Food for thought: Penrose v Ellis (3)

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: March 19, 2017

(click to enlarge)

Food for thought: Penrose v Ellis (2)
Thanks to Magnus S. Magnusson for calling my attention to this. He claimed it is an example of wonderful science. It is an example of pseudoscientific nonsense!
We Can Now Harness the Tardigrade’s Strangest Superpower – and Give It to Other Organisms

…tardigrades produce a special type of ‘bioglass’ that holds their essential proteins and molecules in a suspended state until they’re rehydrated back to life.

The nutrient energy-dependent de novo creation of the “bioglass” that holds essential proteins must sometimes be hydrophobic and sometimes be hydrophiic to link ecological variation to ecological adaptation via the physiology of reproduction. The nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction biophysically constrains energy-dependent viral latency in the supercoiled DNA of all living genera.
Negative supercoiling associated with hydrophilic DNA permits virus-driven energy theft and proliferation of viruses that degrade messenger RNA. Obviously, the amount of food an water that is available to this model organism link it from the viral hecatomb to all pathology and from polycombic ecological adaptation to its healthy longevity in diverse environments.
When the viral load increases for other cell type, apoptosis provides needed food for the tardigrades and other organisms that eat DNA. Evidence of the switch from eating DNA to storing it while waiting for rehydration is the key to the pH balance that is the key to life.
pH links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA via biophysically constrained RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry. Inventing the term “bioglass” in the context of biophysically constrained protein folding chemistry leaves a missing piece out of the construction of proteins. Nutrient-dependent amino acids are the building blocks of proteins
The story-telling about bioglass is a lot like the “Just So” stories of all biologically uninformed theorists. In this case the authors start with the automagical creation of “bioglass” and link it to drug development. That’s how story-tellers get their funding.
Still, they must invent new words to get past the fact that viruses cause mutations and all pathology. No mutations are beneficial, which means the “bioglass” must be beneficial to the tardigrades. Truthfully, nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions are the source of all energy-dependent benefits linked to ecological adaptation via pH.
The problem with claims about intrinsically disordered proteins is that Boothby et al., (2015) showed that this model organism ecologically adapts by ingesting DNA. That fact links the de novo creation of nucleic acid precursors to all biodiversity on Earth.
See: A huge chunk of a tardigrade’s genome comes from foreign DNA
The foreign DNA is released when virus-driven energy theft causes the death by apoptosis of microbes that failed to adapt. Adaptation is nutrient-dependent, pheromone-controlled and biophysically constrained by RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry, which occurs in species that survive.

Boothby and other theorists refuse to deal with the facts about tardigrade protein-folding chemistry. It is nutrient-dependent because only nutrient energy can be linked from amino acid substitutions in supercoiled DNA, which protects all organized genomes from virus-driven energy theft.

We don’t know how the gene transfer occurs, but it almost certainly involves ingesting DNA in organic debris, which their environments are full of. Bdelloids will eat anything smaller than their heads!See also: Rival Scientists Cast Doubt Upon Recent Discovery About Invincible Animals

Debate about the number of genes that were created in tardigrades that ate the DNA of other species is largely irrelevant to the fact that there is no such thing as an intrinsically disordered protein. To Boothby’s credit, however, coining the term “bioglass” was a stroke of genius if his target audience consists of biologically uninformed theorists.

For example of more pseudoscientific nonsense touted by the biologically uninformed theorist, Jay R. Feierman, see:

Species are not much different from individuals within a species. As individuals, we’re expendable. We only live less than 100 years but our species has been around 200,000 years. So what if we as an individual die. So what if a particular species goes extinct. From the perspective of natural selection, which has no brain, it operates as though the unit it is preserving is life itself. Individuals as well as species are just disposable means to an end. Said slightly differently, natural selection does not select at the species level. It selects at the level of the breeding population, the individual, and the individual gene, with what is left when certain individuals died in past generations and certain species went extinct. Often, when whole species go extinct, it has nothing to do with natural selection, which only plays upon genetic variance among individuals. If individuals within a species can’t adapt to a changing environment, the individuals, as well as the species to which they belong, go extinct. Do you think that God is looking down and saying, “What a shame.” Does it really matter if Homo neanderthalensis went extinct 40,000 years ago? Does it really matter if Homo sapiens goes extinct? It is more likely than not that Homo sapiens, like 99% of all species that have ever lived, will also go extinct at some point.

His atheistic claim about our species being around for 200,000 years and claim that natural selection “…selects at the level of the breeding population…” can be compared to what happens when any organism in any species fails to find food. It dies because without food energy no organism survives to reproduce, which means no offspring contribute to survival of the species.

The same thing is true of nutrient stress and social stress Both cause the death of more organisms compared to those that survive via natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality, which ensures the physiology of reproduction and links pheromones to biophysically constrained genomic entropy in the context of viral latency.

0 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Food for thought: Penrose v Ellis (3)

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts:

Subscribe

Important Pages

Connect