Essential pseudoscientific concepts of atheism

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: December 12, 2015

12 Essential Scientific Concepts
It is important to note that this representation of essential concepts is made by Professor Indre Viskontas, who uses the opportunity to try to sell others on her atheistic perspective.
Presenting her ridiculous perspective as if it represented any scientific concepts is akin to presentations by Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Steven Pinker, Penn & Teller and PZ Myers.

My favorite pseudoscientist, is little PeeZee Myers. He made himself known to me in an attack on my claims about the epigenetic links from chromosomal rearrangements to all biomass and all biodiversity.
See: One crank dies, another rises to take his place
Virtually all his idiot minions attacked me for the same reason. They know nothing about how nutrient-dependent base pair changes and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to humans.
When I posted an example that clearly linked top-down causation to the nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction via chromosomal rearrangements in white-throated sparrows, PZ ended my participation by calling me a homophobe. My award-winning review of human male sexual orientiation suggests I am a serious scientist, and not a crank, and not a homophobe. But, what else can others do when confronted with facts about cell type differentiation?
See: The Mind’s Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences

  1. This model also provides a detailed gene–cell–tissue–organ–organ system pathway from sexually dimorphic hormone-associated olfactory input and from MHC/HLA-associated olfactory input to sexually dimorphic behavior.
  2. Failure to incorporate any of the steps in this pathway makes it impossible to directly connect to sexual preferences and sexual behavior, a logical sequence of events that must somehow and somewhere begin with the effect of sensory input from the social environment.

See for comparison: Introduction: elucidating the neural basis of the self by Viskontas with Bruce Miller.

Table of Contents

B. Miller, I. Viskontas, Introduction. Elucidating the Neural Basis of the Self.
W. Chiong, “The Self” in Philosophical Debates.
L. Uddin, The Self in Autism: An Emerging View From Neuroimaging.
E. Morsella, C. Berger, S. Krieger, Cognitive and Neural Components of the Phenomenology of Agency.
H. Rosen, Anosognosia in Neurodegenerative Disease.
V. Sturm, R. Levenson, Alexithymia in Neurodegenerative Disease.
A. Cicourel, The Effect of Neurodegenerative Disease on Representations of Self in Discourse.
N. Ebner, S. Gluth, M. Johnson, C. Raye, K. Mitchell, M. Johnson, Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activity When Thinking About Others Depends on Their Age.
E. R. Gerschcovich, D. Cerquetti, E. Tenca, R. Leiguarda, The Impact of Bilateral Cerebellar Damage on Theory of Mind, Empathy and Decision Making.
A. Villarejo, V. Puertas-Martin, T. Moreno-Ramos, A. Camacho, J. Porta-Etessam, F. Bermejo-Pareja, Mirrored-Self Misidentification in a Patient Without Dementia. Evidence For Right Hemispheric and Bifrontal Damage.
T. Fisher, S. Shamay-Tsoory, A. Eran, J. Aharon-peretz, Characterization of Recovery and Neuropsychological Consequences of Orbitofrontal Lesion: a Case Study.
My comment: Based on what I have since learned about her atheistic nonsensical perspective, I do not plan to read any of these chapters. There are too many serious scientists with works that deserve my full attention because they focus on what is known about self vs nonself identification in the context of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation that is linked from the physiology of reproduction to the differentiation of cell types in all living genera.
Simply put, at a time when expert neuroscientists continue to detail what is known about links from ecological variation to ecological adaptation via the biophysically constrained chemistry of the nutient-dependent RNA-mediated physiology of reproduction, anyone who starts anywhere that is downstream from an atoms to ecosystems model is likely to be an atheistic pseudoscientist.
Viskontas makes that likelihood perfectly clear. In the context of her ridiculous misrepresentations she failed to link what is known about phenols from the sun’s biological energy to the differentiation of cell types in soil bacteria, differentiation in the cell types of plants, and differentiation of the cell types in animals.
I’m not going to take the time to find what she claimed about taxol in the audiobook. Suffice it to say that by the time she mentioned the bark of the yew tree and the need to synthesize the chemical for effective cancer treatment, I had already realized the problem. She is biologically uninformed and pretends to know about “Mother Nature” as a tinkerer rather than to learn about how cell type differentiation is linked from ecological variation to ecological adaptation by RNA-mediated DNA repair and nutrient-dependent microRNAs linked to adhesion proteins that protect all organized genomes from virus-driven entropy.
See also: A radically simple idea may open the door to a new world of antibiotics and Parents May Pass Down More Than Just Genes, Study Suggests
My comment: In two reports published on the same day, Zimmer fails to link nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled RNA-mediated cell type differentiation across species from microbes to humans via what is known to serious scientists about cell type differentiation in the context of an atoms to ecosystems model.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: