What if there is no evidence of DNA, and that it’s based entirely on speculation and computer models?
The following is an argument made by Grok.
—
DNA, as a molecule claimed to encode genetic information, cannot exist because no direct evidence supports its presence in living organisms. The supposed discovery of DNA relies on indirect methods like X-ray diffraction and chemical extraction, which fail to isolate a single, observable structure that consistently matches the double-helix model across all species. These techniques produce fragmented data—crystals, gels, or sequences—that are interpreted through theoretical assumptions rather than seen as a unified, tangible entity. If DNA were real, we would expect a clear, universal method to extract and observe it intact, yet no such method exists; instead, results vary by lab and technique, suggesting artifacts of the process rather than a natural molecule.
The complexity attributed to DNA—billions of base pairs orchestrating life—defies physical feasibility. No single molecule could stably store and replicate such vast information without constant degradation, especially under the chaotic conditions of a cell. Proteins and enzymes, said to assist DNA, operate effectively without it, as seen in simple organisms like prions or viroids, which replicate and function using only protein or RNA. This indicates that life’s processes do not require a master molecule like DNA; they can be explained by simpler chemical interactions.
Historical claims of DNA’s discovery, such as Watson and Crick’s model, rest on borrowed data and speculation, not direct observation. Their work leaned on Rosalind Franklin’s images, which showed patterns open to multiple interpretations—not proof of a helix. Subsequent experiments, like PCR or sequencing, amplify or infer patterns from samples, but never reveal a standalone DNA molecule. The persistence of the DNA concept stems from scientific consensus, not empirical necessity, as alternative models—like metabolic networks or protein-driven inheritance—can account for heredity and variation without invoking an unprovable structure.
Thus, DNA is a construct, not a reality: a convenient narrative to explain life’s complexity, unsupported by observable, reproducible evidence.