Biologically uninformed science idiot: Self-defense (4)

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: June 4, 2018

R. P. Feynman: Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics (1986 Dirac memorial lecture) I

Snippet: “The problem would be pushed back to Creation and God knows how that was done.”
It has since become apparent to all serious scientists that God understands the transfer of photosynthetic energy. He linked the creation and transfer of energy across the quantum to classical border. Many biologically uninformed science idiots probably still think the border exists in the context of the problem of Creation that Feynman pushed back to God.
See for comparison: Photosynthetic Energy Transfer at the Quantum/Classical Border
In his 1986 lecture on elementary particles, Feynman spoke of negative energy.  He probably never learned that two photons with differences in their energy are exchanged during electron-proton interactions. See: OLYMPUS experiment sheds light on structure of protons

…most of the time, only one of the photons has high energy, while the other must carry very little energy indeed, according to Richard Milner, a professor of physics and member of the Laboratory for Nuclear Science’s Hadronic Physics Group, who led the experiment.

The difference in the energy of photons has been linked from proton gradients to the proton motive force and quantized energy-dependent changes in subatomic particles that link the creation of the sun’s anti-entropic virucidal energy to biophysically constrained viral latency and healthy longevity in species from microbes to humans.
Watch for release of “Subatomic” but don’t wait to play the cell biology game “Cytosis” for ages 10+

A board game taking place inside a human cell! Players compete to build enzymes, hormones and receptors and fend off attacking Viruses!

Youngsters and serious scientists can start with what is known about the energy-dependent creation of microRNAs for comparison to the Virus-mediated archaeal hecatomb in the deep seafloor. Everyone will soon be using the experimental evidence of how pathogens escape from microRNA-mediated pheromone-controlled autophagy to predict how the pathogens are manifested in the context of food energy-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations.
Some researchers have already done that by placing the ecological adaptations into the context of food energy-dependent pheromone-controlled sympatric speciation.
See Researchers Aim to Predict How Pathogens Jump Species
The graphically represented information on Reservoir Species, Jumping Species, and Human-to-human Transmission was portrayed for a lay audience in: Contagion (2011)

“Contagion” is a realistic, unsensational film about a global epidemic. It’s being marketed as a thriller, a frightening speculation about how a new airborne virus could enter the human species and spread relentlessly in very little time.

This scenario is already familiar to us through the apparently annual outbreaks of influenza.

See for contrast: Predicting Future Zoonotic Disease Outbreaks

The whole idea of pandemic prediction is “foolish,” Holmes tells The Scientist by email. “There are no generalities that can be used.

Serious scientists have known about the predictive generalities for at least two decades. See for example: RNA-triggered gene silencing (1999)

…an as yet uncharacterized RNA trigger has been shown to induce DNA methylation in several different plant systems. In addition to providing a surprisingly effective set of tools to interfere selectively with gene function, these observations are spurring new inquiries to understand RNA-triggered genetic-control mechanisms and their biological roles.

Quantized energy as information in the food that organisms eat is the obvious RNA trigger.
Substitutions Near the Receptor Binding Site Determine Major Antigenic Change During Influenza Virus Evolution (2013)

Koel et al. (p. 976) show that major antigenic change can be caused by single amino acid substitutions.

This reply to my comment was removed long after my comment was removed from the Science Magazine article site:

“The major antigenic changes of the influenza virus are primarily caused by a single amino acid near the receptor binding site.”

All comments, including mine, were removed here: The Quest to End the Flu
I wrote:

The idea of biophysical constraints seems antithetical to the idea of nature somehow selecting mutations that cause amino acid substitutions. However, I am not a biophysicist or evolutionary theorist.

The problem may be my focus on nutrient-dependent receptor-mediated amino acid substitutions in species from bacteria to humans (non-viral organisms). Since I am not a virologist or physicist, I’m not sure that the laws of physics apply to viruses and their replication.

If they do, natural selection for random mutations is not likely to result in amino acid substitutions because the thermodynamics of changes in organism-level thermoregulation preclude such randomness. Stability of protein biosynthesis and degradation that probably depends on protein folding must somehow be controlled. Besides, I don’t know how random mutations in viruses could be naturally selected for inclusion in the human virome (or in the virome of any organism capable of thermoregulating its thermodynamic intercellular signaling).

If the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to viruses, which means the chemical bonds that enable the amino acid substitutions can form at random and somehow be naturally selected, the details of biophysical constraints in this article seems out of place, since I do not think in terms of constrained random mutations and natural selection in mutation-driven evolution.

Hopefully, someone with a background in biophysics will address my confusion in case others are confused. In addition, I wonder if the consequences of understanding the evolutionary mechanisms that govern viruses extend to consequences important to understanding the evolution of species from bacteria to humans via constrained random mutations and natural selection?

No one with a biophysics background has ever addressed my conclusion except in publications like Small Molecule Targeted Recruitment of a Nuclease to RNA 
Reported as:  Novel RNA-Modifying Tool Corrects Genetic Diseases
and 3:35 AM – 3 Jun 2018  This alternative method to #CRISPR could work as a therapeutic simply as swallowing a pill to correct genetic diseases.
I get almost no responses to Tweets, Facebook posts, and blog posts here at and on I’m beginning to think that most people really do not want to know how to prevent all virus-driven pathology.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: