Researchers develop non-invasive method to detect tumor-causing mutations in saliva
Excerpt: “…a multiplexible electrochemical sensor uses electrode chips to enable vesicular entities in saliva called exosomes to rapidly release molecular constituents (DNA, RNA and proteins) while simultaneously detecting any mutations in tumor-causing DNA sequences. The total detection time is less than 10 minutes and required a small saliva sample.”
My comment: This news attests to the complexity of systems biology, which links amino acid substitutions to mutated DNA in cancer, and also links amino acid substitutions from nutrigenomics and pharmacogenomics (e.g., Alpha Genomix) to cancer treatment.
For example, metabolic profiling links EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors to amino acid substitutions via the monooxygenase, cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4). This links thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation from RNA-mediated events to amino acid substitutions in cancer and to its effective treatment.
The link from physics to the chemistry of protein folding is less likely to be considered by those who were taught to believe that mutations in DNA are more important than the RNA-mediated events, which are directly linked to the bio-physically constrained thermodynamic stability of metabolic and genetic networks. Physics, chemistry, and molecular biology are all considered in the context of metabolic profiling that links metabolic and genetic networks.
This profiling is currently available in the US, and it is typically covered by Medicare — given the appropriate diagnosis codes. The profiling links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA via nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions that differentiate healthy and cancerous cell types. The epigenetic/metabolic link to the physical landscape of DNA attests to the relative stability of healthy organized genomes. That healthy genomic stability can be compared to the genomic and metabolic instability associated with pathology.
WHY NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, AND THE MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF GENOMIC STABILITY?
Evolutionary theorists continue to tout pseudoscientific nonsense that links mutations to increasing organismal complexity without the requirement for genomic stability. Their theories link mutations to natural selection, which eliminates “less fit” or diseased organisms from populations at a faster rate than the rate at which healthy organisms with organized genomes can reproduce. In their ridiculous theories, mutations associated with cancer, starvation, and/or predation may be beneficial.
Intelligent people who have not been taught to believe in theoretical nonsense are less likely to believe that mutations are beneficial. They are more likely to believe that nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions are beneficial to all organisms because all organisms must eat and reproduce to stabilize the organized genomes or their species.
GIVEN THE OBVIOUS FACTS, WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO TEACH YOUNG STUDENTS TO BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF EVOLUTION?
News that evolutionary theory will be taught to younger students in Israel included this intelligent perspective. “…learning about evolution is not the primary function of the decision, but rather to use it as a building block for students to learn more about their ecology.”
There was no intelligent perspective in the news from the UK. Preparing local schools for teaching evolution in the classroom
Excerpt: Workshops included creating a “washing line of time”; discussing whether this is at odds with ‘religious time’ and the biblical explanation of how Earth developed, making rockets to explore the Big Bang theory and analysing fossils to ask whether, and how, science is compatible with creation and religious faith.
My comment: Discussing the Big Bang theory and analyzing fossils has contributed to the pseudoscientific nonsense taught by evolutionary theorists who invented neo-Darwinism. “[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.”
Haldane, whose works led to the teaching of assumptions, also said this: I suppose the process of acceptance will pass through the usual four stages:
1. This is worthless nonsense,
2. This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view,
3. This is true, but quite unimportant,
4. I always said so.
(Review of The Truth About Death, in: Journal of Genetics 1963, Vol. 58, p.464)” ― J.B.S. Haldane
Similarly, Neil de Grasse Tyson said: “Every great scientific truth goes through three phases. First, people deny it. Second, they say it conflicts with the Bible. Third, they say they’ve known it all along.”
For contrast, Max Planck said: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Theodosius Dobzhansky said: 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!
Unfortunatelym, the words of Planck and Dobzhansky suggest that evolutionary theorists will not accept the truth individually. They will wait until it is forced on them, collectively. Until then, serious scientists have a problem.
The UK school system seems intent on teaching the ridiculous bastardized version of Darwin’s theory, at the same serious scientists are Combating Evolution to Fight Disease by including what is currently known about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation. See, for example: RNA and dynamic nuclear organization.
Unfortunately, despite my attempts to include a common sense perspective on what has been known since Darwin included his ‘conditions of life’ in his theory, I was overwhelmed by the pseudoscientific nonsense of the participants in the discussion of teaching evolution in the classroom. That nonsense seems to be encouraged by the moderators at Phys.org News.
Fortunately, although cell type differentiation in this video is placed into the context of millions of years of co-evolution, no one is ignorant enough to continue putting evolution into the context of mutations that somehow lead to increasing organismal complexity. Thus, it will be only a matter of months until evolution is eliminated from any further consideration whatsoever as all experimental evidence continues to link ecological variation to ecological adaptations via nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types via their pheromone-controlled fixation in the DNA of organized genomes of species from microbes to man.
