Frequency, color and light (2)

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: November 14, 2024

(click to enlarge)

Angel Trumpets are fully opened at night to facilitate pollination by moths. Pollination of leafless “ghost orchids” by moths in the Big Cypress National Preserve links photosynthetic roots that allow it to produce sugars in the presence of sunlight. The sunlight links 5000 years of ecological adaptations to protection from viruses, like coronaviruses.

Facts about ecological adaptations are consistently linked to refutations of moronic theories that do not start with God’s Creation of sunlight and humidity at the origin of pH-dependent life.

For instance, in 1859, Darwin presciently linked sunlight, humidity and “conditions of life” from frequency, color and light to ecological adaptations via the physiology of reproduction.
ch 4
“IF under changing conditions of life…
ch 5
“…variability is generally related to the conditions of life to which each species has been exposed during several successive generations.”
ch 6
“…each has become adapted to the conditions of life of its own region, and has supplanted and exterminated its original parent-form and all the transitional varieties between its past and present states.”

The US “Department of Education” indoctrinated students into their moronic representations of Darwin’s theories with personal beliefs. For comparison to the science, see GROK AI’s witless claim that:

“Both science and personal beliefs can offer valuable insights into the human condition, but they serve different purposes.”

Data-driven AI systems like GROK promote personal beliefs that deny experimental evidence and established facts about energy-dependent miRNA abundance.

In the context of miRNA abundance, light-matter interactions at the origin of life and miRNA-mRNA interactions link protein-protein interactions to refutations of moronic theories that people evolved from pond scum after energy emerged from the cosmic void. You do not need to understand quantum mechanics to be an official observer. Open your eyes and see the Glory of God’s Creation in the opening of the Angel Trumpet’s flower (pictured here). See also: Ghost orchid pollination in the Big Cypress National Preserve.

Attempt to explain aspects of energy-dependent conditions of life to GROK AI led to this unofficial end of the conversation with my emphasis:

Re: “If you seek information from specific researchers or publications, please provide those names or titles for a more targeted response.” PZ Myers challenged my accurate representation of how nutrient-dependent pheromone-regulated chromosomal rearrangements link fixation of amino acid substitutions in organized genome to biodiversity across kingdoms, and Richard Lenski claimed that because they vary, differences in amino acids evolved. Neil deGrasse Tyson consistently fails to link the Creation of energy at the origin of life to biophysically constrained protein folding chemistry via fixation of amino acid substitutions in microtubules and the effective treatment for cancer patented by Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong. Thus, the personal beliefs of theorists serve no purpose compared to facts that link energy from miRNA abundance to biophysically constrained virus-driven pathology at every level of observation, and the experimental evidence that supports it.

Answer

It seems you’re discussing several key figures in science who have different perspectives or interpretations of evolutionary biology, genetics, and related fields. Here’s how your points might be contextualized within the scientific community:

PZ Myers – Chromosomal Rearrangements:

PZ Myers, a biologist, often engages in public discussions on evolution and biology. His field of study includes how genetic changes, like chromosomal rearrangements, contribute to evolution.
- Scientific Evidence: Chromosomal rearrangements can indeed lead to speciation and biodiversity. They can cause reproductive isolation, which is a mechanism of speciation. However, the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled aspects you mention are more aligned with specific models of evolution that not all scientists agree with, particularly those involving direct environmental cues leading to genetic changes.

Richard Lenski – Evolution of Amino Acids:

Richard Lenski is renowned for his long-term evolution experiments with E. coli, which demonstrate evolutionary changes over generations.
- His Perspective: Lenski’s work shows that evolution can be observed in real-time, with mutations (which can include changes in amino acids) leading to adaptations. This doesn’t necessarily contradict the idea that amino acid substitutions can become fixed in populations; rather, it’s about observing the process of evolution through mutation, selection, and genetic drift.

Neil deGrasse Tyson – Energy and Life:

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist, not a biologist, so his discussions might not delve deeply into the specifics of protein folding or amino acid substitutions in the context of evolution.
- His Contribution: Tyson often talks about the broader implications of science, including how the laws of physics and chemistry underpin life. While he might not directly connect energy to specific biological processes like you describe, his work helps frame the cosmic context in which life emerges.

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong – Cancer Treatment:

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong has indeed worked on innovative cancer treatments, but connecting his work directly to amino acid substitutions in microtubules or creationist views would be an oversimplification or misrepresentation of his contributions. His work is more about practical medical applications and less about the evolutionary or origin-of-life discussions.

Scientific Consensus vs. Theories:

Scientific Consensus: The scientific community largely agrees that evolution, driven by mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, and other mechanisms, explains the diversity of life. Amino acid substitutions are part of this process but are seen as outcomes of evolutionary pressures rather than directed by specific external cues like nutrients or pheromones in a deterministic fashion across all species.
Your Perspective: You’re advocating for a model where energy directly influences genetic changes through mechanisms like miRNAs, which then lead to biodiversity. While miRNAs do play significant roles in gene regulation, the idea that they are the primary drivers of evolutionary change in response to environmental stimuli like nutrients or pheromones isn’t the mainstream scientific view.

In summary:

Biological Evolution: Scientists like Myers and Lenski focus on how genetic variation arises and how it contributes to evolution, often through mechanisms that might not directly involve miRNAs or energy in the way you’ve described.
Energy and Life: While energy is fundamental to life, the direct, causal link from the creation of energy to specific evolutionary outcomes via miRNAs is not widely accepted as the sole mechanism for evolutionary change. Instead, energy’s role in biology is understood through its involvement in all cellular processes, including those leading to genetic variation.
Medical Applications: Innovations in medicine, like those by Soon-Shiong, might well involve understanding how cellular processes like protein folding work, but these are applied contexts, not necessarily evolutionary ones.

Your perspective aligns with some aspects of scientific inquiry but diverges in how you interpret the causal relationships between energy, genetic regulation, and evolution. Science thrives on such debates, but consensus is formed through empirical evidence, peer review, and replication of findings.

My Summary

Myers and Lenski are theorists, not scientists. Soon-Shiong’s understanding of protein folding chemistry links the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of microRNA and its role in post-transcriptional gene regulation to all biodiversity on Earth via the physiology of reproduction and Biblical Genesis.

The moronic GROK AI perspective does not align with any aspect of my claims from the peer-reviewed publication Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model 6/14/13

For comparison to the moronic GROK AI perspective, which supports stupid theories, see the GOOGLE AI Overview

“Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution is a model that explains how nutrients and pheromones affect behavior through epigenetic processes. The model is based on the idea that nutrients and pheromones can: Alter gene networks, Alter GnRH pulsatility, Control hormone-dependent behavior, and Condition behavior.

The model can be applied to a variety of organisms, including humans, mice, wasps, insects, and Ostrinia moth species.

Here are some key points about the model:

Biochemical mechanisms The model is based on highly conserved ligand–receptor signaling mechanisms. These mechanisms allow organisms to recognize the difference between chemical cues that are self and non-self, and to respond to novelty.

Behavioral responses

The behavioral responses to novelty are thought to be the basis for the diversification of life.

Food odors and pheromones

The unconscious epigenetic effects of food odors and pheromones on hormones that organize and activate behavior may be the largest contributor to the development of personal preferences.

Diet

Diet is one of the most significant environmental factors that shape a pheromone profile. “