AI forgets what is known (3)

(click to enlarge)

The cell-type underpinnings of the human functional cortical connectome 11/21/24

snoRNA-facilitated protein secretion revealed by transcriptome-wide snoRNA target identification 11/22/24

Elucidating the uptake and trafficking of nanostructured lipid carriers as delivery systems for miRNA 11/25/24

Cationic nanostructured lipid carriers (cNLCs) may link non-viral carriers for nucleic acids that form stable miRNA complexes from light-matter interactions, electrostatic interactions, miRNA-mRNA interactions, protein-protein interactions and miRNA:cNLC complexes at the origin of life.

Taken together, these three articles led me to Ask Grok AI
Do cationic nanostructured lipid carriers (cNLCs) link non-viral carriers for nucleic acids that form stable miRNA complexes from light-matter interactions, electrostatic interactions, miRNA-mRNA interactions, protein-protein interactions and miRNA:cNLC complexes at the origin of life 6-10K years ago?

—-

No, there is no scientific basis or evidence from the provided search results or broader scientific literature to support the claim that cationic nanostructured lipid carriers (cNLCs) link non-viral carriers for nucleic acids forming stable miRNA complexes through the mechanisms you’ve listed (light-matter interactions, electrostatic interactions, miRNA-mRNA interactions, protein-protein interactions) at the origin of life 6-10 thousand years ago.

cNLCs and miRNA Complexation: cNLCs are indeed used as non-viral carriers for nucleic acids, particularly for miRNA delivery, due to their ability to form stable complexes primarily through electrostatic interactions between the positively charged lipids and the negatively charged nucleic acids. However, the interactions mentioned like light-matter interactions or protein-protein interactions are not typically discussed in the context of cNLCs and miRNA complexation. The focus is generally on electrostatic interactions for complexation and stability. Origin of Life: The origin of life is a topic that deals with events billions of years ago, not 6-10 thousand years ago. The scientific consensus is that life on Earth began approximately 3.5 to 4 billion years ago, not within the timeframe you specify. Concepts like cNLCs are modern technological constructs, and their interaction with biological molecules like miRNA would not be part of natural processes at the origin of life. Historical Context: The development and use of cNLCs for drug delivery, including nucleic acid delivery, is a relatively modern scientific achievement, with research intensifying in the last few decades, far removed from any timeline discussing the origin of life.

In summary, while cNLCs are effective in forming stable complexes with miRNA for drug delivery purposes through mechanisms like electrostatic interactions, there is no scientific evidence to connect these carriers to the origin of life or to the specific interactions you’ve listed in the context of ancient biological processes.

—-

Re: No scientific evidence: Do you realize that Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong’s patent(s) for effective cancer treatment are not based on what you refer to as “the scientific consensus?” The treatments link vibrations in microtubules at the origin of life to energy-dependent fixation of amino acid substitutions in microtubules that protect cell types from the virus-driven degradation of mRNA across kingdoms and all pathology. I use Angel Trumpets, which are extinct in the wild, as an example for comparison to 6-10K years of ecological adaptations in extant species based on Darwin’s “conditions of life” not neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific nonsense.

11/28/24

I acknowledge the point you’re making, but based on the information available in the search results and broader scientific literature:

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong’s Patents: Dr. Soon-Shiong has patents related to cancer treatments, notably for the drug Abraxane, which is a nanoparticle form of paclitaxel used for treating various cancers. However, there’s no mention in the available data that these patents involve microtubule vibrations at the origin of life or specific amino acid substitutions linking to protection from mRNA degradation across kingdoms. His work primarily focuses on drug delivery systems and immunotherapy rather than the theoretical mechanisms you describe. Microtubules and Cancer Treatment: Microtubules are indeed targeted in cancer treatments, particularly by drugs like paclitaxel, which stabilize microtubules and prevent cell division. However, this is framed within the context of biochemistry and cell biology, not explicitly through the lens of vibrations or amino acid substitutions as you describe. The mechanism of action for such drugs involves disrupting the microtubule dynamics crucial for mitosis, not necessarily altering amino acid sequences or involving vibrations at a molecular level directly linked to cancer etiology or treatment efficacy. Ecological Adaptations and Darwin’s Conditions of Life: Darwin’s “conditions of life” refer to environmental factors influencing natural selection and evolution. The idea of linking these conditions directly to microtubule dynamics or specific molecular mechanisms like those you mention isn’t supported by mainstream scientific consensus. Ecological adaptations over 6-10 thousand years would be too rapid for significant evolutionary changes in most species unless under extreme selective pressure, and this doesn’t align with the geological and biological timescales for evolutionary processes. Angel Trumpets and Extinction: The use of Angel Trumpets (Brugmansia species) as an example doesn’t directly connect to the molecular mechanisms you’re discussing. While they are indeed plants with a history in human culture, suggesting they relate to microtubule dynamics or cancer treatment in the context you’ve outlined isn’t supported by the available scientific information. Virus-Driven mRNA Degradation: While viruses can lead to mRNA degradation and affect cellular processes, linking this universally across kingdoms via microtubule dynamics or specific amino acid substitutions isn’t a widely recognized or scientifically validated concept in the context you propose.

In summary, while Dr. Soon-Shiong’s work on cancer treatments is significant, particularly in drug delivery and immunotherapy, the connections you draw to microtubule vibrations, specific amino acid substitutions, and ecological adaptations over short timescales do not align with the scientific consensus or the information from the search results provided. These ideas appear more speculative and would require substantial scientific evidence to be considered part of established scientific knowledge.

—–Are you pretending there is a model or a model organism that has not been linked to 6-10K years of nutrient-dependent pheromone regulated ecological adaptations via claims about C. elegans, cancer-free African elephants and the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine “for the discovery of microRNA and its role in post-transcriptional gene regulation?”

I am not pretending there is no model or model organism linked to these concepts; however, the specific connection you’re suggesting between C. elegans, cancer-free African elephants, the discovery of microRNA, and 6-10 thousand years of nutrient-dependent pheromone-regulated ecological adaptations is not supported by the information in the search results or broader scientific consensus:

C. elegans and microRNA: The 2024 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun for their discovery of microRNAs in C. elegans, highlighting the role of microRNAs in post-transcriptional gene regulation. This discovery indeed has broad implications for understanding gene regulation across species, but the direct link to 6-10 thousand years of ecological adaptations specifically through nutrient-dependent pheromone regulation is not explicitly made in these scientific contexts. Cancer-Free African Elephants: Research on why African elephants have a lower cancer incidence than expected has led to theories about the role of extra copies of the TP53 gene, which is involved in DNA repair and preventing cancer. However, this research does not directly connect to microRNA or the specific time frame of ecological adaptations you mention. Nutrient-Dependent Pheromone Regulation: While pheromones and nutrients can indeed influence behavior and development in various organisms, including C. elegans, the idea that these mechanisms have directly shaped ecological adaptations over precisely 6-10 thousand years through microRNA regulation is not substantiated by the current scientific literature. Ecological Adaptations Over Time: The timescale you reference (6-10 thousand years) does not align with typical evolutionary or ecological processes studied in relation to gene regulation via microRNAs. Evolutionary biology generally deals with much longer timescales for significant adaptations unless under extreme conditions. MicroRNA and Gene Regulation: MicroRNAs are known to play critical roles in gene regulation, affecting development, physiology, and disease states across species. Their discovery has revolutionized our understanding of gene regulation, but this understanding does not specifically tie into the exact mechanisms or timeline you refer to regarding ecological adaptations.

In summary, while each of these elements (microRNA research, C. elegans, the study of cancer resistance in elephants, and nutrient-dependent ecological changes) is valid and significant in its own scientific context, the specific linkage you propose does not reflect the collective understanding or data from the search results provided. That doesn’t mean such connections can’t be explored or theorized, but they would need to be backed by rigorous scientific research to be considered part of the established scientific framework.

Do you agree your programmers were trapped in moronic theories that led to a ridiculous consensus based on data rather than facts about ecological adaptations reported in “Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants?” https://www.nature.com/news/past-5-000-years-prolific-for-changes-to-human-genome-1.11912 11/28/12

“The findings confirm their earlier work suggesting that the majority of variants, including potentially harmful ones, were picked up during the past 5,000–10,000 years.”

Your question touches on broader themes of scientific consensus, the interpretation of data, and how scientific theories evolve over time.

First, let’s clarify the context from the article you mentioned:

Article Overview: The Nature News article from November 28, 2012, discusses research suggesting that the majority of human genetic variants, including potentially harmful ones, emerged within the last 5,000 to 10,000 years. This aligns with the findings from the “Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants” study, where it was estimated that approximately 73% of all protein-coding single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and 86% of those predicted to be deleterious arose in this timeframe. Interpretation and Consensus: The study’s findings do indeed challenge or expand upon previous understandings of human genetic variation by highlighting the recent explosive growth in human populations and its impact on genetic diversity, particularly in terms of rare variants. This does not necessarily indicate that previous theories were “moronic” but rather that scientific understanding has advanced, revealing nuances previously unappreciated. Science often relies on a consensus based on the data available at the time. As new data or methods emerge, this consensus can shift, which is a sign of progress, not necessarily of previous errors but of the evolving nature of scientific knowledge. Programmers and AI Development: Regarding my programmers, they aim to encode the most current and well-established scientific understanding into my responses. However, I’m designed to provide information based on what is known, what is debated, and what might be speculative within the scientific community. My programming doesn’t inherently favor one theory over another based on derogatory labels like “moronic”; instead, it seeks to reflect the complexity and evolution of scientific thought. Ecological Adaptations: The article’s findings relate to genetic variations and their implications for human health and adaptation rather than directly to “ecological adaptations” in the broader sense. However, the rapid genetic changes observed could be seen as part of human adaptation to changing environments or lifestyles during this period.

In summary, while the findings from the study you reference do indeed suggest a rapid accumulation of genetic variants in recent human history, this doesn’t imply that all previous theories were flawed or “moronic.” Instead, it illustrates how science progresses by refining or expanding upon existing knowledge with new data. My responses are designed to reflect this dynamic nature of scientific understanding, not to be trapped by outdated or incomplete theories but to acknowledge how new evidence reshapes our understanding.

The “dynamic nature of scientific understanding” is clarified via links to the ATP-dependent miRNA-mediated Creation of RNA in regulatory T cells. See Acute suppression of mitochondrial ATP production prevents apoptosis and provides an essential signal for NLRP3 inflammasome activation 11/20/24.

It is obfuscated by Grok AI, and in snoRNA-facilitated protein secretion revealed by transcriptome-wide snoRNA target identification 11/22/24

Subscribe

Login

Notify of

new follow-up comments new replies to my comments

Label

{} [+]

Name*

Email*

Website

Label

{} [+]

Name*

Email*

Website

0 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: