I’ve wasted too much time attempting to explain biologically-based facts to the biologically uninformed discussants on Science X network. This is an attempt to salvage some of the time and to move forward. See: New comments posted on Science X network:
– Study sheds light on powerful process that turns food into energy : 1 new comment
– Study adds to evidence that viruses are alive : 1 new comment
The new comments and the old comments are always the same. All comments from others typically ignore this fact.
“… is important to learn about biologically-based cause and effect from someone who is not a biologically uninformed science idiot. ”
See for example: “Mechanisms of stress in the brain” and other published works by serious scientists who understand that you must start with the epigenetic landscape and link it to the physical landscape of DNA. You must link what is known about physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms from atoms to ecosystems, both before and after the mechanisms are perturbed by viruses. Viruses cause mutations. Anyone who starts with mutations and links them to the evolution of biodiversity is biologically uninformed.
What is missing from ridiculous theories about mutations and evolution is addressed in the context of molecular mechanisms that are RNA-mediated.
See: “RNA mediated” Yahoo
See: “rna mediated” Google
See: “rna mediated gene silencing”
Excerpt: [microRNAs = (miRs)]
We discuss new perspectives of miRs and LncRNAs in liver fibrosis and HSC activation, mainly including interaction with histone modification or DNA methylation to regulate gene expression.
Metabolism of drugs and nutrients in the liver links nutritional epigenetics and pharmacogenomics to what is currently known about precision medicine.
See also my comments on:
See for contrast: Aging is the lead risk factor for disease
Excerpt: “…one of the foremost advocates of the telomere or epigenetic theory of aging, explains that it is not the absolute length of telomeres which control this, but it is the level of erosion relative from the time the egg was fertilized.”
See also, the molecular epigenetics section of our 1996 review: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior
Try to explain why only biologically uninformed science idiots are attacking my credibility and my model of top-down causation, epigenetic effects on hormones and affects on behavior.
My comment: Academic greats typically specialize but they don’t typically claim there are any hidden evolutionary relationships.
See for example: What it’s like to work with the academic greats
The film The Theory of Everything portrays Stephen and Jane Hawking superbly. But the scientific backdrop fares less well. In particular, the film distorts the personality and style of Dennis Sciama…”
Sciama was also the research adviser to George FR Ellis, who co-authored a 1973 classic with Stephen Hawking (The Large-Scale Structure of Space-Time.)
Their different paths are revealed in the context of the 2004 Templeton Prize awarded to Ellis, who is a serious scientist, not a debilitated atheistic theoretical physicist.
My comment: No one expects a debilitated atheistic theorist to ever become more than any other academic has become, and Hawking exemplifies what a theorist who is an academic can become by failing to acknowledge the need to include a metaphysical perspective on creation. He most assuredly missed the revelation of the creationist perspective on how viruses contribute to all pathology, which specifically now includes Stephen Hawking’s neurodegenerative disease.
Someone may want to tell Stephen Hawking that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theorists have prevented the modeling of biologically-based cause and effect, which could have been used to treat his debilitating disease. Hopefully, Hawking will not take the news too hard. Last I heard, he was considering assisted suicide, and this is the kind of news that might push him over the edge.
Other atheists, including most evolutionists, are still fighting against Greg Bear’s accurate representations of top-down causation in his science fiction novels and in presentations like this one: The Darwin Code: Intelligent Design without God
New ideas enter science grudgingly. New paradigms are resisted with a vengeance.
Bear does an admirable job of trying to square religious beliefs and scientific reason when functional magnetic resonance imaging is used to see what a revelation looks like.
My comment: Meanwhile, neo-Darwinian theorists refuse to let a curing or caring creationist’s foot in the door. Others, like Stephen Hawking, appear to have sealed their own fate via their faith in theoretical nonsense. At the same time they tend to claim that anything metaphysical is pseudoscience.
Also see: Why Science Needs Metaphysics
Theories are more underdetermined by empirical results than ever, but scientists are reluctant to admit that the arguments they put forward are philosophical and metaphysical.
[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent…. Evolution was defined as “changes in gene frequencies in natural populations.” The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another…. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.
My comment: George FR Ellis, mentioned above, also co-authored with Denis Noble and Timothy O’Connor