"Scientist Proves DNA Can Be Reprogrammed by Words and Frequencies"

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Does this really mean what they say it means?...

http://www.collective-evolution.com...can-be-reprogrammed-by-words-and-frequencies/

(key disclaimer phrase -"scientific research directly or indirectly explains...")

It gets a bit wild towards the end.

How is it russian/german science is so different to english/american science?

Is there really a basis for a potentially revolutionary medical application? (DNA repair)

Summary of a german book.

THE HUMAN DNA IS A BIOLOGICAL INTERNET and superior in many aspects to the artificial one. Russian scientific research directly or indirectly explains phenomena such as clairvoyance, intuition, spontaneous and remote acts of healing, self healing, affirmation techniques, unusual light/auras around people (namely spiritual masters), mind’s influence on weather patterns and much more. In addition, there is evidence for a whole new type of medicine in which DNA can be influenced and reprogrammed by words and frequencies WITHOUT cutting out and replacing single genes.
...
According to them, our DNA is not only responsible for the construction of our body but also serves as data storage and in communication. The Russian linguists found that the genetic code, especially in the apparently useless 90%, follows the same rules as all our human languages. To this end they compared the rules of syntax (the way in which words are put together to form phrases and sentences), semantics (the study of meaning in language forms) and the basic rules of grammar. They found that the alkalines of our DNA follow a regular grammar and do have set rules just like our languages. So human languages did not appear coincidentally but are a reflection of our inherent DNA.
...
Esoteric and spiritual teachers have known for ages that our body is programmable by language, words and thought. This has now been scientifically proven and explained. Of course the frequency has to be correct. And this is why not everybody is equally successful or can do it with always the same strength. The individual person must work on the inner processes and maturity in order to establish a conscious communication with the DNA. The Russian researchers work on a method that is not dependent on these factors but will ALWAYS work, provided one uses the correct frequency.

But the higher developed an individual’s consciousness is, the less need is there for any type of device! One can achieve these results by oneself, and science will finally stop to laugh at such ideas and will confirm and explain the results. And it doesn’t end there.

The Russian scientists also found out that our DNA can cause disturbing patterns in the vacuum, thus producing magnetized wormholes! Wormholes are the microscopic equivalents of the so-called Einstein-Rosen bridges in the vicinity of black holes
(left by burned-out stars). These are tunnel connections between entirely different areas in the universe through which information can be transmitted outside of space and time. The DNA attracts these bits of information and passes them on to our consciousness. This process of hyper communication is most effective in a state of relaxation. Stress, worries or a hyperactive intellect prevent successful hyper communication or the information will be totally distorted and useless.
...
To come back to the DNA: It apparently is also an organic superconductor that can work at normal body temperature. Artificial superconductors require extremely low temperatures of between 200 and 140°C to function. As one recently learned, all superconductors are able to store light and thus information. This is a further explanation of how the DNA can store information.

There is another phenomenon linked to DNA and wormholes. Normally, these supersmall wormholes are highly unstable and are maintained only for the tiniest fractions of a second. Under certain conditions stable wormholes can organize themselves which then form distinctive vacuum domains in which for example gravity can transform into electricity. Vacuum domains are self-radiant balls of ionized gas that contain considerable amounts of energy. There are regions in Russia where such radiant balls appear very often. Following the ensuing confusion the Russians started massive research programs leading finally to some of the discoveries mentions above.
...
Now the Russians found in the regions, where vacuum domains appear often that sometimes fly as balls of light from the ground upwards into the sky, that these balls can be guided by thought. One has found out since that vacuum domains emit waves of low frequency as they are also produced in our brains.
...
Earlier generations that got in contact with such hyper communication experiences and visible vacuum domains were convinced that an angel had appeared before them. And we cannot be too sure to what forms of consciousness we can get access when using hyper communication. Not having scientific proof for their actual existence (people having had such experiences do NOT all suffer from hallucinations) does not mean that there is no metaphysical background to it. We have simply made another giant step towards understanding our reality.

Official science also knows of gravity anomalies on Earth (that contribute to the formation of vacuum domains), but only of ones of below one percent. But recently gravity anomalies have been found of between three and four percent. One of these places is Rocca di Papa, south of Rome (exact location in the book “Vernetzte Intelligenz” plus several others). Round objects of all kinds, from balls to full buses, roll uphill. But the stretch in Rocca di Papa is rather short, and defying logic sceptics still flee to the theory of optical illusion (which it cannot be due to several features of the location).
 

RolandD

Active Member
There's at least a dozen Noble Prizes, right there! Of course, they would have to construct reproducible experiments as proof of their findings. Some how I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.
 

solrey

Senior Member
How is it russian/german science is so different to english/american science?
Less rigorous standards in Russia for sure.

The part about DNA being a superconductor is only partially true. Apparently under certain conditions DNA has exhibited superconductivity in the form of a single nano-length strand between two superconducting electrodes with all cooled to below 1 Kelvin. I'm not sure if the experiment has even been replicated. That's far, far from proof of room temperature superconductivity of an entire double helix. The rest of the article is just as dubiously speculative. Good for a few lolz though.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2001/jan/12/superconductivity-its-in-the-genes

cheers
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Link to a more comprehensive collection of articles, on which the other seems to be a brief summary. There *appears* to be some science here. And patents!
http://www.rexresearch.com/gajarev/gajarev.htm

Towards the bottom of the page...

Journal of Non-Locality and Remote Mental Interactions Vol. I Nr. 2
The Wave, Probabilistic and Linguistic Representations of Cancer and HIV​
by​
Peter P. Gariaev*, George G. Tertishny, Katherine A. Leonova
*Chief Scientific Officer, Wave Genetics Inc.,
907 Alness Street, North York, ON M3J 2N2, Toronto, Canada.
(416) 6616614

petrgariaev@hotmail.com
Abstract: The basic assumptions of our work include the following: 1. the genome has a capacity for quasi-consciousness so that DNA “words” produce and help in the recognition of “semantically meaningful phrases”; 2. the DNA of chromosomes control fundamental programs of life in a dual way: as chemical matrixes and as a source of wave function and holographic memory; 3. processes in the substance-wave structures of the genome can be observed and registered through the dispersion and absorption of a bipolar laser beam. The present article brings forward considerable theoretical and experimental evidence in support of this model, and discusses its practical applications with respect to cancer and HIV therapeutic strategies.
"Chief Scientific Officer"? What is this, Star Trek?
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member
Less rigorous standards in Russia for sure.
Well, in Russian wikipedia the Gariaev's "theory" is called a pseudo science. In another Russian wiki resource "Lurkmore" the article about Gariaev is preceded by a warning:

 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member
It's not just Russian and German scientists, there are plenty of scientists all over the world that will publish material on this kind of stuff. Pjotr Garjajev's claims have actually been around for a while and are known as the "Phantom DNA Effect." He claimed to be able to turn a frog embryo into a salamander using lasers. To my knowledge it has never been replicated. This would be huge news if it were true, but it remains in the realm of unscientific new age ideas.

http://new-age.wonderhowto.com/how-to/understand-dna-phantom-effect-274363/

Often these ideas take a truth and stretch it to a point that is very misleading. Emotions don't directly effect your DNA, but chronic stress can be very damaging to the body and bring on behavioral choices that are further damaging. The part about amino acids is just completely wrong, though. There are only 20 amino acids found in the genetic code that are used to make proteins, the number 64 the video is referring to are the codons (all of which are active in the human genome) that are used in translation to string amino acids together in a certain order. There are non-protein amino acids, but those play entirely other roles in processes like metabolism.

Unfortunately, there is nothing to follow up on with the laser and DNA stuff. The idea of using the right frequency is interesting to me but there have been no experiments that I know of that suggests DNA can be precisely controlled by it. I think that kind of idea is stretched from studies like this: http://xlab.me.berkeley.edu/pdf/194.pdf

Real DNA repair is done by proteins, but repair does not mean correction of disease-causing alleles.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-damage-repair-mechanisms-for-maintaining-dna-344
 

FreiZeitGeist

Senior Member
Just read this http://www.collective-evolution.com...can-be-reprogrammed-by-words-and-frequencies/

... up to "By Grazyna Fosar and Franz Bludorf"

these are two well known german Hoaxer - no need to read more of it.

German sceptical Wiki Psiram has an article about them

http://psiram.com/ge/index.php/Fosar_und_Bludorf

Google-Translation
Grazyna Fosar and Franz Bludorf two authors esoteric and pseudo-scientific works and live in Berlin. They operate an Internet forum and a series of web pages to esoteric topics and conspiracy theories. Franz Bludorf is Editor in Chief of "Matrix 3000", Grazyna runs in the same magazine, the science section. They are also authors in various other journals, eg in "Raum & Zeit", "zeitgeist" and "WWetter-Boden-Mensch". The authors seem to be a concern, the esoteric or conspiracy theory topics lend their books an apparent scientific complexity, but without the intellect of the reader here to strain too much. Therefore, the authors describe their work as well as non-fiction, which are written in everyday language for a wide readership. Universities and research institutes would now appreciate their work and these are the basis for lectures, it is claimed in the promotion of their books.

Biografical

Grazyna Fosar admits to have studied physics and astrophysics, Franz Bludorf to have studied mathematics and physics, and claims to be alternative-medicine-healer. About their places to study and degrees, nothing is known. The search for scientific papers of both authors in scientific literature databases were unsuccessful, it must be assumed that they have never been scientifically published.

Activities

As a focus of their activities, they enter a "post-quantum physics of consciousness", geomancy, environmental pollution caused by "electromagnetic spectrum" (HAARP), and conspiracy theories about the alleged conspiratorial world elite of Bilderberg. They also believe in reincarnation, and that they have a so-called "Halding method" developed as access to the Akashic Records. Interests are also reflected in the pseudo-science-based wave genetics.

Crop Circles

Known nationwide Fosar Bludorf were identified by their pseudo-scientific findings to a so-called crop circles east of Berlin, which was previously created artificially for Günther Jauch broadcast on RTL-TV. Model for the design of the crop circle was a half-eaten pizza. Fosar and Bludorf had in mind have shown as "Cereologen" that the corresponding crop circle was impossible to create man-made and came up with a UFO landing. When their assumptions turned out more and more untenable, they put their website on this crop circle and started a fight with RTL and Jauch, who became known as the controversy over the "Pizza Connection". They stayed even after the dissolution of the puzzle to the crop circle continue to believe that this is a physically unaccountable phenomenon vorläge.

ELF transmitter in Berlin-Tempelhof

A common of Fosar and Bludorf conspiracy theory is that in the former Tempelhof Airport in Berlin were a secret ELF transmitter extremely low frequency, but high performance, they will operate under the code name Teddy. They tried to prove this with a completely unsuitable methods and alleged in their speculations, it would be sent from there signals that can affect the brain and cause diseases. All facts for Tempelhof Airport and contradictions in the argument, however speak against the existence of such a system, which was never observed by others.

TLR factor

One hypothesis that is being spread by the amateur researchers, refers to alleged time and place heaped plane crashes: The TLR-factor hypothesis.

Hyper Stock Trading Software

A commercial items sold computer program that would be based on a process invented by Fosar and Bludorf principle of "disturbed chance." The result was "Investor information to be obtained by any conventional market letter and no economic analysis".
"Project Teddy" is unforgetable to me. They walked around Tempelhof airport with a Tape recorder recording white noise and claiming the lowpass-noise of their cheap casette player are the "Haarp-like Elf-waves"
 

krista vogt

New Member
Being obstinate doesn't make for good edification :) ...We live in an age where the entire human knowledge base is at our fingertips! and if we choose to debunk without personally looking deeper, well, that's just silly..
Here is an excerpt from the article ~which, I think, would have prompted a search in the Journal of Psychoneuroendocrinology :)

"To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice," says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

"Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs," says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.

The study was published in the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology."

"
An experiment by Lipton, Bensch, & Karasek (1991) illustrated the princi
ple that cells are
controlled by the environment rather than the genes by showing that the specialization of endothelial cells
depends on the environment they are placed in. Endothelial cells were placed in different media in vitro,
and it was observed tha
t those cells changed their structure and function depending on the medium in
which they were placed. When placed in an environment of inflammatory chemicals, those cells became
similar to macrophages, for example. Interestingly, these changes took place e
ven with a functional
enucleation of the cells by destruction of their DNA with gamma rays (Lipton, 2008).
Research in epigenetics has shown that it is not our genes that control us, but rather their
expression. Epigenetics, therefore, concerns itself wit
h the mechanisms upon which gene expression
depends, and explores how our genes may be controlled by environmental factors. Environment in this
context refers to exogenous factors such as nutrition, climate, and stressful life events, but it may also
refer
to factors that originate from the individual such as attitudes, perceptions, personality characteristics,
that are often primed during early childhood. These endogenous differences may originate from changes
in hormone levels and different individual pat
terns of such changes.:

http://www.plattsburgh.edu/files/686/files/KryzaVol 5p_45-62.pdf

and there's more...


"Research Epigenetics provides evidence against genetic determinism and demonstrates that
different environmental circumstances can produce different phenotypic outcomes that are unrelated to
the actual DNA blueprint.
The various cells of the body share the exact same DNA even though a nerve
cell is easily distinguished from a muscle cell. The “epi
-
genome” (epi = above, over; gr) is a mechanism
that controls the expression of genes, and it allows for the differentiation
of various cells as well as
patterns of physiological responsiveness. Although such patterns of gene expression can be inherited, they
are also primed during prenatal and early childhood development. Recent findings, however, are also
suggesting that the
epi
-
genome may be changed even in adulthood."


and more still..

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889159112001894 20


so I in turn, challenge you, provide actual papers and evidence to the contrary..
 

solrey

Senior Member
Where is the evidence? Where is the actual paper, and what data does it contain?
Here's a link to the paper:

http://www.investigatinghealthyminds.org/pdfs/KalimanRapidPNEC.pdf

The very last sentence in the paper...

There's nothing conclusive in the paper, they only used 19 test subjects and 21 control subjects. Basically they're trying to identify the pathway by which stress reduction, such as meditation can facilitate, results in changes in the bodies chemistry which can lead to a reduction in inflammation. It's fairly well known that how successfully one manages stress can be a significant factor in ones health and this is part of quantifying a certain aspect of that.


Don't get too excited there Krista. That study had nothing to do with frequencies, words, chanting or anything of the sort.
 

krista vogt

New Member
Sorry, but actually it does ~and what's more, it has everything to do with the individual and their belief systems -I guess this bunk stuff won't be working for you :(
 

krista vogt

New Member
Here's a link to the paper:

http://www.investigatinghealthyminds.org/pdfs/KalimanRapidPNEC.pdf

The very last sentence in the paper...

There's nothing conclusive in the paper, they only used 19 test subjects and 21 control subjects. Basically they're trying to identify the pathway by which stress reduction, such as meditation can facilitate, results in changes in the bodies chemistry which can lead to a reduction in inflammation. It's fairly well known that how successfully one manages stress can be a significant factor in ones health and this is part of quantifying a certain aspect of that.




Don't get too excited there Krista. That study had nothing to do with frequencies, words, chanting or anything of the sort.
Sorry, but actually it does ~and what's more, it has everything to do with the individual and their belief systems -I guess this bunk stuff won't be working for you! :(
 

krista vogt

New Member
Maria E
.
Kryza
Department of Psychology
State University of New York, College at Plattsburgh
ABSTRACT
After being subject to Descartes’ fallacy for the past few centuries, it has now again been recognized that the mental
state has an impact on health and disease, and it is becoming increasingly more evident that DNA alone does not predict health
trajectories. Psychoneuroimmunology and epigenetics are two fields of science whose research supports those ideas.
Psychoneuroimmunology aims to discover the mechanisms that connect our mind to the rest of our nervous, endocrine, and
immune systems while epigenetics
demonstrates that different environmental circumstances can produce different phenotypic
outcomes that are unrelated to the actual DNA blueprint. An integration of the findings of those two fields may allow for a
more accurate and complete understanding o
f individual health trajectories and may generate pathways to a more
individualized treatment approach.
INTRODUCTION
Traditionally, orthodox medicine has viewed the patient as a passive victim of disease and a
passive recipient of treatment. But this tre
nd did not start until the 17
th
century with the dualistic
worldview of René Descartes’ who postulated that the mind and the body were two independent units.
Psychology and medicine were, therefore, until recently, two separate fields for two separate enti
ties

the
mind and the body. However, long before Descartes, in about 400 BC, Hippocrates
already
said that it is
more important to know the patient than his or her ailment (Ray, 2004). It is now again recognized that
the mental state has an impact on hea
lth and disease. In addition to the notion of being victims of disease,
a more recent development in science with its increasing focus on genes as the blue print of our bodies,
has led to a sense of genetic determinism, or the idea that our genes have best
owed us with an inescapable
heritage of good or ill health. Recent research in two groundbreaking fields of science, namely
psychoneuroimmunology and epigenetics, provides evidence against those ideas.


The mechanistic view of life is DEAD.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
...

The mechanistic view of life is DEAD.
The mechanistic view does not view the mind as a separate entity outside of the body, that's the dualistic view of most spiritual beliefs actually.
For the mind to be affecting the body, there by definition is a mechanism and interaction there, physically. How does that make the 'mechanistic view' dead?
Your gloating is premature.
 

solrey

Senior Member
Sorry, but actually it does ~and what's more, it has everything to do with the individual and their belief systems -I guess this bunk stuff won't be working for you! :(
No it does not, nor does it have anything to do with belief systems. There is nothing in the paper about frequencies of any sort. It's all about stress management, which works quite well for me thank you very much, considering I do and/or have practiced yoga, tai-chi, qi-gong and various forms of meditation and relaxation techniques. It's well established that meditation can reduce stress and that the bodies chemical response to stress can lead to inflammation. Reducing stress can help reduce inflammation and they're trying to find out why, that's pretty much it. And I have read and understood the entire paper already.


Word of advice...
Don't pretend to know someone you've never met.
 

krista vogt

New Member
The mechanistic view does not view the mind as a separate entity outside of the body, that's the dualistic view of most spiritual beliefs actually.
For the mind to be affecting the body, there by definition is a mechanism and interaction there, physically. How does that make the 'mechanistic view' dead?
Your gloating is premature.
Gloating does not get one anywhere...

Over all ~I must digress... apologies to anyone feeling a sense of hubris from me...

Quantum mechanics shows quite clearly that there is far more going on than the mechanistic or dualistic views ...science on this level (here) can only go so far -and we will continue to beat ourselves silly with studies and interpretations of those studies.. ...yet evermore, the larger picture will continue to show up and throw a monkey wrench into all we think we know...
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Quantum mechanics shows quite clearly that there is far more going on than the mechanistic or dualistic views ...science on this level (here) can only go so far -and we will continue to beat ourselves silly with studies and interpretations of those studies.. ...yet evermore, the larger picture will continue to show up and throw a monkey wrench into all we think we know...
How will the "larger picture" show up if studies are not performed? And why can science only go "so far" on "this level"?
 

krista vogt

New Member
How will the "larger picture" show up if studies are not performed? And why can science only go "so far" on "this level"?
I'm not saying not to preform studies ~we just need to keep our limited perspective in mind and refer to quantum mechanics when we can perhaps ...I definitely don't claim to have the answers..
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I've tried to watch Rupert - on reflection and reading what actually happened at TEDxWhitechappel he was not banned and his videos remain available through the TED website.

So no, I am not going to visit Rupert any more - if you can explain "it" yourself in a more sensible manner than he can then that would be most appreciated.

If not then ...well...I'm not interested in woo.
 
Last edited:

krista vogt

New Member
I'm not saying not to preform studies ~we just need to keep our limited perspective in mind and refer to quantum mechanics when we can perhaps ...I definitely don't claim to have the answers..
Besides that, there are so many special interests with the funding and sway within studies.. So many of our institutions are corrupt.
 

krista vogt

New Member
Well ...your OPINION speaks volumes to me ~AND this site in that you won't even consider some very rational work - Obviously there are a PLETHORA of phenomenon that CANNOT be explained by science! ~for decades now ~NO rational explanation .....OBVIOUSLY there is more to life than meeets the eye dear man... but this, is clearly not for your to experience. I will excuse my self from your site so as not to shake up your precious world, that sits in such perfect order. ..good luck !
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Yes there is a plethora of stuff that is not explained by science.
(to which I add "yet")

That does not mean there is a need to invent assumptions and fiction to explain it. I am perfectly happy to understand that something is not yet understood!

And yet paradoxically Sheldrake claims on "Skeptical Investigations" that psychokinesis, fraudulent mediums (such as Eusapia Palladino), ghosts, reincarnation, telepathy and various other phenomena have all been scientifically proven - which is it??
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member
Krista, if you were to sum up your main point in a couple of sentences, what would it be? I think that would help organize things here.

An experiment by Lipton, Bensch, & Karasek (1991) illustrated the princi
ple that cells are
controlled by the environment rather than the genes by showing that the specialization of endothelial cells
depends on the environment they are placed in. Endothelial cells were placed in different media in vitro,
and it was observed tha
t those cells changed their structure and function depending on the medium in
which they were placed. When placed in an environment of inflammatory chemicals, those cells became
similar to macrophages, for example. Interestingly, these changes took place e
ven with a functional
enucleation of the cells by destruction of their DNA with gamma rays (Lipton, 2008).
That doesn't seem strange to me. When we take cells out of the body, they are no longer receiving the signals they normally would from all of the other cell types that would be around them. They have the potential to transform into different cell types. In the lab we can turn leukemia cells into macrophages. We can also take mesenchymal stem cells (found in barrow) and, just by letting them grow in the flask, they can turn into cartilage, muscle, nerve, and many more cell types. Of course, the odd thing about what is said in the paper you are referencing is that the DNA was supposedly destroyed using Gamma radiation. Did he check to make sure the DNA was destroyed and not just mutated? I can't find a paper written by Lipton in 2008, do you know where I could read it?

Research in epigenetics has shown that it is not our genes that control us, but rather their
expression.
Remember that proteins do the work of acting on the genome to regulate its expression, those proteins come from the DNA. So the DNA of each species has a pattern of expression already written into it, a pattern that has been molded by evolution (the environment). There are, however, environmental factors that can dramatically change gene expression, sometimes permanently. This is where epigenetic research is focused now, finding epigenetic causes for certain diseases. To talk about epigenetics as a means of phasing out the importance of genes is incorrect.

"Research Epigenetics provides evidence against genetic determinism and demonstrates that
different environmental circumstances can produce different phenotypic outcomes that are unrelated to
the actual DNA blueprint.
The various cells of the body share the exact same DNA even though a nerve
cell is easily distinguished from a muscle cell. The “epi
-
genome” (epi = above, over; gr) is a mechanism
that controls the expression of genes, and it allows for the differentiation
of various cells as well as
patterns of physiological responsiveness. Although such patterns of gene expression can be inherited, they
are also primed during prenatal and early childhood development. Recent findings, however, are also
suggesting that the
epi
-
genome may be changed even in adulthood."
Gene X leading to disease Y is only a certainty in certain cases. Most of the time it's a probability situation where the presence of certain genes increase chances of a particular outcome. How much epigenetics we can change about ourselves is not clear yet, nor is the extent of its significance.

I don't quote know what you're arguing here. Epigenetic mechanisms do not cause changes in the DNA sequence, it does not change the gene. The epigenetic mechanisms are also largely set in place by the cell tissue itself. As the cells divide, they produce proteins to send each other signals and silence/modify gene expression based on the concentration and kinds of signals they are receiving (essentially figuring out where they are in the tissue) in order to differentiate and perform their proper function.

On the topic of gene expression changes observed in experienced meditators, we know that certain breathing and calming techniques can have strong temporary effects on the stress mechanisms of the body. So what? It is very interesting and demonstrates that it is a good practice to get into, but the idea of it being some mind over matter quantum mechanical mechanism that scientists hide in their closet is far outside of its implications. So what is your main idea? What do you think most scientists and the people here on Metabunk are missing when it comes to epigenetics?
 

krista vogt

New Member
I find it interesting that after digging and posting a great deal of "evidence", that no one was able to answer ANY of MY questions.. Where is the evidence? Where is the actual paper, and what data does it contain? I received no professional peer reviewed data, only a regurgitation of theories and spewed opinions.

Ultimately, what I'm arguing is that, not only are there holes in my argument, but there are huge holes, in your argument as well; that science as we know it, lacks something massive, and it is looming and ever more present. That increasingly, studies are giving a peek beyond the tenants of the scripture ha, or dogma; studies like this one above, and the numerous ones I listed.. The scientific dogma that Sheldrake lists is very straightforward and logical. And yes, very scary for those clinging to their certainties about reality itself. We must be open minded to phenomena and consider it WITHIN our assertions or given work ---

In his book, Science Set Free ~Sheldrake brings to bear 10 major scientific dogmas and MAJOR inconsistencies -he lays them our systematically and with pure laymen logical sense, clearly displaying the grossly illogical and-UNSCIENTIFIC premises of the discipline itself... "Oh, but let's just ignore these things shall we??" ~sorry... no can do... -from a "true scientific perspective -it all MUST be considered; logically.
And this is not limited to Sheldrake, but other pioneering or "subversive" scientists are seeing the gross inconsistencies and vital data being "pushed under the rug" as well.

To me, this original article put into question, and a growing number of them like it, is a lovely demonstration of this new frontier for science.
And I think it's coming whether we like it or not ~IMHO

Quantum mechanics, and specifically it's "spooky action" is showing us exactly how flawed we are in our convictions, and the fear of letting them go is exactly why we will create sites like MetaBunk and beat ourselves silly with our data and INTERPRETATIONS of that data. Sciences discovery of quantum spooky action must be considered if we are going to have any hope of evolving past this sort of circus and the corporatist's/scientist's dogma... frankly, I see it all falling apart as we speak.. And folks like you guys, are rattled -to all hell, because we are all truly beginning to see that reality is far more conceptual than we ever imagined.

Isn't it interesting that this expansive Quantum theorem is big enough to contain the standard scientific model, but the standard scientific model is not big enough to even begin to see, that "facts" are born out of the observer...
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member
I find it interesting that after digging and posting a great deal of "evidence", that no one was able to answer ANY of MY questions..
I covered as much I could in my last post. Anything in particular you would like answered?

Where is the evidence? Where is the actual paper, and what data does it contain?
It's not unreasonable to ask. I just want to read that paper you said Lipton wrote in 2008.

Ultimately, what I'm arguing is that, not only are there holes in my argument, but there are huge holes, in your argument as well; that science as we know it, lacks something massive, and it is looming and ever more present.
That's pretty broad. Anything more specific? This thread is about genetics and genetic bunk. Not quantum mechanics or philosophy of science. Sheldrake is not relevant to this thread. Science certainly doesn't know everything. Science also has proven to be a consistently good way of knowing. It's best to talk about evidence. What do we know, how do we know it, and what are the implications?

So please, what about epigenetics do you think science and Metabunk is missing?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
That increasingly, studies are giving a peek beyond the tenants of the scripture ha, or dogma; studies like this one above, and the numerous ones I listed.
Exactly what scientific dogma do those papers (which are scientific studies themselves, so it's weird you're saying science is obsolete by using what science discovers to say so),
expose?
Have they proven a scientific principle wrong?
Can you make your argument more specific - at the moment it seems like you think the scientific method should give up because quantum physics = magic or something.
 

krista vogt

New Member
I covered as much I could in my last post. Anything in particular you would like answered?



It's not unreasonable to ask. I just want to read that paper you said Lipton wrote in 2008.



That's pretty broad. Anything more specific? This thread is about genetics and genetic bunk. Not quantum mechanics or philosophy of science. Sheldrake is not relevant to this thread. Science certainly doesn't know everything. Science also has proven to be a consistently good way of knowing. It's best to talk about evidence. What do we know, how do we know it, and what are the implications?

So please, what about epigenetics do you think science and Metabunk is missing?


No, those were MY questions back at you ~you did not provide any peer reviewed data to argue your points. NADA.

...and as far as Lipton's paper goes, you can search and bring it up to view, as easily as I can...

OK ...And WHY?? is quantum mechanics not a factor in our observations??
Are you saying that it's scientific findings of "spooky action" should just be IGNORED while you make your argument??
As LONG as I ignore THAT scientific evidence ~your argument will remain valid. ...talk about meta bunk!


Sheldrake is relevant because his extensive work challenges basic tenants of science, or dogmas, which also happen to be the basis for your arguments. You can read his amazing book for yourselves, if you care to attempt to understand further..
I'm not exactly going to read it to you, but here at least, are the 10 dogmas he exposes:

Everything in nature is essentially Mechanical
All matter is unconscious
The total amount of matter and energy is always the same
The laws of nature are fixed
Nature is purposeless
All biological inheritance is material
Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains
Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death
Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory
Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works

As a matter of fact, you want me to suspend -a great majority, if not ALL of the evidence and logic -that these above tenants are proven assumptions
~~while you argue your point. ....sorry. I respect REAL science too much for that.

I myself, am happy to read anything you gentlemen might have to present by such credentialed peers! - -and since I highly doubt you will find such a man -feel free -anyone! explain -point for point why these 10 major ASSUMPTIONS WITHIN CLASSIC PHYSICS CONTINUES TO BE PERPETUATED BEYOND LOGIC. Beyond what is measured even. ~THIS is dogma folks.

as well, If even one of you guys can come up with a fraction of these credentials, then perhaps I'll consider why his work should be stricken from this argument.



Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. He studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he was a Scholar of Clare College, took a double first class honours degree and was awarded the University Botany Prize (1963). He then studied philosophy and history of science at Harvard University, where he was a Frank Knox Fellow (1963-64), before returning to Cambridge, where he took a Ph.D. in biochemistry (1967). He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge (1967-73), where he was Director of Studies in biochemistry and cell biology Clare College . As the Rosenheim Research Fellow of the Royal Society (1970-73), he carried out research on the development of plants and the ageing of cells in the Department of Biochemistry at Cambridge University.

While at Cambridge, together with Philip Rubery, he discovered the mechanism of polar auxin transport, the process by which the plant hormone auxin is carried from the shoots towards the roots.

From 1968 to 1969, as a Royal Society Leverhulme Scholar, based in the Botany Department of the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, he studied rain forest plants. From 1974 to 1985 he was Principal Plant Physiologist and Consultant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in Hyderabad, India, where he helped develop new cropping systems now widely used by farmers. While in India, he also lived for a year and a half at the ashram of Fr Bede Griffiths in Tamil Nadu, where he wrote his first book, A New Science of Life, published in 1981 (new edition 2009).
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I find it interesting that after digging and posting a great deal of "evidence", that no one was able to answer ANY of MY questions.. Where is the evidence? Where is the actual paper, and what data does it contain? I received no professional peer reviewed data, only a regurgitation of theories and spewed opinions.
You didn't ask those questions - Mick did.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Krista is clearly out to get sales for Sheldrake -

You can read his amazing book for yourselves, if you care to attempt to understand further..
No Kristen - you came here and claim something about his theories - YOU make them understandable.

Sheldrake's theories have been subjected to empirical testing - which have shown no evidence to support them according to everyone except Sheldrake. It is only AFTER "science" failed to support his ideas that he started claiming "science" is wrong and rigged against him.

As has been pointed out the irony of claiming that Sheldrake's theories are proven by science while at the same time condemning science is particularly poignant!

There is plenty of material debunking Sheldrake all over the 'net - there is no need to spend your own money on any of his products.
 

krista vogt

New Member
Still didn't answer ANY of my questions (what? I'm not ALLOWED to pose the same questions in return??) Not ONE:
not a paper, not a single peer ~Just plenty of "websites" debunking him ~well ~
That was the first thing I learned in college in seeking credentialed citation; Wikipedia is NOT it.
so.. I'm still waiting... Peer reviews, papers EVEN ONE? -showing these assumptions are NOT assumptions..
You do realize, there are probably TRILLIONS of dollars that stand to be lost bu his work,
and what's more frightening (for those of you afraid); perspective of reality ~en mass.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
You want papers proving these claims?

They're plausible observations based on what we know so far, so basically the whole history of science up to this point is evidence for them.
Nothing proving the contrary of these positions has ever been produced, so they will remain reasonable assumptions to make about the universe.

What scientifically reviewed papers prove the opposite of any of this, what observational data that is replicable shows that memories are not stored in the the brain for example? Or that nature is purposeful?
Because he said so, and some shamans, witch doctors and religious authorities said so?

These are mostly just contrary opinions with nothing other than stories and philosophies to support them.
He's just selling an opinion and rhetoric that align with your need to believe in something, it's nothing more.

How exactly does his 'work' threaten trillions of dollars?
This is madness.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Still didn't answer ANY of my questions (what? I'm not ALLOWED to pose the same questions in return??) Not ONE:
Probably because you haven't asked a question about any particular topic

not a paper, not a single peer ~Just plenty of "websites" debunking him ~well ~
That was the first thing I learned in college in seeking credentialed citation; Wikipedia is NOT it.
Ah...you've been in high school since Wiki started...:cool:

No wiki is not a citation - however many of the references wiki includes are citations


so.. I'm still waiting... Peer reviews, papers EVEN ONE? -showing these assumptions are NOT assumptions..
What assumptions? Who says they are assumptions - what is the evidence for that conclusions?
 
Top