Where is the proof in pseudoscience?

Jan 31, 2014 by Peter Ellerton, The Conversation
Science or pseudoscience? Credit: Flickr/Aff

The word "pseudoscience" is used to describe something that is portrayed as scientific but fails to meet scientific criteria.

This misrepresentation occurs because actual science has creditability (which is to say it works), and pseudoscience attempts to ride on the back of this credibility without subjecting itself to the hard intellectual scrutiny that real science demands.

A good example of pseudoscience is homoeopathy, which presents the façade of a science-based medical practice but fails to adhere to scientific methodology.

Other things typically branded pseudoscience include astrology, young-Earth creationism, iridology, neuro-linguistic programming and water divining, to name but a few.

What's the difference?

Key distinctions between science and pseudoscience are often lost in discussion, and sometimes this makes the public acceptance of scientific findings harder than it should be.

For example, those who think the plural of anecdote is data may not appreciate why this is not scientific (indeed, it can have a proper role to play as a signpost for research).

Other misconceptions about science include what the definition of a theory is, what it means to prove something, how statistics should be used and the nature of evidence and falsification.

Because of these misconceptions, and the confusion they cause, it is sometimes useful to discuss science and pseudoscience in a way that focuses less on operational details and more on the broader functions of science.

What is knowledge?

The first and highest level at which science can be distinguished from pseudoscience involves how an area of study grows in knowledge and utility.

The philosopher John Dewey in his Theory of Inquiry said that we understand knowledge as that which is "so settled that it is available as a resource in further inquiry".

This is an excellent description of how we come to "know" something in science. It shows how existing knowledge can be used to form new hypotheses, develop new theories and hence create new knowledge.

Where is the proof in pseudoscience?
Testing the knowledge. Credit: Flickr/biologycorner

It is characteristic of science that our knowledge, so expressed, has grown enormously over the last few centuries, guided by the reality check of experimentation.

In short, the new knowledge works and is useful in finding more knowledge that also works.

No progress made

Contrast this with homeopathy, a field that has generated no discernible growth in knowledge or practice. While the use of modern scientific language may make it sound more impressive, there is no corresponding increase in knowledge linked to effectiveness. The field has flat-lined.

At this level of understanding, science produces growth, pseudoscience does not.

To understand this lack of growth we move to a lower, more detailed level, in which we are concerned with one of the primary goals of science: to provide causal explanations of phenomena.

Causal explanations

Causal explanations are those in which we understand the connection between two or more events, where we can outline a theoretical pathway whereby one could influence the others.

This theoretical pathway can then be tested via the predictions it makes about the world, and stands or falls on the results. Classic examples of successful causal explanations in science include our explanation of the seasons, and of the genetic basis of some diseases.

While it's true that homoeopathy supporters try very hard to provide causal explanations, such explanations are not linked to more effective practice, do not provide new knowledge or utility, and so do not lead to growth.

In the same way, supporters of neuro-linguistic programing claim a causal connection between certain neurological processes and learned behaviour, but fail to deliver, and astrologists offer no coherent attempt to provide an explanation for their purported predictive powers.

The lack of testable causal explanations (or models, if you will) that characterises pseudoscience gives us a second level of discrimination: science provides casual explanations that lead to growth but pseudoscience does not.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

Operational aspects of science

The third level of discrimination is where most of the action between science and pseudoscience actually takes place, over what I earlier called the operational details of science. Getting these details right helps deliver useful causal explanations.

This is where battles are fought over what constitutes evidence, how to properly use statistics, instances of cognitive biases, the use of proper methodologies and so on.

It is where homeopathy relies on confirmation bias, where the anti-vaccine lobby is energised by anecdotes, and where deniers of climate science selectively highlight agreeable data.

This level is also where the waters are muddiest in terms of understanding science for much of the population, as seen in comments on social media posts, letters to the editor, talkback, television, media articles and political posturing.

The knowledge is out there

It is important to address these basic operational understandings, but we must also highlight, in both science education and science communication, the causal explanations science provides about the world and the link between these explanations and growth in and utility.

This understanding gives us better tools to recognise pseudoscience in general, and also helps combat anti-science movements (such as young-earth creationism) that often masquerade as science in their attempt to play in the same rational arena.

A vigorous, articulate and targeted offence against pseudoscience is essential to the project of human progress through , which, as Einstein reminds us, is "the most precious thing we have".

Explore further: Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Even scientists look for purpose in nature, study finds

Oct 22, 2012

(Medical Xpress)—A team of researchers in Boston University's Psychology Department have found that, despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such ...

Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience

Sep 26, 2013

The warm start to Australian spring has been accompanied by a deluge of pseudoscience. Anti-vaccination campaigners andaliens made appearances, but the deluge was primarily climate pseudoscience in the Murdoch Press and talk radio. ...

A new discipline emerges: The psychology of science

Oct 19, 2011

You've heard of the history of science, the philosophy of science, maybe even the sociology of science. But how about the psychology of science? In a new article in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal publis ...

Preschoolers know good vs. bad sources of info

Mar 22, 2013

(Medical Xpress)—Young children are not like sponges just soaking up information. They can actively evaluate what people know and go to the "experts" for information they want, reports a Cornell study published in a special ...

Science education for the future

Jul 10, 2013

In a democratic society, citizens need to be able to weigh the pros and cons when deciding what they believe and how they should vote. In today's knowledge-based society, that sometimes means having to understand ...

Recommended for you

Precarious work schedules common among younger workers

Aug 29, 2014

One wish many workers may have this Labor Day is for more control and predictability of their work schedules. A new report finds that unpredictability is widespread in many workers' schedules—one reason ...

User comments : 373

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rogerbird2
1.5 / 5 (15) Jan 31, 2014
Homeopathy is strictly observational. And the observations that we see go way beyond the placebo effect, and this has been proven numerous times WITH scientific studies. I hardly think that homeopaths are more mesmerizing than medical doctors. If anything, the opposite would be the case.
Osteta
Jan 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (19) Jan 31, 2014
from the article
While the use of modern scientific language may make it sound more impressive, there is no corresponding increase in knowledge linked to effectiveness. The field has flat-lined.
At this level of understanding, science produces growth, pseudoscience does not.

and this is just ONE reason that pseudo-sciences should be shunned and pointed out
aether/EU has done absolutely NOTHING for science/society other than give us scientifically illiterate youths clinging to ignorance through regurgitation of hack material promoted by CON MEN
I love the final quote
A vigorous, articulate and targeted offence against pseudoscience is essential to the project of human progress through science, which, as Einstein reminds us, is "the most precious thing we have".


just one more reason to argue against Aether and EU hypothesis that are supported on this site by the pseudo-science crackpots
Nestle
1 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2014
offence against pseudoscience is essential to the project of human progress
The eighty years standing delay of acceptation cold fusion experiments is a nice example of progress in the name of fight against pseudoscience.
KingDWS
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2014
I'm surprised none has mentioned the pseudoscience behind the man caused global warming or dare I suggest pseudoreligion behind it. Look at all the studies where data was thrown out because it did not fit the theorem or the if you don't agree you can't have any discernible intelligence or education etc etc. You cannot question or validate this you just have to believe...
Whydening Gyre
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2014
While the use of modern scientific language may make it sound more impressive, there is no corresponding increase in knowledge linked to effectiveness. The field has flat-lined.
At this level of understanding, science produces growth, pseudoscience does not.

and this is just ONE reason that pseudo-sciences should be shunned and pointed out
aether/EU has done absolutely NOTHING for science/society other than give us scientifically illiterate youths clinging to ignorance through regurgitation of hack material promoted by CON MEN
I love the final quote
A vigorous, articulate and targeted offence against pseudoscience is essential to the project of human progress through science, which, as Einstein reminds us, is "the most precious thing we have".

Interesting paradox... without "pseudo-science" (observed, but not explained) we'd have no need for "science" (to explain)...
hmmm....
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes
http://www.pnas.o...abstract

I wonder if social pseudoscientists will ever realize that the experimental evidence in the white-throated sparrow adds to the overwhelming experimental evidence that refutes their pseudoscientific theory of mutation-initiated natural selection. If they do, will they admit to their overwhelming ignorance of biologically-based cause and effect?

I doubt it. That's not what pseudoscientists do. They admit nothing, and hope that no one else will notice that they are not scientists and that they have never been scientists at any time in the history of scientific progress "…guided by the reality check of experimentation."

"…we will not consider geographical and ecological factors because of space limitation. Our primary purpose is to clarify the roles of mutation and selection in the evolution of reproductive isolation…" Nei & Nozawa,2011
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
http://www.skepti...ical-of/

There is mention of Creationism, but not "young-Earth creationism" at this link, which was provided in the article.

"Other things typically branded pseudoscience include astrology, young-Earth creationism, iridology, neuro-linguistic programming and water divining, to name but a few.

What's the difference?"

If the social pseudoscience of mutation-initiated natural selection is not supported by experimental evidence, what's the difference between mutation-driven evolution and Creationism?

I think that the difference may involve the biophysical constraints on protein folding that prevent mutation-driven evolution. Does anyone know of any experimental evidence that suggests there was a lack of biophysical constraints on protein folding some time during the past few hundred million years?

I can't remember how the protein folding occurred back then that enabled receptor-mediated entry of nutrients into cells.
alfie_null
5 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
The eighty years standing delay of acceptation http://www.scienc...22fb.htm is a nice example of progress in the name of fight against pseudoscience.

Couldn't _possibly_ be the fault of you cold fusion pundits (I hesitate to call any of you guys researchers - you've probably scared away anyone capable of quality research). It _must_ be someone else's fault. Conspiracy by all the governments of the world. Mind control beams from Big Oil. Etc.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2014
Interesting paradox... without "pseudo-science" (observed, but not explained) we'd have no need for "science" (to explain)...
hmmm....

@Whydening Gyre
i really think there is plenty for science to do and explain...
pseudo-science only serves to muddy the waters and allow false assumptions a hand-hold among the ignorant and scientifically illiterate.
case in point... aether/eu hypothesis... Zephyr obviously is intelligent, so why waste so much time and energy in selling a hypothesis that died a century ago??
then there is JVK - who only wants to sell his perfumes, and goes on sites like this to push his pet theory ...
the ONLY reason people like JVK and Zephyr and cantdrive argue HERE is because if they argue with knowledgeable professionals in the field, they are proven to be the complete cranks that they really are!
its already happened time and time again...
but it is free/public here, so they can push their pseudosciences!
and the gullible will follow unknowingly
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2014
Pseudo-science cases:
JVK pushes his perfume on Phys.org because other biologists will not fall for his pseudoscience word salad.

http://freethough...s-place/

For those EU proponents, see Tim Thompson refute everything cantdrive says on the physorg site in the HIGGS article, or just go read Thompsons pages

http://www.tim-th...aqs.html

the above is a good start, but there are MANY more that destroy the EU claptrap...

and as for aether...
well, aether was proven wrong a century ago... and is STILL being proven wrong with incredible precision...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1284

there is so much more... but the acolytes will continue to push... even with all the evidence in their faces, they cling to their hypothesis like children to a blanket (or religions to their dogma)
logic will win, but only if you are logical, and can understand reality
which leaves out the crackpots

which is the message above IMO
Nestle
1 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
why waste so much time and energy in selling a hypothesis that died a century ago
Because this idea was misunderstood, ignored and neglected. The dense ae ther model was proposed with Oliver Lodge in 1904 and it was never considered seriously with mainstream (even with aetherists itself, which opposed it), disproved the less. This situation is not so rare - actually many pseudoscientific hypothesis were disproved, just because they were misunderstood in their time, often with their authors itself. The LeSage gravity model, the tired light hypothesis of Fred Zwicky or Plasma universe of Hannes Alfven belong into this category too. At the root of the dismissal of these models was always some missunderstanding, usually connected with dual understanding of the problem.
Nestle
1 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
I already explained, that the luminiferous ae ther model could work, if we consider the transverse light wave spreading in it, not the longitudinal, as the sparse thin aether implies. The LeSage model was dismissed from fear of alleged heating caused with shielding of small waves with objects - but the gravitational waves are much larger and less temporal. The tired light model has been dismissed, because astronomers believed, that the light will be scattered with density fluctuations smaller and more stable, than the period of light undulations - nobody did consider fluctuations larger and less stable. The usual problem therefore is, the people cannot imagine well the opposite, emergent model of physical reality. Their thinking is oriented to deterministic transverse light models. Even in biology, sociology and economy many misunderstandings and false dismissals follow from the fact, the people ignore the dual, emergent effects, which are often contradicting the causality studied.
Nestle
1 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
astrologists offer no coherent attempt to provide an explanation
This is just another example of false dismissal of dual perspective. The astrology seems nonsensical, when transverse waves of vacuum are only considered. But the longitudinal waves may apply there too, albeit they will manifest only with CMBR noise (i.e. in similar way, like the sound waves at the surface of water). But their shielding during conjunctions of planets may lead to temporal changes of climate or even mood of people ("new moon" effect). Many such a theories were dismissed just because of ignorance of dual model of reality.

In biology the Lamarckian evolution was originally dismissed on behalf of Darwinian evolution based on vertical gene transfer, because the people misunderstood/undervalued the role and significance of horizontal gene transfer. The vertical gene transfer has indeed its firm role in sexual reproduction of well defined species, but most of small organisms don't reproduce so.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (14) Feb 01, 2014
The same old zombie arguments you have made here and on numerous other sites Zephyr, and as wrong now as they were then! Your theory is mathless, and therefore useless! You do not have the ability to explain that which you hope to replace, nor can you given coherent reasoning to do so. That is the very definition of pseudoscience!

You have been shown time and again that your model fails, but you cling to it because you ignore the science and do not understand the maths that show it to be wrong. Fleetwood spent a reasonable amount of time showing you why your idea of waves are wrong right on this site not 6 months ago - yet here you go again with exactly the same BS as he showed you was wrong! That's a zombie argument!

At this level of understanding, science produces growth, pseudoscience does not.


And that is exactly where you are.
Nestle
1.1 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2014
Your theory is mathless, and therefore useless!
This is the most funny argument, I ever heard. For example Darwin's evolutionary theory existed well for whole years without single line of math. Most of everyday phenomena are real, despite they have no math developed for it.
Fleetwood spent a reasonable amount of time showing you why your idea of waves are wrong
Yes, and he just used the same fringe arguments, which I already listed above. The problem with dismissal of many alleged pseudoscience models is, the arguments used for their dismissal were pseudoscientific by itself. IMO the net damage caused with false dismissal of pseudoscience is much larger, than the damage caused with blind acceptation of it.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
ANY studies that involve humans are very difficult to subject to scientific rigor as all humans are different and there is no legal way to control the environment for those humans.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2014
But Zephyr for your "theory" to be of any use, it MUST have a basis in math! It is a mathematical construct that has no math to back it up. Your imagination is a wonderful thing Zephyr, but it has no base in reality!

Comparing your "theory" to Darwin's theory is trying to compare apples to koala bears. There is no comparison.

He did not use fringe arguments, he showed you why you were wrong and you simply glossed over the parts you would not or could not understand. And when you start spouting about the danger of dismissing pseudoscience, consider Applegate and the Heaven's Gate cult.

That you continue to pontificate for cold fusion says more about your mental picture of yourself as some sort of down-trodden misunderstood genius than it does about the actual science of cold fusion.
Nestle
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
The Oliver Lodge model is the stuff of the same category, after all it's nearly as old, as the cold fusion research. What you call the "actual science of cold fusion" is just a very last few years of it - these experiments are way older, but they were ignored in the name of "proper science". Which should serve as a memo and a deep warning for us: for ignorance and dismissal of experimental results with official physics the one hundred years is nothing, even during seemingly liberal era of modern human society. Even Galileo wasn't ignored that long! Your misunderstanding of role of math for science belongs into discussion bellow this article.
Gmr
5 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
We see here, in the wild, and in real-time, the co-opting of scientific language for pseudo-science. Many of the charges are counter-leveled with no basis in fact simply to muddy the waters, when none of the true pseudo-sciences has ever produced anything.

It's one thing to claim your team is a bunch of winners. It's another to do so in the face of a season of total catastrophic losses. At some point, one has to go back to reality as a referent.

Pseudoscience has not produced one useful, repeatable, reliable, verifiable anything.

That's a losing season, folks.

Science has any number of grand slams and real wins. Real products, real world benefits, real world results. Real data. Real prediction. These are often the points pseudoscience attacks in order to negate, remove, or reallocate the success.

That's the key in pseudoscience. Its "proof" is just tearing down the other guy and saying "See? SEE? I'm right because he's wrong!"
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
Pseudo-science cases:
JVK pushes his perfume on Phys.org because other biologists will not fall for his pseudoscience word salad.

http://freethough...s-place/


PZ Myers began his defamation of Anderson and me by claiming that chromosome rearrangements are not involved in speciation. "It's mutation-driven."

The article by Horton et al (2014), linked above shows that what I've detailed since 1996 in a series of published works occurs in white-throated sparrows and the conserved molecular mechanisms lead to their diversity in morphological and behavioral phenotypes via chromosomal rearrangements, sans mutations.

If you scan the discussant's comments, you see that no one addressed the importance of current experimental evidence that refutes mutation-driven evolution via details that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man.

JVK
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
Social pseudoscience begins in Nei & Nozawa,2011 with this statement:

"…we will not consider geographical and ecological factors because of space limitation. Our primary purpose is to clarify the roles of mutation and selection in the evolution of reproductive isolation…"

http://gbe.oxford...abstract

Re: PZ Myers attack: "This type of speciation by chromosomal rearrangements is also known to occur in yeasts and mammals."

It is the result of ecological variation!
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
Pseudoscience has not produced one useful, repeatable, reliable, verifiable anything.

'pseudoscience' highlights the limits of current science.
The hard core 'scientists' that demand repeatable, verifiable....would never discover anything new as they don't have the vision or insight to pursue fringe anomalies.
All progress depends upon the unreasonable man.
Nestle
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
Pseudoscience has not produced one useful, repeatable, reliable, verifiable anything
If you define the pseudoscience like the science, which has not produced one useful, repeatable, reliable, verifiable anything, then yes - but after then we are talking about circular reasoning fallacy. In its time the blood circulation, plate tectonics, germ theory, atom concept, heliocentric model, endosymbiosis, hypnosis, Lamarckian evolution, synaptic plasticity, existence of meteorites, wave theory of light, X-rays (they even have their defamative name from it), even construction of planes etc. were all considered a pseudoscience. Bonus: list of fundamental articles, rejected with peer-review journals as a pseudoscience.
Nestle
1.1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
Sorry, the correct link is here
All progress depends upon the unreasonable man.
Yes, many findings are based on negentropic process. They're sorta guessed from many overlapping indicia in non-deterministic way or found by accident. Which is why we usually cannot apply the math to protoscience. The really fundamental findings are labeled breaking just because they cannot be predicted from known facts in deterministic way.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
Another article about pseudoscience which makes no mention of dogma …

Also, there is a growing awareness in the scientific community -- thanks to Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and decision theory -- that biases are a natural byproduct of the way the mind (Kaheman's "system 1") works.

This article could have been written by Carl Sagan back in the 80's. And yet, the past two decades have been filled with discoveries about how the mind makes decisions in complex situations that lead to a model for how the mind works in practice WHICH WAS NOT PREDICTED.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
and here we see the last ditch efforts of pseudoscience attempt to legitimize their efforts:
hannes says:
Also, there is a growing awareness in the scientific community -- thanks to Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and decision theory -- that biases are a natural byproduct of the way the mind (Kaheman's "system 1") works

but forgets totally that this is about replication, reliability of facts, and advances moreso than anything, whereas his comments infer that pseudosciences are stagnant due to general conspiracy and dogmatic aggression

and Zephyr
but after then we are talking about circular reasoning fallacy

admits that pseudoscience has done nothing, BUT...
it is SCIENCE that uses circular reasoning????
WTF? Really?
Just read through HALF of your post, Z... all you do is argue in circles and provide NO real science usually... although I really DID love your post lately from the guy CLAIMING to be a Cambridge study... but no one can find that link in Cambridge anywhere
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2014
JVK babbles on with his jargon heavy word salad
and attacks other biologists who, although are actually TRAINED in the field, dont understand how he can make such unreliable claims based upon a dead crackpot idea
PZ Myers began his defamation of Anderson and me by claiming that chromosome rearrangements are not involved in speciation. "It's mutation-driven."

here's a thought... if a court will not call it defamation because the biologists are using real science while you are using pseudoscience, then it is NOT DEFAMATION, it is statements of FACT

and Ryygy
The hard core 'scientists' that demand repeatable, verifiable....would never discover anything new as they don't have the vision or insight to pursue fringe anomalies

this is ridiculous
and others say it as well!
Essentially science only succeeds because crackpots are here! Wow
CERN ... they succeeded because Ryggy and Zeph et al claim aether, eu, etc and because jvk doesnt understand the meaning of "mutation"
JVK
1 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2014
Captain Stumpy,

Please address the fact that evolutionary theory is social pseudoscience or provide experimental evidence that supports the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that can be compared to the experimental evidence that supports my model of ecological adaptations.

Please stop your anonymous foolishness! Thank you for your consideration in this regard.
JVK
1 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2014
http://comments.s...ent-4917

These results appear to conflict with previous reports of biologically plausible non-random experience-dependent receptor-mediated species divergence due to ecological variation and adaptations. At least two of those reports were co-authored by Dr. Akey.

The adaptations show up in nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled differences in cell types, which appear to be due to alternative splicings of pre-mRNA and amino acid substitutions, and the adaptations also show up in chromosomal rearrangements like those recently reported in sparrows with different morphological and behavioral phenotypes (see Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes).

The differences in sparrows appear to be consistent with vertebrate-wide nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptations like those in the mouse-to-human example detailed in Kamberov et al (2013) and Grossman et al (2013)...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
Hannes Alfven
Osteta / Nestle / Zephyr
JVK
ryggesogn2

is there a comprehension problem?
Go RE-READ the article!
Obviously you are NOT understanding it!

The lack of testable causal explanations (or models, if you will) that characterises pseudoscience gives us a second level of discrimination: science provides casual explanations that lead to growth but pseudoscience does not.

and
This level is also where the waters are muddiest in terms of understanding science for much of the population, as seen in comments on social media posts, letters to the editor, talkback, television, media articles and political posturing

I mean... do yall really understand any of what was written?
We can re-post article and proof all day, but yall ignore FACTS because it doesnt fit your FICTION

yall dont do SCIENCE
you do FICTION with a Sci-fi twist but CLAIM it is REAL
your pseudoscience is not any better than literary fiction, except Lit. Fict. is interesting
JVK
1 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2014
http://comments.s...6170.471

"...DNA from a small number of Neandertal ancestors might have been swamped later by the sheer abundance of modern human DNA."

"Swamped" is an interesting word choice. Dr. Akey is senior author of the article with an abstract that states: " We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000–10,000 years."

Creationists might take that to mean the "swamping" occurred after a flood of Biblical proportions, which appears to be somewhat consistent with Dobzhansky's "Creationist" belief. Clearly, however, that's only if you place his stated belief into the context of a shorter time frame, which enabled rapid ecological adaptations to occur via the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction, changes in base pairs, amino acid substitutions, and chromosomal rearrangements.

"I am a creationist and an ...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
Captain Stumpy,

Please address the fact that evolutionary theory is social pseudoscience or provide experimental evidence that supports the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that can be compared to the experimental evidence that supports my model of ecological adaptations.

Please stop your anonymous foolishness! Thank you for your consideration in this regard.


@JVK
please go back to school and get a firm understanding of real science and biology and learn it for yourself as i have psoted time and again proof of your illegitimacy.

i think PZ Meyers was quite specific in pointing out your fallacies.

thank you for your attention in this matter.

http://freethough...s-place/

p.s. your model also uses mutation but you cannot admit it. read definition of mutation used by biologists. thanks
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2014
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
Max Planck
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.

Max Planck

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
AGWites here become very Popperarian here but refuse to apply the same rigor to their AGW faith.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
Re: "pseudosciences are stagnant due to general conspiracy and dogmatic aggression"

You'd be wise to learn Kahneman's model, because you are using a word here -- conspiracy -- which is completely misleading. What decision theory suggests is that independent rational thinkers have two separate systems for thought: There is the rational system ("system 2"), which we use for thinking like a scientist. But, that system is incredibly slow and requires enormous effort. It cannot keep us alive. Studies show that the most important trait for determining life expectancy is response time, so the human mind has created a "system 1" which anticipates threats.

That fast system DOES NOT OPERATE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE. It produces narratives that are associatively coherent -- in other words, it selects stories on the basis of INTERNAL CONSISTENCY. And, in order to make this system fast, it wires directly into our PERCEPTION.

Simply put, the mind is NOT like a computer.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2014
"the unwillingness of its practitioners to consider alternate theories or adapt their explanations based on new data, is what makes it pseudoscientific.3"
http://www.randi....nce.html]http://www.randi....nce.html[/url]

Sounds like AGWism.

"Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift, proposed in 1912 in a paradigm of gradualist geophysics, was labeled pseudoscientific and only finally accepted in the late 1950s as plate tectonics emerged as an explanatory framework."
http://www.randi....nce.html]http://www.randi....nce.html[/url]
Is perception reality? How can anyone really know?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2014
What I also find quite inconsistent with many here who seem to espouse Poppererian falsification for science are very supportive of socialism.
It was Marxism that Popper used as his example of 'pseudoscience'.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2014
@JVK
please go back to school and get a firm understanding of real science and biology and learn it for yourself as i have psoted time and again proof of your illegitimacy.

i think PZ Meyers was quite specific in pointing out your fallacies.

http://freethough...s-place/

p.s. your model also uses mutation but you cannot admit it. read definition of mutation used by biologists. thanks


Like you, Myers never addressed the experimental evidence that clearly links ecological variation to adaptations via chromosomal rearrangements. This is common among theorists and their ignorant minions who are led to believe that biology teachers actually know something about the current extant literature, when they typically know nothing more than their teachers did, which is all you may ever know. Do you plan to become I teacher. I worked for 38 years as a medical laboratory scientist.
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
Mutation-Driven Evolution http://www.amazon...99661731
p. 196: "

"Epigenetic control of development is very important..., alternative splicings of introns also plays an important role in generating polymorphic proteins.... These polymorphic proteins... are sometimes used for determining different developmental pathways, as in the case of sex determination in insects."

IN MY MODEL ,THAT OCCURS VIA NUTRIENT-DEPENDENT PHEROMONE-CONTROLLED AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTIONS AND CHROMOSOMAL REARRANGEMENTS.

"(1) Mutation is the source of all genetic variation on which any form of evolution is dependent... (2) Natural selection is for saving advantageous mutations and eliminating harmful mutations. Selective advantage of the mutation is determined by the type of DNA change, and therefore natural selection is an evolutionary process initiated by mutation."

THIS IS NOT BIOLOGICALLY PLAUSIBLE AND HAS NOT BEEN VALIDATED BY ANY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE THAT VALIDATES MY MODEL.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2014
"JC challenge to MM: Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being 'anti-science,' I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide.

He has not responded to my challenge, other than to retweet some rather dubious blog posts.

Ironically, this kind of behavior typifies 'anti-science' – insult the scientist, not their argument."
http://judithcurr...re-14467
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2014
@Halfven
because you are using a word here -- conspiracy -- which is completely misleading

I am using the word but it is the pseudoscience crackpots who keep inferring that their studies are being ignored due to it
There is the rational system ... effort

true
Studies show ... "system 1" which anticipates threats

also sometimes referred to as the reptilian brain responses or the primitive, instinctive brain function in laymans terms
used to protect the individual from physical threats
sometimes overriding the rational center etc
That fast system DOES NOT OPERATE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE

actually, it does, but it reacts using a different set of criteria

I guess what you are saying is that scientists dont use the logical brain?
Or is it just people who point out that pseudoscience is irrational that dont use the logical brain?
Seems to me that it is the pseudoscience acolyte that fails to use the logical brain...

what exactly IS your point?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2014
@Alfven
That fast system DOES NOT OPERATE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE. It produces narratives that are associatively coherent -- in other words, it selects stories on the basis of INTERNAL CONSISTENCY

but you failed to mention that you can work around this brain by being methodical and logical. You CAN re-assess your perceptions and change your beliefs. You CAN learn how to think logically and scientifically.
The problem with the pseudoscience crowd (like Ryggy, jvk, zephyr etc) is their LACK of ability to re-assess their motivations and face logic. In the face of logic and real legitimate science, they retreat into a shell of dogma and verbiage (see jvk above) and also name calling. AKA chest thumping
This is the reptilian response.

With the evidence not in their corner, they attack.

Even with SOME real science in their theory (jvk, cantdrive etc) they cannot admit that their theory is groundless
because it has been refuted by REAL scientists, they instead flout it HERE
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
@Hannes Alfven
And, in order to make this system fast, it wires directly into our PERCEPTION

I agree that your reptilian brain can affect your perceptions
I will use responses here to demonstrate how the pseudoscience crackpot uses it to push a theory with more/bigger holes than the titanic

See jvk say
This is common among theorists and their ignorant minions who are led to believe that biology teachers actually know something about the current extant literature

this lashing out is meant to bolster his argument but instead he cant see how it undermines it
he doesnt realise that ANYONE with logic can look him up and find that he is a research biologist in the field, where as jvk is a glorified lab tech who tries to use his Mensa membership to promote his research...
given a choice, I would believe the man in the field, not the lab tech with an axe to grind and a hack false concept he is using to enrich himself!
it dont take a genius to prove crackpots are crazy
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
...they retreat into a shell of dogma and verbiage (see jvk above)


Neandertals and Moderns Made Imperfect Mates Science 31 January 2014:
Vol. 343 no. 6170 pp. 471-472

http://comments.s...6170.471

I'm retreating from Captain Stumpy's nonsense, and hope others will join me at the Science Magazine comments section.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
So then after jvk attempts to discredit all biology teachers he says
Do you plan to become I teacher. I worked for 38 years as a medical laboratory scientist

this is supposed to mean that I am walking in the footsteps of the ignorant

however, what it REALLY says is that jvk has a baseless claim and cannot support it with rational folk who are ACTUALLY WORKING IN THE FIELD and therefore he comes to an open, free, public forum to shove it down the throats of the uninitiated in the hopes that he can spread his CRACKPOTTERY...
well, jvk, I was a professional investigator for more than 20 years and I have seen many a con-man and I can tell you that your tactics mirror them...
but in all actuality, it is irrelevant what the background is because, in the end, the claims made by jvk are refuted by SCIENCE

and herein lies the SOURCE of jvk's anger, just as it is the source of discontent for so many other crackpots pushing pseudosciences

they cant get recognition for their idle BELIEF
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
@jvk
I'm retreating from Captain Stumpy's nonsense, and hope others will join me at the Science Magazine comments section

my sincerest apologies for hurting your Mensa feelings
you are not the only Mensa member here, by the way

so i am sorry i am making you take your ball and go play elsewhere because you cant use your crackpot stuff here to bolster your comments, and because you cannot refute your pseudoscience with a real professional biologist in the field...

i will let you call me names though...if it helps
yes, i get AAAS journal too...so what? you made a comment? and?

thanks for reinforcing all the statements made in the article above, though... it shows others how pseudoscience acolytes like you work and gives them something to watch out for in the future.

PEACE
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior (1996)
http://www.hawaii...ion.html

"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..."

With details on the conserved molecular mechanisms of epigenetic effects, we linked nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations involving amino acid substitutions and chromosomal rearrangements in sex chromosomes at the advent of sexual reproduction in yeasts via a common signaling pathway in vertebrates (Horton et al., http://www.pnas.o...bstract) and invertebrates (Maleszka et al http://bfg.oxford...bstract)

Not one evolutionary theorist has addressed any of the data in any of these three published works.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
@jvk
Not one evolutionary theorist has addressed any of the data in any of these three published works


so...like i pointed out
you cant get your theory recognized by real scientists so you come here to argue?
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
do you really think that if you get Bob the local plumber to say "you are right" that this is going to make all the other Biologists/researchers in the field come running to your side and pat you on the back and say "good job"????
this is a public forum
free
general public
even though there ARE some professionals here

you keep comming here to argue your point...
this only reinforces the above assessments of your lack of validity

is that a challenge to your masculinity?
is that why you keep coming back?

it appears to me that your lack of ability to "prove to the world" that you are correct is the simple and resounding fact that
you are pushing pseudoscience and it is NOT REAL SCIENCE!

surely a Mensa member would understand that...
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2014
It is probably obvious to everyone else who has followed the comments here that the reason the experimental evidence of ecological adaptations has not been addressed is because it is overwhelming. Anyone who has touted mutation-driven evolution but has looked at the experimental evidence realizes they were wrong.

When have you heard that any academic admitted being wrong? Even when faced with overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, they simply hope that not too many people learn about the evidence until after they are dead. You, on the other hand, are not an academic. You are nothing but a fool who believes in the foolishness of academics who don't even try to address the biological facts of ecological adaptations via amino acid substitutions and chromosomal rearrangements.

Your anonymity gives you an advantage that academics don't have. You can dissappear without dying, and no one will ever know how wrong you were. Please dissappear now, and save us all any more bother.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2014
@jvk
When have you heard that any academic admitted being wrong?

quite a lot, actually
Even when faced with overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, they simply hope that not too many people learn about the evidence...

I could use this very same argument about YOU
You...are not an academic

never claimed to be one
although I am going back to school
and it IS an academic field of study
Your anonymityblah dissappear now, and save us all any more bother

so... you are MAD because a NON ACADEMIC showed you how much of a CRANK you are, so now you want to pout about it?
And you think this hurts my feelings?
Besides, you claim I was wrong
but I think I PEGGED YOU fairly SPOT ON
as you are just proving MY POINT with YOUR ARGUMENTS

sorry jvk, you continue to dig your own grave with your narcissistic pontifications and crackpot ramblings
but in the end, YOU are STILL the lab tech
that is PROMOTING the CRACKPOT PSEUDOSCIENCE
not me

and all on topic, to boot!
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2014
When have you heard that any academic admitted being wrong? Even when faced with overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, they simply hope that not too many people learn about the evidence until after they are dead.


"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Max Planck"

JVK
1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2014
http://www.amazon...99737673

In his book, linked above: Neuroanatomist Simon LeVay wrote:

" James Kohl, an independent researcher who also markets "human pheromones" to the general public, believes that pheromones may have a primary influence in setting up a person's basic sexual orientation. Other, more consciously perceived aspects of attractiveness, such as facial appearance, are attached to a person's basic orientation through a process of association during early postnatal life, according to Kohl.

This model is attractive in that it solves the "binding problem" of sexual attraction. By that I mean the problem of why all the different features of men or women (visual appearance and feel of face, body, and genitals; voice quality, smell; personality and behavior, etc.) attract people as a more or less coherent package representing one sex, rather than as..." see p210

JVK
1 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2014
Award winning book chapter & Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality article:
http://www.sexarc...kohl.htm

Award winning Neuroendocrinology Letters Review article
http://www.nel.ed...view.htm

PZ Myers attack on "...a creationist with a Harvard science degree" who worked with Catherine Dulac at Harvard, who is involved in research on the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes. http://elife.elif...1/e00070

http://scienceblo...ionists/
"Obviously, Dr Nathaniel Jeanson is one of the fruit loops who plodded through a graduate program."

Did I mention that PZ Myers is the most ignorant atheistic biology teacher I have ever encountered. He knows nothing about anything and teaches it to his students. I'll bet he's teaching everything he knows to Captain Stumpy.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2014
@jvk
Did I mention that PZ Myers is the most ignorant atheistic biology teacher I have ever encountered

biased conjecture without merit based upon the fact that he destroyed your hypothesis and proved you wrong in print and you cannot do anything about it as it is factual and true
He knows nothing about anything and teaches it to his students

biased conjecture already proven wrong by position, title and stature in biology education system
obvious ploy to detract from your own shortcomings and the fact that you are pushing a fallacious pseudoscience hypothesis with very little actual scientific merit
I'll bet he's teaching everything he knows to Captain Stumpy

I would take his education over yours any day
at least he is competent and able to teach
and is considered qualified

was there a point to all this other than to reinforce the above article and prove my assessment?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
Re: "but you failed to mention that you can work around this brain by being methodical and logical. You CAN re-assess your perceptions and change your beliefs. You CAN learn how to think logically and scientifically."

Okay, now I'm learning a little bit about YOU which you are not intending to share. I know how people make decisions from the model, and I also know a bit about the evidence for one particular topic which is commonly thought to be pseudoscience -- the Electric Universe. And one of the features of this evidence is that it has not (yet) been presented in a manner which is conducive to making rational decisions.

This actually happens ALL OF THE TIME in science, especially in textbooks: We teach the material in a manner which does not permit us to question it. In fact, Jeff Schmidt has argued in Disciplined Minds that the physics PhD program does this intentionally, in order to weed out the students who will stop to think about what it is they are memorizing.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
In the case of the Electric Universe, the evidence is all spread out. And as things stand, it takes enormous time to actually track down all of the sources. So, what happens when people lack the information they need to make an objective decision about a subject -- we know from Kahneman's model -- that they fall back onto the irrational narratives. And this happens IMPLICITLY: In other words, it happens AT THE LEVEL OF YOUR PERCEPTION. The failure of the persuader to provide the proper context that answers the questions which their audience is asking induces your own mind to INVENT associatively coherent narratives.

Since associative coherence as a criteria for selection is based upon whether or not the details are internally consistent, EVIDENCE is not a factor. Internally consistent stories can involve just two details. In fact, the less, the better.

This is how bias creeps into science, because these associatively coherent stories are over-simplifications of the world.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
When people use words like "conspiracy" within the context of a discussion about "pseudoscience", that particular combination is a reflection of their own refusal to learn and apply a model for how the mind works. When you see those two words used together, the person is suggesting that they cannot see any reason why independent, rational people might exhibit collective herd-like behavior.

Well, we can see very clearly from Kahneman's model how biases can form into culture, because the propensity for biases is actually encoded into how we react to uncertain, complex environments. The biases arrive within these associatively coherent narratives which Kahneman's "system 1" presents to us.

Scientists are JUST AS SUSCEPTIBLE to all of this as everybody else, because it all happens beyond the observation of the rational mind. This is why we can see biases in other people much easier than ourselves.

It also suggests that people need to be more open-minded about bias and dogma.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
People who advocate for ideas which are struggling to compete with mainstream theories, and who are convinced through diligent research that there is something to what they are reading, should learn about Kahneman's model and decision science.

Watch the lecture at http://www.youtub...tgSwY88, and if that interests you, read the book Thinking, Fast and Slow.

By combining this mental model with knowledge about the audience you are targeting, you can put yourself into your reader's shoes. You can answer the questions your audience is thinking, before they even ask them. This is how people who do product innovation at the largest corporations in the world design product packaging: The packaging is designed to be the answers to the questions which people are asking.

People who disagree with mainstream science would be wise to do a little bit of homework on how to craft their message. Once the information has been presented properly, THEN let's talk about pseudoscience.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
One more thing: If you deeply reflect upon Kahneman's model, what you will notice is that "system 1" -- the "irrational" system -- is designed for SPEED. The reason it is there is to keep us ALIVE.

THE RATIONAL MIND IS FAR TOO SLOW TO KEEP US ALIVE.

So, what system 1 does is constantly scan our senses and combine that with the patterns we are already familiar with, in order to alter our perception, to keep us alive.

So, when a scientist decides to invest heavily into one theory to the detriment of others, or when they are working in a research position which would be blown to pieces by certain arguments or observations, SYSTEM 1 VIEWS THOSE THINGS AS EXISTENTIAL THREATS.

What this means is that scientists are actually MORE PRONE to reacting irrationally than the uncommitted layperson who has no reason to feel threatened by changing their mind.

THIS IS WHY OUTSIDER LAYPEOPLE HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY IN SCIENCE. It's also why institutions tend to become authoritarian over time.
Nestle
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2014
that people need to be more open-minded about bias and dogma
The proponents of Plasma Universe aren't less prone to bias and dogma, than the mainstream physics. I'm pretty opened to all alternative models thinkable and from what I know about it I can just tell, the Plasma Universe has very much to do with classical pseudoscience.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
Kahneman's model basically exposes how bias creeps into research, and it leaves scientists in the uncomfortable position of saying that they can do things which are actually impossible. Yes, we can become reflective of our irrational tendencies, but we've all met lots of highly educated scientific thinkers that are clearly NOT reflective.

What is extraordinary is that professional scientists seem to continue to watch Kahneman lecture as though he is not basically blowing the building up. Everybody is all nodding their heads in apparent appreciation. The guy is basically lighting a fuse beneath CONSENSUS SCIENCE, and nobody is throwing any chairs.

I think once mainstream science sees that these arguments WILL be used against consensus science, they will exhibit a very different reaction.

Meanwhile, science writers completely oblivious to these huge cultural trends continue to write vanilla fluff pieces like this about pseudoscience that sound like they were written 2 decades ago.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2014
Re: "The proponents of Plasma Universe aren't less prone to bias and dogma, than the mainstream physics. I'm pretty opened to all alternative models thinkable and from what I know about it I can just tell, the Plasma Universe has very much to do with classical pseudoscience."

"from what I know about it" and "I can just tell" are the clues that your decision are not actually based upon the diligent work of an investigator. You haven't chased down the sources. You haven't talked with the theorists for clarifications. You haven't done ANY ethnography on this complex subject, to figure out how people are making decisions about it.

What you did, if you are like other people, is you saw some rebuttals, and you might not have even understood all of the details in the rebuttals, but you made a call to STOP LEARNING the Electric Universe.

Then, you went online here, and pronounced to others -- some of whom have read much more than yourself on the subject -- your opinion.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
The fact is that critical ionization velocities have been observed to be associated with the HI hydrogen filaments in radio surveys.

The fact is that the MHD models applied by astrophysicists are known to not apply to plenty of phenomena in space which THEY ARE STILL ROUTINELY APPLIED TO.

The fact is that quasi-neutrality DOES NOT imply non-conductive. A quasi-neutral plasma still conducts. That is a fact.

The fact is that plasma filaments exhibit the behavior of an ion sump: Conductance through these filaments induces an attractive force upon ions in interstellar space. This process -- known to plasma physicists as Marklund convection -- can be used as the basis for explaining how stars form which is very consistent with what we observe.

The fact is that ALL PLASMA FILAMENTS GENERATE MICROWAVES, so if you thought that the CMB could only be predicted by a metaphysical big bang, then you've made an IRRATIONAL decision.

Now, I suspect that you don't know what a CIV is. True?
Nestle
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2014
are the clues that your decision are not actually based upon the diligent work of an investigator
This is just my opinion in this matter. I already explained, that the proponents of plasma universe misinterpreted the gravitomagnetic phenomena of dark matter for classical plasma behavior, because their equations are similar. Nobody else has brought such an explanation of the whole Plasma Universe stuff, so you can be sure, I know about it at least something. Which is the most robust evidence of Plasma Universe model according to you? I'm not asking you for links of reference list, just about your opinion in this matter.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
Re: "Which is the most robust evidence of Plasma Universe model according to you?"

Read papers by Gerrit Verschuur. Some of them have been published in the Astrophysical Journal, but most are in IEEE. Verschuur is NOT part of the Thunderbolts group. He doesn't even routinely communicate with them. He's one of the world's most famous radio astronomers.

Use his two books -- Interestellar Matters and The Invisible Universe -- to learn how radio astronomy works. And use that material to understand what he is saying in his papers.

Verschuur's line of investigation will probably take down the Big Bang. Nobody will see this coming when it happens.

We are waiting for somebody to present it in a form that does not take months to understand. Personally, I'd also like to see it presented in a format which people can use to question the information.

But, don't forget that there is no MONEY in ANY of this stuff which can be made. So, why would ANYBODY care?!
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2014
was there a point to all this other than to reinforce the above article and prove my assessment?


Yes. My point was that PZ Myers attacks but has never substantiated his attacks with discussion of experimental evidence. He simply ignores it, and lets people like you -- his equally ignorant minions -- continue what he started.

He provided the best example of academic nonsense that I could imagine and stopped my participation by labeling me a "homophobe" no doubt not realizing that I had published an award-winnning book chapter in the Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality in 2007, that used the same model for the development of heterosexual and homosexual male preferences (thus, Simon LeVay's comment in his book).

If PZ Myers had done his homework and learned about me before calling me a crank and then a homophobe, he could not have missed the trail of experimental evidence that clearly makes him the fool, perhaps even in everything he has ever written.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
Verschuur claimed not too long ago to observe local contamination within the WMAP data. The WMAP team, not surprisingly, defended their work by invoking some sort of a statistical analysis that suggested that Verschuur's claimed correlations -- between local knots in interstellar filaments and WMAP hotspots -- were not statistically relevant.

But, there are very big problems in this response: First, the WMAP team does not read IEEE. We know this because people who read the Astrophysical Journal will generally tell you that they do not read IEEE. So, we basically know that the WMAP team does not know of any model which justifies Verschuur's claims -- namely, they do not know what Marklund convection is. They might not even know what a critical ionization velocity is. That would not be a stretch, because neither do radio astronomers, actually.

2nd: Interstellar filaments are DYNAMIC phenomena in the IEEE view of these filaments. Of course there will be misalignments.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
3rd: The reason we observe interstellar "clouds" at 21-cm is because radio waves go through them. So, when you are looking at a patch of sky, you are seeing numerous phenomena moving at different speeds, all signals on top of each other. So, there is some Gaussian fitting that has to happen here, and if it is to be ACCURATELY DONE, it has to be done by a HUMAN. The WMAP team definitely did NOT replicate Verschuur's approach, because that took Verschuur many, many thousands of hours of careful curve-fitting.

4th: Many instruments we use to observe in radio cannot be used to replicate Verschuur's observation of CIV's. He explains this in his papers.

5th: When care is taken to generate linewidth histograms for this HI hydrogen signal, the shifts tend to center at PARTICULAR SPEEDS. ALL 4 CIVs show up in some regions. Just one in others ...

The CIV's suggest that ionization in space is an ACTIVE, ONGOING PROCESS.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2014
The CIV's also suggest that this ionization is definitively associated with the filaments themselves. And that points the finger at Marklund convection as a possible mechanism.

Critical ionization velocities CANNOT be there if you are true believer in the Astrophysical Journal. They undermine everything else. It's like STARTING OVER -- rewinding the tape back to Fred Hoyle ridiculing the Big Bang.

You cannot reinvent the Big Bang theory with evidence for ionization happening all over the sky. Astrophysicists and cosmologists will see these claims, and their "system 1" will immediately size it up as a threat to everything that they know in science, and they will -- without awareness -- post-rationalize a narrative for the public for why this simply CANNOT be true …

So, whoever explains these findings has his work cut out for him, because he has to figure out all of these post-rationalizations before they are verbalized, and SHUT THEM ALL DOWN before they even get a chance.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2014
The WMAP team actually never even made it to the point of addressing the CIV's. They stopped at questioning Verschuur's statistics on his contention that there was contamination in the WMAP.

What was completely lost in the science reporting on the WMAP contamination, if you go back and review those popular science stories, is that there are known phenomena from the plasma laboratory which quite logically fit together to form a model that can explain the CIV's. It's up to the human race -- not just Verschuur or the Thunderbolts group -- to decide to create and elaborate this model. It's a HUGE endeavor. These small, unfunded groups should not be expected to do all of this -- and in the face of such hostile reaction. Verschuur fears the publication of his own conclusions.

And the reason that we WILL eventually decide to do that is because humans care that their beliefs in science are accurate. But, we are still at the point of people not understanding the observation.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2014
@Alfven
...WILL be used against consensus science...

first off, you are assuming that consensus is being given without just cause
Consensus is usually arrived at by multiple persons making multiple separate experiments and arriving at the same general or specific conclusions
this is not the same as a congressional consensus which relies upon a vote
And the rational person does have the ability to research and learn and change his/her mind but it may also be up to the opponent to provide documentation that supports the argument in the case of ideas that are not supported by the general evidence
And linking to reputable sites is the only way that everyone can be on the same wavelength for the argument
choosing a journal is important as it needs to reflect the argument
selecting a site that is known to produce disreputable studies on cosmology is tantamount to arguing religion as the legitimacy is not verifiable
Therefore the linked material MUST be legitimate, verifiable, logical and show the abilities of prediction as well as applicability to the argument
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2014
@Alfven
taking a study of electrical engineering and trying to apply it to cosmology is the mark of ignorance and only shows where people are reaching for straws to support their argument
When someone views something like Fulgurites and Lichtenberg figures and then speculates it caused the grand canyon, this is a hypothesis, but is it also testable. Given the size/scope of the canyon and damage caused, as well as the known materials of the canyon, there would be evidence of electrical discharge left over... (such as fulgerites, etc) but there is none, nor is there evidence to support the hypothesis other than the visual similarities, even though there are fractals all throughout nature that are not formed by lightning or massive electrical discharges.
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it does not change the fact that the hypothesis is factually incorrect
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2014
@alfven
misunderstand what we see:
This also applies to people who see craters and assume, because it resembles scarring left over from electricity, that the craters on the moon, for example, are caused by electrical discharge or plasma discharge... and again we come to the testable part, which, of course, happened, and does not support the hypothesis. Again, there would be measurable quantities and evidence left over, and given that those quantities are not seen, then we must advance a new hypothesis, which, in this case, was easy: there are comets and asteroids all over the place= good starting place!
So we have a working theory and evidence (from watching asteroids smack things) and we get a great theory that answers the questions...maybe not all of them, but a good thoery can be adjusted with new evidence (a shortcoming of the pseudosciences)

most pseudosciences are completely not adjustable
see cantdrive for proof
still stuck in 1970!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2014
@Alfven
a theory has to be testable, logical, and must have supporting evidence
the logical mind can be taught how to work around bias by using facts as well as showing experimentation that demonstrates reality and supports the bond between the pronouncement and its applicability to reality
this applies to any science... if the hypothesis is good, and the tests confirm it, then it can be then moved to the realm of theory, but saying that you have supplanted a working successful theory takes an exceptional replacement that MUST be functionally greater in accuracy than the earlier theory which is the failing of EU/Aether as well as jvk's hypothesis as it does not FULLY REPLACE the existing theory, contrary to what the adherents want to believe
there may be some GOOD science in it... but that does not mean that the whole thing is the BEST ANSWER and fits ALL the data
another failing of people like jvk and cantdrive
they cant see that someone else may actually be correct!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2014
@Alfven
now, specifically about your WMAP argument:
I have seen your links and I have read the WMAP proclamations
I have read the study
personally, I believe that the evidence for your hypothesis is going to have to be much stronger. Also, it seems to be the height of conceit to assume that the cosmologists/physicists didnt take into account hydrogen gas in our own galaxy during this study and that they are not trained in things like plasma physics.
There are ways to eliminate certain types of background noise and determine whether or not a signal is coming from a weak source close by or far away
the analysis from WMAP seems to be factually correct and supports the data shown, whereas the continual tweaking of your model leaves a lot of room for error and plenty of problems...
I could take the Justice department Violent crime data and continually tweak it and prove that all men are violent offenders and should be considered a hazard to the human race, given enough time
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2014
@jvk
If PZ Myers had done his homework and learned about me before calling me a crank ...clearly makes him the fool, perhaps even in everything he has ever written

again, you demonstrate my arguments
you are only here to make an argument against a perceived enemy (who is not present and therefore defenseless) with jargon heavy verbiage that applies makes sense only to you as most Biologists shun you as a crackpot...
this makes you angry and so you take it out here because the biologists have emasculated you publicly

you feel strengthened here because you feel that no one can refute your arguments but you cannot see that given your own inflexibility to consider other arguments and the fact that your model does not answer all questions and cannot supplant the current reigning model, that you are only further undermining yourself and your model which further emasculates you making you angrier

this is nothing more than a temper tantrum for your failures, jvk
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2014
@jvk
what he writes is a particularly pretentious, obfuscatory way of saying what he means — he's trying to obscure rather than explain.
But then, that's what he does. He crashes into a thread full of lay people and then lords it over them with his abuse of jargon. And he does it over and over again, and you can see the responses: most of the other commenters are more or less stunned, they don't know how to deal with all the specific buzzwords he throws at them, and they have these doubts…maybe he's saying something I should know about. No, he's not. He's babbling in scientese

the most accurate description of your methodology on this site
About your pheromone hypothesis
speaking of murky, difficult, ephemeral phenomena, I think the human dependence on pheromones is probably real, but only one tiny part of our behavioral repertoire, and almost certainly not a major influence on development.

Mensa membership does NOT make you correct
http://www.anapsi...nes.html
OZGuy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2014
Please dissappear now, and save us all any more bother.


PLEASE follow your own advice !
orti
1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2014
"A vigorous, articulate and targeted offence against pseudoscience is essential to the project of human progress through science, which, as Einstein reminds us, is "the most precious thing we have"".
Not quite. Ellerton is leaving out the context of the quote. He actually said:
"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have."
"primitive and childlike"? Science is not the perfection implied.
And I think his allusion to "young-earth creationism" is resorting to an easy to knock down straw man (who even claims it to be science?). Easier than defending evolution's weaknesses.
Nestle
5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2014
@Alfven Which is the most robust evidence of Plasma Universe model according to you? I'm not asking you for links or reference list - just about your opinion in this matter.

So what I got for it? Instead of direct answer I got pile of blurbs, references to another books and advices to read them (I did it already). This is exactly one of ways, in which the pseudoscience manifests ("...?? ....RTFM!!")..
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2014
Ellerton is leaving out the context... "One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have."


I put this into the context of the child-like belief in mutation-initiated natural selection when no experimental evidence shows what mutations are fixed in the genome (none are), or how they could be naturally selected (they can't be) by organisms that ecologically (e.g., biologically) adapted to become evolutionary theorists (idiots).

Ecological adaptations occur in the context of biophysical constraints on protein folding that have been removed from the theory of mutation-driven evolution.

And I think his allusion to "young-earth creationism" is resorting to an easy to knock down straw man (who even claims it to be science?). Easier than defending evolution's weaknesses.


YEC incorporates the biophysical constraints of Darwin's 'conditions of life.'
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2014
what he writes is a particularly pretentious, obfuscatory way of saying what he means — he's trying to obscure rather than explain.


I've detailed the experimental evidence that shows that food odors and pheromones are equally important in all species.

speaking of murky, difficult, ephemeral phenomena, I think the human dependence on pheromones is probably real, but only one tiny part of our behavioral repertoire, and almost certainly not a major influence on development.


1) http://medicalxpr...ess.html .......... We detect sickness.
2) http://the-scient...dy-odor/ ..........We detect age
3) http://dx.doi.org....0085977 ...We detect differences in fat content
4) http://www.scienc...14000599 .......We detect difference in the amino acid content of milk.

JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER MAMMAL THAT HAS ECOLOGICALLY ADAPTED (VIA OUR SENSE OF SMELL!

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2014
Other things typically branded pseudoscience include astrology, young-Earth creationism, iridology, neuro-linguistic programming and water divining, to name but a few.

Let's not forget "magnetic reconnection" and the "frozen-in field" condition....
Nestle
3 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2014
Umm, does some peer-reviewed publication dedicated to water divining exist? I'd appreciate the link this time... The lack of peer-reviewed replication usually is, what characterizes the pathological skepticism too.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2014
http://www.anapsi...nes.html Last updated January 1, 2014 Pheromones in Humans: Myth or Reality? ©1992 David Wolfgang-Kimball

The most recent published work that was cited appears to be from 1983. What kind of idiot introduces something like this in discussion of pseudoscience? For comparison, see:
Neo-Darwinism, the Modern Synthesis and selfish genes: are they of use in physiology?
http://jp.physoc....abstract

"If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based."

Captain Stumpy again attests to PZ Myers incredible ignorance. Students, their parents, and grandparents, are paying tuition and other expenses to be taught about a ridiculous theory by biology teachers who haven't learned anything about cause and effect since the time they were taught to believe in that ridiculous theory.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2014
taking a study of electrical engineering and trying to apply it to cosmology is the mark of ignorance and only shows where people are reaching for straws to support their argument

Such a statement only serves to exemplify your extreme ignorance about the physics of plasma. The physics of plasma includes the study of complex electrical circuits, those who don't get it will tend to resort to magical phenomena such as "magnetic reconnection" to explain what is otherwise a simple to understand process.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2014
@cantdrive
Let's not forget "magnetic reconnection"

I guess you really CANT read then?

http://adsabs.har...82..379M

see also, "Magnetic Reconnection from a multiscale instability cascade"; Moser & Bellan; Nature 484(7385): 379-381, February 2012

https://www.youtu...3s8ODaKg

http://on.aol.com...17865737

see article above... actually read it. it applies to you, cantdrive
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2014
@jvk
Captain Stumpy again attests to PZ Myers incredible ignorance...

again I point out that it is Meyers who is a degreed professional working in the field and it is JVK who is nothing more than a lab technician who is suggesting that we bow to his superior intellect

your hypothesis is not capable of explaining it all, nor is it capable of replacing the existing theory

your hypothesis is may have some validity in specific settings but its scope is limited to specific settings and cannot comprehensively define and replace historical observation, data, experimentation and the application to the existing theory

your hypothesis is based upon a fallacy, which is nothing more than you BELIEVE it to be more accurate, and you have YET TO PROVE IT to the scientific community, because you are UNABLE to
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2014
@cd
Such a statement only serves to exemplify your extreme ignorance about the physics of plasma. The physics of plasma includes the study of complex electrical circuits, those who don't get it will tend to resort to magical phenomena such as "magnetic reconnection" to explain what is otherwise a simple to understand process

1: see above article
2: attempt at obfuscation
3: misrepresentation
PLASMA PHYSICS IS INCLUDED IN COSMOLOGY
but COSMOLOGY is normally NOT INCLUDED in the electrical engineering curriculum unless taken as an elective from what I have seen

http://adsabs.har...94..154D

http://cegt201.br...ee.shtml

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2014
@Zephyer
does some peer-reviewed publication dedicated to water divining exist?

here is one study... no link found yet

Ongley, P. (1948). "New Zealand Diviners". New Zealand Journal of Science and Technology 30: 38–54. via Hines, Terence (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (Second ed.). Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. p. 420.

here is a link for "grave dowsing" same general principles

http://www.uiowa....sing.pdf

a study[18] was undertaken in Kassel, Germany, under the direction of the Gesellschaft zur Wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) [Society for the Scientific Investigation of the Parasciences]

GWUP-Psi-Tests 2004: Keine Million Dollar fď��Ä�r PSI-Fähigkeiten

I tried the above link but it 404'd

more info at

https://en.wikipe.../Dowsing

Nestle
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2014
Peer-reviewed journals usually don't return the 404 message... Anyway, given the simplicity in which dowsing can be tested (and potential usage, which the dowsing could have), the general lack of peer-reviewed articles about it is suspicious. Many phenomena are so poorly conditioned and fuzzy, that the relevance of pathological skepticism and pseudoscience are nearly balanced, but in this case I believe, the more serious attitude would be useful here. The nonexistence of evidence is not an evidence of non-existence.

In addition, until we have no idea, how the phenomena is working, it's testing under different conditions may give random results, which are equivalent the absence of phenomena. For example, the triboluminiscence is real, but if you will check it the random chemicals, you can get easily the impression, that the relevance of this phenomena for reality is bellow experimental error. Many studies which are testing these phenomena with blind trials are doing the same mistake.
Nestle
1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2014
Try to imagine, you would try to prove the existence of electricity with random trial and approach error, i.e. in similar way, which the various boundary phenomena are checked in scientific way. Some materials are getting electric under friction, but many others not. Even is such materials can get electrified, they will get different charges during this, so after sufficient number of trials the effects of electrostatic forces will average in experimental datasets.

In brief, if we would apply strictly blind approach, we may recognize, that no electricity actually exist in the nature, because - you know - the results are so inconclusive in most cases. And even if they appeared to work, they did lead to quite opposite contradicting results (the electrification of glass and amber, for example). So, by all criterions of scientific replication the electricity doesn't exist - end of story. This analogy just illustrates, how the contemporary science handles so-called paranormal phenomena.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2014
Peer-reviewed journals usually don't return the 404 message... Anyway, given the simplicity in which dowsing can be tested (and potential usage, which the dowsing could have), the general lack of peer-reviewed articles about it is suspicious.
No, actually , it's not at all suspicious. It would make perfect sense, given that dowsing has been around for as long as there have been farmers. Furthermore, just because you cannot find evidence of experimentation on the internet does not mean that experimentation has not been done. As you so succinctly put it, the nonexistence of evidence is not evidence of nonexistence.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2014
...it is Meyers who is a degreed professional working in the field...


No matter what reasons are behind the attacks on my credibility, the ecological origin of all biological laws is apparent:
1) in the context of systems biology;
2) in the context of the metabolism of nutrients by microbes; and
3) in the context of how the metabolism of nutrients results in species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction.

Taken together, the systems biology of nutrient metabolism to species-specific pheromones, which control the physiology of reproduction, can be expressed in a summary of Kohl's Laws of Biology:
1) Life is nutrient-dependent (see for review Kohl, 2012).
2) The physiology of reproduction is pheromone-controlled (see for review Kohl, 2013).

Darwin's 'conditions of life' are also nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, which shows what idiots PZ Myers and others have always been for touting the social pseudoscience of mutation-driven evolution.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2014
...you have YET TO PROVE IT to the scientific community, because you are UNABLE to


Did I mention that: "Dobzhansky [8] and Muller [9], partially preceded by Bateson [3,7,10] proposed that hybrid sterility and inviability are caused by incompatible alleles alternatively fixed in two previously isolated populations (BDM model). The BDM model is so straightforward that it became the null model of speciation [7] and except for a few strong proponents (notably [1,2]) chromosomal speciation was largely neglected."

http://linkinghub...10001795

PZ Myers and other idiots simply accepted a pseudoscientific proposal that was never subjected to experimental testing until last year. Yet these are the fools who are telling people I must prove that my model of ecological adaptations is an accurate representation of biologically based cause and effect. These fools are not the intellectual giants that drive scientific progress. Are they? Myers teaches!
Gmr
5 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2014
But, if you proved it, it would shut up all of the critics at once.

Why not do it? Is it won't or can't?
Nestle
3 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2014
just because you cannot find evidence of experimentation on the internet does not mean that experimentation has not been done
I'm talking about peer-reviewed research. The projects ignored with mainstream due to pathological skepticism and pluralistic ignorance don't lack the experimentation, they lack the peer-reviewed research. This is a difference.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2014
@jvk
Yet these are the fools blah blah blah Are they?

again you lash out and continue to profess your intellect in a public forum while angrily condemning scientists working in the field as "fools" etc...
IF your statements are correct and
IF your models are superior to the current reigning model and
IF you can prove your models superior with evidence and
IF your experiments/hypothesis takes everything into consideration
THEN
like ALL HYPOTHESIS it will be reviewed
tested
critically analyzed for false indications and possible wrong interpretations as well as mistakes in the experiments that would offer indications that cannot happen
THEN, if it passes, it will succeed the current model
just like EVERY OTHER HYPOTHESIS

it will NOT succeed because you are on Phys.org cramming it down our throats
now CONSIDERING that you are published
and CONSIDERING there is no consensus on your model
and CONSIDERING biologists I the field DEBUNKED it
I would say you dont have a leg to stand on
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2014
@jvk
Did I mention that:

well did I mention that you are on a pop sci site?
Did I mention that you are arguing at the wrong crowd?
Did I mention that you are pushing a belief that you cannot get the scientific community to recognize and that given their lack of interest and the fact that people in the field have poo-poo'ed it then you are most likely just arguing due to your emasculation in public?

Yep... I mentioned it...
perhaps you should take it to heart?
You need to argue your point to the scientists that debunked you, not here...
arguing here only supports the arguments against you and reinforces the "pretentious" label that Meyers assigned you

like i said... all hypothesis go through the same series
tests of validity
so far, yours have failed
there is SOME good science in it, but it doesnt do what you say and it is not all inclusive per your statements
therefore
PSEUDOSCIENCE

yep
3 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2014
Soul of Amber by Alfred M Still. "...what is accepted as true by a particular generation may be classed as gross superstitions by succeeding generations;it can never be absolute truth."

Cocoa
5 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2014
Captain Stumpy - good luck to you - I am pretty doubtful there is any chance of making any head way - but have at it.

Just an observation - that I think pertains to your current exchange, and to the question of pseudoscience.

On both physorg, and pharyngula - JVK has dismissed the audience on the comments threads as being ignorant in the extreme. Given such an opinion of a group of folks (not one individual - but the whole kit and kaboodle) - one surely has to wonder -'why would you therefore continue to spend time in this endeavour? I suspect that mental illness is a part of that answer - by which I mean - a detachment from reality. If I am right - you are currently down the rabbit hole.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2014
But, if you proved it, it would shut up all of the critics at once.

Why not do it? Is it won't or can't?


I've done it, and published the proof of speciation via chromosomal rearrangements in species from microbes to man in a series of publications since 1995. You haven't been paying attention, have you? And no one else is going to discuss the data that proves them wrong.

Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes
http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Excerpt: "...because of a lack of recombination between ZAL2 and ZAL2m (3), fixed polymorphisms have accumulated and driven the evolution of alternative phenotypes that differ in plumage (Fig. 1), territorial behavior, and parental behavior."

Excerpt: "...our results illustrate a detailed chain of events linking a chromosomal rearrangement to changes in overt social behavior."

What do you think PZ Myers said about that before banning me?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2014
On both physorg, and pharyngula - JVK has dismissed the audience on the comments threads as being ignorant in the extreme.


That's not true. I've asked the audience for experimental evidence that supports their ridiculous belief in mutation-driven evolution, and when no experimental evidence was provided I dismissed the comments due to the demonstrable extreme ignorance.

And, here it is again. The demonstrable ignorance simply doesn't go away, does it?

Instead, it's propagated by those who refuse to look at the data, and that's what pseudoscience is all about, isn't it?

For contrast, I see no demonstrable ignorance on the Science Magazine site, even after published articles attest to natural selection for something unknown. At least no one claims that mutations are naturally selected, since most people know that's merely a ridiculous theory shared by social pseudoscientists who believe in people like PZ Myers.

http://www.scienc....summary
Gmr
5 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2014
JVK. Evolution works. Natural selection has stood as a mechanism.

Question: How does your theory account for patterns like island dwarfism? Or other island specific mutations? Just curious. Does the chemistry change suddenly? Is the miasma different somehow in traveling to an island? Does inter- and intra-specific competition have any effect on this giant cloud of pheremones or tubs of chemistry we're awash in?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2014
How does your theory account for patterns like island dwarfism?


It's a model!

Or other island specific mutations?


Is there a model of how island specific mutations drive evolution?

Just curious. Does the chemistry change suddenly?


Obviously, you're not curious enough to read my published works.

RE: Does inter- and intra-specific competition have any effect on this giant cloud of pheremones or tubs of chemistry we're awash in?

Have you ever read anything published by the late Lynn Margulis? Have you ever considered asking an evolutionary theorist for experimental evidence that supports that theory? PZ Myers has a blog where questions like that never seem to come up. I have a blog with more than 800 referenced posts that explain why questions like that never come up. The theorists know don't know enough about biology to ask the questions.

NATURAL SELECTION FOR WHAT?
Cocoa
5 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2014
JVK
That's not true.


Yes it is - go back and read your comments. I guess that being mentally ill must be like being in the matrix - you have no idea what is real - and what is the simulation - quit a mind f**k.
Gmr
5 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2014
How does your theory account for patterns like island dwarfism?


It's a model!


That's - not really an answer. It's a valid answer in a Monty Python-esque sense, I suppose - but it's not an answer.

This is a pattern we see - island dwarfism. How does your theory account for it, or would it account for it?

Or how would it account for the radiation of finches in the Galapagos? Just curious.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2014
@jvk
That's not true. I've asked the audience for experimental evidence that supports their ridiculous belief in mutation-driven evolution,

YOU want OTHERS to go get a Ph.D. In biology just to refute YOU

(EVEN THOUGH YOU wont believe the ones that ALREADY HAVE refuted you!)

whereas YOU YOURSELF are too darn lazy to go get THAT SAME EDUCATION in order to learn WHY YOUR HYPOTHESIS is so ridiculous to the learned scientific community and to UNDERSTAND WHY that SAME scientific community shuns YOU as the CRACKPOT!

If YOU are too lazy to do it, why then should WE?

More to the point, given that we have SEEN SCIENTISTS IN THE FIELD REFUTE YOUR CRACKPOT hypothesis, WHY THEN should we read through YOUR publications and subject ourselves to MORE of your fatuous conceit...

WHEN YOU are TOO LAZY to learn that SAME SUBJECT MATTER YOURSELF????

i GOTTA heat the reasons behind THIS logic of yours!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2014
@Cocoa
Captain Stumpy - good luck to you - I am pretty doubtful there is any chance of making any head way - but have at it

I see the TRUTH in your argument
what we have here is a compulsive mental issue that is also manifesting itself as aggressive manic behavior, and given the extreme lack of self esteem from being publicly emasculated by the educated elite that he desires to emulate he is trying to gain back his self esteem by ranting on a pop.sci site with scientific sounding verbiage while telling everyone else that THEY need to just read his crap or get educated.
I guess we COULD walk in his footsteps, but I never did want to be a lab technician, so that is right out.
It is very fascinating to see how he continually reinforces the very image of the pseudoscience crackpot, though, with his inane posturings

i wonder if that last post i made will give him a stroke? i really should have been nicer, but he is being stupid... not ignorant, but STUPID.

at least he is funny !
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2014
@jvk
And, here it is again. The demonstrable ignorance simply doesn't go away, does it?
Instead, it's propagated by those who refuse to look at the data, and that's what pseudoscience is all about, isn't it?

the funniest thing about YOU making this comment is that it perfectly describes YOU!

I mean... you have biologists IN THE FIELD that you are attempting to completely rewrite the book on telling you that your hypothesis is NOT legitimate, that your science has some limited validity but cannot fully explain all of the data, and yet you, in your infinite lab tech wisdom, are saying TO THE PROFESSIONALS...
and I will paraphrase what I have seen thus far...
"hey... read my paper and see how brilliant I am and how stupid you are"

which is, by definition, how pseudoscience works
therefore, you are only continuing to prove by your posts that you are a pseudoscience crackpot

@Gmr
love the argument!
keep it up!
his "model" python logic!
he is having a kitten and cant even answer!
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2014
What we see now is a repeat of everything that went on after PZ Myers labeled me a "crank" -- as he had done with the late John Anderson -- until he labeled me a "homophobe" and banned me from participation.

No one provided experimental evidence to support their belief, because -- as we've seen, again -- there is no experimental evidence that supports the ridiculous belief that mutations are responsible for something that somehow results in natural selection and evolution.

Meanwhile, there are clear examples of ecological adaptations (sans mutations) in the birds
http://www.pnas.o...abstract

in the bees
http://bfg.oxford...abstract

and in other model organisms from microbes to man. The examples make it clear that nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptations occur in the context of ecological variations and biological facts. Only a pseudoscientist could ignore the data, and they all do.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2014
@jvk
No one provided experimental evidence to support their belief

1 read the article
2 the comments here are related TO THE ARTICLE
3 only YOU are arguing about mutation and your hypothesis, which only reinforces the comments made about you as we are commenting about how you apply TO THE ARTICLE
4 you continually refer back to your crackpot hypothesis in an attempt to derail the discussion about the ARTICLE, which only reinforces what we are saying as it points out that you are nothing more than a pseudoscience lab tech pushing a failed hypothesis which has been debunked by a biologist and you are doing it JUST LIKE THE ARTICLE SAID YOU WOULD
5 ya cant even fully answer Gmr and you still want to argue, again reinforcing what we are saying which is also reinforcing what the ARTICLE is saying
6 even YOUR HYPOTHESIS USES MUTATION

p.s. we dont need to provide "experimental evidence" since you are HERE giving a live demonstration
thanks
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2014
Insights into the evolution of Darwin's finches from comparative analysis of the Geospiza magnirostris genome sequence...

http://www.biomed...64/14/95

... was the first indication of ecological diversification via positive selection for amino acid substitutions in the finch lineage.

Abrupt ecological adaptations in pigeons was addressed in the context of chromosomal rearrangements in Genomic Diversity and Evolution of the Head Crest in the Rock Pigeon

http://www.scienc...abstract

No matter how the theorists misinterpret the data, the fact that the cr "mutation" is present in every pigeon analyzed with a crest means it's not a mutation. It's just another reason why the role of incremental adaptive selection for mutations in rationalizing morphological evolution is viewed as nonsense. There's no experimental evidence to support the theory.

It's social pseudoscience at its best! Thank PZ Myers for teaching it!
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2014
5 ya cant even fully answer Gmr and you still want to argue, again reinforcing what we are saying which is also reinforcing what the ARTICLE is saying


Q. So, now what happens--after I answered the question about the finches

6 even YOUR HYPOTHESIS USES MUTATION


Q. So, now what happens--after I addressed use of the term MUTATION

Has any social pseudoscientist ever attempted to discuss: "High-level studies of development focus on how genetic differences affect the dynamics of gene networks and epigenetic interactions to modify morphology." http://dx.doi.org...3-0121-3

Is there a biology teacher like the idiot PZ Myers who will comment on the problem of mutation-driven evolution of teeth?

Increased complexity requires multiple changes in developmental regulation.
http://dx.doi.org...ure10876

Everything about adaptation is based on chemical ecology. Mutation-driven evolution is the ultimate example of social pseuodoscience
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2014
From this article: "It is characteristic of science that our knowledge, so expressed, has grown enormously over the last few centuries, guided by the reality check of experimentation."

From PZ Myers: "Evolution was all due to chromosome rearrangements, which somehow are not mutations, and he also somehow ignored the existence of allelic differences between species:"

Ecological variation and nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled allelic differences in amino acid substitutions enable de novo gene creation and the chromosomal rearrangements that result in speciation.

PZ Myers does not understand anything about HOW the epigenetic landscape becomes the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man.

What we will continue to see in any thread where scientific discussion might otherwise occur is the ignorant comments of theorists because there are no intelligent evolutionary theorists -- only those who have been taught "evolution for dummies."

swordsman
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2014
"Pseudoscience" is any science that does not agree with present science. It is simply a word to describe the work of those who might challenge science. In other words, someone who disagrees with you. Professor Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory, falls into this category.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2014
In this case, all experimental evidence shows that mutation-driven evolution is pseudoscience. The social pseudoscientists like PZ Myers have not learned anything about the biology of behavior that was not known at the time of the Scopes trial.

When Haldane's ideas about mutations were added to the nonsense that already had bastardized Darwin's theory by ignoring his CONDITIONS OF LIFE, the course of evolutionary biology was set. Evolutionary theorists have since felt justified in ignoring anything learned about conserved molecular mechanisms of epigenetics.

The latest report on sex differences in goats may help to make my point clear: FOXL2 Is a Female Sex-Determining Gene in the Goat http://www.scienc...3015984. The gene plays many different roles in different species, which means amino acid substitutions and chromosomal rearrangements are the cause of sex differences, like they are in yeasts (and that means theorists are idiots).
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2014
I forget to define idiot, so that people will know who fits into the category: When I say someone like PZ Myers is an idiot, I'm using the term to classify him among those who act in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. Clearly he is not intellectually disabled, or no one would pay any attention to what he has to say.

Instead, his followers are taught to also act in self-defeating or significantly counterproductive ways by ignoring experimental evidence just as PZ Myers has always done. That makes them idiots, too.

Perhaps I've offended the idiots because they think I am saying they are intellectually disabled. Clearly, they are not. But stupid dumb ass isn't a term I typically use to refer to someone who is really only an idiot follower of an idiot biology teacher. I did use the term dumb ass a few times on PZ Myers blog, however. There were too many of his followers that exceeded the limits of my definition of idiot -- from http://en.wikiped...ki/Idiot
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2014
I answered a question on the Science Magazine site and just received this message

Your comment on Neandertals and Moderns Made Imperfect Mates has been
approved and is now live at:

http://comments.s...6170.471

"In my model, the epigenetic effects of nutrient uptake and the metabolism of
nutrients to species-specific pheromones link de novo creation of olfactory
receptor genes in different cell types to infertility when spermatozoa are no
longer able to "sniff out" an "egg" in invertebrates: Elekonich and Robinson
(2000) and vertebrates: Diamond, Binstock and Kohl (1996).

If you look at the problem in the context of what we portrayed about the
conserved molecular mechanisms at the advent of sexual reproduction in
yeasts, you may see the continuum of ecological adaptations that began with
the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled chromosomal rearrangements that
are required before sex chromosomes existed."
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
jvk speculates
there are no intelligent evolutionary theorists

because obviously only lab technicians with mensa memberships can be correct
FALLACY NOT SUPPORTED BY DATA
PZ Myers does not understand anything about HOW the epigenetic landscape

FALLACY
Meyers does not subscribe to your hypothesis that it is the ONLY possible solution
and has shown that his knowledge is factual, whereas you keep arguing that only YOU can be correct
all experimental evidence shows that mutation-driven evolution is pseudoscience

FALLACY NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS
you would know this had you stayed in school and continued your education and actually gotten the degrees necessary
Your comment ... has been approved

we didnt say you didnt occasionally use real science
we said that your pushing a crackpot hypothesis by using pseudoscience
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
@jvk continued
When I say someone like PZ Myers is an idiot, I'm using the term to classify him among those who act in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way

FALLACY NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS
you are angry with Meyers for emasculating you in public and you are venting here!
if you had any shred of possible truth to your claims that he is "an idiot" and said anything that was not factual about you, you would have used litigation to prove yourself, and as you have yet to be successful in that endeavor, I can conclude there is no basis for your claims
social pseudoscientists like PZ Myers have not learned anything about the biology of behavior that was not known at the time of the Scopes trial

FALLACY NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS
it is the height of ignorance and conceit to assume that the world stopped evolving and did not continue with its scientific endeavors and that only YOU seem to know the truth of the matter
speaks to signs of conspiracy & mental derangement
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2014
@jvk
please re-read below
1 read the article
2 the comments here are related TO THE ARTICLE
3 only YOU are arguing about mutation and your hypothesis, which only reinforces the comments made about you as we are commenting about how you apply TO THE ARTICLE
4 you continually refer back to your crackpot hypothesis in an attempt to derail the discussion about the ARTICLE, which only reinforces what we are saying as it points out that you are nothing more than a pseudoscience lab tech pushing a failed hypothesis which has been debunked by a biologist and you are doing it JUST LIKE THE ARTICLE SAID YOU WOULD

p.s. we dont need to provide "experimental evidence" since you are HERE giving a live demonstration
thanks


FOCUS ESPECIALLY ON POINTS 1-4 and the P.S.
i left out the rest as you get distracted too easily...
BESIDES the fact that you have been publicly DEBUNKED by real scientists...i want you to comprehend why you are being labelled a pseudoscientist
JVK
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
http://www.annual...9-141554
"Chromosomes, Conflict, and Epigenetics: Chromosomal Speciation Revisited"

Only through constant inquiry into myriad systems of hybridization, incipient species formation, recent and long-past speciation events and comparative genomics will we garner a comprehensive understanding of the speciation process.


Experimental evidence from comparative genomics shows how chromosomal rearrangements lead to different morphological and behavioral phenotypes.
http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Evidence that shows PZ Myers is an idiot theorist followed by idiots:
http://freethough...s-place/

Evidence that Captain Stumpy is an idiot:
p.s. we dont need to provide "experimental evidence"

Nestle
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
"Pseudoscience" is any science that does not agree with present science
The definition of pseudoscience is as tricky, as the finding of the reliable approach in science, i.e. prediction of the future. It's therefore simpler to define, what the pseudoscience definitely isn't and to apply the pseudoscience labeling to the rest. For example, the pseudoscience definitely isn't any research, which has no peer-reviewed attempt for its replication published yet. The reason is, nobody of established physicists would risk the public disgrace from false refusal and dismissal of new finding, but when he simply ignores it, he doesn't risk anything. For example, after publication of cold fusion some labs replicated it and many other labs allegedly failed in its replication - but these failures were never published in Nature. Nobody did risk anything: retraction, public shame and accusing of incompetence - and the result was corresponding. Today is too easy to bury findings into oblivion.
Nestle
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
Another criterion follows from my above post: until we don't know, how the unexpected phenomena is actually working, then the zero result of randomized blind experiments (which are so often used in medical trials) cannot be considered as the proof of its nonexistence. If you don't know how the electricity is working, then the various positive and negative charge and current effects tend to compensate mutually and you will get no reliable confirmation of anything. You can therefore falsify only various particular theories and models of such phenomena, not the phenomena as such. The absence of theory for some phenomena doesn't mean, that the phenomena doesn't exist too.

The current praxis is, that the phenomena is ignored, until it has no confirmed theory developed, because in contemporary science nobody wants to risk anything. Today many journals (including the Nature and Science) openly dismiss every experimental study, which is not supported with theoretical model at the same time.
Nestle
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
The overemployment of scientists doesn't help the healthy attitude very much, because many scientists are essentially cheaters and they want to publish in prestigious journal at any price. Therefore the journals do apply much stringer acceptation criterion, than it would help the acceptation of the new finding and fluent progress. Which is the problem by valuing of the research by its simulacrum, i.e. with impact of journal, in which it has been published. The impact criterion was originally designed for librarians, i.e. for buyers of journals and its application for scientists (publishing authors) has turned its meaning on the head. If we would rid of impact based classification, then the peer-reviewed journals could publish unexpected findings (not yet supported with theories) much more easily. And the publishing of negative results would be much more easier for authors. Today both positive feedback of journals, both negative feedback of replicators is replaced with plain ignorance.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
@jvk
Evidence that Captain Stumpy is an idiot:
p.s. we dont need to provide "experimental evidence"

tsk
hey Mensa, you FORGOT SOME VERY VALID TEXT!
Here, I will help you by ADDING THE PART THAT YOU MISSED
p.s. we dont need to provide "experimental evidence" since you are HERE giving a live demonstration

this statement is factually correct!
There is NO NEED for experimental data as you continually ignore the obvious and keep coming back supporting the claims with live demonstrations in your OCD manner, proving over and over the comments about you and establishing without a doubt that you meet the requirements of a pseudoscience crackpot.
Please feel free to continue as: per the article AND real biologists
pseudoscience attempts to ride on the back of this credibility without subjecting itself to the hard intellectual scrutiny that real science demands

which means: your hypothesis=BUNK
the standard theory is valid as it meets/exceeds scientific scrutiny
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2014
the standard theory is valid as it meets/exceeds scientific scrutiny


An experimental test on the probability of extinction of new genetic variants

http://www.nature...417.html

"In 1927, J.B.S. Haldane reasoned that the probability of fixation of new beneficial alleles is twice their fitness effect. This result, later generalized by M. Kimura, has since become the cornerstone of modern population genetics. There is no experimental test of Haldane's insight that new beneficial alleles are lost with high probability...."

In my published work I showed that nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitutions are fixed in the genome of this model organism and that fixation is clearly responsible for speciation via neurogenic niche construction.

http://www.socioa...53/27989

That's the experimental evidence that the idiot theorists refuse to address.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
That's the experimental evidence that the idiot theorists refuse to address

@jvk
so... again, I reiterate, YOU FAILED to meet the criteria of coming up with a hypothesis that is fully explanatory and (THIS PART IS IMPORTANT) is more specific as well as more encompassing than the current reigning theory
and your hypothesis cannot answer more questions better than the reigning theory
and your hypothesis is SPECIFIC to a small area
and it STILL CAUSES MUTATIONS which keeps it under the general umbrella of the existing theory
and this has been PEER REVIEWED and the current professionals in the field have taken it to task and your hypothesis FAILED them
and this is their fault because they are idiots?

did you write for Monty-Python in the past?

Still the same old thing... you failed, were publicly emasculated so you come here to rant.

jvk meets/exceeds the Pesudoscience crackpot definition!

no one can be as smart as you
do we bow or just throw money?
(last two lines = hyperbo
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
@jvk
before you get all excited
no one can be as smart as you
do we bow or just throw money?

the above is meant as hyperbole only

given that the professionals have dismissed you publicly, and your current trials and tribulations, i didnt want you to get your hopes up and think i was supporting you
...and in that vein:

ALSO - given that you are posting all these links to support your supposed mental superiority, why not also post the critiques of your hypothesis too?
other than Meyers, we've read some of that, although you can post more if he has more to share! we really dont mind at all!
in fact... feel free to post ANY REFUTE of your hypothesis that you want! we dont mind being judge, jury etc here... given that you can articulate both sides effectively and dont misrepresent by posting only in your favour, that is...

JVK
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
Why not simply address the data from experiments that I have continued to supply despite your ongoing denigrations of whatever it is you think has been critiqued by others?

PZ Myers did not critique my model or my published works, and the non-anonymous "professionals" who are followers of his atheistic diatribes did not do so, either. Like anonymous fools, they simply attacked. Support for my model can be found from several well-informed leaders in the biological sciences -- as you already know, but you wish to conceal that fact here. But none of the support for my model matters, and none of your nonsense matters.

The only thing that differentiates pseudoscience from science is the experimental evidence that you refuse to discuss.

Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Feb 03, 2014
No matter how the theorists misinterpret the data, the fact that the cr "mutation" is present in every pigeon analyzed with a crest means it's not a mutation.

It can also mean that it was a "mutation" originally that was "Naturally elected"...
Survivor wins.
As observers we view the mirror image...
To REALLY see reality - flip it over.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2014
Speaking of pseudoscience, here is blacklight powers demo of its hydrino power source from last week.
http://www.blackl...ats-new/

-Ive watched about half of it and I see a few tiny explosions in some nice lab equipment and a whole lot of talk. Initially I was thinking it would be good to have a running commentary by a physicist on what dr mills is saying, but then he starts talking theory and I realize that no mainstream physicist would swallow any of this.

This does not necessarily mean he is wrong, only extremely difficult to corroberate... until he gets an actual reactor up and running that is, which is apparently some ways off. But then so are tokamaks so we have all the time in the world to wait dont we?

It didnt look all too different from this
http://www.youtub...nspLNaZQ
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2014
No matter how the theorists misinterpret the data, the fact that the cr "mutation" is present in every pigeon analyzed with a crest means it's not a mutation.


It can also mean that it was a "mutation" originally that was "Naturally elected"...


It can mean anything you like if you're willing to alter the story to make it fit what you want to represent. That's what makes evolutionary theorists seem so ignorant. Biological facts don't change depending on who's telling the story.

Pigeon Study Contradicts Darwinian Natural Selection http://www.huffin...099.html

Pigeon DNA proves Darwin right http://www.nature...20130205

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
http://www.socioa...53/27989
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2014
"If individual genes can affect shared developmental systems in this precipitous fashion, the role of incremental adaptive selection (i.e., Darwinism) in rationalizing morphological evolution becomes highly questionable." Newman (adaptive selection)

"Domesticated species are important tools for comparative genomics, with traits honed by humans over thousands of years. "The different domestic animals complement each other," he says, "because they've been selected for different purposes." Leif Andersson (selection)

Who, besides that idiot PZ Myers and his minions, is still telling stories about mutation-initiated natural selection?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
Why not simply address the data

@jvk
why not re-read the freakin article
But none of the support for my model matters, and none of your nonsense matters.

well. some support eu hypothesis too, but that does not mean that it is going to overtake the standard model any time soon as they are electrical engineers trying to talk astrophysics without the education and background needed to understand a lot of things... which brings me back to you, really..
and your hypothesis... given that there are some legitimate points, BUT it is NOT ALL INCLUSIVE as you contend, therefore it cannot replace the existing theory
also... obviously it matters a great deal to you as you KEEP COMMING BACK
just because you THINK you are right doesnt mean that you are
after all, were you correct, you would have replaced the existing theory
but you have not
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
@jvk
The only thing that differentiates pseudoscience from science is the experimental evidence that you refuse to discuss

the funny thing is that the discussion is centered around the article except when you get into the mix

the discussion is about how pseudoscience adherents tend to latch on like bulldogs to a hypothesis and run with it proclaiming it to be the truth of ages while denying the reality of all the other relevant data around them...just like YOU are doing

the discussion is about how pseudoscience acolytes get all worked up and pissy when told they are wrong, and lash out with whatever is at hand, while trying to show others that they are right... usually using technical sounding verbiage that may/may not be legitimate which si something MEYERS pointed out that YOU ARE PRONE TO DO REPEATEDLY

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
@jvk
what we have here is a failure to communicate!
You are angry over your public emasculation by real biologists working in the field
your anger over their review of your data only shows your lack of understanding and comprehension (and education) of all the data that is involved
you have become nothing more than a pseudoscience adherent
The basic point is that you are lashing out here because you have been measured by the scientific community, your hypothesis has been found wanting and it is not able to functionally replace the standard working theory
you are here shoving this down our throats because you perceive yourself to be superior to everyone
You keep coming back because you have tied your entire mental image of yourself into an illusion that is not supported by scientists and now that you are proven wrong, you want to take it out on people that you perceive as inferior
you are only reinforcing the image of cranks and how they work
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
@jvk
Who, besides that idiot PZ Myers and his minions, is still telling stories about mutation-initiated natural selection?

here's a thought... if your hypothesis is so accurate, WHY HAS THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY SHUNNED IT?
Here's another thought: what makes you think that a lab tech without the education and background in the field has any insights that the scientists (who actually took the time to get the education and training and have a much broader observation as well as knowledge) had not considered or even addressed or included?
Like I said... you may have a few valid points of real science, but you cannot replace the existing theory because your hypothesis lacks substance and the ability to functionally answer all the questions that the current theory already answers
thats how science works... you would have learned that had you stayed in school
just because I can build a thermite bomb doesnt mean I can build a nuclear fusion reactor
just because you can make perfume, doesnt mean you can usurp the scientific community
JVK
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
I asked
Who, besides that idiot PZ Myers and his minions, is still telling stories about mutation-initiated natural selection?


The idiot minion of the idiot PZ Myers responded
here's a thought... if your hypothesis is so accurate, WHY HAS THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY SHUNNED IT?


It's not my hypothesis; it's a MODEL developed on accurate representations of biologically based cause and effect that have become established during the past 3-4 decades, which is how long the biology teacher, PZ Myers has ignored them.

Like I said... you may have a few valid points of real science, but you cannot replace the existing theory because your hypothesis lacks substance and the ability to functionally answer all the questions that the current theory already answers...


"...variations of the phenotype, on which natural selection could act, do not arise at random; they are produced by interactions between the organism and the environment during development..." MW Ho (1979)
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
The End of Bad Science and Beginning Again with Life (2000) http://www.i-sis....aris.php

"...neo-Darwinism is wrong and dangerous... It is also obstructing and preventing the necessary shift to holistic ecological sciences..."
MW Ho (2000)

PZ Myers and his idiot minions refuse to look at any evidence of their ignorance.
They will continue to tout their racist, sexist, homophobic views of mutation-initiated natural selection until people who understand the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA drive them from their positions in academia and drive them away from participation in discussions like this, which should be about pseudoscience vs experimental evidence.

"Bad Science" should have ended with extension of our 1996 mammalian model of epigenetic cause and effect to invertebrates in 2000.

What we see here is not science, it is PZ Myers' nonsense: evolution for dummies.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
It's not my hypothesis; it's a MODEL developed on accurate representations of biologically based cause and effect that have become established during the past 3-4 decades

@jvk
to which you have applied a hypothesis that mutation-driven evolution does not exist, whereas the proof is not there to support your hypothesis because EVEN YOUR HYPOTHESIS USES MUTATION per the definition used by biologists

which brings us back to your continual posting about it in some frantic delirium induced crazed manner which, I suppose in YOUR mind, represents your attempt to provide proof whereas it only supports the arguments against you

if YOU cannot convince the scientists who understand this the best, what makes you think that shouting about it over and over here is going to do you any good?

Do ya think we are going to petition the scientific community on your behalf?

This trait is the earmark of the pseudoscience crackpot
the continual TROLLING of a site with an unproven hypothesis
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
PZ Myers and his idiot minions refuse to look at any evidence of their ignorance.
They will continue to tout their racist, sexist, homophobic views of mutation-initiated natural selection until people who understand the basic principles of biology

@jvk
and again your trait of attacking the scientific community out of anger for emasculating you publicly is a strong indication that your continual TROLLING of this site with your hypothesis and failed attempts to convince the educated are born out of a delirious pseudoscience hallucination.
Your insistence that only YOU can be right and your denigration of the scientific community are KEY MARKERS of the pseudoscience crackpot
and only support the assertions that your continual additions to this site are nothing more than PSEUDOSCIENCE TROLLING
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
until people who understand the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA

@jvk
only more supporting evidence of crackpot pseudoscience
this is nothing more than your assertion that only your hypothesis is valid and makes any sense
you continually come here for "debate" but belittle anyone who actually "debates" you with name calling (as shown to RealScience in another thread)
your conclusions that we are "idiot minion" because we happen to believe a theory that is backed up with valid evidence and scientific proof only serves to remind us that pseudoscience crackpots are loath to admit any wrongdoing on their part and willfully turn a blind eye to reality and science, even with word salad verbiage like yours, when a real scientists debunks you, you cannot be wrong, proving only that your pseudoscience is baseless and without merit

keep supporting the assertions
you are only helping me!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
proving only that your pseudoscience is baseless and without merit
That means is has no base in reality, and it is wrong.

Appears you needed that explained to you JVK given you have stated several times about how us "minions" can't understand your remarkable insight and intellect and you aren't going to post here any more. And obviously, given that you are still posting your pseudo-science here, and given that Stumpy has tried so hard to dumb down the explanations so you can understand them, someone needed to step in and dumb them down even more for you.

Here let me try one more time:

You are wrong.

JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
Of course my MODEL is the only one that's valid. But it's not just because it's the only model that's biologically plausible.

See: Differential effect of chloride ions on β-galactosidase isoenzymes: A method for separate assay

http://www.scienc...71904463

"Chloride ions stimulated and stabilized the 'acid' β-galactosidase but strongly inhibited the 'neutral' enzyme."

What other ion, closely linked in the atoms to ecosystems approach (i.e., Kohl's Laws of Biology), is most suited to stabilizing the protein that is required for ecological adaptations to occur in an environment of NaCl in water?

If you guess anything other than sodium because you are absolutely certain that sodium explodes in water, you are probably an idiot minion of PZ Myers who does not understand biologically-based cause and effect, and does not understand chemistry or anything about the biophysical constraints on protein folding that enable ecological adaptations.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
Here let me try one more time:

You are wrong.


Is there any experimental evidence of that?

I know I should have stopped posting here, but it's become too much fun to toy with the idiot minions, and as everyone else can see they're crawling out from the woodwork like the anonymous and insignifcant little roaches that they are and always have been.

PZ Myers appears to be the "Roach King" that rules their world, where they are free to mutate into other species without the biophysical constraints of every other organism on a planet where life is nutrient-dependent and the physiology of reproduction is pheromone-controlled.

The only remaining question is how many more anonymous idiot minions will tell me I'm wrong before one of them examines the experimental evidence.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
Of course my MODEL is the only one that's valid. But it's not just because it's the only model that's biologically plausible

@jvk
IF it were the only one biologically possible, then why has the scientific community not rallied behind the model and offered full unfettered support?
Maybe because, as Maggnus so eloquently put it
You are wrong.

it is the height of conceit to assume that you, as an uneducated lab tech, have the qualifications to usurp the whole scientific community
IOW
You are wrong.

Meyers obviously has the education to understand that your model lacks sufficient capability, therefore
You are wrong.

the modern scientists that reviewed your theory also prove
You are wrong.

therefore, you are pushing pseudoscience AND
You are wrong.

Meyers understood that
You are wrong.

but you cant seem to grasp that
You are wrong.

attacking people, jargon verbiage and constant repetition only support the fact that
YOU ARE WRONG
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
I know I should have stopped posting here

@jvk
this is the ONLY thing that you have said that has merit in a long time
too much fun to toy with the idiot minions

funny, we say the same thing about you
it is so easy to prove you wrong that we continually do so with relish

you really dont get it, do you?
You are a TROLL
a SPAMMING TROLL at that.
You come here pushing your pheromone hypothesis and failed model because you cant convince the scientist in your field that you are right, most likely because they can plainly see how wrong you are, and that your "model" is already considered and included in the current theory
then you attack anyone who refutes it, which then causes you to dump more garbage into the thread... the markers of pseudoscience and spamming trolls

therefore you are a pseudoscience spamming troll

p.s. you only call people idiot minions when they dont agree with you
too bad you are wrong
we just know how wrong you are, which makes you angry
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
I call people idiot minions who cannot support anything they say with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect. How could you not grasp that fact? Have you ever provided any experimental evidence to support your ridiculous theories? What else could I call you since all you have done is tell everyone that PZ Myers emasculated me in blog posts for his idiot minions?

See instead: http://phenomena....ng-nest/

Carl Zimmer asks: "Have the plants evolved any strategies to make their spore-bearing structures better material for nests? Do they lure the hummingbirds with special odors?"

If they do, we don't need to discuss pseudoscience; we can start discussing conserved molecular mechanisms of biologically based ecological adaptations in animals and in plants (e.g., from atoms to ecosystems).

Alternatively, others can listen to the idiot minions tell you about mutation-driven evolution. Is there a model for that?
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Feb 04, 2014
JVK says -
I call people idiot minions who cannot support anything they say with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect.


Funny thing that - I have talked with some practicing scientists who work with bacteria every day - and they say there is mountains of evidence to support the theory of mutation and natural selection driven evolution - which is why every biology book on the planet contains a discussion of this process.

I did some quick googling - came up with shit loads of articles on the evidence for the evidence of the evolution of bacteria - sadly I could not understand any of them. Here is one example.

http://www.pnas.o...07.short

So - JVK is right - should I believe all the scientists - and every biology book in the world - or JVK? Reading the comments of JVK - no brainer for me. Not a nickels worth of point in arguing with JVK - as captain points out - pointless. But interesting reading.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
Anyone who questions the ecological validity and/or the biological plausibility of my model for comparison to the ridiculous theory of mutation-driven evolution need only look at the data.

As always, the idiot minions do not want you to do this; they want you to believe what they do.
But they are pseudoscientists.

I urge others to look at the comments on PZ Myers blog before the university forces him to pull it, not for fear of litigation, but for fear that it will make everyone else who teaches there look so foolish that students will demand tuition refunds, and the ACLU will demand answers.

So, here it is again -- one link that says it all except for the truth about biologically based cause and effect:

http://freethough...s-place/

Then see the pdf of abstracts from 2013 "SYMPOSIUM 5 SPECIATION GENOMICS" at the SMBE. It opens here: http://smbe2013.o...6235.pdf
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
... I have talked with some practicing scientists who work with bacteria every day - and they say there is mountains of evidence to support the theory of mutation and natural selection driven evolution - which is why every biology book on the planet contains a discussion of this process.

I did some quick googling - came up with shit loads of articles on the evidence for the evidence of the evolution of bacteria - sadly I could not understand any of them. Here is one example.

http://www.pnas.o...07.short


It was published in 1998, you idiot minion.

So - JVK is right - should I believe all the scientists - and every biology book in the world - or JVK? Reading the comments of JVK - no brainer for me. Not a nickels worth of point in arguing with JVK - as captain points out - pointless. But interesting reading.


I spent the last two years of my career trying to save people from death by evolutionary theory. I worked in the hospital microbiology lab.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
@jvk
Have you ever provided any experimental evidence to support your ridiculous theories?

every time you post again in this thread it reinforces my theory
Anyone who questions ... my model ... need only look at the data

I deleted the excessive verbiage to show you how idiotic you sounded
you are saying that "if only the entire scientific community would just listen to me and see how smart I am"
maybe it is YOU who should go back to school and learn just what it is that you are missing?
before the university forces him to pull it

1-it is a blog
2-it is on a .com website
3-the university does not have control over it
4-if you had any ability to get it pulled over your scathing disembowelment as a pseudoscience crank and certifiable loony, it would have been done ages ago
5-blanket declarations are just one more action that is common among the pseudoscience crackpots
like your comment about about anyone questioning your model...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
@jvk
It was published in 1998, you idiot minion

I guess with all that mensa intellect you forgot to learn to read?
Cocoa also said that there was scads of evidence of mutation and only YOU are publishing your particular crackpot hypothesis
mostly because your inability to read/comprehend as your hypothesis is most likely included in the reigning theory, as your hypothesis also is about MUTATION
(now you can get all that stuff about how it is not about mutation even though, per your own publications, it causes mutation PER THE DEFINITION OF MUTATION that is used by the people in the field)
I worked in the hospital microbiology lab

working in a hospital lab doesnt make you the intellectual giant and give you the ability to usurp the scientific community any more than standing in a garage makes you a Mercedes
I worked in orthopaedics but that doesnt mean I am an orthopaedic surgeon!
or even a DR!

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2014
@jvk
I spent the last two years of my career trying to save people from death by evolutionary theory

let me guess
ya got canned?
To continue...
Cocoa could have just as easily posted the following link

http://www.pnas.o...abstract

which also shows MUTATION as well as reinforces the current theory
WHICH, by the way, I am sure you will tell us shows only that blah blah blah
BUT, as everyone else will see
there is PLENTY of information supporting the MUTATION theory and the current THEORY OF EVOLUTION which, you will notice leaves out your qualifiers
mostly because even your hypothesis causes mutations which firmly puts your hypothesis under the blanket umbrella of evolution theory
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
@jvk
they want you to believe what they do.

and here is what you still cant comprehend
What they believe after that is up to them...
I dont care if they believe in the tooth fairy
or that Santa caused the world to evolve from the elves at the north pole

it is just that when people see how obstinate you are
how you ignore everything EXCEPT your data
how you blanket condemn others as being ignorant minions etc
when you call the entire scientific community idiots just because they cannot see your obvious brilliance etc
when you keep referring back to your crackpot hypothesis and saying "if they would only see the" etc

THESE are earmarks of the pseudoscience crackpot in which you so skilfully repeatedly display
thank you for showing everyone what it looks like so that they may understand what it looks like
and thank you for showing them in THIS article about pseudoscience cranks

Meyers would be proud of you
he assessed you right on the head
and so you continue
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
It was published in 1998, you idiot minion.


So evidence developed in 1998 is no longer evidence - very interesting. So Pasteur discovered the antibacterial effect of penicillin in 1877 - so that means it does not work any more?
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
There is current experimental evidence that each time a cell reproduces innate differences in the two cell types enables nutrient-dependent ecological adaptations. Like all other experimental evidence that has ever been published, this current evidence refutes Lenski's ridiculous theory that he has witnessed mutation-driven evolution of E. coli.

"There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. This is seen as a good example of evolution through mutation and natural selection that has been observed as it occurs."

http://en.wikiped...bacteria

What this shows, is that the scientific consensus based on Lenski's experiments is actually a consensus of idiot minions that have not grasped the fact that life is nutrient-dependent -- even if the only nutrient available (e.g., since 1935) is nylon.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
Cocoa could have just as easily posted the following link

http://www.pnas.o...abstract

which also shows MUTATION as well as reinforces the current theory


Thanks. I am reminded of the multi-step origin of nutrient use (citrate and nylon) in E. coli where gene duplications produce new functions by promoter capture events that change gene regulatory networks in what was described as a 1-2-3 process (Blount et, al. with Lenski, 2012). In that context, as here, I question use of the term mutation as it is used to describe any pattern of change that results from transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, which is what we also see in speciation. However, mutations perturb the biophysical constraints of protein folding, which is required for increased organismal complexity via ecological adaptations.

Let's continue to discuss the experimental evidence until you provide some that shows how E. coli somehow mutates into another species.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
Meyers would be proud of you he assessed you right on the head and so you continue


PZ Myers attacked before learning I had already detailed how genetic diversity leads to chromosomal rearrangements and speciation. When Horton et al (2014) was published, their experimental evidence showed how obvious it has always been that chromosomal rearrangements, not mutations, must be responsible for speciation.

http://www.pnas.o...abstract

His attacks on John Anderson and on Nathaniel Jeanson were also evidence of how much ignorance he has incorporated into his teachings on biology. However, as we continue to see here, it does not matter how much idiocy he incorporates, he will always have idiot minions who claim that he is right and experimental evidence that he is wrong should be ignored.

Once someone is taught to be an idiot minion they rarely adapt to become intelligent sentient beings. They simply follow their "Roach King" into oblivion.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
. However, as we continue to see here, it does not matter how much idiocy he incorporates, he will always have idiot minions who claim that he is right and experimental evidence that he is wrong should be ignored.

Quack! Quack quack quack quack!

These behaviors are thought to be mediated by sensitivity to sex steroids, and the chromosomal rearrangement underlying the polymorphism has captured a prime candidate gene: estrogen receptor 1
A mutation!
Our results suggest that in this species, differentiation of ESR1 has played a causal role in the evolution of phenotypes with alternative life-history strategies.
behavioral changes in the population resulting from the mutation!
More on mutation-driven behavior change: http://jbr.sagepu...67.short
And more: http://pubs.acs.o...e=bichaw
and more: http://www.scienc...37.short
and more: http://www.scienc.../S089662
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
@jvk
enables nutrient-dependent ecological adaptations

IOW- mutations
this current evidence refutes

your hypothesis
a consensus of idiot minions that have not grasped the fact that

blanket accusation of the entire scientific community
how original
statement is proof that you are a crackpot pseudoscience lab tech
I question use of the term mutation

because obviously only you are intelligent enough to understand these things, right? The term is used and defined for the field, it is only YOU that has a problem using it as obviously YOU dont understand it

http://dictionary...mutation

https://en.wikipe...Mutation

I propose that first you learn what normal year one biologists/etc learn about the use of terms in the field and then consider that your lab tech background is not equivalent to a PhD

see Maggnus post above for more clarification on your ignorance/stupidity about terms and comprehension
are you sure you are Mensa?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
@jvk
Let's continue to discuss the experimental evidence

YOU cannot comprehend that your hypothesis includes MUTATION per the definition and you want to discuss experimental evidence?
Mutation per dictionary:
1a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome
1b an individual, species, or the like, resulting from such a departure
2 the act or process of changing
Biological definition of mutation:
In genetics, a mutation is a change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element. Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes including: evolution, cancer, and the development of the immune system.

to be continued
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
@jvk continued

Mutation can result in several different types of change in sequences. Mutations in genes can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Mutations can also occur in nongenic regions. One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms which have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.

AGAIN... @jvk, THIS MEANS that EVEN YOUR HYPOTHESIS CREATES MUTATIONS

now... given your inability to comprehend this, and the fact that the scientific community ignores you as a crank because even your hypothesis is covered under Theory of Evolution, this means, by definition that
YOU ARE A PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT
you are pushing a CRACKPOT HYPOTHESIS

JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
Thanks.

You have just addressed experimental evidence with links that incorporate a ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection and behaviors manifested in sexism (mutations that somehow led to sex differences), racism (mutations that somehow led to racial differences), and homophobia (mutations that somehow led to differences in sexual orientation).

Whether or not PZ Myers can identify you as one of his idiot minions, I suspect that you can be identified by someone monitoring this thread and called as a witness in the next trial during which litigants will discuss the teaching of Creation instead of the teaching of the ridiculous theory of mutation-driven evolution that you have learned about from teachers who know nothing about the basic principles of biology or levels of biological organization required to link sensory input to biologically based cause and effect in species from microbes to man.

Do you think ignorance qualifies you for the secret witness program?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
@jvk
Once someone is taught to be an idiot minion they rarely adapt to become intelligent sentient beings

this is very true, and I support it... however, there really is still hope for you to become intelligent and sentient, jvk!
I would recommend going back to school and LEARNING why the scientific community shunned your hypothesis
you may then be able to affect a change for the good (in you, that is)
ranting here about the ignorance of just about every other scientist in the world does NOTHING MORE than REINFORCE the fact that you are pushing a failed hypothesis and you are nothing more than an acolyte for a FAITH, a belief that cannot be supported by PROOF
especially given that the scientists as a whole reject you
a few outliers that understand that there is SOME science in your work that may be valid
but there are softies/suckers in every group
Please re-read this article and know that YOU CAN learn real science

and read Maggnus links!
MORE PROOF against YOUR HYPOTHESIS
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
@jvk
You have just addressed experimental evidence with links that incorporate a ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection and behaviors manifested in sexism (mutations that somehow led to sex differences), racism (mutations that somehow led to racial differences), and homophobia (mutations that somehow led to differences in sexual orientation)

oh WOW
so... because we learn real science from degreed professionals in the field and not lab tech's that are hailed by said professionals as crackpot pseudoscience cranks... we are homophobic, sexist, racist AND ignorant?

Again... you blanket the entire scientific community with disparaging remarks and you feel this is justified because obviously only YOU can see the light?

THIS IS THE FIRST, STRONGEST MARKER of a PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT

see above article
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
P.S.
teaching of Creation

@jvk
there is no room for religion in science as science requires PROOF whereas religion is based upon faith

which is exactly the same thing you are doing... you are requiring us to take your word of proof against the entire scientific community, based upon YOUR authority and your contention that YOUR studies are the only valid proof

THIS IS FAITH – NOT SCIENCE
Do you think ignorance qualifies you for the secret witness program?

I am not blackening the Mensa name by supporting an obviously distorted hypothesis that is refuted my scientists while offering libellous aspersions of respected professionals
(calling you out is well supported by the evidence herein as you continually display the pattern of behaviour of a pseudoscience crackpot per the common definition)

I hope no one feels litigious as this is a public forum and you have no right to privacy here

JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
This book is displayed at the "Scopes Museum" and it is opened to page 196:

See for review: http://www-person...Text.htm

Summary: "The following passages were taken from the biology textbook used by John Scopes, the teachings of which fueled so much controversy in the 1925 �Scopes Trial� in Dayton, Tennessee.� Prosecuting attorney William Jennings Bryan was greatly concerned about the implications of these passages, which he viewed as the troublesome result of accepting Darwin�s theories and applying them to human society.� After reading the actual textbook, does this change your conception of the issues involved in the Scopes Trial?"

My comment:

If PZ Myers or his idiot minions had ever learned anything about biologically-based cause and effect, they would not be touting the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that entered the picture (e.g., in stealth mode) after the Scopes trial.

What will it take to shut them up?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
What will it take to shut them up?


Evidence.

What will it take to shut you up? Obviously proof that your theory is wrong won't do it. Nor is the laughing of all of your peers (the other lab techs, janitors and the other patients around you). Nor is the scoffing of all those engaged in actually doing the science. So what then?

Quack, quack quack quack.......
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
@jvk
If PZ Myers or his idiot minions had ever learned anything about biologically-based cause and effect, they would not be touting the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that entered the picture (e.g., in stealth mode) after the Scopes trial

again with the "i am right and everyone else must be wrong because I am mensa and so smart that I cannot make mistakes" attitude?
REALLY?
IOW – you are a PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT
What will it take to shut them up?

SEE MAGGNUS POST ABOVE
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
"The mechanism by which one signaling pathway regulates a second provides insight into how cells integrate multiple stimuli to produce a coordinated response."

http://stke.scien...291/pe28 = de novo gene creation

"Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes" = chromosomal rearrangements.
http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Taken separately or together, ignoring all experimental evidence appears to = idiot minion, racist, sexist, homophobic follower of the "Roach King" PZ Myers.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
= de novo gene creation
No it does not equal de novo gene creation.
The study found that the upstream kinases and phosphatase that control the activity of Snf1 also act on Gpa1 and provide a direct means to coordinate cell behavior and integrate the mating response with nutrient sensing.
Existing genes, just a different method of expression.
= chromosomal rearrangements.
No it doesn't.
These behaviors are thought to be mediated by sensitivity to sex steroids, and the chromosomal rearrangement underlying the polymorphism has captured a prime candidate gene: estrogen receptor 1
A mutation!
Thus, our study provides a rare glimpse of how a chromosomal polymorphism has affected the brain and social behavior in a vertebrate. Our results suggest that in this species, differentiation of ESR1 has played a causal role in the evolution of phenotypes with alternative life-history strategies.
Behavioral changes as a result of the mutation!

Quack!
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
Unless an intelligent discussant steps in, I am somewhat assured that the nonsense of the idiot minions will persist indefinitely, as it did on PZ Myers blog.

The obvious problem there (and here) is: de novo gene creation means "Creation" is the holy grail of evolutionary biology. That fact is one hell-of-a problem for anonymous atheists who believe what their "Roach Kings" taught them to believe.

Why aren't they crawling back into the woodwork after the lights came on for everyone else? Everyone else knows that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology?" http://dx.doi.org...3.06.006

If Dobzhansky, a creationist, knew about nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitutions, he would not have claimed that mutations caused evolution. And he was close to recognizing that Creation of new species occurs via amino acid substitutions in 1973.

Forty years later, all that's left of Dobzhansky's insight is PZ Myers' and his idiot minions.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
Correction to McEwen (2012): "...on page 17184, right column, first paragraph, line 4, "effect" should instead appear as "affect."

This link opens the pdf:
http://www.pnas.o...pdf+html

I mention this because it clarifies the fact that PZ Myers' and his idiot minions do not know the difference between an epigenetic effect on hormones and affects of hormones on behavior. They say things like Maggnus did (above):

Behavioral changes as a result of the mutation!


Does anyone else think that is a biologically plausible or ecologically valid statement?

If so, you will enjoy discussions of social pseudoscience with idiot minions on PZ Myers' blog.

If not, see my blog at Pheromones.com

Or see my Facebook page https://www.faceb...Research
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
de novo gene creation means "Creation" is the holy grail of evolutionary biology. That fact is one hell-of-a problem for anonymous atheists who believe what their "Roach Kings" taught them to believe.
Oh now I see what you're trying for. God did it! No wonder you're a laughing stock!

not, see my blog at Pheromones.com

Or see my Facebook page https://www.faceb...Research
Bahahahahaha I can't convince people who understand science, but come to my facebook page so I can dazzle you with my brilliance! What a loon!

Does this mean you're going to stop posting your idiocy here now?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
@jvk
Unless an intelligent discussant steps in...

I didnt get any further... I DID want to point out that until you can finally understand basic biology terms, there is most likely not going to be any agreement with any intellectuals as most intelligent people (especially in the field of biology) work under a certain guidelines which are established when you are in the basics of the educational system, and things like syntax, grammar and vernacular are taught so that everyone can be on the same page... but I guess you didnt get far enough to comprehend that
see my blog at

why would anyone who understands that you are pushing an unfounded crackpot hypothesis go visit you?
In fact... going there/referencing yourself is nothing more than markers supporting the assertion that you are a crackpot pushing PSEUDOSCIENCE!
Especially when you comment that anyone who doesnt see it your way is stupid, creationist etc

given your lack of scientific standing?
nice try Mensa
DEBUNKED
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
Bahahahahaha I can't convince people who understand science, but come to my facebook page so I can dazzle you with my brilliance! What a loon!

Does this mean you're going to stop posting your idiocy here now?


Hey Maggnus!
he REALLY DOESNT GET IT does he?

jvk references HIMSELF= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he has been PUBLICLY DEBUNKED= PSEUDOSCIENCE

his hypothesis is actually just an off-shoot, side support reinforcing Evolution Theory while he continually proclaims that it is THE only way... forgetting that it also causes MUTATION and thus falls under the umbrella of evolution!jvk= PSEUDOSCIENCE

He says that anyone who doesnt agree with him is an idiot= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he proclaims everyone in the field of biology who is educated are conspired against him or are idiots because they believe a theory that has enormous amounts of proof= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he gets angry when he is proven WRONG= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he wont go away because he thinks we will suddenly get stupid and agree= TROLL

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2014
PZ Myers and his idiot minions do not understand this scientific fact: "...pictures of cells frozen in time can be useful, but also misleading with respect to each one's ultimate behavior as well as that of the population to which they belong. We need to tell the roses from the daffodils, but also be careful not to call two roses a rose and a lily." http://www.biomed...007/12/2

In the context of ecological adaptations compared to mutation-initiated natural selection, Lenski's experiments have plagued me due to interpretations that one E. coli is a rose but after 50,000 generations another E. coli has somehow mutated into a lily.

If there is anyone left here who is not an idiot minion or pseudoscientist and who knows about experimental evidence that specifically addresses the interpretations of results of Lenski's experiments, I would appreciate learning more about how to communicate with others the importance of 'sniffing out' differences in organisms.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
@jvk
AAAaand AGAIN:
he REALLY DOESNT GET IT does he?

jvk references HIMSELF= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he has been PUBLICLY DEBUNKED= PSEUDOSCIENCE

his hypothesis is actually just an off-shoot, side support reinforcing Evolution Theory while he continually proclaims that it is THE only way... forgetting that it also causes MUTATION and thus falls under the umbrella of evolution!jvk= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he is inept at COMPREHENSION (& ignores facts) = PSEUDOSCIENCE

He says that anyone who doesnt agree with him is an idiot= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he proclaims everyone in the field of biology who is educated are conspired against him or are idiots because they believe a theory that has enormous amounts of proof= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he gets angry when he is proven WRONG= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he wont go away because he thinks we will suddenly get stupid and agree= TROLL

and NOW he thinks that repetition will bring results? That we will suddenly get stupid and agree with him?= PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT TROLL
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Feb 07, 2014
and who knows about experimental evidence that specifically addresses the interpretations of results of Lenski's experiments

@jvk
this is nothing more than a TROLL baiting someone
he makes an offer that sounds reasonable, but when challenged, like what RealScience is doing in another article, he simply resorts to disparaging remarks, calls everyone stupid, etc etc... the SAME thing as here,
EVEN IN THE FACE OF FACTS, STUDIES AND PUBLICATIONS THAT REFUTE HIS PERSONAL HYPOTHESIS

therefore, debate at your own risk as jvk will only drag you down and beat you over the head with his SPEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT PHILOSOPHY

for more proof of this see RealScience pummel his ego and force jvk into a corner where he vents and call us all idiot minions:

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

he is really MAD that he cant understand that his hypothesis is already covered under Evolution!

Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
I would appreciate learning more about how to communicate with others the importance of 'sniffing out' differences in organisms.
Well I, for one, can certainly "smell" what you are trying to peddle!
he has been PUBLICLY DEBUNKED= PSEUDOSCIENCE
Oh, I see I'm not the only one!
Lenski's experiments have plagued me due to interpretations that one E. coli is a rose but after 50,000 generations another E. coli has somehow mutated into a lily.
That's because you don't understand that gratuitous mutations are not a reflection of the Creator and His hand is not guiding anything.

Are you sure you have a Mensa membership? I'm pretty sure they only allow smart people in!
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2014
for more proof of this see RealScience pummel his ego and force jvk into a corner where he vents and call us all idiot minions:

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

he is really MAD that he cant understand that his hypothesis is already covered under Evolution!


My model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations is the antithesis of mutation-initiated natural selection in the context of mutation-driven evolution.

The problem here is that Lenski's idiot minions and PZ Myers' idiot minions do not want anyone with the least bit of intelligence to look at my model and compare it to their theoretical approach, which is not biologically plausible and has not been validated by experimental evidence from model organisms. They would rather that everyone was someone's idiot minion.

They think you're nobody unless you're somebody's idiot minion, because they are nobodies who believe in mutation-driven evolution.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
@jvk
you wacky thing you...
there you go with your comprehension problems again! You would think Mensa would be more careful about handing out memberships...
nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations

cause MUTATIONS which then, by definition, places it FIRMLY under the reigning Theory of Evolution!

On top of that... RealScience has definitely destroyed your argument
as well as Myers
and Lenski
etc etc etc

again, your seething internal conflict is with the scientific community that spurned you, and you come here to vent
this is a SCIENCE site!
Not a PSEUDOSCIENCE site
take your faith to a blog and vent there, so people know how to avoid you
coming here and calling us names is NOT helping you
nor is it helpful that you cannot understand basic english...

you only reinforce the above proclamations about you and your hypothesis
your attitude is textbook crackpot with pseudoscience verbiage supported by delusions

have a nice day!
Nestle
1 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
Where is the proof in pseudoscience?
The proof is just in the proof, that the given science really is a pseudoscience. You cannot want some rigorous proof and use the subjective labeling at the same moment.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations

cause MUTATIONS which then, by definition, places it FIRMLY under the reigning Theory of Evolution!


Is that the reigning Theory of Evolution that has never been substantiated by experimental evidence that shows how mutations, if ever they could become fixed in the genome via violations of biophysical constraints, somehow accumulated and became beneficial to the species that somehow selected the mutations so that they could be somehow inherited?



JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
"Teeth tell us a lot more about the ecology of animals than just looking at the skeleton."
http://phys.org/n...est.html

Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations clearly lead to the morphological transition from C. elegans to P. pacificus, a nematode with "teeth' and other ecological adaptations that are manifested in rewiring of its primitive nervous system and behavior.
http://phys.org/n...ing.html

Thus, the problem that Skull 5 presented to evolutionary theorists was one that involved the first complete skull with teeth, which showed that everything attributed to mutations and differences in our ancestors during the past 1.8 million years was actually just nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled natural genetic variation (as it obviously is in every other species on the planet).

http://phys.org/n...man.html
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
Is that the reigning Theory of Evolution that has blah blah blah

@jvk
it is the reigning Theory of Evolution that includes your hypothesis in its explanations as well as unequivocally stands strong due to the overwhelming preponderance of supporting evidence that is systematically taught in education systems that you ignored and/or were not privy to due to whatever reasons, and that you would understand should you ever take it upon yourself to become educated.

Evolution Theory = works
your hypothesis= included in evolution theory as a minor contributor

your speculation that your hypothesis replaces evolution theory= pseudoscience faith based conjecture

still mad at RealScience for thrashing you?

as there is a 1000 character max. you cannot teach biology 101 here, however, there are plenty of free courseware titles out now...
maybe you could take a few and learn WHY the scientific community debunked you?
then you will stop this petty nonsense and disruption.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2014
Same thing in birds:
http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

"This study highlights again how uneven the diversity of birds was during the Cretaceous. There are many more enantiornithines than any other group of early birds, each one with its own anatomical specialization." offers study co-author Luis Chiappe, from Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County."

Horton et al (2014) was the study I reported to PZ Myers and his idiot minions that caused him to ban me because their experimental results showed chromosomal rearrangements were responsible for differences in the morphology and behavior of two different "morphs" of sparrows. http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Their scientific approach covered more ground than others had covered and it showed how foolish it was for PZ Myers to attack me after first attacking John Anderson based on his view of speciation via nutrient-dependent chromosomal rearrangements.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2014
as there is a 1000 character max. you cannot teach biology 101 here.


That does not prevent you from addressing any ot the experimental evidence I have cited. Please tell us how teeth mutated into existence in species from nematodes to humans, so that we can compare the approach of an idiot minion to the biological facts of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations.

Feel free to ask for help from someone intelligent, if you know anyone who is.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations clearly lead to the morphological transition from C. elegans to P. pacificus,
There is nothing in that article to support the contention you have made here, and in fact, the article could more easily support the contention that the activation and rewiring of the additional neurons was the direct result of mutational changes in the manner in which the neurons were rewired.

If you are going to cite examples to support your theory, perhaps you should make sure they actually do support it.

As for Horton et al, this is the third time you have posted the same article, and my replies to it are the same. You highlight a MUTATION and the resulting behavior which has arisen as a result of the MUTATION!.

If you are having trouble reading the cites that you make, then perhaps you can ask another lab assistant to help you by having them read it and explain it to you BEFORE you post it!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
which showed that everything attributed to mutations and differences in our ancestors during the past 1.8 million years was actually just nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled natural genetic variation
It does not show this! Or, more precisely, it is more easily explained by the conclusion that a mutation in the gene(s) controlling tooth growth allowed the individual's carrying it to survive while those individuals who did not carry it to die out. Over the course of generations, there continued to be beneficial mutations, such that, over the course of a few thousand generations, the buildup in mutations resulted in the difference between the two skulls.

JVK, you continually point to conflicting evidence to support your premise without taking into account the fact that it might also support (or even better support) another!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
This study highlights again how uneven the diversity of birds was during the Cretaceous. There are many more enantiornithines than any other group of early birds, each one with its own anatomical specialization." offers study co-author Luis Chiappe, from Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County."
And the same argument here! The anatomical specializations were the result of beneficial mutations in aspects of the first common ancestor which lead over the course of many generations to the speciation seen, as those mutations that conferred beneficial results were passed onto offspring. The same thing seen in the finches of the Galapagos lo-on 100 years ago now. It is not that nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations caused the gene to express in a different manner, rather the mutation of the gene allowed them to take advantage of a new means of nutrition.

YOU are trying to overthrow convention. PROVE IT!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
Please tell us how teeth mutated into existence in species from nematodes to humans
You are asking him to describe a fallacy. Teeth of a form show in every species back to the very earliest of placodermi found in the Silurian era, and there is evidence of tooth like structures back to the pre-Cambrian fossils of the Burgess Shale in Canada and the Battle Creek formation in Australia. To equate the structures in nematodes to teeth in humans is a stretch at best, however clearly the evolutionary pressure to form teeth or similar structures is strong. This makes sense of course, given that some type of structure is needed to help break down nutrients found in the environment. Birds had teeth too JVK, but over the course of a few million years, nutritional/ecological pressures favoured mutations that changed them to look ever more like the beaks we see today.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2014
YOU are trying to overthrow convention. PROVE IT!


There has never been any proof for what you say I must overthrow.

The Dobzhansky–Muller incompatibility model in which the emergence of genetically incompatible mutations were independently derived and fixed in allopatric lineages was someone's idea of a joke.

Serious scientists didn't even bother to test whether mutation-initiated incompatibilities could cause anything until evolutionary theorists forced them to do so by continuing to tout the nonsense of mutation-driven evolution for decades after the joke was first made public.

Now, most people realize that "evolutionary theorists" ARE the joke. Idiot minions, like you, tell serious scientists like me to prove biological facts when no experimental evidence has ever provided support for mutation-driven evolution.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2014
CONCLUSION:The difference in skull shape and robustness of the beak between commensal and non-commensal house sparrows is consistent with adaptations to process the larger and rachis encapsulated seeds of domesticated cereals among human associated populations. http://www.biomed...8/13/200

The difference in morphological and behavioral traits in the white-throated sparrow (Horton et al, 2014) are also linked to ecological adaptations via diet and pheromone-controlled reproduction. What the idiot minions seem to want everyone else to believe is that the accumulation of some mutations caused differences in beaks, other accumlations cause difference in the skull, and others caused differences in plumage color, song and behavior.

Simply put, to idiot minions, all species-specific differences are due to mutations, despite that fact that mutations are biophysically constrained and that means they cannot cause beneficial changes that are then somehow naturally selected.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2014
"Differentiation in the mandibles and male genitalia (figure 2) is quantified and used as a proxy for the presence of divergent selection [7]. Studies on the functional morphology of insect mandibles have identified their ecological relevance..."
http://rspb.royal...abstract

PZ Myers, Lenski, and their idiot minions seem to think that penises and jaws concurrently mutated into existence. With thoughts like that, it is no wonder they flap their overdeveloped jaws for fear that others might otherwise notice their underdeveloped penises.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
There has never been any proof for what you say I must overthrow.
There have been multiple studies showing both that mutations can occur and that they can be beneficial. You have provided no evidence to counter that myriad of data. YOU are making the charge that the established science of mutational evolution is wrong, so YOU are necessarily required to explain why your theory should supplant the theory that is so well established.
The Dobzhansky–Muller incompatibility model in which the emergence of genetically incompatible mutations were independently derived and fixed in allopatric lineages was someone's idea of a joke.
Not as bad as the joke of From fertilization to adult sexual behavior. (Diamond M, Binstock T, Kohl JV.). "gonad to hormones to behavior" model!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
Now, most people realize that "evolutionary theorists" ARE the joke. Idiot minions, like you, tell serious scientists like me to prove biological facts when no experimental evidence has ever provided support for mutation-driven evolution.
No, most people realize that quack scientists with an axe to grind can be safely ignored while they shout cries of "I'm being repressed!" while standing in the mud of their misunderstandings! You know, pretend pseudo-scientists like you pushing snake oil love potions on the gullible while trying to slide a sweaty hand up the dress of an unsuspecting farmer's wife.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
CONCLUSION:The difference in skull shape and robustness of the beak between commensal and non-commensal house sparrows is consistent with adaptations to process the larger and rachis encapsulated seeds of domesticated cereals among human associated populations. http://www.biomed...8/13/20
Exactly, mutational change leading to changes in gene expression resulting in adaptions that allow the processing of larger and rachis encapsulated seed resulting on the survival of those that manifest the adaptation and the demise of those that don't! Glad you agree!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
The difference in morphological and behavioral traits in the white-throated sparrow (Horton et al, 2014) are also linked to ecological adaptations via diet and pheromone-controlled reproduction. (means)* that the accumulation of some mutations caused differences in beaks, other accumulations cause difference in the skull, and others caused differences in plumage color, song and behavior.
Exactly! Time accumulated beneficial mutations result in slow changes to the species over the course of several thousands of generations, leading to distinct differences in gene expression thus resulting in differences in beaks, color, song and behavior! Now you're getting it!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
that penises and jaws concurrently mutated into existence. With thoughts like that, it is no wonder they flap their overdeveloped jaws for fear that others might otherwise notice their underdeveloped penises.
Now, see I have to disagree with you there! While there may have been some overlap in the time period over which the accumulated mutations that lead to the development of jaws or penises occurred, there is no evidence to suggest that such development was concurrent except by coincidence. Furthermore, your use of the term "concurrent" leaves us with the impression you think they are somehow connected in a means other than coincidence, and there appears to be no evidence provided in the literature surrounding evolution that such a connection exists. That you like to put "jaw" and "penis" together is certainly not enough proof to suggest they developed concurrently.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2014
The role of ecological variation in driving divergence of sexual and non-sexual traits in the red-backed fairy-wren (Malurus melanocephalus)
http://www.biomed...48/13/75

Ecological variation is the raw material by which natural selection can drive evolutionary divergence [1–4].
http://rspb.royal...abstract

Ecological theory suggests that if species are too similar in their resource use, one will out-compete the others; hence, neighboring species must exploit different niches if they are to coexist.
http://www.scienc...35.short

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
http://www.socioa...53/27989

This model details how chemical ecology drives adaptive evolution via: (1) ecological niche construction, (2) social niche construction, (3) neurogenic niche construction, and (4) socio-cognitive niche construction.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2014
there is no evidence to suggest that such development was concurrent except by coincidence. ... your use of the term "concurrent" leaves us with the impression you think they are somehow connected in a means other than coincidence, and there appears to be no evidence provided in the literature surrounding evolution that such a connection exists.


I linked to the experimental evidence of concurrent development and like any other idiot minion you ignored it. So I just linked to 4 more articles on ecological variation and adaptations that have also been ignored by idiot minions. I could also link to several articles on how nutrient-dependent de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes links them from their presence on sperm cells to pheromone-controlled reproduction.

But evidence of cause and effect makes no difference to pseudoscientists as we all have seen. And you appear to be the only idiot minion left here. Not much point to me providing experimental evidence, is there?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
I could also link to several articles...

@jvk
you could also link to a study of papal undergarments and their affect on world governmental policies, but that still does not support your claims.
Your hypothesis is already a sub-topic of Evolution and is given full accord. It is NOT, however, a replacement for evolution theory as there is no proof that supports it as a replacement because it is not as major an influence as you make it out to be.
environmental influences certainly do contribute to cells developing in different directions. However, there are many examples of patterns that resist environmental influences, or in which maternal factors shelter the embryo from the environment. Fertilized human eggs, for instance, acquire polarity information when they implant in the uterus, but are largely insulated from temperature and nutrient stress. -Myers
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2014
Fertilized human eggs, for instance, acquire polarity information when they implant in the uterus, but are largely insulated from temperature and nutrient stress. -Myers


You idiot minion! Of course that came from PZ Myers. For comparison:

"Organizational and activational effects of hormones on insect behavior" took our model of hormone-organized and hormone-activated vertebrate behavior and extended it to invertebrates. They wrote: "... organization and activation... provide a comprehensive framework for thinking about the effects of hormones on behavior. While the insect literature contains numerous examples... explicit use of the organization concept provides a window into the developmental origins of phenotypic variation in behavior. It also broadens the time course over which hormonal actions on insect behavior are considered, from egg to adult."

http://www.ncbi.n...10980296

If you don't look at the evidence, you will continue to look like a fool.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
This model details how chemical ecology drives adaptive evolution via: (1) ecological niche construction, (2) social niche construction, (3) neurogenic niche construction, and (4) socio-cognitive niche construction.
1. What model? You haven't given one. 2. Niche construction is suggestive of an underlying intelligence. Are you again declaring that God is the arbiter of gene mutation?

Are you getting your jaw and penis mixed up again?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
I linked to the experimental evidence of concurrent development and like any other idiot minion you ignored it.
No you didn't, you quack. Did you really think in your hubris that I wouldn't read it? It is not a article of concurrent development you fucktard, its an article that discusses the two concurrently. Are you really that stupid that you can't see the difference? From the cite:
Moreover, despite the striking diversity in genitalic shapes across the genus Amphiacusta, which suggests that sexual selection drives speciation, the significant differences in genitalia shape between forest habitats revealed here implies that ecological divergence may be the primary axis of divergence
Do you know what that means purveyor of bogus love potions? Are you so caught up in matching your jaw with a penis that you can't see your references to god are not supported by the very cite you, yourself, make?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
You idiot minion!

like any other idiot minion

it is no wonder they flap their overdeveloped jaws for fear that others might otherwise notice their underdeveloped penises

You can dissappear without dying

@jvk
just some random quotes to support the assessment (of you) from Myers, who says
He crashes into a thread full of lay people and then lords it over them with his abuse of jargon. And he does it over and over again...

&
he just keeps hammering away with his pseudo-scientific pronouncements.

&
Maybe he thinks belligerent pomposity is the way to attract...attention

all this means, simply, that jvk is a pseudoscience TROLL taking up valuable server space with errant comments wishing only to see her promulgation in print
the scientific community already passed judgement on your hypothesis
it is garbage

please see Maggnus above
and RealScience
Mensa standards sure have dropped
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2014
So I just linked to 4 more articles on ecological variation and adaptations that have also been ignored by idiot minions.
no, seller of snake oil love potions, you linked to four more articles that ALL discuss the slow rate of MUTATIONAL changes suggestive of the idea that such changes take place over a long period and are dependant upon there being individuals who survive long enough to pass on the mutational advantages. That you try to pass off your cites as saying something they do not clearly points to the fact that you are GRASPING AT STRAWS!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
you linked to four more articles that ALL discuss the slow rate of MUTATIONAL changes suggestive of the idea that such changes take place over a long period and are dependant upon there being individuals who survive long enough to pass on the mutational advantages

Awww... you spoiled my surprise, Maggnus!
i was going to finish with a flourish! LOL

poor JVK... still cant comprehend that her hypothesis is still under the Evolution umbrella because it CAUSES MUTATIONS !!
like i said... Mensa is going down hill!
i would complain but i gave up my membership a while ago... for the same reason as what we are seeing here! Idiocy under the proclamations of science!
in fact... it is worse, because JVK thinks NO ONE is right BUT HER! SHE actually thinks that this is a SANE argument as well...

really need to get those meds checked!

in conclusion, we can see that JVK shows all the signs of a PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT as shown by her postings above.
thanks for the live demonstration, jvk
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
If you don't look at the evidence, you will continue to look like a fool.
Look who's talking!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
Yea Stumpy, a crackpot by any other name is a pseudo-scientist! Sorry to jump in on your surprise, but I saw that and couldn't believe the hubris behind the suggestion that only a snake oil salesperson can read cites! FO&D is appropriate, if a bit course lol!

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2014
Summary: The biological plausibility and ecological validity of Laws of Biology

Life is nutrient-dependent. The ecological origin of all biological laws is apparent 1) in the context of systems biology; 2) in the context of the metabolism of nutrients by microbes; and 3) in the context of how the metabolism of nutrients results in species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction. Taken together, the systems biology of nutrient metabolism to species-specific pheromones, which control the physiology of reproduction, can be expressed in two Laws of Biology: 1) Life is nutrient-dependent (see Kohl, 2012) and 2) The physiology of reproduction is pheromone-controlled (see Kohl, 2013).

Kohl (2012) http://www.socioa...53/27989
Kohl (2013) http://www.socioa...38/20758

Idiot minions want you to believe that mutation-initiated natural selection causes evolution.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2014
This model details how chemical ecology drives adaptive evolution via: (1) ecological niche construction, (2) social niche construction, (3) neurogenic niche construction, and (4) socio-cognitive niche construction.


1. What model? You haven't given one. 2. Niche construction is suggestive of an underlying intelligence.


I quoted from: Kohl (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.
http://www.socioa...53/27989

Creation of olfactory receptor genes links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man, which is why niche construction is suggestive of an underlying intelligence.

The link from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA is the holy grail of evolutionary biology. Thus, unless you're a social pseudoscientist or idiot minion of one, the holy grail of evolutionary biology is Creation.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2014
Life is nutrient-dependent


In the same way that breathing is oxygen-dependent. In the same way that cars are gasoline-dependent. That literally means nothing.

the holy grail of evolutionary biology is Creation


Hahahahahaha
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2014
Life is nutrient-dependent...


...means it is not mutation-dependent. Natural selection of nutrients enables niche construction. Mutations do not.

The holy grail of evolutionary biology is nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation via the de novo Creation of olfactory receptor genes. If mutations created genes that helped organisms find food and reproduce, mutation-driven evolution could be considered in the context of my model, in which even an idiot minion may understand the importance of oxygen.

Aerobic glycolysis (metabolism of glucose) is not only nutrient-dependent but it is also biophysically constrained by the availability of oxygen. Combustion in a gasoline engine is constrained by physics. If your comparison to breathing were anything more than a representation of ignorance, you could provide a biologically plausible model of how a gasoline engine could mutate into a human and we could compare the ecological validity of your model to mine.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2014
In the context of aerobic glycolysis, there appear to be 1180 other hemoglobin variants that attest to the foolishness of the claim that the sickle-cell mutation is a beneficial mutation.

The variants exemplify ecological adaptations in all other species, but evolutionary theorists (i.e., atheistic idiots like PZ Myers) teach students that the variants are beneficial mutations because not every "mutant" fails to reproduce.

That's where the ACLU comes in. Myers appears to be teaching racism to his idiot minions, because there appear to be racial differences in the prevalence of the sickle-cell variant he thinks is a mutation. The litigation will be complicated, as always. But the focus on biological facts will determine the predictable result.

The most likely result is predicted with the advent of "The ASU Center for Evolution, Medicine and Public Health." Racist claims will probably lead to examination of the sexist claims and other ridiculous claims of idiots and their minions.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2014
Hahahahahaha
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
1) Life is nutrient-dependent (see Kohl, 2012) and 2) The physiology of reproduction is pheromone-controlled (see Kohl, 2013).

Kohl (2012) http://www.socioa...53/27989
I said it was this way and I am right because I said it was this way here too. Your circular argument in support of your fantasy theory is fallasic, lacks coherence and lacks independent corroboration. I thought you said you knew how science worked?

Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
...means it is not mutation-dependent. Natural selection of nutrients enables niche construction. Mutations do not.
Wrong again Mr Love Potion salesman! Well actually, not even wrong! Natural selection as a result of mutational evolution allows niche exploitation by species of non-traditional nutrition. It also gives reason as to why a species nearing extinction has a higher incidence of spontaneous mutation, as interbreeding arising from a low number base increases the likelihood of spontaneous mutation. In those instances where the mutation is beneficial, the species may survive if the mutation gets passed on to enough offspring. This is also why larger, slower producing species are less likely to survive a low number base, as they do not pass the mutated gene onto enough offspring to allow survival of the species.

Your own cites above said this! This is high-school biology for Christ's sake!!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
The holy grail of evolutionary biology is nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation via the de novo Creation of olfactory receptor genes. If mutations created genes that helped organisms find food and reproduce, mutation-driven evolution could be considered in the context of my model, in which even an idiot minion may understand the importance of oxygen.
You have mixed up the cart and the horse! Mutations DO create genes that allow organisms to exploit niche, non traditional nutrition. That's what the bird study you cited above said! There is no need for a Creator for this evolutionary model to work, and we see examples of it nearly everywhere! Even you, a pseudo-scientific love potion salesman should be able to grasp this!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
In the context of aerobic glycolysis, there appear to be 1180 other hemoglobin variants that attest to the foolishness of the claim that the sickle-cell mutation is a beneficial mutation.
Ridiculous! Those who carry the mutation and live in an area wherein the malaria parasite is endemic are more likely to survive the parasitic infection, if they get it at all. As children are most often affected in such area, and are more prone to death as a result of the infection, clearly those who carry the mutation are more likely to survive and pass on the mutation!

And please, do pray tell, how do 1180 other hemoglobin variants "attest to the foolishness" of this simple study in mutational evolution? I think your love-potion based bias is showing!
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2014
... how do 1180 other hemoglobin variants "attest to the foolishness" of this simple study in mutational evolution?


You will learn more about that from the litigation, which results from claims that hemoglobin S is caused by a mutation, but that other hemoglobin variants are "variants" like variants found in species that have ecologically adapted to living at higher elevations above sea level, or adapted to freezing water temperatures.

However, if you provide us with the names of 5 different biology teachers who, like PZ Myers, appear to be ignoring biophysical constraints and teaching students about a racist, sexist, homophobic, and pseudoscientific theory of mutation-driven evolution, I may get permission to disclose more information to you based on additions to the list of those who can be convicted.

I'm not sure that I can guarantee your anonymity, however. But, so far, at least you think you are safe, don't you? If not, you would be commenting in a scientific discussion
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
I quoted from: Kohl (2013)

@jvk
quotes herself= PSEUDOSCIENCE
unless you're a social pseudoscientist or idiot minion of one

personal conjecture with derogatory remarks = PSEUDOSCIENCE
IN MY MODEL ,THAT OCCURS VIA NUTRIENT-DEPENDENT PHEROMONE-CONTROLLED AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTIONS AND CHROMOSOMAL REARRANGEMENTS

she cant see that her hypothesis CAUSES mutation and is thus included under the blanket description of Evolution = PSEUDOSCIENCE
Idiot minions want you to believe

only SHE has the knowledge that you need = PSEUDOSCIENCE
child-like belief

negative connotations attached to believers of scientific evidence = PSEUDOSCIENCE
teaching students about a racist, sexist, homophobic, and pseudoscientific theory of mutation-driven evolution

it is no wonder they flap their overdeveloped jaws for fear that others might otherwise notice their underdeveloped penises

if you believe in science, you are racist,sexist,homophobe etc = PSEUDOSCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
teaching students about a racist, sexist, homophobic, and pseudoscientific theory of mutation-driven evolution

it is no wonder they flap their overdeveloped jaws for fear that others might otherwise notice their underdeveloped penises

@jvk
calling everyone in the scientific community the above, while also condemning them as idiots etc = PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT
lab tech telling PhD's they are idiots etc = priceless! But STILL PSEUDOSCIENCE

you picked the PERFECT thread to display your pseudoscience crackpottery
at least now people have a perfect example that shows them how pseudoscience operates
You will learn more about that from the litigation, which results from claims that hemoglobin S is caused by a mutation

either you are using the archaic definition of litigation meaning disputation, or you are implying that you are willing to waste huge sums of money and court time to prove you are a pseudoscience crackpot

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
You will learn more about that from the litigation, which results from claims that hemoglobin S is caused by a mutation, but that other hemoglobin variants are "variants" like variants found in species that have ecologically adapted to living at higher elevations above sea level, or adapted to freezing water temperatures

@jvk
so... you are going to SUE us because we dont believe in your PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT HYPOTHESIS????
really?
Are you going to include the ENTIRE COMMUNITY OF BIOLOGISTS TOO?
After all, your hypothesis is included under the evolution umbrella
as it causes mutations it can still be considered part of evolution

Just more proof that you are pushing a PSEUDOSCIENCE HYPOTHESIS
I'm not sure that I can guarantee your anonymity, however. But, so far, at least you think you are safe, don't you?

are you really threatening us?
threatening behaviour because we dont believe the way you do?
huh...
i must invite you over to my place one day for Coffee!
(hyperbole)
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2014
Did the 1925 Scopes trial involve litigation or disputation? Clearly, I don't know how to scientifically approach such things and won't be spending my money. That's why I mentioned the involvement of the ACLU, racism, sexism, and homophobia. The ACLU has experts who will determine how to approach the topic of teaching the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection to students for nearly 90 years.

Serious scientists are motivating the ACLU to take action, just as they motivated the NIH, and specifically the NIMH, to act appropriately on grant applications that indicate applicants do not understand how the epigenetic landscape becomes the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man. For example, the NIMH director trashed the DSM-5 before it became available, and an evangelical Christian is the NIH director.

You seem a bit too focused on pretending that I'm the crackpot. Have you considered learning anything about biology, instead?
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2014
This sounds like something that may be important for PZ Myers and his idiot minions to read.

http://www.i-sis....nome.php

"This book serves a need to describe the obvious to literate and astute masses! As educators, we need to critically analyse our failure to convey the fundamental biological insight of life as a continuum to our students."
Dr. R.H. Richardson, Professor of Integrative Biology, University of Texas, Austin, USA

I'm not sure because neither PZ Myers nor his idiot minions have shown evidence that they are either literate or astute. They have demonstrated the need for someone to describe the obvious (e.g., life is nutrient-dependent), however, and I suspect they're not going to start with her earlier work:

Beyond neo-Darwinism—an epigenetic approach to evolution
http://www.scienc...79901917
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2014
More recommended reading: Genetic Explanations Sense and Nonsense

http://www.hup.ha...tent=toc

What we've seen here is the pseudoscientific nonsense, despite my attempt to verbally beat some sense into the idiot minions of the biology teacher PZ Myers and the researcher Richard Lenski.

Obviously, this book, and others like it -- along with information about epigenetics that takes us back to 1979 and earlier -- has been available to biology teachers for several decades. It will be interesting to see people defend their ignorance in court, since it appears to be indefensible.

What's more likely is that PZ Myers will be terminated with extreme prejudice for biasing the beliefs of his students by teaching them nonsense throughout his teaching career.

If you were ever one of his students, I suggest you ask the university for a tuition refund so that you are first on the list.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
You seem a bit too focused on pretending that I'm the crackpot

sigh
@jvk
I am NOT pretending
you really ARE a crackpot
This sounds like something that may be important

so... you think that by linking to another page
and listing book titles
this justifies your argument?
And we should just...what?
Send you copious amounts of cash?
Dance in the streets with glee?
(satirical hyperbole)
my attempt to verbally beat some sense into the idiot minions

and again... only YOU are intelligent enough?
OK, then... why dont YOU have the PhD?
Why hasnt the entire establishment backed your hypothesis if it is so powerful and it has so much proof?

answer those last two questions and lets go from there... skip the links, you have flooded this site with enough.
tell us... in YOUR words, WHY YOU ARE NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY by the establishment and you are still a lab tech without your PhD.

do you even have a Baccalaureate?
associates?
there is no mention on your sites of anything
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2014
@Captain. - I am beginning to see that there is a bigger issue here than just evolution. I think the religionists (JVK has revealed himself as a creationist) are somehow terrified of science. The strange conundrum is that of course science has the potential to be the doomsday monster. But of course we cannot stop science - you cannot tell people to stop thinking. Folks like JVK are going nuts - seeing that sooner or later - science peels enough layers off the onion - and reveals that we don't need god. So they sit on the sand - ordering the tide to go back - perhaps knowing that it is futile - or perhaps delusional.

Interesting times.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2014
The biggest issue here is a comparison of social pseudoscience touted by the atheistic idiot PZ Myers, and his idiot minions. The pseudoscience has again been compared to the scientifically established biologically plausible and ecologically validated concept of ecological variation -- with examples provided of how variation enables increasing organismal complexity via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction.

Clearly, if the idiot minions and their teachers are not going to read and discuss the extant literature, they will never join the rest of us in the 21st century, where ecological variation is the determinant of species diversity via epigenetic effects on amino acid substitutions and chromosomal rearrangements.

It was PZ Myers ridiculous opinion about the role of chromosomal rearrangements in speciation that led to his attack and the additional attacks on my credibility here. That makes the ACLU's target clear, thanks to the idiot minions.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2014
I am beginning to see that there is a bigger issue here than just evolution. I think the religionists (JVK has revealed himself as a creationist) are somehow terrified of science

@Cocoa
absolutely correct. that is why he is bound to failure. jvk keeps pushing a failed hypothesis that was refuted publicly... and cannot even understand WHY. Keeps repeating the same crap over and over... even though the hypothesis causes mutation and is just a tiny part og the evolution theory.
it is fascinating to watch the egotistical almost psychotic ramblings, really.

@jvk
i noticed that you failed to answer my questions? whats the matter... religion got your tongue?
afraid to bear false witness OTHER THAN your continued diatribe and attacks against the scientific community?

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I POSTED!
SHOW US ALL WHY we should believe you over the overwhelming evidence against you?
WHY should we take your word over the entire scientific community of educated PhD's?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2014
my attempt to verbally beat some sense into the idiot minions

@jvk
and again... only YOU are intelligent enough?

OK, then... why dont YOU have the PhD?
Why hasnt the entire establishment backed your hypothesis if it is so powerful and it has so much proof?

answer those last two questions and lets go from there... skip the links, you have flooded this site with enough.
tell us... in YOUR words, WHY YOU ARE NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY by the establishment and you are still a lab tech without your PhD.

do you even have a Baccalaureate?
associates?
there is no mention on your sites of anything

please, BY ALL MEANS
FILL US ALL IN

answer the questions posed and tell us all about it
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2014
These idiot minions already know I've won awards for two published works.

The Mind's Eyes -- Human Pheromones, Neuroscience, and Male Sexual Preferences
Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality/Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality

author's copy here: http://www.sexarc...kohl.htm

and

Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology
http://www.nel.ed...view.htm

Others who have looked at the additional links I've provided realize there is no experimental evidence for mutation-driven evolution, which makes it a pseudoscientific theory. There are many books that attest to that fact, which is why the idiot minions focus on my credentials etc. The only way to continue to believe in the nonsense taught by people like PZ Myers is to ignore the reality that no experimental evidence supports it.

No need for superior intelligence, just the ability to read and interest in learning about biological facts.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2014
teaching students about a racist, sexist, homophobic, and pseudoscientific theory of mutation-driven evolution
What are you on about now? Do you often suddenly veer of into lathering bouts of nonsense? Did you forget to take your meds?
I'm not sure that I can guarantee your anonymity, however. But, so far, at least you think you are safe, don't you? If not, you would be commenting in a scientific discussion
BAHAHAHA!!! By all means, have at it! Click on my profile you idiot, should give you all the information necessary for a lawyer to find and serve me! I dare you! Here I will make it easier for you: JV Kohl is a fraud and knowingly uses falsified data to fraudulently promote products he knows do not work. JV Kohl knowingly and prejudicially makes false claims regarding his products. JV Kohl is a liar and a fraud who knowingly promotes fraudulent claims about his product purely for financial gain.

Have at it you fraudster! I DARE YOU!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2014
Others who have looked at the additional links I've provided realize there is no experimental evidence for mutation-driven evolution, which makes it a pseudoscientific theory.
Anyone who has looked at your links realizes that you have actually provided clear and unequivocal support for the scientific theory that evolution is as a result of beneficial mutation, and I have shown that the very links that you use make the case that mutational based theory is scientifically accurate and the most probable conclusion.

JV Kohl as shown himself to be a lying fraud who attempts to use intimidation and knowingly false interpretation of data to browbeat any opposition to his knowingly fraudulent claims regarding his pheromone-based love potion. JV Kohl should be charged with fraud over his knowing use of falsehoods to promote his love potion.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2014
By the way Kohl, I finally decided to look up the PZ Myers you are in such a froth over. Thank you for putting me in touch with such a rational and straight-forward speaker and author! No wonder you don't like him, he speaks the truth about you and your fraudulent promotion of that snake-oil based love potion that you know doesn't work.

You are a liar and a fraud JV Kohl! You claim to be a man of God while at the same time promoting a product you know does not work! Your fraud and lies are an abomination in the eyes of your God, and you should immediately give back the ill-gotten gain your fraud has gotten you and beg His forgiveness for your lies and pride.

C'mon fraudster, sue me! I DARE YOU!
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2014
One thing that I enjoy about idiot minions is their inability to address any experimental evidence of biologically based cause and effect -- like that found in the references I cited in two award-winning publications. After noting the support for my position (via the awards and recognition), Maggnus touts PZ Myers as "a rational and straight-forward speaker and author!" This -- after Chelo et al showed that mutations are not fixed in the genome of the model organism I used to show that amino acid substitutions are fixed and that their fixation is the cause of species diversification.

Everyone should now ignore my most recent publication and these two award-winning publications.

The Mind's Eyes -- Human Pheromones, Neuroscience, and Male Sexual Preferences
Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality/Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality

author's copy here: http://www.sexarc...kohl.htm

and

Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology
http://www.nel.ed...view.htm
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2014
... I finally decided to look up the PZ Myers you are in such a froth over. Thank you for putting me in touch with such a rational and straight-forward speaker and author!


Thank you for mentioning how straight-forward he is. I mentioned before that "The BDM model is so straightforward that it became the null model of speciation [7]" -- with no experimental evidence whatsoever."
http://linkinghub...10001795

New models of chromosomal speciation incorporate both genic (BDM incompatibilities) and non-genic factors (CRs) into the same framework.

You just admitted to sharing the mentality of an idiot (PZ Myers) at the same time that experimental evidence has shown what an idiot he is to simply accept the null hypothesis without experimental evidence.

That's why evolutionary theory is viewed as social pseudoscience. You must take the theory on faith and believe in it the way other idiots teach you to believe -- as is typical of idiot minions.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2014
Hey fraud, it's Sunday, why aren't you in church begging forgiveness for your lies and fraud?
their inability to address any experimental evidence of biologically based cause and effect
You have not provided any, so there has been no need try and address it.
like that found in the references I cited in two award-winning publications
Quote mining, self aggrandizement and nebulous cites of material that does not support your position is not "experimental evidence".
I used to show that amino acid substitutions are fixed and that their fixation is the cause of species diversification.
You have shown nothing of the sort! In fact, you have shown exactly nothing, period.
Everyone should now ignore my most recent publication and these two award-winning publications
I agree.
Answer one question fraudster: What mechanism (enzymes/pathway) is responsible for making changes to the genome in your model? Bet you can't answer. Bet you don't know.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2014
No need for superior intelligence, just the ability to read and interest in learning about biological facts

@jvk
the only problem I see with this is that:
BECUASE you have not gotten your education &
BECAUSE you cannot understand where you are going wrong &
BECAUSE you are IGNORANT of a great many details
you PERCIEVE something that is NOT REALITY
giving you the impression that you found something that is NOT REALLY THERE
this is commonly referred to as a DELUSION
IF you get your education, you would understand
WHY your hypothesis is already included in evolution &
WHY the scientific community has labeled you a pseudoscience crackpot

I also see that you are AVOIDING answering
the mark of a true PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT
their inability to address any experimental evidence

we HAVE
we said your links actually SUPPORT the modern theory of evolution
ONLY YOU are having problems seeing this, not us
probably because your vocabulary and problems with comprehension
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2014
@jvk
I will propose the questions yet again
please answer with as MUCH detail as you can...

why dont YOU have the PhD?

Why hasnt the entire establishment backed your hypothesis if it is so powerful and it has so much proof?

I am totally with Maggnus and his assessment above!
Your attempts to deflect answering the questions with self-aggrandizement are nothing short of laughable... I would be willing to say that either Maggnus OR I both are more highly educated than you as you cannot even give proof of a 4yr Degree (at least, not listed on your "i love me" page on line at your site)

AND given your lack of comprehension of basic terminology...

answer the above questions and lets go from there, shall we?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2014
Answer one question fraudster: What mechanism (enzymes/pathway) is responsible for making changes to the genome in your model? Bet you can't answer. Bet you don't know.


I'd put money on that bet. I'd also put money on him giving you an answer that doesn't make any sense like he gave me on Myers' blog (mRNA).
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2014
See: Horton et al (2014) http://www.pnas.o...abstract

I keep mentioning the experimental evidence that chromosomal rearrangements are responsible for species diversity. The evidence is consistent with our report on chromosomal rearrangements and speciation due to the appearance of sex chromosomes in unicellular yeasts, which is the model that has since been extended across all species. That's why there is no mention of mutation-driven evolution in Horton et al (2014).

PZ Myers attacked me after attacking the late John Anderson's views about the involvement of chromosomal rearrangements (CRs) in speciation sans mutations, which is exactly what's been shown to occur. All experimental evidence now supports the role of chromosomal rearrangements in species diversity. All that's left of pseudoscientific theories is PZ Myers and his idiot minions.

Even Lenski will be forced to acknowledge that mutations do not cause amino acid substitutions and CRs.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2014
What mechanism (enzymes/pathway) is responsible for making changes to the genome in your model?


The mechanism is nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation in bacteria, which extends to divergent amino acid sequences and chromosomal rearrangement in yeasts via adaptations that led from prokaryotes to eukaryotes in species from microbes to man.

Why did you think I would not know that? The pathway has been reviewed in two recent publications 1) Signaling Crosstalk: Integrating Nutrient Availability and Sex and 2) Feedback loops [that] link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction [in mammals] -- via conserved molecular mechanisms. If my answer doesn't make sense to you, the problem is the ignorance of an anonymous fool, not my lack of knowledge. For example, what do you know about the microRNA/mRNA balance?

http://stke.scien...291/pe28
http://www.cell.c...900981-5
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2014
Why hasnt the entire establishment backed your hypothesis if it is so powerful and it has so much proof?


I've answered that question, repeatedly. I am backed by those who understand the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization required to link sensory input from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA without the role of mutation-initiated natural selection.

PZ Myers and his idiot minions who do not understand anything about biology simply accepted a straightforward hypothesis with no experimental support.

You are arguing with a medical laboratory scientist who has fully detailed the link from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in a series of published works since 1995, while offering PZ Myers as an example of someone who you think is informed but who believes in a ridiculous pseudoscientific theory because he's an idiot who doesn't understand the need for experimental evidence.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2014
See: Horton et al (2014) http://www.pnas.o...abstract
This is the 4th time you have put up the same study, and so this will also be the fourth time that I point out that the study discusses a MUTATION (the ability to attribute a behavioral change to a specific, naturally occurring genetic change is rare in vertebrates) which results in a change of behavior as a result of the MUTATION! (Our results suggest that in this species, differentiation of ESR1 has played a causal role in the evolution of phenotypes with alternative life-history strategies.) Are you just bloody stupid? Can you not read what your own cites say?

anonymous_9001 you are correct, and I hope you don't mind my use of the question without credit here.

Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2014
The mechanism is nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation in bacteria, which extends to divergent amino acid sequences and chromosomal rearrangement in yeasts via adaptations that led from prokaryotes to eukaryotes in species from microbes to man.
THAT DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION! I think you do not know the answer to the question, concoctor of love potions, because you keep not providing an answer to it! Sciency-sounding jargon doesn't play well here pretender, and your snake oil selling charms do not cloud our minds!

ANSWER THE QUESTION!

I've answered that question, repeatedly. I am backed by those who understand the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization required to link sensory input from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA without the role of mutation-initiated natural selection.
In other words, no one!
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2014
I hope you don't mind my use of the question without credit here.


Of course not.

The mechanism is nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation


As I've told you before, that's not a mechanism. Describing a mechanism or pathway means describing the PARTS of said pathway, aka the enzymes involved.

Your EPIGENETIC mechanism cannot account for genomic changes. Making amino acid changes following transcription is not the same as making base sequence changes at the DNA level.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2014
Only an idiot minion or an embarrassed professor of genetics like M. Nei, would redefine the term mutation so that it could be made to automagically and invisibly appear in an article that provides details on how amino acid substitutions lead to chromosomal rearrangements and different morphological and behavioral phenotypes.

No one I've met from Donna Maney's group, including Horton, is anything less than a serious scientist who is familiar with far more that just the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization required to provide experimental evidence that refutes the entirety of mutation-initiated natural selection.

That being said, if Horton et al (2014) did use the word mutation the way idiot minions would like it to be used, there is still no experimental evidence that shows how mutations associated with morphological AND behavioral phenotypes might be naturally selected.

That's why evolutionary theory is considered to be pseudoscientific! Get it?
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2014
Describing a mechanism or pathway means describing the PARTS of said pathway, aka the enzymes involved.


What conserved molecular mechanism or signaling pathway is responsible for mutation-initiated natural selection? Let's compare mechanisms and parts.

Your EPIGENETIC mechanism cannot account for genomic changes. Making amino acid changes following transcription is not the same as making base sequence changes at the DNA level.


Oh, I get it, you want me to explain the combined works that started from Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve's experiments detailing the successive singularities that led from glucose uptake to greater complexity and biodiversity via the development of a lock-and-key system that serves as the universal device of biological recognition at the molecular level et al., starting with the enzyme glucose dehydrogenase.

Sorry, I don't have the time or inclination to do that for an anonymous fool or idiot minions. You need to wait for my next publication.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2014
Sciency-sounding jargon doesn't play well here pretender


That's because there is no intelligent life here, only idiot minions and anonymous fools who pretend that mutation-initiated natural selection is biologically plausible and ecologically validated, when only nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptations are validated by experimental evidence in species from microbes to man.

For example, see this published work co-authored by Nobel Laureate, Linda Buck.
Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction
http://www.cell.c...900981-5

Linda shared the 2004 prize with Richard Axel for work done in the early 90's. I mention that just as an added indicator of how ignorant you and your kind are when it comes to decades of scientific progress.

But the real problem is that you're not intelligent enough to ask questions about a ridiculous theory that never made scientific sense from the time it was first proposed.
Nestle
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
Anti-vaxers aren't ideological It's probably because the mandatory governmentally organized vaccination doesn't play well for both family protective republicans, both for liberal democrats.
JVK
2 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2014
why dont YOU have the PhD?

Thanks for asking. I could not think slowly enough or force myself to believe in the idiotic proposals that biology professors like PZ Myers accepted as a basis for their nonsensical beliefs simply because they were too ignorant to ask if any experimental evidence supported what they were taught in their "evolution for dummies" courses.

The dean of the biology department tried to force me to declare a major, but I refused because I had already taken a D for refusing to cut and paste drawings to rearrange chromosomes (for 50% of my grade in genetics class). A few years later my genetics professor and I gave concurrent lectures at a private function. He told me the cut and paste project was incorporated into his curriculum by the dean of the biology department.

He also invited me to come to his office during the next week, which is when he gave me articles from 1971 about homosexual pheromones. I will never forget the late Dr. Leonard Storm.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2014
You are arguing with a medical laboratory scientist

@jvk
so we're NOT going to answer my questions?
You are sticking to your same tactic of obfuscation?

here we have a lady that is nothing but a lab tech with a couple of lucky breaks in publications because she happened to latch on to someone with intellect who now claims that the ENTIRE ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY is nothing but idiots because the evidence for the theory of Evolution is overwhelming and in their favour!
If THIS doesnt take the cake!
I mean... Hmm! WHO should we believe!
The entire community of educated, respected scientists with years of hard work, peer reviewed papers that support evolution?
Or the lab tech who is calling everyone an idiot...
WOW!
That is SUCH a HARD DECISION TO MAKE!
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2014

The dean of the biology department tried to force me to declare a major, but I refused because I had already taken a D for refusing to cut and paste drawings to rearrange chromosomes (for 50% of my grade in genetics class).

@jvk..
so.. you failed because you couldnt learn the BASIC FIRST
before going off on your own

this is what i am reading here

this is also something that i ahve been trying to beat into your skull

your hypothesis causes mutations PER the DEFINITION of mutation
therefore your hypothesis is included in evolution

and you cant see that because you have not been able to grasp the basics yet
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2014
I could not ... courses

@jvk
I see here that you also have issues with ANY authority
it is also apparent that no matter how many times we ask, you are ALWAYS going to have a ready excuse for why YOU are right and NO ONE ELSE can be right BUT you...
you cannot see the problem with this either...
this is also a strong earmark and common trait of the delusional as well as the more common faith driven acolytes, and it applies to pesudosciences and people who desire attention
it is also seen in cult leaders, which is what you have essentially become
there really will be no logic getting into your head as you will not allow ANYTHING in that threatens your reality, which is strongly based upon your ego
you are also incredibly sensitive about your lack of education and that is why you lash out at educated people who tell you that you are wrong

you are what the article is all about...

again, thank you for the live demo
and all the input for my Psych homework
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2014
I see here that you also have issues with ANY authority


The only issues I have are with pseudoscience and ignorance. I obviously do not have issues with authority because I extended my military service from 4 to 7 years. How long did you serve? In what branch? I will understand if you did serve because you couldn't pass the intelligence tests.

You do not understand the difference between epigenesis and mutagenesis when only one of the two links the sensory environment to biologically-based de novo creation of genes in species from microbes to man via conserved molecular mechanisms that I have detailed in my published works.

See for example my comment on: Secreting and Sensing the Same Molecule Allows Cells to
Achieve Versatile Social Behaviors
http://comments.s....1242782

and my comment on Cells Listen to Their Inner Voice

http://comments.s....1250244

What do you know about glucose dehydrogenase?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2014
"Stevenson and his contemporaries have their legitimate allies too. Max Planck, the father of quantum physics, saw merit in the possibility of a physical realm derived from the non-physical ("consciousness"). In his 1995 book The Demon-Haunted World, astrophysicist Carl Sagan, a known advocate of scientific skepticism, said that the phenomenon of children reporting "details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation" is an area of parapsychological research deserving of "serious study.""
http://www.theatl.../283584/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2014
because I extended my military service from 4 to 7 years.

@jvk
this could be seen differently
How long did you serve? In what branch? I will understand if you did serve because you couldn't pass the intelligence tests

fascinating
so: if I served, it was because I was ignorant
but if YOU served, it is because...?
I served in the Air Force then Army
13 years before being blown up and medically retired
You do not understand the difference between... blah blah blah

and you dont understand that your own hypothesis causes mutation
per the definition that genetics/biology/physiology etc uses
which means your hypothesis is clearly a small part of the included theory of evolution

you really do have issues with authority
and anyone that refutes you brings out anger
especially when they are correct...
and arguing the same point over and over is pointless,
as you cannot see the forest for the tree you keep harping on about
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
How long did you serve? In what branch? I will understand if you did serve because you couldn't pass the intelligence tests


Off course that was a typo. It should have read "I will understand if you did NOT serve because you couldn't pass the intelligence tests."

"I served in the Air Force then Army 13 years before being blown up..."


Thanks for serving your country. Sorry to hear about the explosion-induced brain damage, but it explains a lot.

...your hypothesis is clearly a small part of the included theory of evolution


My model explains nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations via epigenesis and it excludes the pseudoscience of mutagenesis in the context of de novo gene creation, which is required for increasing organismal complexity. You will need to learn more about glucose dehydrogenase and biophysical constraints to discuss this. Please seek competent help to do so, or ask PZ Myers and try to avoid laughing hysterically.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
Sorry to hear about the explosion-induced brain damage, but it explains a lot

@jvk
nice try. feet legs and back.
still serve.
My model explains nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations via epigenesis

which is a small chunk included in the theory of evolution
i know that is hard for you to accept
being uneducated and obviously incapable of understanding this
had you actually stayed in school longer you would have learned this

nice try though.
i would recommend going back to school and learning a little more so that you can understand WHY it is that the entire scientific community considers you a crackpot

your pseudoscience hypothesis only sounds good to the uneducated
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
Let's make sure others understand what you and PZ Myers want them to believe. Is it that nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled epigenesis (de novo creation of genes) is a small chunk of the theory of mutation-initiated natural selection in the context of mutagenesis and mutation-driven evolution, which is what I am telling others is social pseudoscience because it is not biologically plausible or ecologically validated by experimental evidence from any species with an organized genome?

Please address any experimentally established scientific facts that you think provide comparisons between mutagenesis as cause of species diversity and the model I have provided in which nutrient-dependent PHEROMONE-CONTROLLED epigenesis enables ecological adaptations that result in species diversity via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction based on interactions between glucose uptake and dehydrogenases that enable aerobic glycolysis in an atoms to ecosystems model.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2014
Let's make sure others understand blah blah blah blah atoms to ecosystems model.

@jvk
SEE
http://freethough...is-place

But then, that's what he does. He crashes into a thread full of lay people and then lords it over them with his abuse of jargon. And he does it over and over again, and you can see the responses: most of the other commenters are more or less stunned, they don't know how to deal with all the specific buzzwords he throws at them, and they have these doubts…maybe he's saying something I should know about. No, he's not. He's babbling in scientese.
And he just keeps hammering away with his pseudo-scientific pronouncements.

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
It's only jargon if you're an idiot minion of a biology teacher who hasn't learned anything about cause and effect during the past several decades or an evolutionary theorist who never learned anything about biologically based cause and effect.

Discover Magazine Table of Contents March 2014
DISCOVER Q&A
Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution by Gemma Tarlach

Molecular evolutionary biologist Masatoshi Nei says Darwin never proved natural selection is the driving force of evolution — because it isn't.

Excerpt: "…it's his natural selection-busting theory, which Nei developed in the '80s and expanded on in the 2013 book Mutation-Driven Evolution, that the researcher wants to see embraced, cited and taught in schools.

My comment: Ecological variations cause epigenetically effected adaptations sans mutations. I would like to to see that biological fact embraced, cited and taught in schools.

PZ Myers and his idiot minions want you to believe in a ridiculous theory.

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
This is science:

http://bfg.oxford...abstract

"A multi-level regulatory network consisting of such mechanisms as modular utilization of protein domains, alternative splicing and epigenomic modifications of DNA has been the driving force behind the wide radiation, rapid evolution and evolutionary success of eukaryotic organisms."

Evolutionary theory is social pseudoscience because no experimental evidence has ever suggested that mutation-driven evolution is biologically plausible and it has not been ecologically validated by an example in any species from microbes to man. Organisms and species adapt; they do not mutate and become another species, which is obviously what they must do since Nei himself says natural selection doe not drive evolution.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2014
It's only jargon if you're an idiot minion of a biology teacher who hasn't learned anything

@jvk
about believing what your jargon means:

hmmm...PZMyers, respected biologist in his field, professor, specializes in evolutionary developmental biology, neurobiology and zebrafish. Probably has published twice the amount of papers, if not more, and is highly educated.

JVK- sells perfume that has questionable results ( http://www.anapsi...nes.html ), is a lab tech with an axe to grind (pun intended) with the educated professors that would not pass him because he couldnt learn the basics and will not stick their heads in their rectums and believe that his theory is correct, with no degree...

not a hard choice of whom to believe... given that he is constantly working in the field, teaches others, and listens/reads new ideas constantly.
you are locked into "i am superior" mode, will not listen to reason
and cannot understand basic terminology

i agree with Myers
sorry Tardy
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014
It's not a matter of who you believe, pseudoscience is a matter of belief that is not substantiated by experimental evidence.

Masatoshi Nei, author of Mutation-Driven Evolution http://www.amazon...99661731 eliminates belief in natural selection in his interview published in the March issue of Discover. "Darwin never proved natural selection is the driving force of evolution -- because it isn't."

Clearly, the force of the explosion has left you a patriot with brain damage who believes in someone who appears to be a brain-damaged biology teacher. Please let PZ Myers know about the publication of the interview and report back to us here with his ridiculous comments, especially if he labels Nei a crank and a homophobe because, like me, Nei doesn't believe in mutation-initiated natural selection.

Meanwhile, if you let other idiot minions know that you are brain-damaged, they may recognize that they have unknowingly also been brain damaged and seek help.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014
"These facts do not refute evolution; they simply refute the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that most people here were taught to believe is the theory of evolution."

That fact prompted PZ Myers attack on my credibility.
http://freethough...s-place/

I reiterate: Masatoshi Nei, author of Mutation-Driven Evolution http://www.amazon...99661731 eliminates belief in natural selection in his interview published in the March issue of Discover. "Darwin never proved natural selection is the driving force of evolution -- because it isn't."

What you've witnessed here is how one atheistic idiot biology teacher can influence many idiot minions who would rather believe what an idiot tells them than attempt to learn anything about biologically-based cause and effect.

Captain Stumpy is brain-damaged. What's your excuse?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2014
I like the way he keeps confusing evidence of mutations as evidence of "not mutations". And hilarity ensues!

You still haven't answered the question pretender.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014
We will now see continued attacks on my credibility after PZ Myers' attack has been conclusively shown by Masatoshi Nei to be unwarranted (and ignorant).

These continued attacks will never address the experimental evidence which proves that what others continue to call mutations are ecological adaptations. The reason the experimental evidence will not be addressed is because PZ Myers and his idiot minions do not know the difference between ecological adaptations and mutations.

Ecological adaptations lead to chromosomal rearrangements and species diversity. Mutations do not!

That's also the difference between social pseudoscience and the science that differentiates scientists from idiot minions of ignorant biology teachers. Idiot minions believe that mutations enable ecological adaptations, even after Nei has told them that mutation-driven evolution occurs without natural selection, which means that mutation-driven evolution "just happens". That's pseudoscience!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2014
pseudoscience is a matter of belief that is not substantiated by experimental evidence

@jvk
and you are absolutely right! And all the evidence favours Myers and the current theory!
Your hypothesis is included as a small effect
it is sad, really that the whole reason you are here arguing is that you cannot come to grips with the fact that the common definitions spell out that your hypothesis falls under the current theory of evolution! Because IT CAUSES MUTATION
and you say you are a member of mensa? Really?
...and my comment refers SPECIFICALLY to the heavy JARGON that you babble!
If YOU cannot convince the leaders in the field that you are right... why should I WASTE MORE TIME ON IT THAT THEY DO?
Especially given your propensity to post the same links over and over, as though repetition means you are right... the mark of pseudoscience INDEED!
Get a degree and then perhaps you can debate the merits of the system...
then you will see why your stupidity here causes such hilarity
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2014
No experimental evidence favours Myers and the current theory. I just told you that even Masatoshi Nei is now denying mutation-initiated natural selection and claiming that mutation-driven evolution "just happens".

If all you can do is tell others that evidence favours a biology teacher's misrepresentations of cause and effect without providing any details about that evidence, you are destined to remain a brain-damaged idiot minion of a social pseudoscientist.

You may never know where your brain damage ends and idiocy begins. Your only hope is to either try and fail to find experimental evidence that supports the claims of PZ Myers, or continue to regurgitate his nonsense, which is all you have done here.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014
Your only hope is to either try and fail to find experimental evidence that supports the claims of PZ Myers, or continue to regurgitate his nonsense, which is all you have done here.


Strange thing that - evolution by natural selection is not the claim of PZ Myers - it is the claim of the whole body of science. Every biology text in the world discusses it. How paranoid that JVK would focus on PZ. I guess PZ hurt JVK's feelings - so JVK has to project the whole body of science on to one man - how strange.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
Your only hope is to either try and fail to find experimental evidence that supports the claims of PZ Myers, or continue to regurgitate his nonsense, which is all you have done here.


Strange thing that - evolution by natural selection is not the claim of PZ Myers - it is the claim of the whole body of science. Every biology text in the world discusses it. How paranoid that JVK would focus on PZ. I guess PZ hurt JVK's feelings - so JVK has to project the whole body of science on to one man - how strange.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
Nei's book and Shapiro's book are the latest textbooks on evolution that I know about. PZ Myers is the only biology teacher I know about who is ignorant enough to challenge what's clearly indicated in the most recently published textbooks, and all of the extant literature published on conserved molecular mechanisms during the past decade.

But that doesn't matter in the context of pseudoscience that should be the topic of the discussion here. What matters is that no one is taking advantage of the only hope they have to participate in an intelligent discussion.

Your only hope is to either try and fail to find experimental evidence that supports the claims of PZ Myers, or continue to regurgitate his nonsense, which is all you have done here.


It's as if the idiot minions have no idea of how to find experimental evidence because they were taught to believe it existed, and that belief is good enough for any idiot minion - and good enough for PZ Myers.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
Myers is the only biology teacher I know about who is ignorant enough to challenge what's clearly indicated in the most recently published textbooks

@jvk
AND AGAIN you are out of the gate with stupidity
Myers isnt challenging recent studies, he is challenging your PSEUDOSCIENCE
BIG DIFFERENCE
You are making claims that are NOT SUPPORTED by current research
such as Lenski
but then you make blanket accusations and claims about said work
...and, of course, no one is smart enough to see it but YOU...
the mark of the SCHIZO personality!
do you hear voices too? Are they telling you we are all crackpots?
the context of pseudoscience that should be the topic of the discussion here

it is the discussion here... YOU keep trying to break away for people to "see your obvious genius" whereas it only shows that you are wrong, that Myers is right, that you are making pseudoscience claims and that you are a crackpot

thats why you keep coming BACK
to argue your PSEUDOSCIENCE
Cocoa
5 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2014
@Captain. What is most interesting is that jvk is so obsessed with Myers. I think Myers hurt jvk's feelings. But Myers simply represents the consensus of science - ie: where all the evidence takes us. jvk should take a shot at Jerry Coyne (Polish rationalist of the year) http://whyevoluti...ss.com/, or Richard Dawkins etc. etc. etc. No - jvk has to rant and rave on the comments section of a popular science web site. Very odd behavior.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
http://www.scient...olution/

1) How long do you think it might take for the evolution of microbes to man to occur via accumulated mutations without natural selection?

2) How long do you think you would last if you were unable to naturally select an appropriate source of nutrients?

3) How long do you think a species would last if it could not reproduce?

Ask the expert from Scientific American, Sean B. Carroll. Then tell him what your attitude is about what he thinks are better attitudes about mutation-initiated natural selection. If you ask me, or Masatoshi Nei, both of us would tell you that attitudes about evolution are based on ignorance of biological facts. That means current attitudes about mutation-driven evolution are based on as much ignorance as they have always been.

"Molecular evolutionary biologist Masatoshi Nei says Darwin never proved natural selection is the driving force of evolution — because it isn't."

Cocoa
5 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2014
jvk posts an interesting link. http://www.scient...olution/

A direct quote from this link - and hey - guess what? - in language we can all understand - "In the evolutionary process, a trait expands through a population when individuals possessing it survive longer and reproduce more than do those lacking the trait."

Thanks go to jvk for providing a nice - easy to understand link - that explains natural selection.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
jvk should take a shot at Jerry Coyne (Polish rationalist of the year) http://whyevoluti...ss.com/, or Richard Dawkins etc. etc. etc. No - jvk has to rant and rave on the comments section of a popular science web site. Very odd behavior

@Cocoa
you are absolutely right!
the whole reason that jvk is HERE and not discussing this with the "scientific community" or with other learned people is because he has already been emasculated publicly by ONE biologist, Professor Myers.
this made him angry (look above)
that is why he skulks around places like this throwing jargon around. he believes that it makes him look smart, like all pseudoscience crackpots
it actually undermines his authority
this is nothing but perfect demonstrations on what to look for in pseudoscience

he fears public debate because he knows he is wrong
and he fears being outed even MORE
nothing ventured: no one can undermine his ego
This is why i dropped MY mensa membership
people like HIM
no common sense or logic
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
No - jvk has to rant and rave on the comments section of a popular science web site. Very odd behavior.
Indeed, and agreed. Especially with his pronouncements that no one here can understand his genius nor appreciated his insight, and he will no longer speak with us.

For 5 minutes. Or so.

You STILL haven't answered the question, concoctor of love potions. Your avoidance says far more about your intellect than your repeatedly stated imaginary enrollment in a club.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
1) How long do you think it might take for the evolution of microbes to man to occur via accumulated mutations without natural selection?
What an odd question. Lets say, 22 minutes 68 seconds.
2) How long do you think you would last if you were unable to naturally select an appropriate source of nutrients?
Ok, this is just a leading, stupid question. A better question would be, how would natural selection favour a organism whose mutation allowed it to exploit a previously unexploitable nutrient?
3) How long do you think a species would last if it could not reproduce?
Reproduce to pass on the beneficial mutation you mean? If it could not pass it on, then the species would die out.

See how logical that is pretender?

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
in language we can all understand - "In the evolutionary process, a trait expands through a population when individuals possessing it survive longer and reproduce more than do those lacking the trait."

Thanks go to jvk for providing a nice - easy to understand link - that explains natural selection.


Masatoshi Nei, author of Mutation-Driven Evolution clearly states that natural selection is not the driving force of evolution.

Idiot minions will take anything anyone else says and use it to argue against Nei, even though PZ Myers and other like him tout mutation-initiated natural selection, which is newly revised to a theory in which mutation-driven evolution "just happens."

My point was that "just happens" is easy for idiot minions to accept. Anything else requires examination of experimental evidence that might make pseudoscientific evolutionary theory acceptable to scientists not only to idiot minions of ignorant biology teachers.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
My point was that "just happens" is easy for idiot minions to accept. Anything else requires examination of experimental evidence that might make pseudoscientific evolutionary theory acceptable to scientists not only to idiot minions of ignorant biology teachers

@jvk
did you learn logic from Monty Python?
so... we need to all agree with you because:
if we follow the evidence
and we learn the truth
and we get educated in the field, which means learning the lingo and using the definitions of the words to correctly generate understandable logical conclusions in papers
then we are idiots!
BUT:
if we listen to you (uneducated)
and we act like you (drop out of something hard because it causes too much work and means we will have to learn something that goes against our faith)
and we go AGAINST the evidence of years of scientific endeavour
then we will FINALLY be right and see the light?
Is that about it then?

The Pythons would be proud of you... did you write for them in the past?
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
A better question would be, how would natural selection favour a organism whose mutation allowed it to exploit a previously unexploitable nutrient?


Pay attention: Natural selection has been removed from the theory of mutation-initiated natural selection by Masatoshi Nei. You cannot bring natural selection back simply because it's the only thing an idiot minion can understand.

The theory is now "Mutation-driven evolution." My model, for comparison, details the mechanisms of ecological adaptations in species from microbes to man. My model is supported by experimental evidence. No experimental evidence supports the suggestion that mutation-driven evolution occurs without natural selection, which is why it must "just happen," which is pseudoscience.

If you want to continue to believe in pseudoscientific nonsense, please stop trying to convince others to do so. It's great for you to have the choice to be an idiot minion but not great to have your choice influence others.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
Beyond neo-Darwinism—an epigenetic approach to evolution (1979)

http://www.scienc...79901917

"The evidence suggests on the one hand that most genetic changes are irrelevant to evolution; and on the other, that a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance."

The evidence has never suggested anything else. Evolutionary theorists continue to suggest that the evidence be ignored so that pseudoscientific nonsense can continue to be touted as if it were believable to anyone other than an idiot minion of an ignorant biology teacher who taught them to believe in nonsense.

Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors
http://www.socioa...38/20758
Cocoa
5 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2014
@JVK
Idiot minions will take anything anyone else says and use it to argue against Nei,


I simply took a link that you provided - and read the article. It was not by Nei - it was by Sean Carroll. Here is a little of his bio. Pretty educated guy I think.

" a professor of molecular biology, genetics, and medical genetics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He studies the evolution of cis-regulation in the context of biological development, using Drosophila as a model system."

Why don't you go argue with Professor Carroll - or is he just another biology teacher that you are Sooooo superior to?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
If you want to continue to believe in pseudoscientific nonsense, please stop trying to convince others to do so

@jvk
mensa boy snapped!
we are not the ones pushing a debunked hypothesis that is already included under Evolution theory... YOU ARE
so... YOU are the one pushing PSEUDOSCIENCE
and that is how pseudoscientists work... throw around a few words, jargon, tell everyone else that the real theory that is supported by evidence is pseudoscience, and PRESTO CHANG-O!
wont work here- even your links support evolution:
SEE COCOA
Why don't you go argue with Professor Carroll - or is he just another biology teacher that you are Sooooo superior to?

@Cocoa
thats what kills me about the poor sod
he believes that he is actually smarter than everyone else
and that the ENTIRE ESTABLISHMENT is either idiots, idiot minions (his words) or i guess in a conspiracy against him and his "evidence"

there are rumours that he is a creation scientists too...
which would explain a lot, really
Cocoa
5 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
@ Captain - yep - JVK has provided links to creationist sites - JVK is certainly a creationist. The real interesting thing is the pattern that is now clear for several commenters (JVK, UBA, Rygg etc.) They will run around crazy - posting links to other sites in support of this hypothesis or that. If you take a minute to actually read the links, they often are in direct contradiction to the point being made. Not sure if it is a reading comprehension issue - or just shows people who are spending way too much time on the internet - trying to prove how smart they are - when it is really fine to let the experts do that - and to just learn from what science has to show us.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
I simply took a link that you provided - and read the article. It was not by Nei - it was by Sean Carroll. Here is a little of his bio. Pretty educated guy I think.

" a professor of molecular biology, genetics, and medical genetics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He studies the evolution of cis-regulation in the context of biological development, using Drosophila as a model system."

Why don't you go argue with Professor Carroll - or is he just another biology teacher that you are Sooooo superior to?


Sean Carroll is a physicist, he specialty is general relativity and theoretical cosmology. He's a professor at Caltech, not UW-M.

But out of all the teachers out there today, if he tells you something is probably this way and not that way, you can take it to the bank. He is ALWAYS to first to let you know when he is moving to a statement which is speculation or iffy.

Edit: Ooops, my mistake, different Sean Carroll. My Sean Carroll doesn't treat bunk well either.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
-- and Carroll, S.B. (2008) The regulation and evolution of a genetic switch controlling sexually dimorphic traits in Drosophila. My summary: One of the two sexes mutated into existence.

Kohl, J. et al. (2013) A Bidirectional Circuit Switch Reroutes Pheromone Signals in Male and Female Brains. "This model appears directly applicable to sex-specific processing of mouse pheromones..." My summary: Conserved molecular mechanisms lead from sexual differentiation in yeasts to mammals.

Both articles were published in the same prestigious journal. In the past 5 years, the conserved molecular mechanisms of my model were extended by Johannes Kohl to the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled switch that Sean B. Carroll probably still believes somehow arises in the context of mutation-driven evolution.

I won't argue such nonsense with the biology teachers who tout it, or their idiot minions -- and they won't answer the question of which sex is the naturally-selected mutant.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
JVK is certainly a creationist.


What does that have to do with experimental evidence? Dobzhansky was a creationist. He published several articles, too.

Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
link to pdf: http://img.signal...nsky.pdf

"The best way to envisage the situation is as follows: the environment presents challenges to living species, to which the latter may respond by adaptive genetic changes."

Ecological variation is the challenge that leads to ecological adaptations via nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled niche construction, not via mutation-driven evolution. Organisms don't adapt via mutations, they get sick and die. Species don't mutate into other species, either. Biophysical constraints prevent that.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2014
Why don't you go argue with Professor Carroll - or is he just another biology teacher that you are Sooooo superior to?


Providentially, I learned a few hours ago that Sean B Carroll has begun to accurately represent nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations. Nothing about the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection he has been teaching others to believe in is included in the work he published today. See:

A Single Gene Affects Both Ecological Divergence and Mate Choice in Drosophila
http://www.scienc...abstract

Idiot minions can now ask SB Carroll what to ask other teachers (and preachers) -- in case there is still a chance they can learn about the biological basis of behavior after being taught "evolution for dummies."

But first, ask for tuition refunds and reimbursement for any books you bought from whatever learning institution allowed you to be taught pseudoscientific nonsense.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2014
ask for tuition refunds and reimbursement for any books you bought from whatever learning institution allowed you to be taught pseudoscientific nonsense

@jvk
it never ceases to fascinate me how you can say that the entire establishment of sciences is wrong with a straight face and actually think this makes you look more intelligent!

This continuing loathing of the established knowledge seems to drive you to great lengths.... you continually consider anyone with an education an "idiot minion":
Is your condescension due to your past failures (in trying to get an education) or is it specific to certain people?
AS for your creationist beliefs and
What does that have to do with experimental evidence?

everything
it clouds judgment and logic UNLESS you can separate your religion from science
IF you are a creationist, then you believe in invalid science to begin with, and it COMPLETELY EXPLAINS why you cannot understand REAL SCIENCE
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2014
it never ceases to fascinate me how you can say that the entire establishment of sciences is wrong with a straight face and actually think this makes you look more intelligent!


I wrote:
Sean B Carroll has begun to accurately represent nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations. Nothing about the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection he has been teaching others to believe in is included in the work he published today. See:

A Single Gene Affects Both Ecological Divergence and Mate Choice in Drosophila
http://www.scienc...abstract


I agree that examining the experimental evidence might make me appear to look more intelligent than PZ Myers, SBC or their idiot minions. But it is now clear that even SB has looked at the experimental evidence and published a paper in Science that refutes the ridiculous idea of mutation-initiated natural selection. That's not something most atheists would do, and it attests to his intelligence.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2014
An idiot...is...someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.
http://en.wikiped...ki/Idiot

Refusing to look at experimental evidence is self-defeating and significantly counterproductive in academia

A minion is a loyal servant of another, usually a more powerful being.
http://en.wikiped...i/Minion

An idiot minion is someone who thinks touting what a powerful presence someone else has established in academia, but who also refuses to look at experimental evidence, makes it seem that the idiot minion is intelligent. Thus, I do not mean to offend anyone by use of the term "idiot minion." I'm just trying to get them to look at experimental evidence so they can reduce their level of ignorance and stop touting the pseudoscientific nonsense they were taught to believe in.

Obviously, there is nothing I can say and no amount of experimental evidence that will change anything about the number of idiot minions participating here.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2014
A Single Gene Affects Both Ecological Divergence and Mate Choice in Drosophila
http://www.scienc...abstract
Still trying to fit the round pegs of actual science into the square holes of your abstract musings hey pretender? From the cite:

Evolutionary changes in traits
ie mutations
involved in both ecological divergence and mate choice may produce reproductive isolation and speciation.
may isolate individuals and change who chooses to mate with them, thus leading to expression of the mutation and speciation
However, there are few examples of such dual traits, and the genetic and molecular bases of their evolution have not been identified
it doesn't happen very often where multiple (meaning more than one) traits are involved
We show that methyl-branched cuticular hydrocarbons (mbCHCs) are a dual trait that affects both desiccation resistance and mate choice in Drosophila serrata.
This lipid has a dual role in fruit flies ..cont..
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2014
We identify a fatty acid synthase mFAS (CG3524) responsible for mbCHC production
This enzyme produces the lipid
and find that expression of mFAS is undetectable in oenocytes (cells that produce CHCs) of a closely related, desiccation-sensitive species, D. birchii
and is not detectable in this species of fruit fly
due in part to multiple changes in cis-regulatory sequences of mFAS.
due to this mutation.
We suggest that ecologically influenced changes in the production of mbCHCs have contributed to reproductive isolation between the two species.
Because this mutation benefitted this fly where it was living, it will no longer mate with other flies.

So to dumb it down even more for you, a mutation affecting a lipid that controls both how quickly a fly dries out and who chooses to mate with it caused those flies who stopped expressing it to be unattractive to those flies which did. It survives because that trait is beneficial to it in its environment.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2014
Because this mutation benefitted this fly where it was living, it will no longer mate with other flies.
I ran out of space. so I want to rewrite this part.

It should read " Because this mutation benefitted the fly living in the environment where the mutation was expressed, in that particular environment the fly survived to reproduce, passing on that mutation to its offspring. The species differentiated, as those flies which no longer produce that enzyme are no longer attractive to those that do."

So a classic example of a beneficial mutation allowing a species to survive in an environment it would not normally have survived in, thus leading to speciation. No God involved Mr SNake Oil seller. The pheromones did not lead to the mutation, the mutation affected the pheromone.

And the usual pseudo-scientific tactic; try to obfuscate the evidence with specializationally specific jargon. Nice try pretender!
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2014
Ecological differences in pheromone production are nutrient-dependent, not mutation-dependent. The link from ecology is variation in the food supply. Experimental evidence has established that fact, as I'm sure I have mentioned before.

Every organism tested in the absence of ecological variation in the food supply, which was controlled by providing no food, died of starvation. Not one organism from any species of microbe to man mutated into another species before starving to death, which ended the experiment.

Richard Lenski refuses to control for ecological variation in his ongoing experiments with E. coli that he claims are evidence of mutation-driven evolution. If he quit providing them with food (i.e., growth media), he might report different results from controlled experiments in which no organisms mutated because all of them died of starvation.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2014
And you STILL haven't answered the question, lying seller of snake oil love potions! Do you really think that your pretension in citing studies heavy in speciality specific wording is not apparent to those if us who can follow the proceedings? Or is it (and this is more likely) you do not actually understand the import of the cites you make reference to?

You are a fraud Kohl, a seller of love potions whose "scientific" basis is designed to take advantage of those whose intellect and gullibility preclude them from critically examining your fraudulent, obfuscated, pseudoscientific claims.

Hey when are you going to sue me? C'mon fraudster, crank, lying cheat! Let's get it on!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2014
Ecological differences in pheromone production are nutrient-dependent, not mutation-dependent
Bullshit! Ecological differences promote survival of mutationally differentiated individuals, leading to mutationally derived exploitation of non-standard nutritional sources. That the mutation may lead to differential expression of pheromones is secondary to the mutation-derived exploitation of nutrients.
Experimental evidence has established that fact, as I'm sure I have mentioned before.
you have shown no such correlation, and your cites universally support mutation driven evolution.

Every organism tested in the absence of ecological variation in the food supply, which was controlled by providing no food, died of starvation. Not one organism from any species of microbe to man mutated into another species before starving to death, which ended the experiment.
Obfuscation! And demonstratively false, USING YOUR OWN CITES ABOVE!
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2014
"These results provide the first example on how sequence divergence after gene duplication contributes to functional novelty and adaptation in the epigenetic system. To experimentally examine the functional divergence of Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b after gene duplication, we tested the chromatin DNA methylation activity of Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b of zebrafish, lizard, chicken, mouse and human, using budding yeast as the in vivo test tube. Budding yeast is an ideal system to investigate eukaryotic DNMTs, because it provides chromatin-packed genomic DNA that mimics the in vivo substrate of Dnmt3 proteins, but has neither endogenous DNMTs nor any background DNA methylation (36–38). Indicated Dnmt3 proteins were firstly introduced into yeast by galactose-controlled expression, and expressed at similar levels (Figure 1A)."

Glactose-controlled is the operative phrase that extends the concept across species with no involvement of mutations whatsoever. http://www.ncbi.n...2952872/
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2014
Hey when are you going to sue me? C'mon fraudster, crank, lying cheat! Let's get it on!


Sue you for what? You're either someone's anonymous idiot minion or someone who simply does not understand the basic principles of biology and level of biological organization that enable the epigenetic landscape to become the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man.

So far as I know, you're not worth the time it takes to type a sentence here. Other pseudoscientists may be, which is why I may continue despite your ridiculous diatribes and failure to address the experimental evidence.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2014
"These results provide the first example on how sequence divergence after gene duplication contributes to functional novelty and adaptation in the epigenetic system.
Hey pretender "sequence divergence after gene duplication" means spontaneous mutation! The MUTATION "contributes to functional novelty and adaptation in the epigenetic system" as in the MUTATION creates a new expression in the gene. You really don't understand this stuff do you?

Glactose-controlled is the operative phrase that extends the concept across species with no involvement of mutations whatsoever.
Unsupported quackery! And, again, demonstratively false USING YOUR OWN CITES!!!!!!!!!!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2014
So far as I know, you're not worth the time it takes to type a sentence here. Other pseudoscientists may be, which is why I may continue despite your ridiculous diatribes and failure to address the experimental evidence.
Back atcha, lying concoctor of snake oil love potions! Your pseudoscientific pronouncements of Creator guided changes to DNA (those are MUTATIONS you quack!) have no place on a site of science, and you have given no experimental or other evidence to support your position. Every single cite you have given is LESS supportive of your crank theory than the cite before it.

You're a fraud and a crank, and you post here only to try and lend credence to your claims for your snake oil based love potion.

However, I must give you one credit. You didn't threaten to sue me, you threatened to call me as a witness in the next trial. And I laugh and laugh! You don't understand how the court system works either I guess. Would you like me to explain that too?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2014
You're either someone's anonymous idiot minion or someone who simply does not understand the basic principles of biology and level of biological organization

@jvk
this is the perfect descriptor of YOU
you could not get a degree by your own admission
you could not learn the basics by your own admission
you are here selling a PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT HYPOTHESIS that has been peer reviewed and found wanting because you are obviously pushing a creationist hypothesis that is untenable
BIOLOGISTS IN THE FIELD have proclaimed you a crackpot
talked about your jargon heavy verbiage and pretty much debunked you as a fraud

but you want US ALL TO BELIEVE that you are legit?
NOT GONNA HAPPEN
if you cant convince the intellectuals of your own field
why should we listen to your pseudoscience?

You are a fraud & crank PSEUDOSCIENTIST

you only keep posting here out of stupidity
not ignorance
not to educate
because YOU are STUPID and cant see reality
you are PSEUDOSCIENCE

read Maggnus refutes
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2014
New forms of racism arise in science research
http://medicalxpr...nce.html

PZ Myers will no doubt be cited in this context for touting mutations theory and denying the role of chromosomal rearrangements while claiming that those who understand ecological adaptation are cranks.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 16, 2014
New forms of racism arise in science research
http://medicalxpr...nce.html

PZ Myers will no doubt be cited in this context for touting mutations theory and denying the role of chromosomal rearrangements while claiming that those who understand ecological adaptation are cranks.

@jvk
this is hilarious!
you cant understand him, you can beat him... so you use the RACE card? WTF? really?

this just underscores how desperate you are in your defense of your PSEUDOSCIENCE

this only shows how you really CANNOT FATHOM the realities of the sciences that you are supposedly involved in

you sell perfume.
you are NOT a biologist
in fact, your continued arguments here only support the PSEUDOSCIENCE argument against you
your ignorance of common vocabulary of the field along with your inability to accept that you are wrong= PSEUDOSCIENCE
claiming everyone else is wrong BUT you?= PSEUDOSCIENCE

re-read Maggnus argument against you
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2014
Excerpt:
... blacks are more likely than whites to have a blood type that causes sickle cell disease and can protect against malaria, and are more likely to have a certain gene called APOL1, which protects against a parasite that causes sleeping sickness.


When PZ Myers teaches his idiot minions that the hemoglobin variant of sickle cell disease is due to a mutation, he is teaching racist attitudes.

Others who understand the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization required to biophysically constrain mutations and enable ecological adaptations (e.g. hemoglobin variants) have tried to stop those who continue to teach their racist attitudes, which result from their ignorance.

As an idiot minion, you exemplify what happens when an ignorant biology teacher encourages racism by teaching you to believe in mutation-initiated natural selection.

You think my complaint is hillarious!

I linked an article about researchers who do not think racism is hillarious.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 16, 2014
When PZ Myers teaches his idiot minions that the hemoglobin variant of sickle cell disease is due to a mutation

@jvk
and when YOU dont realise that your own hypothesis actually INCLUDES MUTATIONS and causes mutations, and is a small part of evolution (not the promising replacement)
then YOU are teaching STUPIDITY and PSEUDOSCIENCE
A professor at Michigan State University, Lenski has watched E. coli bacteria multiply through 59,000 generations, a span that has allowed him to observe evolution in real time.


http://phys.org/n...lts.html

one more nail in the coffin against YOUR PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT HYPOTHESIS

it is sad, really... that you BELIEVE with all your faith/gut in such an obvious crackpot hypothesis
it must be the religion in you taking over pushing for a creationist point of view
one more reason that religion has NO PLACE in SCIENCE

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 16, 2014
You think my complaint is hillarious!
I linked an article about researchers who do not think racism is hillarious

@jvk
no: I think your stupidity and the fact that you have the audacity to use the racist argument is hilarious.
There is a difference
you use jargon incorrectly and cannot understand why people think you ignorant= PSEUDOSCIENCE
the fact that you call anyone that doesn't agree with you a racist, or an idiot, etc is just one more thing PROVING that you are pushing a PSEUDOSCIENCE
the fact that you have been publicly debunked by people in the field= PSEUDOSCIENCE
the fact that you are HERE pushing your pet conjectures= PSEUDOSCIENCE
the fact that you are the ONLY ONE who is intelligent enough to see, according to you= PSEUDOSCIENCE
AND you keep coming back as though you can prove it with articles that support evolution= PESUDOSCIENCE

YOU ARE A PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT
the very definition of the argument
A LIVE DEMO for people to compare to
THANKS
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2014
Genome sequencing and population genomics in non-model organisms http://www.scienc...13002310

This is the best and most recent review article that I have read about what is currently known about species diversification sans the ridiculous and racist idea of mutation-initiated natural selection.

Experimental evidence is summarized in "Table 2. Examples of key findings from recently derived genome sequences from animals and plants." There is no mention of mutations in the summaries, and the first half of the text seems to refute the theory of mutation-driven evolution touted by PZ Myers and his idiot minions.

I will continue reading, but wanted the pseudoscientists to know that, as always, there are review articles that clarify the difference between science and pseudoscience by reviewing the experimental evidence.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2014
A professor at Michigan State University, Lenski has watched E. coli bacteria multiply through 59,000 generations, a span that has allowed him to observe evolution in real time. Since his Long-Term Experimental Evolution Project began in 1988, the bacteria have doubled in size, begun to mutate more quickly, and become more efficient at using the glucose in the solution where they're grown.
More strikingly, however, he found that one of the 12 bacterial lines he has maintained has developed into what he believes is a new species, able to use a compound in the solution called citrate—a derivative of citric acid, like that found in some fruit—for food

@jvk
if your theory was correct, ALL the generations would have developed the ability to use citrate
IOW- this is PROOF that YOU ARE WRONG and pushing a PSEUDOSCIENCE HYPOTHESIS
actually, you cannot even rate Hypothesis, as you have already been publicly proven WRONG

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2014
"...because phenotypic evolution is controlled by the interaction of many genes, the study of natural selection ought to take such interactions into account. Experimental studies of evolution will also be crucial." http://www.ncbi.n...20565254
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2014
Experimental studies of evolution will also be crucial."


That's the problem Nei is now presenting to evolutionary theorists who have not provided experimental evidence that supports the proposal of mutation-initiated natural selection.

He is saying: "You had your chance to provide experimental evidence of biologically based cause and effect, but you never did. Now, you must stop touting natural selection as if it is the driving force of evolution -- because it isn't. Without experimental evidence it is pseudoscience.

This ensures that the label of pseudoscientist will stick to PZ Myers and his idiot minions and anyone else who never tried to provide experimental evidence to support whatever they were taught to believe about mutation-driven evolution. Unless they shut up, that is!

Captain Stumpy, and his kind won't shut up. But because they are anonymous, no label will stick to them except "anonymous fool", which is a global description of many participants here.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2014
Captain Stumpy, and his kind won't shut up. But because they are anonymous, no label will stick to them except "anonymous fool", which is a global description of many participants here

@jvk
I am not anonymous. I am a Truck Captain, and I have been called Captain Stumpy for more than 30 years
IAFF and IFSAC records also have it listed on all my cert's as well as on my Degree's.
I've been known as Stumpy for longer than I have used my given name of James

just because you are a FAILED BIOLOGIST and couldnt learn enough about the lingo in order to get a degree so that you would know that your own hypothesis is not only WRONG, but the speculations that you keep providing are included under evolution, doesnt mean that we are all idiot minions

it means that you have a grudge against educated people who dont like PSEUDOSCIENCES and as you are a PSEUDOSCIENTIST, this means most educated people are against you from the outset
sorry little jimmy
you are WRONG and cant admit it

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2014
I am not anonymous. I am a Truck Captain, and I have been called Captain Stumpy for more than 30 years


I did not mean to imply that you didn't know who you are. But unless your name is James Truck Captain, you are an anonymous discussant here, and I am not. That's why you can keep coming back at me with nonsense -- you will never be held accountable for it, which is a good thing for you.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2014
But unless your name is James Truck Captain, you are an anonymous discussant here, and I am not. That's why you can keep coming back at me with nonsense -- you will never be held accountable for it, which is a good thing for you
|
@jvk
any idiot with a search engine could find out whatever they wanted about me
the only thing you wont find is a reliable location
that is MY point, sparky.
so much for your mensa intelligence, I guess

had you any computer skills you would know everything you wanted

just like:
had you taken the time to get your education you would understand why you are considered a pseudoscience crackpot
you would also understand why the community of scientists shun your stupidity, and why the same scientists ignore you, because your hypothesis is already covered under the current theory, and it is NOT a replacement for the current theory

try an education one day. even old dogs can learn something new
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2014
http://www.amazon...99737673

" James Kohl, an independent researcher who also markets "human pheromones" to the general public, believes that pheromones may have a primary influence in setting up a person's basic sexual orientation. Other, more consciously perceived aspects of attractiveness, such as facial appearance, are attached to a person's basic orientation through a process of association during early postnatal life, according to Kohl.

This model is attractive in that it solves the "binding problem" of sexual attraction... If all these characteristics come to be attractive because they were experienced in association with a male- or female-specific pheromone, then they will naturally go together even in the absence of complex genetically coded instructions." -- p 210

author's copy of my award-winning review: http://www.sexarc...kohl.htm
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2014
Attempts by others to solve the "binding problem" of sexual attraction have led to ridiculous pseudoscientific claims that continue to show up in media representations like this one.

The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality http://www.bbc.co...26089486

"William Rice, from the University of California Santa Barbara, says that it may be possible to explain this by looking not at our genetic code but at the way it is processed. Rice and his colleagues refer to the emerging field of epigenetics, which studies the "epimarks" that decide which parts of our DNA get switched on or off."

That is the only explanation consistent with what has been shown via experimental evidence. The rest is pseudoscience in the context of what I have since detailed in other published works like this one: http://www.socioa...53/27989

The pseudoscience is being used to support the claim that pedophilia is a form of sexual orientation.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2014
any idiot with a search engine could find out whatever they wanted about me...


Why would anyone bother? It's not like you have ever contributed to intelligent discussion. But, thanks for confirming that you know who you are (i.e., you are not anonymous to yourself). I'm sure you find that meaningful.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2014
I'm sure you find that meaningful

@jvk
just pointing out that you have the computer skills of an 8y/o down syndrome child, that is all...
and as for contributions

it is my mission in life to let people know that PSEUDOSCIENCES and CRACKPOT THEORIES like yours do NOT belong on a serious science site

if you would stick to the issues and intelligently discuss articles, I would ignore you

but given that you keep attempting to add in your speculations and claim that they are legitimate science, and that your hypothesis is SUPPOSEDLY better than the modern reigning theory, although you cannot understand that EVEN YOUR HYPOTHESIS causes mutations and is included in the theory!

just as you will continue to be ignorant of modern biology and make claims that insure that others see you as a crackpot b/c you failed to learn the basics

I will continue to point out your PSEUDOSCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2014
@jvk
I had to RE share this with you!
in

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

RealScience said to you:

As pointed out, this article IS evidence of selection FOR mutations, which is part of the process that you say can never happen. So your response to a comment pointing out the evidence you ask for is to ignore the evidence.

You have said:
I can throw out results that appear to attest to mutations as the cause of adaptive evolution because no evidence suggests that is possible

So you ignore any results that are evidence because you say that there is no evidence, and you don't see any evidence because you ignore the results.

Open your eyes, open your mind, and looks at what actually happens.
If your model doesn't include reality, your model is incomplete, so improve your model rather than ignoring reality
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2014
A Single Gene Affects Both Ecological Divergence and Mate Choice in Drosophila

Excerpt: "Evolutionary changes in traits involved in both ecological divergence and mate choice may produce reproductive isolation and speciation."

See my comment on the Science Magazine article site:
http://comments.s....1249998

Intelligent discussion of Science is welcomed. Comments from uninformed pseudoscientists are not likely to appear. But try telling intelligent people that you believe the effect of the single gene on ecological divergence via mate choice is evidence of selection FOR mutations -- just for laughs.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2014
try telling intelligent people that you believe blahblahblah -- just for laughs.

@jvk
well, to quote RealScience again:
You are still ignoring the evidence of mutations being selected FOR in Lenski's experiments, as pointed out in several comments above.

Try publishing an article, in a well-respected peer-reviewed genetics journal, in which you state that mutations are NEVER selected for by natural selection -- just for laughs!

the reason that you do not is: FEAR
you already look like an idiot here... why not take it on the road and go public with a study?
By the way, I must retract a statement:
you have the computer skills of an 8y/o down syndrome child

this is wrong and not fair...
I have taught down syndrome teens how to use a computer and some of them became pretty good at what they needed to do, and I believe that they would be offended at being compared to you.
My sincerest apologies to the Down Syndrome children.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2014
PZ Myers and his idiot minions

@jvk
you lash out and continue to profess your intellect in a public forum while angrily condemning scientists working in the field as "fools" etc...
IF your statements are correct and
IF your models are superior to the current reigning model and
IF you can prove your models superior with evidence and
IF your experiments/hypothesis takes everything into consideration
THEN
like ALL HYPOTHESIS it will be reviewed
tested
critically analysed for false indications and possible wrong interpretations as well as mistakes in the experiments that would offer indications that cannot happen
THEN, if it passes, it will succeed the current model
just like EVERY OTHER HYPOTHESIS

it will NOT succeed because you are on Phys.org cramming it down our throats
now CONSIDERING that you are published
and CONSIDERING there is no consensus on your model
and CONSIDERING biologists in the field DEBUNKED it
I would say you dont have a leg to stand on

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2014
The pseudoscience is being used to support the claim that pedophilia is a form of sexual orientation.

@jvk
this is going a whole lot too far
there are no sciences that are attempting to say that pedophilia is a form of sexual orientation that I am aware of... it is a MENTAL DISORDER and a CRIMINAL ACT
see Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)

I don't even see how they could justify it, as pedophilia is about pain, domination, control, manipulation and degradation of a subject, not about sex or love. The gratification that the pedo receives is because of the mental and physical domination of the subject, not some pheromone love dump. If ANYONE would even try this study, it would be PSEUDOSCIENCE PHEROMONE crackpots like yourself attempting to justify their stupidity.
if you have studies saying otherwise, you can post links for you and your imaginary friend, but I prefer that you drop that subject, and I will not even attempt to read them, ya perv!
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2014
Now we see that Captain Stumpy also is an expert on the DSM-5 and pedophilia who says:

there are no sciences that are attempting to say that pedophilia is a form of sexual orientation that I am aware of


Is pedophilia a sexual orientation?
http://www.thesta...ion.html

We also see that this anonymous idiot minion is never going to provide any experimental evidence to support any claims, and yet he wants you to believe that he has accurately assessed the claims I have made in a series of published works during the past two decades.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2014
@jvk
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnostic criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. As a medical diagnosis, it is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older. An adolescent who is 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia

( http://dsm.psychi...okid=556 )
after dealing with some, I feel that:
1 they cannot change
2 their justifications are not the same as other people
3 it is not about sex. It is about manipulation, domination and control

very much like you and other pseudosciences

personally, I think you should leave your preferences off here
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2014
We also see that this anonymous idiot minion is never going to provide any experimental evidence to support any claims

@jvk
GIVEN that you have already been publicly DEBUNKED AND
given that you make up jargon AND
given that you do NOT know common definitions of the field you choose to post about AND
given that you are an admitted FAILURE in biology AND
given that you are STILL incapable of offering evidence that does not contain MUTATION PER THE DEFINITION that is used in Genetics, biology, etc, etc

THEN
I dont need to post MORE evidence and links!
Just one
http://freethough...s-place/
where a BIOLOGIST in the field refutes you!
Bye bye Loony
You've been proven a PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2014
Now we see that Captain Stumpy also is an expert on the DSM-5 and pedophilia

@jvk
one last thing on pedophilia:

you can study it all you want
you have never had to address it first hand. I have.

I will never believe it is a sexual preference.
I will never be someone who accepts it as something that simply is, like being gay

you can call this my personal prejudice. I dont care.
I believe in the DSM-5 diagnosis as well as the Justice department stance on it.
in this, I am completely intractable

it is a mental disorder in my opinion. No other way for me to look at it.

you can enjoy it all you want
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2014
My model details why pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation. PZ Myers' idiot minion wrote:

"... there are no sciences that are attempting to say that pedophilia is a form of sexual orientation that I am aware of


Again, we have seen what happens when someone like me tries to make an idiot minion aware of anything. He comes right back with a pseudoscientific twist that includes his opinion and a claim about me.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2014
My model details why pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation

@jvk
you dont need "your" model to know why it is not a sexual preference, you moron
it isnt considered one now.
See my link from the DSM-5
saying it is is like saying rape is a sexual preference.
leave your "preferences" for another site.... it is not appropriate here

As for
when someone like me tries to make an idiot minion aware of anything

you are an uneducated idiot
try reading what I wrote... or cant you understand it with your limited education?

As for your "model"
your model is bunk
it has been publicly disproved

http://freethough...s-place/

YOU are the only one who cant see that

You cannot even understand why your "model" is considered a small part of the current theory of evolution
I will give you a hint: it causes MUTATIONS

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2014
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer


YES!

--Thanks for asking

@jvk
I edited here because there should be a FULL STOP
THERE IS NO REASON TO GO ANY FURTHER!

IF your models show changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element
THEN they show MUTATION

END OF STORY
you dont have to add anything more
I don't care what you think should be considered in the context of MUTATIONS unless you can explain HOW they alter the course of evolution in species from microbes to man

in this you are WRONG
YOUR MODEL CAUSES MUTATIONS

therefore YOUR MODEL SUPPORTS EVOLUTION

the HOW is irrelevant to the question
I have said from the first time I ever met you that your model causes MUTATION and therefore it is a part of evolution
PERIOD
END OF STORY

BTW- this is pretty much the same thing that Myers argued as well. Your model is a functional part of evolution, NOT a replacement.
It adds/supports the theory
PERIOD
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2014
My model replaces the ridiculous idea of constraint-breaking mutations in mutation-driven evolution with biologically plausible ecological adaptations. I provided several examples of the ecological adaptations, which occur in species from microbes to man.

http://www.socioa...53/27989
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2014
My model replaces the ridiculous idea of constraint-breaking mutations in mutation-driven evolution with biologically plausible ecological adaptations

@jvk
I am absolutely STUNNED by the dogged determination you have of proving your claims
and also by the INCREDIBLE STUPIDITY you are showing with regard to ignoring the fact that, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, your model creates mutations!
YOUR MODEL IS ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR IN EVOLUTION
you really DO have issues with comprehension of basic english, dont you?
As well as biological terminology, in fact!
You ALREADY ADMITTED your model causes MUTATIONS
THEREFORE YOUR MODEL SUPPORTS AND PROVES EVOLUTION!

And you call US idiots? Really?
Your ignoring the facts only proves that you really DONT know what is going on!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2014
@jvk
one last thing that you cannot seem to comprehend that I will reiterate
RealScience said it best, so I will use his quote:

No one here has argued against factors in addition to mutations being involved in adaptation.
That other factors are sometimes involved does NOT mean that mutations are never involved.

THAT is why I have used the same argument over and over...
your model causes mutations
your model is just more empirical data supporting evolution
PERIOD

there is NO NEED for discussion past this point because all it does is make it look like you cant comprehend basic English!

it also makes it look like you cant comprehend the basic jargon of your own field!

my argument has always essentially been that the jargon in your field uses a specific term for changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element: that term is MUTATION

THERE IS NO NEED FOR FURTHER DEBATE AFTER THAT

JVK
1 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2014
My model replaces the ridiculous idea of constraint-breaking mutations in mutation-driven evolution with biologically plausible ecological adaptations


@jvk
... BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, your model creates mutations!


Given what I just re-stated in answer to your ridiculous assertions about my model, it seems unlikely that I have ever implied my model creates mutations! Perhaps you are a horribly confused idiot minion of PZ Myers.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2014
Given what I just re-stated in answer to your ridiculous assertions about my model, it seems unlikely that I have ever implied my model creates mutations!

@jvk
ok... I will use really small words so you can understand:
when I asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer

I used the basic definition of mutation that is used by biologists and geneticists
when YOU answered
YES!

--Thanks for asking

that was an admission that YOUR MODEL makes MUTATIONS!

I know it was kinda hard to follow, but...
RE-READ WHAT I WROTE

the logic is simple and easy to understand
your own admission is that YOUR MODEL CAUSES MUTATIONS

so... either:
you are delusional OR
you are illiterate OR
you are a TROLL OR
you are just being contrary/stupid

which is it?
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2014
When nutrients cause changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, the changes to genomic stability are not called mutations, you idiot minion. The changes are called ecological adaptations.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 22, 2014
When nutrients cause changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, the changes to genomic stability are not called mutations, you idiot minion. The changes are called ecological adaptations.

@jvk
so... now YOU are saying that YOU are:
stupid?
Illiterate?
Trolling?
What?

Let me say it again... try to keep up:
when I asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer

I used the basic definition of mutation that is used by biologists and geneticists
when YOU answered
YES!

--Thanks for asking

that was an admission that YOUR MODEL makes MUTATIONS!|

when I asked
I used the DEFINITION of MUTATION
so when you answered
YOU SIMPLY AGREED THAT YOUR MODEL CAUSES MUTATION

END OF STORY
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2014
The story ends when you use the basic definition of mutation that you say is used by biologists and geneticists -- after citing your source to show where that definition comes from. Then you explain what keeps the mutations from resulting in humans with one eye, or an eye in the back of their head, or whatever other variation on the theme of mutation-driven evolution you are excluding when you use a definition to avoid discussion of biophysical constraints, and biologically plausible models of cause and effect that have been ecologically validated by examples in species from microbes to man.

Simply put, the story ends when you admit that you are someone's idiot minion, after others have long since realized that you will never be anything more than an idiot minion.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2014
The story ends when you use the basic definition of mutation that you say is used by biologists and geneticists-- after citing your source to show where that definition comes from

@jvk
again? Really? We went through this about 6 months ago.
https://www.genom...m?id=134
https://en.wikipe...Mutation
http://dx.doi.org...900007-8
http://dx.doi.org....1112699
http://dx.doi.org...4.01.012
all these have basically the same definition in use... I chose to copy paste from en.wikipedia
it says the same thing as the other links/studies which support the definition
Then you explain what keeps the mutations from resulting in

the argument has always been about the definition of mutation, and that by your own admission, your model causes mutations
this means it is covered under evolution
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2014
Simply put, the story ends when you admit that you are someone's idiot minion, after others have long since realized that you will never be anything more than an idiot minion

@jvk
so... because I UNDERSTAND the definition of mutation and YOU DONT &
because I got you to ADMIT YOUR MODEL CAUSES MUTATIONS &
because I can PROVE that you are WRONG &
YOU CANNOT ADMIT IT … then the only way for this to end is for me to lie?
YOU ARE AN IDIOT

you are pushing a PSEUDOSCIENCE!
as you are attempting to:
1- redefine a word that already has an accepted use per the biological community (instead of just adding a qualifier)
2- you are attempting to prove that your model replaces evolution when it is already a part of the theory
3- you cannot comprehend basic English or jargon in your own field
YOU ARE WRONG AND YOU CANNOT EVEN COMPREHEND HOW STUPID YOUR ARGUMENT IS

I've used caps because there seems to be vision problems too... either that or you are illiterate.

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2014
the argument has always been about the definition of mutation, and that by your own admission, your model causes mutations this means it is covered under evolution


A pseudoscientific argument is one that is not based on scientific facts. Arguing about the definition of anything is a pseudoscientific argument, which is why I have supported my claim that mutations perturb protein folding with experimental evidence that mutation-driven evolution is not biologically plausible and it is not an ecologically validated argument. It is an argument that comes from ignorant biology teachers and their idiot minions. That fact has been supported by your comments here. It is not a scientifically established fact.

The biological basis of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological, social, neurogenic and socio-cognitive niche construction is a scientifically established fact that excludes the pseudoscience of mutation-driven evolution. Scientific facts exclude you from arguments.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2014
A pseudoscientific argument is one that is not based on scientific facts

@jvk
it is also the obfuscation of reality with known fallacies, or the use of scientific facts with known adulterated statement/observations such as your assertion that your model does not cause mutations, when it obviously DOES, as well as the fact that your model is included in evolution theory, whereas your assertion is that it replaces it.
Given that your "science" is backed up only by your conjecture, then it can be considered a fallacy, therefore it is pseudoscience and not worth the time it took to expound upon it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2014
Arguing about the definition of anything is a pseudoscientific argument

@jvk
definitions are the basis for communication and the argument is YOURS as you are attempting to alter a known definition with an arbitrary selection from your own set of jargon and criteria, whereas the given explanation is sufficient for the entire field EXCEPT you, therefore your argument AGAINST the definition with intentional confusing remarks and false assumptions as well as false definitions makes you an adherent to a pseudoscientific philosophy
I am just pointing out that you are wrong and that you are arguing against the established definition of a word that has a well defined meaning as well as the fact that it is accepted in your field which you seem to ignore.

IOW – YOU are pushing a known fallacy, which then makes you:
a liar intentionally trying to obfuscate reality OR
a pseudoscientific acolyte
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2014
which is why I have supported my claim that blah blah blah validated argument

@jvk
redirection of argument in order to establish false credibility
again with the moving goalpost? Until you can establish that you have the ability to comprehend a basic argument with regard to establishing communication, this is an attempt to alter the direction of the conversation into a known fallacy.
It is an argument that comes from ignorant biology teachers and their idiot minions

known fallacy
pseudosciences always denigrate the educated/established in order to create a false assumption to bolster their argument
this is an argument using paranoia as well as conspiracy=PSEUDOSCIENCE
That fact has been supported by your comments here

the only fact supported here is that you have comprehension issues
it also is well supported that you are supporting a known fallacy = PSEUDOSCIENCE
The biological ...evolution.

redirection. See above (beginning of post)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2014
Scientific facts exclude you from arguments

@jvk
actually, the reverse is true. It is YOU who have yet to support your arguments as your links support evolution and the educated majority.
See arguments from RealScience, anonymous_9001, cjn et al here ( http://phys.org/n...lts.html ) and many other places here

YOUR model is INCLUDED in evolution theory
your model CAUSES mutations BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION

the argument here is about your attempt to alter reality with the establishment of a known fallacy which is only supported by evidence in your delusional state of mind and cannot even be supported by the evidence you linked to (unless you link PSEUDOSCIENCE)
therefore, the only conclusion that CAN be made is:

YOU ARE PUSHING A PSEUDOSCIENCE PHILOSOPHY THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE

again, you follow the arguments shown to be used by the pseudosciences... therefore there is no other conclusion that can be made.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2014
nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation

@jvk
per the NIH
In the most literal sense, polymorphism means multiple forms. So a DNA polymorphism, simply put, is a difference between sequences. Mutation is the process by which changes are made. So, yes, you can think of mutation and polymorphism as equivalent. Genome changes due to "nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation" would have evolved because of natural selection acting on differences that original arose because of mutation.  So, 'yes' again. Regarding "amino acid substitutions lead to chromosomal rearrangements and different morphological and behavioral phenotypes" –amino acid substitutions or chromosomal rearrangements could both be the ultimate cause of phenotype changes (behavioral or otherwise). The substitutions or rearrangements being genetic variation that natural selection could act on.

to be cont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2014
@jvk cont'd
"Lenski et al  were able to map out the genetic changes (multiple changes at different times) that enabled a population of E coli to ingest citrate. Mutations occurred, the E coli that got the mutations could ingest citrate, grow and reproduce more that the E coli that couldn't. So, over subsequent generations more and more of the population of E coli could ingest citrate. "
also
"I think [this conversation] is a debate about what is most important in explaining evolutionary change – mutation or natural selection. Keep in mind they are BOTH important."
THEREFORE
per NIH
your claims that your model does not make mutations is WRONG
which only verifies what you already admitted in the first place

it also shows that your model is included in evolution, and therefore I was correct in assessing your statements above, as well as correct in my other appraisals posted
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2014
The biological basis of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological, social, neurogenic and socio-cognitive niche construction is a scientifically established fact that excludes the pseudoscience of mutation-driven evolution. Scientific facts exclude Captain Stumpy from arguments.

http://www.socioa...53/27989
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2014
blah Scientific facts exclude blah blah

@jvk
mad because NIH made you look stupid? (actually, YOU did it to yourself!)
you REALLY CANT see it!

you are arguing against single mutation speciation with arguments that support your preferred methodology.

You are unaware of the prescription grammatical lexicon which governs your field/studies. This is normally taught during college in order to facilitate communication.
(see posts above)

This observation (reinforced by your continued diatribe against mutation) validates the fact that you are unable to grasp lingual concepts

You are arguing out of linguistic ignorance, inhibiting communication, and therefore you are not capable of understanding the basis of the argument

therefore it is imperative that you seek education & (self?)elucidation to clarify your arguments insuring that you can functionally communicate without tangential irrelevant denunciation before returning to debate

otherwise you are nothing but a troll
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2014
My model acknowledges the unequivocal fact that biophysical constraints prevent mutation-driven evolution and it details how epigenetic effects -- from atoms to ecosystems -- enable ecological adaptations. There is no debate here. You simply continue to make unsupported claims as idiot minions always do.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2014
There is no debate here

@JVK
well, not between us... we already established that you were an idiot pushing known delusional interpretations of real science that is effectively nothing more than your attempt to justify intelligent design.
The debate was whether or not you were intelligent enough to realise it and admit it, or whether you would continue to troll.
You simply continue to make unsupported claims as idiot minions always do

actually, NIH supported my assertions that:
1- your model makes mutations
2- your argument predominantly is against single mutation speciation
3- You are arguing out of linguistic ignorance, inhibiting communication because you cannot understand the lexicon which governs your field/studies

therefore, you are correct. There is NO DEBATE
you are a PSEUDOSCIENCE SPAMMING TROLL

I also noticed that your arguments have been habitually destroyed on other threads by cjn, RealScience et al.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2014
Oral glycotoxins are a modifiable cause of dementia and the metabolic syndrome in mice and humans http://www.pnas.o...abstract

http://medicalxpr...ets.html

Glycotoxins form when sugars react with fats, proteins and nucleic acids.

The nutrient-dependent link from glucose to glucose dehydrogenase typically enables ecological adaptations. The difference between an adaptation and a toxic mutation should be clear. The difference establishes the fact that nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction enables species diversity in the absence of nutrient-stress and social stress.
The stress is toxic to mammals and all other species because they cannot mutate quickly enough to escape the stress-related toxicity.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2014
The difference between an adaptation and a toxic mutation should be clear

@jvk
clear, yes. Relevant? No

SEE ABOVE POSTS for clarification on what you should be responding to as you are still working under false assumptions

p.s. I see that in your haste/ignorance you forgot to include beneficial mutation?
so are you now claiming that all mutations are toxic?
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2014
The relevance of oral glycotoxins:

In the ability and motivation to copy others, social learning has been shown to provide a mechanism for the inheritance of behavioural traditions. http://www.scienc...14000499

If mutation-driven evolution was biologically plausible, there would be experimental evidence of mutations with positive affects on behaviors associated with nutrient ingestion. Instead, we see only experimental evidence in morphological and behavioral phenotypes that ecological variation results in ecological adaptation -- in morphology and behavior via epigenetic effects of sensory input, not via mutations in any species.

For example, differences in behavioral phenotypes include difference in parental feeding behavior in behavioral "morphs" of white-throated sparrows

Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes
http://www.pnas.o...abstract
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2014
@jvk
nice irrelevant topic change while attempting to utilise convoluted delusional logic to support a hypothesis which cannot legitimately succeed Evolution
your model still creates a mutation per the definition used by Biologists, Geneticists and others in the field in which you keep referring to for support.
BUT DONT WORRY jvk!
There is hope for you yet!

http://phys.org/n...cts.html

PERHAPS if you could find a way to comprehend the lexicon used by your field, you can actually open your eyes and see that you are continuing to offer evidence FOR mutation and evolution!

you DO realise that the more you post, the more it is obvious that you have a learning disorder that prevents you from comprehending the basics? (probably why you flunked out of college)

YOU ARE TRYING TO VALIDATE CREATIONISM WITH PSEUDOSCIENCE...
Your arguments here only SUPPORT the fact that you are pushing a PSEUDOSCIENCE.

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2014
The relevance of oral glycotoxins (again):

Regulation of DNA methylation by ethanol induces tissue plasminogen activator expression in astrocytes

http://dx.doi.org...nc.12465
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2014
The relevance of oral glycotoxins (again):

@jvk
and (AGAIN) we still have the issue of your lack of comprehension!
You are attempting to shunt the conversation into a realm that you feel comfortable, knowing full well that most people do NOT understand the biological processes that you are attempting to describe... what you DONT realise is that:
THERE ARE THOSE WHO DO UNDERSTAND
when you send your links that "supposedly support" your philosophy
you cannot even realise, because you LACK THE BASIC TRAINING, that you are actually MAKING THE ARGUMENT for EVOLUTION

THIS IS THE MARK OF A (STUPID) PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT
this is why you have been labelled it
this is why you continually post irrelevant links
this is why you continually fail
this is why you will always be known as a PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT

thanks for continuing to reinforce your lack of comprehension and education!
(this is something Myers pointed out as well!)
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2014
Researchers discover [another] new mechanism of gene regulation [that is not mutation-driven]

https://us-mg205....jc2o9r1p

PZ Myers and his idiot minions, as well as all evolutionists who used to be called evolutionary biologists until everyone realized they knew nothing about biology, continue to ask themselves: WHY DOES THIS KEEP HAPPENING? Everyone believes in mutation-driven evolution, don't they? Why is anyone providing experimental evidence that shows there is no such thing as mutation-driven evolution?

Captain Stumpy says: "I'm going to keep throwing tantrums until Kohl stops telling people the truth about ecological variations that lead to species diversity via ecological adaptations in species from microbes to man."

Kinase-Mediated Changes in Nucleosome Conformation Trigger Chromatin Decondensation via Poly(ADP-Ribosyl)ation
http://www.cell.c...900037-9
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2014
who used to be called evolutionary biologists until everyone realized they knew nothing about biology

@jvk
fascinating!
What is the criteria for determining who gets to be called an idiot? Agreement with you? LFMAO THE MARK OF A TRUE PSEUDOSCIENCE CRANK!
Jvk thinks: if someone is educated, they are an idiot! Unless they throw all of it away and agree with him!
Captain Stumpy says: "I'm going to keep throwing tantrums until Kohl stops telling people the truth...

LOL
I sent your statements to NIH... THEY said the same thing I SAID!
so... I am not throwing tantrums... in fact... YOU ARE THE ONE GETTING PISSY and throwing tantrums!
YOU ARE THE ONE CALLING EVERYONE WITH AN EDUCATION AN IDIOT UNLESS THEY AGREE WITH YOU
the TRUE mark of a PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT!
Like I keep repeating...
THANK YOU for giving (and continuing to give) a LIVE DEMONSTRATION so that people can spot your ilk!

P.S. your links STILL SUPPORT MUTATION and EVOLUTION
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2014
"This suggests that the mutational robustness of TF binding sites can be fine-tuned via mutation." http://www.scienc...abstract

That's an interesting suggestion. Unfortunately, biophysical constraints on mutation-driven evolution ensure that perturbed protein-folding is not beneficial. That's why there is no experimental evidence to support the suggestion that the mutational robustness of TF binding sites can be fine-tuned via mutation.

If there were experimental evidence that the mutational robustness of TF binding sites can be fine-tuned via mutation and result in ecological adaptations, which are clearly due to variations in the availability of nutrients, PZ Myers and his idiot minions could not be so readily accused of ignorance and of continuing to tout pseudoscientific nonsense which is all that Captain Stumpy can do.

He actually thinks my links support mutation-driven evolution. What a well-trained idiot he must be!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2014
That's an interesting suggestion

@jvk
and so, ONCE AGAIN, due to your ignorance, you cannot comprehend the study
at this point, I should state, emphatically, that your issue is NOT one of ignorance, it is STUPIDITY. Failure to accomplish the basics of education might legitimately been about other factors,
HOWEVER... FAILURE TO FURTHER YOUR EDUCATION AFTERWORDS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN YOUR WORK IN THE FIELD, is STUPIDITY.
Given that you cannot comprehend the jargon sue to your ignorance of the lexicon (again, stupidity,a s it is published on-line for all to view themselves)
ONLY SERVES TO PROMOTE YOUR PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT NATURE

again, THANK YOU for showing this, repeatedly, to everyone here and giving them a perfect example of stupidity in action (PSEUDOSCIENCE)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2014

He actually thinks my links support mutation-driven evolution. What a well-trained idiot he must be!

@jvk
which is worse? that i CAN understand how YOUR OWN MODEL SUPPORTS EVOLUTION BECAUSE IT CAUSES MUTATION

OR

The fact that YOU CANNOT SEE IT even though you have ALREADY ADMITTED IT

this is, AGAIN, the mark of PSEUDOSCIENCES

this is why you keep posting links... to DRAW OFF THE CONVERSATION into another topic... in which you also cannot fathom how it applies to support EVOLUTION

again... you have been a GREAT EXAMPLE of PSEUDOSCIENCE
PERFECT for THIS ARTICLE

keep it up! that way people can LEARN how to spot phonies like you!

c'mon! LINK SOME MORE!
the more you link, the more people can DIRECTLY CHECK with outside agencies and gain insight to your psychosis
LIKE I DID WITH NIH

KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK HELPING ME !!!!
and thanks again
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2014
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model

http://www.socioa...53/27989

"This model details how chemical ecology drives adaptive evolution via: (1) ecological niche construction, (2) social niche construction, (3) neurogenic niche construction, and (4) socio-cognitive niche construction. This model exemplifies the epigenetic effects of olfactory/pheromonal conditioning, which alters genetically predisposed, nutrient-dependent, hormone-driven mammalian behavior and choices for pheromones that control reproduction via their effects on luteinizing hormone (LH) and systems biology."

Chemical ecology is responsible for ecological adaptations. Mutations perturb protein folding which is why they cannot be responsible for the species differences that are exemplified in the context of ecological adaptations.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2014
Chemical ecology is responsible for ecological adaptations. Mutations perturb protein folding which is why they cannot be responsible for the species differences that are exemplified in the context of ecological adaptations

@jvk
THANKS for continuing to show how a PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT works!
ok... as you ALREADY ADMITTED... your model causes mutations
see WAY above here:
IF your models show changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element
THEN they show MUTATION

END OF STORY

therefore, you are simply denying truth!
your continued posting only reinforces evolution by supporting it, as per your own admission, you are supporting your model/theory which, BY DEFINITION is a part of evolution as it CAUSES MUTATION!

you are SUCH a good sport to continually come back here and support my arguments! really!

you are making me SO much money, too!
we make bets on how you will respond... I am making a KILLING!