The next thing that I want to say is our lack of biological knowledge and the general poor health of the of America of the American people Is being used to create the crisis they need to divide and conquer us to ruin Maybe America.
I don't know crash the dollar I don't know steal the rest of our our what limited Treasury value we have left.
I don't know But I know for sure
that they are combining our lack of biological knowledge and our general society's lack of good health and access to health care to create a crisis to usher in all kinds of changes that would otherwise never be necessary, and more importantly, never be possible.
If you think about it, you know, if we're defining vaccine really liberally, and these COVID vaccines are vaccines, the flu vaccine is vaccine, okay.
But actually, they're kind of cheating when they're calling these things vaccines.
And, you know, anything with really rapidly fading efficacy, such that you need shots within a year, you know, Canada's saying nine months, is as actually J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
Thank you.
inside mine.
Things look so bad every way.
In this whole world, what is fair?
We walk blind, we try to see.
Falling behind in what could be.
Bring me a higher love.
too late.
He's scheduled for 60 minutes next.
He's going on French, British, Italian, Japanese television.
People everywhere are starting to listen to him.
It's embarrassing.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the show.
This is Gigome Biological, where your consciousness is the prime real estate that these people are trying to compete for.
I've started to see it a little bit like that, that these charlatans, it doesn't have, you don't have to give your
You don't have to relinquish your power and responsibility over to any one charlatan.
You just have to agree to give it over to one of many charlatans.
And it doesn't matter whether you choose from the gray, or you choose from the blue, or you choose from the red, or you choose from the rainbow, you're always choosing from one of their charlatans.
And so as long as each of these people can keep a few hundred thousand people occupied,
you can start to see how we are being governed.
Ladies and gentlemen, Gigaohm Biological is a high resistance, low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist and its name is derived from patch clamp physiology where a gigaohm resistance seal
is used to make high resistance, low noise recordings from individual or combinations of neurons.
And I made a living for quite a while with this one technique.
And a lot of my work on the National Library of Medicine is based on my use and employment of this technique and trying to figure out how little neuronal circuits might work.
And in the last four and a half to five years, I have become a staunch advocate for the pausing of the vaccine schedule in America based on the idea that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
The transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent, and that's transformation as well.
And all of these academic biologists that I used to work with should have known better.
And in fact, RNA cannot pandemic.
We don't have any biology to support this notion.
Viruses are not pattern integrities, whereas things that we consider alive, like mosquitoes and ourselves, are indeed pattern integrities of the most complex order.
And so they have used our lack of biological knowledge to misconstrue our excess deaths with a mystery virus.
And they've done it by showing us bad graphs, instead of showing us all cause mortality, they just showed us a graph starting from zero.
But more importantly, they have distorted this mystery virus, they have mis-contorted, misconstrued the,
The result of bad protocols and bad ideas like supplementary oxygen and pulse oximeters to indicate the presence of a virus when in reality there's no epidemiological evidence of the spread of that biological phenomenon.
And there are no lawyers arguing for strict liability on all pharmaceutical products.
There are no lawyers arguing that the PrEP Act and these other long list of legislation violates our basic Seventh Amendment right to sue for damages.
Nobody's saying this because, of course, these are all parts of the trap.
wherein they will use murder and lies to hide that trap, murder and lies to hide that trap, so that our kids are willingly caught in it.
Essentially because we don't come to a new consensus that transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent, that the vaccine schedule in America is a particularly nasty criminal enterprise, and that RNA cannot pandemic.
That's what they don't want us to teach our children.
That's why these people have been
intricately involved in a dance where an illusion of consensus was created by sticking to a limited spectrum of debate about whether we need to fear free-range RNA molecules or free-range RNA viruses or whether there are no viruses at all.
It doesn't really matter as long as you do it with a disingenuous
You know, you don't ever come to any conclusions.
You just have these wonderful ideas.
And these wonderful ideas end up trapping people on social media.
You get in the social media chair, you grab the joystick, you push the pedals, you put on the goggles, and you think you're going to fight against the people over here.
You think you're going to fight against the people over here by engaging with the people over here.
And in reality, this is just one big show.
And it doesn't matter who you engage with, because none of these people are going to
actually talk about the truth and four and a half years later the truth has been available for quite some time and the people that know it have all interacted with me directly on streams and on interviews and in private meetings like this the steering committee of steve kirsch and it's all just one big show it's all one big show that was described by aldous huxley very succinctly long long ago
And most or all of these people are involved in this show.
And what you can see them as essentially are the acolytes of the elite.
They are the ruling oligarchy's highly trained acolytes.
These people are all auditioning to be part of Fauci's show.
They're all auditioning to be part of the governing elite.
And you can see them for the truth, or you can see them as social media would like you to see them, as Jikki Leaks would like you to see them.
But if you see them for the truth that they are,
They're part of all one big theater, one big national security operation, which was essentially foisted on us by private piles of money.
And these private piles of money, of course, are the private public partnership between the national biosecurity state and these weaponized piles of money that, of course, include the publicly discussed and often misaligned Peter Thiel and
and Palantir and Blackrock but they also involve piles of money that are much bigger and much less often named and the reality is is that if we want to get out we're going to have to get off social media we're going to have to get on to decentralized forms of social media and stop playing their game by chasing their bad guys or following their mysteries or solving their puzzles or for that matter just you know
following their heroes, because none of these people that rode in on white horses four and a half years ago have turned out to be good guys.
And in fact, hello, welcome to the show.
This is Giga Home Biological.
My name is Jonathan Couey, coming to you live from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the back of my garage.
That's the backyard that you hear.
We are still fighting against this same illusion of consensus that all of us got sucked into in 2020, and it's going to continue to be the thing that we fight against daily, even if sometimes we just can't keep naming names and telling the story over and over again.
It's important to always remember anybody that should happen, remind everybody, and remind anyone who should happen to stumble upon the stream that indeed this is where we are at.
We are in a place
Not unlike being on the set of the Starship Enterprise and having people in costume walk in and stay in character, we have engaged in social media in such a way and these people have stayed in character in such a way that we have been led to believe that we are essentially being saved by people like, oh, there's Robert Malone walking in.
Oh, thank goodness you're here.
And just like Captain Kirk coming in right now on that stream, on that screen, it's no more like, phew, that Jessica Rose or Jessica Hockett or Jonathan Engler or any of these other people showed up.
The university organizations like HEART are nothing more than part of this international national security exercise where
We are being coerced into teaching our children a mythology that will enslave them forever, essentially convert them to...
experimental animals, and they want us to do it for them.
They want us to willingly hand our kids over.
And that's why you see, for example, right now, the illusion of consensus that they've created about a laboratory or a bat cave zoonosis or a gain-of-function virus or an incapacitating agent or a gain-of-function spike protein or an amyloid-generating spike protein or a prion weapon.
All of this illusion of consensus has essentially resulted that in 2024, Kevin McKernan is the exact same as Charles Rixey, that George Webb is exactly the same as Jessica Rose, that essentially Robert Malone is the same as Claire Craig.
They all believe in the same things.
They all want us to teach our children the exact same thing.
that the mRNA is not a screwed up technology.
It was a screwed up rollout that we rushed it, that we didn't know what we were doing, that they were covering up a gain of function lab leak.
And they all agree.
People that used to be opposed, that used to be arguing about one thing or another have all come to agree.
Robert Malone's a good guy.
Kevin McKernan's a good guy.
Jessica Rose is a good guy.
You know, all of these people are just good guys.
And we're at the stage now where apparently Dr. Jane Ruby's not really a doctor, and Robert Malone told you so, and the theater goes on.
The theater goes on.
And the theater will continue to go on.
It won't matter how many cancelled mice there are scurrying around under the table.
It won't matter how many of these people that have been lying from the very beginning and misrepresenting their intentions from the very beginning.
It doesn't matter.
how they double back now.
You can pay attention to them all you want on that platform X. It's a militarized platform and these people that live in other countries should just mind their own business and fix their own country.
Some of these mice are from places like France.
I mean,
France.
How can you be from a country so screwed up as France and then spend your time meddling in American affairs, meddling on American social media, pretending to organize with people from Australia who don't have their name on the internet.
It actually becomes kind of comical when you see how ridiculous it is that these people can't have real lives.
These people don't have children that they're fighting for.
These people don't have
a community that they are trying to interact with they are exclusively engaged on x on the town square of elon musk and once you see it for the ludicrous
joke that it is than any of these accounts like canceled mouse or Jiki leaks, or, I mean, any of these accounts that have defended Robert Malone and Jessica Rose and Pierre Corey as good guys from America are obviously meddlers that are actually in cooperation with them trying to undermine America as a united front that it could be.
Once we realize that we have been meddled with,
with cooperation from foreigners, which means that those people in America who are cooperating with these foreigners are traitors.
And these people who are cooperating with foreigners from other countries are also traitors to their own countries.
Because they're not doing anything meaningful to save the children of France or save the children from Australia.
If they go on to American social media and defend people like Robert Malone, who are declared members of DITRA, have spoken in front of the WHO.
I mean, how is it possible that in 2024, anybody takes an account like Jikki Leaks seriously anymore?
How is it possible that anybody takes an account like Jonathan Engler seriously anymore?
Or any of these other people that have purported to be fighting for freedom and for truth but have gotten nowhere in four years, have been saying that they've been listening to me but gotten nowhere in four years, still can't say clones or transfection
or synthetic DNA or RNA or transformation.
None of these terms can be used by Jikki Leaks.
None of them are used by John Bodwin or Steve Kirsch or Robert Malone or Meryl Ness or Jessica Rose or Jessica Hockett, whatever account she's using now.
They just scurry away like the little rodents that they are.
As the sinking ship of their illusion goes deeper into the water, there's nowhere left for them to run other than to continue to make silly memes and make silly pictures with me and a shotgun in my mouth.
That's all they can hope for is that I'll go away and stop showing how terrible it is that they still aren't fighting for our kids.
They still aren't fighting for the truth.
They are still fighting for hamster wheels and for the number of shooters and for the fact that there's truth out there.
All we got to do is sort it out.
Just ridiculous.
It's ridiculous.
So what I want to watch today is called Beyond Evolution, Unraveling the Origins of Life.
It's actually a very recent broadcast by this Uncommon Knowledge from the Hoover Institute.
And it's an interview between this guy from the Hoover Institute and these two dudes who I've seen on the internet for some time now.
They never get cancelled.
They are on YouTube all the time.
They can be anywhere they want to.
They're on lots of podcasts, not that dissimilar to how Bret Weinstein and Robert Malone actually never got canceled.
Like there was some demonetization apparently, but ever after Robert Malone was able to go on lots of different podcasts.
And if you go on YouTube and look, there are podcasts of Robert Malone from his back as early as 2021.
So he's not really ever been canceled.
It's just that the canceling of him was very public.
He was allowed to go on Tucker Carlson and wave into the camera and say, hi, I'm the guy that got canceled by LinkedIn.
And then everybody was announced to his presence, just like Bret Weinstein got a half a million dollar settlement and was able to go whine in front of the Senate about how he was canceled.
And so his rise as a podcaster is like,
It's not for any other reason than the system itself promoted his wine and promoted it for years and other people agreed to promote it like, like Joe Rogan and like Peter Thiel and Spotify and Elon Musk.
And so these guys are also able to participate in this
YouTube experience thing and be all over the internet and say all these controversial things, but apparently YouTube has no problem with what they're saying.
So I think what we're going to find here is very interesting.
It's going to be very stimulating at times.
And you're, I'm also going to use it to try and illustrate the main problem and the main problem.
I'm going to cut back to front here.
The main problem, and understand this, it's taken me a while to get to the point where I can say it as succinctly as I'm going to try and say it in the next few weeks.
But the main problem is that we're not engaging in the escape route in the right way.
We still have not engaged in the right way.
And all of these people,
All of these people from Robert Malone to Jessica Rose, to Kevin McCarron, to Kevin McKernan, to Charles Rixey, to Dr. Drew, to Kelly Victory, to Tucker Carlson and David Icke and all of these people, all of them, all of them, all of them.
Kaufman and Cowan and all and the Bailey's and everybody.
is they have all these great revelations.
They have all these great things to say.
They have all these, you know, gotcha points that these people are full of it.
This people are full of it.
Those people don't know what they're talking about.
But then what happens uniformly across all of these people that are able to remain on social media is that they never come to any logical conclusion about what would a normal person do in this scenario?
And I want to give you an example of this before we go on.
If you were driving a car and somebody told you that, hey, guess what?
You're not actually driving.
You're turning the wheel.
You think you're turning the wheel, but you're not driving.
I'm actually driving.
And then they took out from their seat, a little remote control, and they showed you that they were driving the car.
Now, what would the next conclusion be then?
What would the next thing to do be?
The next thing would be, I guess I don't have to hold onto the steering wheel anymore.
I guess I don't have to worry about where we're going since you're doing it.
That's a very rudimentary example of what I'm trying to say, but the logical conclusion would be once the passenger demonstrated that the remote control that they were holding was actually controlling the car, you would stop doing the wheel, right?
You would stop pushing the pedal.
You would be like, well, wait, what?
Now, when it comes to no virus, and I've pointed it out a lot, and then they always come back and say, no, no, we say it all the time, but they don't, is that if there are no viruses at all, then that means the entire vaccine schedule around the world is a scam.
And not only is it a scam, but it's a scam that's obviously got to be poisoning people then, because we are intramuscularly injecting a combination of substances that includes recombinant proteins and toxins,
in order to augment the immune system.
And so these people have spent four years, four years blogging about, writing about, complaining about, making content about the fact that there are no viruses.
They've even done experiments where they say, look, this experiment proves that there are no viruses.
But then why don't every one of these papers end with a discussion section that says that means that health is stupid, allopathic medicine is stupid, that we have been poisoning our children.
We are poisoning our children.
We are poisoning, but they don't.
And you can say that they do, but they don't.
They are on podcasts for four years saying that there are no viruses.
Specifically, I only want to talk about there's no viruses.
Even when Kevin McCairn and Mark Bailey debated about these things, they agreed and they stuck very strictly to a very limited spectrum of debate.
Whereas it could have easily been that Kevin McCairn said, hey man, vaccines have saved millions of lives in the past 50 years.
And Mark Bailey could say, well, that's bullshit because there are no viruses.
But we never got there.
In that whole conversation, they actually agreed to stick to the rules, and then they stuck to the rules, even though at any point in time, Mark Bailey could have dunked on Kevin McCarran and said that the whole vaccine schedule in the Western Hemisphere or in Western culture is a criminal enterprise based on a mythology about viruses, but they never say it.
It can be said in one sentence, but they never say it.
Just like, unfortunately, Children's Health Defense never says it either.
Bobby Kennedy never says it either.
He always says, well, I just want safe vaccines.
I want tested vaccines.
I want vaccines to be tested against a placebo.
And then his people that believe in him say, well, that's just the legal way of saying it.
That's just the lawyer way of saying it.
That's just a way that says it without saving anyone.
The same with Robert Malone, the idea that he's coming to our rescue, but he's never going to question the vaccine schedule.
Meryl Nass, when she was coming to our rescue about anthrax, was not scheduling or questioning the vaccine schedule.
She was questioning a very particular kind of anthrax vaccine and questioning whether or not a very particular type of anthrax vaccine might be bad.
But of course there might be future vaccines.
And once you see that none of these people have actually usefully questioned anything, you know, in light of the fact that it's quite easy to do it, then you're going to see how this illusion is sustained and it's sustained across in all directions.
So if we watch this video and then we hear these people say incredibly insightful things about the irreducible complexity of life,
but then never come to the very short distance conclusion that, wait, if our system is so complex that everything they say they know about it is actually evidence of it being more complex instead of better understood, then what is the worst thing that's going on right now?
Is it fast food?
Is it the Department of Education?
Or is it the intramuscular injection of combination of substances with the intent of augmenting something that these guys would argue we have not the knowledge to augment?
And yet, for whatever reason, these guys are all over the internet.
Every one of their videos is never canceled because they choose to talk about a very limited spectrum of debate.
And that limited spectrum of debate is evolution and how did life actually start.
And the people who say that life started with a lightning bolt hitting a mud puddle are just dumb.
Because I'm a biologist and I'm a biochemist and I know that's not enough to create the complexity that we see.
And so they are very good at arguing that we don't understand Jack.
They are very good at pointing out that the intricacies of the pattern integrity that we call life are so incredible.
It's like a million Swiss watches that are all working together.
You know, some horribly inadequate metaphor to describe what it is that we see.
If we look closely enough, if we measure closely enough, if we measure with enough precision, we see such a tremendous number of variables and interdependencies that it's an irreducible complexity that we can't possibly hope to augment.
And these guys are very aware of that from a limited spectrum.
And if they were really aware of it, then one of the first things I think that should come to mind is, holy crap, is the vaccine schedule a criminal enterprise then?
Holy crap, is the FDA and CDC scary then?
But do they ever get to that conclusion?
All right, so let's watch it.
I know you're gonna like a lot of it and you're gonna, because of me, you're probably gonna get mad about a lot of it, but a lot of people have said that I should watch this guy and I've been watching him for a long time and taking it in.
And I really feel like it's just one of these things where, you know, these big messages are very easy now.
It's not very hard to challenge somebody like Kevin McKernan with RNA cannot pandemic.
Like think about what pandemic means.
It's not a lot of RNA.
It's not like a few thousand people.
A pandemic is still going on right now.
ZDoggMD just one month ago got his first bout of COVID.
ZDoggMD testified on YouTube one month ago that he got his first bout of COVID and all about how bad it was and all the symptoms that happened and all things got mixed up.
And he even talked about how a pulse oximeter gave him a clue about it.
And so a pandemic, an RNA pandemic, according to Kevin McKernan, is a molecule that can start out in a small number in Wuhan, China, maybe a little earlier than 2019, you know, where they weren't sequencing, according to him, on the Vance Crowe podcast in April of 2020.
and could spread around the world with high fidelity and be tracked by over 16 million sequences, despite the fact that this has never been done before, never even close.
Even when they found a very interesting new human coronavirus in the Netherlands in 2007, they were only able to track it through 27 children.
But this one released in China was tracked around the world and continues to be tracked by high fidelity sequencing operations all around the world.
According to Kevin McKernan, the guy who dropped out of college to be part of the human genome project, the department of energy top secret sequencing thing that was done in cooperation with China and other companies all around the world, companies like BGI that were supplying the PCR tests at the start of the pandemic that were used to bamboozle us.
These people are all part of the same little operation.
And what you're going to see here is a very limited spectrum of debate about what we've been talking about for a long, long time.
And that is that the irreducible complexity that is the biology of your son or daughter
is not able to be augmented by any product that Big Pharma makes, any countermeasure that the DOD, DITRA, DARPA, BARDA, ARPA, ARPA-H, HHS, I don't care what agency you name, nobody is able to augment the irreducible complexity that is the perfect immune system of your child.
And if your child is in a medical condition that is genetic, then we're not talking about healthy children anymore.
And so let's see what these guys got to say and see if we can draw anything from it as we try to find new ways out.
Maybe I have to push play for you.
Two questions.
How do higher forms of life evolve from lower forms of life?
Charles Darwin answered that question, or at least thought he did.
But the other question is one that Darwin never even attempted to answer.
Where does life come from in the first place?
Scientist and philosopher Stephen Meyer and chemist James Tour.
Uncommon Knowledge, now.
Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge.
I'm Peter Robinson.
We're filming today in Fiesole, Italy.
Stephen Meyer earned his undergraduate degree at Whitworth College and his doctorate in the history of science at Cambridge.
Now the director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, Dr. Meyer's books include Signature in the Cell, Darwin's Doubt, and The Return of the God Hypothesis.
James Tour received his undergraduate degree at Syracuse University and his doctorate in Synthetic Organic and Organometallic, I can't even say what this field is, in Synthetic Organic and Organometallic Chemistry from Purdue.
Now a professor at Rice University, Dr. Tour's areas of research include
nanoelectronics, graphene electronics, silicon oxide electronics, and carbon research into what the Rice website terms, quote, environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction, close quote.
Dr. Tur has published more than 1,000 peer-reviewed research papers and holds several hundred patents.
Steve and Jim, bing, bing, bong.
Darwin.
A couple of quotations here, as I mentioned earlier.
So let's pause just a second here to make sure that we're all on the same page.
And what I'd like, oh, that's the wrong cut.
Let's do this.
So he says, how does lower life evolve into higher life?
I'm going to summarize more like, how does life evolve from other life?
He inserted the idea that lower life becomes higher life.
We have very little evidence for that.
We do have the idea that birds can change and this kind of thing is what Darwin
seemed to have observed in the patterns that he saw, but to take that and then drive it all the way back to the origins of life is something that has been a more recent idea.
I don't think Darwin ever thought that he had figured out the origins of life,
or how life started, and I think that's kind of where this all goes to.
And remember that the foundation of this idea is that people like Craig Ventner and others have tried to take parts of bacteria out and replace them with other parts of bacteria or make synthetic cells or synthetic life.
And one of the things that at least one of these guys, James Tour, has been really vocal about is the idea that these are all nonsense experiments.
They're not really doing what they say they're doing.
They're still starting with a living thing that they rearrange and then they have another living thing.
They don't start from a bunch of chemicals on the shelf and then put them all together and then get a pattern integrity.
And that's a very valid point.
But again, we're asking very limited questions here.
But again, the whole
The whole basis for public health, the whole basis for the biomedical sciences is the idea that the basic DNA to RNA to protein is the fundamental dogma of basic biology.
And if we understand that, we're 99% of the way to the goal.
And that dogma includes the idea that the Baltimore scheme of viruses, where all different kinds of DNA and all different forms of RNA can be used as genetic material and copied with high fidelity, but only by viruses.
This mythology is part of that same canon that we need to dismantle and never pass on to our children.
And as best we can try to use
the previous observations to reinterpret what that reality really is because somewhere in there I do believe is the truth and it is not all smoke and mirrors it just has to be a significant quantity of smoke and mirrors for the truth to be essentially lost and we would be
It is very dangerous for us and for our future for us to discard everything rather than try our darndest to find out where the smoke and mirrors is and dispel that while maintaining as much of previous observations that were made in good faith as possible.
Two pieces to Charles Darwin.
And the second piece is evolution, his elaborate theory that random mutation and natural selection can lead to or did lead to the creation or origin of many different species.
Now, that we won't go into and agree with it or disagree with it.
It's an explanation.
It's a body of thought.
It's a kind of discipline.
But the other piece, the first piece, is this.
Darwin simply assumes that life exists.
His theory calls for evolving from something that's there in the first place.
Here he writes in a letter to a friend in 1871, if, and oh, what a big if, we could conceive in some warm little pond that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes.
That's Darwin in 1871, more than two decades after he published On the Origin of Species, and he's still wondering
how life might have originated.
Now Richard Dawkins, contemporary Oxford zoologist, quote, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
But of course, Darwin only made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist if you believe, this is a question, but it's my surmise, you can only say that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist if you believe that that prior question
where does life come from in the first place is either trivially easy to answer or in some basic way doesn't matter.
Is that correct?
Or it has been solved, but neither of those three conditions have obtained.
It's not trivially easy to solve.
It hasn't been solved, and it is actually quite an important
part of the whole naturalistic story that Darwin and modern neo-Darwinists have attempted to tell.
And you're right, there's a distinction between what's called chemical evolutionary theory, which attempts to explain the origin of the first life from simpler non-living chemicals, and biological evolutionary theory, which attempts to explain the origin of new forms of life from simpler pre-existing forms of life.
Darwin's theory was a form of biological evolution, an attempt to explain the origin of new forms from simpler forms,
But he presupposed, as he put it in the origin, one or very few simple forms at the base of his famous tree of life, and did not account for where that came from, from simpler prebiotic chemicals.
Before we continue, and I've got loads more to ask, obviously, why am I, a layman, coming to this a century and a half after Darwin publishes On the Origin of Species, scratching my head and saying, fellows,
This first question, where does life come from in the first place, that's a pretty big one.
How is it that a sort of interested layman can only suddenly realize, you guys have this elaborate, what about this?
Did science simply treat it as unimportant or so easy that they'd get to it sooner or later?
The question of the origin of life.
Nobody knows the origin of life.
Nobody has ever known the origin of life.
But people assume very much like the Babylonians assumed that it came out of a stinking pond.
That's where they say their life came out of and their gods came out of that same pond.
And that's the primordial soup model.
And that model persists today.
You look in any textbook from elementary school to advanced
college textbooks, and it will speak of the primordial soup model.
Life came out of that, that there were molecules that came together, and they formed higher-order structures, and that formed a cell, and that led to life.
That is a bunch of nonsense.
Okay, hold on.
I remember those textbooks with flasks and tubes.
So let's take a moment there.
First of all, you said something interesting.
Darwin's warm little pond.
Darwin is working in a great tradition here.
The Babylonians had myths involving the primordial soup.
So let's take a moment here.
The famous Miller-Urey experiments of the 1950s
Very simple, two flasks, closed system with tubes.
One flask has ammonia, methane, and a few other elements to simulate the primordial atmosphere.
Another flask has water to simulate the primordial ocean.
And then electricity gets introduced to simulate lightning.
And what do you know?
Amino acids seem to settle out of this.
And in early experiments, according to my reading, there were five amino acids, which could be described as central building blocks of life, I'm told.
In later experiments, they refined it, improved it a bit, and they got up to 22 amino acids.
And there, it seems to have stopped.
The science says, oh, that's close enough.
We can extrapolate from what's going on there.
Keep this up for a billion years, and you'll end up with life.
And James Tour says, it's garbage.
That doesn't work.
Yes, they made a number of amino acids.
They also made amino acids that are totally unnatural, and so they had many amino acids.
I think that there may have been a dozen or so of the amino acids, but it doesn't matter.
All of them were achiral, which means they didn't have the handedness that one wants.
Organic molecules, aside from the very simplest of organic molecules, have two-handedness.
You either have a right-handed model or a left-handed model.
Your right and your left hand are mirror images of one another.
If you put your right hand up to a mirror, it will appear as your left hand.
The two are non-superimposable.
That's why your right hand can't fit in a left-handed glove.
Molecules are like that.
Organic molecules are like that as well.
He made both of the images.
You have to have one and not the other.
So there were other experiments that talked about resolving these, separating these.
But that's the easy part.
That's actually quite easy.
But what was presumed from that experiment, which was actually a very nice experiment, and I'm not belittling that experiment at all, is that we would very soon figure out the way to life.
That's what was assumed.
And so that was 75 years ago.
So think about that.
Think of what has been done in the last 75 years.
where you have this whole silicon era, which started in 1960.
You have computers.
You have space flight.
You have landing on the moon, which was in the 1960s, a long time ago.
You have all of this internet connectivity, the medical advances.
We still don't know how these things come together.
You have to take the amino acids and polymerize them, hook them together.
That's a big problem.
Nobody has solved that.
Jim, may I read a little bit
from a paper of yours, one of your 1,000 peer-reviewed papers.
I don't understand a word of this.
So I like what he was saying there.
He says that the idea of handedness is chirality in organic chemistry.
He's not wrong about that.
And he hinted at it at the very end of what I would have rather him focus on, which is the idea that
proteins are chains of amino acids and how they get chained together in our system involves a very impressive machine called a ribosome that has RNA components and protein components that all come together to become this kind of reader of another molecule that gets translated and so there were making amino acids is pretty darn far away from having a
a working ribosome system, a working protein translator, a working genome, all these things that exist in a single-celled organism.
It's a bit like saying, you know, we've got the raw materials and the alloys that are present in this pocket watch.
And so obviously that if we just kept, you know, turning the bucket and mixing things up, first we got the alloy that we need and soon it would be gears.
And before you know it, those gears will mesh together and tell the hour and the minute if we just keep mixing the bucket.
Because that's what is proposed, right?
you get out of simple building blocks, you get highly complex pattern integrities that become increasingly more complex pattern integrities.
And that's a pretty, in general, I think that that's a pretty bold statement to make.
And we don't have a lot of evidence from our current experience that that's exactly how life would be generated.
All we know is how life currently behaves when we tweak it, when we mess with it, when we perturb it.
And in fact, I might argue that getting people to argue incessantly about whether or not we know where life came from is wasting a lot of people's time when you could be informing them of how little we actually understand about the pattern integrity that we are, and therefore how criminal it is that all of these industries, including the vaccine industry, even exist.
because they are based on the premise of a high-fidelity understanding of who we are as a pattern integrity, and these guys are arguing that we don't know jack about diddly, but only in the limited spectrum of debate as it pertains to the origins of life, not as it pertains to public health and the augmentation of life now.
Unfortunate, but this is what I see.
Let me quote a little bit and ask you to help me understand it.
Quote, this is the title of the paper.
Are present proposals on chemical evolutionary mechanisms accurately pointing toward first life?
All right.
You describe work that you have done in assembling what you call nano cars, tiny little vehicles.
Here's a quote.
I'm quoting you in this paper.
So here's something to consider as we think about the problem of the origin of life.
Designing nanocars, to which you've already devoted about a dozen intricate pages of how you design these tiny little vehicles.
Designing nanocars is child's play.
in comparison to the complex molecular machinery and information processing systems at work in the synthesis of proteins, enzymes, DNA, RNA, and polysaccharides, let alone their assembly into complex functional macroscopic systems.
So now he's saying exactly what I would like to say, but again, just like the no-virus people,
If you come to the conclusion that there are no viruses and these people are lying about viruses, then the next stage of that realization is holy shit.
What are they doing with the vaccine schedule?
And especially what are they doing with the vaccine schedule in America?
Especially if you're an American, you should think you would come to that conclusion very quick.
What were they doing when they rolled out transformation and transfection as a countermeasure to a coronavirus pandemic when, you know this James Tour, but did James Tour ever speak out about RNA viruses or the vaccine schedule or public health measures or anything like that?
Do you think he ever will?
Close quote.
Is this layman correct in saying, as we have learned more about chemistry, as we have achieved the ability to manipulate chemistry more and more accurately, we have learned that the question of how life first began is far bigger and far more complicated and far more elusive than Darwin and Miller and Urey ever conceived?
Yes, this happens all the time.
This, we see this all, every time we try to make something, the goalpost goes further away.
It's not that the cell is evolving.
It's that we understand more of the cell.
So we're here, we move a little bit closer to maybe solving this, but the cell, the target has moved miles and miles further away because we're like, oh no.
So what he's saying is,
What he's saying is, is that as we've come to understand our biology better, we've come to understand it as more complex.
Now the analogy that I came up with the other day that I'm gonna test out on you here is the idea that, hi,
Hello, my name is Jonathan Cooley, and I'm an auto mechanic specialist.
I work on autos.
I know all about automobiles.
My specialty is actually the exhaust and the contents of the exhaust, the temperature of the exhaust.
And I have spent years and gotten lots of NIH funding to understand the relationship between the speed of automobiles and the temperature and composition of the exhaust.
And I have found correlations between both the temperature and the content of the exhaust and the velocity of the vehicle.
And I think that if I could come up with pharmaceutical ways to change the content of the exhaust of the car, I might be able to find new ways of regulating the speed of automobiles.
And right now the speed of automobiles is really only regulatable by a few ways that we already understand.
And these bad drivers are pushing on that pedal.
and it seems to regulate that.
But there are other correlative measures that we've found, and that includes my work, really my whole career dedicated to studying the correlation between vehicle speed, exhaust content, and exhaust temperature.
And basically how we've studied the immune system is like this.
I am an immunologist.
I'm very much an expert.
I make lots of measurements of this one thing.
And then I compare this one thing and all the thing that it's correlates to.
And anything that it correlates to, I claim I'm contributing some understanding to.
And what he is saying, what James Tour is saying is that in reality, every time we find a new thing to study,
We are adding to our complexity of the automobile.
When I was the only guy studying automobiles in the world, and I was the only guy who had a correlation between exhaust temperature and velocity, and I was the only one who could draw a line and fit to it, then I had the best model of how cars work.
But as soon as there came this new person who was also measuring the speed of the wheels turning or the depression of the gas pedal or something like this, now suddenly our understanding of how the vehicle works becomes more complex.
Now we got these people that are measuring the charge across the battery and measuring whether or not the alternator's running.
And all of a sudden now, we've got all these people who claim they understand how the car works, but they're all looking at one thing.
I'm an alternator scientist.
I'm sure that the alternator is vital to the functioning of the automobile because when the alternator is removed, the car can only run for like 20 minutes and then the lights go out and then the whole thing fails.
And so by lesioning the
Alternator, we have shown that the alternator is one of the central components of an automobile.
And so I need billions of dollars in grant money to understand how the, the alternator works.
And I'm going to measure all the voltages at all the different places on the alternator and look at the spinning things and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So there you go.
If we plug the exhaust pipe with a potato, the car won't run.
So exhaust, that pipe is obviously crucial to understanding how the car works.
And so we should invent millions of dollars in understanding why that gas comes out of that, why that vapor comes out, what it's composed of.
And we have tried to study something much more complex than an automobile with far fewer accessible places to measure, far fewer obvious moving parts than an automobile, than a Swiss watch, than a slot machine.
and yet approached it with the same sort of blinders on that, yeah, well, if you pull the handle on the slot machine, then all those things turn.
And so they must be related to somehow.
And so I'm gonna keep putting coins in and pulling this handle.
And the more I do it, the more I'll understand about how the machine works.
And we have gone forward as these guys explain with this incredible arrogance about what we know and don't know.
What does it say here in this slide?
that proteins and enzymes and DNA and RNA and polysaccharides, let alone their assembly into complex functional macroscopic systems, complex functional pattern integrities?
So he knows that we don't know jack about Diddley.
But then he focuses exclusively on arguing with people who say they're creating synthetic life, or arguing with people that are saying they're creating the precursors of life, or the origins of life, or they're working on that problem.
And that's his exclusive focus, rather than thinking about the logical conclusion, which is, wait a minute, if we're not driving this car, if pushing on the gas pedal and steering the wheel doesn't matter, then we better get out of this car.
Because somebody might crash this car into a telephone pole that we can't see, that we will have no control over.
And yet that's not the conclusion this guy comes to.
That's why he's still on YouTube.
That's why he's very popular.
That's why the Hoover Institution is interviewing him.
Because the limited spectrum of debate is being strictly reinforced here.
That you can have all these ideas.
You can understand how arrogant biomedical sciences is in the limited context of synthetic life.
rather than him saying, and yeah, and would think about how ridiculous it is that we transformed and transfected people at the start of the pandemic under the guise of augmenting their immune system.
Imagine that we've been doing that with combinations of recombinant protein and adjuvants, which are really just toxins, which he must know because he's a biochemist.
And yet this brilliant orator and this really talented expressor of these ideas can only apply these ideas to a very limited spectrum of questions, not to really important ones that might have huge consequences for how our grandchildren grow up thinking of themselves.
Big time, big time problem.
Let alone their assembly into complex, functional, macroscopic systems, close quote.
Is this layman correct in saying, as we have learned more about chemistry, as we have achieved the ability to manipulate chemistry more and more accurately, we have learned that the question of how life first began is far bigger and far more complicated and far more elusive than Darwin and Miller and Urey ever conceived?
Yes, this happens all the time.
This, we see this all every time.
And the most dangerous place that it happens is on the vaccine schedule in America.
The most dangerous place it happens is in the HMO office in America.
The place where it happens in the doctor's office.
The place that happens is the CDC and the FDA.
And this guy isn't concerned about those places at all.
He's concerned about the people that do flask experiments with electricity and claim that they're creating life because those people are the real snakes.
And we try to make something.
The goal post goes further away.
It's not that the cell is evolving.
It's that we understand more of the cell.
So we're here.
We move a little bit closer to maybe solving this.
But the cell, the target, has moved.
miles and miles further away.
And one great example of this would be for example that in Robert Malone's day everybody was talking about retroviruses and soon retroviruses were going to be used to cure all childhood diseases and he wanted to be a geneticist that would do that at every one at every hospital yada yada yada whatever he believed.
And as we progressed through our understanding and we've gotten more sophisticated in our understanding, one of the things that has become obvious is that there are these micro RNAs, very tiny RNA transcripts, which are designed and used to regulate other RNA transcripts that can change the way that some RNA transcripts remain or don't remain or get edited or don't edit it or up-regulated or down-regulated.
And we have no real concept of, on a molecular level, what's going on in an individual cell.
We just don't.
Every time we think we're learning something, we find out that, oh wait, there's three more gears over here.
There are three more gears over here.
Oh, let's magnify a little bit more.
Oh wait, oh my gosh, those mitochondria have their own DNA and they also have gears inside of them.
Let's magnify a little bit more.
Oh my gosh, there's gears inside of those gears.
And so he's completely right.
And he says it so eloquently.
But one of the most egregious examples in our current culture of where these mythologies are wholly ignored and instead a false sense of fidelity and understanding is coercively thrown against the public is in public health.
It is in the curing of diseases and the distribution of medicine and the protection of the biosecurity state that is in private-public partnership with pharmaceutical industry all around the world that Robert Malone and Sasha Latupova and Merrill Nass and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and all of these people likely serve, weaponized piles of money.
Otherwise, it would be very easy to tell everybody the truth.
We have no idea what we're doing when we inject a combination of substances intramuscularly with the intent of augmenting the immune system.
And we certainly have no idea when we transform or transfect people using intramuscular injection.
But yeah, go ahead and argue about flask experiments and whether or not people can create amino acids that are precursors to life or not.
Because we're like, oh, no, I have to make that, too.
Oh, I have to solve this problem, too.
So when you just think a cell is a bunch of protoplasm, the target's not very hard.
But then when you learn about the cell and the complexity of it, and you see that biochemistry is extraordinary, and there's so many layers to this that I never even thought about, because I didn't have the tools to see it 50 years ago.
But now I see it.
And then you, you, you, you.
And so what the national security state has done is that as we've seen these details, they have used a shell game to try and tell you that these details mean we understand it better.
These details mean that, that we, we, now we know for sure how the clock works.
Oh no, these extra gears that we didn't know existed last year, those gears just do things that we knew had to be done.
We just didn't know what gears they were.
And so that's what Robert Malone does.
That's what Rick Bright does.
That's what Tony Fauci does.
That's what Peter Daszak does.
That's what all of these pseudobiologists do.
That's what Kevin McKernan did his whole career.
That's what the Human Genome Project is completely based on.
that the more complex they figured out the whole task was, the more they had to lie about it, the more they had to exaggerate what they had done in the first place.
And that's why we're where we are now.
Because these people have exaggerated and lied about things a lot more important than the origins of life.
Think about how those might be solved, how you might solve those.
And then you see layers of other things you have to solve.
So though people may say we're getting closer, the target has moved much further away.
So I would never say that it will never be solved.
As a scientist, I can't say that.
But I just say that the solution is very far from today.
OK.
Can I interject?
Please.
This is some historical context.
I did my PhD.
on origin of life biology.
And one of my Cambridge supervisors, who also worked on the history of that field, had a well-known quotation.
She said that behind the question of the origin of life is a deeper question.
And that is the question of, what are we trying to explain the origin of?
And in 1859, in the 1860s, 1870s, the scientists
early evolutionary biologists assumed that that question was going to be pretty simple and easy to understand.
Thomas Henry Huxley.
And they assumed that why?
They assumed it because they thought life was very simple.
Thomas Henry Huxley, who was Darwin's famous bulldog, said that the cell was a simple homogeneous globule of undifferentiated protoplasm.
And they thought that life was essentially a kind of chemical.
It was made of an essential substance called protoplasm, which was a kind of jello or goo, that could be produced by a few simple chemical reactions.
And our knowledge of what the simple cell is actually composed of, as Jim has just said, has advanced massively since then.
Huxley had no idea.
Darwin had no idea what we would discover.
And now we know that inside living cells, we have, at the very least, an information storage, transmission, and processing system, which is part of a whole automated system for building proteins and protein machines.
These nanomachines that Jim makes, as you correctly point out,
are, as he puts it, child's play.
He has these massive chemical recipes that are involved, multiple steps, interventions and manipulations to build the much simpler miniature machines that he can build.
They're much simpler than the ones that are found inside cells.
And so the problem has, as he puts it, it's receded off into the distance because our knowledge of the complexity of life has meant that it's much, much harder to envision how that might have arisen by a series of undirected chemical processes.
Reading your work, Steve.
if I understand it correctly, there's a big moment.
And funnily enough, the big moment happens at about the same time as the Urey Miller experiments.
And that big moment is Watson and Crick in 1953.
And you get the double heel.
They understand the structure of DNA.
And suddenly, they can see how complicated DNA is.
And every living cell, first of all, I want to make sure I get this right, every living cell contains DNA.
Is this correct?
DNA, RNA, proteins.
A few quotations that you present in your book, Signature in the Cell.
Bill Gates, DNA is like a computer program.
Biotechnologist Leroy Hood, DNA represents, quote, digital code.
Richard Dawkins himself, the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like, close quote.
So doesn't this pose just a gigantic new problem, again,
Let Steven Jay Gould and whatever they want to argue about evolution.
We are concerned with this first box, and it's still empty.
And the first box is the first life.
And not only is it empty, but Ture comes along and says, oh, you have no idea.
The simplest forms of life require such complex chemistry.
And then Meyer comes along and says, well, wait a minute, fellas.
What about Watson and Crick?
Every cell contains DNA.
And you're not going to create a 3 billion item long strand of DNA with hitting ammonia with lightning, no matter how many times you do the experiment.
Is that not correct?
This empty box is now a source of awe, really.
Exactly.
If we go back to the Miller-Urey experiment, there's two big classes of problems.
One is that they synthesize the amino acids using
alleged prebiotic gases, they synthesize it based on gases in those flasks that don't simulate the actual atmosphere on the early Earth.
But secondly, the amino acids that they produced were a mixture, and there was a mixture of all kinds of other things that had to be eliminated for those amino acids to hook up in a way that would be life-friendly.
But they also didn't explain how they would hook up and how they would hook up in the precise sequence to actually form proteins.
So it's like getting, it's the difference between letters and words that mean something.
You have a bag of Scrabble letters and you dump them on the,
on the table, that does not give you a triple word score in the game.
But the Watson and Crick discovery is seminal, but it's the beginning of a whole series of discoveries in what historians of biology now call the molecular biological revolution.
In 1953, Watson and Crick elucidate the double helical structure of the DNA molecule.
But then five years later, Francis Crick, who was a code breaker in World War II,
realizes that the subunits along the spine of the DNA molecule are functioning like alphabetic characters in a written text or like the digital characters in a section of software.
In fact, George Gamow, one of the great physicists of the time, realized very quickly that the string of A's, C's, G's, and T's along the spine of the DNA could be represented as
readily represented as a digital bit string.
And so what you have, and what Crick realizes, he calls this the sequence hypothesis, is that DNA contains information for the construction of the proteins and protein machines that are needed to keep cells alive.
So it's very much like our modern
CAD CAM technology that's used in, say, a Boeing plant, where an engineer will sit at a console, write some code, the code is then translated into another machine code that can direct the function of a manufacturing apparatus.
So maybe at Boeing, the code from the engineer would put the rivets on the airplane wing in just the right place.
Or younger people are aware of these 3D printers.
where we have digital information directing the construction of three-dimensional mechanical or other structures.
That's what's actually going on inside cells.
It's not just that there's code.
It's code that's directing the production of three-dimensional proteins and protein machines that are absolutely essential for everything the cell does.
So even the simplest cell contains DNA, and DNA turns out, and even
Presume I'm putting it correctly.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Even the simplest DNA turns out to be a fantastically complicated and sophisticated instruction manual.
Is that correct?
Right.
For building very specific things that are needed to keep living cells alive.
So, if you believe, as Darwin believed, that the first life was a blob of jello,
Maybe you have pictures in your mind that suggest that you can get that out of primordial soup.
They just weren't that worried about the problem in the 1870s, because they had a false idea of how simple life was.
They thought a couple of reactions they'd figured out.
But now you've got to figure out the origin.
Now they've got DNA.
How do you get that out of the primordial soup?
Why hasn't the whole scientific establishment said, stop presses.
We're in trouble.
We have a problem.
That's what I've said.
I said timeout.
I had a whole article called timeout.
I mean, you're sensing the frustration.
Welcome to my world.
I mean, this is the problem.
See, that's the problem.
I said timeout.
I had a whole article called timeout.
Here's the whole article.
These electrifying Stanley Miller chemistry explain the origins of life, not surprising protocols, highly purified chemicals.
These protocols are as unrealistic as they are unimproved.
And so I guess I want to be sure that my argument is clear here.
If his argument is that we are exaggerating our understanding of how life has originated,
It seems like a pretty useless place to be digging when there are much more pressing issues, if this is the case, because the same kind of exaggerated fidelity of understanding is being used in immunology and is fueling public health and underpins the idea of a necessary vaccine schedule for children.
Vaccines for adults are being rolled out under the same pretense that they work and that we can augment the immune system of healthy humans using transfection.
Which seems like something that James Tour would definitely think was ridiculous.
apparently doesn't feel the need to say anything about.
I mean, you're sensing the frustration.
Welcome to my world.
I mean, this is the problem.
This is the problem.
None of this works.
It's a bunch of science fiction.
It's really nonsense what these guys are putting forward.
And they're building their careers around this thing.
And money continues to this day.
40 million euros was just designated to
in 10 years, figure out where life came from, and there's about 40 researchers in Europe that are going to try to do this.
It's really nonsense.
We don't even know where to begin.
We don't know how to take the simple building blocks.
What they're going to end up doing, and I'll make a prediction right here, what they're going to end up doing is something that's analogous to what Craig Venter has already done.
They're going to take a living cell, and they're going to knock some parts out of it, and then put the parts back in that they knocked out and said, hey, look, we made life.
You didn't make life.
You started with a living cell.
You took the carburetor out of one car and put a carburetor from another car in and said, hey, look, we made a car.
Because they're not going to know where to begin.
There's so many problems.
It's not just five problems.
I talk about five problems because these are five you're going to have to solve, but that's five of 5,000 that are facing you that just to begin, none of these do we know how to make the polymers.
None of these do we know how to assemble them.
We're just lost on every phase.
It is a big scam.
One more question.
Jim, I'm going to quote you again.
He could easily say that about public health.
He could easily say that about the vaccine schedule and the claims that Paul often makes, but he doesn't.
He doesn't.
That guy on the next to him could also say the same things that there's no way he argues of course his idea is is that this has to be by design this is so intricate and so beautiful and so irreducibly complex that there's no way to explain it by spontaneous mud puddles and lightning combinations it's got to be a creator.
Okay, then again, the logical conclusion is that these people are exaggerating their fidelity of understanding and using our lack of biological knowledge against us to justify the vaccine schedule.
But do they get there?
GigaOM Biological appears to be the only entity on the internet that can come to that logical conclusion that if the national security state, the biosecurity state, that biomedical sciences to a large extent is exaggerating their fidelity of understanding, and the biosecurity state, the governance structure of Western civilization is taking advantage of that incongruity,
to create the illusion of pandemic potential in RNA viruses to justify a switch of our vaccine schedule to a transfection schedule.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have only a few years to wake up before this can be stopped no longer.
And this limited spectrum of debate is extremely thorough and all over the place in places you never thought you'd find it, including
on YouTube with regard to the discussion of the origins of life.
Because if either of these two guys is as clever as they claim and able to see the irreducible complexity of life as they claim, then one of the most urgent messages that any of them would be sending right now is that holy shit, is public health and pharmaceutical allopathic medicine a gigantic fraud.
based on exaggerated understanding and exaggerated fidelity of what they know can be done with intramuscular injection.
But these people aren't saying it, and that is a problem.
I'm quoting your article.
Imagine that the world's best synthetic chemists, biochemists, and evolutionary biologists have got combined forces to form a team, a dream team.
Money is no object.
They have at their disposal the most advanced analytical facilities, the complete scientific literature, synthetic and natural coupling agents, and all the reagents their hearts might desire.
They have a lot of things I don't even understand, but they have it all.
They have it all.
Carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids, and nucleic acids are stored in their laboratories in a state of 100% purity.
Would the dream team, I'm continuing to quote Dr. Tour, would the dream team please assemble a living system?
Take your time, folks.
Take a few billion years.
Nothing?
Well, well, well.
So that's just an irrelevant debate.
It's an irrelevant question.
And arguing about it will not free your grandchildren from this mythology at all.
And you can buy t-shirts from that guy.
You can go listen to him speak.
And he will not free your teenagers from this mythology at all.
Might as well be arguing about flat Earth, in my humble opinion.
Because there are only certain places where the biology meets the road.
And wherever the biology meets the road is where we need to be resisting.
And we're not.
The biology meets the road where the vaccine schedule meets your kid's arm.
The biology meets the road where transfection meets your grandmother's arm.
Where the shingles shot meets your neighbor's arm.
The biology hits the road where these people are not driving.
They don't care about where the biology hits the road.
They care about where the akademagicians want us to argue, which is about synthetic life.
And whether or not if they had all the pure chemicals and everything, every reagent they could possibly want, go ahead, make a cell.
How about this?
How about we start here, James Tour, instead?
Here's all the reagents you need in their purest form.
Go ahead, augment the immune system.
Now that would be a relevant argument that might start to free our grandchildren from this mythology, but we're not there yet.
So we need some help getting James Tour to kind of focus on biology that matters, instead of saying all of this really good stuff in the context that don't free anybody from any caves or anything like that.
Okay, Jim.
This expresses your frustration.
I get that.
But there's one piece of this that still puzzles me.
You say, take a few billion years.
Isn't that still the argument?
That if you give it enough time, somehow or other, it's an immensely complex procedure.
But if you give it enough time, enough shocks of lightning, maybe we can't do it in a lab.
But the real lab had billions of years at it.
What about the element of time?
Time is your enemy.
Enemy?
Time is your enemy.
Yes, because those organic compounds... In the 50s, George Wald, a famous scientist who worked on the origin of life problems, said that time was the hero of the plot.
Give it enough time that what's improbable will become inevitable.
But Jim has it.
I'm perfect for you because I was using old textbooks in high school that were probably printed.
Well, we all still get this.
Yeah, same stuff.
So the compounds decompose.
All those beautiful chemicals that they have stored in their labs in 100% purity,
After a few years, they're not 100% purity.
In fact, the RNA, after a few weeks, has undergone significant degradation.
So the whole idea is that, oh, well, somehow, one RNA formed, and then it took off.
It's interesting that he talks a lot about RNA and DNA, but doesn't talk about transfection and transformation, where these are, again, where the biology hits the road.
These are the current worst examples of an exaggeration of fidelity of understanding in the biological sciences, in the biochemical sciences.
And yet he's not talking about lipid nanoparticles right now.
He's not talking about lipid nanoparticles filled with mRNA.
None of that is being discussed, but here he is saying that they can't even really make pure RNA to begin with.
And even if they could, it wouldn't be pure for very long, but we just rolled out an RNA product.
You got no comments on that?
Now you want to wait billions of years and see what it's going to become?
Everything goes bad with time.
These are not even stored in very, very strict conditions.
But even if they are, there's always a degradation rate.
So time is your enemy.
So if you happen to have all of those chemicals,
they're all gonna go bad.
Nothing, your time is your enemy.
It's the enemy of being able to do these things.
In fact, every organic chemist knows this.
If they go home for the weekend without treating their compounds properly and bringing them on to a stable state, they come back after the weekend and it's fallen apart.
I mean, you pay the price for this sort of thing.
So you don't have the time, time's your enemy.
In these Miller-Urey type experiments,
there's a problem called interfering cross-reactions, where you get, yes, two or three, maybe four or five protein-forming amino acids, but there's all kinds of other chemical compounds that are also synthesized in those same experiments, and they will quickly react with the things you want
and form, in the case of the Miller-Urey experiment, the sludge was called melanoidin.
And it's moving in a life-unfriendly direction.
So what the chemist has to do is effectively intervene to remove the byproducts that are unwanted, to allow only the things that are wanted to continue on in the simulation.
But that's... The chemist has to play God, which is cheating.
Exactly.
It's an intelligent intervention, and therefore not a simulation.
of an undirected chemical evolutionary process.
Let me sum up, if I may, where I think I now understand things stand.
I'm going to quote Jim one more time.
This is a different article called Clueless on the Origin of Life.
Quote, quoting you, two-thirds of a century since the Miller-Urey experiment, origin of life research has not made any progress whatsoever.
Not made any progress whatsoever.
I mean, we're still talking about the origin of life and the origin of life experiments, which I really think is... It's not the question that we should be asking if we're really, you know, trying to get to the heart of the matter and save our grandkids.
It's not the question at all.
We've been to the moon, satellites in space.
We've been to the moon.
Internet.
but on the origins of life, Zippo.
We can even say that suggestions on how life might have formed really show how life probably did not form.
Nothing even resembling a synthetic cellular structure has arisen from its independent components, let alone a living cell.
Not even close.
Are you both willing to stand with that as a good tight summary statement?
I am, but I have a small difference with Jim on this, perhaps, and that I think that that is progress.
I think that we've defined how difficult the problem is.
He's playing semantic games.
It is a semantic game in a way, but it's an important point because, as I was just saying, for the chemists to move the molecules in even a modestly life-friendly direction,
They invariably, in their simulations, have to remove things they don't want, use purified reagents.
They are inputting information into their system.
And therefore, the logic of these simulation experiments run like this.
We're going to do an experiment under conditions that we think model what was on the prebiotic curve.
And then we're going to see what happens.
Well, in order for the molecules to move in a life-friendly direction,
Invariably, there has to be an intelligent input into the system to manipulate the chemical conditions to move them in that direction.
So what's actually being simulated?
Aren't they actually then simulating the need for intelligence to move from simple chemistry to more complex, life-relevant chemistry?
But even their intelligence is nonsense.
Their intelligence shows that this doesn't work.
They're so clueless on this thing, they say, OK, we'll do this, and it solves this problem.
No, you just introduced 10 more problems.
This is a bunch of nonsense.
The whole area is a scam.
OK.
Glad you don't have any strong feelings about this, Jim.
Listen, can we go now, I believe I understand the dead end.
Could we go now to this question that DNA raises, the question of information?
All right.
This is Steve Meyer in your book Signature in the Cell.
Quote, DNA sequences do not just possess information in the strictly mathematical sense.
developed by the famed MIT scientist Claude Shannon in the late 1940s.
Instead, DNA sequences convey instructions.
They perform functions, they possess specified information.
Okay, so you've got, as far as I can tell, it's really important to understand this, but you're gonna have to help me do that.
So we start with Shannon information, and as I understand it,
Shannon is working on telecommunications.
He's trying to come up with mathematical algorithms that let you convey lots of phone calls down a... Communication channel.
Communication channel, right.
And he has this basic insight that the information an event conveys is inversely proportional to the event's probability.
So, the sun comes up this morning, it tells us nothing new.
That's a very probable event.
The sun doesn't come up, and we know it is conveying information about some new event in the world.
Is that roughly correct?
Roughly.
It might be.
You're not happy with that.
Well, maybe coins or dice might be better ways of getting at it.
So the basic idea of Shannon information is that
that information is related to the reduction of uncertainty.
That's the intuition.
So if I flip a coin and it's got two sides, and it comes up heads, now I've reduced a quantifiable amount of uncertainty.
It was either going to be a head or a tail, and now it's a head.
But if I roll a die, there are six possible outcomes.
And so the amount of uncertainty reduced when it comes up 3 rather than 1, 2, 4, 5, or 6 is greater than the amount of uncertainty reduced by flipping the coin.
And so you can see that the information measure, the amount of uncertainty reduced,
is related to the probability of the event taking place.
The head has a one in two chance.
The die, one side of the die, a one in six chance.
So there's more uncertainty with the- It's very interesting that he brings up uncertainty.
There has been a really excellent series done by William Briggs
It's in the 17th course now on basic statistics using Janes as the primary book.
It's a really good course and episode 17 is really smack on point here with regard to randomization and what it gives you or doesn't give you.
And whether or not when you put back the coin or put back the things in the jar, this kind of thing.
It's a real nice probability exercise that he does.
I recommend highly William Briggs' course, although it is not all 17.
Episodes aren't sort of of equal strength and he hits his stride more in different ones and this number 17 is a particularly Has a particular gem with regard to how he explains it and how succinctly explains it and it's practice You know, he's gotten better and better.
And so please go to William Briggs's substack check out his science our site.
Sorry his statistics stuff and
It's really nice.
More improbable event.
More uncertainty reduced when a more improbable event occurs.
And so what Shannon does is he's able to quantify the amount of information carrying capacity in any string or bit string.
But what he can't do, and which he was very explicit about saying, is that his mathematical measure of information carrying capacity doesn't tell you whether the string, the series of characters, is meaningful or functional.
or specify to perform a function in any way.
So a very simple example that conveys the difference is you might think of if you type at random 20 characters on your typewriter keyboard and put that string out, and then right below it you might write a line of poetry, time and tide wait for no man.
Both strings have identical amounts of Shannon information because they're using the same alpha character symbol system, but one has a qualitative
element that the other doesn't have.
They're both equally improbable, but one has a qualitative element, and that is that the arrangement of the characters is specific to perform a communication function.
And that's the kind of information that invariably indicates a designing intelligence.
If you see a line of poetry that's meaningful, you right away know that it was a poet.
But if you just see random characters like that, it might be that somebody arranged them in that way, but it also could be the product of monkeys at the keyboard.
So early on in the 1950s, we have Crick with his sequence hypothesis.
He's working in the immediate wake of the Shannon Information Revolution.
And he specifies that DNA does not have mere Shannon information.
He says that the sequence of bases in DNA are sequenced specifically to perform a function.
And so that you have what an origin of life researcher named Leslie Orgel coined this term specified complexity.
Complexity is a synonym for improbability.
And so you have a specified improbable arrangement.
When you have that, that's what we mean in ordinary parlance by information or
In our careful writing on the origin of life problem, we define what needs to be explained is the origin not of Shannon information, but of specified information or specified complexity.
Something like tight and tight weight for no man, as opposed to the random characters of the monkey would type out.
And Crick was absolutely adamant early on that DNA doesn't have just Shannon information, it has specified information.
Now we come to the moment when the two of you become really controversial.
Up to this moment, pointing out that the Urey Miller experiments have gone nowhere, that we know less than nothing about where the origins of life might have come from, less than nothing, as you put it, actually what we've done is demonstrate ways that life probably didn't form.
That, as I take it, you two are very irritating to the scientific community.
But they can live with you.
Well, even our friend Richard Dawkins acknowledges that no one knows how life evolved by undirected chemical evolutionary processes.
So you're right.
This is actually not controversial.
The critique is not controversial at all.
because it's applied to a limited spectrum of debate when the logical conclusion to come to is that the same kind of exaggeration of fidelity and of understanding is being executed where biology hits the road and so we should be a pay attention to those things you know like western health care in america nutrition science in america the fda the cdc virology
transfection and transformation science.
I mean the list is nearly endless and instead these two guys are really focused on origin of life experiments and whether or not we can call it evidence of a creator or design.
And so essentially no Academy magician is going to be challenged by these guys and they're given a very easy out in terms of dismissing them because that's not my expertise and I don't care about the origins of life anyway.
They're not saying that I shouldn't give my kids vaccines or something crazy like that, so I don't have to pay attention to these dudes.
We're not going to get out until we realize how deep the play goes, how deep the theater goes.
And whether these guys are witting or unwitting participants, they are participants because it doesn't make any sense for me, for them to be this intelligent and this articulate with regard to the exaggeration, specifically with origin of life claims and not with immunology and not with nutrition and not with
autoimmunity and not with all these other things that they of course are much more pressing issues with regard to the enslavement of our children by a mythology.
It's annoying, but not controversial.
So here's the point where the two of you cross a line.
And by the way, I feel an urge to grab you by the collars and save you from crossing over that line.
But I'll get to that.
This is Steve in Signature in the Cell.
Quote, the functionally specified information in the cell points to intelligent design for which every one of our listeners is going to say, oh, I know what they mean.
They mean God.
Intelligence is off.
And so, rather than arguing for God, why not just argue that they're lying about what they understand?
Instead, now we're going to move to arguing about God, which will turn some people off, other people will reject, and other people already think they have a better answer anyway, so why listen to this?
Again, limited spectrum of debate defined by bad questions or questions that are essentially hamster wheels.
That's what you see.
As the best explanation for the ultimate origin of biological information.
Why?
Experience shows that large amounts of such information, especially codes and languages, invariably
originate from an intelligent source.
I want to repeat that.
Experience shows, our own lived experience as humans, when you see a line of poet, well, as Bill Clinton said, when you see a turtle on a fence post, you know it didn't get there by itself.
We recognize intelligence.
Invariably originate from an intelligent source, from a mind or a personal agent.
In other words- I think the origin of life question is important
to acknowledge that it's unanswerable.
I think the origin of life question is important to acknowledge in the sense of the immuno-mythology and the akademagic that is being used to create the illusion of understanding.
This consensus that somehow we're going to figure it out with the right combination of chemicals and electricity and shaking and heat.
And that debate is important, but only from the perspective of showing it for the mythology that it is.
It is the same kind of mythology as me claiming to understand how or making progress in understanding how automobiles work, because I make very high fidelity reproducible measurements that correlate
the temperature and composition of the exhaust of the car with the velocity that the car is currently expressing.
And that correlation is very, very high, and therefore I have a very, very unique insight into the function of automobiles.
And this is no different, except in terms of origin of life, it's a question that doesn't really matter.
I mean, maybe it does if you think that science is making a challenge to God, but I've never really felt as though science makes a challenge to God.
I feel like they answer different questions, as long as you understand that at the foundation of biology is an irreducible complexity that's going to be impenetrable by a ruler or a very accurate laser.
And so I think the question is important, but not from the detail perspective, just from the acknowledgement that that's way off in irreducible complexity land.
And it's really deep in irreducible complexity land.
For its intelligent activity is the only known cause of the origin of functionally specified information, close quote.
So what Meyer is saying
Now pay attention to this one, Jim, because this guy is just radioactive.
What Meyer is saying here is that when we see DNA in the simplest cell, we really have no choice.
We have to suppose that there is some intelligent design behind it.
Are you going to let him get away with that?
No, I'm sympathetic to what he's saying, because we have no other answer.
I mean, I don't normally go down that line.
To say that there's so many problems before you even get to thinking about this question of intelligent design and this information, but I talk about the information.
We have no idea how to solve the information, but there's so many steps that you have to get through before you even get there.
You want DNA.
DNA isn't gonna do anything unless it has lots of enzymes supporting it from around so that it can help to translate it to RNA.
And RNA isn't gonna just start reacting with amino acids on its own.
It needs all sorts of support enzymes.
So there's all these pieces that are missing.
You don't even get to take advantage of the information that's there because the chemistry doesn't let you.
The chemistry just doesn't let you.
And that's in very simple systems, reduced systems, in vitro systems, synthetic systems.
And so why is it not more important for James Tour to then say, so the idea of augmenting a healthy child's immune system is absurd?
I don't get it.
prebiotically synthesized to make it possible to even begin to think about the origin of a cell.
You have to have the saccharides, the sugars.
You have to have the lipids.
You have to have the proteins, the enzymes.
You have to have the DNA.
There's all these different classes of molecules.
But I focused on the information question.
And I think that is, at some level, the most fundamental question.
Because it's all about not just the presence of the constituent parts.
It's about how they need to be arranged in order to perform biological functions.
But see, even the DNA.
is a piece of, it's this informational code, but everything in the cell is an informational code.
The saccharides, the saccharides, the way sugars are put together, bears information.
That's how cells tell one another apart.
I mean, they bump into these other cells, they see what the saccharides are, and they, yeah, these are, it's all based on this.
And so the irreducible complexity and how more details that we find, and this is the argument that James Tuer makes very well about this particular debate, the more details we find doesn't mean that we are progressing down a ladder of understanding.
Instead, what's happening is,
Oh shoot, we've identified another variable that we didn't know about before and another variable that we didn't know about before.
And that doesn't mean that now we have another thing anchored down.
We have another handhold with which to climb.
No, it means that there's another gear in the clock.
And we were already telling ourselves for 50 years that we understand what the clock is doing and what the hands mean and how to set the clock and all this.
Oh wait, wow, look, there's another knob over here.
Look, if we open this door, oh my gosh, there's a whole nother bank of gears that we didn't know.
And those are turning too.
I wonder what they do.
Well, it doesn't matter.
That just means we understand the clock even better now because instead of the four gears that we thought were driving the hands, now we know that it's 20 gears.
And so James Tour and this other guy make a very limited-spectrum argument about something that I want to make GigaOM Biological's main message, and have unknowingly been orbiting toward this as the main message for a while, which is that this exaggerated fidelity of understanding is the foundation of all their mythologies.
And in biology in particular,
it is imperative that everyone with the requisite knowledge to be aware of some limited aspect of the irreducible complexity in their own field needs to acknowledge that James Tuer and this other guy are exactly right about how that lack of fidelity extends across all academic fields, across all biological disciplines.
where an exaggeration of understanding, a fidelity of understanding has been substituted for what should have been an ever-increasing complexity and an ever-increasing humility to the system that we are trying to understand.
And instead, we are raising students and teaching students that these details are evidence of understanding rather than details of the irreducible complexity that we come to be ever more familiar with.
And I wish these guys would then take the logical step, which is, okay, let's think about where these exaggerated fidelities have the most
detrimental impact on our children.
Where is it having the most detrimental effect on our societies?
But James Tuer is not worried about that.
He's just worried about people who claim to have solved the origin of life problem.
And I'm going to make sure that those guys have opposition.
Not very dissimilar to how Kevin McCairn in 2020 was already very sure that he had to oppose the no virus people like Andy Kaufman and Tom Cowan, because these people were really, really bad.
sad.
And so a limited spectrum of debate about spike proteins and viruses and whatever, curated by clowns like Kevin McCarran and clowns like Andrew Kaufman, created a limited spectrum of debate where the logical conclusion of either there are no viruses or they lie about
everything that they never come to that conclusion.
They both are unable to get to the logical conclusion of their own statements.
And they have stuck to these ridiculous positions for four and a half years.
And that's how you can see that they are just part of the show.
just like these two guys stick to their position, and that very limited, vigorous debate within that position, even though it is very clear that the consequences of their position are that public health, allopathic medicine,
biopharmaceutical companies, IP in pharmaceuticals, proteins and protein biologic based therapeutics.
All of these things are gross exaggerations of our understanding and we better darn well come aware of it or these people are going to kill us with this crap.
But no,
they're not gonna get there.
All the amino acids, all the proteins, those all have information so that they know what molecule to build.
Every piece of the cell is information.
I mean, and so to just focus on DNA being information, I mean, every piece of your cell is information.
How does this information get translated if you don't have fidelity in information transfer?
We tried this years ago in my lab to try to get
make a starting molecule and have it make a duplex, a daughter molecule, just like itself, not using biological entities.
And what happened was the fidelity killed us, meaning that it was only 70% pure.
So you have 30% still in there, now reproducing junk.
And before you know it- You get what's called a paracatastrophe, which means generation that gets worse and worse and worse because you're not- It's just a mess.
It's just a mess.
So, boys, there are two
Two ways you could argue, I think.
You could argue, and this is, I'll give you the easy one.
I'll give you the one that for the sake of your careers, you really, yeah, yeah, follow this one.
If you take my advice.
It's too late for me.
You're both in plenty of trouble, but follow this one, and the trouble will be at least moderate.
you can say, wait a minute, even the simplest cell contains DNA.
And then Tuer says, DNA, you don't know the half of it.
The saccharides, this is the, and the cell is jammed.
It's bristling with information.
And the summary of that line of thinking is not only do we not know how the origin of life began,
But the idea that the question is uninteresting, or easy, or that the universe, given enough time, would have produced it in a random way, that, ladies and gentlemen, given the state of knowledge today, that is preposterous.
And stop.
You could just stop there.
But the two of you, no, you may not yet.
You'll get a chance, but I want to give you, so, but the alternative is the two of you
Well, here, let me read a quote to you, because you keep going, you cross the line.
Jim, even you, I'm going to quote you from your article one more time.
Those who think scientists understand how prebiotic chemical mechanisms produce the first life are wholly misinformed.
I mean, we're still here.
Imagine substituting the words, intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
And then having James tour argue for why I think he could make a very, very devastating argument for why, but does he, even though it's much more important than this,
Worst case scenario, you might convert some people to atheism or something like that, or you might convert people to believing in God if you pursue this question with vigor.
But you're not going to break the spell of the vaccine schedule.
You're not gonna break the spell of the HPV vaccine being rolled out on college campuses.
You're not gonna break the spell of public health and pandemics at all, not even close.
And yet you would think somebody with this level of understanding would have focused all of his might on dispelling the illusion of a pandemic, given what he knows about the irreducible complexity of life.
Nobody understands how this happened.
You're good so far.
it would be far more helpful to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding.
And that is what GigaOM Biological intends to do.
That's the real Biology 101.
Real Biology 101 at the end of it would leave students with a healthy respect for what we don't know, a healthy respect for what the details of what we do know mean for the complexity of the clock we're trying to understand.
And any of these analogies that I've been using today are just wholly inadequate.
to describe the arrogance with which we moved forward for the last 40 years with regard to viruses and transfection, transformation, sequencing, biology, who we are, what we are, the genetic causes of autism and the genetic causes of all these other diseases are all part of the same mythology that this guy should be dispelling.
but is not, should be attacking, but is not.
The Human Genome Project is one of the lowest hanging fruits that this guy could demolish with very similar rhetoric, but he's not going to.
Far so good.
And a lot of people thinking, OK, good, Jim, just stop there.
But you don't stop there.
You go on.
It would be far more helpful to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding.
Then they may find a firmer and possibly a radically different scientific theory, close quote.
And everybody says there goes tour.
And the scientific theory, of course, would be about the origin of life, not about
about vaccines or their effectiveness, not about disease or its existence, not about contagiousness, and not about what we understand and don't understand about our genetics, but instead about what?
About origin of life and generation of life.
Opening the door to God.
You guys crossed the line.
It's not enough to say science should be much more humble about its claims, because something that we thought we would get to for the last 150 years, not only have we not gotten to, it baffles us more than ever.
You guys go on to say, and what we see is evidence of intelligent design.
I don't know how you can take what I just wrote and suggest that I was suggesting God.
Why can't we just have a wholly new,
scientific theory.
Which would be?
Which would be, I don't know yet.
Okay, that's fine.
I don't know yet.
That won't satisfy Steve.
He's not in quite as much trouble as I am.
And so is this the relevant place to be or is this just a limited spectrum of debate where you think that
that it's evidence of intelligent design and that means God or Elephant.
So, a designer not a designer, what does the designer mean?
Is that divine or not divine?
He's saying we don't have to evoke that, it just means that our current theory is wrong.
This guy says that, well, if you find a Swiss watch on the ground, you can't think that it just spontaneously occurred.
Like there's no way to come to that conclusion.
If you find a wristwatch ticking on the ground, the first conclusion you shouldn't come to is that that was something that spontaneously occurred.
Now, it's not a perfect analogy because there aren't Swiss watches everywhere, but there is life everywhere.
at the microscopic level to the macroscopic level, and it is found everywhere.
So it's not quite the same thing as finding a Swiss watch and then explaining it as a random occurrence.
So there are gray areas here and questions that are being asked and debated and thought about, but the foundation, the edifying ideas that make that question seem relevant
are much more relevant and edifying to the ideas that I've put forth for the last two and a half years.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection and transformation in healthy humans would be always criminally negligent.
And RNA can't pandemic.
That's ridiculous.
And so the things that these guys say
are more relevant and more acidic and more useful and more powerful when put into context of biology and where biology meets the road, instead of talking about it in these more philosophical spaces that are relevant to the discussion of faith, are relevant to the discussion of God, but are not relevant to saving our children from the mythology that they are currently trapped in.
What we have here at this table, Jim Torr, the eminent Jim Torr, thousands of papers and materials that I can't even begin to understand.
Brilliant man says, it is enough to say we don't know.
And Steve Meyer replies.
There's a logic, a scientific logic, that points to the role of intelligence in the origin of life.
There's a famous information scientist named Henry Quasler, who was one of the first information scientists to apply information theoretic concepts and informational concepts to the analysis of the molecular biology of DNA and RNA.
And he said that the creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity.
That's what we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which is the basis of all scientific reasoning.
In my PhD thesis, I studied the methods of historical scientific reasoning, pioneered by, among others, Charles Darwin.
And the key idea there in historical science is that if we want to explain an event in the remote past, we want to invoke, we want to explain it by reference to causes which are known to produce the effect in question.
And I came across this principle first in one of Darwin's mentors, Charles Lyell, the great geologist, who said essentially that.
And I asked myself a question.
I said, well, what are the, the Lyellian phrase was,
by reference to causes now in operation.
That's what we want to explain, past events by reference to causes now in operation.
And I ask myself a question, what is the cause now in operation for the construction of specified information or a digital code?
And I can think of only one.
And I ended up writing a 500-page book looking at all the different proposals that had been made for explaining the origin of that digital code.
And all of them came up short either theoretically, empirically, or both.
But we do know of a cause that produces specified information, and that cause is intelligence.
It's mind.
And so using the Darwinian logic of the historical sciences, it's actually possible to affirm the intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of information.
Whenever we see information and we trace it back to its ultimate source, whether we're talking about computer code or information in a radio signal or hieroglyphic inscription or a paragraph in a book, we always come to a mind, not a material process.
And so the discovery of information
in a digital form, in a specified form of information at the foundation of life, I argue, provides a powerful indicator of the activity of a designing mind in the origin of life.
And that's using the standard historical scientific method of reasoning that Darwin himself used.
OK.
As far as I can tell, so you cross one line, but you do stop short of another line, meaning you're not going to start talking about God and say that this proves the existence of the God of the Hebrew scriptures, or the God of the Baptists, or the God of the Presbyteries.
No.
it's intelligence, and there's a long, long way from what we can say must have been involved in forming DNA.
There's a huge distance from that to
Hinduism to any known religion.
And so you're being within your own life.
In my work on the origin of life.
You're quite modest.
You draw lines yourself.
Is that right?
Well, in the book Signature in the Cell, I argued for the need for an intelligent agent of some kind to explain the origin of the first information necessary to produce the first life.
I do think you can make further arguments that point not just to a mind of some kind, but to a sort of a generic theistic understanding of God.
But you have to bring the cosmology and the physics and the fine-tuning and the origin of the universe.
And so I have a subsequent book that actually looks at the question, what is the identity of the designing intelligence?
And that book is The Return of the God Hypothesis.
But in Signature in the Cell, I argue that a mind of some kind is required based on our uniform and repeated experience of what it takes to cause
the origin of information, specified information.
Okay, Dr. Tour, are you down for any of this program?
Or do you want to just say... Well, I mean, I wish you could see what I see.
Because then you would, even if you just take a cell, very simple cell, and you ask scientists to look at this cell,
What is going on?
If you just put molecules, align them in that way, is it going to run?
Is it going to operate?
We don't even know what got this cell going.
I want you to think for a second about a watch.
And again, I just want to point out one little thing here, one little analogy.
I'll wind it up right now.
One little analogy, okay.
I'm just going to show you this one from the inside so you can see.
One little analogy here.
This is a watch.
You can see it's ticking.
It's got a stopwatch.
It's got a split hand, you know, this kind of thing, right?
So if we look at the back and we open it up, and this will probably give me hell now.
It won't open like I want it to open because I'm doing it live.
But there's a little lip here.
There we go.
If we take a look at the inner workings of the watch, you're going to see one thing in particular.
This little wheel here going back and forth.
And the wheel going back and forth here is dependent on a spring that's coiled around here.
And actually that spring can be screwed up really easy.
And you won't be, if you're not trained, you won't even be able to see
that that spring is bent in a way that doesn't allow the perpetual motion of the winding to come through the whole mechanism.
And so what I'm just pointing out is that just the workings of a simple watch have all kinds of nuances and subtleties that despite the fact that you could take a small screwdriver and take this whole damn thing apart and if you were really careful you could put it all back together again.
And when you reassembled it, it might not work the way you thought it was going to work, even though you were meticulous in taking it apart and meticulous in keeping track of what came after, what came after, and what came on top of, what came on top of.
Because the little spring that allows that wheel to move perpetually was just bent a little bit when you moved it off of the mount.
just bent in such a way that it doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
And your understanding of the moving of the clock, even though you took it all apart, put it all back together, and you even did it 10 times, would still be insufficient to diagnose the problem.
Now I want you to try again, just as James Tour is suggesting to you, to think about a single cell, a single neuron in the brain.
shoot a single synapse in the brain.
We're talking about irreducible complexities that all probably have a spring and a pivot and weights and gears that are all subtly dependent on one another in order to make what happens on the front that you can measure and see happen as you expect it to happen.
And even though you understand how the buttons work and how they reset, and you think you took the watch apart and put it back together again, now that it's not running, you have no idea why it's not running, even though it has all the parts it needs.
And you were very careful.
And so James Tour makes that argument very, very effectively with regard to a single cell and the fact that they can't assemble a single cell.
never mind the macro systems that they assemble into, he's happy to say that all the parts of the cell have information in them that we don't understand.
But he's unable to then make the easy bridge to where this
horrible exaggeration of understanding is actually applied in a malevolent way to make billions of dollars move in particular ways and to make people believe very particular mythologies that include a vaccine schedule that's criminal.
And he would be devastating at making that argument, but he never will.
Don't know.
I mean, so you should ask a scientist.
A cell just died.
What is it we just lost?
I mean, all the molecules are right there, and could you get it going again?
We don't even know how to describe what life really is when it comes to even a simple cell.
We don't even know that.
That's how clueless we are.
I wish you could see this, because you... That's how clueless we are, and that's why intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system has pretty much always been dumb.
and why transfection and transformation in healthy humans, even old ones was criminally negligent for the same reasons that he's explaining why origin of life studies and synthetic cells and synthetic life is all bullshit.
Same reason why vaccine schedule in America is criminal.
Why any lawyer that's not arguing for strict liability for all pharmaceutical products and has any following at all on social media is a meddler.
Why anybody who claims to be a lawyer and is not arguing for our Seventh Amendment right to be restored and some of these legislations to be struck as unconstitutional is not fighting for our grandchildren.
And anybody that knows this much about how to express
with eloquence the irreducible complexity that is our biology but refuses to apply it to any meaningful places where people are being hurt by these exaggerations is also not playing for our team.
You don't understand the magnitude
of the human deficiency and even understanding what life is in the simplest of organisms.
And people will say, well, life was much simpler at the start of the evolutionary process.
This has already been calculated.
Bioengineers have already figured out what is the minimal operation that you need.
What are the fewest components that you need to have a cell operating?
And you take that and, OK, so
Let's say we make... Ralph Baric is responsible for codifying the number of minimum products that you need, minimum parts you need for a self-replicating RNA to exist.
That's about the best I can say.
A successfully transfectable self-replicating RNA signal needs these components.
That's all he's done.
And that has been misconstrued as
gain-of-function RNA virology and pandemic potential in a dish.
And he could explain that very well if he wanted to.
All of those components, by the way, none of those 15 components have been made.
None of them.
Now, if you could make them, now what would you do?
Under realistic prebiotic conditions.
Yeah, even if you could make them in your current lab, I'll give them their own labs, make them.
or just take them from a living cell.
Go to a living cell, use that as your supply chain.
Take it from a living cell.
Now, what do you do?
Just putting them in proximity.
I agree.
Send this stream to him.
I mean, I'm happy to have him on the podcast.
It would be great, but he won't come on.
Because these people know what they can say and what they can't say.
They understand the limited spectrum of debate.
That's how they got where they are.
I believe that no scientist in their right mind would have said yes to transfection and transformation had they sat down and thought about it logically.
But they didn't, because they were coerced with fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
And a whole theater of monkey people, like Robert Malone, and Meryl Nass, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and all these other people claiming to be dissidents, effectively making everything part of the trap.
That's why immunomythology still exists.
That's why all these Academy magicians are still trapped in their universities, because people who could save them, like this guy, are also agreeing not to talk about where the biology meets the road, where the kids are actually being hurt, where the young adults are actually being fooled, and how it actually affects their lives.
You don't know how to put them together, but even if you could, now how does it even start running?
We don't even know what we're going toward, which gets back to that philosophical experiment that his professor was talking about.
What are we going toward in life?
We don't even know what life is.
Molecules don't care about life.
Molecules, they don't move toward life.
There's no propensity for a molecule to move toward life.
It has no brain.
It has no action that wants to bring it toward life.
They don't know.
I don't know what you want me to do.
I'm just here.
What do I do?
And then even if we could say, I want you to move toward life, you'd be like, OK, just tell me which direction to go.
I don't know.
Jim has an amazing talk looking at some of the prebiotic experiments.
And they're basically implementing complicated recipes.
They start with purified chemical reagents.
I don't think it's worth watching anymore.
I think they're going to keep talking about the same thing over and over again, which is actually this.
beyond evolution and unraveling the origins of life.
The main message of this stream is that if these people understand that the irreducible complexity of life means that talking about the origins of life is dumb, that
claiming to have solved the origins of life is a gross over-exaggeration of their understanding.
To claim that you create synthetic life is also a gross exaggeration of their ability and also their understanding.
And yet these people are very limited in their application of this to academic
academia as a whole, but instead focus exclusively on origin of life experiments and chemistry of life experiments, instead of saying that, well, on the other end of the spectrum, where the thing is most complicated, where the pattern integrity is the most complicated, where healthy humans are concerned,
We are definitely exaggerating our understanding and the worst expression of this exaggeration is the arrogance with which we vaccinate children in America.
And if these guys could use their extreme skill in orating and discussing the irreducible complexity of life and apply it to something meaningful, we would get out of here really quick because a lot of people that follow them would come to an instant consensus that transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent.
worse than the previous vaccine schedule, which was already a criminal enterprise from a legal perspective and a biological one.
And the fact that RNA cannot pandemic and that there is, you know, this is the inverse, the idea that RNA can't pandemic is the inverse of an irreducible complexity.
And in fact, it means that chemistry can do what life can do, and it can't, and these guys know it, and they could be where we were and we are if they wanted to be, but they're not because they are probably
wittingly or unwittingly part of this limited spectrum of debate.
If you like this discussion, please share stream.gigaom.bio if you liked it and want to support the stream.
People like Brian who just sent a
A lot of cash in the mail.
Thank you very much, Brian.
Thank you, Rocky.
Thank you, Catherine.
Thank you, Cindy.
Thank you to all the people that are filling my box with self-addressed stamped envelopes as well.
The bigger stickers that are corrected are coming tomorrow and today, I think,
There's a possibility that the patches are here, so the self-addressed stamped envelopes are going to start to go out with lots of gear and merch, and what do you call it?
Swag is what I would like to call it.
It's not merch because we're not selling it.
So, gigaohm swag is almost available.
Stickers for your water bottle or for your car, I guess, if you do that kind of thing.
And again, if you want to chat or hang out, GigaOM.bio.
And if you want to find a way to support the stream, please go to GigaOMBiological.com and do so because, yeah, I need all the support that I can get because I'm not supported by Substack or by a weaponized pile of money.
And I'm coming to the conclusions that nobody else wants you to come to.
Thanks very much.
I'll see you again tomorrow, I hope.
Don't forget we're having a live event on November 3rd in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania.
If you want to come and see a live broadcast of Giga Ohm Biological, maybe share some food and drink with fellow Ohmies.
Freedom is measured in ohms, and freedom is measured in being in person.
So if you can,
Maybe find a way to be in Pittsburgh on the 3rd of November and join us for food, drink, for celebration.
And again, if you want to send a self-addressed stamped envelope to the P.O.
Box 802 Bethel Park, PA 15102, I'll stuff it with a bunch of stickers.
And if you send a really big envelope, I can put a hat in it too, but not too many people send big envelopes because I don't have that many hats.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you for sharing the stream.
We need more followers.
We need more subscribers.
So do what you can to share.
Thanks very much.