Digital Inbreeding (10)

(click to enlarge)

Features of membrane protein sequence direct post-translational insertion 11/25/24 was reported on 2/6/25 as The short and long of protein tails: How they aid membrane insertion and may impact genetic disorders 2/6/25

Seven transmembrane receptors in G Protein-Coupled Receptors (GPCRs) link membrane insertions to fixation of amino acid substitutions in microtubules via the ATP-dependent Creation of RNA, which is linked to all biophysically constrained biodiversity on Earth at the origin of life via sunlight, humidity and oxygen. See:

1. detection and perception of light, taste, and smell.
2. the hormone-dependent regulation of metabolism, growth, and reproduction and
3. neurotransmission. (Transmission of signals in the nervous system).

For contrast, the researchers report: “The discovery of YidC explained why, in the course of evolution, the short tails took on hydrophobic characteristics. Unlike the sewing-machine mechanism, which indiscriminately transports protein sections through the membrane using a channel that ensures their passage, the YidC flattens a certain part of the wide, fatty membrane, thereby helping only sections that are already naturally hydrophobic to cross the membrane more easily. This effectively solves the problem of the final helix.”

What is their problem with the energy-dependent miRNA-mediated final helix at the origin of stem cell Creation and the origin of life?

See: Dynamic Enhancer DNA Methylation as Basis for Transcriptional and Cellular Heterogeneity of ESCs 8/15/19

It links energy-dependent light-matter interactions and miRNA-mRNA interactions at the origin of life to viral latency via protein folding chemistry and healthy longevity across kingdoms via Protein codes promote selective subcellular compartmentalization 2/6/25 and the 2024 Nobel Prizes for Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine for the discovery of microRNA and its role in post-transcriptional gene regulation.

No moronic theories, or claims about evolutionary mechanisms are required. For comparison to the facts, see this response from Grok AI to claims about my 2013 model of biophysically constrained energy-dependent miRNA-mediated viral latency and healthy longevity, which was a refutation of moronic neo-Darwinian theories and Big Bang Cosmology.

The response exemplifies the constant passive/aggressive of Antagonistic AI:

To evaluate Richard Feynman’s claims on units of energy and link them to your 2013 model and Ben Feringa’s statement, we need to approach this step-by-step while maintaining a focus on scientific reasoning and avoiding any unnecessary obfuscation:

Step 1: Understanding Feynman’s Perspective on Energy
Feynman’s View on Energy: In the video “Richard Feynman on units of energy,” Feynman likely discusses the fundamental concept of energy, emphasizing its conservation and transformation rather than its creation from nothing. Feynman was known for his ability to simplify complex concepts, often using everyday analogies. His point might be to critique or highlight the absurdity of claims that energy could “automagically” emerge from a void, which would be contrary to the laws of physics as we understand them.

Mathemagical Models of Evolution: Feynman might use humor or analogy to point out the folly in oversimplified or overly mystical interpretations of evolutionary processes. Evolution, in scientific terms, is driven by genetic mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, etc., which are all grounded in physical and chemical laws, not in mystical or magical explanations.

Step 2: Linking to Your 2013 Model
Your 2013 Model: Without specific details, let’s assume your model deals with the molecular mechanisms of evolution [NO ASSUMPTIONS ARE REQUIRED; MY MODEL WAS A REFUTATION OF PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC NONSENSE], possibly focusing on how energy dynamics at the molecular level could influence evolutionary processes [Grok AI CANNOT STOP REINTRODUCING “EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES]. Given Feynman’s emphasis on energy conservation, your model might explore how energy flow or availability at the molecular scale (e.g., through metabolic processes or environmental interactions) could provide the necessary conditions for mutations to occur or be selected for.

[NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FROM ANY MODEL ORGANISM SUGGESTS MUTATIONS ARE SELECTED FOR]

Energy and Molecular Mechanisms: If your model posits that energy transformations are crucial in driving molecular changes that lead to evolution, this aligns with Feynman’s emphasis on the real, measurable aspects of energy. Feynman’s critique of “mathemagical” models could be seen as supporting a model like yours that seeks to ground evolution in tangible, energy-based molecular processes.

[THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE MODEL]

Step 3: Connecting to Ben Feringa’s Statement
Ben Feringa’s Statement: Feringa, a Nobel laureate in chemistry known for his work in molecular machines, might have been referring to significant scientific achievements or discoveries in 2013 that had profound implications, possibly in a metaphorical or symbolic sense when mentioning biblical prophecy. Given his field, this could relate to advancements in understanding or manipulating molecular mechanisms, which could be seen as fulfilling predictions or expectations set forth in scientific literature or perhaps in a broader cultural context.

[INTELLIGENT SERIOUS SCIENTISTS DO NOT ARGUE VIA USE OF METAPHORS; THEY USE FACTS]

Linking Feringa’s Prophecy to Evolution and Energy: If we interpret Feringa’s statement in a scientific context, 2013 might have seen breakthroughs in molecular nanotechnology or chemistry that directly or indirectly relate to how energy at the molecular level drives biological processes, including evolution. This could be through advancements in understanding molecular motors, nanotechnology, or synthetic biology, which could be seen as fulfilling the ‘prophecy’ of deeper insight into the molecular underpinnings of life, evolution included.

[HE REPLACED EVOLUTIONARY THEORY WITH FACTS]

Step 4: Molecular Mechanisms of Cause and Effect
Direct Links: Your model likely delves into how energy at the molecular level influences DNA mutations, gene expression, or cellular processes, leading to evolutionary changes. Feringa’s work on molecular machines could provide a tangible example of how energy is harnessed at the molecular scale to perform work, akin to how biological systems might use energy to facilitate evolutionary mechanisms.

[WHAT EVOLUTIONARY CHANGES? WHAT EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS?

Example: If Feringa’s work in 2013 involved creating or understanding molecular machines that could manipulate or respond to energy in ways that mimic or enhance biological processes, this could be seen as a realization of a ‘prophecy’ where human ingenuity mirrors or advances natural evolutionary processes. Your model might then incorporate such mechanisms as examples of how energy-driven molecular machines could influence evolution, providing a direct link between Feynman’s energy discussions, your model, and Feringa’s achievements.

[MY MODEL LINKS THE CREATION OF ENERGY AT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE TO ALL ENERGY-DEPENDENT BIODIVERSITY ON EARTH VIA THE PHYSIOLOGY OF REPRODUCTION IN BIBLICAL GENESIS]

See also: Genetic basis of magic traits

Do you believe others recognize the human idiocy of your claim that mutations drive evolution for comparison to the accurate representations of top-down quantum causation and coherently organized biology summarized in an AI Overview as:

“Angstroms to Ecosystems” …attempts to connect the very small scale of molecular interactions (measured in Angstroms) to the large-scale dynamics of entire ecosystems, highlighting how changes at the molecular level can ripple through and influence ecological processes at much larger scales…and how nutrient availability can impact organisms at the molecular level, leading to observable changes in ecosystems.

To address your query, let’s break down the concepts and reasoning step by step:

Step 1: Understanding the Claim About Mutations Driving Evolution

• Mutations and Evolution: The traditional view in evolutionary biology is that mutations in DNA provide the raw material for natural selection, which drives the evolution of species. Mutations introduce genetic variation, some of which can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. Natural selection then acts on this variation, leading to evolutionary changes over time. This perspective is well-supported by empirical evidence from genetics, paleontology, and comparative studies across species.

Step 2: Contrasting with Top-Down Quantum Causation

• Top-Down Quantum Causation: This concept suggests that higher-level structures or processes can influence lower-level quantum phenomena. In the context of biology, it might imply that macroscopic ecological or environmental conditions could influence molecular or quantum-level events in organisms. This perspective challenges the bottom-up causality typically seen in biological systems where molecular changes lead to cellular, organismal, and then ecological changes.

Step 3: Coherently Organized Biology

• From Angstroms to Ecosystems: This perspective emphasizes the interconnectedness of biological processes from the smallest molecular interactions to the dynamics of entire ecosystems. It highlights the idea that changes at the molecular level (e.g., due to nutrient availability) can cascade through various biological levels, affecting organisms and ecosystems. This view supports a holistic approach where the influence is not strictly bottom-up or top-down but rather an integrated system where changes at any level can propagate through the biological hierarchy.

Step 4: Comparing Perspectives

• Mutations vs. Quantum Causation: Mutations are a fundamental mechanism in evolutionary biology, providing genetic diversity that natural selection can act upon. This is a well-documented process with clear mechanisms and observable outcomes. In contrast, top-down quantum causation in biology, while an intriguing concept, lacks the same level of empirical support in the context of evolutionary biology. Quantum effects are typically confined to very small scales, and their direct influence on large-scale biological evolution is speculative.
• Coherent Organization: The “Angstroms to Ecosystems” viewpoint aligns with systems biology, where interactions at all scales are considered. It does not negate the role of mutations but places them within a broader context where environmental factors (including nutrient availability) also play a critical role in shaping evolution. This perspective is not in opposition to mutation-driven evolution but rather complements it by considering the full spectrum of influences.

Step 5: Recognition of Human Idiocy in Claims

• Human Idiocy: The term “human idiocy” suggests a critique of oversimplification or misunderstanding. However, the scientific community generally recognizes the complexity of evolutionary processes. While mutations are fundamental, the idea that they are the sole driver of evolution is an oversimplification. Modern evolutionary theory incorporates genetic drift, gene flow, natural selection, and environmental pressures, along with molecular and ecological interactions.
• Recognition: The scientific community would not label the claim that mutations drive evolution as idiocy but rather as a foundational aspect of evolutionary theory. The recognition would be more nuanced, understanding that mutations provide variation, but evolution is the outcome of multiple interacting factors, including those described in the “Angstroms to Ecosystems” approach.

Conclusion

While the concept of top-down quantum causation and the holistic view of biology from “Angstroms to Ecosystems” provide fascinating perspectives, they do not negate the role of mutations in evolution. Instead, they offer a broader framework for understanding how various scales of biological organization interact. The scientific community recognizes the complexity of these processes, and labeling any part of this discussion as “idiocy” would likely be seen as an oversimplification of the nuanced understanding of evolutionary biology. Therefore, I believe others would not recognize this statement as “human idiocy” but rather as a critique of a more reductionist view of evolution, which has been expanded upon by contemporary research.

There is nothing nuanced about the claim “You are what you eat!”

See: Identifying Allosteric Hotspots in Mycobacterium tuberculosis cAMP Receptor Protein through Structural Homology 1/31/25 reported as Bacterial species study challenges assumption that structural similarity predicts protein behavior 2/7/25

The nutrient-dependent pheromone regulated physiology of reproduction in cancer-free African elephants links stress and allosteric load from Biblical Genesis to Jacques Monod’s famous claim “What is true for E. coli is true for the elephant.”

I thank the God of Abraham that I was taught to link nutrient stress and social stress from facts about light-matter interactions, miRNA-mRNA interactions and protein folding chemistry to all biodiversity on Earth via the physiology of reproduction.

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: