A post-Presidential election change indicates that politicized science in the USA may be the cause of the steady decline in the number of pages read on this domain. The decline is paired with an increased bounce rate each time I post anything that pits the science of creation against the pseudoscientific nonsense of neo-Darwinian theories.
If this domain were used in the context of a social science experiment, the statistics would show that ridiculous theories have left the USA relatively defenseless against the threat of gene-editing technology. That technology has has been advanced in countries where students are not taught to believe in mutation-driven evolution.
See: Combating evolution: Battlefield medicine vs politicized science (December 4, 2016)
Each example of energy-dependent de novo creation is met with an increase number of bounces and decreased number of pages read. See:
Founded February 2015: 43937 page views since inception until November 15, 2016
Last 90 days till Jun 7, 2016 4977 page views 14.62% bounce rate 3.1 pages per session
Last 30 days till Jun 7, 2016 2087 page views 18.07% bounce rate 2.9 pages per session
Last 90 days till Sep 9, 2016 3757 page views 18.17% bounce rate 3.06 per session
Last 30 days till Sep 9, 2016 1408 page views 7.85% bounce rate 3.56 per session
Last 90 days till Oct 7, 2016 4454 page views 10.81% bounce rate 3.30 per session
Last 30 till Oct 7, 2016 1849 page views 4.47% bounce rate 3.44 per session
Last 90 days till Nov 15, 2016 5683 page views 8.95% bounce rate 3.44 per session
Last 30 days till Nov 15, 2016 2407 page views 14.66% bounce rate 3.29 per session (the domain was down for 2 days)
Last 90 days till December 5, 2016 5859 page views 21.36% bounce rate 3.01 per session
Last 30 days till December 5, 2016 1782 page views 48.91% bounce rate 2.28 per session
Last 14 days till December 5, 2016 762 page views 48.62% 1.91 per session
See for comparison: Complex Cellular Conversations about Food Allergies
Previous posts have emphasized that complex cellular conversations determine physiology. This is certainly the case with food allergies. The fact that we don’t have many more allergies with so many new chemicals in food, demonstrates how T cells are trained to avoid food allergies.
The mechanisms are now found to be varied and very complex. This constant communication between gut cells, microbes, T cells, dendritic cells, macrophages, and many other cells are what produce tolerance to food and lack of food allergies.
Jon Lieff is on the verge of refuting neo-Darwinian theories with accurate representations of how the innate immune system links energy-dependent autophagy from natural selection for codon optimaility to ecological adaptations via the physiology of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction in species from microbes to humans.
Watch as he continues to put everything known about energy-dependent changes in angstroms to ecosystems into his representations of the complexity, which others have thoroughly detailed during the past decade.
See for comparison:
What is Life? (first published in 1944) from the reprint edition.
How often do we still hear that quantum effects can have little relevance in the study of biology, or even that we eat food in order to gain energy? — Roger Penrose, 8 August 1991
Sometime soon, Jon Lieff may link nutrient-energy to the de novo creation of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs_ and try to put chemotaxis and phototaxis back into the context of alternative splicings of pre-mRNA and ridiculous theories about evolution.
If so, he will make it perfectly clear that all others failed to include any creationist perspectives or information on virus-driven energy theft and the loss of GPCRs.
The loss of GPCRs links virus-driven energy theft to all pathology except that which is biophysically constrained by the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to humans.
Has anyone ever successfully taught a theorist the difference between an algorithm and experimental evidence of energy-dependent biologically-based cause and effect? For example, the experimental evidence shows that Carl Woese was wrong.
The experimental evidence of virus-driven energy theft links Virus-mediated archaeal hecatomb in the deep seafloor to the Analysis of Viral and Cellular MicroRNAs in EBV-Infected Cells via everything known to creationists about the anti-entropic energy of virucidal ultraviolet light.
…the evidence mentioned above indicates that viruses likely arose from their hosts and not the other way around. As molecular biologist and biochemist Peter Borger notes, “The most parsimonious answer is: the RNA viruses got their genes from their hosts.”6