Can DNA Tell the Whole Story?

The Morphogenetic Field and the Future of Our Genes

Our genes have long been ballyhooed as either a death sentence or the touch of genius, bestowing upon us anything from pristine health and an agile mind, to cancer, neurological disease, or birth ‘defects.’ But what if our fate is determined by something else? What if our genes were merely building blocks, and a greater intelligence was in charge of whether we could make a basketball free throw, or die at 46 due to a genetic predisposition for cardiac arrest?

Genetic determinism is the idea that genes, to the exclusion of environment or the field of our awareness and experience, determine how an organism turns out. You could call it the extreme version of nature vs. nurture, wherein our DNA tells us everything we can know about what something will be.

The aforementioned idea dictates that generational programming accounts for everything. We’ve become so obsessed with genes, in fact, that we test for virtually everything—from genes for breast or ovarian cancer, to clues regarding ancestral roots. It isn’t as though such information isn’t useful, or even fun, but it can be deceptively limiting. While we can learn if our great-great grandparents were likely to fish or have red hair, we can also find less savory ‘genes’ that foreshadow more somber outcomes.

One of the greatest intellectual roadblocks to healing ourselves—to say nothing of understanding the universe—is the assumption that genes determine our reality, or the likelihood our lives and health will follow a predetermined path. This assumption is based on yet another fallacy—that we are just a combination of mechanical, chemical, and hormonal interactions—what Newtonian science would call ‘modern medicine.’ Even after mapping out 3.2 billion base pairs in the Human Genome Project, it turns out we are no closer to healing aberrant DNA than ever. While scientists were looking at the four, single letters in a protein recipe and investigating how they carry out bodily functions, they forgot to make room for consciousness.

Instead of our destiny being determined by our genes, it now seems more likely to be guided by what science calls ‘epigenetics.’ Our genes grow in a soup of resonant fields created by thoughts and intentions. Rupert Sheldrake, the noted biologist and author of over 80 scientific papers on the subject, has long railed against mainstream science and tried heroically for decades to break through its dogmas. He has offered a theory, which he calls morphic resonance. Science Set Free, his latest book, challenges prevailing thought, and discusses a governing field which he calls, ‘the extended mind.’

“Morphic resonance,” says Sheldrake, “is a process whereby self-organizing systems inherit a memory from previous similar systems. In its most general formulation, morphic resonance means that the so-called laws of nature are more like habits. The hypothesis of morphic resonance also leads to a radically new interpretation of memory storage in the brain and of biological inheritance. Memory need not be stored in material traces inside brains, which are more like TV receivers than video recorders, tuning into influences from the past. And biological inheritance need not all be coded in the genes, or in epigenetic modifications of the genes; much of it depends on morphic resonance from previous members of the species. Thus each individual inherits a collective memory from past members of the species, and also contributes to the collective memory, affecting other members of the species in the future.”

Another controversial biologist Dr. Bruce Lipton has pointed out that just one set of gene blueprints can result in over 30,000 different possible outcomes. In multiple adoption studies conducted in the 1880s and 1990s it was found that, regardless of biological origin, children raised in the same family have surprisingly similar health outcomes.

Researchers found that children, who did not share particular gene combinations predisposing them to certain types of cancer but were adopted into families with certain prevailing attitudes and emotions, often developed the same cancers as their host families. Social context also played a significant role in whether these adopted children developed a disease. It was surprisingly uncommon for the genes alone to determine health scenarios.

The heretofore-accepted scientific paradigm of genetic determinacy is being turned on its head. Genes themselves are not locked into a specific code, can change on a daily basis, and they do just that. As Lipton explains in a lecture: “The name protein means “primary element” (from proteios, Gr.). Proteins are the primary components of all plant and animal cells. A human is made of 100,000 different proteins. Proteins are linear “chains,” whose molecular “links” are comprised of amino acid molecules. Each of the 20 different amino acids has a unique shape, so that when linked together in a chain, the resulting proteins fold into elaborate, three-dimensional “wire sculptures.” The protein sculpture’s pattern is determined by the sequence of its amino acid links. The balancing of electromagnetic charges along the protein’s chain serves to control the “final” shape of the sculpture. The unique shape of a protein sculpture is referred to as its “conformation.” In the manner of a lock and key, protein sculptures compliment the shape of environmental molecules (which include other proteins). When proteins interlock with the complementary environmental molecules, they assemble into complex structures (similar to the way cogged “gears” intermesh to make a watch).”

This and other discoveries made in the last hundred years have allowed scientists willing to go against the mainstream to understand that the ‘primary components’ of life are still orchestrated by something more.

The morphic resonance theory postulates that, even though we appear separate, we are bound together in a common field, and it is within this field that communication (among cells, DNA, particles, etc.) takes place. While Newtonian science explained gravitation, and outlined the invisible force that holds all things together, the same scientific reasoning also tended to divide everything into separate, mechanistic, material categories. But still, why is an apple different from a tomato, or a bee from a persimmon flower? How does the DNA know to make a tree or an ant? A human being or a salamander?

The word ‘morphic’ comes from the Greek, meaning ‘form,’ and the morphogentic field determines how things take form—not only living things, but inanimate, non-sentient matter as well. While genes play an important part in organizing us into things, they don’t explain how the organization itself happens. After all, apes and humans, fruit flies and worms are all very similar, genetically. The theory of morphogenesis supposes that something imposes a pattern of organization on a field—producing specific outcomes in matter. These fields are not fixed—they evolve. This is part of the reason you can see a child that doesn’t have cancer in her genes, end up developing the disease when she is exposed to a ‘field’ that consistently creates it. That is also why some people with cancer-causing genes don’t get cancer at all. Sheldrake thinks these messages in the field are passed down through a ‘non-local’ resonance, or what the ancients called consciousness.

In other interesting recent research we learn that in vertebrate embryos two bilaterally symmetric eyes arise from the anterior neural plate. This poses an interesting question—did both eyes share a common developmental origin, or did they originate separately. Does all of nature spring forward in a Big Bang moment, or does it exist as merely a possibility in a metaphysical realm waiting to become ‘real’?

Whatever is ultimately discovered to be the underlying cause or pattern of development, it has been noted that morphic fields of social groups connect group members, even when they are far apart, and provide channels of communication affecting the genome at a distance. This is the foundation of what has been called ‘distance healing’ (http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/03/17/ developing-unseen-powers-practical-guide/), and it may even explain how entire forests communicate beyond the network of fungi found on a forest floor. In more than 61 studies on distance healing, along with 120 additional randomized controlled studies involving thousands of miles of geographic distance, DNA changes and spontaneous healings occurred repeatedly.

It turns out that while our DNA code is fixed for life, the epigenome (the record of the chemical changes to the DNA and histone proteins of an organism that can be passed down to an organism’s offspring) is flexible. Epigenomes react to signals from the outside world, such as diet and stress. Even in differentiated cells, signals fine-tune cell functions through changes in gene expression. A flexible epigenome allows us to adjust to changes in the world around us and to learn from our experiences. This happens both singularly and collectively.

Epigenome signaling can happen from inside a cell, from neighboring cells, or from the environment entirely outside the cell. In early life, our mother’s nutrition and state of mind helps to develop the epigenome. It follows that, if she is flooded with stress hormones, or eats lots of kale and spinach, her genes will be affected. As life continues, a wider variety of environmental influences shape the epigenome—from social interactions, physical activity, and diet and emotional reactions to stimulus. Progressing into old age, and throughout life, epigenomic activity is triggered by what is happening in the outside world, shutting down or activating certain sets of genes.

 

Changing Our Mind and Our Genes

As billions of dollars are poured into genetic research, and the genetic alteration of everything from mosquitoes, to bananas, to people, are we missing something? If genes are not deterministic at all, and we can change what we become through prayer, meditation, distance healing, intention, etc., then why are we wasting so much energy and time on dissecting the mere building blocks themselves?

Even our memories, it turns out, are not contained within the ‘structure’ of our brains. Biochemists aren’t particularly interested in this idea, but philosophers and physics geniuses are. The genes of your arm bones and your big toe are made from the same cells, in fact. Some cells simply turn into an arm and others a leg, depending on what is called for in the creation of ‘you.’ When the Humane Genome Project was launched, scientists expected to find that we had hundreds of thousands of genes, but it turns out we have only around twenty-three thousand—this suggests genes are not the be-all and end-all of our mental, physical, or psychological makeup. A sea urchin has twenty-six thousand genes and rice has thirty-eight thousand. That’s quite a slap in the face to any deterministic stance. Geneticists, like those in the biotech industry, keep begging for more time to figure it out, but they seem like children playing with wooden blocks, trying to build the Taj Mahal.

If genes are, in fact, deterministic, then how can distance healers mitigate complications with heart bypass patients simply through the sending of prayerful healing? How can the myriad other studies showing similar outcomes be ignored? They can’t honestly, but mainstream science does it anyway, because it has left out a primary component to the universal design—spirit. Our intentions, our beliefs, and our ‘higher selves,’ or spirits, have their own programming. Science simply does not yet understand how this works.

In times like these, it is worth remembering that even our own bodies can be changed with thoughts, intention, and an elevation of consciousness. Some, like Carl Jung, have believed memory could survive the death of the brain and was stored in something akin to akashic records, which suggest we all may have the innate wisdom to overcome anything.

 

Meditation, Music, and Genes

“After 8 hours, the meditators [in a study published in the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology] showed a range of genetic and molecular differences, including reduced levels of pro-inflammatory genes. This correlates with faster physical recovery from a stressful situation.”

Music can also change the genetic structures of the brain. Interesting research has arisen from some accustomed to viewing the human being through a deterministic lens (http://journal.frontiersin.org/ResearchTopic/926): “There are now over 100 music neuroimaging studies from which it is clear that the brains of musicians and nonmusicians differ. These relate to size, morphology, density, connectivity, and function that occur throughout the brain and support a range of cognitive processes that are often improved in musicians. As we move forward, a challenge for research is to address the causal direction of these differences. Does becoming a musician cause the brain to change, or do musicians have different brains to begin with?”

The Monroe Institute has shown how thought can cause molecular changes to our genes, repeatedly. We can’t change the genotype, but gene expression is mediated by the choices that we make and the behaviors we choose, which all arise from thought. Thought, in a purely Newtonian aspect, is said to be merely a neurochemical process regulated by changes of membrane electric potentials and, respectively, changes of concentrations of neurotransmitters, neuromodulators, and neurohormones. Could these affect how we act? Just ask those who are chronically depressed, or who have an abundance of serotonin circulating in their bodies.

Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz has also shown that sound vibrations change genetic make-up. The frequency 528 Hz, apparently, offers the ability to heal DNA. Most of us, however, are subjected primarily to what is called the “Equal Temperament Scale,” based on 440 Hz., set up over two centuries ago to overcome common difficulties in the tuning of musical instruments. (In the system every pair of adjacent notes has an identical frequency ratio. As pitch is perceived roughly as the logarithm of frequency, this means that the perceived “distance” from every note to its nearest neighbor is the same for every note in the system. —Wikipedia) The International Standards Organization (ISO) endorsed the 440Hz standard in 1953, but the more natural harmonics of 432 Hz, it is argued, is better for our bodies and minds. Some have strayed from that path, though, and even some celebrated musicians have returned to a more natural harmonic frequency to tune their instruments.

Could our DNA be under attack by the government? Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, it is said, ordered a change from 432 Hz to 440 Hz to alter people’s behavior and make them more compliant. Some such forced alterations have, it is argued, happened frequently throughout history. To fight back, the greatest weapon we have may be our own conscious awareness, and our ability to choose a different path from one prescribed by the powers-that-be.

While there may be no deterministic outcome, we can still determine what we will do about things as we find them.

 

The above is an edited version of a story first published in the Internet publication Waking Times. It is published here with the permission of the author. Christina Sarich is a musician, yogi, humanitarian and freelance writer. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body and Mind Through the Art of Yoga.

By Christina Sarich