The DNA Paradox: How Unseen Molecules Became Unquestioned Facts

By Tam – 30 Q&As

So, where am I on the DNA story?

Do I think there is a chemical compound called DNA that is made up of smaller chemical compounds called genes? Yes.

Do I think that DNA is a double helix? I’m not so sure anymore and if pressed I’d say unlikely, or unproven.

Do I think that DNA is where all the information that makes me is stored? No.

The Emporer’s New Genes - Lies are Unbekoming

The narrative handed to us is that DNA, which is a chemical, is the library and genes, which are also chemicals, are its books. But if DNA is the repository of information (genes) needed to build me—and greater complexity requires more information—then why does a pufferfish have 22,000 genes while I’ve only got 18,000?

Do I think I’ve been lied to about DNA? Yes.

Is there an incentive to lie to me about DNA? Yes.

What is the incentive?

… without DNA theory as it’s currently portrayed, you lose genetics, and without genetics, modern virology collapses and the very foundation of vaccination (mass poisoning) crumbles.

One important tell that we are likely in the midst of sophistry is the absolute reliance on mathematical and computational modelling. DNA science is not observational science.

Dr Cowan in his recent livestream said that this paper, by Tam, is the best he has read yet on the subject of DNA science. That was enough for me to look it up and review it here.

DNA discovery, extraction and structure. A critical review – Critical Check

With thanks to Tam and Dr Thomas Cowan.

Related Post

The Emporer’s New Genes

Deep Dive Conversation Library (Bonus for Paid Subscribers)

This deep dive is based on the book’s contents.

Discussion No.20:

20 key insight and questions into DNA science

Thank you for support.

Analogy

Imagine you're an archaeologist from the future trying to understand how a modern car works, but your only method involves dissolving different cars in strong acid, boiling the components, and examining the residue. You mix the residue with various chemicals and observe the reactions. Based on these chemical reactions, you create mathematical models of what you think the car looked like and how it operated.

You never actually see an intact, functioning car - you only have the chemical residue to work with. Other archaeologists repeat your process with different cars and get similar chemical residues, so they agree with your theories. They create detailed diagrams of what they think cars looked like, based entirely on mathematical interpretations of chemical reactions. These diagrams become accepted as fact, even though no one has ever seen an actual functioning car.

When someone questions why you don't try to observe an intact car instead of dissolving it, you explain that your chemical dissolution method is the established scientific procedure, and it's now standardized in commercial "car analysis kits." The original papers describing why this destructive method was chosen are locked away in archives, untranslated, but everyone continues to use the method because that's how it's always been done.

This mirrors how early DNA research relied on destructive chemical processes and mathematical interpretations rather than direct observation, with assumptions becoming accepted as facts through repetition rather than verification. Just as this method would give a limited and possibly distorted understanding of cars, the chemical approach to DNA research might have given us an incomplete or distorted picture of DNA's true nature and function in living organisms.

12-point summary

1. Historical Discovery: DNA was first isolated by Miescher in 1869 through chemical treatment of pus from surgical bandages, leading to the discovery of what he called "nuclein." This marks the beginning of DNA research, though the methods used raised questions about what was actually being observed.

2. Extraction Methods: Early DNA extraction relied on harsh chemical treatments, including acids, bases, and heat. These methods haven't fundamentally changed in 150 years - modern DNA kits use similar principles with refined terminology, raising questions about whether these processes preserve or destroy the structures they aim to study.

3. Base Pair Paradox: The components of DNA (adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine) were supposedly isolated and identified by Kossel, yet remained invisible under both X-ray crystallography and electron microscopy. This creates a fundamental paradox: how can something be isolated and studied if it can't be directly observed?

4. Structural Evidence: The famous double helix structure was proposed based primarily on X-ray diffraction patterns, particularly Photo 51. However, this structure was largely theoretical, based on mathematical interpretations of scattered X-ray patterns rather than direct observation.

5. Research Accessibility: Many fundamental papers in DNA research, including those describing key extraction methods and structural analyses, remain untranslated or inaccessible. This limited access to primary sources means many scientists may have accepted findings without examining the original evidence.

6. Methodological Concerns: Control experiments were notably absent from early DNA research. Scientists didn't systematically test how their harsh chemical treatments might affect the materials they were studying, raising questions about whether their observations represented natural structures or artifacts of their methods.

7. Species Comparison: Early research assumed DNA structure was consistent across all species, despite extracting different components from various sources using different methods. Recent discoveries challenge this, showing DNA composition varies even between different body parts within the same organism.

8. Water's Role: Hydration proved crucial in DNA structure studies, with different water content producing different forms of DNA. This raises questions about which form, if any, represents DNA's natural state in living organisms.

9. Mathematical Modeling: Much of our understanding of DNA structure comes from mathematical interpretations rather than direct observation. Models like the Patterson Function were used to interpret X-ray patterns, but relied heavily on assumptions about molecular arrangement.

10. Scientific Process: The development of DNA theory shows how assumptions can become treated as facts through repetition rather than verification. Theoretical models were often accepted based on their mathematical consistency rather than empirical evidence.

11. Commercial Impact: The commercialization of DNA research through extraction kits has standardized methods but potentially discouraged innovation. Despite known superior methods, commercial kits continue to use traditional approaches, suggesting economic factors influence method selection more than scientific ones.

12. Fundamental Questions: Basic questions remain unanswered, including how a supposedly delicate structure survives harsh extraction procedures while being damaged by milder conditions, and why the inactive nuclear portion of cells would contain vital hereditary information rather than the active cytoplasm.

30 Questions & Answers

Question 1: What was Miescher's original method for isolating "nuclein" and why is it historically significant?

In 1869, Miescher collected leukocytes from pus on surgical bandages and subjected them to a series of chemical treatments. He soaked the bandages in sodium sulfate solution, filtered them, then washed the leucocytes with hydrochloric acid to remove cell walls and cytoplasm. The nuclei were then shaken in ether and treated with sodium carbonate followed by acidic solution. The resulting precipitate was what Miescher named "nuclein."

This method became historically significant because it established the first documented isolation of what would later be known as DNA. Miescher's observation that the precipitate would form in acid solutions and dissolve in alkali had never been seen before, leading him to declare it a novel substance. The finding was published two years later after confirmation by Hoppe-Seyler, marking the beginning of nucleic acid research.

Question 2: How did Hoppe-Seyler's confirmation experiments differ from Miescher's, and what were the implications?

Hoppe-Seyler chose a more invasive approach by obtaining leucocytes from dogs' abdomens. He surgically inserted lenses into cuts in dogs' abdominal areas and killed the animals within 14 days. The collected substances were subjected to microscopic examination, where he observed protoplasmic movements and shape changes. His process involved chopping, boiling in water and alcohol, acidification, alkalization, and treatment with artificial gastric fluid.

The implications were significant as Hoppe-Seyler also experimented with yeast cells, claiming they had similar structure to pus cells. His brutal methodology raised ethical concerns and demonstrated how early DNA research relied on destructive processes. His confirmation of Miescher's findings, despite using different source material and methods, helped establish nuclein as a legitimate scientific discovery.

Question 3: What role did Albrecht Kossel play in identifying DNA components between 1885 and 1901?

Kossel determined that nucleic acid comprised five compounds: adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine, and uracil, which are now considered the basic building blocks of DNA and RNA. He conducted his research using organs and body parts from local slaughterhouses, isolating different components from various sources - guanine from unspecified sources, adenine from ox pancreas, and thymine and cytosine from calf thymus.

His work earned him the 1910 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his contributions to cell chemistry. However, his research papers describing the isolation methodology are not freely available, and there's little evidence of his experiments being reproduced by others. This lack of accessibility to his fundamental research raises questions about the verification of his findings.

Question 4: How did Signer's DNA extraction method differ from others, and why is this significant?

Signer's method achieved notably high quality and quantity of DNA, with molecular weights up to 8 million when precautions against degradation were taken. His DNA remained stable in dry form, contrary to other methods requiring chemical solution suspension for preservation. This distinction was significant because it eliminated the need for special storage conditions while producing superior results.

Paradoxically, despite these advantages, Signer's methodology remains largely unknown and unpracticed. His research paper isn't translated or freely available, and modern extraction protocols don't incorporate his techniques. This raises questions about why a seemingly superior method was not adopted as the standard for DNA extraction.

Question 5: What was Photo 51's significance in DNA research, and how was it created?

Photo 51 was produced in May 1952 using X-ray crystallography on "Signer DNA" from calf thymus. Raymond Gosling, under Rosalind Franklin's supervision, exposed a single DNA fiber to X-rays for sixty-two hours while maintaining specific hydration through hydrogen gas pumping. The resulting diffraction pattern became fundamental to modeling DNA's structure.

The image showed a particular pattern of spots that suggested a helical structure, though Franklin and Gosling stated their X-ray data alone couldn't prove DNA was helical. The photo became crucial evidence for Watson and Crick's double helix model, though questions remained about whether the extended X-ray exposure might have damaged the DNA structure during imaging.

Question 6: How did early DNA extraction methods compare to modern extraction techniques?

Early extraction methods relied heavily on manual chemical processing, including acid washing, alkalization, and physical separation through filtering and shaking. These procedures were time-consuming and involved direct handling of biological materials, often requiring fresh surgical waste or animal specimens. The processes focused on separating cellular components through chemical reactions and physical manipulation.

Modern techniques utilize standardized DNA extraction kits with relabeled chemicals as buffers and rely heavily on centrifugation. The basic principle remains similar - mixing biological material with chemicals and separating components through spinning - but with more refined and standardized procedures. The extracted DNA is ultimately re-suspended in buffer, synthetic alcohol, or ultra-pure water, suggesting the fundamental approach hasn't changed significantly in 150 years.

Question 7: What were the specific chemical procedures used in early DNA extraction?

Early extraction procedures involved a sequence of chemical treatments beginning with sodium sulfate solution for initial separation, followed by hydrochloric acid to remove cell walls and cytoplasm. The process continued with ether treatment for further cytoplasm removal, then alternating treatments with sodium carbonate and acidic solutions to observe precipitation behavior.

These procedures were notably harsh, involving significant chemical manipulation including boiling in alcohol, treatment with artificial gastric fluid, and exposure to various acids and bases. The process relied heavily on the material's reaction to different chemical environments, with scientists using these reactions to identify and separate cellular components.

Question 8: How did X-ray crystallography contribute to DNA structure understanding?

X-ray crystallography provided the first visual evidence of DNA's structural arrangement through diffraction patterns. The technique involved shooting X-ray beams at crystallized DNA samples, producing two-dimensional patterns that scientists could interpret to understand the three-dimensional structure. The interpretation heavily depended on the observer's knowledge and experience in mapping spots and determining their strength and density.

However, the technique had limitations. The base pairs were considered "transparent" to X-rays, and their existence was largely assumed based on theoretical molecular structure. The suggestion of a double-helix structure came primarily from missing points in the diffraction pattern, rather than direct observation of the structure itself.

Question 9: What role did hydration play in DNA structure analysis?

Hydration proved crucial in DNA structure analysis, particularly in Franklin and Gosling's work with NaDNA. The DNA was saturated with water to form a gel, and specific hydration levels were maintained during X-ray exposure through hydrogen gas pumping. The structure's appearance and behavior varied significantly based on water content, with different hydration levels producing distinct diffraction patterns.

This relationship between hydration and structure raised questions about the nature of DNA itself. The fact that NaDNA formed a gel when hydrated, while modern DNA samples don't exhibit this behavior, suggested either different molecular components or the presence of additional compounds in the historical samples. This disparity remains unexplained in the scientific literature.

Question 10: How did mathematical models like Patterson Function influence DNA structure interpretation?

Mathematical models, particularly the Patterson Function, were used to interpret X-ray diffraction patterns and suggest possible three-dimensional structures of DNA. These models were applied to both hydrated and non-hydrated forms of DNA to establish structural characteristics and molecular positioning. The interpretations relied heavily on assumptions about molecular arrangement and the positioning of nucleotides.

The use of mathematical models introduced a level of theoretical interpretation to DNA structure analysis. While these models provided a framework for understanding the diffraction patterns, they relied on pre-existing assumptions about molecular structure and composition. The conclusions drawn from these mathematical interpretations formed the basis for much of our current understanding of DNA structure, despite being largely theoretical in nature.

Question 11: What evidence supported the double helix structure proposal?

The double helix structure proposal primarily relied on interpretation of X-ray diffraction patterns, particularly Photo 51. The key evidence came from missing spots in the diffraction pattern of hydrated NaDNA, which Watson and Crick interpreted as indicating a double-chain structure. However, this interpretation was largely theoretical, as the same diffraction pattern without the missing spots would have suggested a single spiral structure.

The supporting evidence was largely circumstantial and based on mathematical models rather than direct observation. Watson and Crick's paper repeatedly used words like "suggested," "assumed," and "believed," indicating their proposal was largely theoretical. They admitted their structure needed to be "checked against more exact results" and that previously published X-ray data was "insufficient for a rigorous test."

Question 12: How were base pairs theoretically determined without direct observation?

Base pairs were theoretically determined through chemical extraction processes performed by Kossel between 1885 and 1901, isolating adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine from various animal sources. The pairing mechanism was later suggested based on Chargaff's findings about the ratios of these components, though Chargaff himself never proposed such a bonding mechanism.

Remarkably, these base pairs remained invisible under both X-ray crystallography and electron microscopy, yet their existence and positioning were assumed in interpreting DNA's structure. The paradox of being able to extract and isolate something that couldn't be directly observed raised significant questions about the validity of these structural assumptions.

Question 13: What role did water content play in DNA structure studies?

Water content proved crucial in Franklin and Gosling's studies of DNA structure, particularly with NaDNA. Their research showed that the structure's appearance and behavior changed significantly based on hydration levels, with different forms emerging under varying moisture conditions. They published multiple papers examining how humidity affected DNA's diffraction patterns.

The relationship between water content and DNA structure raised important questions about the natural state of DNA. Franklin and Gosling found that drying didn't break phosphate-phosphate links but rather "cemented them more strongly," while removing water stressed and distorted the structure. This suggested that water played a fundamental role in maintaining DNA's structural integrity.

Question 14: How did different forms of DNA (A-DNA vs B-DNA) influence structural understanding?

The existence of different DNA forms, particularly A-DNA (non-hydrated) and B-DNA (hydrated), emerged from Franklin and Gosling's work with varying hydration levels. These different forms produced distinct diffraction patterns, with B-DNA's pattern becoming particularly influential in suggesting the double helix structure through its missing spots.

The observation of multiple DNA forms complicated the understanding of DNA's "natural" state. The ability of DNA to adopt different conformations based on environmental conditions raised questions about which form, if any, represented DNA's true biological structure. This variability challenged the notion of a single, universal DNA structure.

Question 15: What were the key differences between theoretical and observed DNA structures?

The theoretical DNA structure proposed by Watson and Crick relied heavily on assumptions about molecular arrangements and base pair interactions that couldn't be directly observed. Their model incorporated theoretical components like specific base pairing mechanisms and angular measurements between residues, none of which were directly verified through observation.

In contrast, observed structures through X-ray diffraction showed only general patterns of molecular arrangement, with many key features remaining invisible or ambiguous. The gap between theoretical models and empirical observations was bridged largely through mathematical interpretations and assumptions about molecular behavior, rather than direct evidence.

Question 16: What were the main criticisms of early DNA extraction methods?

Early DNA extraction methods faced fundamental criticisms regarding their destructive nature and assumptions about cellular preservation. Critics questioned how scientists could be certain that acid washing destroyed only cell walls and cytoplasm while leaving nuclei intact. The harsh chemical treatments, including boiling and acid exposure, raised doubts about whether the extracted material truly represented cellular components in their natural state.

Another major criticism centered on the definition of extraction itself. True extraction should involve removing particles of interest from surrounding matter for direct observation. Instead, early DNA extraction relied on chemical washing and reaction observation, with conclusions drawn from chemical behaviors rather than direct observation of isolated components.

Question 17: How did control experiments factor into DNA research?

Control experiments were notably absent from early DNA research, raising significant methodological concerns. No efforts were made to determine how the harsh chemicals and procedures might affect the studied materials, with water serving as the only control because it was assumed to contain no DNA. However, this control was inadequate as water also lacked solid matter to undergo the extraction procedures.

This lack of proper controls meant that scientists couldn't distinguish between natural cellular components and artifacts produced by their extraction methods. The absence of systematic control experiments to validate findings and eliminate alternative explanations represented a significant weakness in early DNA research methodology.

Question 18: What role did assumptions play in DNA structure determination?

Assumptions played a central role in determining DNA structure, with many key features of the molecule being assumed rather than observed. Watson and Crick's model relied on numerous assumptions about molecular arrangements, base pairing mechanisms, and structural regularity. These assumptions were often made to match theoretical models rather than emerging from direct observation.

The interpretation of X-ray diffraction patterns also relied heavily on assumptions about molecular structure and composition. Scientists assumed the existence and arrangement of base pairs despite their inability to observe them directly, and mathematical models were applied based on assumed molecular configurations rather than empirical evidence.

Question 19: How did chemical treatments potentially affect DNA structure observation?

Chemical treatments used in DNA extraction and analysis potentially altered or destroyed the very structures scientists aimed to study. The use of harsh chemicals, including acids, bases, and organic solvents, along with physical processes like boiling and centrifugation, raised questions about whether the observed structures represented natural DNA configuration or artifacts of the preparation process.

This concern was particularly relevant given DNA's supposed sensitivity to environmental conditions. While DNA was described as a delicate molecule easily damaged by heat and chemicals, the extraction processes subjected it to extreme conditions that should have destroyed its structure. This paradox was never adequately addressed in early DNA research.

Question 20: What were the limitations of X-ray crystallography in DNA structure determination?

X-ray crystallography faced significant limitations in determining DNA structure. The technique could only produce two-dimensional diffraction patterns requiring substantial interpretation to suggest three-dimensional structures. This interpretation relied heavily on the observer's knowledge and assumptions, making it highly subjective.

Moreover, the technique couldn't directly visualize many key features of DNA, including the base pairs that were central to the proposed structure. The extended exposure times required for imaging (62 hours in Photo 51) raised questions about potential radiation damage to the sample, as X-rays were known to damage biological materials. These limitations meant that much of what was "observed" was actually inferred through theoretical interpretation.

Question 21: How were early DNA findings validated by the scientific community?

Validation of early DNA findings primarily occurred through replication of chemical reactions rather than direct observation of structures. Hoppe-Seyler's confirmation of Miescher's work involved repeating similar chemical procedures on different source materials and obtaining similar chemical byproducts. This approach established procedural repeatability but didn't necessarily validate the underlying structural claims.

The scientific community accepted findings largely based on chemical reaction patterns and mathematical interpretations rather than direct structural observation. Key papers, like Watson and Crick's model, were accepted despite explicitly stating their structure was "unproved" and required more rigorous testing. This acceptance pattern suggests validation relied more on theoretical consistency than empirical verification.

Question 22: What role did research paper availability play in DNA science development?

Research paper availability significantly impacted DNA science development, with many crucial papers remaining untranslated or inaccessible. Kossel's fundamental work on DNA components, Signer's superior extraction method, and even Watson and Crick's seminal paper in Nature weren't freely available. This limited access to primary sources restricted scientific scrutiny and replication of key findings.

The lack of accessibility to foundational research raises questions about how many scientists actually read the original papers versus accepting summarized findings. This information gap potentially led to unchallenged assumptions being treated as established facts, particularly regarding extraction methods and structural determinations.

Question 23: How were different species' DNA compared in early research?

Early DNA comparisons across species involved extracting components from various sources - calf thymus, ox pancreas, fish sperm, and other animal tissues. These comparisons assumed cellular and nuclear content similarity across species based on Cell Theory, despite extracting different components from different organisms using varying methods.

Recent discoveries challenge this assumption, showing DNA composition varies between different body parts within the same organism. The early comparison methodology, extracting different components from different species and assuming equivalence, represents a fundamental flaw in establishing DNA's universal structure.

Question 24: What evidence supported DNA structure consistency across species?

Wilkins claimed to have obtained similar X-ray photographs from various sources including calf and pig thymus, wheat germ, herring sperm, human tissue, and bacteriophage. However, these photographs weren't publicly shared, nor were the extraction and photography methodologies detailed. The only published comparison, an E. coli diffraction pattern, showed significant differences from NaDNA patterns.

The assertion of structural consistency across species relied more on theoretical assumptions than empirical evidence. The lack of comparative studies using consistent methodology across species, combined with the absence of control experiments, weakened claims about DNA's universal structure.

Question 25: How did Nobel Prize recognition influence DNA research acceptance?

Nobel Prize recognition, particularly Kossel's 1910 award for cell chemistry and DNA component isolation, lent significant credibility to early DNA research. This institutional validation helped establish certain findings as scientific fact, despite methodological concerns and limited access to original research papers.

The prestigious recognition potentially discouraged critical examination of fundamental assumptions and methodologies. The Nobel Prize's authority may have contributed to acceptance of findings based more on theoretical models than empirical evidence, influencing the direction of subsequent DNA research.

Question 26: How did DNA extraction methods influence modern molecular biology?

DNA extraction methods established a pattern of relying on chemical treatments and reactions to study biological structures. This approach evolved into modern molecular biology's dependence on chemical manipulation rather than direct observation. Current DNA extraction kits essentially follow the same principles as early methods, using updated terminology but similar chemical processes.

This methodological foundation influenced how molecular biology developed as a field, emphasizing chemical manipulation over direct structural observation. The acceptance of harsh chemical treatments as valid analytical tools shaped approaches to studying cellular components and molecular structures.

Question 27: What questions remained unanswered about DNA structure and function?

Fundamental questions persisted about how a supposedly delicate structure could survive harsh extraction procedures while being damaged by milder environmental conditions. The paradox of extracting and isolating invisible base pairs, yet incorporating them into structural models, remained unresolved. The relationship between DNA's structure and its proposed role in heredity lacked direct evidence.

Questions also remained about why the inactive nuclear portion of cells would contain vital hereditary information, rather than the active cytoplasm. The lack of direct observation of unprocessed DNA in its natural state left uncertainty about its true structure and function in living organisms.

Question 28: How did early DNA research influence modern genetic understanding?

Early DNA research established a framework of assumptions that became foundational to modern genetics. The acceptance of theoretical models based on chemical reactions and mathematical interpretations, rather than direct observation, set a precedent for how genetic structures and functions would be studied and understood.

This influence extended to related fields like genetics, RNA research, and molecular biology, all building upon similar methodological approaches and assumptions. The treatment of theoretical models as factual without direct empirical verification became a common pattern in genetic research.

Question 29: What role did scientific assumptions play in DNA theory development?

Scientific assumptions formed the core of DNA theory development, from basic extraction methods to structural models. Researchers assumed harsh chemicals would selectively destroy certain cellular components while preserving others, that extracted components represented natural structures, and that mathematical models could accurately predict molecular arrangements without direct observation.

These assumptions became self-reinforcing as each new discovery built upon previous theoretical frameworks. The lack of control experiments and direct structural observation meant many fundamental assumptions went unchallenged, becoming treated as established facts through repetition rather than verification.

Question 30: How did commercial applications affect DNA research evolution?

Commercial applications standardized DNA research through products like extraction kits, but potentially limited methodological innovation. Despite known superior methods like Signer's, commercial kits followed traditional extraction approaches, suggesting economic rather than scientific factors drove method selection.

The commercialization of DNA research tools may have discouraged critical examination of fundamental methods and assumptions. The focus shifted to standardization and reproducibility of existing techniques rather than questioning or improving basic methodological approaches.

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

For COVID vaccine injury

Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.