Blood music orchestrates human life (2)

From: Blood music orchestrates human life (1)

The assessment of phylogenetic relationships that link the creation of sunlight and water to oxygen and microRNA biogenesis resolves all the pseudoscientific nonsense touted about the branches across the tree of life. Every so-called branch is exquisitely tuned into existence. The idea of random mutations has been eliminated from discussion among serious scientists.

See also: Precision medicine’s rosy predictions haven’t come true. We need fewer promises and more debate (2/7/19)

…the most frequent communications we receive have been along the lines of “I agree with you, but can’t speak up publicly for fear of losing my grants, alienating powerful people, or upsetting my dean.”

Historical perspective

The dean wanted me to declare a major before I could enroll for the next semester. In the late 1970s, I upset the dean of the biology department at the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) by commenting on the project that contributed to 25% of the grade in my Genetics course.  I claimed that the requirement to cut and paste chromosomes was best suited to an elementary school curriculum. I found out that he designed that project.

From the early 1980s to the early 1990s, I learned that foraging for food required food energy-dependent pheromone-controlled biophysical constraints on transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Bruce McEwen and the late Robert L. Moss inspired me to publish a book in 1995 with co-author Robert T. Franoeur.  The scent of eros: mysteries of odor in human sexuality.

Five years later, Elekonich and Robinson published: Organizational and activational effects of hormones on insect behavior (2000). They cited our 1996 review From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior. Elekonich moved to UNLV, and moved science forward with publication of Honey bees as a model for understanding mechanisms of life history transitions (2005).

See also: Elekonich MM[Author] I wonder how far others have come who pursued a degree in biology at UNLV despite the dean’s cut and paste requirement. I dropped out.

For comparison, see: Effects of flight activity and age on oxidative damage in the honey bee, Apis mellifera (2018)

The delayed scientific progress cannot be attributed to anyone outside academia, which means the unnecessary suffering and premature death caused by biologically uninformed theorists can be attributed to academics who became “cut and paste” theorists.  What’s missing from their gene-centric theories of mutation-driven evolution?

See: Mutagenesis of orco impairs foraging but not oviposition in the hawkmoth Manduca sexta (2/5/19)

Overall, OR-mediated olfaction is essential for foraging and pollination behaviors, but plant-seeking and oviposition behaviors appear largely unaffected.

SARCASM ALERT: I claim that plant-seeking and oviposition behavior did not automagically evolve in species that starved to death before they mutated and became a new species.

They cite Nakagawa T, Pellegrino M, Sato K, Vosshall LB, Touhara K (2012) Amino Acid Residues Contributing to Function of the Heteromeric Insect Olfactory Receptor Complex, and note that an insertion/deletion, called an Indel

“… generated a frameshift mutation introducing two stop codons downstream, giving rise to a truncated 72 residue protein, indicated through the predicted amino acid sequence.

The claim that the indel generated the mutation led to this announcement:

The #preprint is out! First demonstration of germ linè cell transformation in the hawkmoth Manduca sexta. Using reverse genetics to understand the sensory basis of a natural behavior between an insect and a plant.

LB Vosshall’s comment: ORCO MUTANT MOTH Y’ALL!! Mutagenesis of orco impairs foraging but not oviposition in the hawkmoth Manduca sexta

What does that mean to a serious scientist?

My comments:  “…the hawkmoth…M. sexta and its host…Datura wrightii…” model the insect-plant relationship that links the creation of sunlight from light-tracking in Brugmansia to fixation of  amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types across kingdoms.

Dobzhansky (1973) noted that others linked differences in 1-72 amino acid sequences of cytochrome C from yeasts + molds to insects + vertebrates (birds, mammals + primates) One amino acid substitution differentiated gorillas + humans and 56-72 differentiated the unicellular organisms.

The difference in fixation of one amino acid substitution in gorillas compared to humans and chimps links more than 1700 hemoglobin variants to differences in human populations via the EDAR V370A variant in the mouse-to-human model of morphological and behavioral biodiversity.

All serious scientists have linked Dobzhansky’s joke about the “light of evolution” to the overwhelming ignorance of theorists who start with mutations and link them to evolution despite what is known about light energy-dependent changes in base pairs.

No one could be more disgusted by the fact that Precision medicine’s rosy predictions haven’t come true.  But no serious scientists think We need fewer promises and more debate (2/7/19)

All serious scientists will continue to take the only logical approach.

Some may claim that energy emerged from nothing and link the energy to the creation of biomolecules.

For example: The Dynamical Emergence of Biology From Physics: Branching Causation via Biomolecules

Others will link the light-activated energy-dependent assembly of the peptide nucleic acid-microRNA nanocomplex to the dual modulation of cancer-related microRNAs and the cure for all diseases. That is what Accelerated Evolution Biotechnologies has already done. The fact that they are so far ahead of other cancer researchers make the others very angry.

For example Dr. Darren Saunders, a cancer biologist at the University of New South Wales, Australia, tweeted the researchers were “selling unicorns.”

See: ‘They’re Selling Unicorns’: Israel Cancer Cure Claim Debunked by Experts

See for comparison: RNA editing in plants: A comprehensive survey of bioinformatics tools and databases

RNA editing is a widespread epitranscriptomic mechanism by which primary RNAs are specifically modified through insertions/deletions or nucleotide substitutions. In plants, RNA editing occurs in organelles (plastids and mitochondria), involves the cytosine to uridine modification (rarely uridine to cytosine) within protein-coding and non-protein-coding regions of RNAs and affects organelle biogenesis, adaptation to environmental changes and signal transduction.

This is another example of what ages 10+ can learn about light-activated links from the creation of subatomic particles to cytosis and biophysically constrained viral latency. See: Subatomic  and Cytosis

The authors of RNA editing in plants: A comprehensive survey of bioinformatics tools and databases claim that RNA editing in plant organelles is a “…fascinating but yet under investigated process.”

Continued in Blood music orchestrates human life (3)



Author: James Kohl

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *