DNA Language

Language of DNA

Scientists have conducted much research on the origins of human languages and the origins of the grammatical rules that are so essential to all human languages; however they have always failed to find the source.

But now for the first time in history the origins of language may be surprisingly attributed to DNA. The language of the genes is much, much older than any human language that was ever muttered on this globe. It is even conceivable that the DNA grammar itself served as the blueprint for the development of human speech.

DNA Phantom Effect

He discovered that the text of the DNA book can be altered. The codons of the DNA string can be rearranged in different sequences. In other words the software of the human genome our DNA molecule can be reprogrammed! Research revealed that the triplets in the DNA string are able to exchange places

When in vitro DNA in test tubes was exposed to coherent laser light, the laser light spiralled along the DNA helix as if it was guided by the structure of the DNA molecule. The most amazing effect was noticed when the DNA itself was removed and the laser light kept spiralling!
The effect is now becoming well known as the DNA phantom effect.

So these scientists discovered that through language and frequency our DNA can be re-programmed. Instead of having to splice, cut and paste dna.

Our own DNA can simply be reprogrammed by human speech, supposing that the words are modulated on the correct carrier frequencies!

This immediatley took me back to my 22 morsels of light thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I wonder if the ancients knew about this and used language and frequencies for re-programming.

Here are some videos discussing the research.





noeticdigest.wordpress.com...

leolady

The source of your information is this website: www.soulsofdistortion.nl...

It is far from a credible source. Science is cool enough without making stuff up about it.

GetHyped
The source of your information is this website: www.soulsofdistortion.nl...

It is far from a credible source. Science is cool enough without making stuff up about it.

Can you give a "credible" source that says the hypothesis is wrong, and why?

reply to post by Klassified


“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

GetHyped
reply to post by Klassified

 

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

That's very witty, but a simple "no I cannot refute the hypothesis", would have been sufficient.
Thanks anyway.

reply to post by Klassified


True, because there's nothing to refute. I'm not sure you're familiar with what a hypothesis is or that the person making the claims is supposed to support it with evidence. But then if you think a website that discusses "Science and spirituality", "Auric Time Scales", "What the bleep do we know?" and other quack subjects is a credible source of scientific information then i think we've found the problem.

reply to post by GetHyped

You have answered my original question, and I appreciate it. Thank you.

Certain sounds interact with our DNA. These sounds are part of the original language of mankind. I have been studying this. These sounds are incorporated into most languages and make the words mean certain things. Latin or greek are not the forerunners of languages, they were forms of babble created from these sounds to complicate but make more precise what people meant. If we hear a certain sound, we react a certain way. This is not a learned response, we are born with this language. Baby talk is actually a language which we cannot correctly understand because we are conditioned not to believe it exists.....Yet the ones who would wish to control us in this world have structured words to incorporate these sounds so they can BS us into believing what they say.

I have no idea if this is what this thread is even about. I saw DNA and language in the same sentence so assumed this applies. S&F for giving me an opportunity to post this information. I have about two months of research on this subject yet know little more than the people who spent half their lives researching it to no avail. These people may not have been able to comprehend the long period motive of this though, a group of people over hundreds of generations have learned to control this. I guess sheep do not know that the sounds they make touch their DNA.

reply to post by leolady


Well, to the OP, no.

This was really misinterpreted when it first came out, and the Russian stuff is just trash.

The original thing was that DNA exhibited Zipf distances indicating it followed a grammar.

Now, "grammar" to a scientist doesn't mean quite the same thing as what you learned in fifth grade. What they're talking about is that it exhibits patterns that indicate there is an organized structure. Of course it does. It's not a random mish-mash. There are rules for how protein coding genes work. That's required because the enzymes that transcribe them to RNA expect a certain structure. And other enzymes that regulate the expression of those proteins expect a certain structure, too. In fact, if you study it, in front of each protein coding genetic structure is something that is very like a file header in an operating system. It's sort of creepy. But THAT'S what they mean by 'follows a grammar', and it does in the same sense that a computer language has a grammar, and it all ends up falling under a pure science called 'calculus of statement'.

So a Zipf index tells you that the data has a logical structure to it, and that's all.

What it DOESN'T mean is that you can talk to it and it will change. That's where the loony starts. You can't change it any more than you can talk to a book and the words will change there. If you put a copy of Cherry Orchard through a Zipf indexing program, it'll tell you that the words follow a grammar and have structure. But you can scream at Chekhov all you like, and not one word will change. (BTW, the trees represent people, but I digress)

So, no, it doesn't "respond to language". It has logical structure.

rickymouse
Certain sounds interact with our DNA. These sounds are part of the original language of mankind. I have been studying this.

Not at all. Sound, certainly at the frequency of human speech, is far FAR too long in wavelength to interact with DNA at all. You get something in far ultrasound, you can get enough energy to break the DNA into bits but you can't "change it" with some sort of magic chant.

Bedlam

rickymouse
Certain sounds interact with our DNA. These sounds are part of the original language of mankind. I have been studying this.

Not at all. Sound, certainly at the frequency of human speech, is far FAR too long in wavelength to interact with DNA at all. You get something in far ultrasound, you can get enough energy to break the DNA into bits but you can't "change it" with some sort of magic chant.

I'm saying it interacts, not changes DNA. Certain sounds could cause a change in gene expression resulting in changing attitude either positively or negatively. We can be greatly influenced by both sounds and tunes and I think this can cause the DNA to make us act differently. Sounds like La, Ra, Ca, Ha, Hu, Ma, Na, Sa, Ya, Ba, etc... can cause us to respond in a certain way even if utilized in words.

Look at the pronunciation of Yahoo, and the success of the business. Look at the sounds above. Ya is sort of like teach. Hu is sort of like loudly or yelling so people can hear. These sounds are very hard to translate, they utilize principles not actually words for things.

rickymouse

I'm saying it interacts, not changes DNA. Certain sounds could cause a change in gene expression resulting in changing attitude either positively or negatively.

Why do you think attitude is genetic? And why do you think phonemes cause methylation markers to be placed on DNA? And what would be the mechanism? It's certainly not just the sound itself.

reply to post by rickymouse

Baby talk is actually a language which we cannot correctly understand because we are conditioned not to believe it exists.....Yet the ones who would wish to control us in this world have structured words to incorporate these sounds so they can BS us into believing what they say.

Ooh yes...this is a way to look at it, when certain sounds interact with our DNA. Like you mentioned when a baby coos. They do this naturally when born. In some cases babies/children do form their own language too. For example: multiples are known to have formed a language all their own for communicating, even if they are also being taught the human language by the parents. Yes this stuff fascinates me and of course it applies.



leolady

reply to post by leolady


If we would not have been taught a language, we would still communicate with each other. A crow can communicate with a crow that has never met another crow. A tiger brought up in captivity without a mother can communicate with another tiger from the wild if man hasn't interfered by conditioning it. This means that there should be a primordial language amongst all beings that are of the same species.

Sound interacts through the ears and brain to get to the DNA. Remember that every brain cell has DNA also. How come so many babies make the same sorts of sounds.

How come Chickens make different sounds when they are warm or cold. These sounds change, by interaction with primordial knowledge. So energy drives the change. Energy is a frequency of energy the same as sound is. If someone yells out "Hey" people look. With a little variation, Hey is a sound recognized by every culture. Why? It instructs humans to look. DNA does not work alone, it is tied to a very big processor, our brains. Neurons flow all over the body but do not touch all the cells, the signal goes to the cells through the electrolytic fluids in the body and the DNA of the cells trains the cells to syncronize their actions to form movement. Those little antennas are necessary for that.

This is the way I look at things. I study all sides of knowledge and compare the similarities and try to see what the differences have that make the results different.

reply to post by Bedlam

What it DOESN'T mean is that you can talk to it and it will change. That's where the loony starts. You can't change it any more than you can talk to a book and the words will change there. If you put a copy of Cherry Orchard through a Zipf indexing program, it'll tell you that the words follow a grammar and have structure. But you can scream at Chekhov all you like, and not one word will change. (BTW, the trees represent people, but I digress)

Yes they are specifically stating that actual human speech can do this.

They say that because the DNA is structured just like language then human words can be used for healing and re-programming DNA if done at the right frequency. It goes on to say that practices such as affirmations and hypnotism which are human language do work naturally well with the body. That our DNA naturally reacts to language because it is built similarly to language.

leolady

rickymouse
reply to post by leolady

 

If we would not have been taught a language, we would still communicate with each other. A crow can communicate with a crow that has never met another crow.This means that there should be a primordial language amongst all beings that are of the same species.

Or that they have evolved some sort of vocalizations. Some of this is learned, some is built in. Animals often have regional 'dialects' outside of which they do NOT understand each other, even if they're the same species.

Sound interacts through the ears and brain to get to the DNA. Remember that every brain cell has DNA also. How come so many babies make the same sorts of sounds.

In the case of mature neurons, IIRC they eject their spindle bodies and cease mitosis. So they never duplicate their DNA again. But, how do you propose that sound goes to the brain and thence "gets to the DNA"? Why not go to the brain and be processed? How clumsy and slow it would be to encode the sound into some sort of proteins, eject them into the blood stream, circulate it around the body, ingest it at each and every cell, then unsupercoil and modify each and every nucleus in the body. For every sound uttered, or thing viewed, or sensation felt etc etc. No, that doesn't happen. Your brain processes and stores the data. It's not processed by the DNA.

Babies start off making the same sounds. Because their mouths, tongues, palates and brain structures are similar. As they listen to their parents, they start culling phonemes, and soon they sound different, depending on the languages they hear. By about 6 or 7, they'll begin to lose language plasticity and will have difficulty learning languages without accents.

How come Chickens make different sounds when they are warm or cold. These sounds change, by interaction with primordial knowledge. So energy drives the change. Energy is a frequency of energy the same as sound is.

Because chicken vocalization is what it is by inheritance. That's where your DNA comes in. There's some amount of functionality in the basic "design". The sounds change, because the chicken vocalizes differently based on what it perceives. Not due to "primordial knowledge", whatever that might be. Energy is a frequency of energy? What does that even mean?

If someone yells out "Hey" people look. With a little variation, Hey is a sound recognized by every culture. Why? It instructs humans to look.

OTOH, if I yell "Blargh" with the right inflection, people will also look.

DNA does not work alone, it is tied to a very big processor, our brains. Neurons flow all over the body but do not touch all the cells, the signal goes to the cells through the electrolytic fluids in the body and the DNA of the cells trains the cells to syncronize their actions to form movement. Those little antennas are necessary for that.

No, not at all. DNA isn't "tied" to your brain, although it does direct the form and function. It's true that neurons do not touch all the cells. A lot of cells don't need innervation. They are controlled by various hormones and peptides, released from glands. The "signal" does not go through the electrolytic fluids in the body, if a neuron doesn't communicate with another neuron by means of a gap junction, it does so by using chemical neurotransmitters to a receptor on the target cell. In the case of motion, it's by that means. The neurons attach to a motor end plate on the muscle cells and drive the muscle's contraction by sending acetylcholine across the synapse.

DNA doesn't have "little antennas".

leolady
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Yes they are specifically stating that actual human speech can do this.

That's because you're reading crank sites.

They say that because the DNA is structured just like language then human words can be used for healing and re-programming DNA if done at the right frequency.

If books are structured just like language, then can you "heal" or "reprogram" them? How about a disk drive? The contents of your computer's memory? If that sounds absurd to you, why does it make sense that you could do the same to DNA?

I also have to add "frequency of what". Frequency is an attribute of something else. You can't shoot frequencies at something, anymore than you can toss a bucket of blue at it.

It goes on to say that practices such as affirmations and hypnotism which are human language do work naturally well with the body. That our DNA naturally reacts to language because it is built similarly to language.

leolady

Do they also use the terms "vibration", "field", "quantum", "energy" and/or Tesla?

reply to post by Bedlam


The brain doesn't control cells, it works with them. A cell divides on it's own with the guidance of the DNA. Our brain only controls the signals, whether electrical or chemical. The newest research shows that electrical activity is just as important as chemical in the body. Why do you think there is so much emphasis on electrolytes nowadays.

Thinking everything is chemical is old school, there is plenty of evidence of how meditation works now and it's effect on gene expression. Don't live in the past when assumptions were made, look at the new evidence that has actual evidence to back it since the technology to test this is now available. What we were led to believe was a misconception half the time. It is important to note though that half the crap we are told today is also a misconception created by a desire to get financial or prestigious gains. I don't trust information put out by the people who excessively profit by creating this information without checking it out and verifying it.

They used to think that the background noise in the white matter of the brain was just noise. They have found this assumption to be false when they actually tested it. This energy is structured signals used to evaluate what is happening and it is used by the immune system intensely. This new discovery has completely upended the philosophy that only neurons do this through the paths that they once thought were the only paths of thinking. This is good, it is correcting false beliefs that we have made. Signals flow through our bodies using many systems, life is way more complex than ever believed. I read a lot of research and I usually try to look at any evidence that is used to form conclusions if it is available.

I may have a lot of knowledge but in the scope of things I hardly know anything. Everything I learn necessitates learning more to be able to apply the information to other relevant situations. This means I have to look at what all people say, not just a particular branch. There is some truth in everything, sorting it out is complicated.

You should diversify your research a little Bedlam, it makes it more interesting.

reply to post by leolady


IMO
Vibration is the key to the universe. Sound created light so, whether the article
is currently evidenced or not, hardly matters. When the truth is obvious the editor
of any source would print. Even if the story only held a greater percentage, for an
anticipated positive finding.

So proof negative at the moment, with the whole world beginning to understand
enough to predict an outcome. Is a possible factor for the seemingly presumptuous
post no?

Then we all shapeshift into Reptillians beginning a new age of the Dinosaurs.IDK.


Thanks for the story OP SnF
And away we go !

rickymouse
reply to post by Bedlam

 

The brain doesn't control cells, it works with them.

A matter of semantics - your brain most certainly DOES control muscle cells and some glands directly. Others are controlled indirectly.

A cell divides on it's own with the guidance of the DNA.

That's not the same as motion. The cells get their cues to divide in part from the body's regulatory systems, and those are controlled by the brain.

Our brain only controls the signals, whether electrical or chemical. The newest research shows that electrical activity is just as important as chemical in the body. Why do you think there is so much emphasis on electrolytes nowadays.

Because you have to have them for cells to work properly. Not to convey electrical messages.

Thinking everything is chemical is old school, there is plenty of evidence of how meditation works now and it's effect on gene expression.

It really doesn't have any, other than to reduce tension and stress. But directly, no.

Don't live in the past when assumptions were made, look at the new evidence that has actual evidence to back it since the technology to test this is now available.

You need to be sure your actual evidence is actual evidence and not something on the order of the 'sources' cited by the OP.

You should diversify your research a little Bedlam, it makes it more interesting.

I like mine to be reality based and not the latest from Natural News.