Thread: DNA Phantom Effect

15 years ago some Russian molecular biologists (Drs. Gariaev & Poponin) discovered this DNA Phantom effect. If you beam laser light through DNA a wave pattern appears on the screen behind. If you then remove the DNA from the experiment the wave pattern remains on the screen as if the DNA is still there.

Also they found you can interact with the DNA using voice modulated laser light. They were actually able to change the information patterns in the DNA with laser light and were able to convert a frog embryo into a salamander embryo.

Some German writers (Fosar & Bludorf) have written a book about this entitled Vernetzte Intelligenz. They argue that there is a networked intelligence at the DNA level that enables hypercommunication of information amongst all sentient beings. We are all interconnected in the DNA, and this accounts for a whole host of paranormal phenomena.

Excerpts of Fosar & Bludorf's book have been translated into English on the website The Spiritual Genome www.spiritualgenome.com

Mainstream geneticists are completely silent about all this. According to them only 3% of the genome contains active chemical genes and all the rest is inert biological junk. They don't seem to be telling us the whole story.

Is there an experiment or any scientific research to back the theory of the DNA able to respong to voice?

Originally Posted by Mr Walker

According to them only 3% of the genome contains active chemical genes and all the rest is inert biological junk. They don't seem to be telling us the whole story.

'junk dna' is an unfortunate term for non-coding DNA, it does not necessarily mean non-functional DNA. Please read this link if you are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_dna

The idea that there are mysterious regions of DNA with supernatural functions is pure science fiction horseshit i'm afraid.

Mr Walker, have they publisehd anything on this phenomena in a peer reviewed journal?

What other work have they published?

What are their credentials?

Originally Posted by Mr Walker

15 years ago some Russian molecular biologists (Drs. Gariaev & Poponin) discovered this DNA Phantom effect. If you beam laser light through DNA a wave pattern appears on the screen behind. If you then remove the DNA from the experiment the wave pattern remains on the screen as if the DNA is still there.

Also they found you can interact with the DNA using voice modulated laser light. They were actually able to change the information patterns in the DNA with laser light and were able to convert a frog embryo into a salamander embryo.

Some German writers (Fosar & Bludorf) have written a book about this entitled Vernetzte Intelligenz. They argue that there is a networked intelligence at the DNA level that enables hypercommunication of information amongst all sentient beings. We are all interconnected in the DNA, and this accounts for a whole host of paranormal phenomena.

Excerpts of Fosar & Bludorf's book have been translated into English on the website The Spiritual Genome www.spiritualgenome.com

Mainstream geneticists are completely silent about all this. According to them only 3% of the genome contains active chemical genes and all the rest is inert biological junk. They don't seem to be telling us the whole story.

It seems that DNA in the context of the above item actually stands for: Did Not Appen

If it was true, surely somebody at some disco would have noticed it...

Originally Posted by Jessieh04

Is there an experiment or any scientific research to back the theory of the DNA able to respong to voice?

Just shout at your kids/siblings....

Hello,
I just joined and posted in the introduction section but I just had to add to this one. I know my philosophy on the meaning of life will bring a responce like it should be in a sci-fi novel but if you do have time to take a look and read it with what these Russians found you may see something in it. Looking forward to your replies.
David.

Originally Posted by electricant

Originally Posted by Mr Walker

According to them only 3% of the genome contains active chemical genes and all the rest is inert biological junk. They don't seem to be telling us the whole story.

'junk dna' is an unfortunate term for non-coding DNA, it does not necessarily mean non-functional DNA. Please read this link if you are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_dna

The idea that there are mysterious regions of DNA with supernatural functions is pure science fiction horseshit i'm afraid.

There was an interesting Article that I had read about two months ago in Dicover Magazine relating to a possible interjection as to the role that this "junk" DNA plays. The researcher (damn my memory ) proposed that this DNA acted as a genetic trafic jam. A sort of, genetic forcible inactivation that's conducted in order to prevent phenotypic expression of a certain gene at one point or another. The presence of this junk DNA interferes with the expression of a acertain gene until a suitable time. This interfererance is simple and relates to the positioning of the junk DNA: -

JUNKJUNKJUNKJUNKJUNK(gene of value to be expressed at the age of 10)JUNKJUNKJUNKJUNKJUNKJUNKetc

Also, there is a theory pertaining to the JUNK codons and how they serve to hinder enzymes like DNA plymerase and delay their activity on the genes of interest. For instance, the genes for the expression of puberty are placed along a strand of DNA and the JUNK codons interfere with their expression at the appropriate intervals, thereby standardizing the time when humans reach maturity.

Imho, I'm not too sure about this theory. To many assumptions and troo much speculation. There was not enough data to support it. However, I will try to find it and post it for everyone to check it out .

I was searching the internet for information on these experiments and I found this thread. Seeing that it was a science forum I thought maybe I could get some reliable information. Unfortunately I was wrong and all I found were trolls.

Comments like these really get me upset.

"It seems that DNA in the context of the above item actually stands for: Did Not Appen
If it was true, surely somebody at some disco would have noticed it... "

"The idea that there are mysterious regions of DNA with supernatural functions is pure science fiction horseshit i'm afraid."

This is a science forum, I shouldn't have to explain what science is about. No one was talking about "mysterious regions" of DNA with "supernatural" functions. The OP asked a legitimate scientific question about claimed scientific experimental results. The OP like myself wanted to know if anyone knew the details of the experiment, its rigour, possible similar experiments, possible confirming or conflicting evidence, etc.

When you say "this is horseshit" you are yourself full of bullshit unless you have A) repeated the experiment, B) read a published paper on this or an equivalent experiment, or C) have some other evidence that this is horseshit. You are also expected to supply us with that evidence.

If you don't have evidence then the correct answer is either "I don't know anything about this" or silence. In a scientific forum a post is assumed to be scientific unless otherwise stated. If you state your own unsupported opinion in a way that portrays it as scientific that is called PSEUDOSCIENCE. Please refrain from pseudoscience Electricant and Guest.

End of rant.

Now I see this is old but I am curious about these experiments. Does anyone know of any further tests of this phenomenon that confirm or disprove these experiments? I have no access to scientific libraries so my resources to research it myself is limited. I imagine a websearch in russian if you can find someone who speaks it is more likely to come up with something. My searches in english and german have found some information on the web but nothing sufficient for believing the results and the very lack of information does put the results in an unfavourable light.

My internet research led me to the following pages:
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/DNAPhantom.htm
http://www.fosar-bludorf.com/dnabewusstsein/index.htm
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/dna.htm

The first one is a description of the experiment, written in an email from Gariaev to Poponin, the second is another description in german which also shows some graphs of data, and the last is a discussion of this and several other "fringe" energy experiments with DNA. I don't consider any of these sources scientifically reliable.

They do however offer clues as to how more information might be found. We have the names of the publications:
"However, to publish it, was possible only in 1991 (Gariaev P.P., Chudin V.I., Komissarov G.G., Berezin A.A., Vasiliev A.A., 1991, Holographic Associative Memory of Biological Systems, Proceedings SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering. Optical Memory and Neural Networks. v.1621, p.280- 291. USA.), and then in (Gariaev P.P., "Wave based genome", Ed. Obsh. Pl’za, 279p. In Russian (1994)), where the biggest chapter of the book is devoted to this effect."

The name of the university the experiments occured at:
the Institute of physics/techniques problems Acad. Sci. of the USSR.

And a mention of some similar experiments at the Institute of HeartMath, Boulder, California. I don't know much about this organisation but an overview of some of their research is on their website:
http://www.heartmath.org/research/ov...search_studies

Thats as far as my limited resources (a shit pc and an internet connection) can get me.

Is someone here able to look up the original publications in a scientific library for me so we can discover what really happened?

This is as important for those that want to believe in it as those that don't. I have seen truckloads of weird ideas preached on the back of this one experiment. If the sole piece of scientific evidence they continuously quote is wrong we could shut a lot of them up. Maybe somone could even repeat the experiment. From what I know about it it appears to only require a certain type of laser and a vacuume tube, and some DNA of course.

Duncan:

Originally Posted by Mr Walker

We are all interconnected in the DNA, and this accounts for a whole host of paranormal phenomena.

This statement alone has to my knowledge no empirical basis whatsoever. As far as the results of the supposed studies reported by the OP, they have to my knowledge never been confirmed via replication by independent sources, and if nothing else involve extremely high degrees of improbability. The changes required to transform a certain species of living organism, even a fetus, into an entirely different species, would be large in amount and require an extremely high degree of precision in the genetic changes made. Even simply making the genes different won't necessarily make an already partly formed organism into a completely different species, as parts of the development would have to be changed in ways that are not accounted for in the genomes of either species. Does a frog have genes that dictate how to turn a partially formed salamander fetus into a frog fetus?

Mainstream geneticists are completely silent about all this. According to them only 3% of the genome contains active chemical genes and all the rest is inert biological junk. They don't seem to be telling us the whole story.

This statement speaks to the general inaccuracy of the OP's knowledge of genetics. Much more of the genome than 3% is made up of protein-coding regions (which is what I assume the OP meant by "active chemical genes"), and the rest of that is non-coding is most certainly not entirely non-functional - in fact much of it plays essential roles in controlling gene expression and chromosome structure.

I will see if my university libraries have the articles available, but you will have to give me some time as this is a busy time of year for me.

Has anyone got a subscription to the SPIE digital library? They do institutional ones so if anyone is in the field of optics or photonics...

These may shed some light on the subject for anyone who does:

http://spiedl.aip.org/vsearch/servle...&submit=Search

http://spiedl.aip.org/vsearch/servle...sults&aqs=true

I think I may be able to shed some light on what was behind these studies. As near as I can make out, these studies were published in Russia in 1992. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Most likely, these "studies" were started while the USSR still existed. The USSR funded a lot of pseudo-science projects. As long as the scientists involved delivered results that supported ideologies of the party, they would continue to be funded, and possibly result in becoming party members bringing with it advantages. The Party didn't really care if it was true, just that it supported their ideologies.

This held back the USSR in a number of research fields, including genetics. The most famous example of this was the pursuit of a form of Lamarckism, the idea that characteristics developed during life could be passed on genetically. But more broadly this effect of political ideologies driving research was called Lysenkoism. You can read more about it here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

So when you see Soviet research that makes wild claims like lasers creating quantum wormholes around DNA which permanently modify it, or emotional vibrations being able to modify live DNA, it's probably safe to assume it was horseshit made up by a Soviet scientist desperately trying stay employed and hoping to get a nicer apartment to live in.

Thanks for the input maccu. I basically abandoned this thread not long after my last post (for some reason it was still on my watch list though), because I got the distinct impression that no one here really cared about learning more.

While your comments are relevant and useful, I don't think it is fair to dismiss all soviet era science, as they did a lot that wasn't bogus. Additionally the idea that this particular experiment was Lysenkoism, implies that someone would publish a scientific paper shortly AFTER the fall of the soviet union, which was designed purely to pander to the party. This seems suspect to me, not to mention the fact that the main scientist involved is still working on the same branch now. I am still not sure what to make of the whole 'wave genetics' idea, it could be a lot of hokum, or it could have some truth in it. At least now some of the work has been translated into english so those of you here who have access to lab rats and lasers could try debunking it. No I dont really expect that, but it would be nice.

http://eng.wavegenetic.ru/ here is the website if anyone is interested.

I also heard that the funders of this work have been approached by a major russian skeptics society who are trying to get it shut down. I do wonder why they don't simply repeat the experiments though and show that it is bogus, they don't sound too expensive.

'It seems that DNA in the context of the above item actually stands for: Did Not Appen' Ha ha ha

'Spiritual genome'... Ask a ludicrous question, don't expect an earnest answer.

T.

Is there an experiment or any scientific research to back the theory of the DNA able to respong to voice?
What other work have they published?
What are their credentials?

These are the first three questions of this thread, which one were you referring to as ludicrous?

Perhaps I shouldn't be feeding the trolls but this is a science website so I guess you should be given a chance to argue your position. I guess it was the first one because they spelled respond wrong. I think 'ludicrous' is a little bit strong though, perhaps 'ill considered' would be better for that one.

Some two and one half years ago you posted this remark.
Seeing that it was a science forum I thought maybe I could get some reliable information. Unfortunately I was wrong and all I found were trolls.

I chose not to respond to that remark. However, you now make this statement:

Originally Posted by Duncan

Thanks for the input maccu. I basically abandoned this thread not long after my last post (for some reason it was still on my watch list though), because I got the distinct impression that no one here really cared about learning more.

Clearly you have comprehension difficulties, I know you have read my posted questions, because you have quoted them.

Is there an experiment or any scientific research to back the theory of the DNA able to respong (sic) to voice?
What other work have they published?
What are their credentials?

I would be amused to hear what it is about these questions that
a) identifies me as a troll. (All you found were trolls.)
b) indicates I had no interest in learning more.

Perhaps, in future, you will enjoy more informative responses on the internet if you avoid speaking in false absolutes.

I am very sorry, but you got the wrong impression here. I was upset and speaking generally about the reception to this topic I was getting on several forums when I first idly googled it. I was not referring to you, in fact there are several posters on this thread who are neither trolling nor refusing to learn. I was thinking of you as an ally in the quest for answers, which is why I quoted your questions in response to trimidity who clearly was just being a troll. I apologise once more for the confusion. On the XKCD:Science forum I was ridiculed and insulted for even mentioning these experiments so it is kind of a sore spot. I understand maybe it is for you too but lets not get our wires crossed. There are clearly a few people on here that want to know the truth. Now all we need is one that knows it.

Thank you Duncan. I appreciate and accept your forthright and fulsome apology.

My rather terse remarks to you arose out of a genuine concern. When threads like this appear I am quite likely to amuse myself by searching on the net, and elsewhere, for more information that I can feedback into the discussion. I suspect there are many others who are the same.

As far as I can recall I was discouraged from putting in that effort because of your general comments. Perhaps others were too and so the thread died, or at least went to sleep for a considerable time. I wished, in my last post, merely to suggest a more circumspect and focused criticism of possible trolls.

I may, time permitting, reinvest some interest in the subject.

O.

Duncan I wasn't talking to you. I was referring to the concept of a 'spiritual genome' as ludicrous. Here is the definition of ludicrous:

lu·di·crous   /ˈludɪkrəs/ Show Spelled[loo-di-kruhs] Show IPA
adjective
causing laughter because of absurdity; provoking or deserving derision; ridiculous; laughable: a ludicrous lack of efficiency.

As adjectives go, I think it is pretty apt at describing the concept of a 'spiritual genome'. So, all things considered, I would like to stick with it.

And fyi I am a regular poster of constructive comments on this forum so you might like to think twice before popping up out of the blue with your pseudoscience and branding people trolls.

Just something to think about.

Ok lets not turn this into a flame war. I apologise to everyone for my part, as I mentioned before I was mostly sensitive about the flames and insults I got on other websites although there are a couple here too. I get annoyed when people throw around words like horseshit and pseudoscience without presenting any contradicting evidence or even stating a real reason for the label. This in itself is a form of pseudoscience according to the standard definition.

But let us stick to the facts. Ophiolite mentioned an intention to look deeper into this subject, hopefully s/he has access to some publications which I do not. But here is what I have so far.
The website of the project as it currently stands is here as I mentioned before
http://eng.wavegenetic.ru/
The front page has a list of articles and publications. Most of the experiments mentioned do not have a comprehensive methodolgy listed. I do however know how to contact P. Gariaev as he contacted me through one of the forums I discussed this on. I imagine unless he really is pulling a giant con job that he would be happy to supply a complete method for some experments that could be repeated to verify/contradict the findings on the website. They are likely however to be in russian, so unless there is someone on the forum that can help us translate there may be difficulties. As far as I can gather the experiments are not radically expensive but the use of special lasers and lab rats means it is not free either. It may not be that easy to find someone with enough interest to get them to duplicate the experiments. Without independent verification there is very little point speculating about this, another hope however could be that someone has already done such experiments, and we just need to find their publication. Apart from a couple of other articles I found which are most likely on the website somewhere as well, and didn't shed much light on the DNA questions, this is all I know for the moment.

How very interesting. I really hope that you guys find some reliable sources that can actually determine the validity of this phantom DNA. Well heres a pdf that might be of interest http://cogprints.org/3190/1/solitons.pdf
It has to do with soliton waves inside of micro tubules in the brain and their possible function of information exchange. I thought this might help because eng.wavegenetic.ru talks about "... transfer genetic data/information via electromagnetic (EM) and acoustic waves. "

Thanks for the article, that really made me think. I also remembered an article that someone pmed me on xkcd before the topic got locked. He was good enough to type the whole thing out, and I haven't been able to find it on the internet. As I can't find spoiler tags here I will pastebin it so I don't wall up the thread too much:
http://pastebin.com/uw0XgfsV

There was also another article that I found that is sort of related but it is not such a reputable publication, still worth a read but don't take it as gospel.
http://bytesizebio.net/index.php/200...communication/

Duncan,

I have SPIE access through my university library. After doing an initial Google search for "Holographic Associative Memory of Biological Systems" I gravitated towards this forum, and read the posts. Subsequently, I found your post to be helpful in my own personal inquiry to better understand this hypothesis about photons being able to retain memory, and DNA being a photon attractor (and emitter).

I know this was some time ago, but I now have the original article in PDF, and can email it to you. I tried attaching it hereto, however the file was 20MB-ish, which is way over the file attachment limit of 19.5KB. Even after using Acrobat Pro 9.0 to compress the file, I could only get it down to 280KB.

I also found another seemingly-related article entitled, "Holographic Associative Memory & Information Transmission by Solitary Waves in Biological Systems." I can send that one to you as well.

Hey Fosforolizer,

I'd be interested in the PDF as well. Perhaps you can upload it to here http://db.tt/blxv3VS, which can give you a link so people can download it, and then you can paste the link.

Dropbox is free, and gives you like 2.5 gigs, so that should be enough. Here's the link to sign up: http://db.tt/blxv3VS

Originally Posted by fosforolizer

Duncan,

I have SPIE access through my university library. After doing an initial Google search for "Holographic Associative Memory of Biological Systems" I gravitated towards this forum, and read the posts. Subsequently, I found your post to be helpful in my own personal inquiry to better understand this hypothesis about photons being able to retain memory, and DNA being a photon attractor (and emitter).

I know this was some time ago, but I now have the original article in PDF, and can email it to you. I tried attaching it hereto, however the file was 20MB-ish, which is way over the file attachment limit of 19.5KB. Even after using Acrobat Pro 9.0 to compress the file, I could only get it down to 280KB.

I also found another seemingly-related article entitled, "Holographic Associative Memory & Information Transmission by Solitary Waves in Biological Systems." I can send that one to you as well.

Hey Fosforolizer,

I'd be interested in the PDF as well. Perhaps you can upload it to here http://db.tt/0u33UfH, which can give you a link so people can download it, and then you can paste the link.

Dropbox is free, and gives you like 2.5 gigs, so that should be enough. Here's the link to sign up: http://db.tt/0u33UfH

Originally Posted by fosforolizer

Duncan,

I have SPIE access through my university library. After doing an initial Google search for "Holographic Associative Memory of Biological Systems" I gravitated towards this forum, and read the posts. Subsequently, I found your post to be helpful in my own personal inquiry to better understand this hypothesis about photons being able to retain memory, and DNA being a photon attractor (and emitter).

I know this was some time ago, but I now have the original article in PDF, and can email it to you. I tried attaching it hereto, however the file was 20MB-ish, which is way over the file attachment limit of 19.5KB. Even after using Acrobat Pro 9.0 to compress the file, I could only get it down to 280KB.

I also found another seemingly-related article entitled, "Holographic Associative Memory & Information Transmission by Solitary Waves in Biological Systems." I can send that one to you as well.

Alright you guys,

Here are the links to the 2 papers that I found on SPIE:

1. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/88757517/Ho...%20systems.pdf

and

2. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/88757517/Ho...%20systems.pdf


Note: The second file is the one that was being asked about.

The only thing in recent news this reminds me of is this:

Weird World of Quantum Physics May Govern Life | LiveScience

The bizarre rules of quantum physics are often thought to be restricted to the microworld, but scientists now suspect they may play an important role in the biology of life.
Evidence is growing for the involvement of quantum mechanics in a wide range of biological processes, including photosynthesis, bird migration, the sense of smell, and possibly even the origin of life.

"Phantom DNA pattern remaining after the DNA is removed" sounds even weirder to me than this, though. Any kind of inexplicable "memory effect" brings back unpleasant ideas of homeopathy.

Hi.. I'm not a scientist but have just found this thread and am very interested in results

could you tell me, after reading the above 2 papers , if indeed the findings by Russian molecular biologists (Drs. Gariaev & Poponin) on DNA
were scientifically assessed

and if articles around the internet like this one:

Mayan Majix - Articles - Spiritual Science: DNA is influneced by words and frequenciesare indeed true or have no founding?

Thanks

Wow? I don't get it.. DNA phantom memory..

Photons retaining memory?

As far as i know, photons can only be detected when they impact a detector. This destroys the photon in question. Taking the DNA away, will end the stream of fotons very fast, at lightspeed. What is the theoretical basis for photons having a memory with this. If the photon resends information back at speeds exceeding lightspeed, impacting the previous photon by lightspeed, and thus having a persisting effect, like the DNA.... Well am i getting close? Otherwise, please explain it to me..

Originally Posted by choccy

could you tell me, after reading the above 2 papers , if indeed the findings by Russian molecular biologists (Drs. Gariaev & Poponin) on DNA
were scientifically assessed

I doubt it very much. It is obviously a load of rubbish.

Mayan Majix - Articles - Spiritual Science: DNA is influneced by words and frequencies are indeed true or have no founding?

Five reasons why I am not going to waste time reading that:

1. Mayan
2. Majix
3. Spiritual Science
4. DNA influenced by words
5. DNA influenced by frequencies

New age types love the word "frequency" for some reason. That and "energy".

Man, you just don't grok the inner spirit.

Ok how about if it didnt contain any of those words in it

The Biological Chip in our Cells

this article states that American research has also confirmed that DNA has a language of it's own similar to human language

http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~gerbrehm/nw/Gariaev_cancer.pdf


I'm intrigued...

Originally Posted by choccy

this article states that American research has also confirmed that DNA has a language of it's own similar to human language

...

You seem to be confusing metaphor with material reality.

Originally Posted by choccy

Ok how about if it didnt contain any of those words in it

The Biological Chip in our Cells

this article states that American research has also confirmed that DNA has a language of it's own similar to human language

http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~gerbrehm/nw/Gariaev_cancer.pdf


I'm intrigued...

Still looks like spiritual mumbo-jumbo. The only connection to sceince seems to be the appropriation of some words. But put together in a meaningless way.

DNA molecules, included in chromosomes, possess a substantially-wave duality which is similar to the
dualism of elementary particles. In accordance with it, DNA codes an organism in two ways, both with
assistance of DNA matter and by DNA sign wave functions, including the coding at its own laser radiation
level

I really can't be bothered to follow their references and see if this is a misinterpretation of some real science or they are citing some more junk. ... OK. I looked at the references. For this section. One seems to be a real scientific paper. The rest are just earlier stuff they have written (made up).

However, our ideas on protein biosynthesis are eroding, since each new model is
just an approach to the truth, to the understanding of the genome language-image pluralism as a tool of coding the
spatiotemporal structure of biosystems

That sounds like something made up by one of those automatic buzz-word generator programs.

Sheep possess a relativistic dual nature where wool and horns are related by a complex matrix. This allows clothes made from wool to transfer the wearer to a a higher place of existence.

See, anyone can do it.

p.s. And, yes, of course DNA encodes a "language", it is commonly called the genetic code. Any comparisons to human language are doubtful (they seem to be twisting some statistical analysis to fit their wacky "theory").

I have wasted more time on this than it is worth.

The genetic code is not a language. It's a code. Though a language is a code, a code isn't necessairly a language.

And similar to the human language?? There is no human language. All is tought us by our environment. Though laughing, greeting, and showing respect, is universal among humans, so this can indirectly be encoded in our DNA, but not sure about this..

Zwolver:

When I expressed my interest in photons' ability to retain memory, I failed to mention that it was in the context of entangled photons and quantum memory; such as in the case of the teleportation experiment by Chen et al.

As for the theoretical basis for photons having a memory for the DNA experiment--I don't have any explanation, although I'm intrigued by the topic, and will continue reading about it.

Thanks for sharing your proposal RE: how it could work. I don't have any feedback yet, as I just started my physics class on electricity and magnetism.

26000 views? is there a troll at work here?

I think a lot of ppl looks for answers here cause is top in google list. Im one for sure, just looking for more info on phantom dna . Forgive my sintaxis if it doesnt make sense. Main language spanish . Im worried some ppl are closing their mind at anything that has the word spiritual, spirituality on it. cibernauts, scientist and whoever read this, just asses the info if you are really interested on the possibility of the experiment being true. If u dont care then dont troll and flame ppl who are trying to link and give references to a new view on dna. The hearth affects more the brain than the brain the hearth and hearth is relatated to emotions. We are just trying to see if this shit is true and saying is not without references is not smart nor how scientist should behave.

On another note we need a consensus about all the references presented so far. Whoever read then all let us know how can we trace back the reference to an "official" authority in science. Ty all for the info O.o

Originally Posted by Zwolver

26000 views? is there a troll at work here?

Yes.

This exact post has been made in hundreds of forums and blogs by Mr Walker and many of them have been cross-linked.

Methinks a lockdown is imminent.

Originally Posted by Psychedeli

Forgive my sintaxis if it doesnt make sense. Main language spanish .

Buenos dias, senor. Your English is better than my Spanish. It is a little clumsy, but it is understandable.

Originally Posted by Psychedeli

Im worried some ppl are closing their mind at anything that has the word spiritual, spirituality on it

My concern is that this idea is being promoted by individuals whose understanding of the spiritual is as warped and misguided as their understanding of science. They appear to be abusing both, either deliberately, or accidentally. Accidentally because of their profound ignorance of spiritual and scientific matters, or deliberately because of their deep cynicism and self importance.

Throwing around words and phrases that have been shown to be the language of charlatans, con-men and woo-woos is not the way to present an idea of substance and importance. Their inability to use the proper language and methdology of either science or the spiritual world strongly suggests that they are not worth listening to.

Individuals who promote this sort of nonsense do a disservice to all of us by distracting us from the truly novel and important and making it less likley that the gem will be spotted in the dross.

I am interested in many of these topics from both sides. The last time I checked it all came back to science no matter what branch. Of course something is going to sound ridiculious before you understand it. Science isn't creation it is a method in which we use to uderstand our environment. If someone thinks that it should be looked into, they follow the scientific method, and publish their results to their peers for them to judge I say let them do it. All we have to gain is knowledge and truth. Otherwise, there is no point in doing anything other than eating, sleeping, living and dying. Science is so we can "know thyself."

I entertain the abstract ideas as it enables a broader perspective. At worst it is a failure and we all learn from it.

Duncan and others: For an independent look at the work of the Russians Gariaev et al, see the work of Montagnier, a Nobel Prize winner, discoverer of HIV and the leading virologist of France: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...Montagnier.pdf

He didn't go as far as Gariaev, and did not specifically address "Phantom DNA", but he did verify the electromagnetic waves involved in genetics, measuring them and passing them between test tubes physically separated. DNA replication does not need direct physical contact if he is correct. Another important note is that the DNA only communicated with its own species, indicating either two-way communication or some sort of recognition mechanism. Montagnier's work is more credible, IMHO, than Gariaev's, and his claims are less wild, yet revolutionary nonetheless. His findings would help explain why radiation has such deleterious effects on genetics and how DNA repairs without transcription.

As far as Phantom DNA, I remain a skeptic, and this is despite the fact that I am a staunch advocate of intelligent cause in life science. The claim of holograms is difficult for me to accept, and Gariaev is no longer doing his work. Griaev also claimed to have healed rats with electromagnetic signals from as far away as 20 kilometers. Holograms need a medium to reflect light so I can't even wrap my mind around what he was trying to claim he demonstrated. I have seen the photos of the alleged holograms. One showed damage done to a leaf with the damage projected on the holgrams. This is ultra-Lamarkian acquired characteristics.

The "Phantom DNA" was an ordered arrangement of photons that remain after a DNA sample is removed from a spectrometer. Nitrogen gas was able to displace the photon arrangement, which would seem to contradict his theory that this "energy-informational" field is immaterial and omnipresent. Curiously, the photon arrangement later re-appeared, according to his findings. Did some variant residue cause the supposed "phantom"? I suspect so, but independent research is needed.

I have not seen enough to convince me of Phantom DNA as of yet, but thank you for addressing an interesting phenomenon. I don't think it helps science to call it "spiritual", a loaded religious concept.

I first read about Dr. Peter Gareiv's work in a book about epigenetics. Very fascinating. It would explain the gap in science right now that doesn't explain how a cell can rapidly communicate with others faster than chemical signaling even though we know cells communicate faster than this (i'm not talking about neurons and neurotransmitters). Dr. Gareivs work mainly proposed that there was light/photons being emitted and cells communicate from that (which is known), but the groundbreaking/controversial part about his work was that he proposed that if these light waves start giving off a different frequency, then they can cause damage in a cell receiving the different frequency, such as causing cancer. I'm surprised to see someone mentioning Dr. Gareivs work, as I was under the impression it wasn't very well known. I've always thought he was on to something, but it does seem a little far fetched. I guess only time will tell.

Originally Posted by IntelligentAnimation

Duncan and others: For an independent look at the work of the Russians Gariaev et al, see the work of Montagnier, a Nobel Prize winner, discoverer of HIV and the leading virologist of France: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...Montagnier.pdf

He didn't go as far as Gariaev, and did not specifically address "Phantom DNA", but he did verify the electromagnetic waves involved in genetics, measuring them and passing them between test tubes physically separated.

Except his results were not peer-reviewed, they were only published in one magazine. One he edited. I wonder why that would be ...

Originally Posted by ScienceRocks

It would explain the gap in science right now that doesn't explain how a cell can rapidly communicate with others faster than chemical signaling even though we know cells communicate faster than this

Do we? Can you provide a reference for this; I have never heard it before.

I probably didn't put it clearly enough. Its well known that during some actions humans do, such as a professional baseball player hitting a 90 mph baseball, cells communicate extremely rapidly-and our current knowledge of cells communicating with each other does not provide a rapid enough mechanism to explain an action like the reaction time of a baseball player hitting a baseball. Dr. Gareiv's work proposes a way that cells can communicate fast enough to explain this phenomena. Although, as pointed our earlier, his work was not well peer reviewed is subject to much scrutiny.

Originally Posted by ScienceRocks

I probably didn't put it clearly enough. Its well known that during some actions humans do, such as a professional baseball player hitting a 90 mph baseball, cells communicate extremely rapidly-and our current knowledge of cells communicating with each other does not provide a rapid enough mechanism to explain an action like the reaction time of a baseball player hitting a baseball.

Really? Do you have a reference for that?

Dr. Gareiv's work proposes a way that cells can communicate fast enough to explain this phenomena. Although, as pointed our earlier, his work was not well peer reviewed is subject to much scrutiny.

Apart for the small detail about it being pseudo-scientific hogwash.

Originally Posted by ScienceRocks

I probably didn't put it clearly enough. Its well known that during some actions humans do, such as a professional baseball player hitting a 90 mph baseball, cells communicate extremely rapidly-and our current knowledge of cells communicating with each other does not provide a rapid enough mechanism to explain an action like the reaction time of a baseball player hitting a baseball. Dr. Gareiv's work proposes a way that cells can communicate fast enough to explain this phenomena. Although, as pointed our earlier, his work was not well peer reviewed is subject to much scrutiny.

Bull. Crap.

That faux factoid, while often repeated and perhaps commonly believed, is as valid as the equally common and erroneous belief that we only use 10% of our brains.

First, please provide a reference in which the calculation is made. Pending that, here's what I've found in the past: The "proof" that a pro ball player couldn't hit a 90mph baseball without invoking some mysterious mechanism is based primarily on the assumption that the allowable time to react starts at the moment the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. But one of the factors that separates pro ball players from us amateurs is their ability to use other cues, such as the stance of the pitcher, the wind-up, knowledge of the pitcher's habits, etc. So they adjust their swing with a combination of feedback and feedforward. The feedforward increases the probability of being close to where they should be, and feedback reduces the error still further. And still they only get on base 20-30% of the time.

A similar argument applies to pro fielders. They're often already in motion as (or even before) the bat makes contact with the ball.

No mysterious mechanisms are needed to explain what happens.

ScienceRocks, the responses you are getting are typical of anyone trying to squelch scientific inquiry, but there are so many unanswered questions about how life does what it does, we really need to open our minds to new discoveries and ideas and investigate further. Science is all about progress and making mysteries less mysterious and we are still in the dark ages of Biology because of people with agendas trying to discourage life science.

Communication between cells is too fast to be explained through chemical transmissions and it goes through physical barriers, coordinates throughout a macroorganism in immediate time and is too complex and specific for chemical arrangements to dictate. Even when we know the communication is partially chemical, there is also the major problem of why just the right chemicals are in just the right place at just the right time for effective communication anyway. Transcription is not really explained, since the existence of a particular genetic sequence should not cause the same arrangement of nucleotides on another molecule. Other molecules don't duplicate each other this way and there is nothing about a guanine particle that makes counterpart guanine appear.

That said, I do have concerns about Gariaev's claims, all the while wanting to see further investigation. His concept is revolutionary and has enormous potential benefits to medical technology. There is independent affirmation of his root claim: that DNA communicates through electromagnetic signals (EMS). Gariaev went beyond this, saying that he has captured and saved the signals and can project the EMS data from healthy cells into diseased cells, healing the unhealthy cells. If this is correct, and he says he has demonstrated it, then millions of people dying of cancer can and will be cured completely, without surgery or chemotherapy. If there is even the slightest chanced that Gariaev is correct, then it is unconscionable to obstruct further research toward that end.

Now back to his root claim: that DNA communicates through EMS. In addition to Montagnier, a few independent university teams have also found electromagnetic waves eminating from cells. Note that these are from CELLS, not necessarily specifically the DNA within the cells, and finding EM waves does not necessarily mean the waves contain coherent information. As to coherent data, Gariaev claimed he produced holograms and that he cured sick rats and that he turned a frog embryo into a salamander, all with EMS. Montagnier and others have claimed to have demonstrated DNA replication through physical barriers (test tubes). I find the latter claims more believable since they have been replicated, they are less far-reaching and I can't deny Montagnier's reputation as a Nobel Laureate.

Still, if the EMS are coherent, then there is no reason why would could not digitize, store and replay the information again and again, potentially curing cancerous cells. Are we there yet? Absolutely not. Should we persue it further? Absolutely.

Anyone who is a donor to the American Cancer Society or has a sick loved one, ought to be clamoring the ACS for funding toward wave genetics.

Is not this forum supposed to be for civl, scientific discourse? Instead of bashing my somewhat erroneous claim, why not provide me with the information to point me otherwise? Has it not dawned on you that some people may, in fact, have incorrect information about certain topics in science? There is no necessity present that should ever make one call someones comment "crap", no matter how wrong it may seemingly be. I would like to imagine this is a scientific friendly forum-one that promotes that correction of incorrect views, as I supposedly have. I appreciate the supplied material refuting my point, and, like an open minded scientist, I am respectively rethinking my original viewpoint.

My reference for my original claim is from the book "The Genie in Your Genes" by Dawson Church. I believe the point of contention of my post that was receiving much criticism was me saying that we do not know how cells communicate fast enough for certain processes. Thank you for helping me understand that my original viewpoint may be wrong. From a scientific, civil discourse perspective, I appreciate that. But I do think it is imperative to remember, if someone has an incorrect viewpoint, to correct them, but in a professional manner.

Originally Posted by IntelligentAnimation

ScienceRocks, the responses you are getting are typical of anyone trying to squelch scientific inquiry

No one is trying to stop scientific enquiry.

, but there are so many unanswered questions about how life does what it does, we really need to open our minds to new discoveries and ideas and investigate further.

And that is what science is for (as opposed to pseudoscience).

Science is all about progress and making mysteries less mysterious and we are still in the dark ages of Biology because of people with agendas trying to discourage life science.

If there is any "dark age" it is people trying to promote bogus "discoveries" that are not published in peer reviewed journals, not replicated by any other researchers, and generally full of it.

Communication between cells is too fast to be explained through chemical transmissions

Evidence please.

and it goes through physical barriers

Evidence please.

, coordinates throughout a macroorganism in immediate time

Evidence please.

and is too complex and specific for chemical arrangements to dictate.

Evidence please.

there is nothing about a guanine particle that makes counterpart guanine appear.

Gosh, you really sound as if you know what you are talking about with these guanine "particles".

There is independent affirmation of his root claim: that DNA communicates through electromagnetic signals (EMS).

Evidence please.

Now back to his root claim: that DNA communicates through EMS. In addition to Montagnier, a few independent university teams have also found electromagnetic waves eminating from cells.

References please. (But we know that organisms emit electromagnetic radiation)

Montagnier and others have claimed to have demonstrated DNA replication through physical barriers (test tubes). I find the latter claims more believable since they have been replicated, they are less far-reaching

References please for these "others".

I can't deny Montagnier's reputation as a Nobel Laureate

You shouldn't argue from authority (and I won't call him a crank, OK?)

Anyone who is a donor to the American Cancer Society or has a sick loved one, ought to be clamoring the ACS for funding toward wave genetics.

Emotional blackmail rather than scientific evidence? Shame on you.

Originally Posted by ScienceRocks

My reference for my original claim is from the book "The Genie in Your Genes" by Dawson Church.

If you get your "information" from cranks (and crank books) then expect to be wrong.

So, you've read that book?

Nope.
I have a limited budget and I rarely buy books just for a laugh, especially an incredulous laugh.

I'm confused then...if you haven't read the book, how to do you know the author is a "crank" and the book is a "crank book"?

Originally Posted by ScienceRocks

I'm confused then...if you haven't read the book, how to do you know the author is a "crank" and the book is a "crank book"?

Well it's an extremely difficult process.
But, given the guy's name I did something called a "Google search" which turned up something else called the "Soul Medicine Institute" (which he founded and of which he is president).
Then I read the links I got.
That "Institute" promotes such woo as acupuncture, chi, "energy psychology" and "Emotional Freedom techniques" ¹.
Ergo, he's a crank.
A book written by a crank is, by definition, a crank book.


1 That latter supported by no lesser woo woo than Deepak Chopra!

Interesting. Well, I thank you for providing that background information about the author to me so I can better educate my perspective about that book.

I would have thought the description on Amazon would have been enough to reassure you that it is pseudo-scientific trash.

I didn't read the description on Amazon. But I thank you for recommending that option to help me make decisions about what I read in the future.

Yes, I find it quite useful to spend a few moments evaluating reading material before wasting time on obvious nonsense. I assume the blurb on the back of the book would have given you a clue as well.

Originally Posted by ScienceRocks

I didn't read the description on Amazon. But I thank you for recommending that option to help me make decisions about what I read in the future.

It sucks, doesn't it? To think that people would promote inaccuracies, doctor claims to their approval and cherry pick evidence... Weird, isn't it?
There should be people that stand against such behaviors...

That's a good idea, too. I most likely did read the back, but I'm not sure if I could grasp exactly what it was talking about. Thank you for the advice.

Originally Posted by ScienceRocks

Is not this forum supposed to be for civl, scientific discourse? Instead of bashing my somewhat erroneous claim, why not provide me with the information to point me otherwise? Has it not dawned on you that some people may, in fact, have incorrect information about certain topics in science? There is no necessity present that should ever make one call someones comment "crap", no matter how wrong it may seemingly be. I would like to imagine this is a scientific friendly forum-one that promotes that correction of incorrect views, as I supposedly have. I appreciate the supplied material refuting my point, and, like an open minded scientist, I am respectively rethinking my original viewpoint.

My reference for my original claim is from the book "The Genie in Your Genes" by Dawson Church. I believe the point of contention of my post that was receiving much criticism was me saying that we do not know how cells communicate fast enough for certain processes. Thank you for helping me understand that my original viewpoint may be wrong. From a scientific, civil discourse perspective, I appreciate that. But I do think it is imperative to remember, if someone has an incorrect viewpoint, to correct them, but in a professional manner.

ScienceRocks, your expressed viewpoint may be wrong or it may be right. Further research is needed and warranted regarding cellular communication.

You are also quite right to ask for a little more civility, but don't let the responses get you down nor deter you in seeking answers. There are a handful of people who fiercely oppose science, especially scientific progress, and their responses are rarely professional nor enlightening. They think in a black and white little world in which you either repeat the 100 year old dogma or else you dare not mention even the possibility of any new information without being personally attacked. The goal is to suppress science, but they are merely an annoyance, not an effective stoppage of research. Every advancement in the history of science was opposed by such as these.

The concept of electromagnetic communication is worth a closer look.

Originally Posted by IntelligentAnimation

Blah. Followed closely by blah blah blah. Followed by vague insinuations and outright crap.

Still no evidence?
Still nothing other than empty accusations and equally empty speculation?

Originally Posted by IntelligentAnimation

The concept of electromagnetic communication is worth a closer look.

and we could call it.....Radio !!

Thank you. I appreciate the support.

Originally Posted by IntelligentAnimation

There are a handful of people who fiercely oppose science, especially scientific progress

You mean those dreadful people who make utterly implausible claims and then refuse to provide any evidence to support them? I agree, they are quite, quite beastly.

Strange, first of all, my clearly stated stance on all of this is: "I remain a skeptic" (in my original post in this thread). Just because I elevated my response above the 4-letter brilliance of "crap" or the more advanced "crank", doesn't mean I am claiming EMS communication is settled science.

I have linked enough evidence to show cause for further investigation, which is all I am talking about. The only thing I am advocating is further research, not that we rest on our laurels and consider the job done. I think I made myself very clear about that.

"Blackmail"? What an odd attempt to turn good intentions into something insidious. I have many relatives and friends who have died of cancer and I have others alive, but struggling with it. Who doesn't? The only shame is on those who try to derail attempts to improve our knowledge. We are still cutting out body parts and making people sicker with radiation and chemicals, until they hear the word "inoperable". I can not overstate the importance of ignoring people like you.

Originally Posted by IntelligentAnimation

I have linked enough evidence to show cause for further investigation, which is all I am talking about.

You posted one link to a popular science article. None of this work has been published in peer reviewed journals. All of it screams pseudo-science.

I think people who promote anti-science do far more harm to improving knowledge than someone who says "crap" in response to ... well, crap.

Not that anything discussed here is going to make any difference to scientific progress one way or another....

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by IntelligentAnimation

I have linked enough evidence to show cause for further investigation, which is all I am talking about.

You posted one link to a popular science article. None of this work has been published in peer reviewed journals. All of it screams pseudo-science.

I think people who promote anti-science do far more harm to improving knowledge than someone who says "crap" in response to ... well, crap.

You have no idea what is or is not peer-reviewed, anti-science or crap. You add nothing of value to any discussion whatsoever and do not have a higher standing in science than a Nobel Prize winner. You live in a little bubble where everything is either absolutely certain or must not even be discussed. By that unscientific approach, there can literally never be progress.

I have one link, but there have been multiple links on this page. All it takes is one to show that it is a lie to claim "no evidence". We do all have a basic grasp of english and understand the difference between "no" and "some", right? The evidence is preliminary and nobody is asking for textbooks to be re-written at this point, but the findings are there nonetheless and there is every reason for further study.

What do you think Montagnier did? Fake it? Any part of his findings that you agree with or did you even bother reading? Your simplistic dismissive hand-wave is a good clue that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. If you did, you could break down aspects of these advances that you see fault in and explain your concern.

The peer-review process in general is a political minefield that is an extremely poor mechanism for opening up new areas of discovery but science progresses anyway. Thats why so much peer-review is outdated yet still out there and cited, while hundreds of peer-reviewed papers contradict each other. All the while nothing new and promising can get in the door beyond the vanguards of orthodoxy who have nothing to gain by someone else making a discovery. If you think peer-review is a sure-fire way to determine veracity, I have to laugh. If you can only get funding for research that has been settled then how do we advance at all?

Multiple independent groups of scientists are coming up with similar findings of coherent EMS as a factor in genetics, a finding that, if true, could yield enormous benefits to the medical community. I stand by my original statement. I remain a skeptic, but see enough independent findings to consider further research justified.

Originally Posted by IntelligentAnimation

You have no idea what is or is not peer-reviewed, anti-science or crap.

Actually, he does. Strange has shown through his many intelligent, well-reasoned and self-aware posts that he knows what he is talking about.

You add nothing of value to any discussion whatsoever and do not have a higher standing in science than a Nobel Prize winner.

You are essentially making an argument from authority. That's a classic fallacy, and a somewhat dishonest way to approach an argument. Nobel Prize winners are not infallible. Indeed, many have quite an embarrassing record of making foolish assertions. There is little correlation between the work that often leads to a Nobel and brilliance in other things.

You live in a little bubble where everything is either absolutely certain or must not even be discussed. By that unscientific approach, there can literally never be progress.

He seems to have struck a nerve. Your whiny behavior suggests that he has made you uncomfortable by challenging some cherished belief of yours. You've also attributed an attitude to him that is unsupported by the evidence. Contrary to your false characterization, Strange is simply following the scientific method ("show me"). Those who repeatedly fail to meet that burden are rightly written off as posers, charlatans, and the deluded.

I have one link, but there have been multiple links on this page. All it takes is one to show that it is a lie to claim "no evidence".

By "evidence" is not meant any claim. And the more extraordinary the claim, the greater the burden of proof. I've not ever seen anything remotely approaching the required standard.

We do all have a basic grasp of english and understand the difference between "no" and "some", right? The evidence is preliminary and nobody is asking for textbooks to be re-written at this point, but the findings are there nonetheless and there is every reason for further study.

And should solid evidence require it, theories will be modified or discarded. That's happened a lot. That's how science works. But in the absence of truly solid evidence, it's foolish to believe that everyone should start rewriting all the textbooks.

What do you think Montagnier did? Fake it?

That's one possibility, sure, but it's not necessary to impute dishonest motives. Experimenter bias is a common affliction (which is why double-blind protocols were invented). Experimenters are also very good at seeing signals in noise. Witness Dayton Miller's (in)famous failure to replicate Michelson-Morley's results.

Any part of his findings that you agree with or did you even bother reading? Your simplistic dismissive hand-wave is a good clue that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. If you did, you could break down aspects of these advances that you see fault in and explain your concern.

Or maybe it's that Strange has discerned that it's dodgy work, and therefore not worth spending more time detailing all the specific ways in which it is dodgy.

The peer-review process in general is a political minefield that is an extremely poor mechanism for opening up new areas of discovery but science progresses anyway.

Peer-review is indeed imperfect. But all the alternatives are worse.

Thats why so much peer-review is outdated yet still out there and cited, while hundreds of peer-reviewed papers contradict each other.

Where did you get this number? Did you just make it up? And are the contradictions in physics, social sciences, psychology?

All the while nothing new and promising can get in the door beyond the vanguards of orthodoxy who have nothing to gain by someone else making a discovery. If you think peer-review is a sure-fire way to determine veracity, I have to laugh. If you can only get funding for research that has been settled then how do we advance at all?

Please. "If you don't believe crap, how is science going to advance?" We fund many things that "aren't settled." Look at the search for the Higgs, just as one example that pops immediately to mind.

Multiple independent groups of scientists are coming up with similar findings of coherent EMS as a factor in genetics, a finding that, if true, could yield enormous benefits to the medical community. I stand by my original statement. I remain a skeptic, but see enough independent findings to consider further research justified.

Sure. If omnipotent pink unicorns turned their benevolence to healing, it could yield enormous benefits to the medical community.

And you favor skepticism in the same way that Stalin favored democracy.

Originally Posted by IntelligentAnimation

You have no idea what is or is not peer-reviewed, anti-science or crap.

There are no peer-reviewed publications regarding this work. (If I am wrong, which is often the case, please feel free to provide a reference.) Therefore there is, as yet, no evidence worth considering. Of course, if people want to research this then good for them. If they do high quality experiments and produce results that are publishable then that will be very exciting.

I am just not a big fan of The Latest Unverified Speculation. Especially when it relates to something that is so extraordinarily implausible. There are hundreds of people who claim to have discovered anti-gravity or a new theory of the universe or disproved relativity or similar crazy ideas. Look at all the fuss that was made about "faster than light" neutrinos recently. That paper probably would have passed peer review because there was nothing wrong other than the result. But it turned out to be a simple instrument fault.

By anti-science, I am thinking of people who want to bypass the scientific process because they like an idea.

Come back when there is some credible evidence and I will look at it.

What do you think Montagnier did? Fake it?

This is like UFO nuts. If you question the reliability of their favourite eye witness, they scream "why are you accusing these decent people of lying!?!?!"

I doubt very much that Montagnier faked his results. But I also wouldn't rule it out as a possibility. It happens.

I think tk421 has answered all your other points very well.

tk: "Strange has shown through his many intelligent, well-reasoned and self-aware posts that he knows what he is talking about."

The last conversation I had with the guy he insisted that jumping spiders don't weave webs. He became a little less cocky and insulting when I showed him links demonstrating how wrong he was.

Saying "that's crap" is not intelligent nor well-reasoned, but I will give you "self-aware". I would think as a moderator you would encourage more articulate reasoning based on actual points demonstrated.

The argument from authority is not conclusive, but it does not carry zero weight either. But then, our point is that the weight of the evidene to date is not yet conclusive, but it isn't zero either. One point I have been trying to get through to Strange is that there are stages of research between zero evidence and 100%. I am not sure he is able to grasp this but we are in between those two extremes.

In any case, I accept the possibility that Strange is right and the experts cited are wrong, but I don't think it is too much to ask how he derived his conclusions. That is, if there was any thought process at all going on.

Montagnier did not simply make a claim. He actually arrived at findings he hadn't expected nor predicted through well-documented experimentation. The difference between evidence and a "claim" should be easy to understand. Evidence is demonstrated through the scientific method and claims are hypothetical. Montagnier did the former. Strange did the latter.

Originally Posted by IntelligentAnimation

The last conversation I had with the guy he insisted that jumping spiders don't weave webs. He became a little less cocky and insulting when I showed him links demonstrating how wrong he was.

I find that hard to believe (*). I don't know anything about jumping spiders (other than that they are, I assume, spiders that jump). I would have guessed that all spiders weave webs, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that they don't. I would be even less surprised to find that I had been shown to be wrong. It happens with almost depressing regularity.

Maybe Montagnier and these "crazy Russians" are right. As I say, I'm not going to waste my time trying to find out when their work has not been published in enough detail for me to come to any sensible conclusions, and it has not been peer reviewed (such that I can take a provisional view based on others' judgement).

I spent many hours reading the details and background for the "faster than light" neutrinos as I thought it was worth doing because (a) it was intrinsically interesting and (b) they published enough (non peer reviewed) detail to allow anyone to try and work out what might have wrong.

If you can provide a link to that level of detail (i.e. a paper that was ready for peer review, even if it might not pass) then I would consider looking at it. But so far all we appear to have is popular press articles and self promoting websites (*). Lie is too short for me to waste my time on that. Extraordinary (and physically implausible) claims require extraordinary evidence.

(*) But would, of course, be happy to be proven wrong.

Strange: "There are no peer-reviewed publications regarding this work. (If I am wrong, which is often the case, please feel free to provide a reference.)"

You are not correct until proven incorrect. Much of the work of both Montagnier and Gariaev has been peer-reviewed, of course, but most of it is in either Russian, French or German, so specifics of which aspects of their findings may or may not be confirmed is a bit elusive to some of us. The point is that neither you nor I have a firm grasp of what has been peer-reviewed or has not been, so you should not make a claim you don't have a clue about.

Strange: "Therefore there is, as yet, no evidence worth considering."

ALL evidence is worth considering. It is a matter of relative weight. "No evidence worth considering" is a matter of opinion, while simply "no evidence" is a demonstrable falsehood.

Strange: "Of course, if people want to research this then good for them."

Gee, thanks. That is really all we are saying is that it should be researched further, but it is good not just for them, but potentially immense importance for millions of people dying of cancer, AIDS or other maladies that could have a genetic repair solution, IF we understood more about genetics.

Strange: "I am just not a big fan of The Latest Unverified Speculation."

Then why do you keep practicing it? Speculation is all you are doing here.

Strange: "Especially when it relates to something that is so extraordinarily implausible."

Ah, what a surprise it came down to this being your real problem here. Here is how science does NOT work: We do not stop all work until Strange lets us know what he deems "plausible". What you find plausible may not be what others find plausible based on their understanding of biology. There is no "Strange's plausibility filter" in the scientific method.

Strange: "Look at all the fuss that was made about 'faster than light' neutrinos recently. That paper probably would have passed peer review because there was nothing wrong other than the result. But it turned out to be a simple instrument fault."

There was more wrong than the result. It violated Einstein's theory, which held that the speed of light is the maximum possible speed. Wonder how many other particle colliders have made wrong calculations that were peer-reviewed, yet wrong. My personal guess is that the entire concept of Phantom DNA is an instrument problem, but that doesn't mean it ought not to be persued to see if I am right or wrong.

Strange: "By anti-science, I am thinking of people who want to bypass the scientific process because they like an idea."

Or bypass it because they DON'T like the idea? BTW, its called the scientific method, not "the scientific process" and Montagnier did not bypass it. You did.
Strange: "This is like UFO nuts. If you question the reliability of their favourite eye witness, they scream 'why are you accusing these decent people of lying!?!?!'"

Bad analogy. That is anecdotal evidence, not a demonstrable experimental finding.

Strange: "Come back when there is some credible evidence and I will look at it."

"Credible" being within your beliefs? Evidence is evidence, whether you find it "credible" or not. What is not credible to you? His methodology? His pedigree as the leading virologist of Eurasia and discoverer of the link between HIV and AIDS? Did you find the faster-than-light neutrino credible?

We can align ourselves with the evidence or we can align ourselves with Strange's belief system. I choose science. I say more research is warranted.

Originally Posted by IntelligentAnimation

You are not correct until proven incorrect.

Huh?

Much of the work of both Montagnier and Gariaev has been peer-reviewed, of course, but most of it is in either Russian, French or German

Has it really?
Montagnier appears to have "published" his "breakthrough" in a journal of which he is on the editorial board.

ALL evidence is worth considering.

Nah, not even close.

Ah, what a surprise it came down to this being your real problem here. Here is how science does NOT work: We do not stop all work until Strange lets us know what he deems "plausible". What you find plausible may not be what others find plausible based on their understanding of biology. There is no "Strange's plausibility filter" in the scientific method.

Um, except that "implausible" isn't just Strange's take on it.

There was more wrong than the result. It violated Einstein's theory

Oh, someone missed the point.

Or bypass it because they DON'T like the idea? BTW, its called the scientific method, not "the scientific process" and Montagnier did not bypass it. You did.

Is that why Montagnier has been largely derided for faulty methods?

Bad analogy. That is anecdotal evidence, not a demonstrable experimental finding.

Unrepeated/ able experiments are hardly "demonstrable". In both cases it comes down to anecdote.

"Credible" being within your beliefs? Evidence is evidence, whether you find it "credible" or not. What is not credible to you? His methodology? His pedigree as the leading virologist of Eurasia and discoverer of the link between HIV and AIDS?

Nah, credible is verified. Credible is repeatable. Credible is non-crank.

We can align ourselves with the evidence or we can align ourselves with Strange's belief system. I choose science. I say more research is warranted.

I wonder why you say you "choose science", when science deems Montagnier not credible...

"If omnipotent pink unicorns turned their benevolence to healing, it could yield enormous benefits to the medical community."

Your pink unicorn analogy is neither applicable nor helpful, unless you find a Nobel Prize winning scientist who demonstrates such a thing. You are essentially saying that nothing that the scientific method demonstrates is true unless anything you (so cleverly) make up is also true.

You can't just reject science by pretending that which is NOT shown in evidence is equivalent to that which is.

Huh?

Originally Posted by IntelligentAnimation

Much of the work of both Montagnier and Gariaev has been peer-reviewed, of course

References, please.

"No evidence worth considering" is a matter of opinion

I agree. I thought I had made that clear.

Ah, what a surprise it came down to this being your real problem here. Here is how science does NOT work: We do not stop all work until Strange lets us know what he deems "plausible". What you find plausible may not be what others find plausible based on their understanding of biology. There is no "Strange's plausibility filter" in the scientific method.

Funny. But as I said earlier, this is just a discussion forum. None of us have any control over what research gets done or not (other than who we vote for, perhaps). So I'm not sure why you are getting so worked up about it. Write to your local government representative.

BTW, its called the scientific method, not "the scientific process" and Montagnier did not bypass it. You did.

I used the word "process" deliberatley because we are not doing science here, we are just talking about it and what should be done about unsupported claims.

I would say that Montagnier and the others are bypassing science by writing articles in popular science magazines and web sites rather than peer reviewed journals.

Bad analogy. That is anecdotal evidence, not a demonstrable experimental finding.

Sorry, so far all I have seen is anecdotal evidence. Where are the detailed reports of experimental methods, statistical analysis of results, discussion of possible error sources, etc.

"Credible" being within your beliefs?

Sigh. No. Objective, peer-reviewed and repeated results.

Did you find the faster-than-light neutrino credible?

Given the amount of detail that was provided, yes the experimental results were credible.

We can align ourselves with the evidence or we can align ourselves with Strange's belief system.

It has nothing to do with my beliefs. I don't why you have decided to turn this into an attack on me.

Apparently there are a few folks here who take exception to choosing evidence over their personal "beliefs", so let me clarify this a bit.

Anybody can claim or believe whatever they want, but science involves empirical evidence and the scientific method. If a group of scientists sets up an experiment in which they derive certain results, then that matters. They could still be wrong, of course, so we remain open-minded, but the evidence counts for something until disproven. Do we want further supporting evidence? Of course, but we do have evidence and that has significance.

If Strange or anyone else says "but that doesn't fit my beliefs" the proper weight to give that kind of statement is flat zero. It isn't as if evidence is balanced evenly against Strange's beliefs with equal weight. Evidence is demonstrable to others. Beliefs are only in your own mind.

Even if we are to give weight to such unsupported opinions, then I could add up the 3 or 4 people here who find science plausible against the 3 or 4 here who don't find it plausible because it goes against their religious stance or other a priori belief. So even if personal opinions about plausibility matter (and they don't) then it is still a wash at best... still zero.

Now if you have something more solid than your "beliefs", please share it, but the only thing that is "crap" is anti-science belief systems.

Strange: "It has nothing to do with my beliefs."

If you are using words like "plausible", "extraordinary" or "crap" you are not taking a neutral, open-minded position on that which you are ignorant about. If you can't support your claim against scientific evidence with any refuting evidence, but only your "beliefs", then yes, it has to do with your beliefs and ONLY your beliefs.

We have already established that you have no clue whether or not any or all of this work has been reviewed or replicated (it has been). Only a tiny fraction of all scientific work gets published in slanted journals, only a small amount of which is anything significantly new, and a much tinier percentage of that would be any peer-reviewed journals that you know anything about. Of that insignifant percentage that you have ever been aware of enough to read, an even tinier percentgage is anything you understand. Yet apparently to you, anything not in that miniscule remaining fraction of all scientific work is "crap".

Either that or you pick and choose what fits your beliefs.

Thats fine for you, but some of us would like to discuss the evidence without crude comments like "thats crap" and without attempts to discourage inquiry that you are uncomfortable with. If you are concerned about "not wasting your time" then why do you do just that? If you have something of value to add, great, but you are merely stating what you don't believe and that doesn't get us anywhere.

I think we are all aware that you don't believe the evidence. I will give that all the weight it deserves.

Originally Posted by IntelligentAnimation

Anybody can claim or believe whatever they want, but science involves empirical evidence and the scientific method.

Then show us the documented and replicated results published in a peer-reviewed journal. Like it or not, that is what counts in the scientific method you claim to support.

If Strange or anyone else says "but that doesn't fit my beliefs" the proper weight to give that kind of statement is flat zero.

I obviously didn't say that. So you are being quite dishonest. I have no "beliefs" about this issue. I don't even care about it that much (I care more about the abuse of science that you are engaged in). But it doesn't matter anyway as I have no control over what research is or is not carried out. I hope that if there is anything to research then research is being carried out.

Originally Posted by IntelligentAnimation

We have already established that you have no clue whether or not any or all of this work has been reviewed or replicated (it has been).

References please.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by IntelligentAnimation

If Strange or anyone else says "but that doesn't fit my beliefs" the proper weight to give that kind of statement is flat zero.

I obviously didn't say that. So you are being quite dishonest. I have no "beliefs" about this issue.

I want to expand on this a bit...
I.A., you are painting an image of yourself as 'persecuted' when you've not been. You have provided no valid support for your arguments.
Now, in fairness, you have also said the support is lacking and that you do not know if it is valid and think it needs more investigation.
But after having said that, to then paint a false image to defend something you claimed to not have any certainty as to its merit or validity does not make any sense.

You say this:

Originally Posted by IntelligentAnimation

Anybody can claim or believe whatever they want, but science involves empirical evidence and the scientific method. If a group of scientists sets up an experiment in which they derive certain results, then that matters. They could still be wrong, of course, so we remain open-minded, but the evidence counts for something until disproven. Do we want further supporting evidence? Of course, but we do have evidence and that has significance.

Well put, by the way.

Yet, you turn right around and contradict it.
You then accuse others by projecting your own behavior onto them.

I think you really need to take a step back and examine your own posts very carefully, then post what your arguments are- clearly- and what support, citations, references and the like you have for them.
What bothers you seems to be that someone said the idea is implausible.
You would need to demonstrate its plausibility, not accuse others of arguing from "belief" considering that it is your belief that it is plausible at hand, not someone else's lack of belief that it is.

Neverfly, I do not feel the least bit persecuted. People are being relatively civil here. If anything, I am the one who needs to be a bit less aggressive with my tone. The "thats crap" comment could have used more articulate cerebral depth, but it wasn't directed at me. I am interested but not yet sold on this subject.

What is "plausible" to one person may not be plausible to someone else. "Plausible" IS a matter of personal belief. If Blogger A links evidence and blogger B says they don't "believe" it, then B has offered nothing of value, while A has offered science of at least some value. If anyone is offended by the fact that their beliefs don't mean anything to me, then they are being a bit too sensitive. This isn't the forum for beliefs.

Originally Posted by IntelligentAnimation

What is "plausible" to one person may not be plausible to someone else. "Plausible" IS a matter of personal belief. If Blogger A links evidence and blogger B says they don't "believe" it, then B has offered nothing of value, while A has offered science of at least some value. If anyone is offended by the fact that their beliefs don't mean anything to me, then they are being a bit too sensitive. This isn't the forum for beliefs.

Then I would say that plausibility is irrelevant. Evidence is the only thing that is relevant.