Are viruses microRNAs? (2)

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: January 28, 2015

The role of microRNAs in cell type differentiation can be compared in the context of the role of viruses and mutations that cause cancer. Facts provide a basis for explaining the biological basis of epigenetically-effected cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man. But first, those who are biologically uninformed must answer the question:

Are viruses microRNAs?

Andrew Jones aka anonymous_9001 is correct. Viruses are not microRNAs.

anonymous_9001 5 / 5 (6) 11 hours ago Stupid question of the day goes to: https://perfumingt…crornas/

“Viruses consist of coding DNA or RNA (miRNAs are non-coding) surrounded by a protein capsule. So no, viruses are not miRNAs.”

My comment: Andrew Jones also claimed that my 2013 review “presents an unsupported challenge to modern evolutionary theory and misrepresentations of established scientific terms and others’ research.”  See: Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model.
He is one of the most biologically uniformed science idiots I have ever encountered. I knew I could count on him, or someone like him to help me eliminate theories about mutations and evolution. First, science idiots must admit to knowing something about what is currently known to others about the systems biology of increasing organismal complexity. I detailed how amino acid substitutions lead to increased organismal complexity in the review he criticized.
He has also criticized me for claiming that light-induced amino acid substitutions in plants and animals link nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions to their fixation in the DNA of organized genomes. Fixation occurs via the nutrient-dependent physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction in species from microbes to man. Andrew Jones also answered this question:

5 / 5 (6) 11 hours ago

What about light-induced amino acid substitutions?

Excerpt: “You mean those ones you never proved were induced by light? The takeaway message of that paper was that a substitution changes how a protein reacted to light. It didn’t say that light CAUSED said substitution. That’s just you drawing an unsupported conclusion and claiming it as fact.”

My comment: People like Andrew Jones exemplify differences between science idiots and serious scientists who understand how the biological energy of the sun is linked to cell type differentiation.
See: Light- and Carbon-Signaling Pathways. Modeling Circuits of Interactions “…light provides the reducing power for carbon fixation, nitrogen assimilation, amino acid biosynthesis, and other necessary metabolic pathways…”
See also, this video Shedding light on photosynthesis
For more enlightenment, see: Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
Excerpt: “…the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla.”
My comment: Dobzhansky(1973) failed to differentiate between mutations and amino acid substitutions. Indeed, he could not have known how to differentiate between the definition of “mutation” and facts about amino acid substitutions. In 1973, virtually nothing was known about how RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions stabilize the DNA in the organized genome of species from microbes to man. That’s why most evolutionary theorists and all pseudoscientists today still believe that mutations, which perturb protein folding, also lead to the evolution of increasing organismal complexity. Simply put, they decided to believe in definitions and assumptions about biologically-based cause and effect, without attempting to support the assumptions with experimental evidence. That’s why I closed my blog post: Are viruses microRNAs? with this claim: “I will follow-up on this with a post that links the sun’s biological energy to cell type differentiation.”
See: Metabolic theory predicts whole-ecosystem properties
Excerpt: “A theory is presented which shows how the metabolism of individual organisms controls the flow of carbon through ecosystems. The theory synthesizes top-down, ecosystem-level and bottom-up, organism-level approaches to ecological energetics and material cycles. The theory predicts a very simple straight-line relationship between residence time of carbon molecules and the ratio of whole-ecosystem biomass to primary productivity. This and additional predictions for total throughfow and recycling are supported by numerical models and data from real ecosystems. The theory provides a powerful way to understand the roles of organisms in ecosystem processes at scales from local habitats to the biosphere.”

My comment: I placed their “…simple straight-line relationship between residence time of carbon molecules and the ratio of whole-ecosystem biomass to primary productivity” into the context of an atoms to ecosystems model. In my invited review Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems, I wrote “…methylation of the carbon-5 position of cytosine, which results in differences in 5hmCs, may be the most commonly studied type of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled structural and functional eukaryotic modification that results from organizing base pair changes.” Kohl (unpublished)
The invited review was returned without review because none of my “peers” would review it. Alternatively, none of my “peers” are capable of reviewing submissions that detail links between physic, chemistry, and the conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man. Of course, the possibility remains that the reviewers are evolutionary theorists who have not yet realized that the sun’s biological energy must be linked from atoms to ecosystems in any explanation of how the creation of amino acids led to the biodiversity of morphological and behavioral phenotypes. For all I know, they might believe that viruses cause the mutations that perturb protein folding but that also lead to the evolution of different species. They may not realize that ecological variation links nutrient-dependent microRNAs to changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance and cell type differentiation that is controlled by the physiology of reproduction. Indeed, they may be biologically uninformed science idiots like Andrew Jones, whose most recent claim is that I think viruses are microRNAs.
Pan-viral-microRNA screening identifies interferon inhibition as a common function of diverse viruses places viral microRNAs into the context of virus-associated mutations and treatment of cancer, specifically lymphomas, which obviously involve the proliferation of undifferentiated cell types. Note the term “viral microRNAs” should assure others that I know the difference between viruses and microRNAs. Indeed, the claim that “…little is known about how viral miRNAs evolve… can also be placed into the context that “Viral microRNAs are known to prevent host cell death, promote host cell growth and dampen the host cell’s viral defenses.” In the light of evolution, we can now see that viral microRNAs probably contribute to the physiopathology of cancers.
MicroRNAs also appear to help “…maintain the robustness of gene expression networks in the face of random fluctuation and environmental perturbation (Ebert and Sharp, 2012). — See Youngman and Claycomb (2014)
Obviously, viruses ARE NOT microRNAs, which means it will be easier to differentiate the epigenetic effect of viral mircroRNAs from nutrient-dependent microRNAs that link the microRNA/messenger RNA balance to cell type differentiation and biodiversity via the pheromone-controlled physiology of nutrient-dependent reproduction. Unfortunately, I feel pressured by Matti Pitkanen to post this before he pirates anymore information from me and includes it in his ridiculous theories. Obviously, it takes more than just a few words to make a model that refutes ridiculous theories.
In my next blog post I will add more information about how the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding links light-induced amino acid substitutions in plants to the nutrient-dependent microRNA/messenger RNA balance via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation in animals. As a reminder, in animals, fixation of the RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions occurs in the context of the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man.
The link from ecological variation via nutrient uptake to the immune system appears to include changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance that typically would lead from ecological variation to RNA-mediated ecological adaptation. That means ecological variation and ecological adaptation do not need to be put into the context of evolution. Eliminating evolution attributed to viruses and mutations also eliminates beneficial mutations from explanations of biologically-based cause and effect. For example, excess sun exposure might lead to mutations and skin cancer, but cancer is not beneficial so excess exposure can be examined only in the context of perturbed protein folding and pathology.For contrast, ridiculous theories of evolution via beneficial mutations confuse biologically uninformed physicists who think that the chicken and the egg conundrum is resolved by claiming that the hen and egg simultaneously emerged from their origins in the amino acids found in deep space that were transported by asteroids or aliens that somehow seeded life on this planet. That level of confusion is overwhelming, but at least any confusion about differences between viruses and microRNAs has been eliminated. Viruses are not microRNAs. MicroRNAs are not viruses.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: