Potential scientific bombshell: DNA may have telepathic properties

Rebecca Sato of The Daily Galaxy reports on research by Geoff S. Baldwin, Sergey Leikin, John M. Seddon, and Alexei A. Kornyshev et al published in the ACS’ Journal of Physical Chemistry B suggesting that intact double-stranded DNA has a bizarre and amazing ability to recognize similar DNA strands at a distance and to congregate with these similar strands. There is no known mechanism by which similar DNA are able to recognize each other at a distance. In fact, according to current theory this feat should be impossible. In early discourse on this finding the effect has been described in terms of DNA telepathy.

(See below for links)

DNA homology recognition has been demonstrated between sequences of several hundred nucleotides. In the study, scientists monitored fluorescently-tagged DNA strands placed in water containing no proteins or other material that could interfere with the experiment. Strands with identical nucleotide sequences were about twice as likely to congregate than disimilar strands. The forces responsible for this apparent telepathic effect can operate across more than one nanometre of water.

Sato writes

This recognition effect may help increase the accuracy and efficiency of the homologous recombination of genes, which is a process responsible for DNA repair, evolution, and genetic diversity. The new findings may also shed light on ways to avoid recombination errors, which are factors in cancer, aging, and other health issues.

Astonishing. I’m very curious to see what subsequent research will suggest regarding the nature, consequences and theoretical implications of this effect.

Link to Daily Galaxy article: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/02/dna-found-to-ha.html

(Apologies for non-embedded link; my right-click button isn’t working on Internet Explorer… If anyone has any idea why this might be so, feel free to leave a comment)

Advertisements
Comments
13 Responses to “Potential scientific bombshell: DNA may have telepathic properties”
  1. Postdiluvian says:

    try going to internet options>advanced and resetting your internet explorer options.

  2. ronbrown says:

    Thanks PostD. I followed your directions. However, I think the problem is based on my comp’s memory being taxed. I really need to reformat.

  3. ~The Nut Cracker~ says:

    Thanks Ron for sharing,
    Some thing worth researching on.
    Love this blog!!!

  4. ronbrown says:

    Nut Cracker: Thanks, pal!

  5. Eddie says:

    It would be interesting to test this either in 0gs or in a liquid which is not so polar as water. The reaction is almost certainly electromagnetic and the long range response may be due to water being polarized which would effectively communicate between stands. As to why similar strands congregate is rather odd unless the charges (by that I mean multipole moments not just the charge) are very different.

    Ok, I’m sorry for physicisting up your chemisty 😉

  6. ronbrown says:

    Eddie: No, please do!

    I was talking to Larry Moran about this at the Kauffman event. He thinks the findings are most likely BS. After talking to him about it, I feel kind of silly that I didn’t think enough to be even more skeptical of these findings than I was in my write-up of them in the current post. He basically pointed out that in science even given the rigorous peer review process you still get some BS in the journals. And even if this study wasn’t BS—perhaps it was just a fluke—given that the finding goes against all relevant scientific theory (and is just utterly mindblowing) one should wait for at least a few succcessful replications before getting too excited.

  7. ronbrown says:

    I reckon I’ll do an addendum to this post soon, citing my conversation with Larry.

  8. Paul says:

    I agree with ronbrown above when he says that in science it is important to wait for replication before getting too excited, or drawing conclusions. However, starting with the assumption that it is BS is just as closed minded as assuming that one study is conclusive.

    Many revolutionary discoveries in science begin with one study that confounds people.

  9. ronbrown says:

    Paul: It’s not really closed-minded to figure that there’s a good chance it’s BS when there is so much prior evidence against it being true. Over the entire history of science such apparently DNA telepathy has not been found and the very idea of it runs against the grain of years of rigorously-tested and constructed theory. So, to treat this one finding as being on par with everything that has come before it could reasonably be called a stretch, especially given that we know that flukes and oversights do happen with some regularity.

  10. Paul says:

    Again, I agree with you, Ronbrown. I think that I didn’t express myself as well as I would have liked. For every step we take forward we often end up taking a couple steps back. If we were to do a study review starting at 1900 until today we would laugh at some of what was thought in whatever genre we decided to investigate. We grow our understanding by the lone study coming along and saying “Hey wait a minute, what we thought before was wrong”. Science, my statistics proff said, does not prove but rather it dispoves what was previously thought. We would see a pattern of the more recent studies contradicting/going against what the earlier studies found/said. We can have 1000 experiments find the same result, and then someone may come along and reveal something that others had missed or not understood properly. If the new studies can then be replicated then they would now provide proof that contrdicts what the previous studies proved.

    I am not saying that science is always wrong, but that if one were to take a ‘skeptical’ attitude toward science the best one could say is that a study, or numerous studies, have shown a positive/negative/or no corellation between certain variables, etc. It is a stretch to say that such an such a study(ies) prove some effect, as it may be shown in the future that there were things that we did not understand that were skewing the results. A study is limited by the authors understanding of the subject matter. In this case, their understanding is a lot greater than mine!

  11. Eddie says:

    Either way anything they find is bound by the laws of electromagnetism and so is part of a 200 year old theory that we know very well but have not solved every possible scenario for. The recent “rediscovery” that neurons use soliton wave (sound) and not electrical impulses inside the neuron was known in the original paper that said there was a signal since the authors knew it was impossible for the brain the use that much current and not overheat. Biology is just many-body physics with bigger salaries 😉

  12. saronguardian says:

    I am a trance channel for a Seraphim Angel by the name of Saron. His purpose is to put people on or keep them on the pathway to ascension or enlightenment. I channel publicly weekly at the Ganesha Center in Las Vegas, NV. You can find my blog at:
    http://saronguardian.wordpress.com

    I love your blog!
    Thank you for doing what you do!

    Erik

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: