Rubber Band Models

I recently put up another video on my you tube channel Cryptic Chromosome Structure called Chromosome Video II 2018. It is a companion video to the earlier one called Chromosome Video 2018.  Both of these videos use rubber bands to explain how DNA may be put together inside of chromosomes.  The first video is over 20 minutes long and goes into more detail about chromosome models at the end. The second one is only 13 minutes long and tries to get right to the point for those of you with little time to spare. I recommend viewing the second one first and waiting for the first one to load next.

You Tube thumbnailVideo II

You Tube Thumbnail

Video I

Posted in bacteria, biology, cancer, cell, cell cycle, cellular differentiation, chromatid, chromosome, circular DNA, endosymbionts, evolution, Fallacies in science, Funding research, gene, gene expression, genetics, horizontal gene transfer, mitosis, mutation, RNA transcription, Stem Cells, symbiont, virus | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mainstream Science Has Chromosome Structure All Wrong

You Tube Thumbnail

Mainstream science has chromosome structure all wrong.

Here is the new chromatid pic off the video:




Posted in cancer, cell cycle, cellular differentiation, chromosome, circular DNA, endosymbionts, evolution, Fallacies in science, Funding research, mitosis, virus | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Was Isaac Newton Wrong About Chromosomes?

Ok, I know this is bordering on bait and switch, but give me a break, ok? I have to compete with cute cats, the deep state, the end of the world, and people who can juggle fireballs while playing Beethoven’s Fifth. Well, perhaps I am hyperbolizing just a bit, but you get my drift. I know, I know. Isaac Newton didn’t even know what a chromosome was when he came up with his three laws of thermodynamics. Please don’t yawn, I’ll get right to the point here. One of his laws involved something called entropy or the state of disorder in a defined system.


Simply put, this law states that all systems tend to go from a defined state of order to one of more disorder. In other words, chaos reigns, at least where this law is concerned, anyway.  For example, if you hit a rock with a hammer it shatters into pieces. You never see the reverse do you? I mean have you ever seen a hammer hit a bunch of rock fragments which come together into a single rock as a result? I will assume I made my point here and move on before you go comatose on me. So many cat videos, so little time…

So here is the point I’m trying to make here. Let’s say you have a very, very, very long string floating in a viscous liquid and you cut it into various sizes along its length. The ends of each of these fragments have the capacity to stick together to form circles. However, compared to these “sticky” ends these fragments are enormously long. The odds of these ends ever finding each other in this three dimensional spaghetti-like soup of a mixture is very remote. This may be complicated by the fact that other fragments may have sticky ends that can link up to other fragments, making them longer instead of circular.

Does this sound kind of ridiculous? Well, perhaps that’s because it is. Wouldn’t it make more sense that instead of long random linear fragments forming circles, the circles were already there to begin with? If this makes sense, then, the long held notion that chromosomes are long strings of DNA makes no sense in light of what I discovered over 30 years ago.

Where Are You?

Is This Model Wrong?





Posted in chromosome, circular DNA, evolution, Fallacies in science | Leave a comment

Is Evolution Real?

I just got “finished” debating someone on Facebook regarding whether evolution is real or not. It was lively as well as civil, an unusual combination for social media. It ended (for me, anyway) when I presented an actual repeatable example of evolution occurring in real time under controlled (artificial) conditions. The other person dismissed the findings by saying nature was incapable of doing the same thing in the wild. Now what did ole Ian Malcolm say about life in Jurassic Park? It finds a way.

Here is a link to the real time evolution example I provided together with the text from the actual debate. It involves mating between a radish and cabbage to generate a brand new species.

Facebook Post (below), non text removed for better reading

Mark Whyatt Adaptations are not evidence of evolution

Frank W. Abernathy I’ll bite: If adaptations are not evidence of evolution, what is?

Mark Whyatt Nothing cos evolution is a lie…or more kindly, a scientific “theory”.

Frank W. Abernathy Do you even understand what evolution is?

Frank W. Abernathy Pardon my presumption, but do you believe all life is immutable?

Mark Whyatt Yes, its a scientific theory that species can change into other species.

Frank W. Abernathy That’s part of it. It also states that in order to do this, the genetic material has to change and provide selective advantages to the offspring.

Frank W. Abernathy The altered offspring either adapt to a new unoccupied niche or overwhelm the original species leading to the former’s extinction unless it can find a protected niche of its own.

Mark Whyatt If you believe in evolution then you belief that humans evolved from fish that decided to crawl out of the sea and then evolved into mammals…I’ll leave that there unless you can show me any scientific evidence of a species ever changing into another species.

Frank W. Abernathy The problem with doing that Mark is generation time. We need to look at organisms with very short generation times so we don’t die of old age watching them change into something else.

Frank W. Abernathy That’s done using viruses, bacteria and other simple organisms.

Frank W. Abernathy Can we start there as an example?

Frank W. Abernathy You see, it is all but impossible for one species to evolve from another in a single generation. It’s done incrementally over time with many missteps in between.

Mark Whyatt

Frank W. Abernathy You want me to bail on our conversation to watch this video or can you sum it up for me?

Mark Whyatt It’s a theory but that doesn’t stop science and education claiming it as a fact…a theory is based on faith rather than fact, same as creation.

Frank W. Abernathy Some of it is theory and some of it is fact.

Mark Whyatt It’s only 13 mins long Frank

Frank W. Abernathy evolution can occur in less than a day, even hours.

Frank W. Abernathy I’ll watch your video, Mark, but can we find a stopping point. I’m not done yet.

Mark Whyatt The fact is no one as ever observed one species turning into another, ie a bird turning into a fish…that’s the basics behind evolution isn’t it?

Frank W. Abernathy Ever heard of antibiotic resistant bacteria?

Frank W. Abernathy Not really.

Frank W. Abernathy That part is theory based upon extrapolation from known facts.

Frank W. Abernathy Nobody has a time machine.

Frank W. Abernathy You do realize that chimps and humans have 95% genetic compatibility, maybe even more.

Frank W. Abernathy You can line extant species up along an evolutionary tree based upon genetic compatibility.

Mark Whyatt Surely if evolution was a fact and species turned into others they would be hundreds if not thousands of species on the planet just about ready to change at any point in time? …or did they all decide to change species at exactly the same time?

Mark Whyatt When man isn’t looking?

Frank W. Abernathy You’re right, species change all the time. Most of the time these changes have no impact on viability or they kill off the unlucky individual that acquired them.

Frank W. Abernathy These changes can be passed on when a male and female that have them mate.

Frank W. Abernathy Happens all the time in all living organisms.

Frank W. Abernathy This is a fact, not a theory.

Frank W. Abernathy The theory part comes when we delve back in time with only fossils to check and no available genetic material.

Mark Whyatt The fact is no one as ever observed or scientifically proven that one species can change into another, its just a faith based theory like creationism. We can reply to each other all night but you know evolution can’t be scientifically proven.

Frank W. Abernathy Do you believe bacteria are living things?

Frank W. Abernathy Let me provide you with an example of evolution in the lab by man using radishes and cabbage. I could have the two species wrong but the example is still the same.

Frank W. Abernathy A botanist fused together the plant cells of two different species to instantly create a brand new species that could not mate with either of the original parents. That, Mark, is artificial evolution.

Frank W. Abernathy It is also repeatable.

Frank W. Abernathy I learned this in a botany class. You see, I went to college to become a scientist.

Frank W. Abernathy Shall I watch your video now?

Frank W. Abernathy Maybe you would be interested in my blog: Here is the link:

Evolution Turned Upside Down

Mark Whyatt Yes lol…and when science can proof one species (not a bacteria or cabbage) can turn naturally (not artificially) into another I may listen to evolutionists

Frank W. Abernathy If man can do it, so can nature.

Frank W. Abernathy We are simply using the tools nature has provided us to understand how they work.

Posted in evolution | Leave a comment

What difference does it make to you how chromosomes are put together?

This is your friendly retired scientific pest making his presence known…..AGAIN!


This particular post is not for jaded scientists per se but rather for you, the average blog surfer who is looking for the latest and greatest on the internet. You see, I was going to accommodate you today with an animated presentation! Never done one before but I know how cool they can be as opposed to static verbose blog posts such as mine. Anyway, I soon realized I could get in over my head really fast by trying something like that so being long in the tooth and all, I have decided to do a little bait and switch. I’m going to appeal to your intellectual side, instead. So here goes…

What difference does it make to you how chromosomes are put together? Excellent question. On the surface, it kind of sounds like counting angels on the head of a pin, doesn’t it? Strictly an academic exercise for those with plenty of time on their hands and lots of professional expertise. Academically speaking, I would say you’re mostly right. However, the problem is that academics have been very slow out of the gate with the angel counting business. You see, most of them think the job’s already been done, a very long time ago… like in the 19th century! Hard to believe? Well, look at any biology textbook or go online and look up chromosome structure for critters such as ourselves. They all say the same thing, over and over and over again. Each of our chromosomes contain a single wound up piece of linear DNA. All research on chromosome structure is subservient to this old-fashioned model, to the virtual exclusion of anything else. I know, because I have a different model, one I proposed over thirty years ago and nobody to my knowledge in the scientific community is screaming it’s praises from the roof tops. When you think about it, that’s actually kind of scary. After all, aren’t scientists supposed to be skeptical and wary of all models?  Sounds more like religion, doesn’t it?  I won’t go into all the sordid details about the resistance I’ve met regarding my counter model. You can read more about that by digging deeper into my older blog posts which go back as far as October, 2010.

So before we get off too far on a tangent let’s get back to the original question at hand: to paraphrase Hillary Clinton: “What difference does it make, anyway?” Well, actually it can make quite a bit of difference… to YOU and/or your loved ones. Why? Because if chromosome research is going in the wrong direction, fueled by the momentum of a monolithic runaway biological research industrial complex, it can only spell disaster.

Really, you say? Please, let me explain. Compared to military spending, biological and medical research receive only a pittance of federal funding. Unlike the out-of-control military… scarce biological and medical research funds can ill afford to be spent chasing sacred cows day after year after decade, accomplishing only a fraction of what it could or should be doing. Unfortunately, it does have one thing in common with military spending: rampant fraud to achieve a desired end, i.e., the acquisition of still more and more taxpayer’s money with precious little to show for it. Cleaning up government waste and fraud may seem beyond the reach of the common citizen such as yourself, but don’t despair. There is such a thing as microfunding of projects, including biological research. I like to think of this like block chain technology, similar to bitcoin. Let the people decide the merits of various projects by voting with their pocketbooks.

In case you think I failed to make my point about the relevance of chromosome structure to your everyday life, let me say this: We cannot fully cure diseases without understanding how chromosomes operate, because all life begins when the chromosomes begin to generate what is needed for life to exist. You can’t get much more basic than that. How can we understand how chromosomes work if we refuse to understand how they are actually put together?

So you have to ask, what makes me so sure the old model is wrong? Well for one thing, long linear strands are quite different from circles: Compare what I found thirty years ago (on the left below) to a conventional model of chromosome structure on the right:

Is This Model Wrong?

Please let me know your thoughts on this funding business. Currently, I’m retired but that could change based on a sea change in attitude from enlightened and engaged citizenry toward what I have said here. With even a modest amount of funding, I could approach a university to financially support a postdoc or graduate student who would be willing to engage in this kind of research with me as their mentor. My email is

Posted in cancer, cellular differentiation, chromosome, circular DNA, endosymbionts, evolution, Fallacies in science, Funding research | Leave a comment

Human circular DNA is commonplace

As of late, I have been somewhat lax in my perusal of the literature.  I guess my retirement is finally getting the best of me. Anyway, I did a little fishing online today and came up with a fine catch. This particular paper published in March of this year acknowledges that circular DNA is common in normal cells as well as in cancer cells and can be derived from gene-rich areas of the chromosomes. Imagine that! Circular DNA is part of normal chromosome structure! I’ve only been saying this for thirty years now. Anyway, here is a link to the paper: Circular DNA elements of chromosomal origin are common in healthy human somatic tissue.  Sooner or later, some astute young scientist is going to have to come to grips with how these circles are actually generated, i.e., the physics behind their circularization prior to exiting the chromosome. For example, how can the ends of supposedly linear megabase sized chunks of DNA somehow magically find each other within the nuclear milieu to become circles of DNA? Scientists could start looking for that answer by perusing some of what has been written in my blog here.

Posted in cancer, chromosome, circular DNA, endosymbionts, evolution | Leave a comment

Anatomy of the Peer Review System

The average scientist belongs to a whipped dog breed.  All one needs to do is read just one of their peer reviewed papers to confirm it.  They start out well enough with an abstract or synopsis of the paper, giving the reader a brief overview of what it is all about. This is a form of professional courtesy, because scientists are a busy lot and don’t have time to wade through a plethora of papers that may have little relationship or content pertinent to what they are looking for, which is usually papers they will be citing as they write papers of their own.  Time is a premium for the professional paper publisher.

Next is a formal introduction to the previous bodies of work (including their own).  Citations are listed here to provide additional impetus to the thesis that will be presented later in the paper.

Beyond this point, the author assumes the reader is ready to dive into the technical details at hand, including cited general methods and those peculiar to the paper at hand. Assumptions are made that anyone wading in this far already knows how to do most of the techniques and procedures being addressed.  Just in case, however, citations are made available to earlier works which when also read, more than likely refer to even earlier works and one and on until the end of the yellow brick road is finally reached.  Likely, these final yellowed ancient papers were written by the dearly departed whose technical machinations and “tricks” are either buried with them or hidden away in a kind of scientific archeological dig.  With any luck, somebody down the line actually wrote standard operating procedures for such matters, allowing science to progress as intended.

The results of the work are presented in dazzling detail, like a magnificent fireworks display, leading to inevitable “oohs” and “ahhhs”.  So the paper proceeds smoothly along like a well oiled machine, leading up to the grand finale: the inevitable foregone conclusions to be derived from the data.

Herein, lies the rub:  There is a section of the paper called the “Discussion”.  It is here that the author proceeds to pick apart his data.  In essence, he may dispute and minimize it to such a degree that the reader begins to wonder why the paper was ever written in the first place! After going to such great lengths to present his findings in the most elegant way possible, why on earth would he do this?

It is the nature of the beast called the peer review system. The whip of conformity has been applied by way of two to three editorial rejections before the author was ever able to get his manuscript accepted. No doubt, the peer review system works much of the time. Papers of dubious quality get rejected out of hand while others are salvaged by addressing the concerns of the reviewers.  However, being human, reviewers are not infallible and may fall easily into a jaded cookie cutter rut.  By doing so, they may cut into the red meat of novel discoveries rather than simply trimming the fat. Worse still, other high profile more prolific authors may be rubbing elbows with editors at the country club and/or taking money from vested interests with an agenda that conflicts with the thesis of the paper presented by the unfortunate author.

I will end on this final note:  When anyone reports novel discoveries in a manuscript or grant proposal, it is not the job of the reviewers to squelch them or dismiss them out of hand as “trivial”.  They are in no position to make such a value judgement until additional evidence is forthcoming, and how can additional evidence be forthcoming if the means for acquiring it have been solidly blocked by the “system”?  To the best of my  knowledge, other than what I’m telling you in this blog, none of my findings have ever been reported in any peer reviewed journals over the last thirty years.


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