Light and life at base pair resolution (10)

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: January 11, 2019

(click to enlarge)

Here is a link from our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation to what is currently known about light-activated biophysically constrained gene expression and viral latency, which links the physiology of reproduction and feedback loops from bacteria to plants and animals.

Subcellular Compartmentation of Alternatively Spliced Transcripts Defines SERINE/ARGININE-RICH PROTEIN30 Expression

This finding underscores the importance of tight regulation of SR30 expression, which we have demonstrated in this work to be based on the intricate interplay of [light-activated] nuclear and cytosolic events in RNA metabolism.

Light-activated tight regulation of gene expression can be viewed in the context of A Quick HYL1-Dependent Reactivation of MicroRNA Production Is Required for a Proper Developmental Response after Extended Periods of Light Deprivation

“…plants alter microRNA (miRNA) biogenesis in response to light transition.”

See also the links from light-activated transgenerational epigenetic inheritance to animal behavior in this representation, from: The molecular hallmarks of epigenetic control (2016)

For comparison, see the display of ignorance and word play in LHX2- and LDB1-mediated trans interactions regulate olfactory receptor choice

Energy-dependent biophysical constraints on supercoiled DNA are linked from shared chromatin valence to the

“…DNA polymer, which precludes interactions between genes on different chromosomes.”

The biophysically constrained pattern of marked energy-dependent divergence from a pattern of nuclear organization that occurs in the mouse-to-human model of divergence in olfactory sensory neurons is examined in the context of chromatin conformation capture to show that

” …olfactory receptor gene clusters from 18 chromosomes make specific and robust interchromosomal contacts that increase with differentiation of the cells.”

The authors claim that

“These contacts are orchestrated by intergenic olfactory receptor enhancers, the ‘Greek islands’, which first contribute to the formation of olfactory receptor compartments and then form a multi-chromosomal super-enhancer that associates with the single active olfactory receptor gene.”

After they fail to link the creation of the anti-entropic virucidal energy of sunlight to the creation of olfactory receptor genes, they add that

“The Greek-island-bound transcription factor LHX2 and adaptor protein LDB1 regulate the assembly and maintenance of olfactory receptor compartments, Greek island hubs and olfactory receptor transcription…”

They seem to think their claims provide

“…mechanistic insights into and functional support for the role of trans interactions in gene expression.”

Their nonsense does not provide any mechanistic insights because the mechanisms are not placed into the context of light-activated nuclear and cytosolic events in RNA metabolism.

The pseudoscientific nonsense about orchestration

“…by intergenic olfactory receptor enhancers, the ‘Greek islands’…”

compares well to the nonsense touted at the time when this theory was invented.

See: Hugo de Vries’ Mutation Theory

He believed that evolution could occur via discontinuous variation, or large changes happening in a few generations. This means that organisms can have drastic ‘jumps’ that immediately result in a new species coming into existence.

According to de Vries’ mutation theory, living organisms can develop changes to their genes that greatly alter the organism. These changes are passed down to the next generation, and lead to the development of new species. Once a new species has evolved, it becomes fixed and stops changing. The mutations are the mechanism de Vries proposed for his discontinuous variation model of evolution.

In the context of his theory, which is more than 100 years old, sudden energy jumps were called mutations and the sudden energy jumps were linked to the evolution of new species.
For comparison, the difference between mutation-driven evolution and light-activated ecological adaptation starts with the creation of subatomic particles. The subatomic particles carry energy- as-information via light. When electrons fall back inward from one allowable, higher orbit to another atoms emit packets of light called photons. When the electron that is closest to the nucleus falls back, the energy is expressed as differences in the energy of two photons. So far as I know, no one has determined the origin of the difference in the energy of two photons. But there are differences and that is what is most important to refutations of ridiculous theories.
Serious scientists can now start with links in the molecular epigenetics section of From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior (1996) and additional information about how Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction to what is known about Subcellular Compartmentation of Alternatively Spliced Transcripts Defines SERINE/ARGININE-RICH PROTEIN30 Expression.
The experimental evidence has been placed into the context of games for ages 10+.
Subatomic: An Atom Building Board Game and Cytosis: A Cell Biology Board Game
For intelligent post-docs who are also polymaths, see: Hard two-photon contribution to elastic lepton-proton scattering determined by the OLYMPUS experiment or the report: 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

When an atom is not stimulated, its electrons remain in stable orbits. No light is produced and there is no link from the creation of energy as information that links the stimulation of atoms from the production of light to the light-activated proton motive force, which links the potential of hydrogen (pH) to all energy-dependent life on Earth.
Ignorant evolutionary theorists should see for comparison: On the Influence of the Human Instinct in the Prevention and Cure of Disease, Chiefly in Reference to Diet (1855) and Darwin (1859) The Origin of Species
Both the 1855 article and the 1859 book linked what organisms eat to “conditions of life” and the physiology of reproduction.

Claims that put his “conditions of life” before natural selection appear in book chapters:
ch 4

ch 5

and in

ch 6

See for comparison: Evolution of Genome Architecture in Archaea: Spontaneous Generation of a New Chromosome in Haloferax volcanii
If you believe that new chromosome are generated spontaneously in the context of the evolution of genome architecture in any species, stop reading now.
If you do not believe in pseudoscientific nonsense, see: Gorillas have been infected with the HERV-K (HML-2) endogenous retrovirus much more recently than humans and chimpanzees

[It] … raises the possibility that gorillas may still contain infectious HML-2 virus. Thus, gorillas could serve as a model for how HML-2 functioned as a virus in humans, as well as shed light on its role in pathogenesis and host–virus evolution.

For comparison see: Kevin Nelstread’s nonsense about geology. Earth Science: God’s World Our Home

Uniting the historic Christian faith with up-to-date geological science, Novare’s new Earth Science text is the textbook that many Christian educators have longed for.

Nelstead is an exception in the context of the observed reactions of stupid people who consider themselves to be the target audience of intelligent scientists. He expressed no hatred of the facts before I was unfriended by Ken Wolgemuth and Henry Morris IV who obviously never considered the facts about light-activated gene expression.
See aso: Light and life at base pair resolution (11)

0 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Light and life at base pair resolution (10)

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts:

Subscribe

Important Pages

Connect