Models by evolutionary biologists are not models

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: December 15, 2014

How Networks Are Revolutionizing Scientific (and Maybe Human) Thought

Excerpt: “…evolutionary biologists are now modeling series of complex networked relationships at multiple levels ranging from individual “letters” in the genome to protein-gene networks to interaction networks between organisms, thereby demonstrating that our genes are only our destinies to the extent that they link to each other and to the surrounding world—both social and natural.”
My comment: That’s nonsense!  Evolutionary biologists are only now learning about how cell type differentiation occurs in the context of RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated events. The RNA-mediated events link amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation via conserved molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man. Most evolutionary biologists still seem to equate amino acid substitutions and mutations.
Evolutionary biologists cannot possibly model anything about the systems complexity that links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in organized genomes via metabolic networks and genetic networks until they realize what has consistently been missing from they think are “models” of biologically-based cause and effect. Most of them are science idiots who are only now realizing the importance of nutrient-dependent thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation, which only arise in the context of physical and chemical constraints on protein folding.
Protein folding links ecological variation to ecological adaptations that pseudoscientists have placed into the context of ridiculous theories. That made their models equally ridiculous. Their models will be no less ridiculous until they place them into the context of feedback loops that obviously link food odors and pheromones to controlled protein biosynthesis via amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all species.
See for example their latest misrepresentation of how birds evolved from dinosaurs. ‘Big Bang’ of bird evolution mapped: Genes reveal deep histories of bird origins, feathers, flight and song. The full set of papers in Science and other journals can be accessed at of the articles published in Science link amino acid substitutions to the differences among bird species, other article links the differences to mutations.
This is a case where both explanations cannot be correct. Mutations perturb protein folding; amino acid substitutions stabilize it. What does that tell you about the ability of evolutionary biologists to model “…series of complex networked relationships at multiple levels…”
How can anyone not yet realize that the evolutionary biologists have linked “…series of complex networked relationships at multiple levels…” from mutations that perturb protein folding to the evolution of biodiversity? Their explanations are what could be expected from science idiots, not what we must expect from serious scientists who explain how the epigenetic landscape becomes the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man via what is known about physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms. (my model) (protein folding) (mutations)

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: