Order and disorder: Ecological adaptations not mutations
Posted on August 2, 2014 by James Kohl.
In the context of order and disorder that includes what is known about quantum physics and light-induced amino acid substitutions in plants and animals, as well as the control of the functional rearrangement of influenza hemagglutinin, I’m beginning to see even more confusion/obfuscation enter the picture of biophysically-constrained ecological adaptations.
The nutrient-dependent ecological adaptations are now being put into the context of mutation-initiated natural selection and the evolution of biodiversity (i.e., “Evolution for Dummies”).
ECOLOGICAL ADAPTATIONS (not mutations)
Nutrient-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance are readily linked from ecological variation to ecological adaptations via conserved molecular mechanisms that eliminate mutation-initiated natural selection and evolution from consideration. However, since no experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect has shown that mutations are ever fixed in the organized genomes of any population of any species, researchers now refer to the amino acid substitutions that are fixed in the genome as if they were epimutations (translation: epigenetically-effected mutations).
For example, in this article about epimutations, microRNAs also are referred to as small RNAs and labeled sRNAs with this mention of what a small RNA is. “Most of these sRNAs average 21–24 nucleotides in length…”
A microRNA (abbreviated miRNA) is a small non-coding RNA molecule (containing about 22 nucleotides). Thus, the quantum leap from biophysically constrainted light-induced amino acid substitutions to the nutrient-dependent microRNA/messenger RNA balance that controls genome stability via epigenetically-effected amino acid substitutions is replaced with the concept of epigenetically-effected mutations, which are called epimutuations.
By mixing the theory of mutation-initiated natural selection and the evolution of biodiversity with biological facts about how ecological variation leads to epigenetically-effected ecological adaptations manifested in biodiversity, the senior author of the “epimutations” article sets the stage for his claim to be “the first” to find something new and important.
“It could be like the discovery of other molecular phenomena like introns or microRNAs, where it all began with just one example,” said Heitman. “We think this discovery may turn out to be generalized fairly quickly.”
What discovery? They link nutrient-dependent microRNAs from ecological variation to ecological adaptations in the context of conserved molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man.
Nutrient-dependent epigenetically-effected alternative splicings of pre-mRNA, which can be called microRNAs or sRNAs result in amino acid substitutions that enable organisms to adapt to ecological change. When the supply of nutrients is reduced, starvation causes experience-dependent creation of receptors that enable nutrient uptake from a novel source.
If a novel source cannot be used, the pheromone-controlled physiology of nutrient-dependent reproduction leads to death of individuals and may lead to the extinction of any species that could not ecologically adapt via experience dependent de novo creation of receptors that let nutrients into the cell. The species in which de novo creation of receptors does not occur quickly enough do not mutate into another species that was somehow naturally selected to “evolve.”
Ideas about epimutations that include what is known about sRNAs but ignore facts about the nutrient-dependent microRNA/messenger RNA balance, amino acid substitutions, and epigenetically-effected morphological and behavioral diversity will make it possible for evolutionary theorists to continue touting their nonsense about mutation-initiated natural selection until serious scientists say ENOUGH!
In the context of order and disorder, some researchers have already said this. I’m not the only one who has had ENOUGH of the pseudoscientific nonsense from population geneticists.
“[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent…. The anglophone tradition was taught. I was taught, and so were my contemporaries, and so were the younger scientists. 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…. No, it wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.”
If you’ve had ENOUGH of this pseudoscientific nonsense, and want to learn more about biological facts, you may also want to learn more about why Israeli middle schools are now teaching the theory of evolution. They appear to be using it as an example of pseudoscientific nonsense that can be compared to what is known about ecological variation and how the disorder or variation leads to well-ordered de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes via nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions that stabilize DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man.
When will other school systems begin teaching students about the differences between ridiculous theories and biological facts about biophysically-constrained ecological adaptations are manifested in biodiversity?
Earlier today I received the reprint of an article published by serious scientists in the prestigious journal Cell: Starvation-Induced Transgenerational Inheritance of Small RNAs in C. elegans. After I read more about the starvation-induced link to cell type differentiation in C. elegans, I was not surprised to see the stated goal of Oded Rechavi’s lab in Israel:
Finally, serious scientists are no longer willing to wait for evolutionary theorists to start learning about biology. Like a few others, the Rechavi lab researchers are attacking the pseudoscientific nonsense of mutation-initiated natural selection and the evolution of biodiversity.
How much clearer can it be that starving nematodes must adapt to ecological changes or their species becomes extinct. How much clearer can it be that ecological variation in the diet of nematodes is what causes nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions that differentiate the pheromone-controlled cell types of different nematode species? In a news release published on January 13, 2013, Ralf Sommer said: “The patterns of synaptic connections perfectly mirror the fundamental differences in the feeding behaviours of P. pacificus and C. elegans.”
P. pacificus is a nematode species with teeth; C. elegans is a nematode species without teeth. The neuronal networks of the two species are wired differently and their nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction is the most obvious cause of their differences in morphology and differences in their behavior.
No experimental evidence suggests that one species of nematode mutated into another. In fact, experimental evidence from C. elegans already has shown that mutations are not fixed in the DNA of the C. elegans organized genome. That finding “…set the stage for the development of more general theoretical models explaining the fate of new alleles…” but without fixed mutations in DNA, no model can explain the fate of new alleles in the context of natural selection that leads to the evolution of biodiversity. Mutations that are not fixed cannot be “naturally selected” and the result of the mutations cannot be evolutionary diversity.
Evolutionary theorists must invent new terms that can be used to describe how biodiversity arises, and some of them have decided to invent the term “epimutation” and attempt to explain how nutrient-dependent epigenetic changes in the organized DNA of species from microbes to man lead to the evolution of biodiversity. Shall serious scientists wish them luck with the invention of their new theories about epimutations and the evolution of biodiversity? Or will serious scientists mount an unending attack on the pseudoscientific nonsense of theorists and begin to make scientific progress that can more rapidly be made if people aren’t taught to believe in a ridiculous theory instead of biological facts about how ecological variation results in ecological adaptations? I hope that my published and unpublished works make it clear that I prefer the Rechavi lab’s attack strategy.
“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.”
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.