DNA

[Antares]

No, I don't think so. If you are referring to the number of times of a cell that is possible to divide, it is so called Hayflick limit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayflick_limit

The main point however is to work with / on DNA. I really do not like the philosophy of modern science providing many overwhelming details without a sensible conclusion of a bigger picture; therefore I rather go with the ancient paradigms where understanding comes from "top to bottom" rather than vice versa - i.e. looking for references and clear relationships, and not mostly with labelling things discovered and isolating them. However, stating this, I do not reject science as such, as it is just another perspective. I think that quitting the assumption that development of understanding the universe / macrocosm and microcosm may go only one way may only result in benefit. It is not just interdisciplinarity between science branches; it is rather meta-interdisciplinarity between paradigms behind the knowledge development approach. This means that whatever science states what cells or atoms do or how a substance reacts to in a changed environment, in the end is not that important, because this is not a complete knowledge, but only a glimpse seen from the material perspective. The influence of energy, and particularly will / consciousness is absent in it. My understanding is that they are missing the essential point here, and as such, science is in most useless in a practical sense for a "spiritual" (so called) person. So it rather gives you explanation why you cannot achieve something because of this and that... and this and that is - again - a superficial, limited understanding of the modern scientific point of view. This in big part refers to modern, western science-based medicine, where people cannot explain and even are not eager to explain so called "miracles", but forcing the pharmacuetical business. I'm saying it because I can see many people today, also from the esoterics fields, looking with a hope into science to help them to justify their personal goals or to bring even a fragile support for their non-scientific desires; but maybe it is better to go the way the ancient people did: they simply explored the universe by themselves. Modern science has a hidden "motivation" behind it: it is technology-driven. And here comes the fundamental conflict between a personal achievement and modern science.

Instead of asking questions like: "what adding just another atom of carbon to a molecule would change in overall reaction", being then often astonished but also overwhelemed by the observed results, trying to isolate things and simplify the enivornment in which a chemical reaction occurs, in order to decrease a number of variables involved, but not really understanding what happens, I prefer to ask questions like "what is a quality of this or that substance" or "what happens when consciousness and / or energy interacts with it"; I have different motivations and goals therefore than a technologically-driven science, yet I find a scientific research results interesting. After all, we all pay for them.