Epigenetics and autophagy vs mutations and evolution (2)

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: November 11, 2016

Plants send light to roots to ‘see’ underground
My comment: Sending light requires an energy-dependent link from hydrogen-atom transfer in DNA base pairs in solution to supercoiled DNA, which protects all organanized genomes from virus-driven energy theft and genomic entropy.
See Schrodinger (1944)

Indeed, in the case of higher animals we know the kind of orderliness they feed upon well enough, viz. the extremely well-ordered state of matter in more or less complicated organic compounds, which serve them as foodstuffs. After utilizing it they return it in a very much degraded form -not entirely degraded, however, for plants can still make use of it. (These, of course, have their most power supply of ‘negative entropy’ the sunlight.)” (pp. 73 and 74)

Ongoing confirmations of facts have escaped the attention of most theorists.

My comment:  The physics of life is the same as the physics that underlies inorganic chemistry. There is no such thing as chemoautotrophic or chemoheterotrophic metabolism. Metabolism is energy-dependent. Chemosynthesis and symbiogenesis are energy-dependent and controlled by the physiology of reproduction, not by the magic of evolution.
How can anyone not understand the link from information transfer in the context of physics or not link quantized energy from chemistry to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in species from microbes to humans via the physiology of reproduction.
If the anti-entropic virucidal effects of UV light did not cause RNA-mediated DNA repair in soil bacteria, plants could not grow. Instead, sunlight is the link from the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in soil bacteria to all biodiversity via the conserved molecular mechanisms of epigenetics that we first detailed in our 1996 review.
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.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: