|
by Rennie
October 08, 2025
from
Medium-MissRennie Website
Article also
HERE
Part
I
Three Genetic Mysteries That
Demand Answers
After my article "The
Anunnaki Hypothesis - When Modern Genetics meets Ancient
Sumerian Records"
sparked significant interest, it became clear:
people want the full
story. Not speculation - evidence.
This two-part series delivers
exactly that.
Let's start with the science.
We are going to look at three major discoveries in human genetics -
discoveries made by mainstream scientists, published in top
journals, and findings that generate fascinating scientific debate.
The Question:
Does human DNA contain patterns that normal
evolution cannot explain...?
I. THE BACKUP COPY - Why Do Our
Cells Know How to Be Young Again?
The Discovery
In January 2023, a Harvard scientist named
David Sinclair published something extraordinary in the
journal Cell - one of the most prestigious science journals in
the world.
His finding:
'"Ageing is not caused by damage to your
DNA. It is caused by your cells forgetting what they are
supposed to be."
This discovery builds on over a decade of
groundbreaking work by researchers like Steve Horvath at UCLA,
who developed the "epigenetic clock" - a DNA methylation-based
biomarker that can accurately predict biological age across
different tissues.
Horvath's work, along with contributions from
Morgan Levine at Yale (who created the PhenoAge clock),
established that ageing follows predictable epigenetic patterns
that can be measured and potentially reversed.
Think of it like this:
Your DNA is the instruction manual.
But there is another system - called the
epigenome - that tells your cells 'which instructions to
follow'.
As you age, your cells lose track of
these instructions.
A skin cell starts acting less like a
skin cell.
A liver cell forgets how to be a liver
cell.
This confusion is what we call ageing.
But here is the shocking part:
The original instructions are still
there. Hidden. Waiting...
Sinclair's team proved they could make old
mice young again by reminding their cells of the original
instructions.
(Lu, Y.R., Tian, X., Sinclair,
D.A. "Loss of epigenetic information as a cause of mammalian
ageing." *Cell*, 12 January 2023).
Why This Matters
Sinclair said:
"This is the first study showing that we
can have precise control of the biological age of a
complex animal; that we can drive it forwards and backwards
at will".
(Harvard Medical School,
January 2023)
Read that again.
They can make animals older or younger
'at will'.
This is not science fiction. This is
published, peer-reviewed science from Harvard Medical School.
But Sinclair's work did not emerge in isolation.
In 2006, Japanese scientist Shinya
Yamanaka made a Nobel Prize-winning discovery:
he identified just four transcription
factors (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc - now called the
Yamanaka factors) that could reprogram adult cells back
into embryonic-like stem cells.
What Yamanaka proved was revolutionary:
mature, specialized cells contained all
the information needed to become young again.
In 2023, two separate research teams used
these Yamanaka factors to reverse ageing in mice.
One group extended mouse lifespan using
gene therapy to deliver the factors.
Another reversed ageing-like changes.
Both teams restored the animals'
epigenome - the system
controlling which genes are active - to a more youthful state.
Even more striking:
a 2021 study showed that partial
reprogramming with Yamanaka factors reversed the biological
age of human cells by an average of 30 years, as measured by
epigenetic clocks.
The Question Nobody Wants to Ask
If your cells contain a "backup copy" of how
to be young - information that is stored but dormant - why does
it exist?
Evolution does not create backup
systems that never get used...
Natural selection is ruthless about
efficiency.
If something does not help you survive and
reproduce, it gets deleted over time.
Yet here is this sophisticated backup system, sitting in every
cell, never naturally activated, waiting for someone with the
right knowledge to switch it on.
It is like finding a perfectly functional reset button in your
body that evolution "accidentally" created but never wired up to
anything.
Recent research shows that older cells retain a form of youthful
epigenetic information,
which can be reactivated through epigenetic reprogramming.
Sinclair's team demonstrated that cells
possess a backup copy of youthful epigenetic information that
can restore cell identity (NAD.com, "David Sinclair: DNA
Tagging," 2024).
This phenomenon - called "reprogramming-induced rejuvenation"
- has been replicated across multiple labs.
Scientists can now rejuvenate cells without
complete dedifferentiation, meaning ageing can be reversed
whilst cells retain their identity.
Studies show this partial reprogramming can
restore visual function in mice, prevent age-related
physiological changes, and extend lifespan.
Researchers like Cynthia Kenyon at Calico (formerly UCSF)
have shown similar patterns in other organisms.
Her 1993 discovery that a single gene
mutation could double the lifespan of C. elegans worms -
whilst keeping them youthful and fertile - demonstrated that
ageing rates are genetically controlled, not merely
the result of random deterioration.
The Mainstream Explanation
When pressed, scientists say the backup is
just "developmental remnants" or "evolved mechanisms."
Some evolutionary biologists argue this
represents a "spandrel",
a by-product of developmental pathways
that exist for other purposes.
The epigenetic machinery, they claim, evolved
for embryonic development and cell differentiation; ageing
reversal is merely an unintended side effect.
This is a fair argument.
Evolution creates vestigial systems all the
time.
Wisdom teeth.
The appendix.
Remnant pathways that no longer serve
their original purpose.
But here is what makes this different:
Vestigial systems degrade.
They lose function over time because
there is no evolutionary pressure to maintain them.
The appendix does not work as well as
it once did.
Wisdom teeth cause more problems than
they solve.
Unused pathways accumulate mutations
and drift into uselessness.
This backup?
It maintains perfect fidelity across decades
of cellular life. It does not degrade. It does not drift.
After 80 years of life, your cells still
contain pristine instructions for being 20 years old -
instructions that can be accessed with just four specific
factors.
That is unusual for an unused evolutionary
remnant. Unused systems typically rust. This one has not.
The precision with which this information can be accessed -
requiring only four specific factors to reverse decades of
ageing - suggests something more than random developmental
scaffolding left behind.
It is like finding a perfectly functional reset button in your
body that evolution "accidentally" created but never wired up to
anything.
The question is not whether developmental
pathways exist - they clearly do.
The question is why they remain so perfectly
preserved and accessible throughout life when there is no
evolutionary pressure to maintain them.
What It Suggests
The ageing backup system displays
characteristics often associated with engineered systems:
functional modularity, precise reversibility, and information
preservation across decades of cellular life.
The mechanism is now well-documented:
ageing occurs when cells lose track of
their epigenetic identity, yet the "backup copy" of youthful
programming remains intact, waiting to be reactivated.
Whether this reflects intentional design or
represents natural processes we do not yet fully understand
remains an open question.
However, the pattern raises significant
questions about the origins of this system.
Nir Barzilai's research on centenarians at Albert
Einstein College of Medicine shows that some humans
naturally possess genetic variants that slow this loss of
information, allowing them to live healthier for longer.
His Longevity Genes Project has identified the actual
genes responsible:
CETP - Boosts "good" cholesterol,
protecting your heart
APOC3 - Improves how your body handles
fats
IGF1R - Controls growth signals linked to
how long you live
ADIPOQ - Manages your metabolism
TSHR - Affects how fast you age
These are not theoretical. These are real
genes you can test for. And they all seem to help maintain
access to that hidden "youth information" we talked about.
The pattern is clear:
some people's bodies are better at
preserving the backup.
The question remains:
why does the backup exist at all...?
The implications are profound:
if cellular ageing is information loss
rather than inevitable damage, and if that information can
be restored, then the ageing process may be more
controllable than previously thought.
Why such a system exists - and why it remains
dormant without external intervention - remains one of biology's
deepest mysteries.
II. THE CHROMOSOME MYSTERY - How
Did One Genetic Accident Spread to Every Human on Earth?
The Basic Facts
You have 46 chromosomes.
Chimpanzees have 48.
So do gorillas, orangutans - all the
great apes.
Only humans have 46.
Why?
Because at some point in the past, two of our ancestral
chromosomes fused together to make one.
Scientists can see the evidence:
there are leftover bits of chromosome
"caps" in the middle of human chromosome 2, right where the
fusion happened.
The fusion definitely occurred. That
is not disputed.
What is disputed is,
how this became standard for every human
alive.
The Timeline Problem
For decades, scientists thought this fusion
happened 4-5 million years ago.
New research says
otherwise.
It happened about 900,000 years ago
(give or take 500,000 years) (Poszewiecka et al., "Revised
time estimation of the ancestral human chromosome 2 fusion,"
BMC Genomics, 2022).
That is far more recent than anyone expected.
And here is where it gets interesting:
Right around that same time - between
900,000 and 800,000 years ago - the human population
crashed... hard...
We are talking about a population bottleneck
that lasted over 100,000 years (Hu et al., 2023, analyzed by
population geneticist John Hawks).
The Problem with the Story
Think about what has to happen for this
fusion to spread:
1. It happens in ONE person (a random
mutation)
2. That person has 47 chromosomes instead of 48
3. They can still have children, but it is harder
4. Somehow, over time, EVERYONE ends up with this
fusion
5. It becomes locked in before humans, Neanderthals, and
Denisovans split apart
6. All three groups carry it
For this to work naturally, one
of three things must happen:
Option A: The fusion gives you a
huge survival advantage, so it spreads rapidly.
Problem:
There is no evidence for this. Having 46 chromosomes does
not make you stronger or smarter.
Option B: The population gets so small that random
chance can spread an unusual trait.
Here is the problem:
people with fused chromosomes have a
harder time having babies. Not impossible - but harder.
Studies show about 20-30% reduced
fertility. More miscarriages. Difficulties in the
cellular process that makes sperm and eggs.
So how does a trait that makes
reproduction harder spread to everyone?
The 2023 study by Hu and colleagues suggests the human
population crashed to about 1,280 breeding individuals for
over 100,000 years.
Let's be clear:
that is mathematically sufficient for
genetic drift to work.
A population that small, for that long,
could theoretically fix almost any trait through pure
chance. It is possible.
But here is what makes geneticists pause:
that same tiny population, struggling
to survive, spreads a trait that makes reproduction
20-30% harder, to 100% frequency, across multiple
diverging lineages (humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans),
before they split apart - all with no apparent benefit.
Possible? Yes.
Probable? That is the debate.
The mathematics say it could happen. The probability makes
people wonder if there is more to the story.
Option C: Someone is managing which individuals get
to breed, selecting for the fusion until it becomes
standard.
Problem:
This requires intention, purpose, and
agency - factors outside the scope of natural
evolutionary processes as currently understood.
What Mainstream Science Says
The official explanation:
"It happened during a population
bottleneck through genetic drift and possibly some unknown
advantage."
That is academic language for "we do not
really know, but it 'must' be natural"...
Polish geneticist Pawel Stankiewicz suggests the fusion
was,
"a single non-recurrent event that spread
through a small polygamous clan population bottleneck" and
was "likely facilitated by an evolutionary advantage".
(Stankiewicz, "One pedigree
we all may have come from," Molecular Cytogenetics, 2016).
Notice the words:
"single event," "small clan," "likely
facilitated."
These are scientists admitting this is
unusual.
This is not normal evolution...
The Pattern that Emerges
Look at the sequence of events:
- ~900,000 years ago: One person is born
with a chromosome fusion
- 900,000-800,000 years ago: Population
crashes to very small numbers for over 100,000 years
- During this time: The fusion somehow
spreads to everyone in this small group
- ~700,000 years ago: Population expands
again
- Result: Every human, Neanderthal, and
Denisovan descendant carries the fusion
This is an extraordinarily precise
sequence of events.
Population geneticist John Hawks acknowledges the puzzle:
"Whether these immediate common ancestors
of Neandertal, Denisovan, and African ancestral humans were
a tight bottleneck or not, this is the most recent
population in which the fusion of chromosome 2 could have
happened".
(Hawks, "When did human
chromosome 2 fuse?", 2023)
What it Looks Like
If you wanted to change human genetics in a
controlled way, here is what you would do:
1. Take a small population during a
bottleneck (easier to manage)
2. Introduce or select for specific genetic changes
3. Control breeding until those changes become standard
4. Release the modified population back into the world
That is not what mainstream science proposes.
Yet the pattern,
single mutation event,
severe bottleneck, complete fixation across all descendant
populations, unclear selective advantage,
...resembles what we
might expect from targeted modification more than it resembles
typical evolutionary processes.
The question remains:
Is this an example of extreme genetic
drift under unusual circumstances, or does it represent
something "else" entirely?
III. THE LANGUAGE GENE - How Did
Humans Learn to Talk So Quickly?
What FOXP2 Does
There is a gene called
FOXP2.
If you have a mutation in this gene, you
cannot speak properly. You struggle with language, grammar,
pronunciation - everything that makes human speech possible.
No other great ape has our version of FOXP2.
This is why humans talk and chimpanzees do
not.
The Evolution Problem
For 70 million years of mammalian
evolution, FOXP2 barely changed.
One amino acid substitution between mice
and primates. That is it...
Seventy million years, one change.
Then humans show up.
In just 4-6 million years (since humans split from chimps),
FOXP2 gets two amino acid changes.
Functional changes.
Changes that enable language.
That is a 35-fold acceleration in
evolution rate (Zhang et al., "Accelerated protein evolution
and origins of human-specific features: FOXP2 as an
example," 2002).
Scientists call this "accelerated evolution."
That is academic code for,
"this should
not have happened this fast"...
When Did It Happen?
Here is where it gets specific.
Human FOXP2 has two critical changes that no other ape has.
Scientists can pinpoint exactly where they
occurred:
positions 303 and 325 in the protein
sequence.
Two tiny changes.
Two amino acids swapped out.
That is it...
That is the difference between humans who can
discuss philosophy and chimpanzees who cannot.
These changes happened around 200,000 years ago - right
when anatomically modern humans first appeared.
But that is not
all.
The regulatory elements - the genetic
switches that control 'when' and 'how much' FOXP2 gets expressed
- changed even more recently.
Possibly within the last 100,000 years.
Think about that timeline.
The gene changes.
Then, separately, the controls for that
gene change.
Both happening in evolutionary eyeblinks...
The Timing Is Suspicious
Around 60,000-44,000 years ago, something
happened to humans.
Archaeologists call it "the great leap
forward."
Suddenly,
humans start creating art, complex tools,
symbols.
Evidence of advanced thinking and creativity
appears in the archaeological record seemingly overnight.
This cognitive explosion happens right around the time FOXP2
regulatory elements were undergoing rapid changes (multiple
studies, 2000s-2010s).
The gene that enables language changes rapidly.
Then humans suddenly start acting like
modern humans...
Coincidence?
The Selection Problem
Here is where it gets strange.
When scientists looked for evidence of natural selection on
FOXP2, they found
contradictions...
Early studies in 2002 said:
"Yes, this gene shows clear signs of
selection.
Something was pushing for these changes."
But then in 2018, a massive study - more
comprehensive methods, better data, thousands more genomes
from populations worldwide - said:
"Actually, we cannot find that
signature."
This is how science works:
better data sometimes overturns
earlier findings...
So Where does that Leave Us?
The current scientific consensus leans toward
changes in regulatory regions (the control switches that
determine when and how much the gene is expressed), rather than
the gene's protein sequence itself being under direct selection.
Regulatory changes are harder to detect using
standard selection tests, which could explain the ambiguous
signature.
But it still raises a question:
We have rapid changes (35-60x faster than
normal).
We have functional changes (they enable
language - arguably the defining human trait).
But we do not
have the clear selection signature we would expect for
something this beneficial.
Why would the most important
cognitive upgrade in human history happen through such
an unusual pathway...?
Maybe regulatory evolution works
differently than we expect.
Maybe the signature was erased by
subsequent genetic shuffling.
Maybe we are looking in the wrong places.
Or maybe there is something about this particular change
that does not fit our standard models of how selection
works.
What It Looks Like
If you wanted to enhance a species' cognitive
abilities, you might:
- Modify genes responsible for language
and communication
- Do it quickly (no need to wait millions of years)
- Make functional changes (specific improvements, not random
mutations)
- Allow the population to spread those changes naturally
The FOXP2 data shows:
rapid functional
changes, precise timing, enhanced cognitive abilities, and
ambiguous selection signatures.
Whether this represents accelerated natural
selection under unique circumstances, or something more
deliberate, remains an open question in evolutionary biology.
What is clear is that,
standard evolutionary timelines struggle
to account for the speed and precision of these changes...
IV. THE PATTERN - What Connects
All Three Discoveries
Let's review what we have documented:
The Backup System (Ageing)
- Cells contain dormant instructions for
youth
- These instructions never activate naturally
- They can only be accessed with external intervention
- No evolutionary explanation for why they exist in this
form
The Chromosome Fusion
- Single event ~900,000 years ago
- Spreads to entire population during massive population
crash
- Becomes standard for all human lineages
- No clear advantage to having it
The Language Gene
- Evolves 35 times faster than normal
- Functional changes enabling speech
- Happens within 200,000 years
- No clear evidence of natural selection
The Common Thread
All three show patterns that normal evolution
does not typically produce:
- Precise timing - Major changes happen
during population bottlenecks when small groups could be
managed
- Rapid changes - Things happen too fast for standard
evolution
- Functional improvements - Not random mutations, but
specific enhancements (language ability, chromosome
optimization)
- Programmed systems - Information that looks encoded or
designed (the ageing backup)
Two Explanations
Mainstream science proposes:
"All of this happened naturally through
random mutations, genetic drift during population
bottlenecks, and selective advantages we are still working
to identify.
Evolution works in surprising ways,
especially under extreme circumstances."
This uses known mechanisms - mutation, drift, selection -
operating under extreme but documented conditions like
bottlenecks and small populations.
We have seen these processes work in real
time.
Alternative framework:
"These patterns show characteristics
consistent with targeted modifications.
Changes during population bottlenecks
when small groups could be managed. Functional improvements,
not random noise.
Systems that look programmed."
This requires... well, we do not know exactly what it
requires.
Unknown agents? Unknown technology?
Unknown motivations?...
It is speculative.
Conclusion
We are not saying natural evolution is wrong.
We are asking:
could there be more to the story...?
The goal is not to replace evolutionary
biology. It is to honestly examine the cases where
the conventional model struggles to provide fully satisfying
answers.
The genetic evidence is clear:
something unusual happened to
human DNA.
Whether that "something" was natural
processes we do not understand yet, or intentional modification
by an unknown agency, remains an open question...
ACADEMIC SOURCES
Ageing & Epigenetics:
- Lu, Y.R., Tian, X., Sinclair, D.A. "Loss of
epigenetic information as a cause of mammalian ageing." *Cell*,
12 January 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.12.027
- Harvard Medical School. "Loss of Epigenetic Information Can
Drive Ageing, Restoration Can Reverse It." January 2023
- Sinclair Lab Research Overview. Harvard Medical School, Paul
F. Glenn Centre for Biology of Ageing Research
- NAD.com. "David Sinclair: DNA Tagging, rather than DNA Damage,
Drives Ageing and Is Reversible." 2024
- Diamandis, P. "Unlocking Youth: Epigenetics Could Change
Ageing Forever." 2023
- Horvath, S. "DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell
types." *Genome Biology*, 2013. DOI: 10.1186/gb-20131410-r115
- Levine, M.E. et al. "An epigenetic biomarker of ageing for
lifespan and healthspan." *Ageing*, 2018. DOI:
10.18632/aging.101414
- Yamanaka, S. & Takahashi, K. "Induction of pluripotent stem
cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures."
*Cell*, 2006. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.07.024
- Ocampo, A. et al. "In vivo amelioration of age-associated
hallmarks by partial reprogramming." *Cell*, 2016. DOI:
10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.052
- Gill, D. et al. "Multi-omic rejuvenation of human cells by
maturation phase transient reprogramming." *eLife*, 2021. DOI:
10.7554/eLife.71624
- Sarkar, T.J. et al. "Transient non-integrative expression of
nuclear reprogramming factors promotes multifaceted amelioration
of aging in human cells." *Nature Communications*, 2020. DOI:
10.1038/s41467020151743
- Kenyon, C. et al. "A C. elegans mutant that lives twice as
long as wild type." *Nature*, 1993. DOI: 10.1038/366461a0
- Barzilai, N. et al. "Unique lipoprotein phenotype and genotype
associated with exceptional longevity." *JAMA*, 2003. DOI:
10.1001/jama.290.15.2030
- Atzmon, G. et al. "Lipoprotein genotype and conserved pathway
for exceptional longevity in humans." *PLOS Biology*, 2006. DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.0040113
Chromosome 2 Fusion:
- Poszewiecka, B. et al. "Revised time estimation of the
ancestral human chromosome 2 fusion." *BMC Genomics*, 25 August
2022. DOI: 10.1186/s12864022088287
- Stankiewicz, P. "One pedigree we all may have come from - did
Adam and Eve have the chromosome 2 fusion?" *Molecular
Cytogenetics*, 26 September 2016. DOI: 10.1186/s1303901602672
- Hawks, J. "When did human chromosome 2 fuse?" John Hawks blog,
31 August 2023
- Hu, Y. et al. "Genomic inference of a severe human bottleneck
during the Early to Middle Pleistocene transition." *Science*,
2023. DOI: 10.1126/science.abq7487
- BioLogos. "Denisovans, Humans and the Chromosome 2 Fusion."
September 2012
FOXP2 Gene:
- Enard, W. et al. "Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene
involved in speech and language." *Nature*, 22 August 2002. DOI:
10.1038/nature01025
- Zhang, J. et al. "Accelerated protein evolution and origins of
human-specific features: Foxp2 as an example." *Genetics*, 2002.
DOI: 10.1534/genetics.162.4.1825
- Scientific Reports. "FOXP2 variation in great ape populations
offers insight into the evolution of communication skills." 4
December 2017. DOI: 10.1038/s4159801716844-x
- Atkinson, E.G. et al. "No evidence for recent selection at
FOXP2 amongst diverse human populations." *Cell*, 2018. DOI:
10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.004
- Maricic, T. et al. "A recent evolutionary change affects a
regulatory element in the human FOXP2 gene." *Molecular Biology
and Evolution*, 2013. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/mst073
|
