cyber_indian Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Hi my name is Ivan Nanev and I'm writhing about what I've discovered proving further my theory and questioning the "evolution theory". I call it "Gene Index" - it's a UNIQUE marker for EVERY gene, meaning that every gene no matter what genome we are talking about is labeled. Meaning that my deploying theory is right and proves that we are not a result of random mutations or matching. The Gene_Index is consisted of the tree codons before the gene (xxx) and the tree codons after the gene (yyy), also called “sticky ends”. If for instance you give me the xxxyyy I can tell you with 100% accuracy the size of the gene, 100% accuracy the if it's going on the positive or the negative DNA strain and statistically 97.9% accurately return you the gene you are talking about and tell you in which genomes is also spotted. Further today or tomorrow I’ll make SQL query page available to the web to explain this fenomenom. I'll be happy to give example to anybody ! More about my theory on: http://www.cyber-indian.com/theory/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helix Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Well this seems relatively scientific, but please forgive me for adding some reason. This sounds all well and Nobel-worthy, but what basis do you have for your arguement? From what I gathered you have a ground-breaking method to analyze genes based on these 6 special codons. But how? How does this work and more importantaly, how did you discover it? Are your results reproducable? If you can provide some facts and proof, way to go, if not then maybe get back to the drawing board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyber_indian Posted October 3, 2005 Author Share Posted October 3, 2005 Well this seems relatively scientific, but please forgive me for adding some reason. This sounds all well and Nobel-worthy, but what basis do you have for your arguement? From what I gathered you have a ground-breaking method to analyze genes based on these 6 special codons. But how? How does this work and more importantaly, how did you discover it? Are your results reproducable? If you can provide some facts and proof, way to go, if not then maybe get back to the drawing board. I've Downloaded all genomes form http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ and made my own database and sequence all the genes in all genomes. I'm uploading a zip file with the whole gene_index sequence in my host. it consist of two files - the whole list and list with only the duplications of gene_index. http://www.cyber-indian.com/theory/doc/gene_index_list.zip How I found it - ever since I started thinking about my theory I was shure what direction to dig in and what to find - and if my theory was right I'll find it there - and every time it get's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakuenso Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 man wait till the creationists get their hands on this, also "all genomes" in the NCBI DB probably don't even constitute 0.000001% of the world's genome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyber_indian Posted October 4, 2005 Author Share Posted October 4, 2005 man wait till the creationists get their hands on this' date=' also "all genomes" in the NCBI DB probably don't even constitute 0.000001% of the world's genome.[/quote'] all genomes Archaea,Bacteria,Eukaryota,Viruses - 3GB worth of genbanks ... and every gene with same gene_index show exactly the same SIZE and DIRECTION - 100% guaranteed ... just open the genes_index_0.txt and genes_index_1.txt and see for yourself P.S. I don't support the theory that we are created by GOD ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 So, are you actually going to explain why you think the existence of homologous genes someone violates or disproves evolutionary theory, rather than proving it quite nicely? Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Oh, and by the way, the "theory" on your page is the same bullshit I so thoroughly refuted in this thread. If you're just trying to get around the massive logical holes in your prior theory, you might as well give up now. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyber_indian Posted October 4, 2005 Author Share Posted October 4, 2005 So' date=' are you actually going to explain why you think the existence of homologous genes someone violates or disproves evolutionary theory, rather than proving it quite nicely? Mokele[/quote'] I don't know who was the one who couldn't explain why immune cell dosn't fit their theory ... talking about logical holes ... loser ... guess running this site substitutes for having a real girlfriend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyber_indian Posted October 4, 2005 Author Share Posted October 4, 2005 I don't know who was the one who couldn't explain why immune cell dosn't fit their theory ... talking about logical holes ... loser ... guess running this site substitutes for having a real girlfriend Everyone the admin "Mokele" thinks can dictate the path of science !!! He thinks that nobody is intrested in what I have to say !!! "Mokele": Am I annoyed you wasted an enormous amount of space with two posts that were raw data? Yes. Raw data sets of large size are *not* simply given out, but are rather talked about in terms of the statistical analyses of them, due to the fact that nobody wants to wade through them all over again. "cyber_indian": This "raw data" has been requested as proof from the other users ... that's why it's called FORUM ... and it's supposed to be OPEN not DICTATED like "Spanish Inquisition" Talking about space and real stuff ... all that programing and analizing 3GB of ddata is waste for the admin Everybody I'm sorry, but the admin cut off the examples I gave and does not allow me even to put a link to my page ether because it's a spam and I'm not allowed to explain myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyber_indian Posted October 4, 2005 Author Share Posted October 4, 2005 So' date=' are you actually going to explain why you think the existence of homologous genes someone violates or disproves evolutionary theory, rather than proving it quite nicely?[/quote'] Nice try "homologous genes" ... how about UNIQUE marker for EVERY gene in the 3050 genomes I've sequenced ... If you know how to read a genbank file, just pick any gene give me the tree codons infront and at the back of the gene and I'll tell you exactly which gene you'r talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Genes are different? And can be uniquely IDed by those differences? WOW, I never would have guessed from the millions of species with a myriad of forms that genes migh actually be *variable*. And since you seem to have a knack for missng the obvious, that was *sarcasm*. Oh, here's a newsflash: I can do the same thing. Anyone here can. The NIH website, the online mendelian inheretance in man website, a others *all* allow this. So all you're done is re-invented the wheel to tell us sme pointless bit of information we alread knew and that doesn't mean what you think it means. However, I'm going to humor you, and give you an easy way to show how great your ideas are: publish them in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. If your ideas are *nearly* the hot shit you think the are, that sould be a snap. Or are you going to come up with some cock-and-bull story about how the evil establishment is keeping you dow with their vicious use of facts, logic and data? Seriously, if you have such a great idea, why are you here? Why aren't you submitting an abstract to Nature right now? Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyber_indian Posted October 5, 2005 Author Share Posted October 5, 2005 All I need you is to give me the (3 codons) 9 Nucleotides before ATG and 9 Nucleotides after TAG meaning the gene lpg0932 in genome NC_002942_5 have "AAAAAAAAA" after that is ATG and just after TGA is "ACTTTATGC". It would look like this "AAAAAAAAA ATGAGCATAGT ... TGGCGAAGTTTGA ACTTTATGC". The "AAAAAAAAAACTTTATGC" is the gene_index - you give me that I can give you the whole gene sequence you have picked. Now you have to remember that i have sequenced only the NCBI "Genome" Database and haven't sequenced any stanalone genes so far. Just give it a try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 ::facepalms:: So, what you're saying is that you can find the gene based on the first 3 codons after the start and last 3 codons before the stop codon. Great, you have a new way of searching for genes. Numerous other search functions similar to that already exist, including being able to search based on a string of nucleotides from *any* point in the gene. All you are saying is that you have a new way to search. I fail to see how this says *anything* about evolution or natural selection. All you've done is re-invent the wheel. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ndi Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I think I'm missing the point. Is he saying that he han recognize a car by its front and rear bumpers (or insert analogy here)? Is this a basic form of Hash? Because if it is, it only works now. When the database expands, the size of the search needs to increase until (assuming all or most gene combinations exist) no search can be done (unless you enter a perfect match). Not only that, database needs to be reindexed each odd addition. (Oh wait, i re-read the post now. It already fails to provide 100%). As I understand your explanation, you use 18 items, each a 4-way combination, giving you a total index limit of 68 billion (36 bit). Probability of unique search decreases approaching that number, at 30 bill half of your searches start getting multiple results. If that is the case, it's unlikey you'll get unique reliable results for the human genome alone. Also, where's the "Gene therapy and its connection to evolution"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyber_indian Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 The whole idea is that genes are made on purpouse and "labled", so later can go exactly where we want them in the genome we want them - using gene_index as a "sticky ends". If genes did evolve (random mutations - came by itself) there is NO WAY they would have so strict unique labeling. About combination just compare 68 billion combinations with 40,000 human genes and different species having great percent of similarities. What's the connection to "gene therapy" ... that now you have mechanism how to put specific gene in specific spot without disturbing other genes and causing genetic diseases ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 So, wait, there's 68 *billion* possible combinations via randomness, and you're *suprised* that each of the couple of million genes we've sequenced is different? That's like being suprised that each of the past 200 lottery numbers have been different. That's just *probability*, not "unique markers left by aliens". You're looking so hard for what isn't there that you're mistaking even random probability for evidence. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyber_indian Posted October 8, 2005 Author Share Posted October 8, 2005 What's the matter you too afraid to try it ? Just pick a gene give me the gene_index and we'll see. Why always it has to be aliens ??? If we go to another planet is resettling, but if it's somebody like us to resettle in our planet - it's "alien" P.S. There is a list of the genomes I have: http://www.cyber-indian.com/gene_index/downloaded.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Why would I need to try it? I've already done it before, many times. NCIB offers a similar (and I feel, superior) search which allows you to find genes by nucleotide sequences located at *any* point in the gene, intron or exon. You've merely wasted your time creating an inferior copy of an already-exiting service. Why don't you actually try answering the question: Why do you think this is anything special? What makes you think this is anything but the result of randomness? Either actually present your ideas in full, admit you don't have anything, or stop wasting our time. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyber_indian Posted October 8, 2005 Author Share Posted October 8, 2005 Chicken. Anyway in that case I ask you not to waste our time on me, BUT let me discuss it the other who care to and don't be on my way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonM Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 I thought we were suppose to have faith that god created us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted October 8, 2005 Share Posted October 8, 2005 Yes, I think it's a good idea to put an end to the time-wasting all around, espcially since you will not read the actual content of posts adressed to you nor actually answer points raised. Since you are clearly incapable of discussing your ideas in anything resembling a mature fashion, this thread is closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts