Bill Gates refutes theistic evolution
See for comparison: Our 2017 Annual Letter Warren Buffett’s Best Investment
By Bill and Melinda Gates | February 14, 2017
Malnourished children can be getting enough calories, but not the right nutrients. That makes them more susceptible to conditions like pneumonia or diarrhea—and more likely to die from them.
If malnourished children are not getting the right nutrients, they focused too much on vaccines and not enough on what is known about nutritional epigenetics. For comparison, on February 18, 2017, I wrote:
If more money was spent on research that links the anti-entropic virucidal energy of the sun from creationism to Americanism via what is known about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation, the prevention and cure of all virus-driven pathology would already have been achieved.
I added this information: A semisynthetic organism engineered for the stable expansion of the genetic alphabet
“We can now get the light of life to stay on,” said Romesberg. “That suggests that all of life’s processes can be subject to manipulation.”
Life’s processes are manipulated by nutrient energy-dependent endogenous RNA interference in the context of the physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction in all living genera. Supercoiled DNA protects all organized genomes from virus-driven energy theft and genomic entropy. But, someone will make billions of dollars on vaccines like this one, which will cost millions and be delivered only to those who can pay for them.
Alternatively, here’s another money-maker: Get Well in the RNAi Way-RNAi, A Billion Dollar Baby in Therapy
But wait. What about nutrient energy-dependent endogenous RNA interference in the context of the physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction in all living genera. As a computer software developer, Bill Gates knows what can go wrong when a virus steals the energy as information that is required to run the central processing unit, which has sometimes been compared to the human brain.
See also: Bill Gates warns tens of millions could be killed by bio-terrorism February 18, 2017
The next epidemic could originate on the computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus … or a super contagious and deadly strain of the flu.
The creation of a synthetic virus and/or the virus-driven energy theft that leads to the creation of a deadly strain of the flu links the failure of nutrient energy-dependent endogenous RNA interference to protect organized genomes from virus-driven energy theft.
The major antigenic changes of the influenza virus are primarily caused by a single amino acid near the receptor binding site.
I placed that claim into the context of The Quest to End the Flu with this comment.
The idea of biophysical constraints seems antithetical to the idea of nature somehow selecting mutations that cause amino acid substitutions. However, I am not a biophysicist or evolutionary theorist.
The problem may be my focus on nutrient-dependent receptor-mediated amino acid substitutions in species from bacteria to humans (non-viral organisms). Since I am not a virologist or physicist, I’m not sure that the laws of physics apply to viruses and their replication.
If they do, natural selection for random mutations is not likely to result in amino acid substitutions because the thermodynamics of changes in organism-level thermoregulation preclude such randomness. Stability of protein biosynthesis and degradation that probably depends on protein folding must somehow be controlled. Besides, I don’t know how random mutations in viruses could be naturally selected for inclusion in the human virome (or in the virome of any organism capable of thermoregulating its thermodynamic intercellular signaling).
If the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to viruses, which means the chemical bonds that enable the amino acid substitutions can form at random and somehow be naturally selected, the details of biophysical constraints in this article seems out of place, since I do not think in terms of constrained random mutations and natural selection in mutation-driven evolution.
Hopefully, someone with a background in biophysics will address my confusion in case others are confused. In addition, I wonder if the consequences of understanding the evolutionary mechanisms that govern viruses extend to consequences important to understanding the evolution of species from bacteria to humans via constrained random mutations and natural selection?
People with a background in biophysics or computer models of biophysically constrained top-down causation have addressed the confusion about random mutations and natural selection in mutation-driven evolution. Simply put, there is no such thing as natural selection for random mutations, which means there no such thing as the evolution of one species from another.
Francis S. Collins, author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief may not like the facts, but
See for comparison:The Darwin Code by Greg Bear
Perhaps the most intriguing method of gene swapping in bacteria is the bacteriophage, or bacterial virus. Bacteriophages–phages for short–can either kill large numbers of host bacteria, reproducing rapidly, or lie dormant in the bacterial chromosome until the time is right for expression and release.
Ask where Bill Gates got the idea that virus-driven energy theft could cause the death of 30 million people.
Also, see this Google search for “virus-driven energy theft.”
My claim follows the claims Greg Bear has been making during the past 2-3 decades. All energy-dependent changes, which link angstroms to ecosystems in all living genera, are biophysically constrained by the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to humans.
Is it coincidental or providential that Bill Gates finally admits to what serious scientists have known for more than 2 decades about the forthcoming viral apocalypse?
The viral apocalypse will not be prevented by vaccines because viruses adapt to quickly. The facts about the energy-dependent adaptations of viruses compared to hosts are known to all serious scientists. For comparison, whose works have been funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Is philanthropy wasted on pseudoscientists?
See: Bill Gates refutes theistic evolution (sequel)