Never before seen: Bioelectricity on single tadpole cell forms "face of frog"!!!

Reminds me of the caterpillar that turns itself into cell soup before emerging as a butterfly. The electrical field of the finished butterfly must be in that soup BEFORE the cells move into place.

Originally posted by wigit
Reminds me of the caterpillar that turns itself into cell soup before emerging as a butterfly. The electrical field of the finished butterfly must be in that soup BEFORE the cells move into place.

You are right. I bet if they investigate that, that's what they'd discover.

The thought just occurred to me...perhaps all the mythological legends of shape shifters somehow involves this to an extreme? Native American's turning into crows/wolves, European werewolves, modern day reptilians?

This has both a glorious side, and a frightening side.

But this is absolutely the proof that Prof. Rupert Sheldrake has been looking for, in his theory of "formative causation" and morphogenesis!
www.sheldrake.org...&Papers/papers/morphic/morphic1_paper.html
If this is, in fact a scientifically authored experiment with video evidence, than I am MORE than thrilled to have witnessed a momentous occasion for the advancement of biological science! Thanks op, for the great thread!

wow thats amazing i wonder if we will ever reach a point when we do the same to us humans.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Did you not read the article?

They have proved that this electrical display is part of the development by disrutping it, resulting in deformations.

It isn't an optical illusion, this is science. I think the good Dr concerned would have been shot down in flames if she announced this and it was just a trick of the eye/brain.

Hi can someone explain the significance of this? someone mentioned that this is the higgs boson of biology or something... "the champagne bottle boson". This long-sought theoretical particle that could make or break the standard model of particle physics.... is this something that could make or break some foundations in biology?

Im not versed in biology so bear with me. Thnx.

Couldn't we just imprint our own bio electric mapping signals into a cell and start building chimeras without any major DNA modification? Deformations can be bad or good! Also maybe the first hint at what is needed for creating a biological computer, or a human to hardware interface. You could just print it into a living medium. And because it's ATS, we need this to create a T-800 or skynet will never infiltrate us.

I had wondered what could be the organising factor for biological structures ever since the first attempts to "build" organs from cells outside the body noted the need for a "scaffold" to direct shape and placement.

It is obvious that the DNA/Proteome alone was not all that is going on in natural organ growth but there must be some "other" organising factor.

But how does the bioelectric field get ITS shape?

Is the shape of the field simply a function of the underlying chemistry or is there a whole new thing happening here.

It also reminds me of the issue of the optimal path taken in photosynthesis. The chemicals used in energy transfer should diffuse according to Brownian Motion, which means that some attempts to photosynthesize should fail as they would take too long. Yet it seems that in plants, the optimal path is taken every time (or nearly so) and so photosynthesis is successful. This perhaps suggests that there is some quantum process that both calculates optimal path and then directs it, somehow.

Perhaps this bioelectrical "modelling" is related to the effect seen in photosynthesis?.

Speculation!! This makes DNA appear more like a micro controller or processor. Maybe all the junk DNA is equivalent to programs on a micro chips rom. The "usable" DNA is no more than a kernel/OS. It appears we can't read the programming language our own body uses. However, what else would be "flashing" the cell structure with future contructions within the cell/embryo? This is preprogrammed timing with allusions to biomechanical data sets/programs.

very exciting if you can glance past all the nefarious usage that could come about....I'm game to see some crazy stuff.

reply to post by Cryptonomicon

That's where the energy comes from, but where does the information come from?

I don't know for sure but I am intrigued by the idea that DNA may emit photons in the UV and other spectrums...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by stumason
Did you not read the article?

They have proved that this electrical display is part of the development by disrutping it, resulting in deformations.

Yes I read the article.

I have no doubts that applying electric shocks to an embryo has deleterious effects on its development. But I could have guessed that before I read the research, couldn't you?

All I'm saying is that whatever they are seeing in the video, I'm apparently not seeing it. I don't see a frog's face. It may simply be because I'm not trained to look for it. So my comment about not seeing it may be just an admission that I can't see anything that interesting, and it doesn't invalidate the science, if more trained people can see something that I can't.

Regarding whether or not the good doctor has been shot down in flames or not, I have no idea whether the majority of the scientific community finds this research to be credible or valuable yet. It would be nice to hear some opinions of some other scientists in the field, but as I understand it, the paper is yet to be officially published and is just now being made available online, so we may have to wait a little while for that. What would also be nice to verify the science is some independent verification of the research, though again I have no doubts that electricity can disrupt an embryo's development. It's seeing a frogs face in a tadpole I'd like to see some other independent scientist verify, who maybe knows what they're looking at better than I do.

reply to post by Frater210


Great link. now combine the OP with this:

In 2005 a group conducted by P. Gariaev in Russia performed the following experiment. DNA samples were exposed to electromagnetic fields in certain frequency ranges. As a result, various luminous wave structures were created in the air nearby. They were recorded on film. These amazing phantom structures were found to move along complicated trajectories. Moreover, they mimicked the shape of the DNA sample and some objects surrounding it.

I wonder what those frequency ranges were? Would recording the freqency of the bioelecticity "explosions" in the tadpole experiment produce a similar structure as in the russian luminous wave structure experiment?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The video is of an embryo. It then shows a wave of bio electricity that flows along the path of a YET TO BE structure in the embryo. There is no "adult frog face". They were not being literal as the embryo becomes a tadpole before the frog. It shows the structure of yet to be formed parts as it is an embryo at this stage. Yet to be formed tadpole structures.

This is new info on the way life forms, using this electrical structuring system in concert with whatever the DNA is doing that we already knew about.... it's a previously unseen process in the creation of life. Did you know that an electrical imprint preceeds the actual growth of the fetus structures?

reply to post by LordBaskettIV

I don't trust articles about research. If they misrepresented the frog's face, what else did they misrepresent?

I've read several articles saying scientists have broken the speed of light in their research. Yet I'm 100% sure after reading their research, that they did not do so. It seems the person writing the article didn't really understand the research.

I did a search for the paper, but didn't find it. I'm going to reserve my answer to that question until I read the paper.

The Paper:
V-ATPase-dependent ectodermal voltage and ph regionalization are required for craniofacial morphogenesis

"When a frog embryo is just developing, before it gets a face, a pattern for that face lights up on the surface of the embryo," said senior author Dany S. Adams, Ph.D. Adams is a research associate professor in the Department of Biology in the Tufts School of Arts and Sciences and a member of the Tufts Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology. "We believe this is the first time such patterning has been reported for an entire structure, not just for a single organ. I would never have predicted anything like it. It's a jaw dropper."
They say the discovery was a case of scientific serendipity. Adams has spent years studying bioelectrical patterning and left-right developmental differences. Her frequent research tool is a camera hooked up to a microscope that sends images to a computer. One evening in September 2009 Adams was making time-lapse movies of early stage tadpole development. The images were coming out particularly clearly—no small achievement when filming tiny living creatures. She decided to leave the camera on overnight even though she anticipated that as the developing embryos began to move, the images would likely become too blurred to be useful.

When Adams arrived the next morning, the image on the computer monitor was out of focus as expected. But when she finished processing the rest of the images, she found they were clear. The movies were, she says, "unlike anything I had ever seen. I was completely blown away. I think I thought something like, 'OK, I know what I'll be studying for the next 20 years.'"

Maybe more helpful than the pysorg article?

Originally posted by operation mindcrime

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Why is it incredible that a frog embryo looks like a frog embryo? What am I missing?

From what I understand it's that electric pulse that defines where the animals main feature will be placed. We know DNA tells the cells where to form the nose, eyes and ears but this time lapse seems to show that it's that bioelectrical signal that is defining the features before the cells are placed in this formation....

Simply put, the face is there (in electric form) before the face is formed (in cellular form).

Can't break it down any more simplistic.....sorry.

I'm also wondering if this is some kind of Pareidolia.

How can you claim this to be pareidolia when you just claimed there is nothing incredible about a frog embryo looking like frog embryo??

Peace

Absolutely right.,
Well said

The institute of noetic sciences are also doing some interesting studies into bio-electricity.
and coming up with some amazing findings.

reply to post by LordBaskettIV


One item of info that would be helpful that I don't believe we have is the time compression on that video. I looked, but I can't seem to find anything.

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
Maybe more helpful than the pysorg article?

That quote is from the physorg article, how can that be more helpful then the physorg article? I don't understand. That quote isn't from the paper, as the format of your post would seem to imply, is it?

Thanks for the link. The only thing I can open from that link to the paper are the graphic attachments, such as the movie which I already saw in the physorg article, and the abstract.

The abstract raises a question:

Using voltage and pH reporter dyes, we have discovered a never-before-seen regionalization of the Xenopus ectoderm, with cell subpopulations delimited by different membrane voltage and pH.

So they are using voltage and pH reporter dyes. How much of the dye effect results from pH and how much from voltage? I don't see many people talking about the pH in his thread.

Originally posted by Frater210
One item of info that would be helpful that I don't believe we have is the time compression on that video. I looked, but I can't seem to find anything.

The video is time compressed from 18 hours.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

The video is time compressed from 18 hours.

Thank you, sir. Am I clear in understanding that you have not been able to access the article that comes with the video?

I am not sure I am clear on your concern with the pH.

Originally posted by Frater210
Thank you, sir. Am I clear in understanding that you have not been able to access the article that comes with the video?

Yes I click on download the pdf or view html and I get a screen saying I need to sign in or pay for the article, but it doesn't even give a price, not that I'd pay to read it. They are usually about $30 or something.

I am not sure I am clear on you concern with the pH.

The title of the article and thread refers to bioelectricity.

Yet the dyes are also sensitive to pH. So how do we know that it's not entirely a pH effect and there's no bioelectricity? If we injected the developing embryos with a strong acid or base I suspect that would also have a detrimental effect on fetal development.

So not having read the paper, I'm not sure how one can conclude it's definitely bioelectricity at work, and not pH, since the dyes are responsive to both.