THE DNA/RNA DECEIT

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.
Post Reply
sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

THE DNA/RNA DECEIT

Unread post by sharpstuff » Fri Jan 15, 2021 11:00 am

Note: As a learning curve, this essay requires some discussion, please.

Thesis:
If you remove any substance from a ‘living’ organism it may be part of that original but immediately must become something else.

We cannot, then, therefore make any reference to it as a ‘part’ of the original (since the original is now also a part of the original and deplete of its ‘wholeness’ and the removed ‘part’ is now a separate entity). Any results of ‘experiments’ or studies upon the removed part can (in simple) only be a form of conjecture as to its part in the original .

If, for example, let us make an analogy, say, making a fruit cake. We may work from a known recipe or create one from any several parts, which we call ingredients. We take those ingredients and mix them into a bowl. Now we have a ‘dough’ comprised of the ingredients all mashed up, therefore not recognised as separate entities. We then place this into a cooking vessel (e.g. a cooking oven, or even an ice-box) and after a given period of time we are presented with a structure (comprised of the individual ingredients but now not recognisable as such) which we might say is a complete object we will call it a ‘cake’.

Aside: So what we call ‘Nature’ has produced, in its way, the whole of the biology (so called) and including that which we call Man (the capital ‘M’ includes both sexes).

Back to our cake. If we now take the cake and remove a small piece of it, study it from all directions, place it onto a slide (which we need to prepare for microscopy, for example and already tainting it with any sort of compound so that it might be better visible) or we put it into our blender and thrash it to pieces, what do we have?

We have compromised our original cake by removing a bit or bits of it, to start with. What we are studying is the part we have deconstructed from the original.

What does our ‘study’ tell us?
Can we infer that the tiny bits we see under the microscope are cognisant of the whole?
Can we infer, that if we find what was left of a currant or piece of some other fruit, an artifact of some kind, or even a particle of flour (not possible, since it no longer flour as it was before processing), that the cake we have constructed is responsible for or causes, the whole process?

In other words, can any of those bits tell us how the cake was constructed in the first place? If so, may I ask how?

If we apply this thesis to the notion of D.N.A., R.N.A., alleged ‘germs’, ‘viruses’, ‘bacteria’ or any other conglomerations of ’particles’ (‘atomic’ or otherwise) can we rely on the ‘findings’ as a verifiable ‘truth’ in this World and base our living on it?
Upon the notion of D.N.A., R.N.A. there has been the notion and invention of ‘genetics’. That is, the notion that certain ‘substances’ they call ‘genes’ are responsible (whatever they may be but only conjectured) that ‘pass on’ traits from one organism to another.
From observations easily made (e.g. my progenitors were ‘artists’ therefore I am an artist) however, I cannot paint anything, or the opposite). It is obviously evident (from personal observations) that we ‘inherit’ or do not ‘inherit’ certain traits from the initial fertilisation of our being from our parents and prior fertilisations. However, we cannot claim that any particular entity (whatever it is) is responsible for either since we cannot find one except from speculation. In my view, at least, we can never ‘know’ how this is ‘achieved’.

Further, the notion that we can manipulate, in some way this process, is not possible since we cannot identify any agent to do so, since the means of doing so destroys the means of identification of the physical agent. Thus the notion of ‘gene’ manipulation (usually called G.M.O.) cannot be a viable theory or solution, let alone a reality, it is merely a ploy to substitute manipulation of ‘Nature’ by potentially poisonous substances without regard for natural processes which any decent farmer realising crop rotation works and so forth.

Having said all that and adding that notions of ‘dinosaurs’, ‘evolution’ and other such fanciful ‘studies’/‘tales of imagination’, fiction ‘science’ and so forth, we are still left with the fact that certain ‘traits’ are left to ‘Nature’ to determine outcomes about which, (to be frank), we can have little or no knowledge that satisfies, nor the grounds to verify such and speculation can be the only game.

It is a possible truth that all these notion of ‘germs’, ‘atoms’ ‘D.N.A,’ may be comforting notions for some reason or another but they really have no place in a world where our personal existence can only be survived within ourselves or with others for whom we care.

We are constantly blinded by what is called ‘science’.
We are constantly deceived by those who claim to know more than we do.
We are constantly deceived by those who wish to control us with all their machinations regarding any potential positive study (compare and contrast).
We are constantly blinded/deceived by what are called ‘elements’ about which we can have little or no knowledge. We are constantly blinded/deceived by unknowable, unknown ‘scientists’, ‘experts’ and the other paraphernalia of so-called ‘expertise’. Time to close our ears to this.

That humans are capable of explaining, in specific detail, anything at all, needs to be considered.

‘Theories’ may sound good on paper and the acceptance of them a kind of crutch for many to blame something else for their own lack of exploration, since they can often do little else, is very sad.

Be well.
Sharpstuff

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE DNA/RNA DECEIT

Unread post by sharpstuff » Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:59 pm

THE D.N.A. DECEIT
(or the ‘Inheritance’ deceit)

D.N.A. is the basis from which we are supposed to accept that it is the genesis from which all so-called ‘life-forms’ have developed and continue to do so. Thus the notion of entities called ‘genes’ was developed from the notion. These ‘entities’ (genes) are supposed to establish our ‘make-up’ from our direct progenitors and those before us. Once ‘genes’ are defined thus, (the ‘elements’ of certain individual characteristics) we can then establish all sorts of nonsense (a+b=c) or any other formula you care to imagine with increased complexity, that finally results in total incomprehension.

Again, once we ‘establish’ that such entities ‘exist’, (whatever they are or are not), we can establish anything we wish, including ‘eye’ colours, ‘left-handidness’, ‘right-handidness’, and so forth. We can then invent malfunctions (however perpetrated) such as ‘germs’, ‘viruses’ and suchlike along with their ‘mutations’, ‘variants’ and any other stuff we can use for whatever purpose, usually malevolent but of course including the positive and the negative just to make the whole charade appear unbiased.

Based upon the works of a couple of chaps called Watson and Crick, we are taught and to be believe without consent, to assume that this chemical structure of D.N.A. (deoxyribonuclaic acid) is the basis for all life on Earth with its apparent anomalies and the means by which we may all be ‘different’ in some way or another from each other. We therefore, apparently, ‘inherit’ certain traits from our parentage (going back to goodness knows when) depending upon our ‘gene’ structure. Convenient, but is it a truism? There can be no doubt that certain attributes pass from parents to off-spring but how this is achieved must still surely be conjecture in real terms that can only be ‘validated’ by suppositions.

The notion that we can explain our existence must always remain a mystery since nothing is forthcoming to explain this without reference to any conjecture about ‘inheritance’. We therefore may enter the domain of ‘fossils’ to try to understand our heritage and can conjecture to our heart’s content based on unfounded ‘research’, ‘Science’ and such-like.

*****************************
Let us take a look at the apparent structure of D.N.A.
When, in 1962 (I was 18), I first studied the supposed structure. I made in my note-book, the following (excuse the bleed-through):

Image
Image
Image

Accordingly, I noted that Humans apparently had 48 chromosomes, although how this could be calculated is beyond my comprehension. At the same time, there were calculated to be 30,000 genes for each chromosome which accounted for the whole traits of the human individual!

The technical language, as seen in the above notes is astonishing and clearly indicates a superior mind to my own, not having the capabilities of reproducing the results or understanding the nomenclature.

There are ample images and animations of this marvellous creation available. My problem with all this, is that it does not help me understand very much about what I know as ‘life’.

Is life to be reduced to chemical symbols in a note-book?
So what? How does that ‘explain’ anything? Is life to be only represented by symbols?

To understand how all this D.N.A. theory came about, one might be interested in this reasonable article on the origins of genetic theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

Let us look at a definition of ‘gene’ or ‘genetic’. According to: https://www.etymonline.com/word/genetic
genetic (adj.)

1831, "pertaining to origins," coined by Carlyle as if from Greek genetikos from genesis "origin" (see genesis). Darwin used it biologically as "resulting from common origin" (1859); modern sense of "pertaining to genetics or genes" is from 1908 (see gene). Related: Genetically. Genetical is attested from 1650s as "pertaining to origins.”

How does this relate to ‘life’ as we know it?

Let us now look at the definition for ‘chromosome’. According to the same site:
chromosome (n.)

1889, from German Chromosom, coined 1888 by German anatomist Wilhelm von Waldeyer-Hartz (1836-1921), from Latinized form of Greek khrōma "color" (see chroma) +
-some (3)). So called because the structures contain a substance that stains readily with basic dyes.

My questions are obvious. What ‘structures’? What ‘substance’? What are ‘basic dyes’ and how could they possibly show anything relating to Nature over which we can have little control either positive or negative? Please do not get me onto the ‘Climate Change’ deceit. This, in my view, is all flowery use of the language (whatever it is) and really tells us, precisely, . . . nothing worth having.

********************************


The Watson/Crick controversy, (relating to the poor quality of the work which became the backbone of ‘genes’ and ‘chromosomes’).

Here is a good overview: https://www.famousscientists.org/the-watson-crick-feud
/

However, where does all this lead us?
The Human Genome Project is discussed here: https://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2018/11/new-stu
dy-debunks-one-gene-myth-of.html


It is well worth a complete read since it covers some issues already discussed in previous Cluesforum topics such as dinosaurs. How chemical formulæ or alleged ‘atomic’ structures can account for virtually any sense of reality is something I can never personally comprehend. Baking a cake, for example, from several ingredients can never explain the final result and tearing it apart can never explain how it came about in the first place except for the process of ‘well it was cooked’, without explaining accurately how it was ‘cooked’ and by precisely what method. Was it palatable? Was it under-cooked, or over-cooked and therefore not palatable?

Reduction is not an argument for the production of a cake, as an example. If D.N.A. does not exist in any form available for actual study as an entity, how, therefore can we make any sense of ‘life-as-it-is’ relying upon notions/theories as presented and adhered to by the uninitiated and ill-informed?
We are therefor left with Reductio ad absurdum which, according to:

https://literarydevices.net/reductio-ad-absurdum/

Reductio ad absurdum is a Latin term that means “to reduce something to absurdity.” It is a figure of speech that is defined as a manner of arguing something for one’s own position by showing the absurdity of the position of his opponent. In simple words, it means to reduce an argument to absurdity, by drawing conclusions with logical limits, or by showing ridiculous consequences. Reductio ad absurdum in satires breaks down an idea to the point of absurdity.

We must surely, therefore, conclude that an original false or contrived notion/theory, without viable and verifiable evidence available to a ‘general public’ cannot be tenable in what we know, as individuals, as a reality. To re-quote myself (on several occasions) with embellishments to the original:

‘Evidence, my dear Watson!’ cried Holmes, scratching himself and trying to find an answer to his predicament. ‘Why do I itch? I need evidence!’
‘Well,’ replied Doctor Watson, examining Holmes’ clothing and (noting certain readers of their perhaps more than their personal relationship in a business duality), was wont to reply: ‘I cannot find a tic or a ’tock’ except for the clock, which goes on its own way and I have no way of the understanding of its process. It could be the well-spring from which we can know nothing. Frankly, Holmes, I haven’t got Clues for an answer or indeed even one a clue, even although it is September.’ The clock on the shelf remained of itself. It merely tick-tocked of itself without ever having known how it happened…

My questions: Why do we have the need to reduce the ‘Universe’ to bits and bytes or even ’gods’, thus inventing this and that to satisfy our needs for something we can only comprehend for our individual selves? How does the invention of ‘atoms’ and their apparent sub-particles explain reality as we know it as individuals?

Be safe and well. Sharpstuff

Post Reply