Hypothesis free pseudoscience vs facts (3)

Nobel-Winning DNA Research Challenges Evolutionary Theory

In 2015, three scientists won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for decades of research into DNA—research that reinforces the idea that evolution is mythology and makes the modern evolutionary theory of abiogenesis seem more and more indefensible. It turns out that DNA is inherently unstable, and the preservation of genetic information requires a complex symbiotic relationship between the cell and DNA that is so interdependent that neither could have arisen independently of the other.

See also: Announcements of the 2016 Nobel Prizes
Physiology or Medicine:
Monday 3 October, 11:30 a.m. at the earliest
Physics:
Tuesday 4 October, 11:45 a.m. at the earliest
Chemistry:
Wednesday 5 October, 11:45 a.m. at the earliest
See the latest information on the cure for all pathology. Injecting live virus in brain tumors may fight cancer, study suggests
This is akin to “RNA-guided human genome engineering”

Repetitive elements or endogenous viral elements can be targeted with engineered Cas+gRNA systems in microbes, plants, animals, or human cells to reduce deleterious transposition or to aid in sequencing or other analytic genomic/transcriptomic/proteomic/diagnostic tools (in which nearly identical copies can be problematic).

The links from physics and chemistry to molecular epigenetics and RNA-mediated cell type differentiation force cell types to respond, if at all possible, with energy-dependent DNA repair. For example, the innate immune system links nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled RNA-mediated cell type differentiation from fixation of amino acid substitutions in bacteria to the structure and function of human supercoiled DNA, which protects our organized genomes from virus-driven energy theft and genomic entropy.
The injection of a live virus is one of the best examples of an evolutionary theory killer I have seen. It can be placed into the context of “Arrowsmith” by Sinclair Lewis (1925). The Pulitzer Prize winning novel was published in the same year that neo-Darwinian theorists won the right to continue bastardizing Darwin’s theory and represent it as an example of mutation-driven evolution instead of Darwin’s “conditions of life.”
Darwin’s “conditions of life” support the representations of how energy-dependent viral latency is achieved and how a new human subspecies might arise from other primates in the context of ecological variation, which obviously must be linked to ecological adaptation of increasing organismal complexity via facts about conserved molecular mechanisms.
See for contrast this attempt to discuss biologically-based cause and effect.
See also: Frizzled proteins are colonic epithelial receptors for C. difficile toxin B
Reported as: Researchers reveal how dangerous intestinal toxin enters cells
See also: Research sheds light on mechanism that leads to drug-resistant superbugs
See also: Targeting the Noncoding Genome with CRISPR
My comment to the Scientist (one of 365)

Viruses steal quantised energy from cells to replicate. One amino acid substitution is all that is required to increase the thermodynamic stability of a virus. That requires a nutrient-dependent amino acid substitution to be fixed in the organized genomes of any species that survives the energy theft.The survivors are examples of biophysically constrained viral latency until stress-linked constraint-breaking mutations finally overcome the innate immune system’s ability to constrain the viruses.I could continue to repeat myself and link quantised energy from chemical ecology to the biophysically constrained energy-dependent creation of the soul. Alternatively, others will keep telling you parts of what is known to all serious scientists, which is that there is no such thing as mutation-driven evolution.
In any case, the 2016 Nobel Prizes are going to be announced soon. We can all be relatively certain we will continue to see more neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory killers. No experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect has ever supported the pseudoscientific nonsense of neo-Darwinism. And I don’t know if the Prize in Physiology or Medicine has been awarded to a theorist since the time of Lorenz and Tinbergen, but it certainly has not bee since Axel and Buck (2004).
I haven’t followed the prizes, just the experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect.
See for example: