Creating genes and species
by Casey Luskin, August 24, 2015
Excerpt: Whenever you see “de novo” origin of a gene invoked, you know that evolutionary biologists lack any explanation for how that gene arose.
My comment: I tend to use the experience-dependent “de novo” creation of olfactory receptor genes as an example of how RNA-mediated events link physics, chemistry, and biology from atoms to ecosystems via the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent protein folding chemistry and the physiology of reproduction.
Does anyone else have examples of the “de novo” creation of anything that they would like serious scientists to know about?
See for comparison: Search Results for ‘”de novo creation”‘
In the context of the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes, Kohl’s “Laws of Biology” appear to link the Laws of Physics via what is currently known about biophysically constrained RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry.
See: Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems
Kohl’s Laws of Biology… are so-named because the surname of the first author or sole author on each of 7 peer-reviewed publications in the paragraph below is Kohl. The Kohls did not create the Laws of Biology; they merely independently incorporated what is known about them into what appears to be a cohesive series of published works.
Kohl’s Laws of Biology
Life is nutrient-dependent. That is a Biological Law. The ecological origin of all biological laws is apparent 1) in the context of systems biology (P. Kohl, et al., 2010); 2) in the context of the metabolism of nutrients by microbes (K. D. Kohl, 2012); and 3) in the context of how the metabolism of nutrients results in species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction (J. Kohl, Ostrovsky, Frechter, & Jefferis, 2013). Taken together, the systems biology of nutrient metabolism to species-specific pheromones, which control the physiology of reproduction, can be expressed in a summary of Kohl’s Laws of Biology: 1) Life is nutrient-dependent. See for review (J. V. Kohl, 2012; M. Lynch, 2007). The physiology of reproduction is pheromone-controlled. See for review (J. V. Kohl, 2013). In the context of nutrient-dependent epigenetically-effected human reproduction, it is clearer that the epigenetic effects of human pheromones integrate neuroendocrinology and behavior (J. V. Kohl, et al., 2001), which includes the neuroendocrinology of mammalian behavior associated with the development of sexual preferences (J.V. Kohl, 2007).
Kohl’s Laws help to explain what was missing from Darwin’s ‘conditions of life.’
See also: Sci-fi `12 Monkeys’ sparks frantic fears (on page 6 of the pdf)
In the last months of 1996, according to James Kohl (Bruce Willis), a lethal virus will wipe out 5 billion people.
Of course, no one in the film believes what a mental patient like James Kohl has to say about himself and the future. But would you believe it if a man claimed to be from the future and kept making dire predictions about the fate of mankind and insisted that no, he is not insane? Such a man would be locked away in a padded cell with the key thrown away. This is an example of the “Cassandra syndrome” theme that prevails throughout the film: a curse of being able to predict the future, but always being disbelieved.
Note: The name of the character played by Bruce Willis has since been changed from “James Kohl” to “James Cole.” In an interesting twist on the movie, someone has rewritten the historical record of that character’s name that I have continued to link viruses to all pathology via the conserved molecular mechanism of cell type differentiation portrayed in The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality (1995). Greg Bear incorporated the claims about pheromones into Darwin’s Radio (1999) and Darwin’s Children (2003) after linking what was known about viruses and RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in Blood Music (1985) and further developing the theme in Quantico (2006).
See also: The Darwin Code by Greg Bear
My comment: Atheists tend to claim that creationists cannot predict their future. They also tend to claim that creationist science is pseudoscience.
I’m not sure how atheists would classify Greg Bear’s claims, which were placed into the context of “Intelligent Design,” but I suspect that the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes is a clear indicator that evolutionary biologists have been touting pseudoscientific nonsense ever since population geneticists invented neo-Darwinism. Young earth creationists have, for comparison, linked viruses to all pathology and cited Molecular Clocks and the Puzzle of RNA Virus Origins, which links a single amino acid substitution in the cell types of all chimpanzees and modern humans to difference in the cell type of gorillas.
For example, Dobzhansky (1973) wrote: “…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 ( p. 127).” The fact that this claim appeared in Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution links the sun’s biological energy to all biomass on Earth, and makes the claims of theorists about mutations and evolution appear to be nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense in the context of the virucidal properties of UV light that have since been linked to RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all living genera.