Hecatombic evolution VS polycombic ecological adaptation

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: October 17, 2016

Hecatombic evolution can be compared to polycombic ecological adaptation in the context of facts that do not support the Demoncrat’s agenda.

Demoncrat: A biologically uninformed politician acting on behalf of ignorance to promote virus-driven pathology as a source of all biodiversity.

Alt: “A member of the Democratic Party (with a demonic implication).”

How many people think that this report of what Dr. Ben Carson said is an accurate representation of what he said? Is “ugly surrogacy” suggestive of biased reporting?

Ben Carson Said It Doesn’t Matter Whether or Not Donald Trump Committed Sexual Assault

My comment: I remember when biologically uninformed science idiots claimed that Dr. Ben Carson was a fool to believe in young earth creationism. Since then, the idiots have invented hecatombic evolution as a replacement for the Modern Synthesis, because no serious scientist has ever believed in the pseudoscientific nonsense of neo-Darwinian theory.

Daniel Orloski wrote: No one is listening James · 46 mins

My comment: People seem to underestimate the intelligence of those who are not Demoncrats. They have been listening for many years. Republicans intuitively know the difference between hecatombic evolution and polycombic ecological adaptation and so do all young earth creationists.
All are listening but they can’t explain the difference between what theorists claim happens during millions of years of hecatombic evolution and what serious scientists have shown happens in 6000 years of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled RNA-mediated polycombic ecological adaptation.
See: 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.

I reiterate: Small DNA-binding chromo domain proteins are called polycomb in the context of the polycomb repressive complex. These proteins alter chromatin structure in the context of energy-dependent effects on the transcription and silencing of various genes. The polycomb repressive complex links energy to polycombic ecological adaptation. Virus-driven energy theft links hectombic “evolution” to all pathology.
What’s worst is that the theorists explain millions of years of evolution and weekend evolution of the bacterial flagellum with the same ridiculous theories that were invented in the first part of the 20th century

See for example: Biologists Use Genomics to Identify Evolving New Bird Species in Southern Idaho

This may be a fleeting instance of coevolution influencing speciation, but we have observed enough of it to see that it can happen and may happen in other similar situations.


The birds counter-evolved against those defenses as evolution favored deeper-beaked crossbills, resulting in a coevolutionary arms race that has driven evolutionary divergence of this unique bird population.

My comment: All serious scientists who have linked the claims of Thomas Hunt Morgan about chromosomal rearrangements to the claims of Yoshinori Ohsumi via nutrient energy-dependent biophysically constrained RNA-mediated protein folding and the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to humans, will enjoy this recent misrepresentation of everything known about supercoiled DNA and biodiversity that arose during the past 6000 years.

See also: Genome divergence and diversification within a geographic mosaic of coevolution

…clear examples of reciprocal selection and adaptation driving speciation (the link between coevolution as a micro- and macroevolutionary process) are largely lacking (Althoff et al. 2014; Hembry et al. 2014).

My comments: All clear examples of biophysically constrained RNA-mediated cell type differentiation which are clearly linked from the physiology of reproduction to all biodiversity are ignored in statements like the one above.
See for comparison: Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes

Thus, our results illustrate a detailed chain of events linking a chromosomal rearrangement to changes in overt social behavior.

The chain of events they detailed links the Nobel Prize Winning works of serious scientists from representations of how chromosomal rearrangements are linked to all biodiversity (1933) to how the energy-dependent creation of amino acids  links nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction (2004) to autophagy (2016). Look at the reports of the works presented by the Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine and help serious scientists stop the killing spree of biologically uninformed politicians.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: