Creating nothing but a theory (2)

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: March 29, 2015

Seeing the (UV) light: Previously undetected difference in human mutation rate unique to Europeans

Excerpts from the discussion:
Q: What’s the threshold at which UV-induced substitutions become UV-induced mutations?
A: The balance of viral microRNAs to nutrient-dependent microRNAs is the determinant of controlled vs perturbed cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all genera.
Cell type differentiation is biophysically constrained by the nutrient-dependent chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding, which is perturbed by mutations. That’s why uncontrolled mutations lead to pathology that is typically prevented by nutrient-dependent DNA repair. Fixed amino acid substitutions link the molecular mechanisms of repair to metabolic networks and genetic networks via everything currently known about nutrigenomics and pharmacogenomics.
JVK: UV light-induced amino acid substitutions in plants and animals may confuse some theorists who link excess exposure to mutations but do not link the sun’s anti-entropic biological energy to ecological adaptations.
smd:  Biological negentropy (as well as the emergence of life from non-living matter) is a response to energy, not a property of a given energy source itself. For example, there are cave-dwelling organisms that ingest rock formation-bound minerals and others that ingest the sulfur contained in ocean floor so-called smoking vents.
JVK: [Cave-dwelling fish] …also exemplify eye regression, which appears to be antithetical to the ridiculous concepts linked to Mutation-driven evolution via the pseudoscientific nonsense attributed to people like Masatoshi Nei.
“…genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world. In this view of evolution there is no need of considering teleological elements” (p. 199). Mutation-Driven Evolution
For comparison, see: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. ” The nutrient-poor environment of the caves forces cave fish to focus their efforts on foraging and finding mates. Their eyes become unnecessary energy drains, and regress due to the entropic effects of viral microRNAs on cell type differentiation.”
smd: “…it appears to be a mutation in a ancestral single gene (i.e., that made an incomplete copy of itself) that gave rise to a unique human gene responsible for the rapid evolution of the H. sapiens neocortex …”
JVK:  Caveat: It appears that way to a biologically uniformed science idiot who is participating anonymously in this discussion. Thank God, for intelligent serious scientists who refuse to accept ridiculous theories and, instead, provide experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect like this:
Convergent microRNA actions coordinate neocortical development
Comparative analysis of human and mouse expression data illuminates tissue-specific evolutionary patterns of miRNAs
MicroRNA Expression and Regulation in Human, Chimpanzee, and Macaque Brains
smd: (REVISITED) “…negentropy (as well as the emergence of life from non-living matter) is a response to energy, not a property of a given energy source itself.”
JVK: For an example of how much scientific progress has been prevented by that pseudoscientific nonsense see: Characterisation of two Neurogenin genes from the brook lamprey Lampetra planeri and their expression in the lamprey nervous system.
Ricardo Lara-Ramirez thinks publishing an article about the differentiation of two cell types in two different species is more important that publication of articles like this: Role of olfaction in Octopus vulgaris reproduction
Excerpt: “…we propose a model in which the olfactory organ and the olfactory lobe of O. vulgaris could represent the on–off switch between food intake and reproduction.” Citations include (Kohl, 2013; Elekonich and Robinson 2000)
smd: (REVISITED) “…the emergence of life from non-living matter…”
JVK: That was an assumption for a long time, and no experimental has disproved it. Indeed, many theories have been based on the assumption because “…the emergence of life from non-living matter…” is not something that can be disproved.See: Was ribosome the first self-replicator? https://matpitka.b…tor.html
Excerpt: “Can one tell whether it was pro-cell or bio-molecules that emerged first? It seems that all these structures could have emerged simultaneously. What emerged was dark matter and its emergence involved the emergence of all the others. Hens and eggs emerged simultaneously.”
My comment: I can’t disprove the claim that “Hens and eggs emerged simultaneously.”That’s the problem. No one can disprove pseudoscientific nonsense, so biologically uninformed science idiots are taught to accept it as if it were supported by experimental evidence of cause and effect.
smd:  “Organisms with mutations that express as phenotypical characteristics that in turn provide an adaptive advantage – including energy efficiency – over time either replace those who do not or occupy a differential ecological niche.”
JVK: No experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect supports that nonsense. It’s the word-play of population geneticists, as is “population-private mutations.”See instead: Tracking niche variation over millennial timescales in sympatric killer whale lineages
Excerpt: “Ecological variation is the raw material by which natural selection can drive evolutionary divergence [1–4].”Also,  “If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based” (p 1014).
smd: “Of course scientific “facts” change with greater knowledge, as should be clear to anyone who is familiar with and understands the history of science. However, you present an alternative view that is speculative in the same way as are those you denounce – the fundamental problem being that you position yours as correct and others’ as idiotic. Again, this is indicative of belief-based, not scientific method-based, thinking.”
JVK: The full text of this 2015 article is available for download:
Epigenetic regulation of mammalian sex determination Makoto Tachibana
See also the molecular epigenetics section of our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review, which was extended by others to insects and the life history transitions of the honeybee model organism.
Others have also addressed the fact that “Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction” Unfortunately, no one can prove the chickens and eggs did not simultaneously emerge.
On the other hand, only biologically uninformed science idiots believe that the molecular mechanisms of the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent protein folding vary across species.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: