… George C. Williams developed in his 1966 book Adaptation and Natural Selection the essentials of a unifying theory of adaptation that remains robust today and has inspired immense progress in understanding how natural selection works.
“Light is a more effective option to communicate between the microscopic world and the macroscopic world,” said Tang.
Why did so many pseudoscientists fail to link ecological variation to ecological adaptation via natural selection for energy-dependent changes in supercoiled DNA, which protects all organized genomes from virus-driven energy theft and genomic entropy? Why have they continued to tout ridiculous theories for comparison to what is being reported about adaptation by serious scientists. Almost every day there is something old reported as if it was new information to be considered before it is again ignored by theorists.
See for examples from this past week:
Rather than tout theories about solar storms and geographical traps, serious scientists investigate the facts that link the sun’s anti-entropic virucidal energy to endogenous RNA interference via olfaction and the innate immune system. Serious scientists link food odors and pheromones to behavior in all living genera.
Future work on O. vulgaris olfaction must also consider how animals acquire the odours detected by the olfactory organ and what kind of odour the olfactory organ perceives. The OL acting as control centre may be target organ for metabolic hormones such as leptin like and insulin like peptides, and olfactory organ could exert regulatory action on the OL via epigenetic effects of nutrients and pheromones on gene expression (Kohl, 2013; Elekonich and Robinson, 2000).
Ecological variation that is not manifested in ecological adaptation links virus-driven energy theft to the stranded whales. The energy theft prevents nutrient energy-dependent ecological adaptation. Unfortunately, theorists do not understand any aspect of natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality.The prefer to use definitions and assumptions for comparison to the experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that serious scientists must use in the context of their religion.
Pseudoscientists claim that atheism is not a religion. Atheism is a religion by definition.
- 1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any godsb : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
Even historians know that the history of a religion can influence the faith of believers today. For example, atheism today arose in the context of de Vries 1902 definition of “mutation” and acceptance of assumptions that accumulated mutations could lead from natural selection to the evolution of one species from another species.
Christianity can clearly be linked from events that start from the creation of energy as information in Biblical Genesis to the weekend resurrection of the bacterial flagellum in P. fluorescens, which fluoresces with exposure to UV light.
Atheism as a religion cannot stand up to the overwhelming amount of experimental evidence that supports claims in the Old Testament, which were linked to claims in the New Testament. There is nothing that appears to link the emergence of everything from nothing or the evolution of one species from another. That fact links three more definitions to all biodiversity on Earth.
The emergence of atheism as a world religion can now be placed into the context of definitions that recently were added to the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
the treatment of pollutants or waste (as in contaminated soil or groundwater) by the use of green plants that remove, degrade, or stabilize the undesirable substances (such as toxic metals)
The CRISPR segment encodes, via transcription, short RNA sequences that pair with complementary sequences of viral DNA. The pairing is used to guide an enzyme to cleave the viral DNA and prevent further infection.
- 1 : a community of microorganisms (such as bacteria, fungi, and viruses) that inhabit a particular environment and especially the collection of microorganisms living in or on the human body <Your body is home to about 100 trillion bacteria and other microbes, collectively known as your microbiome. — Carl Zimmer> < … what’s arguably become the hottest area of medicine: microbiome research, an emerging field that’s investigating how the bacteria that live in and on our bodies affect our health. — Sunny Sea Gold>
- 2 : the collective genomes of microorganisms inhabiting a particular environment and especially the human body <They form one community among the many that make up the human microbiome: the full genetic complement of bacteria and other organisms at home on your skin, gums, and teeth, in your genital tract, and especially in your gut. — Nathan Wolfe>
The definitions that were recently added to the Merriam-Webster dictionary link the energy-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in bacteria from the National Microbiome Initiative to the Precision Medicine Initiative via endogenous RNA interference, which prevents the virus-driven energy theft that links mutations to all pathology.
For comparison, see: How algorithms (secretly) run the world
“Algorithms are not inherently fair, because the person who builds the model defines success,” she said.
See also: Digital Star Chamber
Following the advice of Jeff Jarvis’s What Would Google Do, they are collecting data from both workers and customers, using algorithmic tools to make decisions, to sort the desirable from the disposable.
What would Jesus do about the use of algorithms to predict outcomes?
Algorithms can be made more accountable, respecting rights of fairness and dignity for which generations have fought. The challenge is not technical, but political, and the first step is law that empowers people to see and challenge what the algorithms are saying about us.
Did Jesus know the creation of energy and virus-driven energy theft are predictable links to outcomes that pseudoscientists think can be linked via algorithms? Did He ever mention the fact that pseudoscientists might be called theorists by serious scientists who have linked energy-dependent changes from angstroms to ecosystems in all living genera via what is known about the physiology of reproduction and the functional structure of supercoiled DNA.
See for example: Structural diversity of supercoiled DNA
The functional structure of supercoiled DNA links what organisms eat to endogenous RNA interference and the physiology of reproduction, which links chromosomal inheritance from chirality to autophagy and all biodiversity on Earth. That cannot be done with definitions and/or algorithms.
See also: microRNA
How will you continue to avoid discussing the energy-dependent link from nutrient-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance to all healthy longevity, as everything known about virus-driven energy theft continues to be linked to all pathology?