I need to complete my paper on nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations, extract myself from the nonsense about evolution, and provide a more extensive list detailing the involvement of amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types in all individuals of all species. The problem is that I’m having too much fun responding to comments on a biology teacher’s blog.
See: One crank dies, another rises to take his place. Of course, I’m the “crank” but after two days of almost non-stop abuse, one of the participants finally asked “How do you get miRNA, let alone DNA, into a cell?”
In 2012 I wrote: 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). In yeasts, epigenetic changes driven by nutrition might then have led to the creation of novel cell types, which are required at evolutionary advent of sexual reproduction (Jin et al., 2011). These epigenetic changes probably occur across the evolutionary continuum that includes both nutrition-dependent reproduction in unicellular organisms and sexual reproduction in mammals. For example, ingested plant microRNAs influence gene expression across kingdoms (Zhang et al., 2012). In mammals, this epigenetically links what mammals eat to changes in gene expression (McNulty et al., 2011) and to new genes required for the evolutionary development of the mammalian placenta (Lynch, Leclerc, May, & Wagner, 2011) and the human brain (Zhang, Landback, Vibranovski, & Long, 2011).
You really must look into how many times David Marjanović has told me that mutations cause evolution before he bothered to ask me about how nutrient uptake enables ecological adaptations. His comments and those of another professional: ChasCPeterson, will help you to understand why I enjoy responding to all the nonsense.
I’ve continued to respond with the integration of biological facts about human brain development that finally led others to conclude in a report published yesterday that Aerobic Glycolysis in the Human Brain Is Associated with Development and Neotenous Gene Expression. Their findings are reported in the news as: Sugar-burning in the adult human brain is associated with continued growth, and remodeling
Excerpt: “Using both the adult and developmental data, we were able to study gene expression at each point in time,” describes Hawrylycz. “From there, we were able to see the roles of those genes that were highly expressed in regions with aerobic glycolysis. As it turns out, those genes are consistently involved in the remodeling and maturation process, synaptic growth and neurogenesis—all factors in neoteny.” “The regions we identified as being neotenous are areas of the cortex particularly associated with development of intelligence and learning,” explains Hawrylycz. “Our results suggest that aerobic glycolysis, or extra fuel consumption, is a marker for regions of the brain that continue to grow and develop in similar ways to the early human brain.”
My comment: In my model, nutrient-dependent aerobic glycolysis links the epigenetic effects of food odors and pheromones to the amino acid substitutions that differentiate antigenic properties of the human influenza virus, and differentiate cell type in yeasts, in nematodes, in insects, in vertebrates, in other mammals, in other primates, in a population of modern humans that appears to have arisen in what is now central China during the past ~30,000 years. Ultimately, the differentiation of cell types leads to experience-dependent receptor-mediated Mosaic Copy Number Variation in Human Neurons. Please see my comment to the Science Magazine site on “High-throughput imaging of neuronal activity in Caenorhabditis elegans.”
Of course, none of the people from the Allen Institute for Brain Science will be joining the discussion on the biology teacher’s blog because it would be a waste of their “resources,” which proved crucial to helping pinpoint “…gene expression in different regions at various points in development.” These various points correspond precisely with the epigenetic effects of olfactory/pheromonal input on brain development in insects and mammals, which are clearly hormone-organized and hormone-activated. Those various points cannot be linked to anything involved in mutation-driven evolution in any species, because there is no such thing as mutation-driven evolution.
Therefore, I must force myself to stop participating among scientifically illiterate fools in hopes that I may use my resources to make a difference in what others understand about ecological adaptations so it can be compared the ridiculous theory that evolutionary theorists and biology teachers have been taught to believe in. Meanwhile, that’s the ridiculous theory that’s being taught to your children and grandchildren et al. And, as you can see by the comments about my works on the biology teacher’s blog, no amount of experimental evidence is likely to make a difference in what’s been taught and what will continue to be taught.