DNA does not exist

0  2017-03-30 by factsnotfeelings

Introduction

The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.

DNA Extraction from cheek cells

Depending on your curriculum, you may have been shown this straightforward method of isolating DNA.

The technique is as follows:

  • Add soap to cheek cells in saliva, to dissolve the cell membranes.

  • Add salt to the saliva, to help the DNA precipitate.

  • Add isopropyl alcohol.

We know that hamburgers lose around 50% of their weight after cooking. This is due to the water content.

And yet when you squeeze a raw hamburger, you would struggle to release even 1% of all the water in the meat (notice that zero water comes out?).

It isn’t possible to extract any or most of the water in our body tissues, so why would it be possible with DNA?

Furthermore, stringy saliva is a known symptom of dehydration. Adding salt to the saliva produces this effect. No DNA here, just normal clumped up saliva.

It could also be fungus.

DNA extraction from fruit

The same procedure is used here and the alcohol is supposedly added to precipitate the DNA.

The strawberry contains citric acid, a carboxylic acid. When alcohol is added to a carboxylic acid, an ester is formed. Most esters are insoluble in water.

The precipitate seen in the video is probably an ester, not ‘DNA’.

X-ray diffraction of DNA

The double Helix structure of DNA was discovered using x-ray crystallography in the early 1950s.

This picture and others like it are the only pieces of data we have regarding the structure of DNA.

If DNA were really a double helix, why are the only pictures we see taken from above?

Why are there no pictures of DNA from the side? Why don't we ever see the classic figure of 8 style picture like this?

X-ray crystallography involves 360 degree rotation, so we should see the DNA molecule in all orientations.

Assuming of course, that X-rays are actually real and the images aren’t just CGI cartoons.

Techniques to learn about DNA synthesis

The narrative of DNA helicase separating the strands and DNA polymerase adding bases to the exposed strands, is simply one big story. The microspace equivalent of the stories about the Big Bang, or how the moon was supposedly formed during a collision between the earth and an asteroid etc.

The facts related to DNA synthesis were determined through the use of cell fractionation and radioactive labelling.

As explained by Harold Hillman in his book Certainty and Uncertainty in Biochemical Techniques, summarised here, there are many assumptions behind the use of these techniques. Some of these assumptions have either already been proven to be untrue, or violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Conclusion

DNA does not exist. They may be able to perform race based testing and disease prediction by examining our bacteria, but there is no such molecule as ‘DNA’ and all genetics science is one big hoax.

‘DNA forensics’ is yet another hoax. Something which has been implicitly acknowledged by the MSM. FBI admits flaws in hair analysis over decades

The totally made up ‘structure’ of DNA closely resembles the satanic caduceus, seen here on the statue of Baphomet. Truth in plain sight...

If they are willing to tell obvious lies, such as the idea that babies feel no pain, then they definitely lie about things which we cannot easily verify...

36 comments

n/a  Blakwulf 2017-03-30

such as the idea that babies feel no pain

I've never heard anyone ever say that.

n/a  GlenCompton 2017-03-30

I have heard it in regards to circumcision. I don't believe it, but I HAVE heard that.

n/a  Blakwulf 2017-03-30

I've never heard that. Closest i've heard is the classic "they won't remember so who cares" argument.

n/a  GlenCompton 2017-03-30

That is pretty cold!

You could make a similar argument involuntary Euthanasia.

n/a  Blakwulf 2017-03-30

You mean murder? lol

n/a  GlenCompton 2017-03-30

Well, if you say it like that, it sounds worse.

:p

n/a  Edogawa1983 2017-03-30

this is the only argument I heard too.

of course it will cause pain..

n/a  materhern 2017-03-30

We know that hamburgers lose around 50% of their weight after cooking. This is due to the water content. And yet when you squeeze a raw hamburger, you would struggle to release even 1% of all the water in the meat (notice that zero water comes out?). It isn’t possible to extract any or most of the water in our body tissues, so why would it be possible with DNA?

Hamburgers lose 50% of their weight due to FAT, which easily liquifies at cooking temperatures. Not water content.

And ground up hamburger meat that has extra fillers in it is not even close to being comparable to human tissue. What on earth made you think this was some kind of good comparison?

n/a  WarSanchez 2017-03-30

Easiest way to prove your point is baking or grilling a meat patty after you squish one in your hands.

OP has obviously never cooked hand made beef patties.

n/a  materhern 2017-03-30

I love homemade burgers. I grill them, pan fry them, even have baked them. I agree. They haven't actually cooked meat.

n/a  Edogawa1983 2017-03-30

so I imagine cooking a 100% lean beef patty wouldn't shrink as much?

n/a  materhern 2017-03-30

It doesn't.

n/a  Ginkgopsida 2017-03-30

Geneticist here: You are retarded

n/a  factsnotfeelings 2017-03-30

feel free to refute anything in the post

n/a  SugarsuiT 2017-03-30

regular person here. agree with Gink.

n/a  therealsquirrel95 2017-03-30

ironic username

n/a  Ambiguously_Ironic 2017-03-30

Rule 10. Make an argument and lose the insults or get lost. This is your warning.

n/a  Ginkgopsida 2017-03-30

Oh, wow. First time I see R10 enforced. Keep it up.

n/a  aleksh3009 2017-03-30

What the fuck is this fucking shit? "The totally made up ‘structure’ of DNA closely resembles the satanic caduceus, seen here on the statue of Baphomet"

TOP KEK funniest conspiracy shit ive read in a long time

n/a  soonerchad 2017-03-30

Yeah fuck him for thinking for himself, amiright?

n/a  aleksh3009 2017-03-30

He didnt even say it was a theory. He just said thats how it is. And his "proof" is psudoscientific,

n/a  soonerchad 2017-03-30

So what? What if he would have said all that and someone else said well this is wrong about you're saying but I do believe x is the right thing, then someone added something else and it turned out something big. Imo its good hes thinking. You could have just said something without the ridicule. But hey its your life do what you want.

n/a  casualjane 2017-03-30

Presenting a series of false claims, as fact, is not good thinking... in my opinion.

n/a  soonerchad 2017-03-30

Im sure people can decide for themselves if its good info or not. If you believe something that some random person puts in a conspiracy forum you might rethink your actions.

n/a  casualjane 2017-03-30

Yea, we have decided for ourselves, it's not good info.

n/a  therealsquirrel95 2017-03-30

theres so much of that shit in this sub...people stating some bullshit they came up with as fact with some lame nonsense "logic" that got them to some whacked conclusion. its becoming harder to weed through the lameness here.

n/a  joe_jaywalker 2017-03-30

This is a great effort post, I don't care what anyone says, I'm going to be pondering it the rest of the afternoon.

What do you say to Kary Mullis's discovery of the polymerase chain reaction?

n/a  factsnotfeelings 2017-03-30

The only way to verify the results of PCR would be through the use of Gel Electrophoresis.

From the looks of things, there is no way of distinguishing between a tube containing one strand, mixed in with nucleotide bases, and a tube containing the same no. of bases before, but with all bases lined up to from the double helix strand. Both tubes would obviously weigh the same, more complex is the argument over the charge.

Then you have the idea of separating the DNA strands by heating, and those same strands coming together again in perfect alignment when cooled.

Every complex biological tissue is changed irreversibly by being heated, in order to believe in the idea of 'PCR' we have to assume that DNA is a 'special case' in biological sciences. A delicate and easily damaged molecule on the one hand, but also capable of being heated and cooled at will, like a ready meal...

I might have to get back to you if I remember anything else that's relevant to your question, but for now, I don't believe that PCR is a feasible process.

n/a  joe_jaywalker 2017-03-30

Yeah I always wondered how the opposite strands of DNA just annealed perfectly together just by reducing the heat. You would think there would be all kinds of configuration problems. You're certainly giving me something to think about.

n/a  casualjane 2017-03-30

This is another one of those posts that's so inaccurate and so full of disinformation that it's not even worth contesting.

n/a  soonerchad 2017-03-30

Dont stop OP! Keep thinking outside the box.

n/a  soonerchad 2017-03-30

Look I got two downvotes for telling someone to keep using their brain. As Trump puts it: Sad!

n/a  dsannes 2017-03-30

lol

n/a  skorponok 2017-03-30

Read Rutherfords book. They discovered DNA and could see it and had broken the human genome code in the 1920s brah

n/a  pokeurmom 2017-03-30

Upvote. I got lost reading things but you make a good case. I wish instead of insults and battery you would receive scientific evidence to disprove your stance. But I guess its good that the baggage came out. It usually means your on to something

n/a  5arge 2017-03-30

So many words, so little meaning.

n/a  GlenCompton 2017-03-30

I have heard it in regards to circumcision. I don't believe it, but I HAVE heard that.