Posted by:
Alpiner
(
)
Date: May 24, 2015 09:49AM
There is so much wrong with this article, I'm not certain where to start. But I'll cover some highlights.
First, I didn't see any citations, anywhere, for any statements of fact presented. The only mention of reference is at the end, where a German book is presented, despite many, many, statements of fact pertaining to *Russian* experiments.
Next, this:
"To this end they compared the rules of syntax (the way in which words are put together to form phrases and sentences), semantics (the study of meaning in language forms) and the basic rules of grammar. They found that the alkalines of our DNA follow a regular grammar and do have set rules just like our languages. Therefore, human languages did not appear coincidentally but are a reflection of our inherent DNA."
Is not remotely true. DNA allows for only two base pairs in two configurations apiece, rendering a total of 2^2 "letters", if you will. Please explain how that can be used for grammar, and if so, what the rules of said grammar are.
Then this:
"Living DNA substance (in living tissue, not in vitro) will always react to language-modulated laser rays and even to radio waves, if the proper frequencies (sound) are being used."
Um... what? Citation needed? What is a language-modulated laser? Lasers naturally pulse at a defined frequency, so how would you language-modulate them?
This is unscientific tripe. It barely even counts as pseudoscience.
It *is* possible to encode data on DNA, but not using any of the methodologies described in this article. See, for example,
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/08/20/the-first-book-to-be-encoded-in-dna/