Excerpt: “…researchers describe a technique for creating mutations that invade the genome and transmit themselves across to the next generation with near 100% success, defying the classic laws of Mendelian genetics.”
My comment: Placed into the perspective of Vosshall’s works and many others, their claim is that “Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction” The nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction causes rapid fixation of the amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of populations. That fact is a threat to anyone touting ridiculous theories.
Excerpt 2) “George Church, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston who is a leader in the field, believes the new study should not have been published, because it does not include measures to restrain the spread of unintended mutations.”
My comment: Church’s group reported ‘Biocontainment of genetically modified organisms by synthetic protein design” They expect a synthetic amino acid substitution will contain their genetically modified bacteria.
Excerpt: “Future design strategies could include polar or charged NSAAs to engineer hydrogen bonds requiring exquisite geometric specificity24 for folding, enzyme–substrate interactions, or macromolecular associations.”
My comment: They also attest to knowledge about the biophysical constraints on the chemistry of protein folding that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in organized genomes via hydrogen bonds in my atoms to ecosystems model of ecological adaptations.
Nutrient stimulation appears to change the structural integrity and functional significance of epigenetically stabilized hydrogen bonds via amino acid substitutions. This extends the effects of vitamins from the epigenetic landscape to receptor-mediated intracellular interactions and protein folding. The molecular mechanisms that enable this nutrient-dependent epigenetic stimulation appear to be conserved across phyla as diverse as amoeba and mammals (Hashimoto et al., 2013). Experimental evidence from studies of studies of amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation (J. V. Kohl, 2013) suggests that a cascade of changes in protein structure and function may begin with a single vitamin-dependent base pair change (Blaschke, et al., 2013).
Base pair changes may be caused by other environmental effects. However, the conserved molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent organizing base pair changes are attributed to the epigenetic effects of food odors and the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction (J. V. Kohl, 2012). Indeed, methylation of the carbon-5 position of cytosine, which results in differences in 5hmCs, may be the most commonly studied type of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled structural and functional eukaryotic modification that results from organizing base pair changes.
Because vitamin C and other vitamins appear to epigenetically effect nutrient-dependent methylation at the level of single-base resolution in mammals, it has become more important to determine how base-pair changes alter intracellular interactions in embryonic stem cells or intercellular interactions in other cells that result in cascades of downstream intracellular and intercellular organizing interactions throughout life. Other vitamins, such as vitamin D, and metal ions such as calcium, iron, lead and manganese also appear to epigenetically alter these organizing interactions. Therefore, a biophysically constrained, nutrient-dependent, epigenetically-effected, receptor-mediated recognizable organized pattern of emergence can be viewed in the context of ecological variations and ecological adaptations.
Excerpt 3) “And how could we not publish this work? Nothing is served by hiding things. The whole point is to show that it is possible and have a public discussion.”
My comment: My invited review of nutritional epigenetics and ecological adaptations was returned without review. Obviously, the evolution industry is served by hiding facts about RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types via fixation of the amino acid substitutions in the context of the nutrient-dependent physiology of species-specific pheromone-controlled reproduction.
If the evolution industry were not served by hiding things, everyone would know that Leslie Vosshall’s group has differentiated use of the term “mutations” from “amino acid substitutions”.
Abstract excerpt: orco mutant olfactory sensory neurons have greatly reduced spontaneous activity and lack odour-evoked responses.
Excerpt from: Extended Data Figure 3: Amino acid differences of major Or4 protein alleles. “Dots represent amino acid differences with respect to the genome reference, not an inferred ancestor.”
Few people are going to look for evidence of biologically-based cause and effect in the extended data. And, like others who support the evolution industry, Vosshall seems to be willing to report her group’s findings in terms of evolution instead of accurately reporting reasons for differences in morphology and behavior. Obviously, the differences are due to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction. But amino acid differences with no inferred ancestor links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of species from microbes to man without mutations and evolution of a new species.
See, for instance: A universal trend of amino acid gain and loss in protein evolution
Excerpt: “We cannot conceive of a global external factor that could cause, during this time, parallel evolution of amino acid compositions of proteins in 15 diverse taxa that represent all three domains of life and span a wide range of lifestyles and environments. Thus, currently, the most plausible hypothesis is that we are observing a universal, intrinsic trend that emerged before the last universal common ancestor of all extant organisms.“
My comment: No last universal common ancestor of all extant organisms means no mutation-driven evolution. The attack on the evolution industry is clear. Dobzhansky (1973) wrote: “…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” (p. 127).
Nei (2013) wrote: “…genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world” (p. 199).
“It’s time to give our sense of smell the recognition it deserves,” said Vosshall.
I agree! In my 2012 review, I concluded: “Olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans (Keller et al., 2007; Kohl, 2007; Villarreal, 2009; Vosshall, Wong, & Axel, 2000).” However, it is not an evolutionary trail. The trail links ecological variation to ecological adaptations via differences in the viral microRNA / nutrient-dependent microRNA balance. The differences link the anti-entropic epigenetic effects of food odors from nutrient uptake to the RNA-mediated de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes.
No evolutionary theorist is going to tell anyone the truth about mutations. They perturb protein folding and may lead to loss of function. They may lead to the loss of olfactory receptor genes, or to the creation of human pseudogenes. They do not lead to the creation of new species. But, like Vosshall, some other serious scientists, know better than to make claims that might appear to support the beliefs of creationists.
“When you make an experimental inference that confronts fundamentally these well-entrenched [neo-Darwinian] views – it makes a career very difficult.” — Luis P. Villarreal