George Church refutes theistic evolution

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: February 9, 2017

Wednesday Afternoon Lecture Series (WALS) – The future of genetic codes and BRAIN codes

The NIH Director’s Wednesday Afternoon Lecture Series, colloquially known as WALS, is the highest-profile lecture program at the NIH.

The future of genetic codes and BRAIN codes (video)
My comment on the video: Biophysically constrained genetic codes are brain codes. They link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of supercoiled DNA via metabolic networks, which link energy as information to all cell type differentiation in all individuals of all living genera.
Virus-driven energy theft is linked from “gene vandalism” to epigenetically effected nutrient energy-as-information dependent RNA-mediated DNA repair.
Synthesis of nucleic acids became a “bigger deal” when Sutherland’s group showed that ultraviolet light was linked to the simultaneous de novo creation of nucleic acid precursors, which are the starting materials needed to make natural amino acids and lipids.
See: Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism
They showed that a single set of light-activated reactions gave rise to most of life’s building blocks simultaneously. Simply put, that fact refutes every aspect of neo-Darwinian nonsense. It also eliminates consideration of any theories proposed by “big bang” cosmologists.
The irony of this is that not one of the young earth creationists I know would fail to link the hydrogen-atom energy-dependent de novo creation of nucleic acid precursors to all biodiversity on Earth via the physiology of biophysically constrained cell type differentiation.
For example, see: Multipurpose Plant Sensors Startle Scientists
Even if a young earth creationist knew nothing about energy-dependent cell type differentiation, he or she would not be likely to link minimal mutational differences, called mutations to the mutation-driven evolution of all biodiversity.
As you can see in the video, George Church has been forced to abide by the rules of serious scientists.
Here is an unavoidable rule: Kalevi Kull: Censorship & Royal Society Evo Event

Nobody wants to belong to the party of losers. One of the best strategies in such a case is evidently an interpretation of the change as a gradual accumulation of knowledge while their work has always been at the cutting edge.

George Church has, until yesterday, focused his efforts on exogenous RNA interference rather than what is known about endogenous RNA interference, which links supercoiled DNA to the prevention of all virus-driven pathology in all living genera. Most people will not recognize what President Trump has forced the NIH to do before the theistic evolutionist, Francis Collins is replaced. They may read this, but not understand what it means.
Obama Advisers Urge Action Against CRISPR Bioterror Threat

Scientific advisers to President Obama warn that the U.S. urgently needs a new biodefense strategy and should regularly brief President-elect Donald Trump on the dangers posed by new technologies like CRISPR, gene therapy, and synthetic DNA, which they say could be coöpted by terrorists.

See also: The Bull Sperm MicroRNAome and the Effect of Fescue Toxicosis on Sperm MicroRNA Expression
The likelihood that NIH funding will be used for any studies that do not link prevention from the National Microbiome Initiative to the Precision Medicine Initiative via the microRNAome and energy-dependent microRNA expression can be placed into the context of failed mathematical models, which have not addressed any aspect of energy-dependent biologically-based cause and effect.
Let me help others decipher the content of George Church’s claims in: The future of genetic codes and BRAIN codes
The question (at 54:22) about teratomas is answered with a classic attempt to obfuscate what is known about virus-driven energy theft and all pathology.
How organs assemble in the context of virus-driven energy theft has been placed into the context of energy-dependent viral latency since the time that Sinclair Lewis published “Arrowsmith” in 1925 and Thomas Hunt Morgan won the 1933 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his works on chromosomal inheritance.
At 59.00 the question about natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality leads to another attempt to obfuscate what is known about top-down causation.
At 1:00 he begins to talks about adding a built-in sequencer in your phone.  At this point, you may need some comic relief, which Jon Stewart provided with his question about whether the new technology would be integrated with a camera. See: Jon Stewart interviews Greg Bear.
At 1:04, the question and answer about Alzheimer’s vs cognitive enhancement can be placed into the context of Greg Bear’s works, which were published in 1999 and 2003. They were reviewed by Michael A. Goldman in “Nature.”
Evolution rising from the grave
Living with the Neanderthals
See also: Newly found mechanism for protecting neurons could underlie brain disease

The neurons expel large (4- micron diameter) membrane-bound vesicles (dubbed “exophers”) that are filled with clumped protein and damaged cellular organelles including mitochondria.

The only mention of exopher in the extant literature indexed on PubMed is in the article published yesterday, C. elegans neurons jettison protein aggregates and mitochondria under neurotoxic stress.  The authors seem to be trying to make everything known to all serious scientists appear to be new information about the biophysically constrained RNA-mediated transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of morphological and behavioral phenotypes.
This is roughly the equivalent of inventing de Vries 1902 term “mutation,” which was used by theorists to dismiss Darwin’s “conditions of life.”
For comparison, there are now 58,887 indexed articles on PubMed that mention microRNA.  For example, see: MCMDA: Matrix Completion for MiRNA-Disease Association prediction
If you do not object to the level of obfuscation that is required for pseudoscientists to continue touting their ridiculous theories, you may not be allowed to join those who are Combating Evolution to Fight Disease.
What career goals will you pursue after the Trump administration ensures that pseudoscientific nonsense is no longer funded?
Activity-dependent spatially-localized miRNA maturation in neuronal dendrites
Reported as: Bright Spots in Brain Cells

Thanks to Anna Di Cosmo for calling attention to more detailed facts about cell type differentiation that link energy-dependent changes in fluorescence from the weekend resurrection of the bacterial flagellum to endogenous RNA interference and the maturation of brain cells in rats.
Everything known appears to link the conserved molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in species from archaea to humans.
In any case, no one is challenging the perspective that serious scientists like Anna Di Cosmo have added to what is known about everything that links quantum physics to quantum consciousness via energy-dependent “bright spots in brain cells.”
And there is still no other model for comparison to this model of biologically-based cause and effect. Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
A good model predicts, and people who understand the need for a good model of biologically-based cause and effect predictably make the most scientific progress.
In 2013 I wrote:

“…the epigenetic ‘tweaking’ of the immense gene networks that occurs via exposure to nutrient chemicals and pheromones can now be modeled in the context of the microRNA/messenger RNA balance, receptor-mediated intracellular signaling, and the stochastic gene expression required for nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. The role of the microRNA/messenger RNA balance (Breen, Kemena, Vlasov, Notredame, & Kondrashov, 2012; Duvarci, Nader, & LeDoux, 2008; Griggs et al., 2013; Monahan & Lomvardas, 2012) in adaptive evolution will certainly be discussed in published works that will follow.”

In 2015, Role of olfaction in Octopus vulgaris reproduction, Anna Di Cosmo’s group concluded:

The OL acting as control centre may be target organ for metabolic hormones such as leptin like and insulin like peptides, and olfactory organ could exert regulatory action on the OL via epigenetic effects of nutrients and pheromones on gene expression (Kohl, 2013; Elekonich and Robinson, 2000). The knowledge of the nature of the factor released by the optic gland could shed light on the role played by this gland in the reproduction: is it a gonadotropin or a trophic factor? Intriguingly, even though the mechanisms and molecules regulating reproduction are the same in both male and female, O’Dor and Wells (1978) observed mature sperms in young O. vulgaris males independently from optic gland hypertrophy.


Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

[…] also: George Church refutes theistic evolution and George Church refutes theistic evolution […]

[…] George Church refutes theistic evolution (3-part […]

[…] See for comparison: George Church refutes theistic evolution […]

[…] George Church refutes theistic evolution  2/9/17 George Church refutes theistic evolution (2)  2/10/17 George Church refutes theistic evolution (3)  2/12/17 Energy as information and constrained endogenous RNA interference  2/15/17 George Church refutes theistic evolution (4)  2/15/18 […]

[…] Summary: Why weren’t all Democrats told about this so they could distance themselves from silly theories at the time that George Church first refuted Theistic evolution? […]

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: