By: James V. Kohl | Published on: February 1, 2019
(click to enlarge)
Excerpt: “One fascinating aspect of innate self-adjusting mechanisms appears to be a programmed โstrategyโ for adaptation that corresponds in function to programs that human engineers produce.
This aspect could be described as immanent selection.” Engineered Adaptability: Fast Adaptation Confirms Design-Based Model
A theory of adaptation that requires changes to be undirected, copious, and small in extent has no room for explanations of such rapid responses to environmental challenges.
My refutation of neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific nonsense was published on the same day as Masatoshi Nei’s textbook Mutation-driven Evolution. See: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.
Natural selection for food was the link to the weekend resurrection of the bacterial flagellum. That exemplifies fast adaptation. But the fast adaptation is placed back into the context of evolution.
Here, we report a new strategy for the construction of a peptide nucleic acid-microRNA nanocomplex with dual function to simultaneously suppress oncogenic microRNAs and upregulate tumor-suppressive microRNAs in target cancer cells.
Their disease prevention strategy is based on the design of naturally occurring energy-dependent interactions (aka natural selection) among the peptide nucleic acid-microRNA nanocomplexes that prevent cancer or that link the virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA from mutations to all pathology.
Natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality links the Creation of anti-entropic virucidal light from microRNA biogenesis to the quickening via the creation of enzymes. The enzymes metabolize the food energy that organisms eat and metabolism links the physiology of reproduction to protection from the virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA that links mutations to all pathology.
See: Codon identity regulates mRNA stability and translation efficiency during the maternal-to-zygotic transition
The amino acid optimality code (Fig 6) provides an alternative perspective on sequence changes between paralogs in evolution and human disease.
There is no such thing as โnatural selection.โ Nature does not โselectโ anything โ it just is. Rather, from the very beginning, our Creator built into creatures the ability to adjust to changing environments so they could survive and thrive and โfill the earthโ as He commanded.
The only response I could think of was to first cite scripture. But, I’m a medical laboratory scientist, not a theologian. Pardon me if I got this wrong:ย 36ย Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: Organisms do not adjust to survive; they survive by adjusting. The adjustments are ecological adaptations. Henry Morris IV is playing word games. I have made the facts perfectly clear.
The weekend resurrection of the bacterial flagellum in Pseudomonas fluorescens linked light-activated changes in genes to all biodiversity on Earth via the physiology of reproduction and ecological adaptations in species from microbes to humans. I complained that The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has hijacked the entirety of my published works and presentations on energy-dependent light-activated microRNA-biogenesis and ecological adaptation, which they call “fast adaptation.”
Good heavens James Kohl, ICR has done no such thing.
My response:
Until you denigrated my claims about the role of viruses, this might have been debatable. But my first publication was in 1995 and my most recent one was Nutrient-dependent Pheromone-Controlled Ecological Adaptations: From Angstroms to Ecosystems — an updated invited review of nutritional epigenetics that was returned without review in 2014 after the first invitation to publish in a special issue of the journal “Nutrients.”
It took 4 more years for me to bring the information current, and by then it was already somewhat outdated.
It would be interesting to learn from Nathaniel Jeanson whether he thinks the publications in AIG have misconstrued what has been learned about molecular epigenetics since 1996. See the molecular epigenetics section of our review: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior
Henry Morris IV continued to criticize me after he unfriended me on FB.
…creationism arrived in Korea in 1980 through the global campaign of leading American creationists, including Henry Morris and Duane Gish, it steadily grew in the country…
Henry Morris IV made me his enemy, despite my past support for the excellent works of ICR.
He vilified me in a post to his FB page after he unfriended me for the same reason that PZ Myers attacked me several years ago. Neither realize that the Creation of anti-entropic virucidal light links natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality from the physiology of reproduction to chromosomal rearrangements that protect all organized genomes from the virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA, which links mutations to all pathology.
Who do you think has done more damage to their followers, Henry Morris IV, or PZ Myers. See for instance, this attack on my scientific credibility: One crank dies, another rises to take his place
The cure links natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality to biophysically constrained viral latency via light-activated microRNA biogenesis and everything known to serious scientists about RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and chromosomal rearrangements in all species that sexually reproduce.
Scientific creationists in South Korea have linked God’s Creation of subatomic particles and anti-entropic virucidal light to healthy longevity and all biodiversity on Earth via microRNA biogenesis in plants and the physiology of reproduction.
The facts have been detailed for ages 10+ in these games: Subatomic and Cytosis, or the facts can be found via a PubMed search such as this one: microRNA +korea
Clearly, natural selection is complicated. More complicated that the claim by Henry Morris IV that “Nature does not โselectโ anything โ it just is.”
For comparison, in the world of scientific expertise,
“Chance favors the prepared mind.” — Pasteur
I have always differentiated between chance and Divine providence.
If ICR’s experts had not highjacked my life’s works, why would Randy J. Guliuzza prepare ICR’s followers to accept “immanent selection” as a replacement for “natural selection.”ย
Under the sub-heading: Immanent Selection Describes Responses from Internal Logic-Based Systems
Guliuzza writes:
One fascinating aspect of innate self-adjusting mechanisms appears to be a programmed โstrategyโ for adaptation that corresponds in function to programs that human engineers produce.
This aspect could be described as immanent selection.5 Immanent refers to something inherently withinโi.e., built in. So, immanent selection is a type of internal selection.
He frames his claims in the context of random mutations and evolved biodiversity despite the facts that serious scientists have detailed. For example, ages 10+ can learn how the creation of subatomic particles must be linked from cytosis to biophysically constrained viral latency and sympatric speciation.
The physiology of reproduction is linked to heredity in species from soil bacteria to humans via EDAR V370A (an amino acid substitution) in mice; in populations found in North and East Asia; and in populations in the New World.
I could go on about the facts about cell type differentiation for hours or refer you to MicroRNA.pro or one of my other domains. Alternatively, you could see the work that was published today: “MicroRNAs buffer genetic variation at specific temperatures during embryonic development” for comparison to our 1996 review of molecular epigenetics: “From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior”
Immanent selection also ignores what is known about light-activated microRNA biogenesis
All logic-based internal systems are energy-dependent and the energy biophysically constrains protein folding chemistry. That is how the energy is linked to the prevention of virus-driven energy theft and the degradation of messenger RNA. The degradation of messenger RNA has been linked to all virus-driven pathology.
I will continue to find more proof of natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality at every level of investigation as others continue to ignore all the proof because they believe in ridiculous theories, like the one about immanent selection that Randy J. Guliuzza has invented in an attempt to avoid ridicule for ICRs misrepresentations of Darwin’s “conditions of life.”
Conditions of life require natural selection for food (i.e., energy-dependent codon optimality) in the context of the physiology of reproduction. All attempts to cure all diseases will be based on that fact and the attempts must be placed into the context of light-activated microRNA biogenesis.
(click to enlarge)