Nobody wants to belong to the party of losers. One of the best strategies in such a case is evidently an interpretation of the change as a gradual accumulation of knowledge while their work has always been at the cutting edge. — Kalevi Kull
…modified an endogenous Bacteroides promoter sequence to be inducible—it could be turned on or off in mice by adding or omitting an effector molecule in the animals’ drinking water (see illustration). Sonnenburg’s system, on the other hand, used a viral promoter that upregulated gene expression to 70-fold higher than the type of promoter used by Goodman’s team. The viral promoter had the power to drive levels of fluorescent protein expression high enough to visualize bacteria in the mouse gut—a previously impossible feat.
The “effector molecule” links the food energy-dependent physiology of reproduction to all biodiversity via changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance, which biophysically constrain the virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA that causes all pathology. The viral load of cell types can be measured via fluorescence but the measurements of energy refute every aspect of all claims placed into the context of neo-Darwinian evolution.
Anyone still touting any aspect of neo-Darwinian evolution can now be categorized as a “loser.” But, be careful. There are more of them than those who have been Combating Evolution to Fight Disease
My comment to Science:
Darwin probably anticipated the insemination of population genetics that led to the bastardization of his detailed observations in the “Modern Synthesis.” He politely insisted that ‘conditions of life’ be considered before natural selection.
There are two ‘conditions of life.’ It is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. Rosenberg and Queitsch now note the work with Dobzhansky’s rarely acknowledged claim: “I am a creationist and an evolutionist.” They also declare the need for “Deep understanding of the mechanisms that generate variation at the molecular level…”
Deep understanding of the ‘conditions of life’ does not come from theory.
Problems with the “modern synthesis” now lead us back to the facts about biologically-based cause and effect that Darwin and Dobzhansky approached with humility, which are the same biological facts that evolutionists approached with ignorance about behavioral affects and the arrogance that accompanies that ignorance. Rosenberg and Queitsch echo the sentiments of those who have been subjected to academic suppression.
Clearly, however, “nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of biology” is not an exaggeration. It is a common sense statement about the biologically plausible genesis of functional cell types. Population genetics and evolutionary theories abandoned the biophysical constraints of ecological variation and the physiology of reproduction, which enable epigenetically-effected nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled receptor-mediated ecological adaptations and species diversity via the complexities of protein folding and niche construction.
It’s time for biophysicists to tell theorists and pathologists how to differentiate between theories about the genesis of different cell types and the biological facts about the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations that enable the genesis of different cell types in individuals of different species. Simply put, it’s time to stop trying to explain ecological adaptations in the context of mutations and evolution.