Sunlight, phytochemicals, microRNAs and cancer
Summary: If the creation of the uranium isotopes was not biophysically constrained in the context of hydrogen-atom transfer in DNA base pairs in solution, the sun’s anti-entropic virucidal energy would be a less effective treatment for cancer than radiation therapy.
The link from the anti-entropic virucidal energy of sunlight to the de novo creation of microRNAs and prevention of all pathology will become clearer each day until the cell biology game “Cytosis” is available for play by anyone ten years old or older.
Jay R. Feierman continues his attempts to obfuscate that clarity. He failed to post three comments to the Human Ethology Yahoo Group and sent me three private messages: All three claim: “You can only post one message a day as you keep saying the same thing over and over again.”
This research was published yesterday.
Role of phytochemicals in the modulation of miRNA expression in cancer (published in Food & function)
…phytochemicals play an important role in the modulation of miRNA expression, which is related to changes in oncogenes, tumour suppressors, and cancer-related protein expression. Hence, phytonutrients can suppress tumour development, prevent metastasis, reverse the EMT, and improve drug sensitivity via the modulation of miRNA expression.
The research supports what I have been saying since the time I learned that Schrodinger (1944) stated it clearly:
“Indeed, in the case of higher animals we know the kind of orderliness they feed upon well enough, viz. the extremely well-ordered state of matter in more or less complicated organic compounds, which serve them as foodstuffs. After utilizing it they return it in a very much degraded form -not entirely degraded, however, for plants can still make use of it. (These, of course, have their most power supply of ‘negative entropy’ the sunlight.)”
People like Feierman must prevent others from learning facts about the anti-entropic virucidal energy of sunlight. The facts are neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory killers becasue Darwin’s claims began with food energy-dependent “conditions of life.”
See for comparison:
Jay R. Feierman wrote: You can only post one message a day as you keep saying the same thing over and over again. —In email@example.com, he wrote :
My response: It is unfortunate that the comment by James Gray about Jay’s understanding cannot be found in this series, and that no one seems interested in discussion of facts that attest to Jay’s claim.
Others who cannot refute the claim that “DNA Begins As a Quantum Wave” may continue to link the anti-entropic virucidal energy of sunlight to mutations, natural selection, and evolution despite my history of published works that led Jay to claim:
“I am absolutely certain that if you showed this statement to any professor of biology or genetics in any accredited university anywhere in the world that 100% of them would say that “Random mutations are the substrate upon which directional natural selection acts” is a correct and true statement.”
We may never know why others, like Jay, would make claims about random mutations without knowing the origin of DNA, which links energy as information to the biophysically constrained physiology of reproduction in my model of all biologically-based diversity.
Journal article abstract excerpt: “…isotopic analyses of individuals amino acids offer the opportunity to further examine this hypothesis.”
Food energy-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions link ecological variation to ecological adaptations in species from microbes to humans in the context of the physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction. That fact led to a counter-claim by Jay R. Feierman, and he has since limited all discussion of my model.
Jay R. Feierman: Variation is not nutrient availability and the something that is doing the selecting is not the individual organism. A feature of an educated person is to realize what they do not know. Sadly, you don’t know that you have an incorrect understanding [of] Darwinian biological evolution.
See for comparison:Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
MODERATOR NOTE: I’m not going to post more from Kohl until he answers the very direct and simple question posed to him by anon, which is whether he (Kohl) believes that RNA splicing can change DNA.]
See for comparison: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior
“Small intranuclear proteins also participate in generating alternative splicing techniques of pre-mRNA and, by this mechanism, contribute to sexual differentiation in at least two species, Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans (Adler and Hajduk, 1994; de Bono, Zarkower, and Hodgkin, 1995; Ge, Zuo, and Manley, 1991; Green, 1991; Parkhurst and Meneely, 1994; Wilkins, 1995; Wolfner, 1988). That similar proteins perform functions in humans suggests the possibility that some human sex differences may arise from alternative splicings of otherwise identical genes.”
My attempts to discuss facts about food energy-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation have consistently been placed into the context of attempts to discuss beliefs by a moderator who has consistently supported claims that link random mutations from natural selection to the evolution of biodiversity.
Jay R. Feierman wrote: You can only post one message a day as you keep saying the same thing over and over again.
He blocked this comment:
How geneticists around the world struggled to bring the foundation of life’s building blocks to light.
Excerpt: “Information” was about to enter science, but had not done so when Schrödinger gave his lectures. Without that conception of the content of the code, Schrödinger’s insight was merely part of the zeitgeist, a hint of what was to come rather than a breakthrough that shaped all subsequent thinking.
My comment: In 1944, Schrödinger stated: Indeed, in the case of higher animals we know the kind of orderliness they feed upon well enough, viz. the extremely well-ordered state of matter in more or less complicated organic compounds, which serve them as foodstuffs. After utilizing it they return it in a very much degraded form -not entirely degraded, however, for plants can still make use of it. (These, of course, have their most power supply of ‘negative entropy’ the sunlight.) (pp. 73 and 74)
The fact that quantized energy is information seems to have escaped the grasp of many theorists, but virtually all the medical professionals I have encountered realize that organisms die if they do not find some form of quantized energy as information to eat.
Addendum: Arguably, Feierman is right. I do repeat myself. He forces me to repeatedly present my claims about energy as information by ignoring them. Instead, he makes ridiculous claims about mutations, natural selection, and evolution. That is what all pseudoscientists do.
USDA Emails: Don’t Use “Climate Change”
The news report suggested these were political moves to fall in line with the newly installed Trump administration.
The truth is that these moves are consistent with the claims that Schrodinger (1944) made in “What is Life” and the claims made in Role of phytochemicals in the modulation of miRNA expression in cancer.
Weather extremes link changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance in soil bacteria to healthy longevity or from the virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA to all pathology. Climate change is comparatively ambiguous, since it does not link the anti-entropic virucidal energy of sunlight to healthy longevity.
The biophysically constrained energy of sunlight also helps to reduce greenhouse gases and to sequester carbon, which links the de novo creation of energy as information to all life on Earth by building organic material in soil. For example, sunlight has been linked from the metabolism of bacteria to the biophysically constrained creation of uranium isotopes.
See: Biogenic non-crystalline U(IV) revealed as major component in uranium ore deposits
If the creation of the isotopes was not biophysically constrained in the context of hydrogen-atom transfer in DNA base pairs in solution, the sun’s anti-entropic virucidal energy would be a less effective treatment for cancer than radiation therapy.