Comparing scientific claims
Posted on July 24, 2014 by James Kohl.
Excerpt: “This method of conducting science has led the Christian right to make some incredible — as in, not credible – scientific claims in the past, almost too many to document.”
My comments: Evolutionary theorist’s worst misrepresentations of the Christian right’s scientific claims continue to be substituted for experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that might otherwise support the pseudoscientific claims of social scientists. Attacks like this one commonly show up in discussion groups where theory is touted but scientific facts are never discussed.
For example, see: Single-residue insertion switches the quaternary structure and exciton states of cryptophyte light-harvesting proteins
Abstract excerpt: “…cryptophytes have evolved a structural switch controlled by an amino acid insertion to modulate excitonic interactions and therefore the mechanisms used for light harvesting.”
My comment: The article also states “This strong connection between structural biology and physics means that ultrafast light-harvesting functions are under genetic and evolutionary control.”
My claim: Amino acid insertions differentiate cell types of individuals of all species (see for examples in primates Dobzhansky, 1964 and in 1973: “Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.”
Attributing the control of ultrafast light-harvesting functions to genetics and evolution eliminates the epigenetic effect of light on amino acid substitutions in the context of “Let there be light” from Biblical Genesis.
Eliminating the epigenetic effect of light on amino acid substitutions also eliminates the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes that links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man via conserved molecular mechanisms that are biophysically-constrained.
The misrepresentations of scientifically established cause and effect by evolutionary theorists led to this claim in a book published on June 14, 2013: “… genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world.”
For contrast, “Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model” was published on the same day and it attests to the obvious link from ecological variation to ecological adaptations via amino acid substitutions with examples of biologically based cause and effect in different model organisms.
My conclusion: Minimally, this model can be compared to any other factual representations of epigenesis and epistasis for determination of the best scientific ‘fit’.
Evolutionary theorists have had the opportunity for more than a year to compare their claims about constraint-breaking mutations to what serious scientists know about biophysically-constrained ecological adaptations that are clearly linked from ecological variation via nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitutions. Instead, we will probably continue to see the severity of their attacks increase as they are backed into a scientific corner from which they cannot emerge with their ridiculous theories about mutations and natural selection intact.
The refutations of evolutionary are in the news with a new refutation appearing almost daily. For example: “This study is a great step towards the identification of genes related to olfaction stemming from the increasing number of sequenced mammalian genomes,” said Sergios-Orestis Kolokotronis, an assistant professor of biology at Fordham University in New York City, who was not involved in the study.”
Conserved molecular mechanisms can be compared to pseudoscientific nonsense about constraint-breaking mutations in any species or in all species (e.g., from insects to elephants). “SIR – (Z)-7-dodecen-l-yl acetate is used by the females of more than 126 species of insects, especially Lepidoptera, as part of their pheromone blends to attract insect males1. Female Asian elephants, Elephas maximus, also use a pheromone to signal to males their readiness to mate2.”
For comparison, here is the only immediate challenge to my statement (with my emphasis) that “Evolutionary theorist’s worst misrepresentations of the Christian right’s scientific claims continue to be substituted for experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that might otherwise support the pseudoscientific claims of social scientists.”
Response (with my emphasis): Your claims about “all” evolutionists are false and a lie.
Note the change from evolutionary theorist’s to evolutionists.
Perhaps someone with more personal integrity will answer this question: Which evolutionary theorist claims that ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations via the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically-constrained cause and effect in species from microbes to man?
Dobzhansky (1973) did that, but he claimed to be a Creationist and an Evolutionist, not an evolutionary theorist.
“Others maintain that as random mutations arise, complexity emerges as a side effect, even without natural selection to help it along. Complexity, they say, is not purely the result of millions of years of fine-tuning through natural selection—the process that Richard Dawkins famously dubbed “the blind watchmaker.” To some extent, it just happens.”
Attempts have failed each time I have asked any evolutionary theorist to explain how they think the observable complexity of biodiversity arose in the context of what might be considered by any molecular biologist (e.g, since Dobzhansky) to be biologically plausible. Thus, Dobzhansky’s (1964) denigration of evolutionary theorists appears to have stood the test of time (50 years). He wrote: “The notion has gained some currency that the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is “bird watching” or “butterfly collecting.” Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists!”
I am merely seconding that notion about all evolutionary theorists because the claim has gone unchallenged for too long. If Dobzhansky’s claim was false or if he deliberately lied, someone should have by now defended evolutionary theorists by providing experimental evidence of biologically based cause and effect to support their theories about mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of biophysically-constrained biodiversity. Claims that I am a liar or that I am making false claims have never been supported by experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect. That’s why others are attempting to elicit answers from evolutionary theorists in the context of Dobzhansky’s works.
See for example: Combating Evolution to Fight Disease
Excerpt: “The evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously noted that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” but perhaps, too, “nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of biology.” Although the latter might be an exaggeration, an important gap is being filled by molecular understanding of the genesis of variation that confers the ability to evolve.”
My 7/15/14 comment (#2) published to the Science Magazine site: Re: “Molecular biology and evolutionary biology have been separate disciplines and scientific cultures: The former is mechanistic and focused on molecules; the latter is theoretical and focused on populations.” Now see: A mechanistic link between gene regulation and genome architecture in mammalian development for the refutation of neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific nonsense.
Experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect does not support ideas about mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of biodiversity.
Experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect supports the fact that ecological variation leads to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations in species from microbes to man via conserved molecular mechanisms.
My 3/17/14 comment (#1) published to the Science Magazine site:
Darwin probably anticipated the insemination of population genetics that led to the bastardization of his detailed observations in the “Modern Synthesis.” He politely insisted that ‘conditions of life’ be considered before natural selection.
There are two ‘conditions of life.’ It is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. Rosenberg and Queitsch now note the work with Dobzhansky’s rarely acknowledged claim: “I am a creationist and an evolutionist.” They also declare the need for “Deep understanding of the mechanisms that generate variation at the molecular level…”
Deep understanding of the ‘conditions of life’ does not come from theory.
Problems with the “modern synthesis” now lead us back to the facts about biologically-based cause and effect that Darwin and Dobzhansky approached with humility, which are the same biological facts that evolutionists approached with ignorance about behavioral affects and the arrogance that accompanies that ignorance. Rosenberg and Queitsch echo the sentiments of those who have been subjected to academic suppression.
Clearly, however, “nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of biology” is not an exaggeration. It is a common sense statement about the biologically plausible genesis of functional cell types. Population genetics and evolutionary theories abandoned the biophysical constraints of ecological variation and the physiology of reproduction, which enable epigenetically-effected nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled receptor-mediated ecological adaptations and species diversity via the complexities of protein folding and niche construction.
It’s time for biophysicists to tell theorists and pathologists how to differentiate between theories about the genesis of different cell types and the biological facts about the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations that enable the genesis of different cell types in individuals of different species. Simply put, it’s time to stop trying to explain ecological adaptations in the context of mutations and evolution.
My 7/24/13 conclusion to this blog post: A special issue on “The integration of evolutionary biology with physiological science” was published on June 1, 2014. See the table of contents:
Evolutionary theorists have had more than 50 years to respond to claims made about amino acid substitutions by Dobzhanzky that have been reiterated by me and by others who have no model that links atoms to ecosystems but who have somewhat blindly continued to present new experimental evidence from molecular epigenetics that refutes pseudoscientific nonsense when it is integrated into a model. Claims that serious scientists are making false claims or that they are lying should be viewed in the context of scientific claims based on experimental evidence.
Clearly, the evolutionary theorists have never been more than bird-watchers or butterfly collectors. If they were anything more than pseudoscientists, they would be attempting to explain how biodiversity arose — as I did in the context of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled cell type differentiation that links ecological variation via amino acid substitutions, which are manifested in the morphological and behavioral phenotypes of all ecologically adapted species via the conserved molecular mechanisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction.
Abstract: This atoms to ecosystems model of ecological adaptations links nutrient-dependent epigenetic effects on base pairs and amino acid substitutions to pheromone-controlled changes in the microRNA / messenger RNA balance and chromosomal rearrangements. The nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled changes are required for the thermodynamic regulation of intracellular signaling, which enables biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent protein folding; experience-dependent receptor-mediated behaviors, and organism-level thermoregulation in ever-changing ecological niches and social niches. Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological, social, neurogenic and socio-cognitive niche construction are manifested in increasing organismal complexity in species from microbes to man. Species diversity is a biologically-based nutrient-dependent morphological fact and species-specific pheromones control the physiology of reproduction. The reciprocal relationships of species-typical nutrient-dependent morphological and behavioral diversity are enabled by pheromone-controlled reproduction. Ecological variations and biophysically constrained natural selection of nutrients cause the behaviors that enable ecological adaptations. Species diversity is ecologically validated proof-of-concept. Ideas from population genetics, which exclude ecological factors, are integrated with an experimental evidence-based approach that establishes what is currently known. This is known: Olfactory/pheromonal input links food odors and social odors from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man during their development.
Video representation (5.5 minutes) Published to figshare. com on 10 Oct 2013 Nutrient-dependent / pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation
Retired medical laboratory scientist
Try Our Potent Pheromones Risk Free!
Backed by Scientific Research AND
a 100% Money Back Guarantee!
With our no hassle 60 day money back guarantee you have nothing to lose.Read Our Risk Free Guarantee to you!
Order by Mail or FAX
Trademarks & Notices: LuvEssentials is not affiliated in any way with WebMD, CNN, Discovery Health. All trademarks and registered trademarks appearing on LuvEssentials are the property of their respective owners.
Orders that were shipped by free USPS Mail and are returned to us will be assessed a return processing fee of $7.00 US Dollars. Orders totaling over $190.00 US Dollars, before any discount, that are returned to us will be assessed a return processing fee of 25%.
Please note, the testimonials we display are all real; however, any photos accompanying these testimonials are stock photography, not actual customers. We do this to protect the privacy of our customers.
Also, in accordance with FTC guidelines, we want to make it explicitly clear that the testimonials we display throughout this website are based on the unique experiences that some of our customers have shared with us. We cannot promise that you will experience similar benefits from using our product. If you are not satisfied with our product for any reason, simply return the product within 60 days for a full refund excluding the costs of shipping and handling. Please contact us with any questions you may have.