‘Science’ sans experimental proof of mutations theory
James V. Kohl detailedl how quantized energy-dependent microRNA biogenesis links the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction to biophysically constrained viral latency and healthy longevity. Links from what organisms eat to the enzyme-dependent metabolism of food also link metabolic networks to microRNA-mediated genetic networks in the context of RNA interference. Drug therapies alter RNA interference by altering cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all species. For comparison, during the past 26 years, Kohl has detailed how the chemistry of protein folding is biophysically constrained at every level of biological organization by conserved molecular mechanisms.
Autophagy.Pro RNA-Mediated Perfuming The Mind
The Second Draft of the History of Science by Carl Zimmer
Excerpt: “In reality, a lot of science-related conclusions fall apart or have to be revised in later years. Science itself is starting to grapple with its flaws, with papers like “Most Published Research Findings Are False.” On the other hand, some findings gain strength over the years, as more and more evidence supports them. But those studies pile up like sand grains, and so it’s easy for journalists to overlook them, even after they’ve grown into a mountain.”
My comment: Does anyone else find it incredibly unfortunate that the History of Science includes no attempt to prove the theory of mutation-driven evolution? Thus, we have had no scientific support for a theory widely touted as support for ‘natural selection.” Indeed, mutation-driven evolution was finally refuted only yesterday (i.e., on 9/13/13) in a “Nature Communications” article titled: “An experimental test on the probability of extinction of new genetic variants.”
Does anyone think that article will make a difference to evolutionary theorists, or can we all expect to continue see the propagation of ridiculous “mutation-driven evolution” in the absence of any scientific evidence for it? I hope Retro Report investigates the propagation of mutations theory in the absence of any scientific evidence for it whatsoever. That fact should be considered in the context of the History of Science, and the future of scientific pursuits.
My response to a comment in the context of “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” Here it is!
September 15, 2013
David, thanks for asking, but the article is OPEN ACCESS at https://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130913/ncomms3417/full/ncomms3417.html
What I’m saying is without their obfuscation: ” Our study confirms the key results from classical population genetics …” As I recall, it was studies on peppered moths and industrial melanism that led, in part, to the classical misrepresentation of predator selection as the mutation-driven force in mutation-driven evolution.
This article addresses the problem with fixation, which can be placed into the context of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution sans mutations theory, since Darwin’s ‘conditions of life’ are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. So is the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man, and reproduction occurs via conserved molecular mechanisms that I have detailed with across-species examples in my model. https://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/20553/27989
If fixation had ever been linked to mutations, but not to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction, the authors might have been able to continue to tout theory. Instead, they refuted mutation-driven evolution but say “…our results show that further empirical work and more theoretical models are required to accurately predict the fate of that allele over long time spans.” They indicate they are simply waiting to begin touting another theoretical model.
Why do we need more theoretical models to predict the fate of any allele over long time spans? It is perfectly clear that epigenetic effects of the sensory environment arrive via olfactory/pheromonal input and control the nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction, which controls the fate of alleles across the evolutionary continuum?
What we need is to simply acknowledge the biological facts. The authors of this article do that, but only in passing. They say: “Our study confirms… and highlights [the fact] that the nature of adaptation can be complex.” That complexity is obviously found in the systems biology of epigenetically effected alternative splicings and fixation of alleles, which is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, which I began modeling in the early 1990′s.
Perhaps I should not have assumed that most people would know that new alleles are nutrient-dependent. That assumption led me to think it didn’t need to be proved, and that most people would accept the fact that fixation was pheromone-controlled, not mutation-driven and mutation-controlled. I was wrong to expect others would accept the facts instead of continuing to accept the theory of mutation-driven evolution.