Exemplifying Creation without knowing it

Mention of David Dalrymple in the context of him “…playing to be the god of the C. elegans” led me to look into his involvement with Singularity University and also look into his involvement in a new project Dalrymple is coordinating.

Can you imagine what will happen when the “gods” of model organisms finally realize that they forgot to connect physics to biology? This has not stopped them from making technological progress. It just eliminates what they claim to be true from any consideration for its explanatory power in the context of life on this planet.  Claims about artificial intelligence are fine, but everything in life becomes comparatively simplistic theory when you cannot link physics to the biology of life.  For example, simplistic theories lack explanatory power in the context of Darwin’s ‘conditions of life.’

Conditions of life are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. C. elegans is the model organism that recently exemplified the fact there is no such thing as mutation-initiated natural selection. The transition from ‘grazing’ to predatory nematodes with teeth is one example I used in my model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution.

My link from physics to biology is THE Singularity that precedes all other singularities associated with life on earth. De novo creation of olfactory receptor genes enables the nutrient-dependent de novo creation of species-specific blends of pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man.

What does the “god of the C. elegans” know about nutrient-dependent de novo creation times two, which obviously occurs with olfactory receptor genes and pheromones?

See also: “David Dalrymple is a PhD student at Harvard using optogenetics to determine the function, behaviour, and biophysics of each individual worm neuron with the goal of building a complete simulation of the nervous system. In a November 2011 lecture video he estimated the full analysis and emulation should take three to four years to develop. The goal is then to move on to more complicated organisms. The next step might be the five-day old zebrafish lavae with their ~100,000 neurons. Then the honey bee (960,000 neurons), then mouse (50 million neurons), and ultimately humans (~85 billion neurons). He expects a full cellular level emulation of the human brain within his lifetime.”

Their nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction is the connection between all the model organisms mentioned in the above excerpted paragraph. The best that can be expected from optogenetics is that it will establish the fact that it is the epigenetic link from olfactory/pheromonal input to alternative splicings and ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction that exemplifies Creation. Thus, Dalrymple’s goal appears to be to provide optogenetic examples of Creation as he moves from C. elegans to man using the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization required in the context of physics (e.g., the thermodynamics of organism-level thermoregulation in species from microbes to man). Do you think he knows he will probably be labeled a “Creationist” by people like Reese Jones if he reaches his goal?

Author: James Kohl

1 thought on “Exemplifying Creation without knowing it

  1. https://www.facebook.com/david.dalrymple/posts/10100482108048553 My response to Sasha Grujicic:

    My link from physics to biology is THE Singularity of de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes. It enables the nutrient-dependent de novo creation of species-specific blends of pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction and thereby controls adaptive evolution.

    What may be missing at SU is evidence of cause and effect at the level of molecular mechanisms that link protein folding in C. elegans from base pair changes and alternative splicings to the amino acid substitutions that enable the epigenetic ‘landscape’ to become the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man. If the conserved molecular mechanisms that enable the differences in protein folding are not discussed in the context of biophysics by specialists studying C. elegans or other model organisms, the missing information on biophysics will continue to impact other specialties.

    Clearly, at some point, perhaps even sooner than later, the conserved molecular mechanisms must be discussed lest all else introduced into discussion continue to remain nonsense based on theory (e.g., the theory of mutation-driven evolution via mutation-initiated natural selection). In my opinion, people limit the spread of technology / inventions that threaten their positions of power because their positions are not based on experimental evidence. Thus, their models are largely mathematical and not capable of linking physics to biology since biology is not a function of mathematics. It requires experimental evidence from model organisms, not just calculations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.