Mike Adams — Natural News Sept 28, 2013
Human DNA incapable of storing complete blueprint of the human form
The curse of being a critical thinker is that you can’t turn it off, I’ve discovered. So you become a critical thinker about everything you’ve been told or taught, and as it turns out, most of what we’ve all been taught about genetics is a lie.
But don’t take my word for it. Join me as we take an honest, critical look at genetics using the same kind of skepticism scientists demand we invoke when looking at medicinal herbs or acupuncture.
Genetics is an attempt by materialistic scientists to offer a purely materialist view of inheritance and development of not just physical bodies but non-physical inherited attributes such as instinctive behaviors and cellular function.
According to the theory of genetics, physical gene sequences contained in chromosomes found in each cell in your body are a “blueprint” for all your body’s physical structures, biochemical functions and inherited behavioral patterns. This blueprint, the theory goes, contains ALL the instructions needed to create a complete human form with all its physical structures, physiological functions and inherited behaviors fully represented and complete.
Because of the enormous complexity of the human body, organ function, cell structures and instinctive behaviors, it was once believed that humans must possess somewhere around 2 million protein-coding genes. The Human Genome Project was launched in 1990 with the widespread belief that when it was finished, it would “unlock” all the mysteries of the origins of disease in humans. It was also believed that when the human genome fully mapped, scientists would be able to create humans in any form they wanted, including humans with extra arms or legs, humans free of all disease, humans with “enhanced” physical powers, and so on.
At the start of the Human Genome Project, everybody “knew” that humans were far more complex than, say, a roundworm, which only has about 20,000 protein-coding genes. This is why estimates of the number of genes in a human ranged from 100,000 to 2 million. Scientists were absolutely sure that humans were far more complex than a tiny roundworm, and therefore humans needed far more genes.
The Human Genome Project suffers an “epic fail”
The first draft of the Human Genome Project was published in the year 2,000. Far from being a breakthrough that would end all human disease, its findings utterly shattered the mythology of genetics as the sole explanation for all inheritance and physical development. Why? Because the Human Genome Project found that humans have only about 20,000 protein-coding genes, roughly the same number as the roundworm.
Huh? A human being has about the same number of protein-coding genes as a roundworm? Yes. And that’s straight out of the mouths of human genome researchers who are, themselves, hard-core materialists.
By comparison, the common fruit fly has about 15,000 genes, only marginally less than a human. And yet it is obvious to any intelligent observer than a human being is considerably more complex than a fruit fly and a roundworm. So why didn’t the Human Genome Project find a lot more genes that code proteins in humans?
Genetic inheritance theory shattered
The findings of the multi-billion-dollar Human Genome Project shattered the mythology of genetic materialism, sending nearly the entire scientific community into a tailspin and forcing “the great genetic cover-up” to begin.
Human genes simply needed “more research” to be understood, scientists exclaimed. And since the year 2000, that research has continued to no avail. The cover-up continues…
The truth is that there isn’t enough data storage in 20,000 genes to hold a blueprint for a human being.
Human DNA data storage capacity
Allow me to explain this from a computer science point of view, as many of you know I founded a very successful computer software company and was the head of R&D for many computer science projects, including the popular new SCIENCE.naturalnews.com which uses advanced statistical algorithms to analyze scientific concepts across millions of published studies.
The human genome contains about 3 billion “base pairs” of genes. Each base pair can exist in one of four possible combinations of the four bases that make up DNA: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C), and Guanine (G).
From a digital storage point of view — as DNA is “digital” in its format — a base pair is equivalent to two bits of binary data, which can represent four possible states as follows:
In computer storage vernacular, a “byte” is eight bits of data, such as:
Four DNA base pairs, then, makes one byte of data.
Given that there are roughly 3 billion base pairs in the human genome, this equates to roughly about 750MB of data storage capacity.
It turns out this number is shockingly small. 750MB is smaller than the file of a typical modern video game. It’s smaller than a movie on a DVD, in fact. It’s so small that a typical miniature thumb drive you might buy at Best Buy can actually store over 20 times as much data (that’s merely a 16 GB thumb drive). You can buy a 16GB SD card right now on Amazon.com for a mere $12.
750MB of data is so small that no one can explain how it could possibly account for a human body with extraordinary complexity while somehow encompassing physical, structural, functional and behavioral inheritance as well.
To get a grasp of the complexity of the human body, realize that your body is made of 60 – 90 trillion cells. Each cell is its own ecosystem with highly complex functions including cell energy production, waste removal, cell membrane function, the nucleus command control center, and so on.
Your body manufactures 10 million red blood cells every hour. It has a capacity to heal damaged tissues almost everywhere. Your skin and intestines are being slowly replaced with new cells every minute. Your immune system is incredibly complex and highly capable, representing the most advanced system of nanotechnology that modern science has ever witnessed.
On top of all this, you are born with innate behaviors and the ability to develop, all on your own, the behavioral skills to walk, talk, focus your eyes, digest foods, eliminate waste, sweat, breathe and much more. Meanwhile, your body accomplishes billions of chemical reactions every second without you even knowing it. Somehow, every cell, organ and organ system in your body knows what to do to keep you alive and functioning.
Your body and its functions are unimaginably complex. Simply cataloging the structure and function of all the cells in your body right now would take countless terabytes of data — more than a million times larger than “megabytes” of data.
Yet the entire human genome delivers only 750MB worth of data storage. Obviously, this is wholly insufficient to describe the entire structure, function and development of a human being. No matter how the desperate materialists try to keep us focused on human genes, it flat-out isn’t possible to store a full blueprint of the human form in 750MB of data.
The human genome, therefore, is not the entire blueprint of human development. Although some genes do obviously code for some physical characteristics (such as eye color), genes alone do not contain the full blueprint. There must be something else that also contributes morphological information in addition to DNA.
The Human Genome Project, to the shock of nearly all materialists, ultimately proved exactly the opposite of what scientists had hoped. It proved that genes alone do not explain inheritance.
The materialists were horrified by this finding. To this very day, they are pouring over human genome data, desperately trying to find some “meta data” that would explain all inheritance. What they refuse to acknowledge is that there is a non-physical field of inheritance patterns that functions as an overlay to the human genome, interacting with it and enhancing its scope with non-physical encoding of additional information needed to develop a complete human form.
That field is called the “morphic resonance” field, and it was proposed by one of the most brilliant, revolutionary scientific thinkers of our time, Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist and author of “Science Set Free.”
Morphic resonance fields infuriate materialists
The idea of morphic resonance infuriates materialists — and nearly all modern-day scientists are materialists — because the presence of a non-physical field of information naturally leads to the most dangerous idea of all to materialist science: the idea of consciousness.
This idea that your body as a whole, as well as each cell in your body, can tap into a field of information which encodes the “memory” of what a human form is supposed to be threatens the very pillars of materialistic science, upon which nearly the entire pharmaceutical industry is based, by the way. This is why materialist scientists are desperately attempting to defend the human genome as the single source of all the information needed to develop a human body, even though the human genome clearly doesn’t have the storage capacity to represent an entire body (not to mention inherited physiological functions and behavioral inheritance).
The best place to read and learn about morphic resonance is at Rupert Sheldrake’s website:
I also recommend his amazingly insightful book, A New Science of Life.
Keep in mind that if you read about Rupert Sheldrake from any materialistic science website — including Scientific American which is 100% pro-Monsanto, pro-GMO and anti GMO labeling, by the way — you are going to read vicious attacks against Sheldrake from desperate materialists who brand morphic resonance as “magical thinking.”
This is especially comic, given that these same materialists believe the entire universe in which we live spontaneously appeared from nowhere without cause or reason through a process they call the “Big Bang.” Somehow, the big bang isn’t magical thinking to the materialists, but the idea of a non-physical field of inheritance is magical thinking. It’s almost like these people have never heard of gravity: yet another invisible field that affects all living things.
How does your hand know it’s a hand?
Another key problem with the theory of genetic inheritance is that even though all the cells across your body are supposed to contain the same exact genetic code, somehow the cells in your hand knew they were supposed to grow into a hand, not a foot or an ear, for example.
Conventional genetics has no explanation for this. How does a cell “know” it’s supposed to be a specialized cell functioning as a tiny part of the whole? If every blood cell in your body contains the DNA for your entire body, how does it “know” to form itself into a blood cells and not, for example, a skin cell?
Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance explanation provides an answer. The cell taps into a knowledge field — a non-physical pattern blueprint — and through influence with that field, the cell knows to activate only the genes that code for it to form a blood cell. The local physical genes accomplish the protein coding, but the morphic resonance field directs the pattern of which genes to activate. This is how morphic fields interact with DNA.
The human genome, in other words, works hand in hand with a non-physical information field that keeps physical form development organized so that the resulting form is a human. The morphic resonance field “knows” the pattern of being human because it is a pattern that has been reinforced by billions of other humans who came before you and contributed to the resonance of the field.
This explains the missing link in DNA — the fact that DNA alone cannot store the entire blueprint of the human form. The master blueprint is actually found in the non-physical morphic field. Local DNA are simply “protein builders” that follow the morphic resonance blueprint.
Just like there is an energetic pattern for a human being, there’s also a different energetic template for an oak tree, and it overlays the genes from an oak tree seed, directing it to form a fully-grown oak tree. For every cell, every organ, every organ system and every life form on our planet (and across the universe), there is a morphic resonance field that provides the template overlay which affects local gene activation.
Learn more about morphic resonance
Keep in mind that Sheldrake’s theories absolute infuriate materialist scientists. The journal Nature actually suggested that Sheldrake should be burned at the stake… like a witch, I suppose. TED talks essentially banned Sheldrake from speaking because he dared mention the idea of “consciousness.”
Everywhere across the fatally closed-minded community of materialist science, Sheldrake is considered to be worse than a demon… he is a non-believer in the Church of Materialism! And there is no greater sin to today’s cult-like science community than non-belief in materialism.
This is why Sheldrake’s ideas will be viciously attacked, demonized and denied… up until the day they are finally embraced and accepted as the “new science of life.” In a hundred years, Sheldrake will likely be remembered as far more important to science than even Charles Darwin. His ideas are not merely revolutionary, but desperately needed to advance science beyond the limiting realm of materialism. If science does not expand its scope beyond chemical structures, it will never understand life and will always remain mystified and frustrated about why genes still don’t control much in the way of inheritance.
Watch for more coverage of Rupert Sheldrake here on Natural News, where our ideas are rooted in science yet not limited by the artificial confines of materialism. We also hope to interview Sheldrake soon and bring you the interview that TED won’t allow you to hear.
Questions for faith believers in materialist genetics
1. Where is the gene for creativity? If creative works (songs, poems, fiction novels, etc.) are merely the work of mechanistic brains following genetic instructions, then all the lifelong works of creative individuals (musicians, artists, novelists, etc.) must somehow be encoded in the DNA before birth. Where is all this creativity encoded?
2. How does a blood cell know to make itself into a blood cell and not a skin cell?
3. Why is most physical inheritance unable to be traced to DNA? (The “heritability problem.”)
4. If there is not enough storage capacity in the human genome to fully describe the human form, then where does the rest of the blueprint come from?
5. Where is the genetic code for love, compassion and cooperation, without which human civilization never would have survived?
6. If human consciousness is an illusion, as materialists claim, then it can have no impact on human behavior, which is purely mechanistic, they insist. So then why did the “illusion of consciousness” evolve in human beings if it serves no purpose? This contradicts one of the more fundamental tenants of natural selection.
7. Are you, yourself, purely a mechanistic biological robot suffering under the illusion of consciousness? And if so, then why should we listen to anything you have to say in the first place?
Watch this video of Rupert Sheldrake to learn more: