Has anyone but me attempted to link light-induced amino acid substitutions from quantum physics to quantum biology in the context of the following works? All five published articles appear to be linked to quantum consciousness by the chemistry of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled feedback loops and chromatin loops that lead to increasing organismal complexity. The feedback loops are epigenetically linked from RNA-mediated events to protein folding and the stability of DNA in organized genomes.
I’ve reported claims that theorists are destroying the integrity of science, one of which bears repeating (below). Hopefully, someone has started to take into consideration that none of the links above support theories about molecules that evolve or people that evolve from microbes.
All the published works seem to support an atoms to ecosystems model that links the epigenetic landscape from the biological energy of the sun to the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding via RNA-mediated events that differentiate all cell types in species from microbes to man. The RNA-mediated events are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled and can be viewed in the context of conserved molecular mechanisms. The conserved molecular mechanisms are manifested in the physical landscape of DNA in organized genomes and in the biodiversity of morphological and behavioral phenotypes.
Unfortunately, I am reminded of how others viewed the works of Luca Turin. He was not supported by physicists or by neuroscientists. See my 2003 review of the book written about him The Emperor of Scent: A Story of Perfume, Obsession and the Last Mystery of the Senses. In the past decade, it does not seem to me that his works have elicited increasing support. Something is wrong, because it has become increasingly more difficult for theoretical physicists and evolutionary theorists to support their ridiculous claims without experimental evidence. Why not look at Turin’s and the links from his works to mine via GnRH in octopuses?
Instead, mounting evidence of biologically-based cause and effect has recently been used in an attempt to support what Matti Pitkanen calls his Topological Geometrodynamics (TGD) theory of everything.
See for examples: Was ribosome the first self-replicator? 1/11/15
Excerpt: “What emerged was dark matter and its emergence involved the emergence of all the others. Hens and eggs emerged simultaneously.”
Excerpt: “To sum up, communications would be a crucial aspect of being intelligent living system and the proposal is that magnetic body carrying dark matter and photons plays key role in these communications.”
My comment: If you learn of someone who has decided to start making sense in the context of what is currently known, please let me know. It will help me to choose what I post to this site and to my facebook pages.
See also Pitkanen’s January 12, 2015 update to his theory: “I received an interesting link (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/DNA_May_Have_Had_Humble_Beginnings_As_Nutrient_Carrier_999.html) about the indications that DNA may have had rather humble beginnings: it would have served as a nutrient carrier [I6].”
For comparison, see: Among different bacterial species existing in similar environments, DNA uptake (Palchevskiy & Finkel, 2009) appears to have epigenetically ‘fed’ interspecies methylation and speciation via conjugation (Fall et al., 2007; Finkel & Kolter, 2001; Friso & Choi, 2002). This indicates that reproduction began with an active nutrient uptake mechanism in heterospecifics and that the mechanism evolved to become symbiogenesis in the conspecifics of asexual organisms (Margulis, 1998). — excerpted from Kohl (2012)
Pitkanen continues to pirate my works and he attempts to integrate them into his ridiculous theory. If you like pseudoscientific nonsense, he touts plenty of it. However, in the process, he makes my ideas seem to have less validity despite the fact that they are framed in the context of Luca Turin’s links from quantum physics to biology. Also, Pitkanen’s piracy seems ridiculous after I have taken the time to support my ideas with details and citations in a series of published works that span the past two decades.
See also the comments from Alexander Unzicker, who has degrees in both physics and law and a PhD in neuroscience.
• “It annoys me too much to see another generation of physicists deterred by the dumb messy patchwork called the standard model of particle physics, that hides the basic problems physics ought to deal with.”
• “This book won’t appeal to particle physicists there is no way to convince an expert that he or she has done nonsense for thirty years.”
My comment: The fact that I still cannot find support for Luca Turin’s work among theoretical physicists may explain why my works are not well-received by evolutionary theorists. One would think that the representations of McFall-Ngai that appear to link light-induced amino acid substitutions from the stability of DNA in luminescent microbes to the stability of DNA in squid would invite more attention to details than attempts to pirate ideas about epigenetic links from Turin’s links and my links from quantum physics to Gunther Witzany’s Life is physics and chemistry and communication. Instead, what comes from Matti Pikanen is simultaneous hen-egg emergence followed by claims that biochemical communications may be important. Others seem to say nothing, for fear admitting they know nothing about links from physics and chemistry to biology.