Morphic Fields & DNA

Life on Earth Is Not Explained by Genetics Alone

We are assured by those high priests of scientism, geneticists, and biochemists and biologists that heredity is controlled solely by DNA. Genes (DNA segments) carry all the information necessary to replicate a human being, a whale, or a redwood tree. Case closed. But there are just a few small problems with this.

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a very long, complex chain molecule consisting of two “spines” twisted into an end-for-end double helix and connected by “bridges.” Each bridge is a base pair of two nucleobases: guanine bonded to cytosine, or adenine bonded to thymine. On each spine a nucleobase is attached to deoxyribose (C5H10O4), a sugar. This in turn is bonded to a phosphate group (PO4H2), and the nucleobase, sugar, and phosphate combined are a “nucleotide.” RNA (ribonucleic acid) has but one spine, and the sugar is ribose (C5H10O5). The base pairs in RNA are slightly different than in DNA, with guanine bonded to cytosine, but the adenine bonds to urasil. All of these nucleobases are themselves very long and complex organic molecules. The microscopic nucleus of a cell typically contains some 10 miles of DNA; this is possible because the strands are so thin. Each individual “twist” is some 34 angstroms long, and the width varies from 20 to 26 angstroms. An angstrom is one hundred millionth of a centimeter. A helix, like the serpent staff of Aesculapeus, is an archetypal shape. Some have suggested that each DNA twist is a Fibonacci sequence, but actually the width varies too much to prove that; the appropriate ratio would have to be exactly 21 to 34. Still, it is worth pointing out that the DNA chain and, indeed, the entire cell at least looks very much like a constructed machine, and DNA also resembles a kind of antenna.

A long and complex segment of DNA believed to carry inherited traits is a gene, and many thousands of genes make up a chromosome; the longest human chromosome contains 220 million base pairs. At each end of each chromosome is a protective sequence called a ‘telomere.’ Each time the cell replicates, part of the telomere is lost; it is thought that this may be at least one cause of the aging process. A gene may “code” for a particular trait, like eye color, and a variant of this (like one for blue eyes) is an allele. All the genes in a cell constitute its genome, and the entire genotype of an organism is believed to produce its phenotype, or physical structure.

Supposedly the genes do all of this by “coding” for the production of specific proteins within a cell; these are very long and complex organic molecules made up of chains of amino acids. In a process called transcription, a molecule of mRNA (messenger RNA) copies information from a DNA segment and carries this to a cell organelle called a ‘ribosome,’ where, in a process called translation, it then produces a protein. Proteins are one of the main constituents of a cell; and many of them, particularly enzymes, regulate chemical processes within and even outside the cell (like digestive enzymes). This entire transcription and translation process is referred to as gene expression.

Curiously, researchers have identified some 223 genes within human cells that none of our possible ancestors (according to the Darwinian theory of evolution) had. So where did these 223 genes come from? Were they carried into our cells by viruses? Did our ancestors, as some people suggest, mate with “aliens” or with the biblical Elohim to produce a hybrid or the Nephilim? Or did alien geneticists modify our DNA for some purpose? Or is this yet more evidence for intelligent design, with the Creator simply adding the new genes? Bear in mind that all primates have 48 chromosomes but humans have 46.

Complicating matters still further, we have cell organelles called mitochondria that produce ATP (adenosine tri-phosphate), which provides energy for the cells. And our mitochondria, which we inherit from only one parent, usually the mother, have their own DNA, separate from that in the cell nucleus. Given that the mitochondria resemble bacteria, many biologists suspect that our mitochondria are bacteria that, long ago, began a symbiotic relationship with more complex organisms.

Yet well over 95 percent (estimates vary) of the DNA does not code for anything. Geneticists continue to debate whether this “junk” DNA is just that…junk…or if it has some function, perhaps somehow controlling which kinds of cells will be produced in which body part. For that is perhaps the greatest problem for the conventional, materialist model: how do eyes, bones, and hair, or leaves, stems, and roots, develop in the right location? There is no doubt whatever that DNA plays a vital role in mitosis (cell division) and that genes carry traits from one generation to another, but what regulates the overall body structure and its development over time? Researchers theorize that something they call a “gene regulatory network” somehow causes the right kinds of cells to form in the right places at the right times and that cells regulate the specialized development of adjoining cells in a process called “cell signaling” with signal molecules. They are a bit hazy on the details of this miraculous process.

Remember, all organisms, no matter how complex, develop from a single cell, a fertilized egg. Embryonic stem cells are “pluripotent,” meaning that they can develop into many specialized cells, and in humans this specialization is already beginning by the fourth day of fetal development. It appears that conventional science, so far at least, has no adequate explanation for the specialized cells and tissues of different body parts. And how do humans, for example, go through stages of development, like puberty? How do butterfly eggs hatch into caterpillars, and how do these become chrysalises, and how do these become butterflies? How do water-breathing dragonfly larvae or tadpoles become air breathing dragonflies and frogs?

It is no wonder that some more innovative researchers have suggested theories that leave conventional materialistic science far behind. Rupert Sheldrake has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Cambridge; this doesn’t prove him right, but it makes it rather difficult for more conventional researchers to dismiss him as a “layman.” He has developed the concept of “morphic fields,” but “field” is used for lack of a better term; he is not talking about electromagnetic or gravitational fields but something more like the astral body proposed by mystics. Sheldrake believes that these fields control the development of different kinds of cells in different parts of an organism and may also help to regulate the processes within each cell. We inherit traits from our ancestors partly due to “morphic resonance” between fields of a like nature. The fields themselves may evolve, and, to some extent, acquired traits may be inherited. Flocks of birds and schools of fish may coordinate their maneuvers via these fields, and even nonliving entities, such as crystals, may have their own morphic fields. Sheldrake suggests that the first time a new chemical compound is crystalized in a laboratory, the process is slow and difficult but becomes easier over time, since the new crystals’ fields resonate with, and are guided by, the fields of earlier crystals. Sheldrake suggests that even the laws of nature may slowly change over time as fields “evolve.”

Sheldrake is not the only researcher suggesting this. Dr. Beverly Rubik has a Ph.D. in biophysics and founded the Institute for Frontier Science in 1996. She believes in something called the “biofield” and has detected bio-photons emitted by many organisms, including humans, and has found that acupuncture meridians are electrically charged. She also believes that water can store and transmit information in living organisms (more on the water angle later). A German researcher, Konstantin Meyl, believes that magnetic scalar waves (longitudinal, like sound waves, not transverse, like electromagnetic waves) exist and that DNA molecules can function like antennae, transmitting and receiving these waves.

Sheldrake’s belief that some acquired traits can be inherited has a long and convoluted history. In the early days of biology, this was widely accepted and came to be called “Lamarckism,” after one of its proponents, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829). But hard evidence to prove it could not be found, and the idea fell into disfavor, only to be revived by Trofim Lysenko, a Russian researcher. Stalin liked the idea, because he hoped that the children of brainwashed parents would inherit their attitudes and be perfect subjects under communism. But recently, the idea has begun to come back into favor, and there is a field of study called “epigenetics,” studying “soft inheritance.” Researchers believe that gene expression can be altered by environmental factors that affect “methylation,” or the attachment of methyl groups to DNA molecules. Researchers at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta have discovered that traumatic experiences can affect DNA, so that phobias, for example, may be inherited. And researchers at McGill University have found that a father’s diet just prior to the conception of his child can affect gene expression and the health of the child. Writers like Leonard Horowitz claim that certain sound frequencies, notably 432 Hz and 528 Hz, energize and perhaps even repair DNA.

Meanwhile, regarding the noncoding DNA, author and researcher Graham Hancock has pointed out that linguist George Zipf has discovered that the most common word in any human language appears almost exactly twice as often as the second most common word, three times as often as the third most common word, and so on. And the same thing is true of the non-coding DNA sequences, indicating that they may be a language. Hancock believes that we may access wisdom stored in these sequences if we alter our consciousness (psychedelic drugs are one way, albeit a dangerous one, of accomplishing this). He has even suggested that DNA may itself possess some level of consciousness.

And then there is water. Life on Earth is often referred to as carbon based, and certainly all organic compounds contain carbon. But our bodies are mostly made up of water, and the one thing essential for living organisms, even chemosynthetic extremophile bacteria, is liquid water. Water is a near-miraculous substance; some consider that its unique properties are part of the evidence that our universe was designed. With two hydrogen atoms attached at roughly a 105 degree angle on one side of an oxygen atom, the water molecule is polar (the hydrogen side is positive and the oxygen side is negative), making it a near universal solvent. When it freezes, water actually becomes less dense, so that ice floats and Earth’s oceans don’t freeze from the bottom up.

Japanese researcher Masaru Emoto has done experiments that he believes prove that human consciousness affects water. If someone thinks of peace, love, and beauty next to a container of water and the water is then frozen, Emoto claims that it produces perfect, symmetrical, beautiful crystals. But thoughts of hate and violence produce asymmetric, ugly crystals. This may sound rather subjective, but researchers at the University of Stuttgart have shown that water seems to have memory. If a flower is placed in a container of water, individual droplets taken from it contain rough images of the flower. Of course, Catholics have long believed that water, properly blessed by a good priest, becomes “holy.” Homeopathy is an alternative medical treatment system; its practitioners claim that if a small amount of a substance causing the symptoms of a disease (not the disease itself) are placed in distilled water or, less commonly, alcohol and that water is diluted again and again so that only a few molecules (or none at all) of the substance remain, it is now “potentiated” and retains a “memory” of the substance and can actually treat the disease by helping the body to regulate and heal itself.

Perhaps traits are inherited, not due to DNA alone but to a complex interaction of DNA, morphic fields, and water. Perhaps each DNA strand has its own morphic field and perhaps these small fields combine to create an overall field for each organism. Perhaps the field of a developing fetus interacts with the mother’s field and, to a lesser degree, with the father’s field (if he is in the home) and the fields of other close relatives and neighbors. Perhaps each tribe, society, or nation has an overall field or complex of fields that affect the heredity and the developing consciousness of those born into the tribe. Perhaps, at the moment of conception, there is a burst of energy (ki, chi, prana…it has many names) from the parents and this plays a major role in the development of the child’s field. Perhaps the fields of people living or recently deceased when a child is conceived can give it actual memories, and this may explain some cases of what appears to be reincarnation. Certainly some of us born during WWII, have a powerful and very emotional connection to the events of that war and, for those of us of Jewish ancestry, with the Holocaust.

At this point, there are many questions and few answers. But it seems likely that real progress in all of the sciences will remain very limited unless and until more scientists abandon their knee-jerk materialism and atheism and open themselves to wider possibilities.

By William B. Stoecker