See also: RNA-mediated events and the “theory of everything.”

Freeze-thaw cycles and nucleic acid stability: what’s safe for your samples?

Conclusion:

…you probably need to put a handful of your representative samples to the test in the context of your particular assay, to know what’s an acceptable number of freeze-thaw cycles for your purpose.

My comment: Theoretical physicists and evolutionary theorists share a purpose. Their purpose is antithetical to accurate representations of what is known about the biologically-based stability of DNA, RNA, or organized genomes of all living genera. For instance, theorists might claim that the de novo creation of RNA automagically led to the de novo creation of genes outside the context of stability. The stability of de novo genes can then be linked from evolutionary mechanisms to the emergence of biodiversity manifested in the differences in cell types of all individuals of all living genera.

For their purpose, theorists ignore facts about changes in pH; changes in temperature, and changes in concentrations of potentially damaging metal ions and their concomitant free radicals during freezing and thawing. Indeed, some theorists may think they can convince serious scientists that the recovery of DNA from fossilized bones, which they claim are millions of years old, can be linked to a “theory of everything.”

Theorists may even think the a “theory of everything” has some explanatory power. Some theorists suggest everything evolved during millions to billions of years of random events that link mutations and/or natural selection to the evolution of biodiversity.

I would be surprised to learn about a theorist who had ever worked in a clinical laboratory. It would be even more surprising to listen to a clinical laboratory scientist attempt to explain how recovered DNA from partially or completely fossilized bone could be used to predict how and when extinct species or extant species “evolved.”

If a clinical laboratory scientist who believes that biodiversity evolved based on evidence from the fossil record, I would ask if the scientist knew anything about quality control.

For example, see: A better way to grow cells. In the light of what not to do if you want to maximize potential growth via cell type differentiation…

Excerpt:

It turns out the agar is the problem, says microbiologist Yoichi Kamagata at Hokkaido University in Japan.

The standard recipes require mixing agar and phosphate solution before sterilizing them via intense heat. But Kamagata and his team realized this sequence creates hydrogen peroxide, which destroys most of the cells. Sterilize the ingredients separately, and voila, a roughly tenfold increase in cell survival rates.

This shows why understanding nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled RNA-mediated cell type differentiation is important enough to challenge evolutionary theorists who claim that natural selection leads to evolution. What is known about nutritional epigenetics in microbial cultures must come first because theorists don’t understand anything about the biophysically constrained links from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in species from microbes to man.

The message is in the media and it informs only the serious scientists who are capable of pattern recognition that links physics, chemistry, and biology via conserved molecular mechanisms.

See also: What is consciousness? The hard problem and There Is No Theory of Everything and Dawkins’s Contributions as a Scientist Are Already Past Their Sell-By Date, Says Nature Reviewer

Keep Reading