Manfred Eigen (born May 9, 1927) is a German biophysical chemist who won the 1967 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for work on measuring fast chemical reactions. People are still touting his neo-Darwinian nonsense nearly 50 years later. It sometimes seems that nothing is known to the pseudoscientists about how the RNA-mediated innate immune system links nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated DNA repair to supercoiled DNA and  protection against virus-driven entropy. Supercoiled DNA links ecological variation to ecological adaptation and transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in all living genera.

See for comparison:

The Nobel symposium. Darwin’s principles at the level of molecules

t-RNA – adaptors of the genetic code

Conditions for life. Reproduction and evolution

My comment: Darwin’s “conditions of life” are nutrient-dependent and pheromones control the physiology or reproduction in species from microbes to humans. Attempts to link molecules from RNA to adaptations must start with the energy-dependent creation of the genetic code and consider how ecological variations link the energy to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation. Claims that reproduction links conditions for life to evolution are simple-minded.  For example, Linda Buck shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine and in 2005 co-authored Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction.

It will not become clearer that the feedback loops are nutrient-dependent and controlled by pheromones in species from microbes to humans.

See also: Collective memory discovered in bacteria


If we understand this collective effect, it may improve our ability to control bacterial populations.” The findings are relevant, for example, to our understanding of how pathogens can resist antibiotics, or how the performance of bacterial cultures in industrial processes or wastewater treatment plants can be maintained under dynamic conditions.

My comment: If you cannot link nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled quorum sensing in bacteria from the RNA-mediated immune system of mammals to the bull sperm microRNAome, you may be as far behind what is known to serious scientists as these researchers appear to be.

Researchers Track Gene Alterations in Brain Area Perturbed by Stress


Acute stress can increase the presence of a key DNA modification called 5hmC throughout a portion of the brain called the hippocampus, vital in memory and learning, according to a study published in November 2015 in the journal Neurobiology of Disease. These modifications, observed in mice, may alter the activity of a variety of neurons and nerve signaling proteins in response to stress, and could be related to stress’ effects on the brain in anxiety and traumatic stress disorders.

My comment: Despite everything known about how stress is linked from brain development in mice to brain development in humans during life history transitions, these researchers are not taking advantage of what has already been detailed in the context of the honeybee model organism or any other model organisms.

For example, see: Amino Acids Rather than Glucose Account for the Majority of Cell Mass in Proliferating Mammalian Cells

My comment: Nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions link feedback loops from food odors to the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in mammals via the bull sperm microRNAome and microRNAs (miRNAs) in mammalian milk.

See also: CRISPR: gene editing is just the beginning: The real power of the biological tool lies in exploring how genomes work.


Gersbach predicts that a wave of upcoming papers will show a synergistic effect when multiple epigenetic markers are manipulated at once.

My comment: This is the kind of regurgitated insight that plagues serious scientists who have detailed the links from physics to chemistry and molecular epigenetics during the past 20 years. It’s also the same prediction the science fiction author Greg Bear made in “Darwin’s Radio” and in “Darwin’s Children.” The epigenetic marks are nutrient-dependent and linked to the physiology of reproduction by pheromones in species from microbes to humans. If multiple epigenetic markers did not clearly link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of supercoiled DNA via the innate immune system, the only link would be the magic of evolution.

I mentioned this yesterday: CRISPR/cas9, a novel genomic tool to knock down microRNA in vitro and in vivo

My comment: Their strategy forces the innate immune system to attempt to repair virus-driven DNA damage via replacement with nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions. The substitutions  link the sun’s biological / virucidal energy to the creation of nucleic acids and the energy links microRNAs to hydrogen-atom transfer in DNA base pairs via microRNA flanking sequences adhesion proteins and supercoiled DNA via the physiology of reproduction in all living genera. However, currently there is only experimental evidence that links the microRNA flanking sequences to biophysically constrained  RNA-mediated protein folding and all biodiversity found among all invertebrates and vertebrates. All the links from bacteria living in ocean sediments or soil bacteria that Schrodinger claims the sun’s anti-entropic energy from soil bacteria to the answer to his question “What is Life?” have not been fully detailed.

Nature publications has blocked me from commenting, but someone appears to be following my blog posts in an attempt to catch up to the serious scientists who have linked angstroms to ecosystems in all living genera. Until now, “Nature” and most other sources of  “Science” news have ignored the links from Einstein to Schrodinger and Dobzhansky.  Watch how quickly that changes as they parrot what I’ve been posting here during the past year. I don’t think anyone stands a chance of catching up on the experimental evidence since more than 48,000 papers on microRNAs have been published, while pseudoscientists have continued to tout their nonsense about evolution in Nature and most other source of “Science” news.  Simply put, mainstream science because pseudoscience and current sources of what should have been accurate information about biologically-based cause and effect have been publishing more pseudoscientific nonsense than most serious scientists can tolerate.



Keep Reading