Quantum leaps in cellular evolution

This is my first post this month and it is dedicated to all the people out there who use computers, be ye geeks or otherwise. Pretty much everyone knows what a thumb drive is, right? It’s the little stick you plug into the USB drive of a computer. Doing so instantly upgrades the amount of data that can be accessed by your hard drive. So how does this have anything to do with DNA evolution? Well, DNA may be upgraded in a parallel fashion. However, don’t look for this concept in any conventional biology textbook because you will probably be disappointed. Imagine for a moment, a 32 GB thumb drive with a single male port that has been modified so it also has two female ports on both sides (see illustration below).

32 GB thumb drives.jpeg

This modified thumb drive can now be upgraded to 96 GB simply by inserting two more thumb drives into the female ports.

Three drives.jpeg

As you can see, this process can go on indefinitely.

19 drives.jpeg

Of course, DNA is much flexible and many more female ports could be made available than what are shown here when one goes from two to three dimensions. This process can really go crazy when you consider the fact that the exposed male port on the bottom figure with 19 drives could theoretically join up with another thumb drive menagerie to vastly increase its storage capacity. When referring to DNA, I call such a process hierarchical endosymbiosis.

So what kinds of male and female “ports” are available in DNA? Well, that is pretty much the entire crux of this blog. I suggest starting off by clicking on this link and watching the video. After that, you can return to the blog and click on the home page in the menu bar for further information.






Posted in cancer, cell cycle, cellular differentiation, endosymbionts, evolution, Fallacies in science, mitosis, Stem Cells, virus | Leave a comment

Collaboration Re-visited

I am a retired scientist and have been for about seven years now. I continue to write on this blog in the hope that somebody somewhere might take something away from it that could have a positive impact on the scientific community in particular and society in general. Although I get a lot of positive comments from the public, I really don’t have any idea what that means in terms of sincerity. The internet is a noisy, chaotic, dynamic jungle of competing interests, all clamoring for the attention of an overwhelmed, jaded public whose attention spans get shorter and more demanding with each passing day.  No matter how flattering or unique a comment may appear, it is always subject to suspicion when it is tainted with links to some commercial website. This is why I strip out links when I review comments.  My blog pages and posts get a fair number of views from all over the world but I have no idea who is doing the viewing because I get no feedback from them. I think it’s safe to assume some of these views are from scientists with research interests that parallel my own, but again, I am only speculating.

Since this post is in danger of dragging on longer than it should, let me finish it up with a take-home message:  If there is anyone out there in internet land that believes there should be some kind of follow up to the research I have been talking about in this blog over the years, please let me know by writing to me at fabernathy@sbcglobal.net so we can start up a dialog. I promise I don’t bite, but if I do, I’ve had all my shots so you’re perfectly safe.

Let me quickly summarize what my research suggests: I have reason to believe that the nuclei in our body cells are a lot more sophisticated than textbooks suggest: The current dogma says each of our nucleated cells have 46 chromosomes, each with a single DNA strand in it. My research strongly suggests otherwise. In fact, it practically screams this out in a fitful rage (just like me).

Is This Model Wrong?

The classic cartoon image on the right is incompatible with the two photomicrographs on the left. Single DNA strands do not spontaneously form into thousands of different circle sizes, even when broken! There’s a lot more going on here than the cartoon suggests. For those more literate in cell biology, I believe these circles are an indication of ancient endosymbiotic events that have made the nucleus what it is today. You can learn more about this idea by perusing the rest of the blog or contacting me via e mail.

Posted in cancer, cell cycle, endosymbionts, evolution, Fallacies in science, Funding research, mitosis, Stem Cells | Leave a comment

How are our chromosomes actually put together? Why should it matter to you?

The structure of human chromosomes may not be as simple as mainstream science says they are.

O…….k. So why should that be important to you? Just a petty spat among academics, right? Nothing to see here, just move on along. Might as well argue about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.



Wait up just a minute before you go off and watch that cute cat video or some tone deaf raspy “musician” who believes being loud, obnoxious, nasty looking, and outrageous makes up for a complete lack of talent.

I still have my elevator speech. At least give me that, ok?

I’ll make this really quick. I know how busy you are. To the best of my knowledge, nobody in academia is following up on my work. I’ve been checking on it for some 20 years, now. This isn’t something you can do in your backyard, on a computer, or in a studio. It requires an actual biological laboratory with some funding to go along with it.

(Violin music) So why is that your problem, right?  Well, let me ask you a question:

Would you rather be back in the trees scratching your behind and picking off lice while eating moldy fruit or would you rather be living in a house with clean, hot and cold running water with indoor air that can be heated or cooled with the touch of a button?

I won’t elaborate any further on the many conveniences of current civilization, most or all of which had to be shoved down the throats of the general public in order to get accepted. My point is simply this:

Why would you not want to know everything there is to know about how you, yes I mean you, are actually put together? Or if not you, how about the “experts” that are going to be working on your living body someday when it inevitably starts to fall apart?

Wouldn’t you want them to know as much as possible about YOU before they invade your inner recesses, blades flying followed by agent orange/mustard gas intoxication which paves the way for the most resistant and aggressive of cancers to ravage what’s left of you? In cancer treatment this approach to therapy is like shotgunning or carpet bombing an enemy or burning the haystack to find the needle. The needle survives, by the way.

Do you think that perhaps, just perhaps, we could use a little more knowledge here? Just a little?

Do I have your attention? I hope so. The clock is ticking for all of us. I won’t go into any detail here about my research because there is a plethora of information about it right here in this blog. Suffice it to say this:

There is an elephant in the room, right now that is “invisible” to mainstream scientists. The emperor really has no clothes on. Somebody needs to wake them up because when it comes to chromosome structure, they are completely asleep at the wheel.

You and others can be that somebody. You can help fund a modest pilot study that might just shake them out of their coma. You can learn more about how to do this by visiting my Patreon account or by writing me directly at fabernathy@sbcglobal.net. I’ll do my best to answer any questions you may have about this. You can learn more about how I would do this by visiting the page tab called Future Research.

Take the time to check this out, ok? Bookmark the site. Ask questions. Genetic research doesn’t happen overnight, especially when investigators may be barking up the wrong trees. Don’t wait for the inevitable. Your choice, your life. Fair enough. Does that also include the lives of people you really care about?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

To be a Scientist Means to Follow the data

This is a very sad commentary for me to share, especially during the holidays. I’ll be honest: I really don’t like sharing it but I feel compelled to do so. This is what seems to invariably happen whenever organizations become too big to fail while chasing the almighty dollar no matter what the “cost”. It makes no difference what that organization might be:  businesses, charities, churches, political parties, bureaucracies, government or that last “bastion” of truth… science. Money and power are highly corrupting influences to any kind of human institution.



Posted in Fallacies in science, Funding research | Tagged | Leave a comment

What does it mean to have an “open” mind?

A friend of mine once said that having an open mind is like having an open sewer. I assume what he meant by that was all that unfiltered raw data just flows right in and becomes randomly assimilated into some kind of unrecognizable, grotesque intellectual morass. I suppose that could happen, but it’s still a risk we have to take because otherwise, we have to assume a closed mind is better.  A closed mind means many or all topics are strictly off limits, unless of course those with the closed minds are the ones proselytizing to you. A closed mind usually begins early in life when young brains are very much open to new ideas and experiences. Once input is received and synaptic connections are case hardened, it becomes extremely difficult to re-wire them with any conflicting ideas no matter how innocuous those ideas may seem to be in the eyes of the presenter. To a closed mind, such ideas or trigger words are merely trojan horses that can only lead them down the road to perdition. This can lead to reflexive inflammatory rhetoric that, more often than not, is directed at the messenger rather than the message in order to intimidate and shut him up, i.e. censorship. It can even lead to violent confrontation and war.

But what about scientists, aren’t they trained to be open minded? Uh, this also happens to people who call themselves scientists. Unfortunately, they have an added layer of protection because they presume themselves to be “educated” and hence immune to the stifling confines of a closed mind. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We all suffer from this malady, with a tendency to gravitate toward the baseline of having a completely closed mind as we calcify with age. The more you surround yourself with like minded people and their opinions, the more closed minded you become. Striving for an open mind is extremely hard work. You need to be able to look at unvarnished facts in a honest way with no preconceptions. Of course, this is impossible to do for a number of reasons: How do you find “unvarnished” facts? Where do you look for them? When you “find” them, how do you know just how unvarnished they really are? The short answer is you don’t know any of this. Even the most brilliant, honest open minded scientist cannot be sure of his own data, much less anybody else’s data. They tell you this fact in the discussion section of every research paper they get published via peer review.

So what to do? You must be skeptical, not only of others, but of yourself as well. Who is presenting this “data”? Do they have an agenda beyond trying to get at the truth? What, if anything, do they gain by converting you over to their way of thinking? Are they just arguing to win a verbal contest or does anything they have to say resonate with truth?

I’m almost 70 years old, so I’ve been around the block a time or two. This much I can say with a reasonable degree of accuracy: If what some people are doing makes absolutely no sense, somebody is probably making a lot of money off of it; and chances are they’re not coming by it honestly. Worse still, some people want to burn the world down and remake it in their own image. If they ever took the time to look into a mirror with an open mind, they would see what a horrendous mistake that would be.

Best regards,


Posted in Fallacies in science, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Liberals can be intolerant to science just like conservatives

I’ll let this article speak for itself.


Posted in Fallacies in science | Leave a comment

There are no dumb questions.

This post is about one of the many comments I have been receiving regarding certain posts that strike a chord with people. Here is the link to that post: Can the Linear Chromosome Model Be Saved?

“Fantastic post however , I was wanting to know if you could write a
litte more on this subject? I’d be very grateful if you could elaborate
a bit further. Thank you!”

The author to that comment has been labeled “Anonymous” because they either placed links in the “Author” heading or some kind of commercial verbiage.  Since all of my posts are free to the public, (I make no money from ads put on here by WordPress), I have to insist that authors refrain from pushing products or services in their comments. Otherwise, I will simply strip them out prior to posting. The reason I don’t delete them completely as spam is because most of them seem to have an air of authenticity. Perhaps this is merely a commercial ruse to get me to post them, I don’t know. But if that’s the name of the game, so be it. You post, I strip or delete. In any case, here is my comment to this post:

“Have you perused any of the other posts and pages on the blog? I would be happy to address any questions you may have, but you need to be more specific. As a former teacher, I realize it can be hard for some people to put their thoughts and concerns on a public forum for fear of looking “dumb” or some other such nonsense. My philosophy of teaching is quite simple: There are no dumb questions, just struggles for knowledge. When you ask me questions from your perspective, you are also teaching me how to respond. We learn from each other. That’s how it’s supposed to work. If you are shy about this, just send me a private e mail at fabernathy@sbcglobal.net. I may post our conversation, but I will maintain your anonymity if that’s what you want.”

Thanks for your nice comment.

Posted in cancer, cell cycle, cellular differentiation, endosymbionts, evolution, Fallacies in science, mitosis | Leave a comment