Cytosis: Gameplay Runthrough
For comparison: Neo-Darwinian theorists do not start with the ATP-dependent de novo creation of RNA and/or receptors. That is probably why the theorists do not know that cell type differentiation is energy-dependent (ATP-dependent). That fact means they may also not know that virus-driven energy theft causes the degradation of messenger RNA. That fact means they cannot link mutations to all pathology. That fact means the silly theorists have not updated their knowledge base since 1964.
They’ve played the “evolution” game, instead of starting with McEwen et al (1964) Dependence of RNA synthesis in isolated thymus nuclei on glycolysis, oxidative carbohydrate catabolism and a type of “oxidative phosphorylation”
The synthesis of RNA in isolated thymus nuclei is ATP dependent.
Silly theorists. They used de Vries 1902 definition of “mutation” as a substitute for food as energy and assumed that their statistical representations of biologically-based cause and effect would be meaningful to serious scientists who have learned how to link food energy-dependent changes from angstroms to ecosystems in all living genera via the physiology of biophysically constrained pheromone-controlled reproduction.
It’s even worse that they ignored Dobzhansky (1964). Biology, molecular and organismic
The notion has gained some currency that the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is “bird watching” or “butterfly collecting.” Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists! I have heard a man whose official title happens to be Professor of Zoology declare to an assembly of his colleagues that “a good man cannot teach zoology. A good man can teach, of course, only molecular biology.
Such pronunciamentos can be dismissed as merely ridiculous. They are, however, caricatures of opinions entertained by some intelligent and reasonable people, whose views deserve an honest and careful consideration and analysis. Science must cope with new problems that arise and devise new approaches to old problems. Some lines of research become less profitable and less exciting and others more so.
The theorists who turned their profitable research into the nightmare of virus-driven pathology have prevented serious scientists from fighting back until recently. With the addition of a gameplay for ages 10 and over, how much longer do you think that theorists have to play their “evolution is true” game?
See also: Combating Evolution to Fight Disease
Darwin probably anticipated the insemination of population genetics that led to the bastardization of his detailed observations in the “Modern Synthesis.” He politely insisted that ‘conditions of life’ be considered before natural selection.
There are two ‘conditions of life.’ It is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. Rosenberg and Queitsch now note the work with Dobzhansky’s rarely acknowledged claim: “I am a creationist and an evolutionist.” They also declare the need for “Deep understanding of the mechanisms that generate variation at the molecular level…”
Deep understanding of the ‘conditions of life’ does not come from theory.
Problems with the “modern synthesis” now lead us back to the facts about biologically-based cause and effect that Darwin and Dobzhansky approached with humility, which are the same biological facts that evolutionists approached with ignorance about behavioral affects and the arrogance that accompanies that ignorance. Rosenberg and Queitsch echo the sentiments of those who have been subjected to academic suppression.
Clearly, however, “nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of biology” is not an exaggeration. It is a common sense statement about the biologically plausible genesis of functional cell types. Population genetics and evolutionary theories abandoned the biophysical constraints of ecological variation and the physiology of reproduction, which enable epigenetically-effected nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled receptor-mediated ecological adaptations and species diversity via the complexities of protein folding and niche construction.
It’s time for biophysicists to tell theorists and pathologists how to differentiate between theories about the genesis of different cell types and the biological facts about the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations that enable the genesis of different cell types in individuals of different species. Simply put, it’s time to stop trying to explain ecological adaptations in the context of mutations and evolution.
See also: Evolution is not progress