Mark E Curtis

The geometry of DNA: a structural revision

Back


    To my dismay the peer’s and authorities to whom I should ideally like to have submitted these findings are no longer with us - what, in past times, was considered measured and reasoned thinking within science has, via the slow process of inculcation, been gradually and systematically eroded by the incumbent’s, their acolytes and those accustomed to their indoctrination. One has to ask oneself what kind of a science it is that ignores reason and mathematics? What kind of a science it is that ignores Euclid when exploring geometric structures? And what kind of a science it is that concerns itself with chemistry alone when we know that in biology - structure equals function - and that the minutest alteration to any such structure can have profound effects on function. Crick and Watson’s irrational, inaccurate and opinion based solution to the DNA helical structure would struggle to code for an amoeba let alone any higher organism. Modern scientific thinking completely ignores the long understood wisdom and respected knowledge of the Ancient’s. Added to this an increasing obsession with science fiction since the 1950’s and one may begin to see how the irrational can indeed become rational; nonsense can indeed become sense; and almost anything may become not only feasible but also believable. And, what’s more, in a throwback to past times, this relatively modern science, much like the church of old, fails to grasp the distinction between verifiable 'subjective truth’ and verifiable 'objective truth’ - the true embodiment of science in the strict sense of the word.


    Is it any wonder that humanity and the earth we inhabit finds itself in the dire scientific, cultural and educational cul-de-sac in which it is immersed today. Democracy can only work effectively if you have an educated and knowledgeable electorate voting for an intelligent, wise and just elective. Some of the thinking behind much modern science and philosophy since the 1950’s has regrettably ensured that we have neither at the moment. The generality of the people have been disenfranchised by sophistry and humbug, and past proven disciplines of thought remain anathema to those who presently hold the reigns of power. It remains to be seen just how many more blameless generations must have their innate natural and moral philosophy tarnished by the present corruption within scientific thinking. Black-holes, Big-Bangs, Multi-Universe’s, Dark-Matter, Dark Energy, Anti-Matter, Quantum-this, Quantum-that and other such notions are all very well… but perhaps we really ought to re-enter the earth’s atmosphere, focus on more earthly phenomena and divert some of the seemingly infinite funds that such notions receive and allocate them toward a potentially more useful purpose - the correct, sensible and properly reasoned education of young people. If that could be achieved, then at the very least, people would be equipped to reason in a truly scientific manner and therefore discern for themselves the relative distinctions between science fictions, fantasies and facts. Perhaps then, and only then, will the scientific zealot lose the hegemony that empowers, enshrines and enriches their own subjective and deeply shallow understanding. At present, the more convoluted and complicated their doctrine the cleverer they are made to appear and the more stupid everyone else is made to feel. It need not be this way - just as everybody on this planet now shares in a basic conception of macro planetary space so also should they be able to conceive a basic notion of micro molecular space, albeit and notwithstanding the considerable requisite differentiations.


    The founders and forebears of our scientific academies, institutes and societies must be spinning in their graves at the inevitable consequence of this present approach, based as it is, on irrational opinion and the inventions of both partisan and self-interested individuals. And, more especially, an approach that uses statistical 'certainties and probabilities’ in support of ‘Procrustean solutions’ when trying to make sense of a model that is in itself effectively 'apple-pied'. It would seem that even the Royal Society, the oldest of them all, has lost sight of its very pertinent motto 'Nullius in Verba'. Perhaps one day they’ll find grace enough to admit their folly and be able to laugh at themselves as readily as they have done the ecclesiastical communities of the past. The rigorousness, provenance and straightforward common sense of Euclid stretches back many thousands of years and I am confident that such an approach will ultimately retake the helm at some point in the earth’s future. It is by the rigorous and immutable standards of those peer’s and authorities, both from the past and in the future, that I wish this contribution to be ultimately judged.


"Blind folly, though it deceive itself with false names, cannot alter the true merit of things, and, mindful of the precept of Socrates, I do not think it right either to keep truth concealed or allow falsehood to pass. But this, however it may be, I leave to thy judgement and to the verdict of the discerning. Moreover, lest the course of events and the true facts should be hidden from posterity, I have myself committed to writing an account of the transaction.”


‘The Consolation of Philosophy’ - Boethius - book I (iv)

Back