How did we go from noxious slime to man?

Here’s another (of many blogs) that try to make sense of the Cambrian explosion where the body plans of all major animal phyla were laid down, almost in a creationist kind of design: Cambrian explosion. It is assumed by some that all of this occurred in a span of only 20 million years, which in geologic terms, is the blink of an eye. Put another way, consider that life on earth had been plodding along for 3.4 billion years as little more than bacterial slime prior to the Cambrian explosion.  Twenty million years is less than 0.6% of the time period in which life existed prior to the Cambrian explosion! Some say that snowball earth (Rodinia) generated the oxygen necessary for the evolution of multicellular life. Without sufficient oxygen, multicellular life would never have occurred and would die quickly today without it. Even if this did provide conditions necessary for multicellularity, it provides no ready explanation for how it occurred so quickly compared to previous rates of evolution. By quickly, I mean a rate of evolution that was as much as 170 times faster!

I have spent a great deal of time in this blog admonishing the way science is being conducted. Unfortunately, this diatribe (though well deserved) may have overshadowed what this blog is really all about, and that can be found by going to the very beginning posts: Introduction

The best analogy for this kind of rapid evolution is by comparing it to computer evolution. Computers did not evolve one or two transistors at a time (single point mutations). They evolved rapidly by first generating integrated circuits, then chips, then larger more complex chips composed of smaller chips, then motherboards, then intranet servers, then the internet, and  finally, the cloud. Please take some time to skip the diatribes and go directly to why this blog was generated in the first place.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bad science: the saga continues…

Guess what? Much of the reams of published scientific papers in medical journals appears to be pure trash! Conflicts of interest abound. More trash doesn’t make for better science. It just makes more trash.

Pharmaceutical whistle blower

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Science is broken. These academics think they have the answer.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/27/8854105/new-science-guidelines?ref=yfp

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8591837/how-science-is-broken

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/16/8034143/john-ioannidis-interview

Lots of research fraud and cherry picking going on as well as peer review bias and questionable findings.

After looking over these links myself, I found one huge problem that was glaringly omitted from all of them: The suppression of radical discovery in science that goes against classical dogma.

This is what my blog is all about, and the discoveries shown here that have been completely ignored by the scientific community. I call this ignoring the obvious, because if you look at the microphotographs on this site there is no way they can explained by conventional dogma.

So let me just say this: If you have a problem with my findings here, call me out on it. Give me a satisfactory explanation, not a cop out. I have been waiting for you to do just that for years now.

Best regards,

Dr. Frank Abernathy

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What if pretty much everything you’ve been told about chromosome structure was wrong?

I am a cell biologist who received his Ph.D. in 1988 from Ohio State University and worked there for a number of years. I retired a few years back and now live in Kettering, Ohio. What I am about to tell you might astonish you if you’ve never seen this blog before. It is about chromosome structure, our chromosomes and related species. When you think of chromosomes, do you get a mental image of four hot dogs stuck together with DNA all coiled up inside them like rope? Something like this?

ChromosomeCurrent  convention says if you unravel these “hot dogs” and strip away all the non DNA components, each one of them will become extremely long strands of simple DNA. In fact, according to convention, the top and bottom “dogs” which touch each other are actually part of the same strand. That’s it. Simple, easy peasy. But what if this is completely wrong? What would be the implications for cell biology, genetics, and our most basic understanding of cancer, cell differentiation, and human development, to name just a few things? If this structure is as simple as classical biology would have us to believe, then, when it is unraveled, one would expect long meandering strands of DNA, invisible under the light microscope. What one would not expect is the following:

circles Mark TwainHow can a simple strand, or even 46 strands of DNA (in the case of humans) be incorporated into all these circular structures? They vary in size by orders of magnitude, even down to the level of the electron microscope. How can conventional science square these kinds of structures with the simple models currently used for chromosomes? How indeed! You would think scientists would be breaking their necks falling over each other to come up with some kind of explanation for this. If they are, they are keeping it a deep dark secret and have for as long as this blog has been around. And it has been around for years now.

So the next obvious question is this: Why are scientists not working on finding out how these structures are put together or asking questions about it on this blog (which is loaded with models by the way). That is the subject of a number of posts here, because the apparent lack of curiosity or follow up on these remarkable structures is just as curious as the structures themselves.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Quacks on the Internet, part II.

Quacks on the Internet, part II..

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Quacks on the Internet, part II.

What is this blog about, anyway? Well it’s not about quacks on the internet, unless you want to assign that label to me. No, it’s about something that is near and dear to my heart because it is about that which gets close to the very essence of life itself: how our chromosomes (among other species) are actually put together so they operate in a manner that allows us to be created and function as complex beings. You will find few if any conventional theories here. In fact, after almost 7000 views over a period of over 4.5 years there have been relatively few comments applied to this blog, perhaps a dozen or so. All of these are positive but offer little analysis or criticism of what has been presented here. I find it hard to believe that after all this time, not a single biologist or others with a scientific bent have browsed this blog. To me, it means they are simply not commenting. Now why would that be? Will the most obvious answer is they don’t like what it says about chromosome structure and simply move on. Or it could be that they simply don’t know what to say or ask (I find it very difficult to believe that one). Does this sort of behavior reflect well on what is supposed to be an enlightened age of reason, learning, and discovery? It’s not that scientists aren’t capable of trying to eviserate hypotheses and theories offered to them because they can at times display an almost sadistic pleasure at doing just that. I have seen them do it to others, and to me. The more revolutionary the idea, the more it is savagely attacked.

Why would scientists behave in this way? My “hypothesis” on this is because they share the same flaws and fallacies as every other human being. They can be brainwashed or intimidated into thinking and behaving in certain ways. This happens all the time in cults, religions, celebrity worship, politics and in the workplace. Those in charge are assumed to be infallible and are not to be challenged under threat of termination, censorship, and in extreme cases, injury or death. Huge egos, grant money, positions, status, and reputations are at stake here. This pushes research to follow dogma rather than the data, which in more cases than may be realized, is simply swept under the rug.

This isn’t just my opinion I am talking about here, but years of personal experience as a bench scientist.  I have actually heard people talk about giving their “boss” the data they are looking for. Now I don’t wish to extrapolate too much on that, so I will let you use your own imagination on what that probably means. I know for sure what can happen when you don’t, because it happened to me.

All I ask of anybody reading this blog is to take a little more time and go over what it is I am actually saying here. If it makes no sense, fine, contact me via e mail or leave a comment. I cannot read your mind anymore than you can read mine. I would like to communicate with you in a positive, civilized way that does not involve intimidation, humiliation, or ridicule from either me or you. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. Perhaps we could all learn something from each other.

Happy blogging and enlightenment!

Frank

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Quacks on the internet, reader beware!

I, like other fellow creatures, tend to be impulsive at times and the internet is a really great place to put one’s foot in your mouth. I have done this on at least two occasions in this blog.  I’m sure it won’t be the last time either, simply because it’s so easy to just click on links and post things.

The two cases in point are my last posting regarding an article by a heart surgeon which I have since removed and another one regarding something called “somatids” which was simply brownian motion of very small particles under the microscope. I later learned that this heart surgeon had apparently had his license suspended in 2008. To say he has a checkered past is putting it mildly. I removed the somatid article very quickly once I begin to understand what it was they were calling somatids, having seen similar things myself under a variety of microscopes when viewing living material.

So the bottom line is the internet is a two-edged sword full of mostly unfiltered information and disinformation. It is getting better with reviews, but even then, reviewers may be just paid shills. To the extent that I have contributed to the dissemination of spurious, fraudulent, or self-serving tripe, I apologize. All I ask in return is that you seriously consider what I am saying about the laboratory data I have presented here because this is work that I did myself at Ohio State University. The observations are real, other people have seen these structures for themselves, it should be reproducible by others, and their reality cannot be denied or refuted. In short, they demand an explanation from the scientific community.

Whether my interpretations of the data in this blog are accurate or not is something that must be addressed through experimental research. If a trivial explanation is in order, fine. I have no problem with that and I can shut this blog down once and for all. On the other hand, if even a small portion of what I am saying here is correct, this could turn biology in general and genetics in particular onto their collective heads.

I can understand the casual reader moving on at this point and I have no problem with that. Even passivity of the general biological community to this blog does not disturb me. People do have lives and obligations to fulfill and only small windows of time to do it in. Who I am calling out here are the well-moneyed big whigs; the autonomous, megalithic publishing machines, who if they accidentally stumble onto this blog will probably respond with classical knee-jerk brushoffs, cop-outs, laziness, cowardice, contempt, or something even more sinister. If you are half as smart as you think you are, then, put me in my place once and for all. I have no problem with that. You on the other hand, seem to have a definite problem with that and we both know what that is, don’t we? Simply put, you are of the opinion that it somehow threatens your status quo to even acknowledge this blog. I can think of only three reasons why: 1) You think you and other elites are the only ones capable of finding paths to truth using knowledge acquired through discovery, 2) You are absolutely afraid to test my hypotheses for fear they may have a grain of truth in them and somehow disrupt your gravy train or 3) All of the above. None of these reasons lead to good science. Instead, they simply entrench dogma, just like a religion.

So in conclusion, I am asking for help from the scientific community to determine exactly what these structures are. I cannot do this without help and I am finished with my admonitions of the human species regarding being open-minded and bravely swimming against the tide of mainstream thinking. I’ll just play my piano, instead.

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former U.S. Senator.

Dr. Frank Abernathy

P.S. Thoughtful, reasoned comments (preferably with reference links) are always welcomed, along with e mails.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment