“Our principle aim in the lab is to attack scientific dogmas.” That claim went missing from the Oded Rechavi lab web page in September 2014. Perhaps it drew unwanted attention to the lab. No matter, the short perspective: RNA and dynamic nuclear organization helped to clarify the fact that “…the interactions between pre-mRNA and proteins fine-tune alternative splicing in a manner that can gradually create new protein functionalities without the need to create additional genes and without affecting existing proteins [4-6].” Clearly, the focus on RNA-mediated events and amino acid substitutions that stabilize DNA in organized genomes will lead to a future in which no serious scientist reports results in terms of mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of biodiversity.
Pseudoscientific dogma: “I am absolutely certain that if you showed this statement to any professor of biology or genetics in any accredited university anywhere in the world that 100% of them would say that “Random mutations are the substrate upon which directional natural selection acts” is a correct and true statement.”
Intelligent people probably are absolutely certain that nutrients are the substrates on which directional natural selection acts. Intelligent people know that selection of food leads to the increasing organismal complexity manfested in the morphological and behavioral phenotypes of species that did not starve to death and did not mutate into existence via natural selection for something that has never been described.
My comment: I’ve tried to get along, REVISITED: 11 Simple Rules For Getting Along With Others “6. Avoid openly trying to reform people. Every man knows he is imperfect, but he doesn’t want someone else trying to correct his faults. If you want to improve a person, help him to embrace a higher working goal — a standard, an ideal — and he will do his own “making over” far more effectively than you can do it for him.” This suggestion does not seem to apply to evolutionary theorists who now substitute the term “epimutation” for amino acid substitutions and use sRNA rather than microRNA to avoid the obvious connection from the microRNA/messenger RNA balance to amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell type of all cells of all individuals of all species.
See for example: Antifungal drug resistance evoked via RNAi-dependent epimutations.
Open reform of evolutionary theorists ridiculous perspectives is required. Others must tell them enough is enough or they will continue to misrepresent biologically-based cause and effect and link disorder to the orderly increasing complexity of morphological and behavioral phenotypes. They want mutations and natural selection to be the link, or epimutations to be the link, or whatever else they can think of to avoid admitting that they cannot think in terms of biologically-based cause and effect.
When will others be able to understand information like this: “In Ostrinia moth species, substitution of a critical amino acid is sufficient to create a new pheromone blend (Lassance et al., 2013).”
The problem for theorists appears to be a widely-touted example of what they think is natural selection via predation in fawn to pepper-colored moths. The example is ridiculous and based on pseudoscientific nonsense, The moth larvae ate lead- and manganese-contaminated leaves that caused a nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled color change. Thus, the color change was an ecological adaptation in the moths.
What about birds? Evolutionary theorists misrepresent the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation in the moths. They tell people the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation exemplifies mutation-initiated natural selection via predation. The color change, according to evolutionary theorists, occurred due to a mutation and the mutation was naturally selected because predatory birds could not see the pepper-colored moths on soot-covered trees as well as they could see the fawn-colored moths that had not mutated.
The fawn-colored moths that did not mutate suffered losses to their population via predation. Please change that ridiculous misrepresentation in your textbook if you are currently being taught to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense of evolutionary theory. Do it now, before your biology teacher tries to get you to believe that the sickle cell hemoglobin variant that arose in populations where malaria was endemic, was due to a mutation that was naturally selected because it helped some human populations survive.
Hemoglobin variants are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled like the variant that caused the change in the fawn to pepper-colored moths. That’s why the sickle-cell variant also is associated with skin pigmentation in some human populations. However, skin pigmentation involves a different variant that is associated with ingestion of fermented grains and milk products that supply additional sources of vitamin D, which is actually more like a sex steroid hormone than a vitamin.
The link from nutrient-uptake via microbes in the human gut that help to manufacture vitamin D leads to an amino acid substitution, which helped to stabilize the DNA in the organized genomes of human populations. The human populations developed lactose persistence via the nutrient-dependent change in an enzyme, which also helped the human populations to ecologically adapt to the presence of malarial parasites in their red blood cells. Their red blood cells did not mutate and the human populations were not naturally selected to evolve their morphological differences in sunny climates that changed the color of their skin. That is not how ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations, which is via conserved molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man.
All the changes can be attributed to ecological variation in a nutrient-dependent amino acid substitution that differentiated the cell types of human populations via their pheromone-controlled reproduction. That’s how ecological variation results in ecological adaptations in species from microbes to man.
The conserved molecular mechanisms that enable amino acid substitutions are the key to understanding what evolutionary theorists think is mutation-initiated natural selection that results in the evolution of biodiversity — in the moths and in human populations and in populations of other organisms.
Indeed, you might learn that evolutionary theorists believe just about everything Dobzhansky wrote in
1) “Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” (1973) and in
2) “Biology, molecular and organismic” (1964)
What evolutionary theorists may not believe is that 50 years ago Dobzhansky (1964) wrote: “…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!”
Then, in 1973, he noted “… the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla.” At the same time he proclaimed, “It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist.”
Today, we know that his claim to be an evolutionist was based on the theory that mutations and natural selection led to the evolution of biodiversity. Since we also know how ecological variation led to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations in moths and humans, it is much clearer that amino acid substitutions lead to the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes in moths and humans that facilitate cell type differentiation in all the cells of all individuals of all populations, which results in all biodiversity in species from microbes to man.