One cannot talk about the mechanisms and functions and structure and chemistry of DNA without at some point thinking about how it all came to be in the first place. The whys and hows of it now were the whys and hows of it when it first came together. It is assumed at this time that evolution just had things "fall into place" over an almost umlimited time period. While it MAY have happened a long time ago, the assumption that it was basically an accident of chemistry and lightning and conditions is only in itself a speculation, though it is promulgated as fact to the lay public.
DNA determines not only the gender and type of organisms, but also their morphology - their shape and size - and their proficiency at what they do. Small differences in the DNA code make huge differences in morphology. Yet, at the same time, huge differences in the size of organs within a human population, say, do not mean much at all in the FUNCTIONING of the overall organism. A book I read years ago - I had to send off to the University of Illinois for it long before the Internet began - was entitled something like "On the Morphology of Human Organs". It depicted the VERY wide range of human organ sizes. It was dealing with healthy, completely functional organs and not pathological ones. It was amazing the variations in size. (Size is only the grossest of measurements in deteriming anything about an organ.) In each organ typoe, the size difference was at least three-fold. For example, the hearts of perfectly healthy people were as big as a very large fist, while some were little bigger than large walnuts. Some aortas were the diameter oof a large thumb, while some were as narrow as a normal drinking straw. Yet, all these were funstioning perfectly well for their human hosts. And all had all the internal workings necessary. What in the DNA told one person's liver to be the size of a football, while some were like a small handbag? No matter the size, the relative internal operational areas were sufficient for full functionality.
Since DNA tells each CELL what to be and where to be, and how to function and how long to live and how to interact with its neigbors, morphology is a silly thing to focus on, that is understood. DNA also tells each PART of the cell what to do, so that each cell is a mini-factory - that interfaces with the bloodstream, adjacent cells, and also with faraway endocrine glands and the brain. Cells have to communicate, and the DNA dictates not only the means of that commmunication, but the timing of it. It is now known that some of that communication entails protuberances on the outer surface of cells - at least in the bloodstream. That is how macrophages fight off disease microbes. These protuberances are designed to engage - by SHAPE - certain types of cells in the bloodstream. The question is this: HOW does the DNA tell the protuberances what shape to take?
This author is a mechanical design engineer, and I can tell the reader that the shape of a part in a machine does not happen by chance. There is a saying that "Form follows function." What the part NEEDS to do dictates what its shape will be. The function also dictates certain other attributes, such as its material and how it needs to be hardened and coated before being put into use. While the main function of cells in an organism is thought to be chemical, there is some research that has been done that indicates that electrical qualities are also important. And certainly in some organs shape is VERY important, such as the shape of the valves in the heart or the alveoli in the lungs. On reflection, one can probably think of many other examples where the shape determines much about the functioning of parts of organs and cells. Sperm cells have a tail that is their only means of locomotion, for example.
DNA and CymaticsEdit
All of this leads into the first of the speculations about DNA.
One of the areas of inquiry that may have a bearing on DNA and DNA manipulation is the relatively new and little-known field of Cymatics (kigh-MATT-ix).
Cymatics is the study of the relationship between sound and physical reality. Its foundations were laid by the work of musician and physicist Ernst Chladni (1756-1829), who laid the foundations of what became the science of acoustics; and by American mathematicians Nathaniel Bowditch and the French mathemetician Jules-Antoine Lissajous, who both independently studied the patterns made by the intersections of two sine waves, with some very interesting results.
With the efforts of Swiss doctor Hans Jenny, Cymatics began in 1967. It is he who coined the term, from the Greek Kyma, meaning "wave". Cymatics was basically defined as "the study of how vibrations, in the broad sense, generate and influence patterns, shapes and moving processes".
An introductory presentation on the work of these researchers can be found at "Cymatics - The Science of the Future?" .
Using tuneable crystal oscillators and a device of Jenny's called a "tonoscope", Jenny was able to produce patterns using granular materials or fluids on flat vibrating surfaces by vibrating them at varying frequencies and amplitudes, and with multiple sources. Chladni had worked with violin bows and sand on flat disks. Bowditch and Lissajous worked with sine waves, and found an amazing array of effects, depending on the angles that the waves made to each other. Jenny was even able to make fluids NOT flow downhill, using nothing more than vibrations.
How does all this tie in with genetics, though?
The Lyricus.org Music Introduction, as mentioned on the Genetics page of this topic, talks about "Certain acoustic and scalar vibrations cause the helix within the DNA molecule to unwind" and "Sound frequencies can be contoured to penetrate the DNA molecule, and expose and activate the nucleotides and, when useful, the corresponding nerve cells."
Those ways appear feasable, though far beyond this author's knowledge.
Speculation: Another, more fundamental way has to do with the very morphology of organisms.
In Excerpts from Liminal Cosmogeny, it says, "On the fringe of the central universe resides the Central Race, which contains the original human DNA template of creation." This is an amazing statement when approached from the normal human point of view. We think 1.) that humans evolved from animals on this planet, and 2.) that creatures on different planets will have evolved differently from slime and thus will have completely different DNA and look completely different than humans. Taking this as a possibility, one is forced to think about the basic chemistry that can make up a living organism. Ours is a hydrocarbon-based organic chemistry. Research in recent years has turned up the possibility of silicon-based organic chemistry, but it has a long way to go before becoming a fact - and possibly will not become a fact at all. Wrapping one's mind a round it, one can come to the conclusion that [i]maybe there is only one basis of organic chemistry - hydrocarbons[/i].
Thinking about the complexity of higher organisms, one can come to the tentative conclusion that maybe DNA can only work the one way it does with life on earth. There is only one set of elements, after all, and there are only so many ways that the elements can combine. In other words, it is a jigsaw puzzle that can only be put together in a very limited number of ways. It is entirely possible that what it says on Liminal Cosmogeny is true - that humans here are made of the same stuff as the Central Race. (As an aside, it would agree with Genesis, too, where it says that "Man was made in the image of God".)
Within mammals, the organs are amazingly consistent from one species to another. All have livers and stomaches and intestines, etc. Birds are almost entirely the same, though their bone structures and jaw/teeth arrangements are different, not to mention the wings. Reptiles and amphibians are similar in many features but differ in their blood systems. But the similarities are more abundant than the differences. Organic function is seen by evolutionists as the driving force behind their internal and gross structures. Yet, when looked at from the point of view of an engineer, the interrelatedness at the cellular level and below is beyond the best systems that scientists can plan today. The best scientists can do at this time is to discover HOW they are working, much less be able to design such systems themselves.
Yet, the prevailing theory is that these organic systems just kind of groped their way through the eons, discarding unworkable solutions and combining the functions of livers with the functions of bloodstreams and kidneys and spleens, etc., into a gestalt that is beyond our best minds. According to evolutionists, time is the answer to every doubt that comes up to the incremental, accidental, random action of mutation - even though the most complex mechanism they have ever seen is staring them in the face. It never occurs to them that someone may have actually PLANNED these organisms. It cannot occur to them - because that would mean the religionists may have a field day and laugh them out of town.
The work of Lloyd Pye "puts the hurt" to the Darwinists, without caving in to the religionists.
(to be continued . . . )