Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Junk Science Not Junk DNA
8 views
Skip to first unread message
John Edser
May 7, 2013, 12:47:59 AM5/7/13
to
Reported in the "Sydney Morning Herald":
Over the past two decades Professor Mattick and other others have shown
the body's vast amounts of non-coding RNA are not junk as previously
thought, but essential to regulating the function of other genes.
"People have misunderstood the structure of human genetic programming
for the past 50 years," he said.
"The evidence is very strong that most of the human genome is active in
producing RNA, most of which controls and regulates the genome in very
precise ways during development."
In this study, Professor Mattick and Dr Guy Barry from the Institute for
Molecular Bioscience at the University of QLD, found that when they
activated specific neurons, the level of long non-coding RNA, known as
Gomafu, inside the cell dropped dramatically, which signalled to other
parts of the cell to perform specific functions.
After a few hours, the Gomafu levels return to normal, ready to be
activated again.
JE:-
The common regulation of coding genes via non coding genes represents
a classical example of heritable genetic epistasis (a clear case of
heritable and therefore selectable non additive gene interaction)since
inheriting a structural gene without the appropriate non coding genes
to regulate it is like inheriting a hand without nervous connections;
is utterly pointless. Either you inherit an entire system or nothing.
The net result is that selection cannot INDEPENDENTLY operate on a
system part, only DEPENDENTLY via the selection of system as a whole.
Fisher's deletion of genetic epistasis as inherited but not heritable
in the early 1900's only presented misused modeling mathematics that
are misused to this day.
Hamilton and Dawkins' gene centricity, which continues to dominate Neo
Darwinism, represents a modern dark age for evolutionary theory since
Neo Darwinists artificially limited by definition, what are and what
are not heritable complex gene interactions (epistasis). The empirical
evidence is screaming out to those who wish to hear it that at least
some epistasis is empirically heritable. This being the case, e has be
included in Hamilton Rule and set to e=1 meaning e is SET TO zero but
included NOT absolutely deleted as Hamilton originally formulated the
rule. Hamilton's Rule revised to include e allowing epistasis to be set
to zero within just a simplified model of Darwinism:
(r^e)b>c
where e is set to 1 as the defined theory simplification.
Net Result: when e is include the rule becomes inoperable along with
ever popular Neo Darwinian poly-centricity (empirically non falsifiable,
UNLIMITED units of selection).
What Hamilton's missing e clearly demonstrates is that Darwinism and
Neo Darwinism were and remain incompatible since Darwinism has always
included a partly heritable e within the key adult organism concept,
maintaining the integrity of the organism. This is not the case for Neo
Darwinism which has destroyed organism integrity via allowing each trait
to be independently selected of every other in the same adult organism.
In other words, as far as trait fitness is concerned Neo Darwinism
reduces each adult organism to an additive population of parts.
Is it any wonder that no matter how many times you ask Neo Darwinists,
they refuse to define fitness. For Darwinism this billion dollar
definition is easy and can be objectively defined as Total Darwinian
Fitness. TDF: The total number of strictly adult organisms reproduced
per population. It is only these totals within the same population and
absolutely nothing else that are compared by simple default in NATURE to
produce each, separate, Darwinian natural selective result allowing just
a single and therefore falsifiable fitness maximand per parent per
population. More than a single fitness maximand per selectee per
population presents an impossible contradiction.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
ed...@ozemail.com.au
Over the past two decades Professor Mattick and other others have shown
the body's vast amounts of non-coding RNA are not junk as previously
thought, but essential to regulating the function of other genes.
"People have misunderstood the structure of human genetic programming
for the past 50 years," he said.
"The evidence is very strong that most of the human genome is active in
producing RNA, most of which controls and regulates the genome in very
precise ways during development."
In this study, Professor Mattick and Dr Guy Barry from the Institute for
Molecular Bioscience at the University of QLD, found that when they
activated specific neurons, the level of long non-coding RNA, known as
Gomafu, inside the cell dropped dramatically, which signalled to other
parts of the cell to perform specific functions.
After a few hours, the Gomafu levels return to normal, ready to be
activated again.
JE:-
The common regulation of coding genes via non coding genes represents
a classical example of heritable genetic epistasis (a clear case of
heritable and therefore selectable non additive gene interaction)since
inheriting a structural gene without the appropriate non coding genes
to regulate it is like inheriting a hand without nervous connections;
is utterly pointless. Either you inherit an entire system or nothing.
The net result is that selection cannot INDEPENDENTLY operate on a
system part, only DEPENDENTLY via the selection of system as a whole.
Fisher's deletion of genetic epistasis as inherited but not heritable
in the early 1900's only presented misused modeling mathematics that
are misused to this day.
Hamilton and Dawkins' gene centricity, which continues to dominate Neo
Darwinism, represents a modern dark age for evolutionary theory since
Neo Darwinists artificially limited by definition, what are and what
are not heritable complex gene interactions (epistasis). The empirical
evidence is screaming out to those who wish to hear it that at least
some epistasis is empirically heritable. This being the case, e has be
included in Hamilton Rule and set to e=1 meaning e is SET TO zero but
included NOT absolutely deleted as Hamilton originally formulated the
rule. Hamilton's Rule revised to include e allowing epistasis to be set
to zero within just a simplified model of Darwinism:
(r^e)b>c
where e is set to 1 as the defined theory simplification.
Net Result: when e is include the rule becomes inoperable along with
ever popular Neo Darwinian poly-centricity (empirically non falsifiable,
UNLIMITED units of selection).
What Hamilton's missing e clearly demonstrates is that Darwinism and
Neo Darwinism were and remain incompatible since Darwinism has always
included a partly heritable e within the key adult organism concept,
maintaining the integrity of the organism. This is not the case for Neo
Darwinism which has destroyed organism integrity via allowing each trait
to be independently selected of every other in the same adult organism.
In other words, as far as trait fitness is concerned Neo Darwinism
reduces each adult organism to an additive population of parts.
Is it any wonder that no matter how many times you ask Neo Darwinists,
they refuse to define fitness. For Darwinism this billion dollar
definition is easy and can be objectively defined as Total Darwinian
Fitness. TDF: The total number of strictly adult organisms reproduced
per population. It is only these totals within the same population and
absolutely nothing else that are compared by simple default in NATURE to
produce each, separate, Darwinian natural selective result allowing just
a single and therefore falsifiable fitness maximand per parent per
population. More than a single fitness maximand per selectee per
population presents an impossible contradiction.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
ed...@ozemail.com.au
John Edser
May 7, 2013, 12:47:59 AM5/7/13
to
[This is a resend the original, emailed to the moderator on 1/5/13 was
not reposted to the group or returned as a rejected]
Reported in the "Sydney Morning Herald":
Over the past two decades Professor Mattick and other others have shown
the body's vast amounts of non-coding RNA are not junk as previously
thought, but essential to regulating the function of other genes.
"People have misunderstood the structure of human genetic programming
for the past 50 years," he said.
"The evidence is very strong that most of the human genome is active in
producing RNA, most of which controls and regulates the genome in very
precise ways during development."
In this study, Professor Mattick and Dr Guy Barry from the Institute for
Molecular Bioscience at the University of QLD, found that when they
activated specific neurons, the level of long non-coding RNA, known as
Gomafu, inside the cell dropped dramatically, which signalled to other
parts of the cell to perform specific functions.
After a few hours, the Gomafu levels return to normal, ready to be
activated again.
JE:-
The common regulation of coding genes via non coding genes represents
a classical example of heritable genetic epistasis (a clear case of
heritable and therefore selectable non additive gene interaction)since
inheriting a structural gene without the appropriate non coding genes
to regulate it is like inheriting a hand without nervous connections;
is utterly pointless. Either you inherit an entire system or nothing.
The net result is that selection cannot INDEPENDENTLY operate on a
system part, only DEPENDENTLY via the selection of the system as a
not reposted to the group or returned as a rejected]
Reported in the "Sydney Morning Herald":
Over the past two decades Professor Mattick and other others have shown
the body's vast amounts of non-coding RNA are not junk as previously
thought, but essential to regulating the function of other genes.
"People have misunderstood the structure of human genetic programming
for the past 50 years," he said.
"The evidence is very strong that most of the human genome is active in
producing RNA, most of which controls and regulates the genome in very
precise ways during development."
In this study, Professor Mattick and Dr Guy Barry from the Institute for
Molecular Bioscience at the University of QLD, found that when they
activated specific neurons, the level of long non-coding RNA, known as
Gomafu, inside the cell dropped dramatically, which signalled to other
parts of the cell to perform specific functions.
After a few hours, the Gomafu levels return to normal, ready to be
activated again.
JE:-
The common regulation of coding genes via non coding genes represents
a classical example of heritable genetic epistasis (a clear case of
heritable and therefore selectable non additive gene interaction)since
inheriting a structural gene without the appropriate non coding genes
to regulate it is like inheriting a hand without nervous connections;
is utterly pointless. Either you inherit an entire system or nothing.
The net result is that selection cannot INDEPENDENTLY operate on a
0 new messages