Reported as: Scientists design energy-carrying particles called ‘topological plexcitons’
This should eventually enable engineers to create plexcitonic switches to distribute energy selectively across different components of a new kind of solar cell or light-harvesting device.
My comment: “Single-residue insertion switches the quaternary structure and exciton states of cryptophyte light-harvesting proteins” links their discovery to the complexity of energy-dependent epigenetically-effected biophysically constrained protein folding chemistry in all living genera.
Two epigenetic traps are required to prevent virus-driven energy theft, which is consistently linked from mutations to all pathology.
…cryptophytes have evolved a structural switch controlled by an amino acid insertion to modulate excitonic interactions and therefore the mechanisms used for light harvesting.
My comment: Some people probably still believe that the energy-dependent structural switch could have evolved to control nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions after the anti-entropic virucidal effect of the sun’s biological energy emerged and automagically began to link the energy-dependent physiology of reproduction from the innate immune system to supercoiled DNA in all living genera. I call those people biologically uninformed theorists until some of them force me to use a form of rabbinical debate.
Most cryptophytes have a light-harvesting system where quantum coherence is present. But we have found a class of cryptophytes where it is switched off because of a genetic mutation that alters the shape of a light-harvesting protein.
See also: Physics: Bell’s theorem still reverberates
Quantum theory does not predict the outcomes of a single experiment, but rather the statistics of possible outcomes.
My comments: The statistics of possible outcomes never integrated what is known to serious scientists about the sun’s anti-entropic virucidal energy. The discussion thread of “Quantum biology” was pointless.
I (JVK) wrote: “De novo creation of olfactory receptor genes is only possible in the context of quantum mechanics, not mutations and evolution.”
anonymous_9001 (Andrew Jones) responded: False dichotomy
Even John Hewitt’s comment could not prevent the further demise of my attempt to convey what is known to serious scientists about biophyically constrained top-down causation.
jonhew asked: How so JVK and anon??
Others began their attacks.
Thanks for asking, John
As you know, “The genetic and biophysical mechanisms by which new protein functions evolve is a central question in evolutionary biology, biochemistry, and biophysics.”
…explicit studies of protein structure and dynamics…” show how a “…shift in function was driven primarily by two historical amino acid changes…
My comment: The amino acid substitutions are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in my atoms to ecosystems model, which cannot be discussed because anonymous fools and idiot minions of biology teachers like PZ Myers have no clue about what needs to happen with hydrogen bonds to achieve biophysically constrained thermodynamically controlled seemingly futile cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation that enable organism-level thermoregulation manifested in biodiversity.
If you can eliminate the idiots here, progress might be made.
On Jun 4, 2014, Andrew Jones, published: Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model.
He got me banned from participation in the International Society for Human Ethology’s yahoo group, and eventually disclosed his identity — as the author of this undergraduate thesis about abiogenesis.
Despite their challenges, ribozymes have made an interesting niche for themselves in the field of abiogenesis. The evolution of a successful RNA polymerase ribozyme is a lofty goal. While its discovery would not be the be-all and end-all of abiogenesis research, it would represent an important stepping stone between prebiotic chemistry and life. The encapsulation of such a ribozyme is also an important step, as it would enable a system of heredity and evolution through natural selection. Based on progress in current research, it is only a matter of time before that ribozyme is discovered.
My comment: Obviously, there is no way to compare his speculation to my model, and in his criticisms he simply claimed this:
James Kohl presents an unsupported challenge to modern evolutionary theory and misrepresentations of established scientific terms and others’ research. It was a mistake to let such a sloppy review through to be published.
Andrew Jones, BA
See also the: Editor’s note
The 2013 review article by James Vaughn Kohl published in Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology and criticized in the above Letter to the Editor was subjected to standard peer review and the revised version was accepted by me after it had been accepted by both reviewers.
In my review Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model, , I concluded:
…the model represented here is consistent with what is known about the epigenetic effects of ecologically important nutrients and pheromones on the adaptively evolved behavior of species from microbes to man. Minimally, this model can be compared to any other factual representations of epigenesis and epistasis for determination of the best scientific ‘fit’.
After 3 more years, and 2 years after Jones’ criticisms of my model were published, there is still no other model of energy-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation for comparison. Theories like this one have begun to appear even more ridiculous than ever: Periodic Scarred States in Open Quantum Dots as Evidence of Quantum Darwinism.
But, as all serious scientists have always known New evidence for quantum Darwinism… will always be accepted by biologically uninformed pseudoscientists who refuse to learn anything about how angstroms and ecosystems must link the innate immune system to supercoiled DNA, which protects all organized genomes from virus-driven energy theft and genomic entropy.
See also: I’ve never read such a damning rebuttal of anyone’s work as Jones’ of your paper. It’s just one long list of basic mistakes. And you were asking me to define the difference between an aa substitution and a mutation? I’m beginning to think it’s because you don’t know yourself! Anyway, now writing my own post about how not to be a scientist online, and you’re the star…