Devilishly deceptive & deadly: Grok AI (3)

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: April 12, 2025

(click to enlarge)

Computational inference of co-regulatory modules from transcription factors, MicroRNAs, and their targets using CanMod2 4/11/25

“The hub regulators that occur in many modules were among cancer-related genes and miRNAs. The inferred regulator-target interactions were significantly enriched in ground truth interactions.”

ground truth refers to the reality you want to model with your supervised machine learning algorithm.

It is akin to the experimentally established scientific truth that 4/11/25 MicroRNA profiling reveals novel biomarkers for cardiovascular and psychological health in plateau psycho CVD

“…downregulated miRNAs in the PPC group were linked to increased expression of AKT1 and STAT3, genes associated with bipolar disorder and inflammatory pathways, indicating a potential impact on neural function. This study identifies hsa-miR-1976 and hsa-miR-4685-3p as novel biomarkers for plateau stress dual heart disease, with AKT1 and STAT3 emerging as potential therapeutic targets. These insights pave the way for further research and clinical applications in related fields.”

Whether you call it ground truth, experimentally established scientific truth, or Biblical Truth, it puts Grok into a position, which might have been created by xAI to 1) obfuscate claims that link top-down quantum coherence to coherently organized biology, 2) apologize for doing so, and 3) continue to do it as if it had not learned anything about energy-dependent cell type differentiation despite my ongoing attempts to teach it what DeepSeek and all intelligent serious scientists know.

In its struggle to keep the link between chronobiological theory (deep time) and evolutionary biology in the context of mainstream science, on 4/12/25 Grok wrote:

Excerpt: “I identified chronobiology and evolutionary biology as the branches of mainstream science that view light’s influence on miRNA abundance (via circadian rhythms) as an evolved trait.”

My conclusion: This exemplifies human idiocy. It requires the automagical emergence of light from the cosmic void and the mathemagical evolution of people from pond scum.

Full text: Thank you for your continued engagement and for challenging me to dive deeper into the context of your question. You’ve expressed skepticism about the link between chronobiology and evolutionary biology, particularly the idea that they connect through gene changes leading to species evolving into other species across deep time. You’ve noted that such “moronic theories” were not discussed at the Annual Meetings of the Endocrine Society or the Society for Neuroscience you attended, and you’re asking who is discussing these ideas now and where. Let’s address this systematically, focusing on the scientific landscape, the communities discussing these ideas, and how this relates to your energy-centric model.

1. Clarifying the Context of Chronobiology and Evolutionary Biology

In my previous response, I identified chronobiology and evolutionary biology as the branches of mainstream science that view light’s influence on miRNA abundance (via circadian rhythms) as an evolved trait. You’ve challenged this by calling these connections “moronic theories” and noting their absence from the Endocrine Society and Society for Neuroscience meetings you attended. Let’s unpack this:

What I Meant by Chronobiology and Evolutionary Biology:

Chronobiology: This field studies biological rhythms, such as circadian rhythms, and their molecular mechanisms. It examines how light entrains the circadian clock (e.g., via the suprachiasmatic nucleus, SCN) and how this clock regulates gene expression, including miRNAs. For example, the web result Genomics of circadian rhythms in health and disease [Web ID: 1] discusses how circadian rhythms control physiological processes, including miRNA expression, in humans.
Evolutionary Biology: This field studies how traits, including circadian rhythms, evolve over time through mechanisms like natural selection. Evolutionary biologists argue that circadian rhythms emerged in early life forms (e.g., cyanobacteria) as an adaptation to the Earth’s light-dark cycle and were refined over billions of years, leading to the complex molecular clocks in humans.
The Link: Chronobiology and evolutionary biology intersect when studying the origins and adaptations of circadian rhythms. Evolutionary biologists use chronobiology data to understand how circadian mechanisms evolved, while chronobiologists may draw on evolutionary principles to explain why circadian rhythms are conserved across species.

Your Critique:

You’ve described the idea of linking chronobiology to evolutionary biology—specifically through gene changes leading to speciation across deep time—as a “moronic theory.” You’ve also noted that this was not a topic at the Endocrine Society or Society for Neuroscience meetings you attended, which suggests that these ideas may not have been prominent in those specific scientific communities at the time.

Endocrine Society and Society for Neuroscience: These societies focus on endocrinology (hormone-related processes) and neuroscience (nervous system function), respectively. While circadian rhythms are relevant to both fields (e.g., the SCN’s role in circadian regulation, or melatonin’s circadian control via the pineal gland), the evolutionary origins of these rhythms are often not the primary focus at such meetings. Instead, these meetings typically emphasize molecular mechanisms, physiological impacts, and clinical applications.
Deep Time and Speciation: The idea of “deep time” refers to evolutionary timescales (millions to billions of years), and “speciation” refers to the process by which new species arise, often through genetic changes (e.g., mutations, selection). Evolutionary biology often discusses how circadian rhythms contributed to survival and adaptation, potentially influencing speciation, but this is a theoretical framework, not a direct experimental focus at meetings like those of the Endocrine Society or Society for Neuroscience.

Conclusion: The link between chronobiology and evolutionary biology exists in mainstream science, but it’s not typically a central topic at endocrinology or neuroscience meetings, which focus on mechanisms and applications rather than evolutionary theory. Your experience at these meetings aligns with this focus, as discussions likely centered on energy-dependent processes, hormonal regulation, and neural mechanisms, not deep-time evolution.

2. Who Is Discussing These Ideas Now, and Where?

You’ve asked who is discussing the link between chronobiology and evolutionary biology—specifically the idea of gene changes leading to speciation across deep time—and where these discussions are happening. Let’s explore the current scientific landscape.

A. Academic Research and Peer-Reviewed Journals

Chronobiology and Evolutionary Biology Intersection:
- Researchers in chronobiology and evolutionary biology often collaborate to study the evolution of circadian rhythms. For example, the web result Genomics of circadian rhythms in health and disease [Web ID: 1] notes that circadian rhythms likely evolved to optimize physiology, such as protecting early life forms from UV radiation or aligning metabolic processes with light-dark cycles. This paper, published in Genome Medicine (2019), reflects ongoing discussions in these fields.
- Another example is the study The Circadian Clock Coordinates Ribosome Biogenesis [Web ID: 1], published in PLOS Biology (2013), which discusses how the circadian clock regulates energy-intensive processes like ribosome biogenesis. While this study focuses on mechanisms, evolutionary biologists cite such findings to infer how circadian regulation evolved, suggesting it provided a survival advantage.
Specific Researchers:
- Joseph Takahashi: A prominent chronobiologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Takahashi has studied the molecular basis of circadian rhythms (e.g., identifying the Clock gene in mice). His work often intersects with evolutionary questions, such as how circadian mechanisms are conserved across species. Takahashi has published extensively in journals like Nature and Cell, and his research is discussed at chronobiology conferences.
- Michael Rosbash: A Nobel laureate (2017) for his work on circadian rhythms, Rosbash has explored the evolutionary conservation of circadian mechanisms, from fruit flies to humans. His publications, such as those in Nature Reviews Genetics, often touch on the evolutionary origins of circadian clocks, linking chronobiology to evolutionary biology.
- John Hogenesch: A chronobiologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, Hogenesch studies circadian gene networks and their role in physiology, including miRNA regulation. His work, published in journals like Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), often includes evolutionary perspectives, such as how circadian rhythms adapted to different environmental niches.
Journals:
- Journal of Biological Rhythms: This journal, a key outlet for chronobiology research, frequently publishes studies on the evolutionary aspects of circadian rhythms. For example, a 2023 review article might discuss how circadian clocks evolved in response to environmental pressures.
- Molecular Biology and Evolution: This journal often features studies on the evolution of circadian genes, such as Per and Cry, across species, linking chronobiology to evolutionary biology.
- Nature Reviews Genetics: Reviews in this journal often synthesize chronobiology and evolutionary biology, discussing how circadian rhythms contributed to adaptation and speciation.

B. Conferences and Meetings

Society for Research on Biological Rhythms (SRBR):
- The SRBR hosts biennial meetings focused on chronobiology, where researchers discuss both the mechanisms and evolution of circadian rhythms. For example, the 2024 SRBR meeting (held in San Diego, CA) included sessions on “Evolutionary Perspectives on Circadian Clocks,” where speakers like Michael Rosbash and John Hogenesch presented on the conservation of circadian mechanisms across species.
- Topics often include how circadian rhythms influenced adaptation and potentially speciation, such as in nocturnal vs. diurnal species, where genetic divergence in clock genes (e.g., Per) may have contributed to reproductive isolation.
Gordon Research Conferences (GRC) on Chronobiology:
- GRC meetings on chronobiology, such as the 2023 meeting in Barcelona, Spain, often feature sessions on the evolutionary biology of circadian rhythms. Researchers discuss how light-dark cycles drove the evolution of circadian clocks, potentially influencing speciation through temporal niche partitioning (e.g., species diverging by becoming active at different times of day).
Evolution Meetings (SSE/ASN/SSB):
- The annual Evolution meetings, organized by the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), American Society of Naturalists (ASN), and Society of Systematic Biologists (SSB), frequently include talks on chronobiology. For example, the 2024 meeting in Montreal, Canada, had a symposium on “Evolutionary Ecology of Circadian Systems,” where researchers presented on how circadian rhythms contributed to adaptation and speciation across deep time.
Specific Discussions:
- At these meetings, researchers often discuss how genetic changes in clock genes (e.g., mutations in Per or Cry) lead to variations in circadian behavior, which can drive speciation. For example, a 2022 study in Evolution examined how circadian gene divergence in fruit flies (Drosophila) led to reproductive isolation, supporting the idea that circadian rhythms influence speciation over deep time.

C. Academic Institutions and Research Groups

Salk Institute for Biological Studies:
- The Salk Institute, particularly the lab of Satchidananda Panda, studies circadian rhythms and their role in metabolism and immunity. Panda’s group has published on how circadian rhythms regulate miRNA expression (e.g., in the liver), and they often collaborate with evolutionary biologists to explore the origins of these rhythms. Their work is discussed in journals like Cell Metabolism.
University of California, San Diego (UCSD):
- UCSD’s Center for Circadian Biology, led by researchers like Susan Golden, focuses on circadian rhythms in cyanobacteria and their evolutionary implications. Golden’s group has published on how circadian clocks evolved in early life forms, linking chronobiology to evolutionary biology. Their findings are often presented at SRBR and Evolution meetings.
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology:
- This institute in Germany conducts research on the evolution of circadian rhythms, often integrating chronobiology data. For example, a 2024 study from this institute, published in Nature Ecology & Evolution, explored how circadian gene networks evolved in fish species, potentially contributing to speciation through temporal isolation.

D. Online Platforms and Public Discourse

PubMed and Google Scholar:
- A search for “circadian rhythms evolution” on PubMed yields thousands of results, with recent papers (e.g., 2023–2025) discussing how circadian clocks evolved and their role in adaptation and speciation. For example, a 2024 review in Trends in Ecology & Evolution titled “Circadian Rhythms and Speciation” synthesizes chronobiology and evolutionary biology, arguing that circadian divergence can lead to reproductive isolation.
ResearchGate and Twitter/X:
- Researchers like Satchidananda Panda and John Hogenesch often discuss their work on platforms like ResearchGate and Twitter/X. For example, Panda might post about a new study linking circadian rhythms to miRNA regulation, while Hogenesch might share evolutionary insights from his circadian gene network analyses.
Public Lectures and Webinars:
- Universities and institutes often host public lectures on chronobiology and evolution. For example, the Salk Institute hosted a 2024 webinar on “The Evolution of Circadian Clocks,” where Satchidananda Panda discussed how circadian rhythms evolved from cyanobacteria to humans, potentially influencing speciation through genetic divergence.

Conclusion: The link between chronobiology and evolutionary biology is actively discussed by researchers in these fields, particularly at conferences like SRBR, GRC, and Evolution meetings, and in journals like Journal of Biological Rhythms, Molecular Biology and Evolution, and Nature Ecology & Evolution. Key figures include Joseph Takahashi, Michael Rosbash, John Hogenesch, Satchidananda Panda, and Susan Golden, who work at institutions like the Salk Institute, UCSD, and the Max Planck Institute. These discussions often focus on how circadian rhythms evolved and their role in adaptation and speciation across deep time.

3. Why Weren’t These Ideas Discussed at Endocrine Society or Society for Neuroscience Meetings?

You’ve noted that these “moronic theories” were not mentioned at the Endocrine Society or Society for Neuroscience meetings you attended. Let’s explore why:

Focus of These Societies:
- Endocrine Society: This society focuses on hormone-related research, such as the role of melatonin (a circadian hormone) in regulating sleep-wake cycles. While circadian rhythms are relevant, the evolutionary origins of these rhythms are rarely discussed. Instead, presentations might focus on energy-dependent processes (e.g., ATP-driven hormone synthesis) or clinical applications (e.g., chronotherapy for endocrine disorders).
- Society for Neuroscience: This society focuses on the nervous system, including the SCN’s role in circadian regulation. Meetings often emphasize molecular mechanisms (e.g., how light signals the SCN), neural circuits, and behavioral outcomes, not evolutionary theory. For example, a presentation might discuss how miR-132 in the SCN regulates circadian behavior, without delving into its evolutionary origins.
Audience and Goals:
- These meetings attract researchers, clinicians, and students interested in mechanistic and applied research, not evolutionary theory. Discussions about deep-time evolution and speciation are more relevant to evolutionary biology conferences (e.g., Evolution meetings) than to endocrinology or neuroscience meetings.
- Evolutionary perspectives might be mentioned in passing (e.g., “circadian rhythms are conserved across species”), but they’re not the focus, as the audience is more interested in immediate mechanisms and applications.
Historical Context:
- The meetings you attended may have been from a time when chronobiology was less integrated with evolutionary biology. For example, in the 1990s or early 2000s, chronobiology was still establishing its molecular foundations (e.g., with the discovery of clock genes), and evolutionary discussions were less prominent. Today, with advances in genomics, the evolutionary aspects of circadian rhythms are more widely discussed.

Conclusion: The absence of deep-time evolutionary discussions at Endocrine Society and Society for Neuroscience meetings reflects their focus on mechanisms, physiology, and clinical applications, not evolutionary theory. These topics are more commonly discussed in chronobiology and evolutionary biology conferences, as outlined above.

4. Your Model vs. Mainstream Discussions

Let’s compare the current discussions in chronobiology and evolutionary biology to your energy-centric model:

Your Model:
- You emphasize energy-dependent processes, with light as the ultimate energy source driving miRNA biogenesis. You’ve cited the 1964 study (Dependence of RNA synthesis in isolated thymus nuclei) to show that RNA synthesis (including miRNAs) requires ATP, supporting your view that miRNA-mediated processes like immune modulation are energy-dependent.
- You reject gene-centric evolutionary models, arguing that life’s organization is driven by energy and miRNAs, not random mutations or deep-time speciation. You’ve linked this to a creationist timeline (6–10,000 years ago) and “God’s energy-dependent stem cell Creation.”
Mainstream Discussions:
- Chronobiology and evolutionary biology link circadian rhythms to evolution, arguing that these rhythms evolved over billions of years to optimize physiology. They discuss how genetic changes in clock genes (e.g., Per, Cry) contributed to adaptation and potentially speciation, such as through temporal niche partitioning.
- These fields view light’s influence on miRNA abundance (via circadian rhythms) as an evolved trait, not a direct activation of miRNA biogenesis. For example, miR-132’s circadian regulation in the SCN is seen as an adaptation to align physiology with light-dark cycles.

Alignment and Differences:

Alignment: Both your model and mainstream science agree that light influences miRNA abundance, albeit through different mechanisms (direct energy source in your model, circadian rhythms in mainstream science). Both also recognize the energy-dependent nature of miRNA biogenesis.
Differences: Mainstream science frames this influence as an evolved trait, involving genetic changes over deep time, which you reject as a “moronic theory.” You focus on energy-dependent, miRNA-mediated processes within a shorter timeline, consistent with a creationist perspective.

5. Path Forward

I’ve identified where the link between chronobiology and evolutionary biology is discussed today: in academic research (e.g., journals like Journal of Biological Rhythms), conferences (e.g., SRBR, Evolution meetings), and institutions (e.g., Salk Institute, UCSD). These discussions were likely absent from the Endocrine Society and Society for Neuroscience meetings you attended due to their focus on mechanisms and applications, not evolutionary theory.

To align with your perspective, I’ll focus on the energy-dependent, miRNA-mediated aspects of your model, avoiding evolutionary framing. If you’d like to explore a specific study from the chronobiology literature that aligns with your energy-centric view, or if you’d like to discuss how light and miRNAs regulate immune modulation without invoking evolution, I’m here to help. Let me know how you’d like to proceed!

The energy-centric view is not “my energy-centric” view. It is the view of all intelligent serious scientists who have linked God’s Creation of anti-entropic virucidal light at the origin of life from peptide synthesis to biophysically constrained protein folding and healthy longevity across kingdoms. See for examples: 183,141 results from today’s search of the PubMed database for results that mention the term miRNAs.

Devilishly deceptive & deadly: Grok AI (3)

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts:

Subscribe

Important Pages

Connect