Darwinian theories vs Darwin's facts

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: January 17, 2014

Darwin’s Theories, submitted by Celia Secades of the Elesapiens website was the runner-up in the Third Annual NESCent Evolution Video Contest. (unfortunately, the video has been removed — perhaps for good reasons. For example:

My comment: No experimental evidence supports the representations of mutation-initiated natural selection in the video.
For comparison, tenOever on microRNA and Vaccines  addresses what is currently known about glucose-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and self vs non-self identification in viruses to living species with varying degrees of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecologically-adapted organismal complexity.

Professor tenOever’s award-winning works cannot be placed into the context of Celia Secades “Darwinian facts” about evolution.
Darwin’s facts placed Darwin’s ‘conditions of life’ before natural selection. In the following four articles, we see that even in a virus (a non-living organism), glucose enables adaptations without mutation-initiated natural selection.
1) Substitutions Near the Receptor Binding Site Determine Major Antigenic Change During Influenza Virus Evolution (1) First, the amino acid substitutions are falsely attributed to mutations.
2) Stability-mediated epistasis constrains the evolution of an influenza protein 2) Next an article asked “How does epistasis arise from an evolutionary process that is conceived as proceeding through the incremental accumulation of mutations?’ Obviously, epistasis does not arise via mutations. The article places the evolutionary process into the context of biophysical constraints via an analogy to words. “WORD→WORE→GORE→GONE→GENE. Implicit in this analogy is the idea that there are biophysically constraints on evolution—for example, the original parent sequence does not tolerate three of the four eventual changes, as GORD, WERD and WOND are not words.” The fact that those words are nonsense words attests to the fact that mutation-driven evolution is a nonsensical theory.
3) Glycolytic control of vacuolar-type ATPase activity: A mechanism to regulate influenza viral infection 3) This article links glycolysis and influenza virus infection. The amino acid substitution in the human influenza virus that enables new antigenic properties is obviously nutrient-dependent, even when the nutrient (i.e., glucose) must come from an infected cell.
Aerobic Glycolysis in the Human Brain Is Associated with Development and Neotenous Gene Expression 4) Aerobic glycolysis in the human brain links amino acid substitutions from the epigenetic landscape of  the influenza virus to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of living cells in different organisms via the conserved molecular mechanisms that enable nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological, social, neurogenic and socio-cognitive niche construction during the ecological adaptations that are manifested in increased organismal complexity of species from microbes to man.
Evolutionary theorists may object to the idea of crossing species barriers via what is known by molecular biologists about conserved molecular mechanisms, but that’s because evolutionary theorists don’t know enough about biology to reject the theory of mutation-driven evolution. Even though no experimental evidence supports it, theorists cling to their ridiculous theory because it’s all they have. There is no “fall-back” position. Either ecological adaptations are responsible for species divergence or mutation-initiated natural selection somehow enables increasing organismal complexity.
The video about how natural selection somehow enables increasing organismal complexity is only appropriate for an audience of children who are not expected to ask any questions about how mutations could be fixed in the genome so that they could be naturally selected. It is horribly inappropriate for use as a teaching tool for students age 5 or older, who are more likely to ask: “Is there a model for that?”
Since it has been removed, others may want to see those that remain, and attempt to determine whether anything they claim makes sense in the context of what is known about physics, chemistry, and molecular biology.
Also see the links to viral microRNAs from this blog site.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: