Expunging the distinguished public
Many of the attendee-participants were, in fact, more distinguished than many of the actual speakers. So the audience came to be heard as well as to listen. But the official recording (now posted) has been wiped clean of public comment — the most robust part of the meeting — and what we are left with, with few exceptions, is a series of academic lectures and old science.
Thanks for continuing to make the Royal Society Meeting organizers look as foolish as they are. Life will go on without them, although the increasing number of virus-driven pathologies may wipe out billions the next time something like the Spanish Flu hits populations across the globe — as it did in 1918. Or maybe the transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of Zika virus-damaged DNA will do it, slowly.
Until then, intelligent scientists will want to keep track of works by Nobel Laureates like Ben Feringa (Chemistry) and Yoshinori Ohsumi (Physiology or Medicine) who have linked quantized energy as information from the sun to autophagy, which biophysically constrains all energy-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry.
Gunter Witzany seems to be so far ahead of the Nobel Laureates that they can’t see him. Thank you for mentioning the conference he is organizing in your book, since it will probably put an end to the pseudoscientific nonsense touted by all theorists. Others may want to see (and you may want to interview) the senior authors of these two recently published works:
See for comparison:
He quoted paleontologist Graham Budd who has observed: “When the public thinks about evolution, they think about [things like] the origin of wings….But these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about.”
Many fascinating talks at the Royal Society conference described a number of evolutionary mechanisms that have been given short shrift by the neo-Darwinian establishment. Unfortunately, however, the conference will be remembered, as Suzan Mazur intimated in her coverage, for its failure to offer anything new. In particular, in our judgment, it failed to offer anything new that could help remedy the main “explanatory deficit” of the neo-Darwinian synthesis — its inability to account for the origin of phenotypic novelty and especially, the genetic and epigenetic information necessary to produce it. These are still problems that evolutionary theory tells us little about.
See for comparison: Ancient Enzyme Morphed Shape to Carry Out New Functions in Humans
Schimmel compared it to reshaping an airplane’s wing to serve as the airplane’s tail instead. “Nature has provided ways for reshaping objects, like C-Ala, and when that happens, new functions occur,” he said.
The claim that “Nature” causes new functions could have been addressed at the Royal Society Meeting. Instead, we will probably continue to see pseudoscientific nonsense touted about the reshaping of wings into tails.