At Retraction Watch: “Transparently absurd” paper at Elsevier

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. PaV

"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 martin_r

Sometimes it takes a comedian to reveal just how 'patently absurd' some of these claims for genes actually are:

John Cleese - Genes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv6bB8EN2lA

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,"

Gene previously linked to obesity is unrelated - June 29, 2015 Excerpt: … in the real world of careful analysis, scientists are just not finding the “genes” that the headline writers need. British geneticist Steve Jones points out that most human traits are influenced by so many genes that there is no likely systematic cause and effect: "We know of more than 50 different genes associated with height … That has not percolated into the public mind, as the Google search for “scientists find the gene for” shows. The three letter word for — the gene FOR something — is the most dangerous word in genetics." And the craze is not harmless, he warns. … https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/genetics/gene-previously-linked-to-obesity-is-unrelated/

And like everything else goes for Darwinism as science progresses, the 'gene problem' has only gotten worse for Darwinists as science has progressed.

GIANT study reveals giant number of genes linked to height - Oct. 5, 2014 Excerpt: The largest genome-wide association study (GWAS) to date, involving more than 300 institutions and more than 250,000 subjects, roughly doubles the number of known gene regions influencing height to more than 400. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-giant-reveals-genes-linked-height.html What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? - JUN 16, 2017 Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/its-like-all-connected-man/530532/ Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait - June 20, 2018 Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,, One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out. Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/

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"

The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology – Bard - 2011 Excerpt: 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 [6]. The inadequacy of this approach is demonstrated by illustrations of the molecular pathways that generates traits [7]: the network underpinning something as simple as growth may have forty or fifty participating proteins whose production involves perhaps twice as many DNA sequences, if one includes enhancers, splice variants etc. Theoretical genetics simply cannot handle this level of complexity, let alone analyse the effects of mutation.. http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf

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,,,"

With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - November 2011 Excerpt: As of now, we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/with_a_startling_candor_oxford052821.html

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.”

Why the ‘Gene’ Concept Holds Back Evolutionary Thinking – James Shapiro – 11/30/2012 Excerpt: The Century of the Gene. In a 1948 Scientific American article, soon-to-be Nobel Laureate George Beadle wrote: “genes are the basic units of all living things.”,,, This notion of the genome as a collection of discrete gene units prevailed when the neo-Darwinian “Modern Synthesis” emerged in the pre-DNA 1940s. Some prominent theorists even proposed that evolution could be defined simply as a change over time in the frequencies of different gene forms in a population.,,, The basic issue is that molecular genetics has made it impossible to provide a consistent, or even useful, definition of the term “gene.” In March 2009, I attended a workshop at the Santa Fe Institute entitled “Complexity of the Gene Concept.” Although we had a lot of smart people around the table, we failed as a group to agree on a clear meaning for the term. The modern concept of the genome has no basic units. It has literally become “systems all the way down.” There are piecemeal coding sequences, expression signals, splicing signals, regulatory signals, epigenetic formatting signals, and many other “DNA elements” (to use the neutral ENCODE terminology) that participate in the multiple functions involved in genome expression, replication, transmission, repair and evolution.,,, Conventional thinkers may claim that molecular data only add details to a well-established evolutionary paradigm. But the diehard defenders of orthodoxy in evolutionary biology are grievously mistaken in their stubbornness. DNA and molecular genetics have brought us to a fundamentally new conceptual understanding of genomes, how they are organized and how they function. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/why-the-gene-concept-hold_b_2207245.html

bornagain77

SPACE COOTIES!!!!! I was right covid IS space cooties! AaronS1978

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. polistra