Thanks for chiming in all you posters above in your defense of modern genetic THEORY.
There is the common assumption among you that assumes dna to be solid and to have solid properties.
That ain’t necessarily so.
Especially when it is excited externally.
Apparently your understanding of the genetic process precludes you from seeing any other possibility on how dna may be influenced. And you are totally entitled to your opinions.
So on to the next variant of this exercise, using the EFG as a cloning aid.
Psychedelic.
^^^Tiger Jack cutting in non woven polyester bag with 90% perlite, 10% vermiculite mix sterilized prior.
Single cut. Stem left unscraped and no hormonal rooting aid. Distilled H2O.
Control put in 50-50 mix perlite vermiculite, air pot growing requires a bit more water holding capacity ime.
Mycorrhizae at cut level, stem with minor 3/8" long scraping. No hormonal treatment.vvv
Donor plants 21 days into flower, I love monster cropping.
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
First off I will re-apologize for scale of my experiment, I thought it was understandable this was a lark.
What I was trying to prove here was a post outside of the norm that would generate discussion, encourage others with greater resources to repeat the experiment with their own mods. With the ultimate wish this could enhance our collective growing experience.
But I realize no one may bite unless there would be some sign of added value using this process.
Not to disparage the others but I received the same indoctrination they did on this subject but lost interest when I realized it wasn’t gonna get me any girls.
Now, I’m just asking “What else?”
And I politely disagree on what value a data point has to a grower. When sprouting extra hard to sprout seeds such as p.viridis or Scutellaria nana I would definitely choose this method over gibberelic acid.
As far as the Galileo association, - Yeah that was a bit of a stretch lol. Couldn’t resist.
Still, maybe this 'scope will help turn modern genetic THEORY into genetic FACT.
So far that has been my takeaway. But if it indeed helps germinate old seed, in a repeatable way, that could be huge for some older genetics sitting in out vaults.
Thanks ReikoX, I’m a big fan from icmag.
It’s still way early and I’m hoping for a couple control seeds to sprout to measure any observable differences.
I’m thinking of starting a newer group of seeds vertically using rob’s baggie method with the Full Moon as a backdrop.
L8R
No. We have all acknowledged that DNA can be modified by external influences. Its just that we disagree on what will happen when you do that.
You are claiming that this will unlock genetic code that has been hidden or lost. Thats the part we disagree with.
We all know that hi-energy radiation will cause changes in DNA. It breaks it down and causes damage and changes the chemistry. In very very very rare cases, those changes are beneficial and can be passed on. The vast majority of the time, its just damage.
There is zero actual science about reverting or finding or unlocking “old DNA”. There is no such thing as old DNA to find.
Those links I provided you earlier show how electric fields (which are low energy as opposed to hi energy xrays, etc) CAN change growth patterns - for better AND worse. Mostly worse if the fields are too strong. Did you read those links I provided? Did you see how narrow the acceptable range of current is for there to be a benefit? Currents much over one MILLIONTH of an amp will kill your plant.
Again, there is zero evidence that this (low energy electric fields) will change DNA, but even if it did - its still going to be doing damage and the odds of those changes being beneficial are the same as for xrays - very very very small.
No need to apologize as I try to get a handle on the goals here. If I understand this correctly, this is an experiment out of curiosity and potential merit. Also, to encourage a discussion on the Ebner effect. Not necessarily looking to prove something factually. At least, not on this go around. Correct?
Well, to clarify, I didn’t actually say anything about the “value” of a data point. Phrased differently, a data point alone will not be sufficient proof that anything of interest has fundamentally occurred. Rather, as it currently stands, the result will have a high likelihood of being the result of chance. E.g. the result, whether true or false, will be statistically insignificant to state a specific claim. That sounds harsh but it does not mean it will not be interesting or without value.
As to “value”, if you are running an experiment, it’ll be up to you to show that a “data point” has actual value. As it stands, you may be able to state that “something” interesting occurred (and is deserving of further experimentation) but you should avoid claiming that it has proved that “something”. Proving a claim with a reasonable amount of uncertainty will take a bit more work beyond your trial. This is where I’d suggest the exercise of some restraint as it can quickly become misleading if results are promoted as anything but. Others can help devise a strategy to help strengthen the evidence towards the support of making a claim on follow-up experimentation.
Thanks for sharing this experiment. I am looking forward to seeing your results.
No I’m not.
I offer that as one possible reason for the claims made by the discoverers of this process.
My sin before the science cops here is believing in possibilities outside of dogmatic thinking.
Also just trying this experiment has raised some ire.
And no I haven’t read your links thoroughly yet, did you read this?
I am curious to see the results. Most things respond to electric and magnetic fields in one way or another. It will be interesting to see the effects, or lack thereof. for trying!
One note I would like to make is with respect to the uncertainty principle; it comes from years of exasperation over misapplication. One of the areas I studied was social sciences and I have seen wildly inaccurate interpretations of this very simple and specific idea.
It is very commonly misapplied. The principle is a basic concept in quantum physics and sets a limit of precision of two physical properties of sunatomic phenomena that are conjugate - such as position and momentum.
It does not apply to relationships between properties that are not complimentary. It does not apply to systems that do not have a matter wave nature. It cannot be extrapolated over other systems.
Perhaps number one principle that Heisenberg’s gets confused with is called observer effect. That one states that by observing a state we change it.
I think of your experiment as a black box: we know the inputs and we will know the results, whatever happens in the middle, the mechanism by which the change may occur, should it occur, will warrant discussion at that time.
For now, I am looking forward to the results, however small the sample size.
I don’t know a lot about biology, but I do know a lot about physics. Most of the time, people’s perceptions about quantum physics are so off base that it’s hard to know where to even start. But here’s a rule of thumb to live by… If someone starts talking to you about quantum effects on scales larger than a few atoms, they’re probably just throwing out a bunch of hypotheticals that have no real basis in reality.
People who use quantum mechanics as a door to “anything can happen” are usually just looking for a way out of reality, and not looking for reality itself. If a rigorous approximation were done to calculate the probability of most of these “anything can happen” events, I think you’d find that it is unlikely to have ever happened even once in the entire age of the universe.
That being said, I always support anybody doing experiments to satisfy curiosity, learning and discovery. Changes in DNA is not required for heritable traits, and are not likely anyway. But there is a field of study that is credible, and much more likely to have an explanation, if your experiments were to lead somewhere:
Thanks for your explanation, regardless, that strand displays a certain frequency, which must regulate the internal electrical flow.
And I’ll leave it at that.
More quackery afoot!
Quackery in search of crackery one might say.
Ta-dumph!
5 seeds each, Old seed as well 7-8 yrs max.
This time Rob’s Baggie Method
The perlite is a test to see if it helps keep seeds apart.
With the coffee filter at the bottom of the bag, fold twice making a “taco” of the bag that will keep the seed more or less
centered in the field.
1 minute light shield
1/19/2019 part 2
Finally, 5 Golden Tiger male X Blue Dream female 2018 seed each test and control. This particular seed was from a very smelly female.
Hard to clone. But what a great high.
The other original seed, I had 2 to play with, sprouted into a plant with hardly any odor.
The Full Moon with a Total Eclipse for parts of the Earth is 1/21/19
How can I not try to sprout something now?
Im glad to see you have not been deterred in your project! Plus, kudos for keeping an even temper and good humor even when harassed by those of us in the science cop squad I apologize if my comments came across in a bad way. I can be a jerk sometimes. I need to work on my diplomatic skills more!
May be due to warmer sprouting location than test group.
Control was sprouted in 85° area, treated was at normal sub grade temp of 65°.
So my scientific wild azz guess is the EFG shows no advantage in increasing the sprouting speed over a ideally warm environment if the seed is fresh and vibrant.
The Treated Group of Golden Tiger male X Blue Dream female 2018 had two seeds sprout 6hrs after the Control and then two more sometime today. Still a working stiff.
There is no visible sign of rooting on either of the cuttings.
The control cutting experienced wilting soon after snip causing me to trim back the fan leaf tips.
Rather than use the word “facts”, I’ll use the word “results” instead.
Outside of my scientific wild azz guessing, you are left to your own to determine what happens here.
I have some sprout porn to post later (does that make me a “pot pedo”?)
for trying!
I apologize if my comments came across in a bad way. I can be a jerk sometimes. I need to work on my diplomatic skills more!
