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

[MikeC]

You want papers proving these claims?

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.

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....

Not to mention that several of them are philosophy, not science.

I am not sure how you would create specific empirical tests to cover the ones that might be science - however I'd be interested in a definition of what constitutes "mechanistic medicine" - that might be worth looking at.......although it might also be kind of pointless since if it works it must be "mechanistic medicine"...

 

[krista vogt]

So Mike you say; you have nothing peer reviewed "... because I haven't asked a question about any particular topic"

at this point, I think I'll take anything ~but I was originally asking about the point of this post ~to debunk the original article. i.e. ~can you produce any peer reviewed evidence showing that this research and it's proposed conclusions are FALSE? or any ONE of the ten assumptions or "plausible observations"

What is madness, is to say these are all "plausible observations" and then simply just leave it at that. As scientists, we're REALLY going to just sit back and accept that?? .. when in fact there are a plethora of observations to the contrary?!
Again, we are to just IGNORE these observations -right? ALL the contrary evidence, we're just to pretend it doesn't exist?? ...It is utter madness to say that because one observation serves the discipline-? (-no sorry, at this point it becomes a dogmatic institution) better than another, these folks (ah rulers) will simply whisk away what doesn't serve them and carry on!

As far as Rupert goes, look at the studies of this man again, ~obviously, after years and years -upon years of intensely working with and respecting the classic scientific model, he comes to bear witness to FAR too many discrepancies; too many questions that won't be answered -(I know how he feels) and pretty soon, it's just too damn many to keep his mouth shut and be able to live with himself. He can no longer preach the gospel that he was taught to accept and disseminate. He is one of the few, yet growing number of reputable scientists witnessing things, that just plain don't fit. After seeing so many anomalies, they just can't carry on like the rest of the drones getting their handouts from big business ..ah, I'm sure you all know how a great deal of "research" works right? When monies are funneled in this way, there are ALWAYS special interests and there is ALWAYS corruption..(just how much? no one from our seats, can tell!) and finally when the basic model of science itself is thrown into question? NOTHING it produces, is reputable in the same way; The priests no longer hold authority.

 

[Pete Tar]

If he has proven something scientifically, then that can be shown and shared and replicated. That is the scientific method he apparently respects.

There is no doubt that revolutionary breakthroughs in knowledge may and probably will occur, certainly things we don't know now will be uncovered with time (though some things may remain forever unknown). Science does not just stand still and decide there's no need for further knowledge.
But the idea it will be some mind-blowing world-shattering discovery about reality that empowers all beings in the universe is a wishful fantasy that true science shouldn't indulge in.
It's more likely at this point in the history of knowledge that all future discoveries will be relatively mundane accretions that we won't notice as world-changing except in hindsight.
He's just selling the myth of a radical paradigm shift which seems to be a basic appetite in bored humans wanting change who aren't impressed with the slow plod of normal science and want science-fiction wish fulfilment so they can justify believing in wishes and unicorns and fairies.

If something were discovered to revolutionise knowledge of the world, that would be exploited, there is money it. To say money is threatened by new knowledge is to invent a conspiracy to explain his lack of acceptance. The reality is he's not because it's psuedo-science, not because of what it's about.

 

[MikeC]

Why would I need a peer reviewed article to prove a non-peer reviewed supposition is false?

I do not actually know it is false - I do know it is an extraordinary claim that seems to lack extraordinary evidence - there seems to be no experimental method given that someone might replicate, there seems to be no actual hypothesis to test, and whatever analysis was done on whatever data was collected is not identified.

So right there I say this "science" is debunked - it is not science.

Front up with that information then I will change my opinion appropriately.

But you saying "there's no peer reviewed article saying it is false therefore it is true" is just nonsense.

 

[Dan Wilson]

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

What questions? I don't know what you still want answered. What I typed to you is what I've picked up in my understanding of the topic over the years. Here are a few of the sources that can corroborate, if that's what you need.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6004/611
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topic/gene-expression-and-regulation-15

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

Can you post it then? I can't find anything about it.

OK ...And WHY?? is quantum mechanics not a factor in our observations??

Because this thread is about biology and how there is nothing in biology to support the claims made in the originally posted article. There's nothing in quantum mechanics that supports it either.

Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books.

Science doesn't care about credentials. Science cares about what is true and what is false in nature. What if I start naming people with fancier credentials who would disagree with Sheldrake? It would go round and round. If you really value science, start speaking about it. Say why science is dogmatic, flawed, and corrupt. Give examples, show how experiments demonstrate these "dogmas" to be false.

Again, what about epigenetics do you feel has not been answered in this thread?

 

[Gavriel]

What is madness, is to say these are all "plausible observations" and then simply just leave it at that. As scientists, we're REALLY going to just sit back and accept that?? .. when in fact there are a plethora of observations to the contrary?!
Again, we are to just IGNORE these observations -right? ALL the contrary evidence, we're just to pretend it doesn't exist?? ...It is utter madness to say that because one observation serves the discipline-? (-no sorry, at this point it becomes a dogmatic institution) better than another, these folks (ah rulers) will simply whisk away what doesn't serve them and carry on!

No one is sitting back and accepting anything. These 10 things you listed have been studied for hundrends, maybe thousands of years and yet no better explanations ever showed up. This is just utter nonsense.

 

[Kavyo]

I am copying here an answer recently posted [May 6,2013] in Quora with regard to frequencies that would communicate with DNA:

There is no proof. The evidence supporting these claims seems to be lacking, but whether this is because they haven't been investigated or because they are false is not immediately apparent. There are some reasons to think that specific frequencies or ranges of frequencies could have effects beyond the brain, as is obvious to any deaf person, or any person standing near a speaker at a concert, or any wineglass undergoing this experiment: Breaking Glass with Sound, or any droplets in this one:

Of interest is the following study which found that sound waves (not 528 Hz specifically) directed at a Chrysanthemum "had no obvious influence on the content of DNA but accelerated the synthesis of RNA and soluble protein. By means of the assay of relation, the content of soluble protein had a very close relationship with that of RNA. This result indicated that some stress-induced genes might be switched on under sound stimulation and the level of transcription increased."
(Effect of sound wave on the synthesis of nucleic acid and protein in chrysanthemum)

Of more specific interest is an experiment undertaken by John Hutchinson and his partner, Nancy Lazaryan. The couple claim to have successfully treated water from the Gulf Oil Spill by exposing it to 528 Hz. John Hutchinson is considered a dubious source by many mainstream scientists, and his experimental design is not well described in the available articles, but his samples were tested by Robert Naman, president of Analytical Chemical Testing Laboratory and fellow of the American Institute of Chemists: (These are the results: Page on Pesn). The results indicate that the sample said to have been exposed to 528 Hz contained significantly less oil and grease than the sample said not to have been exposed to 528 Hz. These results indicate A) Poor sampling, B) Falsification, or C) That 528 Hz had an effect.

It doesn't seem likely that 528 Hz would have such an effect, but the history of science is full of now accepted things that didn't seem likely at first, and the tendency to dismiss any claim on the basis that it doesn't seem likely, has bogged down science throughout history. Obviously there are times when it makes sense to dismiss "outrageous" claims, when there is a concern about wasting time and funds. Science can be bogged down by investigating things that don't seem worth the effort, too. If this were a claim of a complicated perpetual motion device involving a lot of funding and time and preparation to replicate, it would be understandable to apply Occam's Razor and be done with it, but this is a very easy experiment to reproduce, and the possibility should not be dismissed until it has been attempted.

(Note: Some sources come from the following article, which the author of this answer is not associated with: The Solfeggio Scale, 528Hz C, Love, Music and How Sound Affects Us)

 

[deirdre]

I am copying here an answer

You had me at "There is no proof"

Please be sure to read Metabunks Posting Guidelines

The specific form of bunk focussed on at Metabunk is claims of evidence

 

[Dan Wilson]

Of interest is the following study which found that sound waves (not 528 Hz specifically) directed at a Chrysanthemum "had no obvious influence on the content of DNA but accelerated the synthesis of RNA and soluble protein.

It seems the authors didn't publish numbers for their controls. They say that, while the amount of DNA did not change relative to controls that did not receive sound wave stimulation, the RNA amounts did but those numbers for the controls are not in their figures. This leaves their data with the conclusion of "RNA increases over time" which is not surprising for growing, but not rapidly dividing, cells. You really can't say anything about the data if they don't publish their controls and it is suspicious that they didn't.