Did evolution autophosphorylate your kinases? (2)

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: October 15, 2016

Hecatombic evolution

Deep-Sea Viruses Destroy Archaea


Given the enormous scale of deep-sea ecosystems, the results indicate that archaea-virus relationships could be a major contributor to global biogeochemical cycles.

My comment:  I know that Anna Di Cosmo​ and John Hewitt​ are able to link virus-driven energy theft to all pathology in all living genera via the conserved molecular mechanisms they have already placed into their proper perspective on natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality, which links the innate immune system to supercoiled DNA via the physiology of reproduction in the context of global biogeochemical cycles. Has anyone else already done that?
See for example:
1) Codon identity regulates mRNA stability and translation efficiency during the maternal-to-zygotic transition
2) The Excitable Mitochondria by John Hewitt
3) Neuroendocrine–Immune Systems Response to Environmental Stressors in the Cephalopod Octopus vulgaris by Anna Di Cosmo and Gianluca Polese
4) Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology
See for comparison:Did evolution autophosphorylate your kinases?
The idea the evolution could do what energy as information has done since the time that the energy was created, seems incredibly bizarre. It’s as if theorists still think they can explain away the role that virus-driven energy theft plays in all pathology by claiming that all species evolved from a common ancestor in the absence of biophysically constrained nutrient energy-dependent DNA repair. That’s why part two of Did evolution autophosphorylate your kinases?seems to be required.
Virus-mediated archaeal hecatomb in the deep seafloor

Viruses are the most abundant biological entities in the world’s oceans, and they play a crucial role in global biogeochemical cycles. In deep-sea ecosystems, archaea and bacteria drive major nutrient cycles, and viruses are largely responsible for their mortality, thereby exerting important controls on microbial dynamics.

My comment: What, pray tell is a “hecatomb?” Does the word choice tell you anything about the difference between energy as information in the context of the polycomb repressive complex and energy theft linked to bloodshed, killing, havoc, slaughter, warfare, annihilation, et al.?
See: Gene Silencing Triggers Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 Recruitment to CpG Islands Genome Wide
See also: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior

Yet another kind of epigenetic imprinting occurs in species as diverse as yeast, Drosophila, mice, and humans and is based upon small DNA-binding proteins called “chromo domain” proteins, e.g., polycomb. These proteins affect chromatin structure, often in telomeric regions, and thereby affect transcription and silencing of various genes (Saunders, Chue, Goebl, Craig, Clark, Powers, Eissenberg, Elgin, Rothfield, and Earnshaw, 1993; Singh, Miller, Pearce, Kothary, Burton, Paro, James, and Gaunt, 1991; Trofatter, Long, Murrell, Stotler, Gusella, and Buckler, 1995). Small intranuclear proteins also participate in generating alternative splicing techniques of pre-mRNA and, by this mechanism, contribute to sexual differentiation in at least two species, Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans (Adler and Hajduk, 1994; de Bono, Zarkower, and Hodgkin, 1995; Ge, Zuo, and Manley, 1991; Green, 1991; Parkhurst and Meneely, 1994; Wilkins, 1995; Wolfner, 1988). That similar proteins perform functions in humans suggests the possibility that some human sex differences may arise from alternative splicings of otherwise identical genes.

My comment: The viruses in the deep blue see are still destroying archaea faster than they are destroying bacteria in the context of whatever the word hecatomb may mean for comparison to polycomb repression of virus-driven energy theft. Polycomb repression of virus-driven energy theft appears to be the link from bacteria and all other living genera to ecological adaptikon at a level above and beyond the failed adaptation to virus-driven energy theft in archaea that is almost literally and figuratively killing the archaea. Ecological adaptation in bacteria and all other living genera is nutrient energy-dependent and pheromone-controlled via the physiology of energy-dependent reproduction.
The death rate in archaea is an example of the fact that there is only one way to link energy as information to all biodiversity.  Autophagy links energy-dependent biophysically constrained viral latency from biodiversity in the ocean to all biodiversity on Earth via conserved molecular mechanisms.
For contrast, ask yourself again, Did evolution autophosphorylate your kinases?  A family member said she would need to learn what all these words meant before she might understand the basis for my claims or why I was joking about evolution. Many other family members have simply dismissed every claim I have ever made. This is for Melinda.

A protein kinase is a kinaseenzyme that modifies other proteins by chemically adding phosphate groups to them (phosphorylation). Phosphorylation usually results in a functional change of the target protein (substrate) by changing enzyme activity, cellular location, or association with other proteins. The human genome contains about 500 protein kinase genes and they constitute about 2% of all human genes.[1] Up to 30% of all human proteins may be modified by kinase activity, and kinases are known to regulate the majority of cellular pathways, especially those involved in signal transduction. Protein kinases are also found in bacteria and plants.

My comment: If bacteria automagically evolved into plants and humans, kinases must have been autophosphorylated outside the context of what is known about how quantised energy as information from the sun is linked from chemical ecology to all biodiversity on Earth by the polycomb repressive complex. In other words. if your kinases were not autophosphorylated by evolution, you did not evolve from a species of bacteria in the ocean.
‘That fact can be placed into the context of these two reports:
1) Sulfur-cycling fossil bacteria from the 1.8-Ga Duck Creek Formation provide promising evidence of evolution’s null hypothesis
2) Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system

  1. On these bases and supporting lines of evidence, we interpret the striking similarities in organismal morphology, community structure, habitat, and evident physiology between the ancient and modern sulfur-cycling biotas as evidencing stasis resulting from adaptation to a physically quiescent subseafloor environment that has remained essentially unchanged over billions of years.
  2. Evolutionary Rewiring “… biological function—in this case, flagellar motility in Pseudomonas fluorescens—can re-evolve after the deletion of a seemingly critical gene. The bacteria regained motility not by reacquiring the lost gene . . . but instead by mutations in other genes that put their products to new uses.”

My comment: See my comments on “Evolutionary Rewiring.” They may still appear on the page from the article in The Scientist. The claim that mutations caused the weekend evolution of a irreducibly complex functional structure cannot be made by someone who is biologically informed. Statements such as that must come from biologically uninformed science idiots who know nothing about the phosphorylation of kinases, which links physics from chemical ecology to the molecular epigenetics of all cell type differentiation and all biodiversity on Earth.
The challenge to theorists is for them to explain the lack of changes in bacteria during ~2 billion years for comparison to the nutrient energy-dependent pheromone-controlled weekend resurrection of the bacterial flagellum in an organism that fluoresces on exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light, which is delivered at the speed of light on contact with water as information about quantized energy.
Experimental evidence that links femotosecond blasts of UV light might be considered in the context of all other refutations of pseudoscientific nonsense touted by neo-Darwinian theorists.
See: Ultraviolet Absorption Induces Hydrogen-Atom Transfer in G⋅C Watson–Crick DNA Base Pairs in Solution and UV-Induced Charge Transfer States in DNA Promote Sequence Selective Self-Repair
My comment: Alternatively, help pseudoscientists elect another Democrat to be President of the United States of America because the current regime has collectively probably already killed us all. Why not die laughing at them, if you can tolerate the suffering that has been caused by the failure of evolution to autophosphorylate your kinases?

Notify of
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

[…] See: Did evolution autophosphorylate your kinases? (2) […]

[…] See also: Did evolution autophosphorylate your kinases? and Did evolution autophosphorylate your kinases? (2) […]

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: