…mutation is crucial in speciation because reproductive barriers cannot be generated without mutations.
My comment: Chromosomal rearrangements link autophagy from energy-dependent changes in RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and supercoiled DNA to all biodiversity via speciation.
…high frequency radiation and particles of high velocity are very important components of the environment, causing heritable changes by a process called mutation. Even if we could conduct our experiments behind 30 metres of lead the fact that mutation has a temperature coefficient is enough to show that it depends in part on energy fluctuations which are uncontrollable.
My comment: In 1902, De Vries defined the uncontrollable energy fluctuations in the context of his definition of “mutation.” Others have since linked Darwin’s “conditions of life” from energy fluctuations to natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality and healthy longevity via biophysically constrained polycombic ecological adaptation.
My comment: Nutrient energy-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance link autophagy to supercoiled DNA, which protects all organized genomes from virus-driven energy theft and genomic entropy.
See for ~54,000 examples: microrna and autophagy
See for comparison: A new function for oncoproteins of DNA tumor viruses
The Virus With Spider DNA (10/12, Yong) reports the researchers suspect that the virus obtained the genetic material directly from the spiders infected by Wolbachia, or the bacteria may have obtained it from the spiders before passing it on to the virus.
Additional coverage is provided by: How the Heck Did Black Widow Spider DNA Get Inside a Virus? (10/11, Choi) and Virus stole poison genes from black widow spider (10/12, Rincon).
My comment: Virus-driven energy theft occurs in only one direction. It links cell type death from archaea to Zika virus damage in human infants via transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of pathology. The idea that a virus that infects bacteria could have come from the DNA of animals is one that misrepresents everything currently known to serious scientists about autophagy.
Ideas like that are the source of pathology that alters the behavior of family members who believe that any idea is as good as a model of biologically-based cause and effect.
Biologically uniformed family members have unfriended me on Facebook because they do not want anyone to become informed.
James Kohl Thanks for putting their actions into perspective, Jeanette C Seeman.
I’ve learned that expertise on any given topic may cause embarrassment in non-experts who think experts are insulting their intelligence or criticizing their beliefs. This is true at all levels. 2004 Templeton Prize winner, George FR Ellis, who is or was an active Quaker, unfriended me when I commented on the book he published in June. He left out the information on my model, even after he claimed I was correct.
He has had an ongoing disagreement with Roger Penrose about the fact that the source of all information links the creation of the sun to energy-dependent healthy longevity. Ellis and Penrose have co-authored with Stephen Hawking. I linked energy as information to the Resurrection of Christ via everything currently known to all serious scientists about biologically-based cause and effect. George FR Ellis refuses to address that fact in any context.
This is what he is avoiding. In 1991, Roger Penrose wrote: “How often do we still hear that quantum effects can have little relevance in the study of biology, or even that we eat food in order to gain energy?”
Last month, this assault on the beliefs of all who tout nonsense about the emergence of everything from nothing and neo-Darwinian theories about millions of years of evolution should have cinched the election of Donald Trump for President. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2016.164
Trump, for example, is supported by young earth creationists such as Mike Pence and Dr. Ben Carson. Now, we have examples of ignorance from a well-respected cosmologist/astrophysicist (Ellis), for comparison to a mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science (Penrose), and Mike Pence and Dr. Ben Carson.
If Hillary wins, we will have another example of what the term “reprobate mind” actually means. It means people would rather believe anything they are told as long as it cannot be placed into the context of physics, chemistry, biology and Biblical Genesis via what is known about molecular epigenetics, which is that “…we eat food in order to gain energy?” The energy biophysically constrains the viral apocalypse that the liberals predictably will cause.
This is science, not religion: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24693353 Why do you think it was published in Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology? What has any pseudoscientist/atheist written for comparison?
See also my attempt to discuss the fact that: NONE of the papers establish that SOMETHING can come into existence from NOTHING.
//Do you reject any of those claims?”//
I simply do not see the evidence for the claim that Viruses cause ALL pathology.
– Bacteria can cause pathology.
– Toxins can cause pathology.
– Heavy metals can cause pathology.
– Fungi can cause pathology.
– Parasites can cause pathology.
I do not see the warrant to state that NONE of the above can cause pathology and so ONLY viruses can cause pathology.
Conclusion: Everything known to serious scientists about physics, chemistry, molecular epigenetics, chemical ecology, and adaptation is included in Biblical Genesis. Only biologically uninformed atheists and Demoncrats continue to challenge the only accurate representation of biologically-based cause and effect that starts with ‘you are what you eat’ and claims that ‘if you eat this you will surely die.’
Epigenetic mechanisms, particularly DNA methylation and miRNA expression, attract increasing attention as potential links between the genetic and environmental determinants of health and disease. Unlike genetics, epigenetic mechanisms could be reversible and an understanding of their role may lead to better protection of susceptible populations and improved public health.
See also my attempt to discuss: How new traits “emerge” in evolution
Peter Berean wrote:
I am an ex-atheist, a Philosophical Theist and a Mere-Christian.
I have asked that you offer experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect. You provide nothing but rhetoric and fail to address any of the evidence I have provided. I have asked you which part of the Holy Bible you believe in, and your only answer seems to be that you are a Christian.
You asked be for scientific evidence for OEC (a old universe and/or an old-earth) and so I did so (see my comments above).
1) I subscribe to the view that Some Pathology can be caused by Bacteria. You do not appear to subscribe to that view?
2) I subscribe to the view that Some Pathology can be caused by some Biological Toxins that are Not Viruses. You do not appear to subscribe to that view?
3) I subscribe to the view that Some Pathology can be caused by some Inorganic Toxins such as some heavy metals. You do not appear to subscribe to that view?
4) I subscribe to the view that SOME Pathology can be caused by Viruses. You do not appear to subscribe to that view because of the word SOME?
5) All of the evidence you have provided shows that Viruses cause SOME pathology. However, NONE of the evidence you provided shows that Viruses cause ALL pathology.
6) I am arguing that the evidence is consistent with the view that there are MULTIPLE Causes for Pathology.
7) You appear to be arguing that there is ONLY ONE cause for Pathology (viruses).
Please correct me if I am wrong in understanding your positions regarding the numbered questions/points I bring up above.
James Kohl I asked for experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect and you twisted that request into one for scientific evidence. You may think you are devilishly clever, but no serious scientist would agree.
I do not care what you subscribe to and will not answer any more questions about my views. They have been detailed in a series of published works during the past 20 years and no one has refuted the model we presented in the molecular epigenetics section of this review. From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior