Evolving deep brain stimulation patterns

The method works very similarly to biological evolution, but it occurs inside of a computer,” said Grill. “In our world, instead of a giraffe’s neck getting longer to reach higher leaves, the positions of electric pulses change so that the pattern gets better over time.

The pattern that gets better over time is one that theorists claim has evolved. They are wrong. Natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality in the context of autophagy is linked to supercoiled DNA by metabolic networks and genetic networks. The networks are linked to cell type differentiation in all living genera via their physiology of reproduction. Without the energy-dependent networks, the “…positions of electric pulses [DO NOT] change so that the pattern gets better over time.”  Entropy ensures that nothing evolves.

For contrast, sensory patterns of stimulation link chemotaxis and phototaxis, which suggests that the serendipitous finding will be that all life is nutrient energy-dependent and pheromone-controlled. That may be the next claim made, if it is not the only one left that has escaped the notice of biomedical engineers.

Similarly, claims about virus-driven theft may follow if the biomedical engineers realize that their computers are useless without a supply of energy to operate them, and the fact that no computer has ever evolved itself.

See also: Mouse models of human disease: An evolutionary perspective

Despite all of the documented differences between mice and humans, and despite the history of “errors in translation” in the application of research on mice to humans, reports of research on mice are frequently accompanied by unwarranted and misleading claims, such as “Furthering our understanding of mouse X should provide novel insights into human Y.” Such claims raise false hopes and are ultimately self-defeating, in that they waste resources and increase public skepticism concerning the value of biomedical research. Indeed, the problems of translating research on mice and other model organisms to humans have led a number of scientists to question the value of this research [51–53].

The trouble with any evolutionary perspective that includes mouse-to-human similarities is that the similarities link one energy-dependent base pair change from a SNP to fixation of a single RNA-mediated amino acid substitution that differentiates cell types in different tissues of the mouse and the human.

Natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality explains how that fact links chirality from autophagy to supercoiled DNA, which protects the organized genomes of all living genera from virus-driven energy theft and genomic entropy.

The links from energy-dependent changes in angstroms to ecosystems have become perfectly clear to anyone interested in learning how the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction is linked to the transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of all morphological and behavior phenotypes via this model.

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. It is a refutation of every claim ever made by a neo-Darwinian theorist.

The trouble with the model is that there is no other model that accurately represents what is known to physicists, chemists, and molecular biologists about energy-dependent biologically-based cause and effect. That’s why theorists who have been supported by the evolution industry and “big bang” cosmology industry are making desperate attempts to limit accurate representations of top-down causation and biologically-based cause and effect. They realize they have no experimental evidence that links their ridiculous theories from energy-dependent changes in angstroms to ecosystems in all living genera.

That means they know there will be no more funding for the pseudoscientific nonsense, and both industries will cease to exist. Eliminating those industries should be the first consideration in the context of what is known about energy-dependent DNA repair and repair of the economic damage that has been done by theorists who have produced nothing of value during the past century. The only value of a theory is that experimental evidence supports it, or not. Evolutionary theory has not been supported since the time Darwin’s claims about “conditions of life” were first ignored.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!