of physics courses with no previous knowledge of plasma physics or biology.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/68/5/10.1119/1.19470
 
#11
It's a remarkable paper. Unfortunately, it's hard going, not least because I don't think the many figures are adequately labelled. Nonetheless, the final conclusions of the paper are plain enough:

The presented data lead to several conclusions listed below:

Chromosomes and transformers are amazingly similar in their principles of construction and functional effects and defects.

The structural components of chromosomes corresponded with the components of electrical transformers (i.e. generators, chargers, conductors, capacitors (condensers), switches, transmitters, receivers, transformers, currents, and electric grids).

The functions of chromosomes display electromagnetic interactions and phenomena, such as attractions, repulsions, vibration, resonance, breaks, and fusions which are known in physics and electrical engineering; are studied using the same methods; measured with the same units for energy; obey the same physical laws and equations; and are described with the same terminology.

Heterochromatin, which comprises about 97% of the building materials of human chromosomes, has been considered to be unimportant, inert, genetically inactive, barren, non-functional and useless “junk” DNA. We suggest that heterochromatin be considered a very important area in chromosomes, actively generating and operating their own electrical forces and mechanisms.

Because of their electrical properties, and related forces and mechanisms, chromosomes should be regarded not only as vehicles for carrying genes and inheritance, but also as generators, transformers, conductors, condensers, switchers, transmitters and receivers in electric circuits, capable of operating electric currents or moving charges.

The electrical currents and mechanisms may play important roles in the essential function of chromosomes, such as gene regulation and expression; attraction, pairing and separation of chromosomes during cell division; transporting electrons, ions and other particles between DNA structures; and in moving enzymes along DNA molecules.


Occasionally, under some conditions, the electrical current of chromosomes could become violent and destructive causing cracks, breaks, inversions, translocations, fusions and other chromosomal abnormalities associated with clinically important diseases and syndromes.

Clinically important diseases and syndromes, including cancers, developmental delay, infertility, pregnancy loss, Down syndrome may be caused by violent electrical currents generated and operated by the chromosomes.

The newly discovered electrical properties, forces and mechanisms of chromosomes provide a reasonable explanation for some syndromes, diseases and conditions of chromosomal etiology, which will be described in separate publications.​
 
Last edited:

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#12
Another failed prediction for Darwinists.
Did someone predict that all noncoding DNA is without any function whatsoever? If so, I certainly agree that the person was being far too dogmatic.

Your overall argument appears to be that whenever we learn something new in biology, that is additional evidence for design. Your argument can't be that silly, so perhaps you could clarify.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
#13
It's odd how we can come to different opinions. When I read this. I see nature working in strange yet material ways. Others see this as proof of nature working in supranatural ways.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#14
It's odd how we can come to different opinions. When I read this. I see nature working in strange yet material ways. Others see this as proof of nature working in supranatural ways.
It seems to me that some people are simply following the ID program: Dump all over evolution as much as possible, but don't worry about doing much original work. But that can't be right, so I'm asking for clarification.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#18
Who is dumping all over evolution? A number of people here know evolution occurred, but see design in the process.
There has been a long history of ragging on evolution, by LoneShaman and others. See post #5. Perhaps it is more accurate to say dumping on "Darwinism."

As I said, it's probably not as simplistic as joining the ID bandwagon, but I'm not really sure what the point is. Perhaps the IDers could give us an example of an event where the designer contravened the laws of physics.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#19
I believe he was dumping on Darwinists and not evolution.
If all he is saying is that "Darwinists" (whoever they are) are sometimes wrong, then I don't have an issue. That doesn't seem to fit what he's done over the years. And if that's all he is saying, why is he so excited about it? Of course scientists are wrong. So are the ID "scientists." So what?

~~ Paul
 
Top