Thanks for sharing these. Although we don't have powerful enough microscopes to 'see' DNA, there is enough evidence through X-Ray crystallography, thermodynamics and so on to show that DNA as a molecule exists.
Hi anagha, you are most welcome, though I wish you did go through the research work presented. X-ray crystallagraphy is addressed already. Other research work on the same website on PCR and cell biology by Harold Hillman worth checking as well. 🙂
Hi Swapnil, thanks for being a keyboard warrior, though I wish you had cross-checked with ChatGPT o3 to see if the essay you shared holds up. (Poor Claude Sonnet 4 falls for the psy-op.)
As someone not trained in bio-chem (I'm not, I assume you aren't either), ChatGPT comes in clutch to help me understand. Hope you go through it too 🙂:
> the post’s core premise conflates solvation with annihilation. if being in solution made a molecule unreal, you’d be hallucinating every time you drink salted water. nah. genética still vibing.
Oh the classic logical fallacy, appeal to authority. Lol. Hi, Rakshith aloori, it doesn't matter whether one is trained (in indoctrination camps, schools) in bio-chem is not, science needs one researcher who is right, science doesn't work on consensus. If it's science it's not consensus, if it's consensus it's not science, period. A quote by great scientist, i don't remember the name. About chatgpt, well don't trust chatgpt, deliberately designed to keep the narratives survive. And I'm not only talking about the substack post. There is website on which the history DNA 'discovery' (invention) is well researched. I wish you had went through that with logic, common sense, and unbiased perspective. And since you are trusting AI.
Here is the link to conversation with AI from my end dismantling 'DNA', please feel free to reach out in DM, I can provide much of the material, for you? Even from molecular biologist. Saying DNA is unproved model, there is no DNA. I expect, respectful, constructive discussion. (If you want in the first place).
Re: my LLM chat. I asked it for an evidence-based opinion based on papers it read online (Also read as "what, why or how" questions). Your *logical, common sense, and unbiased* framing of the question is laughable and Grok falls for it.
Keep being a keyboard warrior while the rest of us do actual, real work.
I'm sorry you are so quick in judging and lacks patience level and attention span to go through the argument presented. I understand your livelyhood 'may' depend on it. Since you resort to ad hominems over respectful, constructive discussion, I see no productive conclusions to come. Keep trusting AI over and not yourself If thats what works for you. I'd suggest though you to start trusting yourself over AI doing research for you and deciding for you what is right and what is not.
https://open.substack.com/pub/controlstudies/p/dissolving-dna-illusions?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4adbpr
https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/
"It was a time when the unthinkable became the thinkable and the impossible really happened”
- Arundhati Roy, God of Small Things
Hi Swapnil
Thanks for sharing these. Although we don't have powerful enough microscopes to 'see' DNA, there is enough evidence through X-Ray crystallography, thermodynamics and so on to show that DNA as a molecule exists.
Hi anagha, you are most welcome, though I wish you did go through the research work presented. X-ray crystallagraphy is addressed already. Other research work on the same website on PCR and cell biology by Harold Hillman worth checking as well. 🙂
Hi Swapnil, thanks for being a keyboard warrior, though I wish you had cross-checked with ChatGPT o3 to see if the essay you shared holds up. (Poor Claude Sonnet 4 falls for the psy-op.)
As someone not trained in bio-chem (I'm not, I assume you aren't either), ChatGPT comes in clutch to help me understand. Hope you go through it too 🙂:
> the post’s core premise conflates solvation with annihilation. if being in solution made a molecule unreal, you’d be hallucinating every time you drink salted water. nah. genética still vibing.
https://chatgpt.com/share/68903349-2e1c-800a-a0d9-9b44a9818a03
Oh the classic logical fallacy, appeal to authority. Lol. Hi, Rakshith aloori, it doesn't matter whether one is trained (in indoctrination camps, schools) in bio-chem is not, science needs one researcher who is right, science doesn't work on consensus. If it's science it's not consensus, if it's consensus it's not science, period. A quote by great scientist, i don't remember the name. About chatgpt, well don't trust chatgpt, deliberately designed to keep the narratives survive. And I'm not only talking about the substack post. There is website on which the history DNA 'discovery' (invention) is well researched. I wish you had went through that with logic, common sense, and unbiased perspective. And since you are trusting AI.
Here is the link to conversation with AI from my end dismantling 'DNA', please feel free to reach out in DM, I can provide much of the material, for you? Even from molecular biologist. Saying DNA is unproved model, there is no DNA. I expect, respectful, constructive discussion. (If you want in the first place).
https://x.com/i/grok/share/b7POgv4bcr2AmfNa7Z5VoyEsX
*Insert I, Robot meme*
Swapnil: Provide a critique of ...
Grok: Here's a critique of ...
Swapnil: 🤯
------
Re: my LLM chat. I asked it for an evidence-based opinion based on papers it read online (Also read as "what, why or how" questions). Your *logical, common sense, and unbiased* framing of the question is laughable and Grok falls for it.
Keep being a keyboard warrior while the rest of us do actual, real work.
I'm sorry you are so quick in judging and lacks patience level and attention span to go through the argument presented. I understand your livelyhood 'may' depend on it. Since you resort to ad hominems over respectful, constructive discussion, I see no productive conclusions to come. Keep trusting AI over and not yourself If thats what works for you. I'd suggest though you to start trusting yourself over AI doing research for you and deciding for you what is right and what is not.
Cheers.
Congratulations. Make sure that, patent has been already been filed before disclosing any results
For sure, let's catch up soon!