Food energy-dependent epigenetic adaptation (3)

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: May 25, 2017

Food energy-dependent epigenetic adaptation (2)

On 5/24/17 I attempted to post this to the ISHE’s human ethology group in response to the post on How concepts of God have developed: God’s shrinking role. God’s survival. Conclusions.

For comparison, see the expanding role of anti-entropic virucidal energy that theorists claim automagically emerged to sustain all evolved biodiversity.

I included a link to:

I also included a link to:

The moderator of the group responded quickly: Jay R. Feierman wrote:

What you are posting has nothing to do with the thread article.

See also: 7/25/13
Jay R. Feierman:

Variation is not nutrient availability and the something that is doing the selecting is not the individual organism. A feature of an educated person is to realize what they do not know. Sadly, you don’t know that you have an incorrect understanding [of] Darwinian biological evolution. 

My summary of past interactions with Jay R. Feierman:

He refuses to accept the fact that conditions of life are energy-dependent. He refuses to accept the fact that other biologically uninformed science idiots and many anonymous fools have consistently removed Darwin’s ‘conditions of life’ and replaced them with ridiculous theories about mutations and evolution.

At a conference we both attended in 1995, Jay R. Feierman was the first to challenge the entirety of the model I presented with the question “What about birds?”

He has continued to prevent dissemination of accurate representations of energy-dependent biologically-based cause and effect since then. He exemplifies the impact that one biologically uninformed science idiot can have across an entire generation of unsuspecting anonymous fools who are likely to believe that the creation of energy has nothing to do with the claims in: How concepts of God have developed: God’s shrinking role. God’s survival. Conclusions.

See also: The general form of Hamilton’s rule makes no predictions and cannot be tested empirically

Hamilton’s rule asserts that a trait is favored by natural selection if the benefit to others, B, multiplied by relatedness, R, exceeds the cost to self, C. Specifically, Hamilton’s rule states that the change in average trait value in a population is proportional to BR−C. This rule is commonly believed to be a natural law making important predictions in biology, and its influence has spread from evolutionary biology to other fields including the social sciences. Whereas many feel that Hamilton’s rule provides valuable intuition, there is disagreement even among experts as to how the quantities B, R, and C should be defined for a given system. Here, we investigate a widely endorsed formulation of Hamilton’s rule, which is said to be as general as natural selection itself. We show that, in this formulation, Hamilton’s rule does not make predictions and cannot be tested empirically. It turns out that the parameters B and C depend on the change in average trait value and therefore cannot predict that change. In this formulation, which has been called “exact and general” by its proponents, Hamilton’s rule can “predict” only the data that have already been given.

Simply put, the authors attest to the fact that every aspect that has ever been included in mathematical models of natural selection cannot link natural selection to anything that could not be predicted by what is known about how food energy must be linked from ecological variation to ecological adaptation by the sense of smell in all living genera. The sense of smell predictably links what is known about natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality to biophysically constrained viral latency via publication in 2005 of Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction.

There has never been any experimental evidence of biologically based cause and effect that link anything but olfaction, food odor, and pheromones directly to the survival of all species. Yet Feierman’s claim continues to be echoed in the claims of all others who are biologically uninformed:

Variation is not nutrient availability and the something that is doing the selecting is not the individual organism. — Jay R. Feierman

See for comparison: Scientists investigate how the sense of smell works in bacteria

…the signaling and inactive states differ only very slightly at the nitrate-binding site – by 0.5-1 angstroms, which is approximately one fifth of the size of the ion itself (1 angstrom is 10-10 meters). However, when this ion binds to the sensor, it causes huge changes in the protein: The helices of different monomers begin to move in different directions, like pistons. These “pistons” transmit the small change of 0.5-1 angstroms through the membrane, and their outer ends shift by approximately 2.5 angstroms in different directions. Inside the cell, in the HAMP domain, these shifts are converted into the rotation of two parts of NarQ relative to each other. Ultimately, the positions of the output helices change by as much as 7 angstroms, thus completing the signal transmission.


Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: