If so, do you think it can survive publication of experimental evidence that links responsive supramolecular systems to stepwise changes in the assembly of metal complexes via induction of a light-driven rotary motor scaffold akin to the bacterial flagellum of P. fluorescens?
Others are claiming that partial unwrapping of the supercoiled DNA complex precedes the photoisomerization steps, which link energy-dependent autophagy to inversion of the chirality in helicates. That explains how energy-dependent RNA-mediated isomerization establishes the difference between metastable and stable helicates, which links amino acid substitutions to supercoiled DNA, which protects all organized genomes from virus-driven entropy. For example, supercoiled DNA protects the organized genomes of dinosaurs and gladiators from stress-linked pathology until stress-linked changes in pH overcome the ability of the innate immune systems to protect the organized genomes via the light-induced changes in hydrogen-atom transfer in DNA base pairs in solution.
They claim plants evolved to control responses to the sun’s biological energy. As proof of concept their “…design incorporates a heat engine photocell that absorbs photons from the sun and converts the photon energy into electricity.”
Via the comparison of two simple quantum mechanical photocell systems, they found that “…by simply incorporating two photon-absorbing channels, rather than only one, the regulation of energy flow emerges naturally within the photocell.”
They linked the natural emergence of the energy flow in their design to the natural energy of photosynthesis in plants in an attempt to explain how green became the predominant color of plants on Earth. Others found molecular structures that prevent death via the accumulation of excess energy in plants.
The design of the molecular structure of their quantum heat engine photocell is similar to “…the structure of photosynthetic molecules that incorporate pairs of chlorophyll.” But wait. They claimed that the plants evolved molecular mechanisms after the natural emergence of energy flow was linked to photosynthesis and molecular structures that prevent death caused by the accumulation of excess energy.When I see such a convoluted representation of energy-dependent biologically-based cause and effect that does not include any mention of virus-driven energy theft or the physiology of reproduction, I am inclined to call researchers like this “biologically uninformed science idiots.”Many people hate it when I do that. What would you call them? But some of them are plagiarists, too.
Tomi Aalto’s blog is a continuation of his plagiarism. His posts can be compared to more than 800 of mine on my domain.
The difference is that Suzan Mazur acknowledged RNA-mediated.com as an information source in her book: Royal Society: The Public Evolution Summit
From page 3: “Some of the social momentum over the last year, in particular, has come via coverage of the evolution discourse in a flurry of books and from these diverse venues…”
James Kohl — RNA-mediated.com
In “Darwin’s Children” (2003) Greg Bear also acknowledged me and the International Paleopsychology Project, where I first encountered him and Eshel Ben-Jacob, who died last year. See this tribute to Eshel’s works.
He mastered the concept of energy-dependent autophagy and linked everything known about Schrodinger’s anti-entropic virucidal energy of sunlight to the nutrient-dependent physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction in species from microbes to humans.
Theorists still hate it when that happens, and they continue to tell others who are biologically uninformed that not enough is known to link virus-driven energy theft to all pathology.
What does Tomi Aalto, or any other plagiarist hope to accomplish by taking bits and pieces of my works, or the works of others, without the ability to link the energy-dependent de novo creation of G protein-coupled receptors from energy as information to all biodiversity and also link virus-driven energy theft to all pathology? That inability to link top-down causation to any model of biologically-based cause and effect led to this criticism of my 2013 review.
Would it not be more appropriate for others who are not atheistic antagonists to support my claims by citing and discussing my works, rather than make ongoing attempts to establish themselves as experts?
See for examples of what is expected of other serious scientists.
Future work on O. vulgaris olfaction must also consider how animals acquire the odours detected by the olfactory organ and what kind of odour the olfactory organ perceives. The OL acting as control centre may be target organ for metabolic hormones such as leptin like and insulin like peptides, and olfactory organ could exert regulatory action on the OL via epigenetic effects of nutrients and pheromones on gene expression (Kohl, 2013; Elekonich and Robinson, 2000).
Two fatty acyl reductases involved in moth pheromone biosynthesis also cites Kohl (2013) see #10
Studies over the last two decades have pinpointed that the epigenetic effect of pheromone-driven adaptive evolution is one of the major factors driving the successful diversification of Lepidopteran insects10. In moths, a few substitutions in critical amino acids in the key pheromone biosynthetic enzymes are sufficient to create a novel pheromone component11,12.
Re: Tomi Aalto’s plagiarism and the plagiarism of others.
Larry Kisner Sr. suggested I contact Kevin Anderson in an attempt to publish what I have already published. He also refused — and Mark Armitage ignored my requests — to provide the slide that shows fluorescence in dinosaur osteocytes.
Each of these projects focuses on aspects of my published and unpublished works that link the sun’s anti-entropic virucidal energy to RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and biophysically constrained cell type differentiation in species from microbes to humans.
See for example: What is life when it is not protected from virus driven entropy (video 6:37 minutes)
The anti-entropic force of virucidal ultraviolet light links guanine–cytosine (G⋅C) Watson–Crick base pairing from hydrogen-atom transfer in DNA base pairs in solution to supercoiled DNA, which protects the organized genomes of all living genera from virus-driven entropy. For example, protection of DNA from permanent UV damage occurs in the context of photosynthesis and nutrient-dependent RNA-directed DNA methylation, which links RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to DNA repair. In the context of thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation, DNA repair enables the de novo creation of G protein coupled receptors (GPCRs). Olfactory receptor genes are GPCRs. The de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes links chemotaxis and phototaxis from foraging behavior to social behavior in species from microbes to humans. Foraging behavior links ecological variation to ecological adaptation in the context of this atoms to ecosystems model of biophysically constrained energy-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry. Protein folding chemistry links nutrient-dependent microRNAs from microRNA flanking sequences to energy transfer and cell type differentiation in the context of adhesion proteins, and supercoiled DNA that protects all organized genomes from virus-driven entropy.
See also: Metabolic Phenotyping Research
Excerpt: SARCASM ALERT
7. They will claim that the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis will have explanatory power when it automagically evolves into a model of top-down causation that links physics and chemistry to the conserved molecular mechanisms of biologically-based cause and effect, which serious scientists have detailed during the past century.
See for comparison:
For comparison to what is known about the de novo creation of genes in mollusks, Anna Di Cosmo’s group cited my most recent review in Role of olfaction in Octopus vulgaris reproduction.
Future work on O. vulgaris olfaction must also consider how animals acquire the odours detected by the olfactory organ and what kind of odour the olfactory organ perceives. The OL acting as control centre may be target organ for metabolic hormones such as leptin like and insulin like peptides, and olfactory organ could exert regulatory action on the OL via epigenetic effects of nutrients and pheromones on gene expression (Kohl, 2013; Elekonich and Robinson, 2000). — p. 61
The facts link my model to biologically-based cause and effect from energy-dependent changes in angstroms to ecosystems in all living genera via the de novo creation of the genetic code. See also: ‘Junk DNA’ Used To Sort Species
Now watch Lenski’s group claim that different species of viruses evolved in one month. Biologists watch speciation in a laboratory flask
Nutrient energy-dependent pheromone-controlled speciation can now be observed in the context of fluorescence, which links ecological variation to morphological and behavioral diversity to chromosomal rearrangements in C. elegans compared to P. pacificus, a predatory nematode with teeth. Researchers find chemical tag that locks chromosomes together during meiosis
The ENEA study proposed that the image may have been created by an intense source of light, but no man-made light would produce the required strength.
Serious scientists have linked femotosecond blasts of UV light to RNA-mediated DNA repair and the repair has been linked via the natural fluorescence in DNA from dinosaur osteocytes to the weekend resurrection of the bacterial flagellum. One could look at the evidence in the discovery at Christ’s tomb from that perspective given the intensity of light energy as information that might be required to Resurrect Him.
For comparison, Lenski’s group has placed everything he knows into the context of evolved species of viruses during a month-long experiment that failed to include anything known about biophysically constrained energy-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in any living species. Again, see: Biologists watch speciation in a laboratory flask
The bottom line is always whether you choose to believe in theorists or in the evidence of biologically-based cause and effect — no matter when that evidence is discovered or where it is found.
Natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality is the only obvious link to the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes. And Svante Paabo is the senior author. Here he is again, supporting my model with others who understand the role of microRNAs. MicroRNA-Driven Developmental Remodeling in the Brain Distinguishes Humans from Other Primates
Does everyone understand why Bill Ludlow blocked me after I commented on his OP from “The Battlefield?” about this:
From the journal article: “…the frequency of amino acids in different secondary-structural environments is closely related to thermodynamic propensities (20–24).”
From the news report: “Since protein structural states are really conformational ensembles, the language of statistical mechanics is most appropriate for describing their behavior.”
This is the language they use: “…we find that the emergent sequence variability is often in close agreement to the evolutionary variability…”
Instead of linking sunlight from thermodynamic cycles of energy-dependent protein biosynthesis and degradation to biophysically constrained cell type differentiation and all RNA-mediated biodiversity, they link emergence to evolution.
Welcome again to the world of biologically uninformed theorists. This time, “…we systematically decompose the known protein structural universe into its basic elements, which we dub tertiary structural motifs (TERMs).”
The ability to take everything known to serious scientists and put it back into the context of unintelligible theories via use of terms like tertiary structural motifs far surpasses the ability of serious scientists to make sense of their pseudoscientific nonsense. Thus, the pseudoscientific nonsense will continue to kill us all.
See for comparison: The Pangenome: Are Single Reference Genomes Dead?
…when Tettelin, then at the Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR), and his colleagues compared eight isolates of Streptococcus agalactiae (or group B Streptococcus, GBS), they found not only the small, within-gene variations predicted by conventional genetics, but an average of 33 completely new genes with every new genome sequenced. “It was a shock,” says Tettelin. “We saw there were many regions—relatively large regions—of diversity.”
All that diversity is energy-dependent and linked from the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction to all morphological and behavioral phenotypes in all living genera.
Thanks to Anna Di Cosmo for sharing this example of energy-dependent de novo transcriptome assembly.
The use of de novo transcriptome assembly and well-designed in silico protocols proved to be a robust approach for surveying and mining large sequence data in a wide range of non-model mollusks. The data presented herein constitute only a small fraction of the information retrieved from the analysed molluscan transcriptomes, which can be promptly employed in the identification of novel genes and gene families, phylogenetic inferences, and other studies using molecular tools. As such, our study provides an important framework for understanding some of the underlying molecular mechanisms involved in molluscan body plan diversification and hints towards functions of key developmental genes in molluscan morphogenesis.
No serious scientist I know examines morphogenesis outside the context of feedback loops that link odor and pheromones to the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to humans via the de novo creation of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). How many pseudoscientists do you know who skip past the de novo creation of GPCRs and proceed to link mutations from natural selection to evolution outside the context of everything known to serious scientists about biologically-based cause and effect (i.e., energy-dependent biodiversity)?The lack of discussion and/or support from other creationists for my presentations of accurate information like this may suggest to others that this is a “false flag” group. Note that after I blocked those who I know participate in other “false flag” groups, there has been no discussion of my OPs. If you tried to evaluate the content presented here, would you get the impression that this is a group in which the admins are Creationists? When did you realize the de novo creation of genes for olfactory receptors must precede the de novo creation of photoreceptors to link chemotaxis and phototaxis to energy-dependent cell type differentiation, which is our only protection from the viral apocalypse?
Page 11- 12 Re: … evolution of genome invading RNA networks that edit host genomes.
… Witzany is organizing a conference symposium for July 2018 “Evolution-genetic innovations without error replication
He is the author of Life is physics and chemistry and communication.
Manfred Eigen extended Erwin Schroedinger’s concept of “life is physics and chemistry” through the introduction of information theory and cybernetic systems theory into “life is physics and chemistry and information.” Based on this assumption, Eigen developed the concepts of quasispecies and hypercycles, which have been dominant in molecular biology and virology ever since. He insisted that the genetic code is not just used metaphorically: it represents a real natural language. However, the basics of scientific knowledge changed dramatically within the second half of the 20th century. Unfortunately, Eigen ignored the results of the philosophy of science discourse on essential features of natural languages and codes: a natural language or code emerges from populations of living agents that communicate. This contribution will look at some of the highlights of this historical development and the results relevant for biological theories about life.
The claims about quasispecies and hypercyclesthat dominate molecular biology and virology should have long ago long before now have been placed into the context of all reviews of neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific nonsense.
See for example: Major Evolutionary Blunders: Imagining That Life Is Only Chemistry
See also: “I should think we might fairly gauge the future of biological science, centuries ahead by estimating the time it will take to reach a complete comprehensive understanding of odor. It may not seem a profound enough problem to dominate all the life sciences, but it contains, piece by piece, all the mysteries” (p. 732). — Lewis Thomas as cited in The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality