I got bored and decided to take a short glance at NaturalNews. Why I did that, I don’t know. I might sign up for his newsletter for future blog material, but I’m digressing.
For anyone who doesn’t know, NaturalNews is a website that’s run by Mike Adams, the self-proclaimed “Health Ranger”. He’s also a bit of an anti-science, paranoid gun-loving nut who is in the thrall of InfoWars, a well known conspiracy mongering site.
Anyways, one of the articles published yesterday was entitled “The Big Lie of Genetics Exposed: Human DNA Incapable of Storing Complete Blueprint of the Human Genome”.
I’ll be honest, since I’m considering a career in biotechnology and mess with genomes, I wanted to check it out. If genetics was a lie, we’d know about it, right?
So let’s get started.
The curse of being a critical thinker is that you can’t turn it off, I’ve discovered.
Well yeah, that kind of sucks. I walk around the supermarket near where I live and I see bottles of water with vitamins added to them that apparently have some sort of effect. I then get irritated because most people don’t need additional nutritional supplements, and honestly, is there any evidence that they’ll do what they claim to do? I should do some research on that, actually. Hm.
But in the end, it keeps me from making stupid choices, like massaging my thyroid in an attempt to cure my hypothyroidism. Or think that I need to restrict my consumption of gluten because I have a secret food allergy to that and I don’t know it. Or trying homeopathy. Or wasting my money on Airborne and similar products.
I’m digressing again. Oops.
Join me as we take an honest, critical look at genetics using the same kind of skepticism scientists demand we invoke when looking at medicinal herbs or acupuncture.
Adams, do you even know how to be honest OR critical? I mean, you’re the same person who declared that psychiatrists will become the newest law-enforcement officers and blindly endorsed this anti-vaccination report that STILL makes the claim that vaccines cause autism somehow, even though we have studies that show that autism and vaccines are not related in any way.
I’m sorry, that was low of me. Moving on.
Genetics is an attempt by materialistic scientists to offer a purely materialist view of inheritance and development of not just physical bodies but non-physical inherited attributes such as instinctive behaviors and cellular function.
Because obviously saying “God done it” is a better theory and can be tested under controlled conditions, right?
According to the theory of genetics, physical gene sequences contained in chromosomes found in each cell in your body are a “blueprint” for all your body’s physical structures, biochemical functions and inherited behavioral patterns. This blueprint, the theory goes, contains ALL the instructions needed to create a complete human form with all its physical structures, physiological functions and inherited behaviors fully represented and complete.
Theory. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Also, there’s no such thing as “the theory of genetics”, as far as I know. There’s a scientific discipline in biology called genetics, but I’m pretty sure that much of what we know about genetics and inheritance falls under the theory of evolution as the means to how natural selection works to pass on desirable traits.
Because of the enormous complexity of the human body, organ function, cell structures and instinctive behaviors, it was once believed that humans must possess somewhere around 2 million protein-coding genes. The Human Genome Project was launched in 1990 with the widespread belief that when it was finished, it would “unlock” all the mysteries of the origins of disease in humans.
This is true. We originally thought that we would have millions of genes in our cells, because we thought that the bigger the animal, the more genes needed to make us.
It was also believed that when the human genome fully mapped, scientists would be able to create humans in any form they wanted, including humans with extra arms or legs, humans free of all disease, humans with “enhanced” physical powers, and so on.
Um, no, as far as I know, that wasn’t the goal of the Human Genome Project.
The first draft of the Human Genome Project was published in the year 2,000. Far from being a breakthrough that would end all human disease, its findings utterly shattered the mythology of genetics as the sole explanation for all inheritance and physical development. Why? Because the Human Genome Project found that humans have only about 20,000 protein-coding genes, roughly the same number as the roundworm.
Huh? A human being has about the same number of protein-coding genes as a roundworm? Yes. And that’s straight out of the mouths of human genome researchers who are, themselves, hard-core materialists.
By comparison, the common fruit fly has about 15,000 genes, only marginally less than a human. And yet it is obvious to any intelligent observer than a human being is considerably more complex than a fruit fly and a roundworm. So why didn’t the Human Genome Project find a lot more genes that code proteins in humans?
Besides recalling that the goal of the Human Genome Project was NOT to eradicate ALL disease, someone should explain to Adams that appeal to complexity doesn’t an argument make.
So we thought that we were going to be more complex, and it turns out that we weren’t. Then, as real scientists are wont to do, we went ahead and tried to find out why that is, right?
The findings of the multi-billion-dollar Human Genome Project shattered the mythology of genetic materialism, sending nearly the entire scientific community into a tailspin and forcing “the great genetic cover-up” to begin.
Human genes simply needed “more research” to be understood, scientists exclaimed. And since the year 2000, that research has continued to no avail. The cover-up continues…
The truth is that there isn’t enough data storage in 20,000 genes to hold a blueprint for a human being.
Nope. In typical Mike Adams fashion, science is really just doing a “cover-up”. Scientists aren’t trying to discover the reasoning behind anything, they’re just lying their asses off while they sit at home eating bon-bons!
Is he trying to point us in the direction of “God done it”? I feel like he is, for some reason. Maybe it’s from having debated with creationists on this subject on the Internet. They’d always argue that making humans is too hard for it to happen “by chance”. Never mind that natural selection doesn’t happen “by chance”.
Allow me to explain this from a computer science point of view,
Because the entire study of genetics is the same thing as a computer program.
750MB of data is so small that no one can explain how it could possibly account for a human body with extraordinary complexity while somehow encompassing physical, structural, functional and behavioral inheritance as well.
To get a grasp of the complexity of the human body, realize that your body is made of 60 – 90 trillion cells. Each cell is its own ecosystem with highly complex functions including cell energy production, waste removal, cell membrane function, the nucleus command control center, and so on.
Your body manufactures 10 million red blood cells every hour. It has a capacity to heal damaged tissues almost everywhere. Your skin and intestines are being slowly replaced with new cells every minute. Your immune system is incredibly complex and highly capable, representing the most advanced system of nanotechnology that modern science has ever witnessed.
On top of all this, you are born with innate behaviors and the ability to develop, all on your own, the behavioral skills to walk, talk, focus your eyes, digest foods, eliminate waste, sweat, breathe and much more. Meanwhile, your body accomplishes billions of chemical reactions every second without you even knowing it. Somehow, every cell, organ and organ system in your body knows what to do to keep you alive and functioning.
Your body and its functions are unimaginably complex. Simply cataloging the structure and function of all the cells in your body right now would take countless terabytes of data — more than a million times larger than “megabytes” of data.
“OMG genetics and evolution is too hard. GOD DONE IT.”
No, seriously, I’m expecting Adams to just outright say that. That would be much easier to read, for one thing.
The human genome, therefore, is not the entire blueprint of human development. Although some genes do obviously code for some physical characteristics (such as eye color), genes alone do not contain the full blueprint. There must be something else that also contributes morphological information in addition to DNA.
The Human Genome Project, to the shock of nearly all materialists, ultimately proved exactly the opposite of what scientists had hoped. It proved that genes alone do not explain inheritance.
You didn’t actually prove anything, Mike Adams. All you did was pretend that the entire study of genetics was the same thing as a computer program, decided that the human body was too complicated for you, and said “okay, I’m done, science is a lie”. That’s not an argument. That’s a five year old throwing a tantrum because he wants his pet theory (in a non-scientific sense) to be right despite all of the evidence pointing to their being wrong.
The materialists were horrified by this finding. To this very day, they are pouring over human genome data, desperately trying to find some “meta data” that would explain all inheritance. What they refuse to acknowledge is that there is a non-physical field of inheritance patterns that functions as an overlay to the human genome, interacting with it and enhancing its scope with non-physical encoding of additional information needed to develop a complete human form.
Adams, do you, like, not know how science works? When scientists do an experiment and realize that the evidence shows that they’re wrong, science changes. Scientists don’t sit there in a dark room somewhere rubbing their hands like evil geniuses while colluding to hide DA TRUTH from the unsuspecting
Of course, then again, Adams is totally anti-science, so this shouldn’t be surprising.
The idea of morphic resonance infuriates materialists — and nearly all modern-day scientists are materialists — because the presence of a non-physical field of information naturally leads to the most dangerous idea of all to materialist science: the idea of consciousness.
What the flying hell? I’d use a stronger word, except for the fact that I don’t know who’s reading this blog.
But seriously. “Non-physical field of information”? What is that, an euphemism for “quantum” or “spiritual” thinking/enlightenment?
This idea that your body as a whole, as well as each cell in your body, can tap into a field of information which encodes the “memory” of what a human form is supposed to be threatens the very pillars of materialistic science, upon which nearly the entire pharmaceutical industry is based, by the way.
Because water memory (or whatever it is, but I keep thinking of water memory) totally is a thing. And anti-Big Pharma to boot!
Keep in mind that if you read about Rupert Sheldrake from any materialistic science website — including Scientific American which is 100% pro-Monsanto, pro-GMO and anti GMO labeling, by the way — you are going to read vicious attacks against Sheldrake from desperate materialists who brand morphic resonance as “magical thinking.”
GMOs have absolutely NOTHING to do with proving genetics wrong. But honestly, you and I know that it’s really a dog-whistle to the anti-science environmentalists in the world, of which there are many (Greenpeace anyone?).
This is especially comic, given that these same materialists believe the entire universe in which we live spontaneously appeared from nowhere without cause or reason through a process they call the “Big Bang.” Somehow, the big bang isn’t magical thinking to the materialists, but the idea of a non-physical field of inheritance is magical thinking. It’s almost like these people have never heard of gravity: yet another invisible field that affects all living things.
It’s almost like he’s never taken a physics class, or otherwise he’d know that vacuums are inherently unstable. Or that we have evidence for gravity, whereas we don’t have evidence for whatever woo he’s putting in the place of genetics.
But of course, who cares about reality if it gets your anti-science platform across?
Conventional genetics has no explanation for this. How does a cell “know” it’s supposed to be a specialized cell functioning as a tiny part of the whole? If every blood cell in your body contains the DNA for your entire body, how does it “know” to form itself into a blood cells and not, for example, a skin cell?
Does Adams think that genes encode for things in a vacuum?
Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance explanation provides an answer. The cell taps into a knowledge field — a non-physical pattern blueprint — and through influence with that field, the cell knows to activate only the genes that code for it to form a blood cell. The local physical genes accomplish the protein coding, but the morphic resonance field directs the pattern of which genes to activate. This is how morphic fields interact with DNA.
“God told the cells what to do and the cells did it.”
The human genome, in other words, works hand in hand with a non-physical information field that keeps physical form development organized so that the resulting form is a human. The morphic resonance field “knows” the pattern of being human because it is a pattern that has been reinforced by billions of other humans who came before you and contributed to the resonance of the field.
This explains the missing link in DNA — the fact that DNA alone cannot store the entire blueprint of the human form. The master blueprint is actually found in the non-physical morphic field. Local DNA are simply “protein builders” that follow the morphic resonance blueprint.
- Adams, you never actually proved that 20,000 genes can’t hold the information needed to create human beings. You just went “body is too hard, science lied, the end”. That’s not an argument, that’s you being ignorant and lazy.
- Even if that WERE true (which I don’t think it is), this doesn’t mean that you can just say “oh God done it” and figure that’s the end of everything. Don’t lie to me and say that this has nothing to do with intelligent design or whatever. You’re using “sciencey” words in order to convey the idea of “quantum consciousness” and mystics and whatnot. You’re insulting your readers’ intelligence, although to be fair, if you’re a regular reader of NaturalNews and you actually believe in this stuff, you probably didn’t have that much in the first place.
I’m sorry, but seriously, it had to be said.
Everywhere across the fatally closed-minded community of materialist science, Sheldrake is considered to be worse than a demon… he is a non-believer in the Church of Materialism! And there is no greater sin to today’s cult-like science community than non-belief in materialism.
This is why Sheldrake’s ideas will be viciously attacked, demonized and denied… up until the day they are finally embraced and accepted as the “new science of life.” In a hundred years, Sheldrake will likely be remembered as far more important to science than even Charles Darwin. His ideas are not merely revolutionary, but desperately needed to advance science beyond the limiting realm of materialism. If science does not expand its scope beyond chemical structures, it will never understand life and will always remain mystified and frustrated about why genes still don’t control much in the way of inheritance.
Science is a religion! The Establishment is colluding to hide the truth! Evidence for a New World Order where lizards secretly rule the Earth!
Seriously, this “science hates new ideas” thing is getting old. Science LOVES new ideas. It’s just that you have to show evidence that said ideas are plausible. And I’m sorry, but
God morphic resonance has absolutely NOTHING in plausibility and can’t be tested.
There’s a thing in the end called “Questions for faith believers in materialistic genetics”. I’ll try my best to answer them, but I’m just a layperson who’s studying for biochem, so my answers won’t be as well thought out as it could be.
Where is the gene for creativity? If creative works (songs, poems, fiction novels, etc.) are merely the work of mechanistic brains following genetic instructions, then all the lifelong works of creative individuals (musicians, artists, novelists, etc.) must somehow be encoded in the DNA before birth. Where is all this creativity encoded?
No one has ever claimed that genetics was the only factor in creating a human being. Scientists acknowledge other factors, such as environment, contribute to the mix. Genes do not solely work in a vacuum; there are always other factors involved.
How does a blood cell know to make itself into a blood cell and not a skin cell?
You kind have to be a dumbass to think that only genes act on cells in development. Scientists have already figured out that in order to induce stem cells to develop into skin, blood, liver, muscle, etc. cells, that there’s proteins and cellular signaling via growth factors involved. Again, genes do not work solely in a vacuum, but that’s what Adams and his anti-science ilk want you to think, to make it easier to impart their woo on unsuspecting readers (like you, except that you read this blog, and honestly, I think of you guys to be better than that).
Why is most physical inheritance unable to be traced to DNA? (The “heritability problem.”)
Heredity doesn’t just happen via the physical genome. There’s a branch of study in genetics called epigenetics, which deals with changes in gene expression or phenotype without changing the DNA. It has been shown that some of that is inheritable.
Of course, the woo-meisters like to misuse epigenetics to validate really weird stuff. Epigenetics isn’t something that I understand off hand, so I won’t be explaining it.
Where is the genetic code for love, compassion and cooperation, without which human civilization never would have survived?
Adams is begging the question here in this one, but he’s not a stranger to numerous logical fallacies. Of course, this question is also based on the idea that genes work in a vacuum, which it doesn’t.
If human consciousness is an illusion, as materialists claim, then it can have no impact on human behavior, which is purely mechanistic, they insist. So then why did the “illusion of consciousness” evolve in human beings if it serves no purpose? This contradicts one of the more fundamental tenants of natural selection.
Actually, scientists have begun studying the idea of a human consciousness. So Adams’ question is based on a false premise.
Again, genes do not work in a vacuum.
Are you, yourself, purely a mechanistic biological robot suffering under the illusion of consciousness? And if so, then why should we listen to anything you have to say in the first place?
One could ask the same of you, Mike Adams.
If I made any mistakes, please correct me, preferably with evidence to support your claims.