Preprints obfuscate facts (2)

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: February 25, 2019

(click to enlarge)

See: Preprints obfuscate facts (1)

See the preprint: Genetic dissection of assortative mating behavior 3/14/18
See also: PLOSBiology 2/7/19

Ecologically relevant mating cues (sometimes known as “magic traits” [2,6]) are now predicted to be widespread in nature [6,7], and the last few years have seen considerable progress in our understanding of their genetic basis.

The published work led to claims about “magic traits” in Butterflies are genetically wired to choose a mate that looks just like them

Studies of simpler organisms such as butterflies can shed light on how our own behavior has evolved.

Tweeted responses include:

Surprising from the point of view of genetic diversity. Am I missing something?

Yes. See: Olfaction Warps Visual Time Perception They linked the energy-dependent creation of the sense of smell in bacteria to our visual perception of energy and mass in the context of the space-time continuum and sympatric speciation vs evolution.

evolution has been sculpting butterflies and bipeds for a really long time. mate selection and resource sharing are two sides of same coin. important political, economic and social implications.

The facts refute every aspect of neo-Darwinian evolution and place sympatric speciation back into the context of the light-activated assembly of the microRNA-RNA-peptide nanocomplex, which links food energy and pheromones in bacteria to all morphological and behavioral phenotypes
There appear to be no comments on the preprint that linked “magic traits” to biodiversity via assortative mating.
That may be due to the fact that @CSHL preprints blocks nearly all my comments or puts them on hold as “pending” when they are not removed.
The reason for their strategy is clear. In The Darwin Code: Intelligent Design without God, Greg Bear wrote:

I was especially appreciative of the treatment afforded to HERV in the Cold Spring Harbor text Retroviruses, edited by Drs. Coffin, Varmus, and Hughes. But to my surprise, the sources were few, and there was no information about HERV targeted to the general layman.

Clearly, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory was once at the forefront of scientific progress that would have led to the cure for all pathology. They still claim to be “…a private, non-profit institution with research programs in cancer, neuroscience, plant biology, genomics, bioinformatics.” But there is still very little information about HERVs that can be understood by a general audience or a target audience of population geneticists.
Each time facts are presented that link biophyiscally constrained viral latency to healthy longevity, their preprint server tries harder to support ridiculous claims about “Ecologically relevant mating cues (sometimes known as “magic traits” [2,6])…
See: Magic traits in speciation: “magic” but not rare? (8/1/11)
Without the magic of evolved traits, it becomes clear that all aspects of sympatric speciation link what organisms eat from the physiology of reproduction to biophysically constrained viral latency via pheromone-controlled autophagy via the light-activated assembly of the microRNA-RNA-peptide nanocomplex.
For information on the nanocomplex that was targeted to a general audience of science fiction becomes fact enthusiasts, see these two reviews of Greg Bear’s two books (both were published in “Nature”)
Evolution rising from the grave (2000)

Reactivation of a dormant message signals the dawn of a new humanity.

Living with the Neanderthals (2003)

The epiphany scenes, in which superheroine Lang meets an all-loving, all-forgiving “caller”, will shock the most die-hard science-fiction fans, and stun the average Nature reader.

See for comparison: This View of Life: Completing the Darwinian Revolution

It is widely understood that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution completely revolutionized the study of biology. Yet, according to David Sloan Wilson, the Darwinian revolution won’t be truly complete until it is applied more broadly—to everything associated with the words “human,” “culture,” and “policy.”

In a series of engaging and insightful examples—from the breeding of hens to the timing of cataract surgeries to the organization of an automobile plant—Wilson shows how an evolutionary worldview provides a practical tool kit for understanding not only genetic evolution but also the fast-paced changes that are having an impact on our world and ourselves. What emerges is an incredibly empowering argument: If we can become wise managers of evolutionary processes, we can solve the problems of our age at all scales—from the efficacy of our groups to our well-being as individuals to our stewardship of the planet Earth.

Darwin’s theory linked his “conditions of life” to energy-dependent adaptations. Everything associated with the words “human,” “culture,” and “policy” has since linked the claims of serious scientists to what is known about epigenetically-effected cell type differentiation in all cell types of all individuals of all species via biophysical constraints on the virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA.
See:

I noted that the newly defined terms phytoremediation, microbiome, and CRISPR link what is known to all serious scientists about phototaxis, thermotaxis, pH taxis, and chemotaxis to the functional structure of supercoiled DNA. They also link the virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA from mutations to all pathology.
For comparison, no one expects David Sloan Wilson to be anything besides a biologically uninformed theorist who touts so-called evolutionary processes — if not magic traits.
Predictably, his claims in This View of Life: Completing the Darwinian Revolution will attest to that fact, and readers will again be underwhelmed by the lack of expertise, which continues to be offered for consideration by biologically uninformed theorists.
If he has anything new to say, I may write a review of his book. If not, I probably won’t listen to much of it via today’s purchase of the audiobook, which will become available tomorrow.
See my review of Kevin Mitchell’s “Innate” to prepare for another scathing review of theoretical nonsense.
Ignoring light-activated microRNA biogenesis 10/16/18

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”

Preprints obfuscate facts (2)

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts:

Subscribe

Important Pages

Connect