Cytosis can be used to teach everything from base editing to RNA editing to everyone over age 10. They will learn how to link the creation of energy to biophysically constrained viral latency via the physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction.

The next reformation: 500 years too late? (1)

Summary: The next reformation links the creation of the sense of smell to all biodiversity in the context of biophysically constrained viral latency.
The vibrational theory of olfaction for the win

Although there is nothing comparable to this kind of insight into the molecular world of scent within the shapist mentality, we should probably thank its supporters for making this battle of ideas so epic. There may yet be time for two more big events in the field, one a Nobel party [for Luca Turin], and the other, a funeral [for shape theory].

Shape theory has been touted in the context of the Watson and Crick model of the static DNA double helix. All serious scientists have since dismissed that ridiculous model. I admit, however, that in my review of the book, The Emperor of Scent, which was about Luca Turin, I was critical of his correct approach. But Wen Zhou’s group has since linked Turin’s claims from the creation of sunlight to the creation of ATP and the creation of RNA. The extension from the creation of RNA to the creation of olfactory receptors links the time-space continuum to the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction and all biodiversity via feedback loops.
That was expected by every serious scientist I know. The serious scientists know that gene activation is energy-dependent. They do not link sudden energy jumps from de Vries (1902) definition of mutation to all biodiversity. The next reformation links the creation of the sense of smell to all biodiversity in the context of biophysically constrained viral latency.
See: The next reformation: 500 years too late? (2)

Cytosis can be used to teach everything from base editing to RNA editing to everyone over age 10. They will learn how to link the creation of energy to biophysically constrained viral latency via the physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction.

The next reformation: 500 years too late? (3)

Historical perspective: October 31, 1517 was the first Reformation Day

At the October 24, 2017 premiere of “Light Unshackled” (in Morganton, Georgia), I learned how the dramatic history of “The Reformation” was linked from the unnecessary suffering and premature death of many people to the life’s works of John Calvin, the leading French Protestant Reformer.

Phillip Mills, Phillip Mills, Jr. and others helped me realize that John Calvin’s works led to an attempt by the Templeton Foundation to bastardize what serious scientists know about Darwin’s energy-dependent “conditions of life.”

For comparison, the Templeton Foundation supports the efforts of those who place the energy-dependent creation of all biophysically constrained pheromone-controlled biodiversity back into the concept of random mutations and neo-Darwinian evolution.
If the Templeton Foundation’s purpose was to link science to religion, they would start with the facts. The facts link the creation of quantized energy from electrons to ecosystems in all living genera via the physiology of reproduction. By funding those who have failed to start from God’s creation of quantized energy as information and place it into the context of the virucidal energy of sunlight, the Templeton Foundation has funded the shackling of light that “Light Unshackled” linked from the “Dark Ages” before “The Reformation” to the Dark Years that followed — after the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, TN.

Since 1925, many students in the United States have been taught to believe that mutations cause evolution. That is what many of them still believe. Instead of learning more about how 1) the creation of sunlight was linked from 2) the creation of ATP and 3) the creation of RNA to 4) the creation of olfactory receptors and 5) the physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction in all living genera to 6) all biophysically constrained biodiversity, students learned to believe in pseudoscientific nonsense.

Thank God, those of us who do not believe in that pseudoscientific nonsense are not still being martyred.

See: Randomness and Divine Providence


We cannot conceive of a global external factor that could cause, during this time, parallel evolution of amino acid compositions of proteins in 15 diverse taxa that represent all three domains of life and span a wide range of lifestyles and environments. Thus, currently, the most plausible hypothesis is that we are observing a universal, intrinsic trend that emerged before the last universal common ancestor of all extant organisms.

The food energy-dependent trend links the metabolism of food to the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in all living genera. Energy-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions protect all organized genomes from virus-driven entropy. Virus-driven energy theft must be biophysically constrained. That is why no last universal common ancestor of all extant organisms will ever be found.

Energy as information did not emerge. It was created and the anti-entropic virucidal energy of sunlight is proof of that fact. The creation of energy as information links quantum physics to the creation of quantum souls across the space-time continuum.

See for comparison to what serious scientists believe, and why they are not likely to believe in neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific nonsense:

Kalevi Kull: Censorship & Royal Society Evo Event

“…the dramatic history of the theory of evolution. . .

Here’s a sketch. Estonia has been described as a country with one of the richest political experiences. We also see this in our history of Darwinism.

In the 19th century, Tartu University was one of the leading German-language universities, and one of the leading critics of Darwin was working at Tartu University — Karl Ernst von Baer, the founder of developmental biology. Simultaneously, one of the very first courses in the world and best textbooks written about Darwin’s-time Darwinism was provided by a professor at the same university, Georg Seidlitz.

Around the turn of the century, before WWI, Tartu University was a Russian-language university, and Darwinism was soon popularised as supporting early socialist ideas. Soon after, together with advances in genetics, evolutionary theory was interpreted as a basis for eugenics (also used in this way by national socialists in Germany before WWII).

Then Estonia was annexed by Russia, and after the WWII for more than a decade it meant the influence of vulgar Darwinism (also called ‘creative Darwinism’ at that time), as propagated by Lysenko (yes, he also praised Darwin, he just did not like genetics).

In the 1970s and 80s, all students in the Soviet Union had to learn how Darwinism goes hand in hand with Marxism, meaning a good connection with the ‘synthetic theory of evolution’, which was a synonym for neo-Darwinism. . .

Simultaneously, a radical non-Darwinism was also developing within certain circles of Soviet biologists, who took it from the theory of Nomogenesis of Lev Berg and his follower Alexander Lyubischev. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, an outgrowth of neo-Darwinism called sociobiology became a dominant view for many, particularly among zoologists. . .

If one has read all this and been able to understand why all these scholars had the views they had, it is hardly possible to describe this history as gradual improvement of a model, continuous extension of a synthesis. There have rather been different paradigms existing and developing in parallel. Most of the time just one of them was strongly dominant over the other. And since evolutionary theory has almost always been tied to some ideological battles, its changes were not limited by scientific discoveries.

Nevertheless, we have good friends and colleagues whose views about evolution we do not share. But should we therefore be less strict in our formulations about our views? No, that would mean giving up our understanding. Good teachers wouldn’t do so.

Good people do not give up their understanding of molecular epigenetics. They find new ways to teach others the truth about energy-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation.

Biology, molecular and organismic(1964)

Ingram and others found that hemoglobin S differs from A in the substitution of just a single amino acid, valine in place of glutamic acid in the beta chain of the hemoglobin molecule.

McEwen et al., (1964) Dependence of RNA synthesis in isolated thymus nuclei on glycolysis, oxidative carbohydrate catabolism and a type of “oxidative phosphorylation”

Isolated thymus nuclei transport amino acids into an intranuclear pool by a process which seems to depend on energy from nuclear ATP synthesis (20).

Species of Drosophila (1972)

Intraspecific variations are important as raw materials from which race and species differentials are compounded in the process of evolution. Lamarck and Darwin stressed that species were not all uniformly discrete. Darwin concluded that “species are only strongly marked and permanent varieties, and that each species first existed as a variety” (3).

Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution (1973)

…the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla.

A universal trend of amino acid gain and loss in protein evolution (2005)

Amino acid composition of proteins varies substantially between taxa and, thus, can evolve.

Please note: Only the article from 2005 claims that amino acids automagically evolve outside the context of anything known about the required links from food energy to the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to humans.

The next reformation: 500 years too late? (4)


Wasted Templeton Funding (2)

See also: Wasted Templeton Funding (1)

Templeton grant funds evolution rethink


The extended evolutionary synthesis is a term coined in 2007 to imply that the preeminent current evolutionary theory, the so-called modern synthesis, needed to broaden its focus because it concentrated too much on the role of genes in evolution and lacked adequate incorporation of new insights from development and other areas of biology.

My comment: That is an understatement! The problems with the so-called modern synthesis are perfectly clear:
1) [W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent…. Evolution was defined as “changes in gene frequencies in natural populations.” The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another…. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.
2) The entire evolution of the microbial world and the virus world, and the interaction between microbes and viruses and other life forms have been left out of the Modern Synthesis…
3) …evolutionary science has now “moved on to such an extent” that she and Peter Saunders don’t really care anymore about “trying to convince the neo-Darwinists.”
All serious scientists have since linked angstroms to ecosystems via what is known about the biophysically constrained chemistry of energy-dependent protein folding and links from the innate immune system to supercoiled DNA, which protects all organized genomes from virus-driven energy theft and entropy in the context of the physiology of reproduction.
See for example:

See also: Precision Medicine Program to Get $9.3M in NHLBI Funding for Omics Research
One of the things they are asking for is:

“Causal modeling using whole genome sequences and functional genomics data to enhance discovery of influential genetic and epigenetic variants that influence [heart, lung, blood, and sleep] HLBS disorders;”

My comment: They are asking for what has already been included in every model of biologically-based cell type differentiation that has ever been detailed by serious scientists.  Now, the  Templeton Foundation has awarded $8.7M to fund research that can only benefit humanity by answering Schrodinger’s question “What is Life?” in the context of what is known about how the energy-dependent RNA-mediated innate immune system and supercoiled DNA protect life from virus-driven energy theft.”How often do we still hear that quantum effects can have little relevance in the study of biology, or even that we eat food in order to gain energy?” — Roger Penrose