Apocalypse Soon => Religions, Cults & Sects => Topic started by: Jake on December 01, 2011, 04:47:03 PM

Title: Frequencies and altering DNA
Post by: Jake on December 01, 2011, 04:47:03 PM
Depends, if you hit the right frequency at the right place, you can actually scientifically proven, change DNA. So why not change other laws of physics as well?

Proof please that witchcraft or magic has been "scientifically proven [to] change DNA".
Title: Re: Frequencies and altering DNA
Post by: Nina on December 01, 2011, 04:49:21 PM
Of course :) (

ps: you modified the post, but here is the proof of frequencies, and you spoke of "reciting mumbo-jumbo", which basically produces certain frequencies.
Title: Re: Frequencies and altering DNA
Post by: Jake on December 01, 2011, 04:51:42 PM

I asked for proof. Some actual scientific proof. Not the channelled messages of Kryon from the planet Zanussi

Title: Re: Frequencies and altering DNA
Post by: Nina on December 01, 2011, 05:12:30 PM
 :roll: ( ( (

Hey, aliens know their smurf ;) Dont be a spiecests.

Title: Re: Frequencies and altering DNA
Post by: Jake on December 01, 2011, 07:18:28 PM
That's basically the same hogwash from the first site, relinked 3 times...

I hate to sound rude, but "stuff published on a website by some unknown pseudoscientists" scientific proof does not make.

Anybody can make a claim about anything - "real" science demands evidence and data to back up what is being claimed. This is how science is done: then, other people can take the data and check it for errors, or recreate the same effect themselves. This is proof. They provide no data nor evidence. Just ... claims. It is not even "junk science" - it is pseudoscience. This is the David Icke of science.

(Before you go into another frenzy of googling new age-quackery websites, might I just explain to you about the implications of the theory you are attempting to prove has been proven: if DNA can be altered by words and frequencies, then after your almost 3 decades on this planet, being exposed to a whole lexicon or two of words and pretty much the full EM spectrum, you should have the dna of a jellyfish by now... Think about it, use your reason, before you just accept something you found on the internet.)

Title: Re: Frequencies and altering DNA
Post by: ViciouslyMe on December 01, 2011, 07:29:09 PM
What kind of sense would it make for (if the theory she brings up was in fact true) one's DNA to be that (or like that) of a jellyfish? That makes absolutely no sense, to say that would be to say that any outside source that affects anything (DNA or not) is going to affect it in some sort of negative way. And honestly, you seem like a good person, but you also seem like anything that you don't know as truth has no possibility of being truth. I'm not saying I believe what she's saying, but from what I've read of a lot of your posts, you shoot down anything that hasn't already been a part of your own life.

I'm not going to say believe everything you hear or read, but have a bit more of an open mind. You're first reaction is to shoot everything down, which is not the same as being 'skeptical'.
Title: Re: Frequencies and altering DNA
Post by: Jake on December 01, 2011, 08:05:03 PM
I'm asking for legitimate, scientific proof.

That is not the same as "shooting down".

Skepticism is "any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere."

And nothing good could result from your DNA being "altered" every time it was exposed to a "word" or "frequency". Your existence would consist of you being a permanent genetic engineering experiment.* And if all that was needed was a "word" then genetic engineering would be something we could all do for s***s n giggles in the kitchen instead of requiring billion dollar research facilities.

If I said I had 4 heads and 6 arms, or could turn into a 15 foot dragon at will, you would call bulls**t. But you've never seen me, you can't "prove" that those aren't true facts about me. But you would still demand proof from me that I could and scoff the very notion meantime.

With regard to those Russian David Ickes, "pseudoscience loves ignorance."

*Although it would be great for murderers and rapists etc, because the DNA they left at the crime scene would no longer match their own as soon as someone said "hippopotamus" - or maybe "abracadabra" - at them.

Title: Re: Frequencies and altering DNA
Post by: Jake on December 01, 2011, 08:20:48 PM
Besides, this doesn't address the point raised: if someone believes in magic, then what rationale do they use to say that this case of the abused child was definitely not caused by magic?
Title: Re: Frequencies and altering DNA
Post by: Nina on December 01, 2011, 09:26:24 PM
I'm asking for legitimate, scientific proof.

Hyper-sound as a means for generating inter-strand defects in a duplex of the DNA (

Specificity of DNA cleavage by ultrasound (

Drooping genes v/s dancing genes (

Your existence would consist of you being a permanent genetic engineering experiment.

Prove its isnt.

With regard to those Russian David Ickes, "pseudoscience loves ignorance."

Actually, those are doctors of biochemistry and molecular biology.... and you are right, I dont feel like digging any more info, it is all online... if you need a better proof, I can work on finding out the phone number of the institute ;)

What I find funniest is the fact that this wasnt tested and confirmed only by those two Russian scientists either.

Title: Re: Frequencies and altering DNA
Post by: Jake on December 02, 2011, 06:27:29 AM
The first paper uses a theoretical, simplified, one-dimensional interpretation model of DNA to test a hypothesis that hypersound (ie sound over 200 GHz which can be focused in an incredibly narrow beam) can be used to break a hydrogen bond in a DNA molecule. That isn't what the Russians claim, nor is it really similar. At a basic level, this is testing to see if something can be destroyed.

The second paper follows the same route as the first, attempting to reproduce destruction in DNA using ultrasound (ie 20kHz - 200 MHz). Again, not the same as the Russian claim.

I like the third one. Not because it is actually written by psychiatrists rather than molecular biologists, but because it demonstrates a neat trick: it doesn't actually contain any science! Look at the citations. Look at the content. It quotes scripture as evidence:

Vedas state that “In the beginning was Brahman with whom was the WORD”. A parallel for this can be found in The New Testament where John states “In the beginning was the WORD.” A reference in Genesis 1:3 reads “And God said, Let there be light: And there was light.” All these point to the potential of light (electromagnetic waves) and sound (electromagnetic waves) on DNA and their EXPRESSION.

How exactly do those point to the "potential of light  and sound on DNA and their EXPRESSION."? We don't know, they don't explain, it is an assumption based on zero evidence, and it is simply "WOO (".

It also claims: "A Russian research team of geneticists and linguists have scientifically documented the ability of sound and light to heal DNA" - but does not cite the paper where this is published! This is not so puzzling when you dig a little deeper - the original Gariaev and Poponin works were not peer reviewed or published in any recognised journals. They are known in skeptic circles however, having been pushing this quantum woo since 1991. As it happens, Trent X, a real scientist I have very occasionally corresponded with in the States, has also looked for proof at the heart of these claims. He concluded:

First off it can not be emphasized enough that [person A] has never read this research. He found it on an internet posting, thought it sounded cool and tossed it in his books and videos. He sources a "peer reviewed" journal article that has nothing to do with the claim. This is at best lazy scholarship...

As for the claim itself, it appears as if several Russian researchers, with a marginal publication record, went off the deep end of quantum woo. Using their status as "scientist" they claimed to have discovered a mechanism of quantum healing and bioquantum computing in DNA. After they went off the deep in none of their work got published in peer review journals. At least one of the authors, Peter Gariaev, has published only in alternative medicine and woo journals, when he isn't busy spamming internet forums with the "crisis in life science." At best, the research was published in a conference abstract that was not reviewed for content validity and accuracy. This conference paper was the end of the line for the "science," as no one, including the original authors, replicated or extended the work at all. In fact, it has received no citations at all in the scientific community.

The internet rants from Gariaev appears to be where this whole thing got started, with [person A] picking it up on some forum and then tossing it in his books and videos as "scientific evidence" for quantum woo. From there it spread out in to the altie community, with everyone sure that it is backed by controlled scientific evidence.

This is why the Gish Gallop is a nasty rhetorical technique. In two hours [person A] tosses out several dozen claims like this phantom DNA effect. He refers to them as if they are established respected science, and then derives his quantum woo from that. The time and energy it took to fully debunk one of the multiple dozens of claims makes it prohibitive to do it for every single one. So while the "phantom DNA effect is science" claim has been shown to be bunk, any altie can come in and say "Well, okay, maybe not this example but what about the other 40?" And if I buckle down and do this for all 40 claims and prove them all bunk, all I will get in response is another 2 hours video with another 40 or more claims.

The Gish Gallop (

Prove its isnt.

This is quite simply an "argument from ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"). It is an attempt to to shift the burden of proof, often used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he/she has no reason for holding the belief that he/she does.

Bertrand Russell's Teapot is a good explanation of this: (