[fc417fc802]

No one here said anything about genetic code.

If he articulated a particular essential process and why it depends on sleep in an incidental manner that might make for a reasonable hypothesis. However it would not refute the earlier (cited) claim that there is no consensus.

As presented without any concrete information about the processes involved it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis, merely empty handwaving. In context it's even worse, being an entirely baseless contradiction of a claim pulled from a prominent paper.

[avadodin]

I never agreed with him but all of that is implied. It being informed speculation included.

Also there being no consensus means most scientists who touch on the topic are FFA speculating except the person stating there is no consensus in the overview. It's not "settled science" but rather the opposite.