Hypothesis free pseudoscience vs facts (2)
See first: Hypothesis free pseudoscience vs facts (1)
Conclusion: “As compelling as the step-by-step model of Darwinian evolution is, it seems that at least for stems of mt-tRNAs a majority of substitutions involve population dynamics that allow a population to jump over a short but deep valley in fitness.”
My comment: As I recall, de Vries defined “mutation” in the content of sudden jumps in morphological phenotypes. Is anyone you know still using his 1902 definition in their claims about natural selection and/or evolution? If so, please tell them to read this:
The Excitable Mitochondria by John Hewitt
Current approaches to the neurosciences are naïve and often misguided. Contemporary researchers are hopelessly enthusiastic about computer simulations, wiring diagrams or connectomes, and brain activity maps. We may need software tools to visualize brains, but they will not provide any deep understanding of the brain itself.
Not many models depict the structure of cristae, and even fewer try to capture their function.37 This is characteristic of the neurosciences today.
See also: Stat Profile Prime CCS Blood Gas Analyzer from Nova Biomedical
My comment: Structure and function are manifested in the pH of body fluids and tissues. Measuring pH links nutritional epigenetics from the innate immune system to healthy longevity via everything known about virus-driven energy theft. Nutrient stress and social stress link energy theft from the replication of viruses to all pathology. In the context of critical care testing the measurement of pH and measurement of other blood gas analytes such as pCO2, pO2, Sodium, Potassium, Chloride, Calcium, Glucose, Lactic Acid, and Hematocrit help to predict patient outcomes.
John Hewitt is the only science journalist I know who has put that fact into proper perspective. However, John Brunstein has published a series of article like this one: DNA and RNA structure: nucleic acids as genetic material in one of my trade publications. Taken together, it should not take long for any motivated researcher to learn the difference between nutrient energy-dependent healthy longevity and virus-driven energy theft, which is linked from mutations to all pathology.
See also: Lactate metabolism is associated with mammalian mitochondria
Reported as: ‘Tracking bugs’ reveal secret of cancer cell metabolism
Cancer cells are thought to mostly skip the mitochondrial phase, compensating for the energy they forgo by revving up the first phase and breaking down glucose rapidly to secrete large quantities of lactate—a form of partially digested glucose that has long been regarded as a “waste product.”
My comment: Models that do not link energy-dependent changes in subatomic particles to changes that link angstroms to ecosystems in all living genera via the physiology of reproduction are not models. Given what is known about biophysically constrained RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry, the failure to link energy from angstroms to ecosystems represents the failure of all theories.
The theorists who make claims based on what they might think is a model have not linked energy-dependent codon optimality to the physiology of reproduction and supercoiled DNA, which protects all organized genomes from virus-driven energy theft. That’s why theorists cannot explain how differences arise that determine the structure of a cancer cell for comparison to the structure of a functional cell type. Many theorists have not been taught the difference between a virus-caused mutation and a nutrient energy-dependent amino acid substitution.
Theorists do not realize that virtually all cell type energy has been stolen from the cancer cell by viruses that prevent the cell type differentiation, which is required to link structure and function in the cell types of all living genera. Theorists do not realize that everything known to serious scientists about cell type differentiation was packaged in the old adage feed a cold; but starve a fever.
Can the theorists be blamed for their overwhelming ignorance?
I have trouble remembering what to do for a cold compared to what do do for a fever. Another problem is that colds and flu are typically caused by viruses but the accompanying fevers might also be due a bacterial infection. In a worst case scenario, virus-driven pathology becomes pathology, which is then attributed to bacterial infection.
Instead of attributing healthy longevity to nutrient-dependent viral latency, ineffective treatment of virus-driven biophysical constraint-breaking mutations in bacteria is linked to antibiotic resistance and bacterial sepsis. Death due to viral replication is then reported as a death due to sepsis. Few people ask “What made the microbiome cause the death of my loved one.”
How many times has someone admitted to the hospital with severe cold or flu symptoms died from the failure of quorum sensing in bacteria to protect them against virus-driven energy theft and bacterial sepsis. What really caused their death? I’ve always wanted to claim that the patient died from neo-Darwinian theory, but I am not a physician. I’m just the medical laboratory scientist who helps the physician make treatment decisions. For example, 70% of those decisions are reportedly made based on results from testing in the lab.
For comparison, theorists may think mutations in bacteria cause antibiotic resistance, which would mean physicians would need to guess the number of mutations that was likely to cause an unfortunate patient outcome. Many theorists can’t seem to grasp the fact that quorum sensing is an example of how ecological variation leads to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation. Some theorists still claim that mutations cause all pathology. The pseudoscientific nonsense of the theorists and their ridiculous ideas are accepted by the students they teach. Ultimately, although they know that bacteria are not mutating to become new species in the lab, many physicians never learn that virus-driven energy theft causes all pathology, which begins with changes in the cell types of bacteria.
Bacteria and all other organisms have an innate immune system. The energy-dependent de novo creation of G protein-coupled receptors allows all organisms to find food. If they find it and remember where they found it they can learn to live long enough to reproduce. To learn to find food and to reproduce, all organisms must appropriately respond to the presence of subatomic particles in hydrogen atoms. Responses to changes in their epigenetic landscape require them to use G protein coupled receptors for chemotaxis and phototaxis, which enable every aspect of biodiversity in all living genera.
For comparison, see: Scientists Trace Society’s Myths to Primordial Origins
Evolutionary biologists have identified possible interbreeding with Neandertals, Denisovans and perhaps other archaic humans. Material exchanges, as well as language and mythological borrowings, may have also occurred. My more immediate goal is to expand and refine the burgeoning phylogenetic supertree of Paleolithic myths, which already includes stories of the life-giving sun as a big mammal and of women as primordial guardians of sacred knowledge sanctuaries.
My comment: “Evolutionary biologists” are not scientists. Scientists use experimental evidence to support their claims. They do not simply add one story to another and suggest that things like interbreeding with Neandertals, Denisovans and perhaps other archaic humans, have occurred. Serious scientists link energy-dependent changes from angstroms to ecosystems in all living genera, and they have recently begun to link virus-driven energy theft to all pathology.
The end of hypothesis free pseudoscience is near, which means that evolutionary biologists will need to learn how biophysically constrained cell type differentiation occurs in all living genera. That means the end of evolutionary biology is near. Anyone who reports something that evolutionary biologists have done in the context of what scientists have supported with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect, will effectively end their career. What will the reporters at Scientific American do after that happens?