PDA

View Full Version : Dna influenced and reprogrammed by words and frequencies



MariaDine
23rd June 2011, 16:05
Thursday, June 23, 2011
DNA CAN BE INFLUENCED AND REPROGRAMMED BY WORDS AND FREQUENCIES
2:32 AM | Posted by Luis Guerreiro | | Edit Post

by Grazyna Fosar and Franz Bludorf

THE HUMAN DNA IS A BIOLOGICAL INTERNET and superior in many aspects to the artificial one. The latest 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.


Only 10% of our DNA is being used for building proteins. It is this subset of DNA that is of interest to western researchers and is being examined and categorized. The other 90% are considered “junk DNA.” The Russian researchers, however, convinced that nature was not dumb, joined linguists and geneticists in a venture to explore those 90% of “junk DNA.” Their results, findings and conclusions are simply revolutionary! 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.


The Russian biophysicist and molecular biologist Pjotr Garjajev and his colleagues also explored the vibrational behavior of the DNA. [For the sake of brevity I will give only a summary here. For further exploration please refer to the appendix at the end of this article.] The bottom line was: “Living chromosomes function just like solitonic/holographic computers using the endogenous DNA laser radiation.” This means that they managed for example to modulate certain frequency patterns onto a laser ray and with it influenced the DNA frequency and thus the genetic information itself. Since the basic structure of DNA-alkaline pairs and of language (as explained earlier) are of the same structure, no DNA decoding is necessary.


One can simply use words and sentences of the human language! This, too, was experimentally proven! Living DNA substance (in living tissue, not in vitro) will always react to language-modulated laser rays and even to radio waves, if the proper frequencies are being used.


This finally and scientifically explains why affirmations, autogenous training, hypnosis and the like can have such strong effects on humans and their bodies. It is entirely normal and natural for our DNA to react to language. While western researchers cut single genes from the DNA strands and insert them elsewhere, the Russians enthusiastically worked on devices that can influence the cellular metabolism through suitable modulated radio and light frequencies and thus repair genetic defects.


Garjajev’s research group succeeded in proving that with this method chromosomes damaged by x-rays for example can be repaired. They even captured information patterns of a particular DNA and transmitted it onto another, thus reprogramming cells to another genome. 
So they successfully transformed, for example, frog embryos to salamander embryos simply by transmitting the DNA information patterns! This way the entire information was transmitted without any of the side effects or disharmonies encountered when cutting out and re-introducing single genes from the DNA. This represents an unbelievable, world-transforming revolution and sensation! All this by simply applying vibration and language instead of the archaic cutting-out procedure! This experiment points to the immense power of wave genetics, which obviously has a greater influence on the formation of organisms than the biochemical processes of alkaline sequences.


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 hypercommunication is most effective in a state of relaxation. Stress, worries or a hyperactive intellect prevent successful hypercommunication or the information will be totally distorted and useless.


In nature, hypercommunication has been successfully applied for millions of years. The organized flow of life in insect states proves this dramatically. Modern man knows it only on a much more subtle level as “intuition.” But we, too, can regain full use of it. An example from Nature: When a queen ant is spatially separated from her colony, building still continues fervently and according to plan. If the queen is killed, however, all work in the colony stops. No ant knows what to do. Apparently the queen sends the “building plans” also from far away via the group consciousness of her subjects. She can be as far away as she wants, as long as she is alive. In man hypercommunication is most often encountered when one suddenly gains access to information that is outside one’s knowledge base. Such hypercommunication is then experienced as inspiration or intuition. The Italian composer Giuseppe Tartini for instance dreamt one night that a devil sat at his bedside playing the violin. The next morning Tartini was able to note down the piece exactly from memory, he called it the Devil’s Trill Sonata.


For years, a 42-year old male nurse dreamt of a situation in which he was hooked up to a kind of knowledge CD-ROM. Verifiable knowledge from all imaginable fields was then transmitted to him that he was able to recall in the morning. There was such a flood of information that it seemed a whole encyclopedia was transmitted at night. The majority of facts were outside his personal knowledge base and reached technical details about which he knew absolutely nothing.


When hypercommunication occurs, one can observe in the DNA as well as in the human being special phenomena. The Russian scientists irradiated DNA samples with laser light. On screen a typical wave pattern was formed. When they removed the DNA sample, the wave pattern did not disappear, it remained. Many control experiments showed that the pattern still came from the removed sample, whose energy field apparently remained by itself. This effect is now called phantom DNA effect. It is surmised that energy from outside of space and time still flows through the activated wormholes after the DNA was removed. The side effect encountered most often in hypercommunication also in human beings are inexplicable electromagnetic fields in the vicinity of the persons concerned. Electronic devices like CD players and the like can be irritated and cease to function for hours. When the electromagnetic field slowly dissipates, the devices function normally again. Many healers and psychics know this effect from their work. The better the atmosphere and the energy, the more frustrating it is that the recording device stops functioning and recording exactly at that moment. And repeated switching on and off after the session does not restore function yet, but next morning all is back to normal. Perhaps this is reassuring to read for many, as it has nothing to do with them being technically inept, it means they are good at hypercommunication.


In their book “Vernetzte Intelligenz” (Networked Intelligence), Grazyna Gosar and Franz Bludorf explain these connections precisely and clearly. 
The authors also quote sources presuming that in earlier times humanity had been, just like the animals, very strongly connected to the group consciousness and acted as a group. To develop and experience individuality we humans however had to forget hypercommunication almost completely. Now that we are fairly stable in our individual consciousness, we can create a new form of group consciousness, namely one, in which we attain access to all information via our DNA without being forced or remotely controlled about what to do with that information. We now know that just as on the internet our DNA can feed its proper data into the network, can call up data from the network and can establish contact with other participants in the network. Remote healing, telepathy or “remote sensing” about the state of relatives etc. can thus be explained. Some animals know also from afar when their owners plan to return home. That can be freshly interpreted and explained via the concepts of group consciousness and hypercommunication. Any collective consciousness cannot be sensibly used over any period of time without a distinctive individuality. Otherwise we would revert to a primitive herd instinct that is easily manipulated.


Hypercommunication in the new millennium means something quite different: Researchers think that if humans with full individuality would regain group consciousness, they would have a god-like power to create, alter and shape things on Earth! AND humanity is collectively moving toward such a group consciousness of the new kind. Fifty percent of today’s children will be problem children as soon as the go to school. The system lumps everyone together and demands adjustment. But the individuality of today’s children is so strong that that they refuse this adjustment and giving up their idiosyncrasies in the most diverse ways.


At the same time more and more clairvoyant children are born [see the book “China’s Indigo Children” by Paul Dong or the chapter about Indigos in my book “Nutze die taeglichen Wunder” (Make Use of the Daily Wonders)]. Something in those children is striving more and more towards the group consciousness of the new kind, and it will no longer be suppressed. As a rule, weather for example is rather difficult to influence by a single individual. But it may be influenced by a group consciousness (nothing new to some tribes doing it in their rain dances). Weather is strongly influenced by Earth resonance frequencies, the so-called Schumann frequencies. But those same frequencies are also produced in our brains, and when many people synchronize their thinking or individuals (spiritual masters, for instance) focus their thoughts in a laser-like fashion, then it is scientifically speaking not at all surprising if they can thus influence weather.


Researchers in group consciousness have formulated the theory of Type I civilizations. A humanity that developed a group consciousness of the new kind would have neither environmental problems nor scarcity of energy. For if it were to use its mental power as a unified civilization, it would have control of the energies of its home planet as a natural consequence. And that includes all natural catastrophes!!! A theoretical Type II civilization would even be able to control all energies of their home galaxy. In my book “Nutze die taeglichen Wunder,” I have described an example of this: Whenever a great many people focus their attention or consciousness on something similar like Christmas time, football world championship or the funeral of Lady Diana in England then certain random number generators in computers start to deliver ordered numbers instead of the random ones. An ordered group consciousness creates order in its whole surroundings!


[http://noosphere.princeton.edu/fristwall2.html] [1] When a great number of people get together very closely, potentials of violence also dissolve. It looks as if here, too, a kind of humanitarian consciousness of all humanity is created.


At the Love Parade, for example, where every year about one million of young people congregate, there has never been any brutal riots as they occur for instance at sports events. The name of the event alone is not seen as the cause here. The result of an analysis indicated rather that the number of people was TOO GREAT to allow a tipping over to violence.


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 (read about it in the Fosar/Bludorf book above) 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. Many people know vacuum domains as shiny balls in the sky. The attentive look at them in wonder and ask themselves, what they could be. I thought once: “Hello up there. If you happen to be a UFO, fly in a triangle.” And suddenly, the light balls moved in a triangle. Or they shot across the sky like ice hockey pucks. They accelerated from zero to crazy speeds while sliding gently across the sky. One is left gawking and I have, as many others, too, thought them to be UFOs. Friendly ones, apparently, as they flew in triangles just to please me. 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.


And because of this similarity of waves they are able to react to our thoughts. To run excitedly into one that is on ground level might not be such a great idea, because those balls of light can contain immense energies and are able to mutate our genes. They can, they don’t necessarily have to, one has to say. For many spiritual teachers also produce such visible balls or columns of light in deep meditation or during energy work which trigger decidedly pleasant feelings and do not cause any harm. Apparently this is also dependent on some inner order and on the quality and provenance of the vacuum domain. There are some spiritual teachers (the young Englishman Ananda, for example) with whom nothing is seen at first, but when one tries to take a photograph while they sit and speak or meditate in hypercommunication, one gets only a picture of a white cloud on a chair. In some Earth healing projects such light effects also appear on photographs. Simply put, these phenomena have to do with gravity and anti-gravity forces that are also exactly described in the book and with ever more stable wormholes and hypercommunication and thus with energies from outside our time and space structure.


Earlier generations that got in contact with such hypercommunication 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 hypercommunication. 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).


All information is taken from the book “Vernetzte Intelligenz” von Grazyna Fosar und Franz Bludorf, ISBN 3930243237, summarized and commented by Baerbel. The book is unfortunately only available in German so far. You can reach the authors here: www.fosar-bludorf.com


[2]; Transmitted by Vitae Bergman
[ www.ryze.com/view.php?who=vitaeb ]
[3]
References: 1.http://noosphere.princeton.edu/fristwall2.html
2. http://www.fosar-bludorf.com
3.http://www.ryze.com/view.php?who=vitaeb



http://rawincopenhagen.blogspot.com/2011/06/dna-can-be-influenced-and-reprogrammed.html

Omni connexae!
23rd June 2011, 16:58
Hey,

I would like to make a simple suggestion: if you find a scientist (or a pair thereof) who discuss their scientific findings in a book, and you do not find a single citation of a scientific paper by them about the topic, published in an international journal (which I do not see in all the material you reproduced here), then do not believe too heartedly what they say.

It's actually more than 90% of our DNA that is "junk." Closer to 95.5%. About 1.5% of all your DNA is protein coding, and about 3% consists of regulatory sequences. Now, some of that junk DNA will consist of structural elements for chromosomes, like centromeres and telomeres. These don't contribute to constructing your body in any way but they are still important to have. Even so, there is definitely a lot of DNA left that serves no particular purpose.

Some people do find it hard to believe that so much of our DNA apparently does so little. But you have to remember that our genomes have been evolving for billions of years. There's all sorts of build up of accidentally duplicated DNA sequences, or old genes that mutated beyond function (often referred to as pseudogenes), or inserts from a long history of infection by retroviruses. And in the big picture, there's no particular reason to get rid of all this excess DNA either. The additional metabolic costs of replicating it all are probably minimal.

As you can see, science has certainly "accounted" for this.

Regaurding the "language" of DNA, one should be cautious in interpreting what "language" is supposed to mean in this area. Following the revolutionary work of Noam Chomsky, sequences of symbols can be analyzed and described in terms of complexity of their structure.

DNA sequence has absolutely no similarity with "natural language". It however displays various levels of complexity in its structure. Approaches based on generative grammars have been used for decades in analyzing DNA sequences, and motifs and structural features have been long detected and described. Although some motifs have quite simple "linguistic" structure, others are not adequately described by "languages" much simpler than natural languages.

This, however, does not mean nucleic acids SPEAK or LISTEN. It would be like imagining that a computer running a program written in basics could be driven to make a mistake if you read loudly to it the program listing with some lines changed.

The whole premise sounds like total nonsense. The presented supporting information is nothing but wild speculation and unrelated anecdotal accounts.

sunnyrap
23rd June 2011, 17:37
I respectfully disagree, Omni. The work of Bruce Lipton (http://www.angelfire.com/hi/TheSeer/Lipton.html) among others are finding more and more that 'junk DNA' is a misnomer, and an extremely arrogant one--we just don't know what all the dna is for--yet. It's like earlier medical scientists declaring the tonsils and the appendix 'junk organs with no real practical use'--then finding out later they perform very vital functions those 'all knowing' scientists just hadn't discovered yet.

Bruce Lipton on DNA
http://youtu.be/DvX1tazlNoM

Tony
23rd June 2011, 17:40
Keep chanting the mantras!

TWINCANS
23rd June 2011, 17:43
...and read Louise L Hay's books, pie!

Omni connexae!
23rd June 2011, 18:10
I respectfully disagree, Omni. The work of Bruce Lipton (http://www.angelfire.com/hi/TheSeer/Lipton.html) among others are finding more and more that 'junk DNA' is a misnomer, and an extremely arrogant one--we just don't know what all the dna is for--yet. It's like earlier medical scientists declaring the tonsils and the appendix 'junk organs with no real practical use'--then finding out later they perform very vital functions those 'all knowing' scientists just hadn't discovered yet.

Bruce Lipton on DNA
http://youtu.be/DvX1tazlNoM

Hey Sunnyrap,

There is much left to learn, and I wouldn't say otherwise. I found it quite arrogant how the writers of this paper had the audacity to proclaim that science was "baffled" and just passes it off as junk as if it was irrelevant, this is simply not the case. If it offers any clarification: I also think the term "junk DNA" is a bad one.

Regaurding the "junk" DNA: it is nice to know now (it was not known some 10 years ago) that although it is not translated (i.e. does not code for proteins), quite a relevant fraction of untranslated DNA is transcribed, i.e. it gives rise to RNA molecules.

In recent years the relevance of such RNA molecules has received great attention: apart from a series of ribo-proteic structures, which play important roles in cell functions, many untranslated RNAs (especially small ones - microRNA or "miRNAs") regulate in many previously unpredicted ways the functions of nucleic acids by binding to complementary sequences and thereby interfering with a great number of cellular functions; it is of particular interest that the production itself of such miRNAs is finely regulated.

So, although a good deal of extra, useless DNA sequences ("junk") might be particularly useful as an evolutionary "laboratory", I would not be surprised if the size of estimated "truly junk" sequences kept decreasing in the next decaded as we discover further unexpected functions for apparently useless sequences.

I just want to make it clear that as this process keeps happening, don't expect some magical thing about self-healing or unusual light/auras around people to surface.

Papers like these can be very destructive to the spiritual movement, becuase when people start talking about things like morals and love etc, and mix it up with aload of pseudo-science, it instantly dis-illusions the message from people who know what they are talking about. This often has the unfortunate side effect of dis-illusioning these same people with the really important things like morals and real Love at the same time. It's what TPTB refer to as "tainting the well".

sunnyrap
23rd June 2011, 19:30
I will concede the possibility I am not translating or receiving your message as you intend, but I am hearing mixed messages in your post. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you are saying 'mixing spirit and love' into scientific topics is ' pseudo-science' and shouldn't be confused with REAL science/scientists 'who know what they are talking about'. This just didn't hit me right. We are all inquiring about the same subjects using different approaches, imho.

I read a lot of 'real science' connected to these topics for personal reasons. Some I understand, some I probably just think I understand, some I have to tuck into the back of my mind to see how the nugget fits with others I've collected because I just don't get it yet.

I've also studied a lot of 'spiritual' writings that basically just describe human experience, imho. To me, the one doesn't negate the other, both support each other in nearly equal measure depending on how you hold the information. A highly recognized PhD in Astrophysics, Dr. Bernard Haisch (http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/haisch-bernard/6750) who was also an admittedly highly spiritual man (as opposed to a religious man) talked about this subject at length on Noory's Coast to Coast AM this week. He commented that a 'hard core scientist' is unable because of their scienentific background and ethic to give credence to aspects of spirituality. Mostly because of their desire for everything to be quantified, measurable--concrete/physical. That is their realm. For years, most serious scientists would have to aver to atheism because their scientific impartiality kind of demanded it. Microbiologists like Lipton have brilliantly combined the two human endeavors into a paradigm where the two threads of thought are not in conflict. That's what makes him so dynamic, interesting and compelling.

In China, science and spirituality is totally integrated. I had the opportunity to look at one of the few translated into English, 22 volume sets of the History of Science and Technology of China. I locked myself into the room with them (SMU would not allow them out of the building) for three days, fascinated. Every single scientific principle was tied to a deeply spiritual principle. There was no division at all. Makes it completely logical that China is set to take over rulership of the world...

Haven't you ever wondered why universities across the country combine Arts and Sciences into one college?

My favorite quote is Einstein's 'Imagination is more important than knowledge'.

sunnyrap
23rd June 2011, 19:52
Ref: 'I just want to make it clear that as this process keeps happening, don't expect some magical thing about self-healing or unusual light/auras around people to surface.' - Omni connexae! (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/member.php?6673-Omni-connexae-)

Ha...how ironic. In the words of certain of spirtiual orientation like Louise Hay, Bruce Lipton, Gregg Braeden, Dr. Emoto (who scientifically demonstrates how emotional thoughts and words physically change the structure of water) and other so called 'pseudo scientists' you discover what you expect...

Omni connexae!
23rd June 2011, 20:01
I will concede the possibility I am not translating or receiving your message as you intend, but I am hearing mixed messages in your post. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you are saying 'mixing spirit and love' into scientific topics is ' pseudo-science' and shouldn't be confused with REAL science/scientists 'who know what they are talking about'. This just didn't hit me right. We are all inquiring about the same subjects using different approaches, imho.

A personal goal of mine is to bridge gaps between "spirituality" and "science" as much as possible, division is bad news.

Mixing anything to do with "spirit" and "love" with science does not automatically constitute psuedo science, this is not what i'm saying. Infact this is exactly why I am studying scientific topics such as Genetics, Phychology and Neuroscience - because I want to know what i'm talking about - so I can actively bridge these gaps. I would consider my backround to be more spiritual then anything else, although I would say I am a generalist.

I'm was specifically refering to the OP, and papers like it, that are full of complete nonsense, full stop.

To give an example, someone could read this and then start talking about how words manipulate DNA and how there is actualy scientific proof for this. This is entirely incorrect. I want to make it clear for anyone who might not be into science that much, that this is entirely incorrect. Because anyone who has studied DNA even a little will see this.

Im not saying spiritual people "dont know what they are talking about" because they don't look for hard facts and nothing else.

Im saying someone who has studied DNA meticulously knows more about DNA then someone who hasn't.

In the same way someone who has been into spirituality all their life would know more about it then an atheist who hasn't. I fully respect that.

Im all for bridging these gaps, and papers like these are often the very things standing in the way of that.

I feel we have got off on the wrong foot, and I want to make it clear I was not suggesting anything like what your saying.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Ref: 'I just want to make it clear that as this process keeps happening, don't expect some magical thing about self-healing or unusual light/auras around people to surface.' - Omni connexae! (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/member.php?6673-Omni-connexae-)

Ha...how ironic. In the words of certain of spirtiual orientation like Louise Hay, Bruce Lipton, Gregg Braeden, Dr. Emoto (who scientifically demonstrates how emotional thoughts and words physically change the structure of water) and other so called 'pseudo scientists' you discover what you expect...

With all due respect, you have completely misunderstood me.

sunnyrap
23rd June 2011, 20:06
My apologies for mis-taking your meaning. Thanks for your clarification.

Omni connexae!
23rd June 2011, 20:13
My apologies for mis-taking your meaning. Thanks for your clarification.

No apologies needed, I could do alot better at getting my ideas across. It is something i'm working on, I am apparently dyslexic, and discussions like the one we have had just now will do nothing but help me get better at it. :) So really I should be thanking you!

For instance what I should of said is this:

'I just want to make it clear that as this process keeps happening, don't expect some magical thing about self-healing or unusual light/auras around people to surface, becuase of this paper'

Jayke
23rd June 2011, 21:13
You know 'science' is a Latin word and it means 'knowledge'. Since wisdom is the application of knowledge, the proof of any scientific theory is in it's application, if it works...it works, there's nothing to argue about, the results are plain to see. In Huna, which is a tradition in hawaii that dates back some 50,000 years and beyond, the idea of instant self healing is just accepted as self evident...Read the work of 'Serge Kahili King - instant healing' for more detail on that. There's obviously more to DNA than what we've discovered in western science so we shouldn't be discarding any findings just yet.

Omni connexae, is it true that DNA is made up of a sugar type molecule?

DeDukshyn
23rd June 2011, 21:18
Hey,

I would like to make a simple suggestion: if you find a scientist (or a pair thereof) who discuss their scientific findings in a book, and you do not find a single citation of a scientific paper by them about the topic, published in an international journal (which I do not see in all the material you reproduced here), then do not believe too heartedly what they say.

It's actually more than 90% of our DNA that is "junk." Closer to 95.5%. About 1.5% of all your DNA is protein coding, and about 3% consists of regulatory sequences. Now, some of that junk DNA will consist of structural elements for chromosomes, like centromeres and telomeres. These don't contribute to constructing your body in any way but they are still important to have. Even so, there is definitely a lot of DNA left that serves no particular purpose.

Some people do find it hard to believe that so much of our DNA apparently does so little. But you have to remember that our genomes have been evolving for billions of years. There's all sorts of build up of accidentally duplicated DNA sequences, or old genes that mutated beyond function (often referred to as pseudogenes), or inserts from a long history of infection by retroviruses. And in the big picture, there's no particular reason to get rid of all this excess DNA either. The additional metabolic costs of replicating it all are probably minimal.

As you can see, science has certainly "accounted" for this.

Regaurding the "language" of DNA, one should be cautious in interpreting what "language" is supposed to mean in this area. Following the revolutionary work of Noam Chomsky, sequences of symbols can be analyzed and described in terms of complexity of their structure.

DNA sequence has absolutely no similarity with "natural language". It however displays various levels of complexity in its structure. Approaches based on generative grammars have been used for decades in analyzing DNA sequences, and motifs and structural features have been long detected and described. Although some motifs have quite simple "linguistic" structure, others are not adequately described by "languages" much simpler than natural languages.

This, however, does not mean nucleic acids SPEAK or LISTEN. It would be like imagining that a computer running a program written in basics could be driven to make a mistake if you read loudly to it the program listing with some lines changed.

The whole premise sounds like total nonsense. The presented supporting information is nothing but wild speculation and unrelated anecdotal accounts.

The interesting thing about science and scientific fact is that the facts are always changing as we learn to understand more. It's a big irony that we like to use science to make discoveries but we treat all those discoveries like 'facts' until we make a new discovery that changes them. Were they ever 'facts' then?

Tell me factually the shoreline of any natural body of water and I'll tell you that you are wrong by an order of magnitude of at least ten, and then I will prove it to you. What good are the facts then? they are just observed measurements - nothing more. and they key word there is observed.

The shoreline length of any natural body of water is 100% dependant on the resolution of your observations - the 'perspective" from which it is being observed. When science says "this is a fact" - it is only a fact from the perspective of which it was observed, and may or may not be the same depending on the perspective. For example, If I measure a shoreline with a distant perspective, I won't be able to notice the details of the curves and tiny peninsulas around the smallest details of the shoreline, and therefore I won't be measuring those - from my perspective - they don't even exist. Now if I get up close and personal to the shoreline and measure every nook and cranny along the shoreline my measurement will be massively different possibly by up to an order of magnitude of 10. Wow! a change in perspective dramatically changed the "facts"! And even better, from one perspective the results of the other perspective could not be seen or measured - doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Science erroneously assumes it knows all the perspectives, but of course we all know well enough that this simply is not true.

Omni connexae!
23rd June 2011, 21:58
As you can see, science has certainly "accounted" for this.



Science erroneously assumes it knows all the perspectives, but of course we all know well enough that this simply is not true.

I've obviously done a bad job and communicating what I wanted to here, as everyone seems to be taking me way out of context.

In my humble opinion, science is a just process, to determain what the next thing that will happen; will likely be. I understand that...

Yeah, we could get all philosophical about what the word fact actualy means n' all that, but I trust you guys already understand nothing is definite etc etc etc. Not to mention that our understanding can only grow and this will only ever open more questions.

Your arguing a strawman:

When i said science had already "accounted" for this, I was talking about the part of the paper that said "we don't believe nature would be so stupid", suggesting that "science's" current theory is illogical in the sence that it doesn't explain the "junk". .

This. Is. Complete. Nonsense.

Furthermore, even if western science is completely wrong about DNA, this paper still has no logical leg to stand on what so ever. Let alone it's premises.

That is all.

DeDukshyn
23rd June 2011, 22:27
Thanks for the clarification Omni C - our views on Science then are pretty close - it's a tool for learning to lead to further thinking and deeper contemplation - at least that is what it is to me.

I didn't read the paper so I can't comment ;-) I just wanted to point out that "proof" is most often just a perspective - which you seem to agree with.

I also try to bridge the gap between science and spirituality, and when you try to find commonalities - especially if you get into quantum physics, particle physics, electromagnetic physics and vibrational physics - you start to see that a fair bit of the basis of advanced spiritual concepts is actually backed up by these sciences. It's like we understood some things long ago, but only recently have been able to provide evidence - this phenomenon also exists and is rather interesting to me, especially when we realize there might be truth to something with newer evidence, where we previously thought none. There always exists a vast arena of what you don't know you don't know, where when you bring some of that into kthe knowing arena or even the I know I don't know arena, everything can change instantly - as in previous beliefs and observations.

And I'm not arguing, just providing some insight into how we (as humans in general - not you) conclude things from a perspective that may not be consisten with other perspectives - doesn't make any one more right than the other, but distinctions help. Discussion will provoke thought in countless readers - it's all valuable to someone so its good to look at something form several perspectives.

amedeejp
23rd June 2011, 22:44
I am always confused when the subject of DNA comes up. Does DNA have anything to do with what we think or believe? To me when talking about spirituality, it is what I believe and what I do that counts. I like the idea of collective energy or thought's ability to transform one's or another's actions and beliefs. Relaxation and altered states certainly in my humble opinion facilitate our ability to connect with external forces and spontaneously manifest healing. I may have transgressed the original topic, but this is where the discussion led my feeble mind. Thank's.
Namaste'
J

Omni connexae!
23rd June 2011, 22:50
Thanks for the clarification Omni C - our views on Science then are pretty close - it's a tool for learning to lead to further thinking and deeper contemplation - at least that is what it is to me.

Yeah I see it the same way. One could even go as far to say that many, if not all, religions, for instance, started as primitive versions of science, they just didn't have the perspective we do today. It all comes down to mathmatics really, thats all logic is, and thats all science is, it just got compartmentalised when we seen the need to be as strict as possible with data and the like - it's another form of evolution. Mathmatics is just a way to model how the known universe works, the same way a watch models time as we understand it. The only reason it works is becuase our brains themselves have to abide by these laws of the known universe, and mathmatics has to do the same.


I didn't read the paper so I can't comment ;-)

Mabie you should skim through it, if only for the entertainment value :P


And I'm not arguing, just providing some insight into how we (as humans in general - not you) conclude things from a perspective that may not be consisten with other perspectives - doesn't make any one more right than the other, but distinctions help. Discussion will provoke thought in countless readers - it's all valuable to someone so its good to look at something form several perspectives.

It's just a turn of phrase I use, although in light of it: "Debating a stawman" would be a better way of saying it. : )

DeDukshyn
23rd June 2011, 23:04
... The only reason it works is becuase our brains themselves have to abide by these laws of the known universe, and mathmatics has to do the same. ...


This made me think, and wonder .. is it because our brains have to abide by these laws? (which they do, but I don't think out thought has to ...), or is it because humans, in an egoic state, needs to dissect, reason, and rationalize everything - due to a lack of innate, perhaps spiritual understanding? If we didn't have those needs our science would have developed differently? I'm just think out loud, of what your post made me consider .. you don't really need to answer that unless you want to share your thoughts. ;)

Omni connexae!
23rd June 2011, 23:22
Does DNA have anything to do with what we think or believe?

Well one way of looking at it is they are like the "blueprints" to our body.

We are basically made of food, "you are what you eat" is alot more true then people tend to know!

Every cell in your body has the same "blueprint" or the same DNA. Like the blueprints of a house tell the builders how to construct a house, the DNA "blueprint" "tells" the cell how to build the organism out of the food you eat.

Although, your genes don't lead to a set in stone sort of behavior - or belief themselves.

What you believe is based on many things: your understanding, how self aware you are, how set in it's ways your brain is, how logical you are... ad infinitum.

It is a very common, and dangerous, misunderstanding in our society: that some people are just the way they are - behaviour wise - becuase it's in their genes. This is nonsence. Behaviour comes down to the type of enviroment people grew up and live in.

In this context, you could say DNA is full of many different potentials. The potentials that are "chosen" will depend on the enviroment you grow up in.

If your intrested in learning more, you can look into genetic predispositions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_predisposition).

DeDukshyn
23rd June 2011, 23:31
Does DNA have anything to do with what we think or believe?

Well one way of looking at it is they are like the "blueprints" to our body.

We are basically made of food, "you are what you eat" is alot more true then people tend to know!

Every cell in your body has the same "blueprint" or the same DNA. Like the blueprints of a house tell the builders how to construct a house, the DNA "blueprint" "tells" the cell how to build the organism out of the food you eat.

Although, your genes don't lead to a set in stone sort of behavior - or belief themselves.

What you believe is based on many things: your understanding, how self aware you are, how set in it's ways your brain is, how logical you are... ad infinitum.

It is a very common, and dangerous, misunderstanding in our society: that some people are just the way they are - behaviour wise - becuase it's in their genes. This is nonsence. Behaviour comes down to the type of enviroment people grew up and live in.

In this context, you could say DNA is full of many different potentials. The potentials that are "chosen" will depend on the enviroment you grow up in.

If your intrested in learning more, you can look into genetic predispositions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_predisposition).

Good post. I agree 100% - behaviour is generally defined by the environment, during any conclusive reasoning of rationalizations based on that environment, as well as mimicry. However, I have also been considering the mostly newer theory of genetic memory, and that finer things may possibly be able to also be imprinted - not necessarily behaviors, but maybe experiences? It sounds off the wall I know (scientifically), but there are a few researchers that are giving some thought to this ... I have no stance on this aspect, but I love entertaining things momentarily, to see if they can possibly work .. I haven't made my mind on this one yet but am still looking at others thoughts on the topic ...

Omni connexae!
23rd June 2011, 23:52
... The only reason it works is becuase our brains themselves have to abide by these laws of the known universe, and mathmatics has to do the same. ...


This made me think, and wonder .. is it because our brains have to abide by these laws? (which they do, but I don't think out thought has to ...), or is it because humans, in an egoic state, needs to dissect, reason, and rationalize everything - due to a lack of innate, perhaps spiritual understanding? If we didn't have those needs our science would have developed differently? I'm just think out loud, of what your post made me consider .. you don't really need to answer that unless you want to share your thoughts. ;)

Just to be clear, when I say the brain has to abide by these laws, I mean mechanically.

As for our thoughts themselves, it gets a bit intresting, and confusing :P I'll try offer an answer but keep in mind i'm also just thinking aloud, so take everything I say in this post with a grain of salt.

When we think about it, everything we know or understand, is only something we have perceived. Like, there is actualy no such thing as a genuine "original thought". What people really mean by an original thought is a new thought that is made of of bits of old thoughts, if you know what I mean. So im inclined to say that thoughts themselves also have to abide by the laws of the universe because we can only perceive something that came from the known universe - which by it's very nature has to abide by the rules of the known universe or it wouldn't exist - I think, lol.

Regaurding the ego: this really is something I have to look into more, but, I'm inclined to say that the ego itself is not something we can ever get around. What people say when they talk about "trancending the ego", is IMO the ego that society creates today, and when one sees ourselves as part of a whole, not an individual etc, and "trancends the ego", this is still just another form of ego in itself. Not sure about this though! I would really have to look into it alot more to confidently say.

Although, I was actualy having a discussion online about original thoughts very recently with someone as it goes: they said that it's possible to enter a state of "self-absense" in which people can actually create (or receive(?)) a completely original thought, I'm not sure how true that is, and i'm still waiting for him to get back to me on that one, but if it is true, that certainly does open up a whole new can of worms lol.

MariaDine
24th June 2011, 01:26
http://books.google.com/books?id=RSOPDHP9QekC&dq=Damasio&hl=pt-PT&ei=PecDTsfKB8qe-QbgtJWyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA
http://books.google.com/books?id=GzahPwAACAAJ&dq=Damasio&hl=pt-PT&ei=PecDTsfKB8qe-QbgtJWyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ
http://books.google.com/books?id=477l8f0rHoIC&dq=Damasio&hl=pt-PT&ei=PecDTsfKB8qe-QbgtJWyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg

A gift for you, Omni C !
Namasté

MariaDine
24th June 2011, 01:34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLp22g-FeFs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLp22g-FeFs

MariaDine
24th June 2011, 01:51
GEOCROMOTHERAPY - GEOMETRIC COLOR SHAPES AND LIGHT


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NntOdNALceM&feature=related


«(...) My research is focused exclusively on the development of active and intelligent of geometry and light (hence the color). Geochromotherapy born as a coherent system in 1994 and, until now, has continued to grow and expand. In fact Geochromotherapy (a method of healing and progression) is included within the Geocrom System, a paradigm that promotes the consistent use of mathematical and geometrical principles, both in medicine, psychology, art and architecture, pedagogy and a new vision of metaphysics.
Returning to the beginning of the text, a small part of Geocrom system offers us an invaluable aid to decode and clean our environment. So far the new system has experienced the therapeutic properties and evolution of more than sixty graphic substrates (filters translucent geometric patterns of color). Three of them, the Purple Heptagon, the Decagon Decagon Violet and Turquoise, are extremely effective in the field empty, delete obsolete or involutional codes, decode imprints harmonic and restore order in the molecules of each thing, person or place.
Only with these three filters designed and manufactured in golden ratio with a photosensitive gelatin, we cleanse, purify, download and clear the codes are stored in anything or anyone. The set of three filters Geochromotherapy decoders is useful to thoroughly clean the glass, minerals, metals, jewels, whether they are personal as if it is a Druze, a sculpture, artwork or stone placed in a sitting or office where there are many people. It is important to remember that very often it would be necessary to decode the clothes (especially if the user no longer lives with us), furniture, paintings, objects, antiques, etc.. own homes as well as its structure, walls, stairs, closets, kitchens, bathrooms, etc..
Let our living space and our belongings neutral third-party code empty, old, memories are often obsolete (and therefore involutive) is critical to the health and harmony of each of us. It is not much a bounty of therapy if, when we come home or office, re-treatment of memories and impressions that do not favor at all our evolutionary process and in the best cases, these objects absorb us We unloaded our energy and vitality. Clearly the three filters mentioned Geocrom also are useful for individual therapy, and cleanse and purify a person, but to use it better to be a therapist and learn acupuncture points where it enters the encoding filters and the workflow with the light that these filters should be designed on the body.
The system has several aspects Geocrom work and research within the Geochromotherapy, there are 60 filters for treating mood, psycho-emotional and physical, forty of them very useful as drugs if placed on the chest at the height of the thymus ( after dosing) and 22 filters for energy correction of the habitat and the sublimation of his powers.»

Marta Povo. Geocrom Institute of Barcelona

Magazine Fall 2003 http://www.revistanatural.com/articulo.asp?id=78

DeDukshyn
24th June 2011, 01:55
... When we think about it, everything we know or understand, is only something we have perceived ...

This reminds of a legend, that I believe to be true ... When Europeans first came to America (I'm unsure of which tribe this story originates from), there is this one story of the village Shaman going to the shores to greet the white newcomers, who had come across the oceans on these amazing and massive vessels. The story goes that only the Shaman had perceived the ships coming and anchored off shore. he majority of the villagers could not perceive them at all, they could not see the ships. The reason that the Shaman could perceive them was that his mind was expanded beyond that of experiences (hence why chosen as shaman), while the villagers perceptions were based on previous experiences. Giant ocean faring vessels were not a reality to them at all. They just didn't exist in their world, thus they could not perceive them. It took the shaman some time to build up the belief in the villagers that this was possible and real. After the belief was planted, the villagers began to perceive the ships anchored in the bay. I think this may explain a little the relationship between what we believe and what we percieve. Food for thought ...

Jayke
24th June 2011, 08:42
Darn, no one answered my question about DNA being made of sugar molecules, had to find the answer for myself because if it's true it has interesting implications regarding these studies.

Both DNA and RNA are composed of repeating units of nucleotides. Each nucleotide consists of a sugar, a phosphate and a nucleic acid base. The sugar in DNA is deoxyribose. The sugar in RNA is ribose, the same as deoxyribose but with one more OH (oxygen-hydrogen atom combination called a hydroxyl).

Sugar is an interesting compound, made in the process of photosynthesis...plants literally condense sunlight and slow it down into a slow enough vibration for it to become a solid, when we ingest sugar we're literally eating condensed sunlight, which is why it gives us so much energy. Check out this video to see how much light potential a teaspoon of sugar has (the chemical reaction begins 0:20 into it)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXts1AlpR_g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXts1AlpR_g&feature=related

So if our DNA, meaning every cell in our body is made up of condensed sunlight then to really understand biology, to really understand the science of life, wouldn't it be wiser to understand the study of light and all the different potentialities that light possesses. In ancient times the study of light was referred to as the Magus...people who studied the Magus were called the Magi...Applications of the Magi were known as Magic. Every ancient shaman with all their metaphysical and spiritual abilities were able to do what they do because they understood the potential of light magic, which include things like instant healing, light emanations etc. There's plenty of evidence in history and modern science to suggest that the articles MariaDine presented are accurate, dismissing them because they've never been published in illuminati controlled (mind engineering) magazines would be a bit naive in my opinion.

The peer review process, from what I've seen is only there as a barrier to stop people from discovering and applying enlightening information that they could use to transform their life and the world. Only science that supports the current limitations of our world tend to be allowed to be published. Unless we want to be stuck in the illuminati thought prison then it's probably best to stay away from the internationally published journals and find independent researchers who are making great strides in uncovering the secrets of this light potential that exists inside us, so thankyou Maria for starting this enlightening thread, much appreciated.