Innoen27/08/2019 ORCID 0000-0002-0113-8795
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN: 2319-7064 Supplementary Information Bio-inertia resonates life into evolution By Yi Yu Lai * * Correspondence to: [email protected] Supplementary Information (file attached / available online) including: Supplementary Explanation 1(Difficulty in modeling evolutionary favorable mutation) Supplementary Explanation 2 (For Movie 1.0-1.2, ancient human body physical strike technology) Supplementary Experiment 1 (Mung bean sprout germination rainwater physical strike) Supplementary Experiment 2 (Mung bean sprout growth rainwater physical strike) Supplementary Experiment 3 (Newborn chicken physical strike) Supplementary Experiment 4 (Newborn mouse physical strike) Supplementary Experiment 5 (Cephalodella auriculata zygote physical strike, the origin of bio-membrane) Supplementary Experiment 6 (Gravitational loss of species from plant sources) Supplementary Experiment 7 (Gravitational loss of species from animal sources) Supplementary Experiment 8 (For Movie 2, Animal gravitational loss elapse-time estimation) Supplementary Explanation 3 (Inertial mass VS gravitational mass for a non-rigid body, ref. Movie 3) Supplementary Experiment 9 (Avian egg pecking behavior arouse) Supplementary Experiment 10 (Avian egg yolk sac homing process arouse) Supplementary Experiment 11 (Avian egg yolk sac weight ratio, ref. Movie 4) Supplementary Experiment 12 (Avian egg floating hatching for general binding processes) Supplementary Experiment 13 (Gravitational loss of avian sexual behavior) Supplementary Explanation 4 (Industrial HiGee and the urgency of medical & lab use RPBs, Animation 1, 2) Supplementary Explanation 5 (Origin of writing language, music and Zhu’s constant, Movie 5) Supplementary Experiment 14 (Inversion of embryo and circulation system in avian development, AIT) Supplementary Explanation 6 (Origin of 12- TET and harmonic analysis in bio-systems) Supplementary Explanation 7 (Cell migration superposed on the stationary structure, Movie 6.0-6.1) Supplementary Explanation 8 (Technical and challenging of stem cell therapy) Supplementary Experiment 15 (Rat food blender test, digestive inversion passes through the gut wall) Supplementary Explanation 9 (Interpret ancient Wudang Taihe physical training) Supplementary Explanation 10 (Converging integration of the spiritual world and somatic structures) Supplementary Experiment 16 (NKT cell clinic trial, “spinal cancerous recurrent factors” model) Supplementary Explanation 11(The mechanisms of gravitational binding in multi-surface tension systems) Supplementary Explanation 1 | Disciplinary difficulty in modeling evolutionary favorable mutation by a single discipline such as genetics or molecular biology ∆ Modern molecular biology and genetics like to take a ―modified Darwinism‖ to explain evolution: there are many random mutations selected by nature and leave favorable mutations as the survivors. This statement is easy to make but difficult to clarify what is exactly a ―favorable mutation‖. To empirically get an ―unfavorable‖ mutation is easy, such as mutate some Hox gene for a fruit fly could make legs present on the head; this is negative to evolution. Diverse deformities from embryonic interference are all unfavorable mutations. (Here we can estimate: a species with gene number n could possess combination number of n!, following random theory of modified Darwinism under the certain environmental condition, the favorable mutation number is 1 and unfavorable is n!-1. The DOI: 10.21275/ART20203017 1 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN: 2319-7064 probability of favorable mutation among all mutations is only 1/(n!-1). Human has 20K coded genes, then the probability of single gene favorable mutation is only 1/(20000!-1).) Whether such a quick-decaying probability with increasing gene numbers is a reality? Then what causes a ―favorable‖ instead of ―unfavorable‖ mutation in evolution? How can a species assure the ―favorable‖ instead of ―unfavorable‖ mutation in the reproduction process? Life in one generation shows adaptation and how it can become a random mutation among many generations? Darwin doesn’t know what a ―favorable mutation‖ is, so does modern science with one and half-century’s development. This is the fundamental question in which molecular biology and genetics have to reply. Human evolved from primates, in particular, genus Homo, can any genetic technologies make a primate into a human being as what claimed? This is possibly what the above two disciplines try to do but incapable of handling. Therefore medical sciences take a compromised way, such as find high expression gene(s) on cancer patients then try clinical control. Such compromised ways were totally blind to in vivo regulations and evolution tendency. The technological incapability anxieties even drove some people to seek to edit genes of a human embryo. That affair is attributed to an ethnic problem; however, it is mainly a technological incapability. (What we can do now is in a gene-editing ―Stone Age‖, only isolated logically knows some individual gene functions and never knows any superposed functions. Diverse modern sequencing ―big data‖ are still failed to offer real help or even theoretical clue for the ―favorable mutation‖. Technologically, if we really can experimentally make an E.coli into a Pseudomonas, or transfer species among eubacteria; that means our gene-editing technology reaches ―Bronze Age‖. Transfer species among Archaea and eubacteria is ―Iron Age‖, and so on. Only when a primate can be technological transfer into a human being, our gene editing can then enter into ―Moon Landing Age‖. Editing human embryo should after technology attain gene-editing ―Moon Landing Age‖; really not a ―Stone Age‖ technology should try. People who wish to edit human embryos should technologically show they can make a primate embryo into a human fetus; they also need to know what a ―favorable‖ mutation is. Like in the affair, CCR5 gene editing is claimed to ―favor‖ human baby in resisting to HIV. This is just a human biased knowledgeable ―favorable‖ and not a real evolutionary ―favorable‖. ―Favorable‖ mutation at least means technologically corresponding to the senility processes hidden inside an embryo since all the genes are regulated by some mechanisms to cycle from young to old state in generations. Suppose a CCR5 gene editing so luckily enough to prevent HIV and also no deformities as claimed in the story; however, those who are suffering such editing result in a 1/3 lifespan with that of an unedited people similar to the cloning Dolly sheep; how people can trust them to edit a human embryo? Allow them to perform without enough qualifications means genetics needs some ―human embryo editing Crisp/Cas 9 charlatan‖ to solve the bottleneck of its development by trying human embryo under total disciplinary blindness. The technological level of CCR5 charlatan is too inferior to make a primate embryo into a human fetus, even far less than to make a simple E.coli into a Pseudomonas. Later, we could understand that the prerequisite condition of gene editing is any operation can’t hurt the bio-inertia or gravitational binding of the bio-systems that acquired in a long term evolution.) The fact that people indeed wish ―functional editing‖ but have to call it ―gene-editing‖ which allows hidden failure is reflecting such ―incapability‖. Such ―incapability’ is not just technological restrictions such as unknown of ―favorable mutation‖; it is a disciplinary bottleneck that comes from the isolated logic method. We can simply write: species 1 + environmental entanglement 1 = species 2(evolved species 1) + environmental entanglement 2. Right now, the full sequences of almost all species are available; we still can’t get clues for how this equation working. This means the entanglement 1 and 2 are outside disciplinary parameters which can’t be fully described by the inner disciplinary parameters such as genome. To solve such out disciplinary bottleneck, we have to go back to the foundation that drives the discipline. The basis of biology is chemistry, and the basis for chemistry is physics; the only solution for the ―favorable mutation‖ that can be modulated by ―out disciplinary information‖ is from the physical approach starting from the abiogenesis stage. DOI: 10.21275/ART20203017 2 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN: 2319-7064 Supplementary Explanation 2 | Increase constant K stability by ancient physical training (Verify that life is a Le Châtelier’s effect accumulation system and the physical growth pattern.) ∆ The people in the video get around three years of level one ancient physical training. (In this paper, ancient means the time from 66th century BCE till the 19th century CE.) Such kinds of training have developed for more than one thousand years with reliable historical records. In modern society, almost no one interests or understands them; we still have to refer to them since we really can’t find any replacement for the biological and medical significance of this system after so long a human history. It seems odd that there are so many countries in the world, why such system only presented in China? Some countries such as Japan and Korea were the closest neighbors, which could easily study from China. Why for a millennium, they still failed to get the quintessence and only developed some terminal technologies from what they learned into Juda and Taekwondo. We also interested in the possibility of our nearby ancestors