This one: Temperament gene inheritance:
Abstract: A temperament gene and its inheritance mechanisms have never been academically addressed. In this study we have tried to explain a genetic basis of a temperament inheritance mode; temperament is regularly inherited by the son from the mother and by the daughter from the father. Such a transmission mode corresponds to the X chromosome-linked inheritance and indicates that a temperament gene locus is on the X chromosome. Here we show that most probable temperament gene candidate is the VAMP7 gene of Xq PAR; besides its role in neuritogenesis, a relationship was proposed between the outward migration mode of the VAMP7 mediated vesicles, the female paternal temperament allele preservation in the secondary oocyte/ovum, and its transmission to the next generation. We have eliminated 113 temperament gene candidates in the distal Xq region, due to their mRNA numbers, expression in the brain and ovary, accordance to our proposed inheritance mode of a silent temperament allele, and genetic linkages.
– Farzaneh Koohyanizadeh, Ali Gorgin Karaji, Sara Falahi, Alireza Rezaiemanesh, Farhad Salari In silico prediction of deleterious single nucleotide polymorphisms in human interleukin 27 (IL-27) gene Meta Gene, Volume 25, 2020, Article 100710
From Retraction Watch:
Elsevier says it is investigating how one of its journals managed to publish a paper with patently absurd assertions about the genetic inheritance of personality traits…
Erm, about that concerning peer review process. Elsevier also was the publisher of the equally risible book chapter claiming that COVID-19 came to earth on a meteorite. Why did the journal not share those concerns before these papers were published? “
‘Transparently ridiculous’: Elsevier says journal shares critic’s concerns about bizarre genetics paper” at Retraction Watch
And what’s that about a book chapter about COVID-19 arriving on a meteorite?:
The authors are from several prestigious and less familiar institutions worldwide, including the University of Toronto, the Tianjin Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in China, the University of Melbourne, in Australia, as well as the Institute for the Study of Panspermia and Astroeconomics in Japan and the History of Chinese Science and Culture Foundation in London, England.
The corresponding author is Chandra Wickramasinghe, who has form in this area, having claimed two decades ago that flu also came from space — an idea roundly criticized as bunk. He has also claimed that SARS — an earlier coronavirus — had the same origins. Ditto.
“COVID-19 arrived on a meteorite, claims Elsevier book chapter” at Retraction Watch
We admit we hadn’t heard about the Space Covids. Here’s the chapter anyway.
Hmmm. Wickramasinghe, a Hoyle associate, is usually treated more kindly. The moral of that story, we guess, is that you can say anything you want about how life originated but you can’t mess with how Covid originated.
The temperament thing sounds like a deliberate hoax, planted by the orthodox Deepstate to discredit genes. Everyone knows that temperament is PARTLY genetic, determined by many genes in complex ways. A paper that tries to narrow it down to one gene is a classic false flag, like intentionally conflating ID with creationism.
SPACE COOTIES!!!!! I was right covid IS space cooties!
Sometimes it takes a comedian to reveal just how ‘patently absurd’ some of these claims for genes actually are:
But on a more serious note, and as the following article states, “The three letter word for — the gene FOR something — is the most dangerous word in genetics.” And the craze is not harmless,”
And like everything else goes for Darwinism as science progresses, the ‘gene problem’ has only gotten worse for Darwinists as science has progressed.
This creates an insurmountable problem for Darwinists ever providing an adequate genetic explanation for phenotypic traits. As the following author commented, “If more than about three genes (nature unspecified) underpin a phenotype, the mathematics of population genetics, while qualitatively analyzable, requires too many unknown parameters to make quantitatively testable predictions”
And as the following Oxford scientist honestly admitted, “we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another,,,”
As should be needless to say, the fact that phenotypic traits, like height, are the result of ‘thousands of genetic variants working in concert’ is simply devastating to Richard Dawkins’ entire concept of ‘selfish genes’.
In fact, instead of ‘selfish genes’, as Dawkins had falsely envisioned, they should now be termed ‘extremely cooperative genes’.
Which is the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’. (And should, if Darwinism were a science instead of being the religion for atheists that it actually is, count as yet another falsification of the theory).
Even James Shapiro himself, (who shuns Darwinism and champions what he terms to be ‘The Third Way’), admits that “the ‘Gene’ Concept Holds Back Evolutionary Thinking”. and further states that “The modern concept of the genome has no basic units. It has literally become “systems all the way down.”
“COVID-19 came to earth on a meteorite”
so what … last year was similar mainstream paper published,
WARNING, THIS IS NOT A HOAX !
THIS WAS REALLY PUBLISHED IN PEER-REVIEWED PAPER SIGNED BY 33 MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS !
“33 Scientists Say That Octopuses Are Aliens From Space That Arrived To Earth On Icy Bodies”
What happened to Darwin’s common ancestor when Octopuses came to Earth from elsewhere ?
The original peer-reviewed paper is here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610718300798?via%3Dihub
When the study on Hydroxychloroquine came out in the Lancet a few months back, I took a look. It took me 15 minutes to debunk the article. They compared, IIRC, patients to whom no treatment was given to those who were given various combinations of HCQ. The non-treatment group had NO fatalities, while those treated with HCQ did.
Well, the conclusion would be that people suffering from Covid19 should be given nothing—a ridiculous conclusion. It was clear from this that the “control” group were all mild/asymptomatic cases. Well, this is a bogus comparison.
So, how did it get into the Lancet? We should all be aware that politics was at play. But by whom? And for what reasons?
This Elsevier article, along with the Lancet article, demonstrate that the whole notion of “peer-reviewed” literature should be jettisoned.