Hypothesis free pseudoscience vs facts (1)

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: September 30, 2016

(click to enlarge)

Old Earth Creationist (OEC) Peter Berean, thinks I should change the claims in my model of energy-dependent biophysically constrained RNA-mediate protein folding chemistry. He does not like the fact that my model explains all pathology in the context of virus-driven energy theft.
If viral latency is not nutrient energy-dependent and controlled by the physiology of reproduction in species from bacteria to humans, I will change my claims. If someone explains what is wrong with my model, I will try to correct what is wrong. Until someone explains what is wrong with my model, here is the latest experimental evidence that validates my model, and an example of an attempt to discuss the model in the context of the evidence.
See the evidence: Opposing Effects of Fasting Metabolism on Tissue Tolerance in Bacterial and Viral Inflammation
Reported as: What you eat when you’re sick may determine if you’ll get better
My comment: I think it is obvious that energy-dependent healthy longevity is nutrient-dependent because nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions are linked to supercoiled DNA, which protects all organized genomes from virus-driven entropy (i.e., all pathology).
For discussion, see: James Kohl… if you would like to state your scientific hypothesis (re virus driven energy theft leading to pathologies etc) and its implications … please do so here.

Peter Berean From the article you linked above. … quote:giving mice with flu glucose saved their lives, but it killed those that were infected with bacteria. See: 2 hrs

Peter Berean This suggests that bacteria can cause disease that is different from viral disease… 2 hrs

James Kohl From the author’s comment on this article: https://comments.sciencemag.org/content/10.1126/science.1244730 “The major antigenic changes of the influenza virus are primarily caused by a single amino acid near the receptor binding site.” 2 hrs

Peter Berean The article does not make the case that ALL disease is caused by viruses… I think you should modify your model to state that Many di[s]eases are caused by viruses (but [not] necessarily all)…. you would have greater credibility with your readers if you were to do so…2 hrs

Peter Berean No problem with your latest article link (major antigenic…) It does not establish your original ALL model. But it is consistent with my recommended change to you[r] model… 2 hrs

James Kohl Plagiarist Tomi Aalto, has already taken the information I provided to him to make the claims I have been making for 20 years without mention of the model. I suspect you will do the same thing. You want me to modify the only model that explains biologically-based cause and effect in all living genera to gain the credibility that God has via His claims — as recorded across the history of life and death on Earth.
Is there some reason you think I would be willing to do that based on your opinions and recommendations? 2 hrs

Darrell Mondeau James, serious scientists accept criticism of their models or hypotheses. It is important for the evaluation of the models or hypotheses. No scientific idea has ever moved forward without criticism and reevaluation. 2 hrs

Darrell Mondeau James, I think you would be willing to change your model so that it would fit more precisely with the evidence that not all disease is caused by viruses. i.e. fungal infections, man made toxins, natural toxins. The wording of “ALL” is too broad. 2 hrs

Peter Berean James, I promise that I will not steal your model or use it without attribution to you. Your model does appear to be true for some pathologies… however, as Darrell mentions above the use of the term ALL is too broad. Your model will gain more credibility if you modify it to say that SOME pathologies are caused by viruses … via these xyz mechanisms. … 1 hr

Peter Berean And your medical research can substantiate those pathologies (that are caused by viruses)… 1 hr

Peter Berean You do post a lot of interesting articles (which I enjoy skimming)…. but those do NOT make the case that ALL pathologies are caused by viruses. Yes, SOME pathologies, [but] not Not ALL pathologies. … 1 hr

Peter Berean The point I made with Neo Darwinism was not intended to be an insult. It was merely pointing out that Neo Darwinism makes the same mistake. ND is valid in a small portion of the biosphere (micro Evo and low level speciation etc)… but to extrapolate it to ALL creation of the biosphere (including the higher level taxa, phyla, new body plans etc) is an extreme unwarranted extrapolation…
And again, no offense meant. 1 hr

James Kohl Let’s continue discussion despite your offenses and lack of defense for any theory or for any other model.
Neo-Darwinian theory remains hypothesis free. The inventor’s claims were based on observations of change and statistics. They attributed the changes to “mutations” and natural selection. Darwin attributed the changes to “conditions of life.”
The fact that anyone would ask me to change a fully validated model of biologically-based cause and effect to something that was a better fit for ridiculous theories shows utter contempt for science and scripture. Darwin did not do that; neo-Darwinists always have.
Like the neo-Darwinists, you seem to hate the fact that experimental evidence of biophysically constrained energy-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation supports claims that our ancestors chose to ignore the most basic of all constraints required for energy-dependent healthy longevity.
Is that a correct assessment of your current position on this debate? No offense meant. (September 28, 2016) Just now
Summary: Most theorists, atheists, and Old Earth Creationists (OEC) do not like my model of energy-dependent cause and effect. They have no alternative model and they seem to prefer theories. But they won’t tell me which theories they prefer, or why. They will not even cite a published work that they think supports their opinions.
See for example this description from a presentation by Kevin R. Foster: Social evolution in microbes: from model systems to the microbiome

Bacteria strains are often at war and we find that they can rapidly detect incoming attacks and respond in kind. Microbial interactions then follow the same evolutionary principles that were first understood through the study of animal behavior. However, one unusual and fascinating property of microbes is that an entire ecosystem can lie within another evolving organism: a host. This raises the possibility that hosts will act as ecosystem engineers that change the rules of microbial interaction for their own benefit.

See also: The evolution of cooperation within the gut microbiota, which was co-authored by Kevin R. Foster.
Abstract excerpt:

Cooperative phenotypes are considered central to the functioning of microbial communities in many contexts, including communication via quorum sensing, biofilm formation, antibiotic resistance, and pathogenesis.

My comment: Nutrient energy-dependent pheromone-controlled quorum sensing links angstroms to ecosystems in all living genera via RNA-amino acid substitutions in supercoiled DNA. Nothing evolves, not the organisms in the gut, and certainly not the host. No organism of any species has ever evolved. The biophysically constrained energy-dependent physiology of reproduction prevents evolution. Virus-driven energy theft causes genomic entropy when energy-dependent RNA-mediated DNA repair can no longer protect the organized genome from virus-driven energy theft.