Peter Berean has wasted more of my time that nearly anyone else I have encountered, and he still claims my model is a hypothesis. On October 14, 2016 I asked:
How can you or anyone else tell the difference between a secular humanist and an old earth creationist? For example, I can compare both sects to young earth creationists who have linked everything known about nutritional epigenetics to healthy longevity and everything known about virus-driven energy theft to all pathology. Is there an easier way to explain what I think is the lack of any differentiating characteristics between secular humanists and old earth creationists? If they do not believe the facts about energy-dependent autophagy, what do they believe about creation and how biodiversity arose?
On my FB group, Peter Berean wrote:”
P1. A Viral Apocalypse is imminent.
P2. Viruses are the Cause of ALL pathology.
P3. We are wasting resources on addressing what we think are the other causes of pathology (bacteria, fungi, parasites, toxins).
C. Therefore, we are killing millions (who are killed by viruses that are the true cause of ALL pathology) because we are diverting resources to other alleged-causes of pathology.
My comment: People like Peter Berean refuse to offer any alternative to the model I have detailed in a series of published works since 1995 and yesterday my claims were referred to in the context of a “Gish Gallup.”
The Gish Gallop (also known as the proof by verbosity or Trump tirade) is the fallacious debating tactic of simply drowning your opponent in a torrent of small, interlocking arguments intended to prevent your opponent from being able to rebut your conclusions in real time. The Gish Gallop is thus essentially a belt-fed cousin of the on the spot fallacy, as it’s unreasonable for anyone to have an answer immediately available to every single argument presented in the gallop. It is named after creationist Duane Gish.
This is what my antagonists are calling a “Gish Gallop” as if it took a trivial amount of effort for me to make each individual point before skipping on to the next.Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.
…the largest contributor to the development of our personal preferences may be the unconscious epigenetic effects of food odors and pheromones on hormones that organize and activate behavior. If so, the model represented here is consistent with what is known about the epigenetic effects of ecologically important nutrients and pheromones on the adaptively evolved behavior of species from microbes to man. Minimally, this model can be compared to any other factual representations of epigenesis and epistasis for determination of the best scientific ‘fit’.
This is the concluding sentence from Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model
Based on his writings, both published and unpublished, James Kohl presents an unsupported challenge to modern evolutionary theory and misrepresentations of established scientific terms and others’ research. It was a mistake to let such a sloppy review through to be published.
My factual representations of nutrient energy-dependent epigenesis and epistasis have since been linked from the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled resurrection of the bacterial flagellum to the fossil record representation of osteocyte fluorescence in dinosaur bone. Pseudomonas fluorescens and the dinosaur bone osteocytes link natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality from biophysically constrained RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry to supercoiled DNA in all living genera. The supercoiled DNA is linked from chromosomal rearrangements to the physiology of reproduction via metabolic networks and genetic networks in species from microbes to humans.
See for comparison, this conclusion from a textbook published on the same day as my 2013 review.
…genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world. In this view of evolution there is no need of considering teleological elements” (p. 199).
And now, back to Epigenetically effected energy-dependent fluorescence
See also: Evolutionary Rewiring
The bacterial flagellum was resurrected over-the-weekend in Pseudomonas fluorescens. Like other organisms that fluoresce or that are bioluminescent, P. flurescens exemplifies the integration of energy-dependent chemotaxis, which must be linked from phototaxis to the ability to find food and reproduce. The ability to reproduce is nutrient energy dependent and pheromone-controlled in the context of ab initio energy and the de novo creation of G protein-coupled receptors. The virucidal energy of ultraviolet light links energy as information to cell type differentiation in all living genera via hydrogen-atom transfer in DNA base pairs in solution. Hydrogen-atom transfer in DNA base pairs links the complexity of nutrient energy-dependent pheromone-controlled biodiversity in species from microbes to humans via examples of fluorescence and bioluminescence.
See for instance: Scientist dismissed after soft tissue found on dinosaur fossil
The scientist, whose analysis of the Triceratops horn was published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, is also an evangelical creationist, and claimed that the finding supports the view that Earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs roamed the planet around 4,000 years ago.
My comment: After some discussion and his initial refusals to provide me with information on the picture of fluorescence in dinosaur osteocytes, Larry Kisner Sr., claimed that the powerpoint slide came from one of Mark Armitage’s lectures. It showed evidence of fluorescence., but Larry Kinser Jr. did not seem to want me to use it.
Excerpt: Cell is well outlined in fluorescent imaging, but no binding is seen in the matrix tissues, supporting specificity of this antibody to osteocytes. Panels G and H show OB7.3 binding to extant ostrich cell and filipodia (arrows) in a pattern similar to ancient cells. (I, J) Alligator osteocytes in overlay (I) and fluorescent (J) images, showing no reactivity to OB7.3. The binding pattern, when positive, is consistent for all cells, extending into the filipodia.
Excrept 2) F, fluorescent light overlay of B. canadensis osteocyte still embedded in a piece of demineralized matrix.
My comment: Fluorescence in dinosaur osterocytes was reported on “The Battlefield” FB group by Larry Kisner Sr., as an example of auto-fluorescence instead of ultraviolet (UV) light energy-dependent fluorescence. After brief discussion of the energy-dependent difference, Nancy Cogar banned me from further participation. I repeatedly asked Larry Kisner Sr. where the picture of fluorescence in the dinosaur osteocytes came from, and he refused to give me the information. After I was banned from participation he claimed it came from a powerpoint lecture by Mark Armitage.
Apparently, the authors failed to link the example of energy-dependent fluorescence to their young earth creationist claims about the age of the Earth. The difference in the report of the bacterial flagellum compared to the reports of fluorescent bone tissue, is that the bone tissue is typically linked from the fossil record to 65 million years of evolution. That ended with the extinction of all dinosaurs or their mutation-driven evolution on the way to becoming birds. Those claims exemplify the difference between pseudoscientific nonsense and experimentally established biologically-based cause and effect in the context of a young earth creationist perspective.
The difference between reporting the finding of Armitage and others in the context of auto-fluorescence or energy-dependent UV light exposure and fluorescence is the link from the creation of energy as information in Biblical Genesis. Every aspect of biophysically constrained RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry must link quantized energy to supercoiled DNA. The finding that DNA fluoresces links patterns of fluorescence localization can vary in closely related species. That fact links energy-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation to all biodiversity in my model. So far, very few researchers have cited my model in their published works. That’s expected. No one can be sure of my sincerity in the claims I have made unless they are nearly as familiar as I am with the basis for those claims.
Other young earth creationists seem like atheists in the way they attack me, denigrate my published works, and ban me from discussions.
Our results further characterize a striking example of coevolution driving speciation within perhaps as little as 6000 years.
The finch feeds voraciously and exclusively on the pine seeds, which caused the tree to evolve seed defenses that make it harder for the birds to harvest the seeds. “The birds counter-evolved against those defenses as evolution favored deeper-beaked crossbills, resulting in a coevolutionary arms race that has driven evolutionary divergence of this unique bird population.
My comment: Some young earth creationists seem to be more interested in protecting the information that would help everyone learn more about creation in the context of sunlight, which must be linked to biodiversity via fluorescence.