Randomness does not make sense: Howard Bloom

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: November 18, 2013

Anyone who still touts mutation-driven evolution may not want to watch this video to see what “The Amazing Atheist” has to say about your beliefs.

Discussion about whether randomness makes sense

My comments:
1) Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: (a mammalian model of thermodynamics and organism-level thermoregulation) Video: https://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524 This model refutes a book-length revision of a comparable theory: ‘Mutation-driven evolution’ Examples of nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions clarify the involvement of seemingly futile thermodynamic control of intercellular and intranuclear interactions, which result in de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes. Thermodynamically controlled cycles of RNA transcription and protein degradation are responsible for organism-level changes in pheromone production, which enable accelerated changes in the miRNA/mRNA balance and thermoregulation of controlled nutrient-dependent adaptive evolution. Clearly, the “Creationists” have figured this out, but have not yet put together all the details for fear of confusing evolutionary theorists and physicists touting random this or that in the context of their theories.

Explaining Organismal Complexity with Non-Coding DNA

www.icr.org Scientists have wondered why the number of protein-coding genes in an organism doesn’t strongly correlate with its “apparent” complexity. The emerging answer to this question is contained in the DNA regions outside the protein-coding genes—once thought to be “junk DNA
3) Howard: As you know, I’ve made the point that adaptive evolution is pheromone-controlled since we first addressed that fact in the section on molecular epigenetics in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review article. Jay Kro: Shapiro’s book does nothing to detail the epigenetic CONTROL of adaptive evolution. However, that is the only thing I’ve found lacking in his excellent representation of cause and effect in species from microbes to man. Including control requires more physics (e.g., the thermodynamics of protein folding). The key to dispensing with “randomness” is the physics of bottom-up epigenetic effects that are controlled from the top down by epigenetic effects on the same signaling pathway. I am in prep with the details of this, but could use some help from a biophysicist (co-author?) who isn’t intimidated by the progress “Creationists” have made in the context of the alternative splicings that drive adaptations. Meanwhile, theoretical biologists, like Stuart Kauffman are trying to extract physics from mutation-initiated natural selection because they can’t address how selection occurs at the level of hydrogen bonds in RNA and DNA. I ‘ve done that, but I’m not certain I can correctly represent the physics of epigenetics.
4) What’s inferred here seems to be that non-random genetic mutations are doing something that is somehow involved in evolution. Is there a model for that? I think it’s great that Howard and others now recognize that “Nothing is Random.” Moving forward, what does that mean? No intelligent designer; No creator God in the sky; Nothing is Random. Is everything about evolution automagical? Or is it nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled? Or What? Shapiro made it clear that nothing is random. Howard reiterated that fact.
5) In a yeast model organism, we now have the concept that one mutation leads to another but epistasis is still somehow achieved. Epistasis enables sexual reproduction and thus selection for the mutations would occur via sexual selection. However, nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction is exemplified in yeast, which one of the points made in Shapiro’s book (see page 21). His point most closely parallels what we detailed in the molecular epigenetics section of our 1996 review. Who should be thanked for 17 more years of touting mutation-driven evolution, after we showed that sexual reproduction was pheromone-controlled. Who didn’t know that sexual reproduction is nutrient-dependent? Why would anyone continue touting mutations theory as if two or more mutations were better than one in the context of adaptations. See for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/…/pii/S109727651300748X

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: