Historical perspective:

Behold James Vaughn Kohl.

Ecological adaptation occurs via the epigenetic effects of nutrients on alternative splicings of pre-mRNA which result in amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all species. The control of the differences in cell types occurs via the metabolism of the nutrients to chemical signals that control the physiology of reproduction.

These facts do not refute evolution; they simply refute the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that most people here were taught to believe is the theory of evolution.

That theory is far too ridiculous to be anything but a joke in the context of biological-based increasing organismal complexity. But here, we have lots of jokers, don’t we? The proof of ecological variation that appears to refute the theory of evolution, which actually refutes itself, is that ecological adaptations occur too fast for mutations to compete with them as a source of anything but diseases and disorders.

Read more: One crank dies, another rises to take his place

Jay R. Feierman: I am absolutely certain that if you showed this statement to any professor of biology or genetics in any accredited university anywhere in the world that 100% of them would say that “Random mutations are the substrate upon which directional natural selection acts” is a correct and true statement.

See also: Teleophobes vs teleophiles: a recent history I concluded:

You may also want to stay informed on the issues that arise as Researchers attempt to uncover the origins of water’s unusual properties.


…water’s anomalous properties are related to its hydrogen bonds, which cause liquid water to arrange itself in a highly ordered way because of the attraction between the hydrogen atoms in one water molecule and the oxygen atoms in adjacent molecules.


See also: Ultraviolet Absorption Induces Hydrogen-Atom Transfer in G⋅C Watson–Crick DNA Base Pairs in Solution.

When I first learned about this, I wrote 3 blog posts:

  1. Hydrogen-Atom Transfer in DNA Base Pairs;
  2. Hydrogen-Atom Transfer in DNA Base Pairs (2);
  3. Hydrogen-Atom Transfer in DNA Base Pairs (3)

Prefacing the titles with Ultraviolet Absorption Induces and ending the titles with in Solution has become more important in the context of water’s highly ordered hydrogen bonds.

For instance, reportedly, albeit without my confirmation, Darwin mentioned a “warm little pond” in the context of his theory.

It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.— But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. — Letter to J. D. Hooker, 1 Feb [1871]

I vaguely recall that some teleophobes also claim evolution started in water, and that some have claimed proteins evolve. If so, it will be easier for me to refute their claims about mutation-driven evolution. If the solution is water, my refutations could start with the claim that “Ultraviolet Absorption Induces Hydrogen-Atom Transfer in DNA Base Pairs in Solution.” Nevertheless, I am concerned that some teleophobes will not accept the claims of other teleophobes. Warring factions of teleophobes tend to claim whatever suits them to be a potential start for evolution.

  1. Giant ice-balls in the form of asteroids passing through our solar system with links to the chirality of amino acids.
  2. Aliens who seeded our planet with life.
  3. Everything arose from nothing.
  4. Simultaneous hen and egg emergence from dark matter.

Is it possible to start with the important properties of water, or not?

The Origin of Information: How to Solve It


where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Currently, no one knows the answer.

My comment: What does Perry Marshall mean when he claims that “Currently, no one knows the answer.”

I framed the answer in an invited review of nutritional epigenetics.

Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems

My comment: I tried to make it clear that the sun’s biological energy is the source for the genesis of variation that links ecological variation to ecological adaptations. Others have since helped to make it clear that atoms and ecosystems are linked via nutrient-dependent microRNAs and adhesion proteins to supercoiled DNA, which appears to protect all living genera from virus-driven entropy. What more will it take to win Perry Marshall’s prize?

Again, see: The Origin of Information: How to Solve It

Both ASCII and DNA are formal communication systems according to Shannon’s model because they encode and decode messages using a system of symbols. DNA is not like a communication system, or analogous to a communication system; it is formally defined as a communication system.

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey,  Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life,  Cambridge University Press, 2005).

My comment: Perry Marshall seems to be asking for an explanation of the origin of the information that links atoms to ecosystems via “…transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading.”

But, the guest editors of the journal “Nutrients” who invited my review of nutritional epigenetics, seemed to want the same thing. How can anyone not know that sunlight must be the source for the information that links atoms to ecosystems in all living genera? Does someone need to prove that Schrodinger was right, in What is Life? when he claimed that…

… in the case of higher animals we know the kind of orderliness they feed upon well enough, viz. the extremely well-ordered state of matter in more or less complicated organic compounds, which serve them as foodstuffs. After utilizing it they return it in a very much degraded form -not entirely degraded, however, for plants can still make use of it. (These, of course, have their most power supply of ‘negative entropy’ the sunlight)

My comment: Do I need to prove that sunlight is the anti-entropic force that links information to hydrogen-atom transfer in DNA base pairs and the code that links physics and chemistry to all biomass and biodiversity?  Is that what Perry Marshall wants someone, like me, to do… again?

Keep Reading