80 years of causal analysis (1936 – 2016)
…mutation is crucial in speciation because reproductive barriers cannot be generated without mutations.
My comment: Chromosomal rearrangements link autophagy from energy-dependent changes in RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and supercoiled DNA to all biodiversity via speciation.
…high frequency radiation and particles of high velocity are very important components of the environment, causing heritable changes by a process called mutation. Even if we could conduct our experiments behind 30 metres of lead the fact that mutation has a temperature coefficient is enough to show that it depends in part on energy fluctuations which are uncontrollable.
My comment: In 1902, De Vries defined the uncontrollable energy fluctuations in the context of his definition of “mutation.” Others have since linked Darwin’s “conditions of life” from energy fluctuations to natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality and healthy longevity via biophysically constrained polycombic ecological adaptation.
See for example: miR-125a-5p regulates differential activation of macrophages and inflammation
My comment: Nutrient energy-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance link autophagy to supercoiled DNA, which protects all organized genomes from virus-driven energy theft and genomic entropy.
See for ~54,000 examples: microrna and autophagy
See for comparison: A new function for oncoproteins of DNA tumor viruses
…the same five amino acid sequence that binds cGAS also binds cellular proteins (such as Rb), disrupting their function and leading to uncontrolled cell growth!
Re: Could both functions have been simultaneously selected for?
My comment: No. Both functions could not have been simultaneously selected for!
Nothing known to serious scientists about top-down causation suggests that the RNA-mediated amino acid sequences in proteins can be simultaneously selected to link natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality to healthy longevity and to simultaneously link virus-driven energy theft to all pathology. In the context of everything known to serious scientists about all living genera, cell type differentiation is energy-dependent and it must be biophysically constrained.
For a review of the biophysical constraints that link all invertebrates to all vertebrates, 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.
My comment: In 1996, we reviewed the established facts about energy-dependent biophysically constrained polycombic ecological adaptation based on what was known about the small DNA-binding proteins called “chromo domain” proteins, e.g., polycomb. The facts about energy-dependent polycombic ecological adaptation have not changed. Only the pseudoscientific nonsense of neo-Darwinian theories has been forced to include the changes portrayed in the context of virus-driven hecatombic evolution.
See for comparison: Virus-mediated archaeal hecatomb in the deep seafloor
We estimated that viral infections were responsible for the abatement of 1.0 to 2.2% day−1 (on average 1.6% day−1) of the bacterial abundance and 2.3 to 4.3% day−1 (on average 3.2% day−1) of the archaeal abundance in deep-sea sediments (Fig. 6).
My comment: The claim that viruses kill ~1.6% of bacteria each day and ~3.2 % of archaea in deep-sea sediments is buried in technical jargon. It was previously resurrected in the report of the weekend resurrection of the bacterial flagellum.
See: Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system
The nutrient energy-dependent pheromone-controlled weekend resurrection of the bacterial flagellum eliminates the confusing rhetoric that theorists use to explain how differences in cell death from archaea to bacteria might be attributed to evolution. The differences are obviously linked from ecological variation to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation in all living genera. For comparison to hecatombic evolution, healthy longevity exemplifies polycombic ecological adaptation.
The cause of death in all cell types is linked to virus-driven energy theft and nutrient energy-dependent healthy longevity is linked from cell type differentiation to all biodiversity. Simply put, virus-driven energy theft is linked from hecatombic evolution to all pathology.
The claim that mutation-driven hecatombic pathology and polycombic ecological adaptation could be simultaneously selected is a claim that only a biologically uninformed theorist would make, or accept.
See for comparison: Neurons adjust their proteins during homeostatic scaling
Changes in the synthesis of cellular proteins lie at the heart of all adaptations that cells undergo.
My comment: That fact was reported in the context of this publication. Nascent Proteome Remodeling following Homeostatic Scaling at Hippocampal Synapses
In addition, although it has not been explicitly addressed here, it is obvious that the regulated degradation of proteins must also play a role in sculpting the proteome during homeostatic scaling. Indeed, we observed many proteins in the ubiquitin proteasome pathway that were regulated by scaling (Figure 3C; Table S3).
My comment: Nascent proteome remodeling links nutrient energy-dependent autophagy from natural selection for codon optimality to changes in protein biosynthesis and degradation. The changers link RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to the differentiation of all cell types in all living genera in the context of the physiology of reproduction. Pseudoscientists, atheists, and most science journalists do not seem to understand that fact.
For comparison, serious scientists do not need more proof that autophagy did not simply emerge to link energy as information to all biodiversity via the conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation that link angstroms to ecosystems in species from microbes to humans. Serious scientists do not need more proof that all neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific nonsense is nothing more than one theory added to another after de Vries defined “mutation” in 1902.
Do you know any serious scientists who has used any definition in the context of reporting their results of testing in the medical laboratory? For example, have you ever used a definition to link the results of a blood gas analysis from hydrogen-atom transfer in DNA base pairs in solution to the patient’s outcome?
My comment: Experimental evidence of biologically based cause and effect links physics and chemistry to the conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation that we detailed in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review.
See for comparison: Different rates of mRNA degradation can be explained by the existence of different regulatory mechanisms.
My comment: Researchers like him should stop ignoring the facts. Energy-dependent autophagy mediates the mRNA turnover rate and links nutrient energy-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to healthy longevity via the physiology of reproduction and transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of morphological and behavioral phenotypes. Virus-driven energy theft links mRNA degradation to all pathology.
See also: This virus may have stolen deadly DNA from black widow spiders (10/12, Feltman) reports researchers have discovered that the WO virus, which infects bacteria, contains “snippets” of DNA from several animals including black widow spiders, according to a study published in Nature Communications. The virus infects the Wolbachia bacteria, which primarily affects arthropods including insects and spiders. Researchers found that the WO virus “contains part of the gene for latrotoxin, the chemical that gives the black widow spider venom its punch.”
The Virus With Spider DNA (10/12, Yong) reports the researchers suspect that the virus obtained the genetic material directly from the spiders infected by Wolbachia, or the bacteria may have obtained it from the spiders before passing it on to the virus.
Additional coverage is provided by: How the Heck Did Black Widow Spider DNA Get Inside a Virus? (10/11, Choi) and Virus stole poison genes from black widow spider (10/12, Rincon).
My comment: Virus-driven energy theft occurs in only one direction. It links cell type death from archaea to Zika virus damage in human infants via transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of pathology. The idea that a virus that infects bacteria could have come from the DNA of animals is one that misrepresents everything currently known to serious scientists about autophagy.
Ideas like that are the source of pathology that alters the behavior of family members who believe that any idea is as good as a model of biologically-based cause and effect.
Biologically uniformed family members have unfriended me on Facebook because they do not want anyone to become informed.
I’ve learned that expertise on any given topic may cause embarrassment in non-experts who think experts are insulting their intelligence or criticizing their beliefs. This is true at all levels. 2004 Templeton Prize winner, George FR Ellis, who is or was an active Quaker, unfriended me when I commented on the book he published in June. He left out the information on my model, even after he claimed I was correct.
He has had an ongoing disagreement with Roger Penrose about the fact that the source of all information links the creation of the sun to energy-dependent healthy longevity. Ellis and Penrose have co-authored with Stephen Hawking. I linked energy as information to the Resurrection of Christ via everything currently known to all serious scientists about biologically-based cause and effect. George FR Ellis refuses to address that fact in any context.
This is what he is avoiding. In 1991, Roger Penrose wrote: “How often do we still hear that quantum effects can have little relevance in the study of biology, or even that we eat food in order to gain energy?”
Last month, this assault on the beliefs of all who tout nonsense about the emergence of everything from nothing and neo-Darwinian theories about millions of years of evolution should have cinched the election of Donald Trump for President. https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2016.164
Trump, for example, is supported by young earth creationists such as Mike Pence and Dr. Ben Carson. Now, we have examples of ignorance from a well-respected cosmologist/astrophysicist (Ellis), for comparison to a mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science (Penrose), and Mike Pence and Dr. Ben Carson.
If Hillary wins, we will have another example of what the term “reprobate mind” actually means. It means people would rather believe anything they are told as long as it cannot be placed into the context of physics, chemistry, biology and Biblical Genesis via what is known about molecular epigenetics, which is that “…we eat food in order to gain energy?” The energy biophysically constrains the viral apocalypse that the liberals predictably will cause.
See also my attempt to discuss the fact that: NONE of the papers establish that SOMETHING can come into existence from NOTHING.
//Do you reject any of those claims?”//
I simply do not see the evidence for the claim that Viruses cause ALL pathology.
– Bacteria can cause pathology.
– Toxins can cause pathology.
– Heavy metals can cause pathology.
– Fungi can cause pathology.
– Parasites can cause pathology.
I do not see the warrant to state that NONE of the above can cause pathology and so ONLY viruses can cause pathology.
Conclusion: Everything known to serious scientists about physics, chemistry, molecular epigenetics, chemical ecology, and adaptation is included in Biblical Genesis. Only biologically uninformed atheists and Demoncrats continue to challenge the only accurate representation of biologically-based cause and effect that starts with ‘you are what you eat’ and claims that ‘if you eat this you will surely die.’
Epigenetic mechanisms, particularly DNA methylation and miRNA expression, attract increasing attention as potential links between the genetic and environmental determinants of health and disease. Unlike genetics, epigenetic mechanisms could be reversible and an understanding of their role may lead to better protection of susceptible populations and improved public health.
I am an ex-atheist, a Philosophical Theist and a Mere-Christian.
I have asked that you offer experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect. You provide nothing but rhetoric and fail to address any of the evidence I have provided. I have asked you which part of the Holy Bible you believe in, and your only answer seems to be that you are a Christian.
You asked be for scientific evidence for OEC (a old universe and/or an old-earth) and so I did so (see my comments above).
1) I subscribe to the view that Some Pathology can be caused by Bacteria. You do not appear to subscribe to that view?
2) I subscribe to the view that Some Pathology can be caused by some Biological Toxins that are Not Viruses. You do not appear to subscribe to that view?
3) I subscribe to the view that Some Pathology can be caused by some Inorganic Toxins such as some heavy metals. You do not appear to subscribe to that view?
4) I subscribe to the view that SOME Pathology can be caused by Viruses. You do not appear to subscribe to that view because of the word SOME?
5) All of the evidence you have provided shows that Viruses cause SOME pathology. However, NONE of the evidence you provided shows that Viruses cause ALL pathology.
6) I am arguing that the evidence is consistent with the view that there are MULTIPLE Causes for Pathology.
7) You appear to be arguing that there is ONLY ONE cause for Pathology (viruses).
Please correct me if I am wrong in understanding your positions regarding the numbered questions/points I bring up above.
I do not care what you subscribe to and will not answer any more questions about my views. They have been detailed in a series of published works during the past 20 years and no one has refuted the model we presented in the molecular epigenetics section of this review. From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior