Why “DNA does not exist” claims are false

Scientific deconstruction can fail if principles are misrepresented (Updated 6/22/25)

---

Support through Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee, or other ways.

---

Some on social media assert DNA is imaginary and gene sequencing is fake science.

But do these claims hold up to scrutiny?

One example is this article by Jamie Andrews, stating:

This issue that I have lent on from the start is as such: Both assays of PCR and Genetic Sequencing take place in liquid state, they take all of the ingredients in a powdered chemical format and literally dissolve them in a liquid. How, therefore are they claiming that they can “READ” a nucleotide sequence from left to right, like a physical thing, when the physical thing has been dissolved into solution?

On the face of it, this *should* lead intellectually honest people that are questioning the narrative to have an “oh f[**]k” moment of realization. You can’t possibly read something right to left of a physical string that doesn’t exist, the notion is absurd. The problem is, that we, in the case of modern science, are not dealing with intellectually honest people, but with the active imagination of compliant clever/cretins whose sole purpose in life is to drum up rescue devices as to why their reality bending madness is actually not as it appears.

In the case of our point, where you can physically see a powdered substance dissolving and disappearing right in front of your eyes, the rescue device rolled out is; “ah, yes the substance is in solution, where the MoLeCuLaR structure is still in tact”. This is all very convenient, isn’t it? The whole “Trust Me Bro, My Computer Test Told Me So” is utilized to the fullest extent here.

Overview

Mr. Andrews’s article argues that DNA sequencing, PCR, and even the concept of DNA itself are scientific “illusions.”

It dismisses mainstream chemistry and molecular biology as pseudoscience, based on misconceptions about how matter behaves in solution and how scientific instruments measure molecular structures.

---

Core argument flaws

1. Misunderstanding molecular dissolution

• Claim: DNA cannot be sequenced because it's dissolved in liquid, and dissolved substances "disappear" physically.

• Reality: Dissolution does not mean destruction of molecular structure. Molecules in solution are still intact unless chemically broken (e.g., hydrolysis). PCR relies on enzymes recognizing specific nucleotide sequences, which they can do because the DNA molecules are still there, suspended in aqueous solution.

Saying DNA “doesn’t exist” in solution is like saying salt disappears because you can’t see crystals anymore: it ignores the entire field of solution chemistry.

---

2. False premise: no visualization = nonexistence

• Claim: DNA doesn’t exist because it can’t be seen with a light microscope or clearly imaged by transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

• Reality: DNA’s width (~2 nm) is far below the resolution limit of light microscopes (~200 nm). Electron microscopy can visualize DNA under specific prep conditions (e.g., heavy staining, cryo-EM). A lack of nice pictures does not mean absence of evidence in this case.

This logic is akin to saying electrons don’t exist because we can't see them directly. Science doesn’t require human visibility of phenomena to recognize their existence, just measurable and repeatable effects.

---

3. Misinterpretation of instrumentation

• Claim: Techniques like NMR, gel electrophoresis, and nanopore sequencing are just "vibration detectors" for electrical charges.

• Reality: These methods detect characteristic physical and chemical signals linked to molecular structure, mass, or sequence. They are built on well-validated physics and have undergone extensive calibration and blind testing.

Nanopore sequencing doesn't "imagine" a sequence. It detects changes in ionic current as individual nucleotides pass through a pore, each with distinct charge and shape signatures.

---

---

4. Fallacious comparison (salt vs sugar)

• Claim: Differences in how salt and sugar dissolve imply the science is arbitrary or contradictory.

• Reality: Ionic compounds (like NaCl) dissociate into ions; covalent molecules (like sugar) stay intact. This isn’t contradictory. It’s basic chemistry. Their electrical behavior differs precisely because their structures and bonds differ.

---

5. Misunderstanding of scale

• Claim: 1 mm DNA strands should be visible.

• Reality: The article confuses length with thickness. A human hair is ~80,000 nm wide; DNA is ~2 nm wide. Even if 2 meters long, DNA is still invisible to light microscopy due to its diameter. This is not suspicious. It’s basic optics.

---

6. False framing

• The article repeatedly characterizes scientists as liars or delusional conspiracists, using ad hominem attacks (“clever/cretins” and “soylentists”) and ridicule.

• Problem: These are not arguments. They are rhetorical devices that avoid engaging with science.

---

What is valid?

• The article correctly notes scientific instruments do not give us “direct” visual access to molecules the way a camera gives us a picture.

• That’s true. But indirect measurement is the norm in quantum physics, molecular biology, and astronomy. We detect phenomena through effects, not visuals alone.

• The philosophical critique of science as a model-based enterprise is interesting, but it’s misapplied to suggest the models are therefore invalid.

---

What about this quote from the article?

Both assays of PCR and Genetic Sequencing take place in liquid state, they take all of the ingredients in a powdered chemical format and literally dissolve them in a liquid.

How, therefore are they claiming that they can “READ” a nucleotide sequence from left to right, like a physical thing, when the physical thing has been dissolved into solution?

Let’s break it down:

---

What does it mean to "dissolve DNA"?

Yes, PCR and DNA sequencing typically happen in aqueous solution, meaning:

• You dissolve DNA molecules and reagents in water or a buffer.

• But dissolving ≠ destroying. It just means the DNA strands are separated into individual molecules, not that they cease to exist.

A DNA molecule in water is like a person swimming in a pool: they're no longer on land hanging out with family and friends, but they haven't disintegrated. They're still very much intact.

---

How PCR works

PCR is a method to amplify specific DNA sequences. Here’s how it works:

1. Start with DNA in solution: You dissolve a sample containing DNA into a buffer (not destroyed, just suspended).

2. Denaturation (94–98°C): The double-stranded DNA is heated to separate into two single strands.

3. Annealing (50–65°C): Short primers bind to specific sequences on those single strands.

4. Extension (72°C): The enzyme Taq polymerase adds nucleotides to the primers, using the original strand as a template.

5. Repeat 30–40 cycles: This exponentially amplifies the target region.

The DNA sequence is preserved throughout. You're copying it, not guessing it.

---

So how is the sequence “read”?

In PCR:

PCR doesn’t read the sequence directly. It amplifies a known target region. The sequence is inferred based on:

• the specific primers used (designed to match known sequences),

• the product length (can be checked with gel electrophoresis), or

• being sent for sequencing afterward (e.g., Sanger, nanopore).

In sequencing (e.g., Sanger or nanopore):

• A template strand of DNA is present in solution.

• Enzymes or nanopores interact with that strand base by base.

• Each base affects the system in a measurable, distinct way:

  • In Sanger, modified bases stop replication at specific points.

  • In nanopore, different bases change the ionic current in specific patterns.

None of this requires DNA to be "seen." It only requires that the molecule still exists in solution and can be interacted with, which it does.

---

Why the argument fails

Claim: You can’t read a sequence because the DNA has been dissolved.

Flawed Assumption: That molecules cease to exist or lose their structure when dissolved.

Reality:

• Dissolution ≠ disintegration

• DNA remains chemically intact in solution unless deliberately degraded (e.g., with enzymes).

• Modern biology uses enzymes and electrical signals to detect and interpret these structures, not direct vision.

---

Bottom line

The article apparently misunderstands:

• what “dissolving” means in chemistry,

• that molecules can and do retain structure in solution, and

• that biological detection methods rely on interactions, not visual inspection.

PCR and sequencing work because DNA remains structurally intact in solution. The entire field of molecular biology is built on this observable, repeatable, and testable fact.

---

Verdict

The article is a flawed mixture of pseudoscientific skepticism and poor understanding of chemistry and physics. It misrepresents:

• how molecules behave in solution,

• what sequencing technologies detect,

• how scientific imaging works, and

• the nature of scientific evidence.

Its reasoning is full of category errors, logical fallacies, and emotive language aimed at discrediting science without providing satisfactory explanations.

(No offense intended to Mr. Andrews, who seems a nice and sincere gentleman.)