Summary: Quantized energy as information has been linked from what organisms eat to biophysically constrained membrane protein construction in the context of viral latency and healthy longevity. Cryoelectron microscopy (aka electron cryomicroscopy for obfuscation) clearly links what is known about the virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA to all pathology or from energy-dependent RNA-mediated DNA repair to species survival.

Membrane Proteins – Richard Henderson May 31, 2018

Energy as information and biophysically constrained membrane protein construction – James Kohl Feb 15, 2017.

My 2014 review of nutritional epigenetics was published in 2018. I linked the energy-dependent creation of microRNAs to all biodiversity by starting with the creation of energy and linking it to ecological adaptations via the physiology of reproduction and Darwin’s “conditions of life.”

See: Nutrient-dependent Pheromone-Controlled Ecological Adaptations: From Angstroms to Ecosystems

Concluding paragraphs:

The plausibility and ecological validity of Kohl’s Laws in the context of Darwin’s ‘conditions of life’ can be compared to theories about biologically-based cause and effect in the context of species diversity. In mammals, for example, the explanatory power of a model of ecological variation and biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations became clear with companion papers published in 2013. See for review [26].

The companion papers [159,160] told a new short story of ecological adaptations. In the context of climate change and changes in diet, the story began with what probably was a nutrient-dependent base pair change and a variant epiallele that arose in a human population in what is now central China. Apparently, the effect of the epiallele was adaptive and it was manifested in the context of an effect on sweat, skin, hair, and teeth. In another mammal, such as the mouse, the effect on sweat, skin, hair, and teeth is probably due to a nutrient-dependent epigenetic effect on hormones responsible for the tweaking of immense gene networks that metabolize nutrients to pheromones.

The pheromones appear to control the nutrient-dependent epigenetically-effected hormone-dependent organization and hormone-activation of reproductive sexual behavior in mammals such as mice and humans, but also in invertebrates and in microbes as previously indicated. The ecological adaptations, which appear to be manifested in the human population are detailed in these two reports [159,160]. The ecological adaptations are likely to be nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. If so, ecological variation probably leads to ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction, which is manifested in increasing organismal complexity and species diversity. If not, there may be something as yet unknown about mutations and evolution that makes sense in the light of what is known about nutritional epigenetics and the molecular biology of species from microbes to man.

See for comparison: Guide to the classics: Darwin’s On the Origin of Species

Throughout the book, he repeatedly addresses creationist views and shows that they are incompatible with the evidence.

He started with God’s creation of the “conditions of life” and linked them to ecological adaptations via his observations that all organisms need to eat or species become extinct. Biologically uninformed science idiots bastardized his claims by putting “natural selection” first. Feynman put their claims into the context of this lecture on food energy and human idiocy.

For evidence of Darwin’s claims about the conditions of life, see:

4

IF under changing conditions of life organic beings present individual differences in almost every part of their structure, and this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to their geometrical rate of increase, a severe struggle for life at some age, season, or year, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of life, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variations had ever occurred useful to each being’s own welfare, in the same manner as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being ever do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance, these will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, or the survival of the fittest, I have called Natural Selection.

5

“…the greater variability of species having wider ranges than of those with restricted ranges, lead to the conclusion that variability is generally related to the conditions of life to which each species has been exposed during several successive generations.”

“When a variation is of the slightest use to any being, we cannot tell how much to attribute to the accumulative action of natural selection, and how much to the definite action of the conditions of life.”

“Instances could be given of similar varieties being produced from the same species under external conditions of life as different as can well be conceived; and, on the other hand, of dissimilar varieties being produced under apparently the same external conditions. Again, innumerable instances are known to every naturalist, of species keeping true, or not varying at all, although living under the most opposite climates. Such considerations as these incline me to lay less weight on the direct action of the surrounding conditions, than on a tendency to vary, due to causes of which we are quite ignorant.”

6

“By my theory these allied species are descended from a common parent; and during the process of modification, each has become adapted to the conditions of life of its own region, and has supplanted and exterminated its original parent-form and all the transitional varieties between its past and present states.”

Darwin’s theory linked his conditions of life to energy-dependent ecological adaptations via construction of cell membranes in all cell types of all individuals of all living genera. Now is the time to stop biologically uninformed theorists from continuing to tout their pseudoscientific nonsense and accept the fact that creationist views are incompatible with the experimental evidence of top-down energy-dependent causation and biophysically constrained effects on cell membranes linked to differences in morphological and behavioral phenotypes.

 

Keep Reading