Natural selection has altered the appearance of Europeans over the past 5,000 years

Mar 10, 2014
This is a grave with an about 5,000-year-old skeleton from a kurgan of the Yamnaya culture near the town Kirovograd in Ukraine. Credit: Alla V. Nikolova

Anthropologists at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and geneticists at University College London, working in collaboration with archaeologists from Berlin and Kiev, have analyzed ancient DNA from skeletons and found that selection has had a significant effect on the human genome even in the past 5,000 years, resulting in sustained changes to the appearance of people.

There has been much research into the factors that have influenced the since the end of the last Ice Age. Anthropologists at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) and geneticists at University College London (UCL), working in collaboration with archaeologists from Berlin and Kiev, have analyzed ancient DNA from skeletons and found that selection has had a significant effect on the human genome even in the past 5,000 years, resulting in sustained changes to the appearance of people. The results of this current research project have been published this week in an article entitled "Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 years" in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

For a number of years population geneticists have been able to detect echoes of in the genomes of living humans, but those techniques are typically not very accurate about when that natural selection took place. The researchers in Mainz and London now decided to take a new approach. This involved analyzing DNA from archaeological skeletons and then comparing the prehistoric data with that of contemporary Europeans using computer simulations. Where the genetic changes could not be explained by the randomness of inheritance, the researchers were able to infer that positive selection played a role, i.e., that frequency of a certain mutation increased significantly in a given population.

While investigating numerous genetic markers in archaeological and living individuals, Sandra Wilde of the Palaeogenetics Group at the JGU Institute of Anthropology noticed striking differences in genes associated with hair, skin, and eye pigmentation. "Prehistoric Europeans in the region we studied would have been consistently darker than their descendants today," says Wilde, first author of the PNAS article. "This is particularly interesting as the darker phenotype seems to have been preferred by evolution over hundreds of thousands of years. All our early ancestors were more darkly pigmented." However, things must have changed in the last 50,000 years as humans began to migrate to northern latitudes.

"In Europe we find a particularly wide range of genetic variation in terms of pigmentation," adds co-author Dr. Karola Kirsanow, who is also a member of the Palaeogenetics Group at Mainz University. "However, we did not expect to find that natural selection had been favoring lighter pigmentation over the past few thousand years." The signals of selection that the Mainz palaeogeneticists and their colleagues at University College London have identified are comparable to those for malaria resistance and , meaning that they are among the most pronounced that have been discovered to date in the human genome. The authors see several possible explanations. "Perhaps the most obvious is that this is the result of adaptation to the reduced level of sunlight in northern latitudes," says Professor Mark Thomas of UCL, corresponding author of the study. "Most people of the world make most of their vitamin D in their skin as a result UV exposure. But at northern latitudes and with dark skin, this would have been less efficient. If people weren't getting much vitamin D in their diet, then having lighter skin may have been the best option."

"But this vitamin D explanation seems less convincing when it comes to hair and eye color," Wilde continues. "Instead, it may be that lighter hair and eye color functioned as a signal indicating group affiliation, which in turn played a role in the selection of a partner." Sexual selection of this kind is common in animals and may also have been one of the driving forces behind human evolution over the past few millennia.

"We were expecting to find that changes in the human genome were the result of population dynamics, such as migration. In general we expect genetic changes due to natural selection to be the exception rather than the rule. At the same time, it cannot be denied that lactase persistence, i.e., the ability to digest the main sugar in milk as an adult, and pigmentation genes have been favored by natural selection to a surprising degree over the last 10,000 years or so," adds Professor Joachim Burger, senior author of the study. "But it should be kept in mind that our findings do not necessarily mean that everything selected for in the past is still beneficial today. The characteristics handed down as a result of sexual selection can be more often explained as the result of preference on the part of individuals or groups rather than adaptation to the environment."

Explore further: Calcium absorption not the cause of evolution of milk digestion in Europeans

More information: Wilde, Sandra et al., Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 years, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 10 March 2014. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1316513111

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Why is type 2 diabetes an increasing problem?

Jan 09, 2014

Contrary to a common belief, researchers have shown that genetic regions associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes were unlikely to have been beneficial to people at stages through human evolution.

Evolutionary medicine of skin cancer risk among Europeans

Sep 17, 2013

The proclivity of Spaniards to bask in regions like the Costa del Sol while their northern European counterparts must stay under cover to protect their paler skin or risk skin cancer is due in large part to the pigment producing ...

Neanderthal lineages excavated from modern human genomes

Jan 29, 2014

A substantial fraction of the Neanderthal genome persists in modern human populations. A new approach applied to analyzing whole-genome sequencing data from 665 people from Europe and East Asia shows that ...

Recommended for you

An uphill climb for mountain species?

8 hours ago

A recently published paper provides a history of scientific research on mountain ecosystems, looks at the issues threatening wildlife in these systems, and sets an agenda for biodiversity conservation throughout ...

Extinctions during human era worse than thought

10 hours ago

It's hard to comprehend how bad the current rate of species extinction around the world has become without knowing what it was before people came along. The newest estimate is that the pre-human rate was ...

User comments : 208

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

krundoloss
1 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2014
So, to summarize, being whiter is good where it is cold, and people had sex like they always have. I feel like we evolve more effectively with our brains than our bodies, passing down genetic memory and skill sets over generations. Thats why I despise traditionalism because I dont think the next generation should be the same as the last one.
mzso
4.8 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2014
So the past 100-200 generations evolution didn't stop magically? "How surprising"...
24volts
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2014
Another example is compare the average frame size of an American or European to some of the sets of armour in old castles... Don't have to go back but a few hundred years there. The average guy seems to have been shorter and slightly wider built than the average today. There is probably a number of different reasons for that but I thought it might apply here too.
MrVibrating
4.7 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2014
Yes, we're undergoing progressive 'graciation' as we make life ever easier for ourselves - for example our bones are getting slenderer, probably due to our lighter physical workloads.

Either that, or there's some kind of selection pressure on lankiness...
dav_daddy
4 / 5 (2) Mar 11, 2014
People are certainly taller now. Back around the time of the revolutionary war a man of 6'5 was considered a giant. Of course there are a lot more people now so that could account for it as well.

I've also read not long ago that people over 6' have a much greater chance of certain cancers. (Wonderful I'm 6'3.) Americans are also getting much fatter as a whole but my guess is that is due more to our culteral obsession with shoveling whatever crap is quick and easy (usually fast food) down our & children's throats.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2014
Excerpted from above: "...selection has had a significant effect on the human genome even in the past 5,000 years..."

Selection for what? See: "Biologists zero in on role of plasticity in evolution"
http://phys.org/n...ion.html

Natural selection of nutrients leads to the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in every other species on this planet. Species-specific pheromones are sexually selected.

How does "...positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation..." occur in the context of mutations and evolutionary theory? If that question can be answered with experimental evidence to support the answer, the answer might refute everything known about the conserved molecular mechanisms that enable ecological variation to result in the ecological adaptations that are manifested in species diversity.

If not, this story is simply more pseudoscientific nonsense based on population genetics, which explain nothing.
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2014
@24V &Mr V: don't forget that quality & quantity of nutrition over an extended period of time also plays a role in how tall a person might become (achieving full genetically set growth potential). It's well known that a poor &/or sparse diet will stunt growth in a child. The middle ages weren't exactly known for good nutrition & only the richer folk had the money to live off more than grains or potatoes all the time. The average asian has gotten a lot taller too, as Western diets have caught on. Modern medicine (antibiotics for starters) might just have something to do with it too.
As for those suits of amour, consider the fact that they could weigh anywhere up to 50-60kg. You too would have to develop a musclely, broad chest, just to be able to wear one. Good luck if you fall off a horse, too. Hence equerries & other 'helpers'.So, no 'graciation', just better food, health & less physically intensive lives.
http://en.wikiped...e_armour
http://www.livesc...rgy.html

Best Regards, DH66
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
"... can be more often explained as the result of preference on the part of individuals or groups rather than adaptation to the environment."

Which, I think, is the point of the extended phenotype. I.e. such preferences are part of the environment, and can well be selected for. And indeed they measure that selection.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
Oy, the anti-evolution trolling strikes again. If it isn't creationist, it is pseudoscience.

But here are some real comments to respond to:

@krundoloss: I'm not sure what you refer to, but the only "genetic memory" here is the genome.

@mvzo: Indeed. According to paleoanthropologist John Hawks these selective sweeps (which may or may not go to fixation but has done so historically) are more numerous than ever. Selection will be more efficient, be able to fish out weaker advantages/disadvantages among the random events in a population, as the population size increases.

@24volts: The stature of men went to down with agriculture. Presumably putting humans together and experimenting with new foods led to all sorts of diseases, from virulent to lifestyle diseases, meaning few had a 100 % disease free childhood. But sexual selection should be strong force too.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2014
Oy, the anti-evolution trolling strikes again. If it isn't creationist, it is pseudoscience.


I wrote: How does "...positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation..." occur in the context of mutations and evolutionary theory? If that question can be answered with experimental evidence to support the answer, the answer might refute everything known about the conserved molecular mechanisms that enable ecological variation to result in the ecological adaptations that are manifested in species diversity.

It's pseudoscience unless experimental evidence supports an intelligent response. Name calling is not a response, it's typical of your nonsense.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
Another example is compare the average frame size of an American or European to some of the sets of armour in old castles

I'm not sure that is as much a genetic drift, as this seems to be mainly an issue of nutrition. People in mideval times could have been (almost) as large as us if they had had access to the types (and amount) of food we do.
Bone studies show that high status - at least males - were significantly larger than low status ones. And it can be assumed that these had access to better/more food.

So the past 100-200 generations evolution didn't stop magically? "How surprising"...

The surprising thing here is that migration influences play much less of a role than selection (for survival fitness or sexual preferences).
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
antialias_physorg -- seems to have realized that ecological adaptations are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man, yet also seems unwilling to simply state that obvious fact.

Others have suggested that nutrient-dependent de novo gene creation occurs more frequently than nutrient-dependent gene duplication. Some others recognize that the nutrient-dependent creation of epialleles provides the substrate for ecological adaptations.

Theorists who believe that unspecified substrates are loosely associated with unknown actions that might somehow result in species diversity attributed to mutations and natural selection won't say anything about why they believe in such pseuodoscientific nonsense.

Instead, they seem to be embarrassed by their own ignorance.

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

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
Others have suggested that nutrient-dependent de novo gene creation occurs more frequently than nutrient-dependent gene duplication.

How about just more frequent expression of genes that are already there due to available nutrients? Proteins can only be formed if the building blocks are available in sufficient quantity. Supply a dearth of building blocks and you get less proteins expressed from the same genetic material.
You can easily see this e.g. in Japanese people that are exposed to a more protein rich diet after WWII. There's no gene duplication or gene creation going on here.
Captain Stumpy
4.9 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
It's pseudoscience unless experimental evidence supports an intelligent response. Name calling is not a response, it's typical of your nonsense.

@jvk
well, given that you've arbitrarily decided to change the definition of mutation (and cannot even describe that change without invoking mutation and its given definition) while then supposedly providing evidence against mutation that actually SUPPORTS mutation
and given that your "creationist" model that you push actually CAUSES MUTATION which then SUPPORTS the current theory of evolution
THEN your spamming on every thread that even possibly supports mutation supports the assumption of your pushing PSEUDOSCIENCE as well as solidifies the fact that you cannot comprehend the lexicon of the field that you supposedly represent with your "evidence"
IOW – it is NOT name calling to point out that you are pushing PSEUDOSCIENCE

see: http://phys.org/n...lts.html
for further evidence
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
Proteins can only be formed if the building blocks are available in sufficient quantity....
You can easily see this e.g. in Japanese people that are exposed to a more protein rich diet after WWII.


You just reduced 5000 years to less than 100 and claim:

There's no gene duplication or gene creation going on here.


In my model, I provide examples of how nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitutions rapidly enable ecological adaptations in species from microbes to man.

Substitution of a single amino acid led to changes in teeth, skin, hair, and mammary gland tissue in a human population that arose in what is now central China during what appears to be the past ~30,000 years.

Does everyone agree that the correlates of climate change, dietary change, and disappearance of the Neanderthals during the same time frame exemplify coincidences that should not be examined further because mutations obviously cause species diversity?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
In my model, I provide examples of how nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitutions rapidly enable ecological adaptations in species from microbes to man

@jvk
actually, by your own admissions in other threads, your model makes MUTATIONS which then gives supporting evidence to the modern theory of evolution
ME
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

YOU -
YES!
--Thanks for asking

therefore, arguing AGAINST mutation like above
that might somehow result in species diversity attributed to mutations and natural selection won't say anything about why they believe in such pseuodoscientific nonsense

only PROVES, by your OWN WORDS, that you:
1- dont know what you are talking about
2- you are arguing against YOUR OWN MODEL
3- are attempting obfuscation for Creation/Trolling purposes

THANKS for sharing that with us...
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
Staff Sergeant Stumply wants people to believe that amino acid substitutions are mutations, but no experimental evidence suggests that's an acceptable belief, and I've published a series of papers that refute it.

From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior -- our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review
http://www.hawaii...ion.html

"Molecular epigenetics
Yet another kind of epigenetic imprinting occurs in species as diverse as yeast, Drosophila, mice, and humans and is based upon small DNA-binding proteins called "chromo domain" proteins, e.g., polycomb. These proteins affect chromatin structure, often in telomeric regions, and thereby affect transcription and silencing of various genes.... 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..."
24volts
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
Oy, the anti-evolution trolling strikes again. If it isn't creationist, it is pseudoscience.


I wasn't trolling, no did I say anything about creationism. I just said people are getting taller. If that's due to better nutrition which it might very well mostly be I see no reason not to consider that part of evolution.. I was taught that food supplies was a big factor back in school many years ago.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
I wasn't trolling, no did I say anything about creationism. I just said people are getting taller.

@24volts
I think he was referring to jvk about anti-evolution trolling... his so-called anti-mutation pseudoscience is actually based upon his creationist model which, although he is loathe to admit it, causes mutations which then classifies the entire model under evolution, which jvk seems to think only idiots believe in
(ask him, he will tell you... or go here to see just how stupid jvk can be: http://phys.org/n...lts.html )

jvk also does NOT understand the actual meaning of the word mutation as used by biologists/geneticists... as proven in that link I left you... my comments above are his actual words (and the definition of mutation, btw)... it is most likely due to his failing out of college early on and not learning the lexicon

JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
No experimental evidence suggests nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitutions that stabilize the genomes of species from microbes to man should be referred to as mutations, as they would be if they perturbed protein folding.

Only biology teachers, population geneticists and their idiot minions who tout their biologically implausible pseudoscientific ideas about how mutation-driven evolution occurs -- in the absence of any experimental evidence that might ecologically validate their ridiculous opinions -- continue to challenge people like me and others with publication histories that span 2 decades.

The first thing scientists need to do, is to learn the difference between a mutation and an ecological adaptation. After that, they can tell the idiots who believe in mutation-driven evolution to never again comment when others attempt to discuss biological facts.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
@jvk
ME
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

YOU -
YES!
--Thanks for asking

therefore, your claim here
No experimental evidence suggests nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitutions that stabilize the genomes of species from microbes to man should be referred to as mutations, as they would be if they perturbed protein folding

is either a blatant LIE or you are delusional
as YOUR OWN ADMISSION is that your model creates mutations! Right there, in black adn white! YOUR WORDS!

as for
The first thing scientists need to do, is to learn the difference between a mutation and an ecological adaptation

since you failed out of college, maybe your inability to comprehend the basic jargon is why you have such issues with everyone who actually got an education?
why is everyone ELSE the ones who are stupid?
YOU are the outlier
orionjj
2 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2014
'Selection has had a significant impact...EVEN in the last 5000 years.' Rather selection has had a significant impact ESPECIALLY IN the last 5000 years.
Ant pro logic
1 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2014
I sort of suspect the conclusions are wrong. If whiter skin is really advantageous it would have spread to south too and east too.

Far more likely explanation is that more white pigmented people came suddenly from east, were more advanced and thus became dominant on european side sweeping aside earlier populations.
RealScience
5 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
Name calling is not a response, it's typical of your nonsense.


Coming from you, JVK, who calls anyone who does agree with him idiots, fool, minions, mental midgets, morons, etc., that has to be the most ironically humorous remark of all time!

JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
The calcium assimilation hypothesis associated with lactase persistence (LP) via population genetics can be viewed in the context of ecological adaptations. LP appears to be a nutrient-dependent ecological adaptation driven by the advantages of calcium and vitamin D uptake in human populations that live at latitudes with less sunlight ---- if individuals continued to drink milk after weaning, or ingested fermented milk products.

http://mbe.oxford...abstract

The idea the mutations cause differences in skin pigmentation or anything else that would otherwise be attributed to ecological adaptations is one that is shared by idiot minions, anonymous fools, and those with less intelligence than the grazing nematodes that become predators with teeth due to nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions and pheromone-controlled reproduction. For example, see comments by RealScience.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
"Researchers reconstruct a cheese recipe from the Early Bronze Age." March 12th, 2014.
http://phys.org/n...nze.html

"...the arrangement of amino acids, the building blocks of the proteins, can also contain signs of the processes used, like fermentation. As such, proteomics could develop into an interesting and suitable method in archaeometry."

Could develop into...? The entirety of my model is built on the conserved molecular mechanisms that lead from changes in single base pairs to amino acid substitutions, stochastic gene expression, chromosomal rearrangements and thereby to morphological and behavioral phenotypes in species from microbes to man.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
Staff Sergeant Stumply wants people to believe that amino acid substitutions are mutations, but no experimental evidence suggests that's an acceptable belief, and I've published a series of papers that refute it.

From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior -- our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review
http://www.hawaii...ion.html

"Molecular epigenetics...


That excerpt has NOTHING to due with mutations. It is certainly not evidence against them.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2014
The anonymous fool writes:
It is certainly not evidence against them.


"Research has established the broad mammalian developmental plan that genes on the sex chromosomes influence gonad development which determines gonadal hormone production (or its absence) leading to modification of the genitalia and simultaneously biasing the nervous system to organize adult sexual behavior. This might be considered the "gonad to hormones to behavior" model. It is clear, however, that although this model generally works well it is incomplete."

We completed the model by linking molecular epigenetics across species to show that olfactory/pheromonal input determines cell types via alternative splicings of pre-mRNA.

That also shows mutations are not the cause of species diversity. However, the experimental evidence cannot show what mutations do not do. It simply shows what sensory input does -- and how it does it -- via conserved molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2014
If whiter skin is really advantageous it would have spread to south too and east too.

There's several factors that come into play here:
A whiter skin allows for more vitamin D prodution, but it also means that the person is more susceptible to skin cancer. The further towards the equator you go the more the cancer thing dominates, while the intense sunlight still allows people with a darker skin to produce adequate amounts of vitamin D.

There are populations with exception (e.g. there is a large white population in Australia) but that is due to 'migration' factors - i.e. Australia was basically a british penal colony at some time in the past.
(Note that the aborigines in Australia are almost black skinned)
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2014
There are populations with exception...


That is why the calcium assimilation hypothesis associated with lactase persistence (LP) via population genetics MUST be viewed in the context of ecological adaptations. LP appears to nutrient-dependent but it is consistently associated also with skin pigmentation.

When LP and skin pigmentation are disassociated, it become clearer that that the sickle cell hemoglobin variant and 1181 other hemoglobin variants are not due to mutations.

All variants are ecological adaptations in all species! Continuing to claim that ecological adaptations are mutations will get you labeled a racist, sexist, homophobic idiot minion of the biology teacher who taught you to believe in mutation-initiated natural selection. Like you, that's what the biology teacher was taught to believe in -- because no one asks biology teachers this simple question about mutation-driven evolution: Is there experimental evidence for that?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2014
We completed the model by linking molecular epigenetics across species to show that olfactory/pheromonal input determines cell types via alternative splicings of pre-mRNA.


Splicing does not make sequence changes to the genome, something you still have yet to address, despite being asked about it numerous times.
rockwolf1000
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2014
realized that ecological adaptations are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man,


Can you explain why your theory only affects creatures that begin with the letter "M"?
RealScience
4.9 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2014
No experimental evidence suggests nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitutions that stabilize the genomes of species from microbes to man should be referred to as mutations, as they would be if they perturbed protein folding.


In genetics mutations are commonly defined as changes to a DNA sequence. Since amino-acid substitutions are changes to a DNA sequence, they are mutations BY DEFINITION.

You may not LIKE that definition, JVK, but that's your problem.
It is not for you to decide how biologists and geneticists define the term 'mutation'.

And regardless of definitions, you have not provided ANY experimental evidence that ANY amino-acid substitutions are nutrient dependent and pheromone controlled, let alone that all such substitutions that stabilize proteins are (natural selection FOR such substitutions often is nutrient dependent, but that is different from the substitutions themselves being controlled by nutrients or pheromones).
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2014
"mutations are commonly defined as changes to a DNA sequence"


I've asked you before to cite the source for this common definition, which was used by M. Nei in his book to tout constraint-breaking mutations as the cause of mutation-driven evolution outside the context of natural selection. Why don't you simply admit to use of his nonsensical redefinition? Quit pretending to know anything about genetics.
RealScience
5 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2014
You are just too funny, JVK. Back in http://phys.org/n...lts.html you responded to the discussion of the definition of mutations with:
You jerk! I tried to refuse discussion of definitions and that's all you want to do.

Several definitions for mutations were presented in that thread, including:

NIH: A mutation is a change in a DNA sequence (https://www.genom...?id=134)

Wikepedia: In genetics, a mutation is a change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element

Biology Online: A permanent, heritable change in the nucleotide sequence in a gene or a chromosome (http://www.biolog...tation).

Or would you prefer a good basic introduction to genetic mutations by Nature's educational group? Try: http://www.nature...tion-441
Note the definition: "a mutation is defined as any alteration in the DNA sequence"
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2014
Thanks. How do your "defined" mutations result in mutation-driven evolution associated with differences in the appearances of people, which are attributed to natural selection during the past 5,000 years in this article.

Please provide links to experimental evidence of cause and effect that incorporate your definitions so that the link between mutations and whatever you think is naturally selected is clear.
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2014
Come on now, it's simple to see... it's aliens.
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2014
How do your "defined" mutations result in mutation-driven evolution associated with differences in the appearances of people, which are attributed to natural selection during the past 5,000 years in this article


To repeat that which you some to have forgotten since the previous thread:
Mutations generally don't drive evolution, they CONTRIBUTE to evolution.

In this case inhabiting more northern climates drove this evolution over the last 5000 years through selection from pre-existing variety. From one of your own citations, http://medicalxpr...al.html, a gene contributing to light skin appears to have been in the gene pool for at least 10,000 years.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2014
Mutations generally don't drive evolution, they CONTRIBUTE to evolution.


You use the same definition of mutation Nei uses in his book. That suggests any change in DNA is a mutation. Please argue with him, since he claims: "MUTATION-DRIVEN EVOLUTION" and you claim mutations somehow CONTRIBUTE to evolution.

http://www.amazon...99661731

My claim, which is fully substantiated by experimental evidence, is that ecological variation results in nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation via conserved molecular mechanisms.

I have detailed how ecological adaptation occurs in a series of published works during the past two decades.

Adaptations do not occur via mutations, which is why including mutations in any explanation of species diversity is like tossing your garbage into your neighbor's yard, or regurgitating the garbage you were taught to believe -- as you continue to do here.

Quit pretending to know anything about genetics.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2014
Quit pretending to know anything about genetics.


Says the guy who thinks splicing makes changes to the genome.
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2014
You use the same definition of mutation Nei uses in his book. That suggests any change in DNA is a mutation.

As has been explained to you many times, that's the standard definition, and the way that the word mutation is used in genetics and biology.

Just because you don't like the definition doesn't change how hundreds of thousands of scientists use the term, so get used to it. Create a new term rather than trying to change a well established term, or use qualifiers to describe what you mean, such as 'destabilizing mutations' and 'stabilizing mutations'.

Please argue with him, since he claims: "MUTATION-DRIVEN EVOLUTION" and you claim mutations somehow CONTRIBUTE to evolution.

I don't argue with people unless they cross my path of their own accord. If Nei comments here, I'll be happy to discuss the finer points with him.

As for 'somehow contribute', I've explained to you many times how mutations contribute to evolution. Should I explain it to you YET AGAIN?
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2014
My claim, which is fully substantiated by experimental evidence, is that ecological variation results in nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation via conserved molecular mechanisms. ...

And no one has argued, in any comments thread that I have seen, against ecological variation, nutrients and even pheromones playing at role in adaptive evolution.
... Adaptations do not occur via mutations

This part of your claim is NOT fully substantiated by experimental evidence. In http://phys.org/n...lts.html you ADMITTED that you have NO experimental evidence that mutations are never selected for (nor did you provide any OTHER evidence, in spite of being repeatedly asked).

Furthermore experimental evidence to the contrary was presented, showing that this part of your model is not valid.

While you proclaim that you "can throw out results that appear to attest to mutations", your model is WRONG as a result!
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2014
Quit pretending to know anything about genetics.


Says the guy who thinks splicing makes changes to the genome.


Alternative RNA Splicing in Evolution
http://jonlieffmd...volution
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2014
Quit pretending to know anything about genetics.


Says the guy who thinks splicing makes changes to the genome.


Alternative RNA Splicing in Evolution
http://jonlieffmd...volution


Says nothing about splicing making alterations to gene sequences. Should we revisit my analogy from Myers' blog?

The spliceosome is to splicing, as _______ (you put pre-mRNA previously) is to nutrient-dependent, pheromone-controlled, specifically directed base substitutions. (keep in mind the context was GENOMIC base substitutions, not mRNA base substitutions, which splicing does indeed do)
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2014
you ADMITTED that you have NO experimental evidence that mutations are never selected


It seems appropriate to admit to the fact that there is NO experimental evidence and to ask anyone who thinks mutations are ever somehow selected to provide experimental evidence that they are selected and that their selection allows them to contribute to mutation-driven evolution.

But they don't contribute to evolution -- no matter how you define 'mutation.' The reason that mutation-driven evolution does not occur, is because ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations, which are manifested in species diversity.

Only ignorant anonymous idiot minions who were taught to believe in mutation-driven evolution continue to think it's possible. Thanks for reasserting that fact.

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
http://www.socioa...53/27989
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2014
I learned today that this was posted to the senior author's site

Insulin signalling underlies both plasticity and divergence of a reproductive trait in Drosophila

http://www.oeb.ha...oeb.html

"Finally, we asked whether nutrition-dependent plasticity of this critical reproductive trait was linked to broader ecological patterns of ovariole number diversity, which may indicate an
adaptive value of nutritional plasticity."

This is the kind of question not asked by idiot minions of biology teachers, like PZ Myers, who teach others to believe in mutation-driven evolution and never question why there is no model for that.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2014
the context was GENOMIC base substitutions....


The context has always been nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations that result in species diversity manifested in organismal complexity via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction.

If the context ever was GENOMIC base substitutions and mutation-driven evolution, there would be a biologically plausible model for that ridiculous assertion, which is repeatedly made by anonymous fools and Myers' idiot minions.
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2014
ask anyone who thinks mutations are ever somehow selected to provide experimental evidence that they are selected

Lenski's results (http://phys.org/n...html)are experimental evidence that mutations are sometimes selected for.

But they don't contribute to evolution -- no matter how you define 'mutation.' The reason that mutation-driven evolution does not occur, is because ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations, which are manifested in species diversity.

Lenski's results are experimental evidence that those ecological adaptations are sometimes THE RESULT OF MUTATIONS that are selected for.

Do you have ANY evidence, experimental or otherwise, that ecological adaptations are NEVER the result of selection for mutations? If so, present it. If not, at least have the grace to find a new argument instead of repeating the same non-science in another thread.
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2014


Says the guy who thinks splicing makes changes to the genome.


Alternative RNA Splicing in Evolution
http://jonlieffmd...volution


@JVK - this looks like you think that alternative RNA splicing makes controlled change to DNA sequences. Do you actually think this, or was your citation merely irrelevant to 9001's comment?
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2014
believe in mutation-driven evolution and never question why there is no model for that

JVK, how can you possibly claim that you have any expertise in genetics and still claim that there is no model for that? That is one of the most basic models in evolution with much of it dating back many decades (Haldane, for example).
And as has been pointed out to you before, you have even cited papers that deal with confirming aspects of the model (for example, Chelo:
http://www.nature...7.html).

You might disagree with the model, but to claim that there is no model is beyond even your usual level of denial. Are lying, or are you seriously that delusional?

Given some of your comments, delusional seems to fit:
There is one model: MINE, that refutes the ridiculous idea of mutation-driven evolution with examples of epigenetic cause and effect, which are based on Kohl's Laws of Biology.

Perhaps, I have no peers in academia.

JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2014
Do you really think I need to discuss what I actually think after publishing a series of articles during the past two decades, which include these?

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

http://www.socioa...38/20758

Why don't you attempt to discuss HOW Lenski's experiments show anything other than nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations.

You seem unable to do more than tout the same nonsense from population genetics that was inseminated into Darwin's theory to produce the bastard child of neo-Darwinism, which tends to be missing two conditions of life.

1) It is nutrient-dependent
2) It is pheromone-controlled

Those two conditions of life enable species diversity. Mutations do not. You're not very bright, are you?
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2014
That is one of the most basic models in evolution...


It is a ridiculous theory. It's not even a biologically plausible theory and it certainly isn't a model because no model organisms exemplify any aspect of what would need to occur in every species to result in species diversity via conserved molecular mechanisms.

Let's compare two aspects of my model of conserved molecular mechanisms to the ridiculous theory.
1) all organisms must eat
2) individuals must reproduce

If every cell of every organism requires nutrients and the nutrients metabolize to species specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction, when does the role of mutations become important to species diversity? How do mutations contribute anything to species diversity in E. coli (for example) or in Europeans over the past 5,000 years?
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2014
http://jonlieffmd...the-mind

Q: How does an idiot minion get from a statement like this:--------

"...at a billion folds per second it would take ten billion years to try all possible folds of an average sized protein."

-------to a claim about mutations and evolution?

A: An idiot minion does not. Idiot minions simply ignore facts.

Q: What does an anonymous fool do when confronted with facts?
A: An anonymous fool rearranges facts to make them unrecognizable.

Q: What does an intelligent person do when confronted with the facts that conditions of life are 1) nutrient-dependent and 2) pheromone-controlled?
A: An intelligent person accepts the facts

Alternative splicings of pre-mRNA are nutrient-dependent. The beneficial results of alternative splicings are pheromone-controlled because species-specific pheromones control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2014
http://www.ploson....0007073

"Microorganisms can restructure their transcriptional output to adapt to environmental conditions by sensing endogenous metabolite pools."

That fact means microorganisms do not mutate into other microorganisms and that natural selection occurs for food, which metabolizes to species specific pheromones that control reproduction. It also means that, like all other organisms on the planet, microorganisms ecologically adapt to ecological variation via the conserved molecular mechanisms of species from microbes to man that enable the epigenetic landscape to become the physical landscape of DNA in organized genomes.

RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2014
Do you really think I need to discuss what I actually think ...


If you don't want to discuss it, then don't post it into the middle of a discussion.

Idiot minions simply ignore facts.


Too funny again! You admit that you throw out results that contradict your model, so you are basically calling yourself an 'idiot minion' of your own model (the humor is probably lost on you).

... Alternative splicings of pre-mRNA are nutrient-dependent.


So you DO want to discuss it!
Do you claim that alternative RNA splicing makes controlled change to DNA sequences?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2014
We're talking about mutations here, James. Changes to the genome, not changes to the epigenome or splicing. What causes GENOMIC changes in your model? You never discuss GENOMIC changes in your model. What alters the actual DNA sequence? You provide no mechanism for that. All you ever talk about is epigenetic modification and splicing, neither of which do anything concerning that.
RealScience
5 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2014
"Microorganisms can restructure their transcriptional output to adapt to environmental conditions by sensing endogenous metabolite pools."

That fact means microorganisms do not mutate into other microorganisms

Wrong.

Mutation is defined as changes in DNA sequences.
Transcriptional output does NOT refer to changes in the DNA sequence itself.
Transcriptional output deals with when and how DNA is READ and transcribed into mRNA, and how that mRNA is then translated into proteins and small RNAs.

So restructuring transcriptional output does NOT mean that organisms do not mutate into other species. Rather it means that a given organism can adapt to changing conditions, which I haven't seen anyone on any of these threads argue against.

You have made this mistake before, so it appears that you do not understand the difference between editing the product of a genetic sequence and editing the gene sequence itself.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2014
Indeed. He shows a fundamental inability to differentiate between alterations to the transcriptome and alterations to the genome.
Whydening Gyre
3.1 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2014
"Microorganisms can restructure their transcriptional output to adapt to environmental conditions by sensing endogenous metabolite pools."

That fact means microorganisms do not mutate into other microorganisms and that natural selection occurs for food, which metabolizes to species specific pheromones that control reproduction. It also means that, like all other organisms on the planet, microorganisms ecologically adapt to ecological variation via the conserved molecular mechanisms of species from microbes to man that enable the epigenetic landscape to become the physical landscape of DNA in organized genomes.

Quit being a semantic Nazi.. Adapt and mutate are essentially the same thing - just that "mutate" implies it skips a step here and there occasionally, which is not mathematically impossible. It's still adaptation.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2014
Adapt and mutate are essentially the same thing...


Except for the fact that no experimental evidence suggests it is biologically plausible for species diversity to arise from mutations and all experimental evidence shows that ecological variations result in ecological adaptations via conserved molecular mechanisms.

That means it's better to be a semantic Nazi in attempts to discuss biological facts because too many idiot minions and anonymous fools would rather skip a step here and there. Fortunately, others recognize their nonsense if those touting ridiculous theories try to exclude the steps that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2014
I learned today that this was posted to the senior author's site
Insulin signalling underlies both plasticity and divergence of a reproductive trait in Drosophila
http://www.oeb.ha...oeb.html
This is the kind of question not asked by idiot minions of biology teachers

@jvk
from your link
Cassandra G. Extavour
Associate Professor of Organismic & Evolutionary Biology

given your delusional claims about other studies, I think you may be taking a skewed tack on this one, as well as misinterpreting the studies and evidence
perhaps it would be better to query the author directly for clarification?
Glad you agree... I will add your quotes (especially about idiot minion biology professors/teachers who teach evolution)
perhaps the author can clarify the study in light of your attempt at autocratically redefining the results and make statements for the author that are not represented directly by her
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2014
That means it's better to be a semantic Nazi in attempts to discuss biological facts because too many idiot minions and anonymous fools would rather skip a step here and there

@jvk
the only problem with being a semantic nazi in YOUR case is:
given that you dont understand the lexicon used by YOUR OWN FIELD and you are arbitrarily re-defining the definitions to suit your current model, rather than proving the point, then your attempts at linguistic nazism are at best pathetic and laughable
you cannot comprehend that your own model causes mutations
I was just using your own personal words to establish that you are ignorant (or stupid) of the terminology used in biology as well as genetics (as also shown above in your inability to differentiate between alterations to the transcriptome and alterations to the genome)

nice try, Herr kohl, you failed AGAIN
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2014
perhaps the author can clarify the study in light of your attempt at autocratically redefining the results and make statements for the author that are not represented directly by her


Perhaps PZ Myers can clarify the study for his idiot minions if serious scientists who already have clarified their positions with detailed experimental evidence continue to be ignored or to ignore anonymous idiot minions like Staff Sergeant Stumply.

"Mutations in the D. melanogaster Insulin Receptor (InR) alter SGP cell number but not ovarian morphogenesis, while targeted loss of function of bric-a-brac 2 (bab2) affects morphogenesis without changing SGP cell number."

Green II, D.A., and Extavour, C.G. Convergent Evolution of a Reproductive Trait Through Distinct Developmental Mechanisms in Drosophila. Developmental Biology doi: 372(1): 120-130 (2012) http://www.oeb.ha...oeb.html
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2014
Let's compare two aspects of my model of conserved molecular mechanisms to the ridiculous theory.
1) all organisms must eat
2) individuals must reproduce

Both your model and the standard model that you claim to have never seen include those.
However neither eating nor reproducing requires changes to DNA sequences.
If every cell of every organism requires nutrients and the nutrients metabolize to species specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction, when does the role of mutations become important to species diversity?


By occasionally heritably altering the genetic sequence of the organisms, sometimes in a way that makes the organisms and their descendant better suited to their environment. Different descendents can accumulate different mutations - if they become genetically different enough, biologists call them different species.

Regardless of whether you disagree with this model, you surely must have seen it before.
RealScience
5 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2014
...
But they don't contribute to evolution -- no matter how you define 'mutation.'


I am using the standard definition of mutations: changes in DNA sequence.

So are you really claiming that changes in DNA sequences never contribute to evolution?
Regardless of the cause of the changes?

JVK
1 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2014
"The evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously noted that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," but perhaps, too, "nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of biology." Although the latter might be an exaggeration, an important gap is being filled by molecular understanding of the genesis of variation that confers the ability to evolve." http://www.scienc...88.short

Evolutionary biologists were expected to explain HOW whatever they thought conferred the ability to evolve actually allowed organisms to evolve. Their explanations were expected to include experimental evidence that supported their representations of cause and effect.

Instead, no explanations were offered of how organisms evolved because all experimental evidence continued to show that all organisms ecologically adapted. The fact that mutations do no confer the ability to evolve is a problem that has rarely been addressed, until recently.
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2014
I am using the standard definition of mutations: changes in DNA sequence.


You are not using the standard definition of mutations in an explanation of how "mutations" confer the ability to evolve. If you were, you could use the definition in model of mutation-driven evolution and support the model with experimental evidence. Instead, you imply that evidence from population genetics is experimental evidence that mutations confer the ability to evolve without attempting address HOW THAT ABILITY IS CONFERRED. Without experimental evidence of how the ability to evolved is conferred by mutations you have a ridiculous theory with no explanatory power because it has never been tested and substantiated by experimental evidence of cause and effect.

You exemplify the intelligence of idiot minions like SSGT Stumply and anonymous fools with neural networks like nematodes instead of a brain. Why do you call yourself "RealScience"? It's a joke, isn't it?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Mar 15, 2014
Perhaps PZ Myers can clarify the study for his idiot minions

@jvk
Thanks
you forgot to add
Thus, evolution can produce similar ovariole numbers through distinct developmental mechanisms, likely controlled by different genetic mechanisms.
&
Convergent morphologies can evolve independently in different lineages, often as a result of similar selective pressures or functional requirements. An outstanding question in evolutionary and developmental biology is whether similar traits evolve convergently through changes in the same or different developmental and genetic processes.

this study in no way refutes that mutation can be an evolutionary force
nor does it refute evolution is not every bit as complex as stated already
nor does it support your claims that the only way to evolve is through "nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitutions" which "rapidly enable ecological adaptations in species"

thus you intentionally misrepresent the study
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2014
Well, JVK...
SOMETHING caused splits in the "tree of life". IE- insects, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, microbes, et al....
You're absolutely certain it was "adaptation", albeit faster at some points, all the way up(or down, depending on if you're left handed or not...)? And something still causes them.
You are saying major single generation modifications just don't happen?
And one more thought - creatures that have developed the ability to regrow limbs - wasn't that an adaptation to "mutations"?
RealScience
5 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2014
You are not using the standard definition of mutations in an explanation of how "mutations" confer the ability to evolve. If you were, you could use the definition in model of mutation-driven evolution and support the model with experimental evidence.


You said that mutations don't contribute to evolution, no matter how I define 'mutation'.
I pointed out that I use the standard definition, which is that a mutation is a change in a DNA sequence, and asked if you were really claiming that changes in DNA sequences never contribute to evolution.

Note that I ASKED you, giving you a CHANCE to correct your statement, rather than simply demonstrating that your statement was wrong.

I'll ask you again:

Are you REALLY claiming that changes in DNA sequences never contribute to evolution?
Regardless of the cause of the changes?

JVK
1 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2014
Are you REALLY claiming that changes in DNA sequences never contribute to evolution?
Regardless of the cause of the changes?


SOMETHING caused splits in the "tree of life". IE- insects, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, microbes, et al....


I'm claiming that mutations did not cause splits in the "tree of life." I have supported my claims with experimental evidence in species from microbes to man that ecological variation causes ecological adaptations via conserved molecular mechanisms that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in all organized genomes. Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled species diversity is the manifestation of the conserved molecular mechanisms.

What we continue to see here is that idiot minions will deny the most obvious of all biological facts because they have been taught to believe in a ridiculous theory that puts constraint breaking mutations in the place of food and removes biophysical constraints on adaptations.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2014
@jvk
I have supported my claims

actually, you have linked articles which you PERCIEVE to support your position, but which actually support the current model of evolution
What we continue to see here is that idiot minions will deny the most obvious of all biological facts because they have been taught to believe in a ridiculous theory that puts constraint breaking mutations in the place of food and removes biophysical constraints on adaptations

remind me to pass this on to the NIH organization whose staff pretty much concurred with my assessment that 1: you have issues with comprehension & 2: most of your arguments against mutation is actually against singe mutation speciation & 3: think that you are pushing an agenda which is not supported by facts & 4: & even they were confused by your comments which were copied verbatim from here with links

oh, yeah... I forget. you said anyone with an education is an idiot, especially professors and the National institute of Health
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
constraint breaking mutations


biophysical constraints on adaptations


What constraints do mutations supposedly break? You have yet to expand on this and it's not covered in your 2013 paper.

JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2014
constraint breaking mutations


biophysical constraints on adaptations


What constraints do mutations supposedly break? You have yet to expand on this and it's not covered in your 2013 paper.



You seem to be horribly confused.... like most people who believe in ridiculous theories.

"constraint breaking mutations" are Nei's answer to how mutation-driven evolution occurs.

My model details the obvious fact that biophysical constraints prevent mutation-driven evolution.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2014
remind me to pass this on to the NIH organization whose staff pretty much concurred with my assessment that 1: you have issues with comprehension & 2: most of your arguments against mutation is actually against singe mutation speciation & 3: think that you are pushing an agenda which is not supported by facts & 4: & even they were confused by your comments which were copied verbatim from here with links


I find it difficult to believe that anyone at NIH would communicate with the anonymous Staff Sergeant Stumply about my published works. It seems more likely that you are simply making this up as you go. Other researchers have had plenty of opportunities to comment on my posts to Science Magazine, for example.

http://www.scienc...88.short

oh, yeah... I forget. you said anyone with an education is an idiot, especially professors and the National institute of Health


I don't remember saying anything like that! Be sure to take your medications.
RealScience
5 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
... giving you a CHANCE to correct your statement

Are you REALLY claiming that changes in DNA sequences never contribute to evolution?
Regardless of the cause of the changes?

...
I'm claiming that mutations did not cause splits in the "tree of life."

This appears to be a correction to your earlier statement, and that you are thus implicitly acknowledging that DNA sequence changes might sometimes contribute to evolution. Please let me know if this is NOT what you meant.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
Please let me know if this is NOT what you meant.


In the extant literature, only ideas associated with population genetics suggest that mutations somehow cause species diversity or that organisms evolve. For comparison, detailed explanations of how species diversity arises include information about the conserved molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent epigenetically-effected alternative splicings of pre-mRNA. Experimental evidence that links ecological variation to cause and effect confirms the fact that organisms from microbes to man ecologically adapt.

Ecological variation and ecological adaptations are biophysically constrained. A forthcoming review addresses the need for an acceptable model of how ecological variations cause ecological adaptations, which are obviously manifested in species diversity, and why an acceptable model of species diversification must include an atoms to ecosystems approach, which has been ignored by biology teachers and their idiot minions.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
...you are thus implicitly acknowledging that DNA sequence changes might sometimes contribute to evolution.


Is there a model for that? If not, why would anyone implicitly acknowledge any such thing? If you believe that DNA sequence changes might sometimes contribute to evolution, please tell us WHAT you think causes the DNA sequence changes and HOW they result in species diversity associated with the theory of evolution. Attempts to attribute to me such nonsense, which is based on pseudoscience, invite comments from others who are as confused as you are about biologically based cause and effect.

If, for example, the DNA sequence changes that result in species diversity are not nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, there would be no biophysical constraints on species diversity. This report -- on changes in the appearance of Europeans -- attests to the fact that the changes are biophysically constrained, which is what I have detailed in my published works.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
My model details the obvious fact that biophysical constraints prevent mutation-driven evolution

@jvk
given that, by your own admission, your model also creates mutations, then I find it hard to believe that your model details what you are claiming above
I find it difficult to believe that anyone at NIH would communicate with the anonymous Staff Sergeant Stumply about my published works. It seems more likely that you are simply making this up as you go

did I say your "published works"? No, you idiot. Learn to read
I copied/pasted your quotes from your arguments here at phys.org, and you KNOW it because I already posted this to you in other threads. Start here
http://phys.org/n...lts.html

there are plenty more to support my claim...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
I don't remember saying anything like that

@jvk
you inferred it many times
see
How do mutations contribute anything to species diversity in E. coli (for example) or in Europeans over the past 5,000 years?

Lenski inferred to be an idiot
tout the same nonsense from population genetics that was inseminated into Darwin's theory to produce the bastard child of neo-Darwinism, which tends to be missing two conditions of life

now geneticists are
This is the kind of question not asked by idiot minions of biology teachers, like PZ Myers, who teach others to believe in mutation-driven evolution

& now any college professor that teaches evolution is an idiot...
shall I continue?
These are a few of the "actual quotes" from THIS THREAD ALONE... there are far more in other threads
but thats ok, I will make sure I copy them verbatim, as well as provide links for verification
I wouldn't want them to miss anything
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
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

@jvk
above and below are more comments of you saying that professors who teach evolution are idiots...
You are nothing but a fool who believes in the foolishness of academics who don't even try to address the biological facts...

how about
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

shall I continue?
Proving you wrong is always quite entertaining
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2014
you inferred it many times


Thanks. This implies that you do not know the difference between an inference and an implication. I have implied that biology teachers should teach students about biological facts instead of ridiculous theories.

You infer that I have implied that Lenski and any college professor who teaches evolution is an idiot. I have defined the term idiot in the context of those who act in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way, such as those who refuse to learn anything new. For example, you and PZ Myers are idiots. That is not just an implication; the fact is obvious.

Lenski, and many others, like Sean B. Carroll, for example, are learning to not use the word "mutation" when they report results of ecological adaptations. But until biology teachers begin to teach their idiot minions the difference between a ridiculous theory and biological facts, we will have people like you whose comments serve only to add confusion to any discussion.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2014
did I say your "published works"? No, you idiot. Learn to read


Why would anyone from NIH comment on opinions I express here, which are based on my published works, without reading the published works? By doing that, they would clearly signal to others that they were nothing more than idiot minions who were taught to believe in nonsense that has been refuted by experimental evidence.

Researchers discuss facts, not opinions, which is why Tom Insel has just delivered a crucial blow to anyone who remains unwilling to incorporate what is neuroscientifically known about biologically based cause and effect into their grant proposals. Simply put, any remaining idiot minions will no longer receive funding from NIMH. Insel is politely telling them they are idiots who should not ever have been funded in the first place. You imply that others at NIH disagree with Insel, but no evidence suggests that.
http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
This implies that you do not know the difference between an inference and an implication

@jvk
did you not read what I wrote? Of course not. You directly state that Myers is an idiot more than once, but infers that others that believe in evolution are idiots. This is just as liable as a direct statement. You also state
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

which IS a direct implication
LEARN TO COMPREHEND
this seems to be a serious problem with you, jvk... COMPREHENSION
perhaps you should use your mensa membership and get hooked up with a reading/comprehension instructor. Special needs can get assistance with tutoring, you know...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
Why would anyone from NIH comment on opinions I express here

when you make CLAIMS based upon your personal delusion, and express them publicly, then the public can take said claims and ask for clarification from the original authors, which, given that you referenced certain NIH studies and made statements, I chose to allow NIH and the authors to directly respond to the allegations/statements
I do this with all crackpots making grandiose unverifiable claims and especially those who cannot COMPREHEND studies and their implications
Researchers discuss facts, not opinions,

correct. The provided me with FACTS, not opinions
which I passed on to YOU already

if you want to pick a fight, perhaps you should start reviewing our arguments and pick on all the authors/studies that you have misunderstood... go tell Lenski that he is wrong!
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2014
Thanks. I apologize for not making this fact perfectly clear.

Anyone willing to believe in the simple-minded thoughts of those who teach them about ridiculous theories is an idiot because they refuse to learn about biological facts -- or to even question biology teachers like PZ Myers. However, it is sometimes necessary to distinguish between an idiot, like Myers, and his idiot minions -- like you.

I've tried to exemplify the antithesis of an idiot minion, which is what Tom Insel has done -- albeit with far greater success. His success can now be compared to the success PZ Myers has had teaching his idiot minions to believe in nonsense, which will now stall the career of anyone who needs funding to continue.

Perhaps even more than the NIH director, Francis Collins, who is a Creationist, Insel is helping to facilitate the in-progress paradigm shift, which will eliminate any theories about neuroscientifically established cause and effect from any further consideration whatsoever.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2014
Lenski, and many others...are learning to not use the word "mutation" when they report results...

@jvk
the authors ALSO UNDERSTAND that the word has SPECIFIC MEANING within the field of expertise which they are conversant
as for Lenski
Lenski said. "I would argue that citrate users are—or are becoming—a new species."
&
the random mutations that initiate genetic change and the natural selection that shapes which mutations survive. Those forces, Lenski said, provide evolutionary pressure in different directions

but you counter with
Lenski may be in another class. Perhaps he lets people misrepresent the results of his experiments, which helps to ensure additional funding. I'm not sure what he has claimed, but doubt that he has claimed that the E. coli became two different species via mutation-driven evolution

http://phys.org/n...lts.html
Random genetic mutation pushes organisms to diversify, while natural selection is a homogenizing force, favoring characteristics that enhance survival under specific conditions
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
@jvk
you've made it VERY clear
Anyone willing to believe in the simple-minded thoughts of those who teach them about ridiculous theories is an idiot because they refuse to learn about biological facts -- or to even question biology teachers like PZ Myers. However, it is sometimes necessary to distinguish between an idiot, like Myers, and his idiot minions -- like you

and again, this is a direct statement saying that any teacher/professor who teaches evolution in its current form is... what?
If WE are IDIOTS for believing the teachers, then what are the teachers?
YOU are digging yourself into a hole due to your inability to COMPREHEND
which will now stall the career of anyone who needs funding to continue

conjecture not based upon facts

I'm just going to let you keep digging because all the public posts here prove that you have comprehension issues and are trying to push an agenda which is not supported by facts
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2014
go tell Lenski that he is wrong!


I'm not going to hold him accountable for what his implications have led others to infer -- unless Lenski has claimed that his experiments provide evidence of mutation-driven evolution.

For comparison, Sean B. Carroll can be held accountable for misrepresentations of what occurs in butterflies (as if it was due to mutations that cause speciation)
http://dx.doi.org...ure13066

There is excuse for implying that the molecular mechanisms of species diversity are not conserved across different species of insects.

That is like someone inferring that different species of bacteria mutate into existence based only on misinterpretations of the implications of others' research. Simply put, it's something that only an idiot minion would do.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2014
Inference:

Random genetic mutation pushes organisms to diversify, while natural selection is a homogenizing force, favoring characteristics that enhance survival under specific conditions.

http://phys.org/n...lts.html

The inference comes from the journalist. It is based on what Lenski's work implies. If Lenski were quoted, his misrepresentations of cause and effect could be challenged, which would cause him distress when he was unable to provide any evidence of biologically based cause and effect.

He would be exposed as a population geneticists who knows too little about the biology of cause and effect to be called an evolutionary biologist.

I do not think he's an idiot. I think he knows how to best help ensure continued funding by making it appear that he is studying what everyone thinks is mutation-driven evolution, while studying what he knows are ecological adaptations.



Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
I'm not going to hold him accountable for what his implications have led others to infer

@jvk
but you claim that Lenski is not providing proof that mutations can exist and cause evolution, and therefore any statement by Lenski promoting mutations is incorrect (per your statement)
By your own words
Lenski, and many others, like Sean B. Carroll, for example, are learning to not use the word "mutation"

we should not see ANY reference to Mutation by Lenski in regard to his experiments
So by going to his actual site: http://myxo.css.m...dat.html
we should NEVER see the word mutation in relation to his work, correct?
But I find
Genomic analysis of point-mutational polymorphisms in whole-population samples
&
Two sites showed selective enrichment of spontaneous mutations
on his study http://www.scienc...09011383
so I now have a choice to believe Lenski or jvk...
NOT a hard choice, jimmy
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
If WE are IDIOTS for believing the teachers, then what are the teachers?


People like you are IDIOT MINIONS who believe their teachers who are IDIOTS if they have not learned that ecological variations and ecological adaptations are responsible for species diversity.

You demonstrate the inability to understand the difference between an implication and an inference; the difference between an ecological adaptation and the result of a mutation; and the difference between someone of normal intelligence and an anonymous Staff Sergeant who likes to call himself Captain Stumpy.

I wish I could help you, but you simply must start taking your medications again before anyone can help. Again, however, thanks for serving your country and regrets for the brain damage you suffered in the blast.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
You demonstrate the inability to understand the difference between an implication and an inference

Implication - 1. the act of implicating or the state of being implicated: b: close connection; especially: an incriminating involvement 2. something that is implied; suggestion
inference - In logic, the deriving of one idea from another. Inference can proceed through either induction or deduction
3. Logic. a.the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises.
b.the process of arriving at some conclusion that, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises.
I think he knows how to best help ensure continued funding by making it appear that he is studying what everyone thinks is mutation-driven evolution, while studying what he knows are ecological adaptations

why not directly pose the question to him and let him answer for himself?
i'll quote you from all your threads
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
Thanks again.

can be interpreted in light of known laboratory manipulations


http://www.scienc...09011383

Those interpretations are based on population genetics, not nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations. The difference is that ecological adaptations are biologically plausible compared to mutation-driven evolution, which is not.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
why not directly pose the question to him and let him answer for himself?


If you supply a quote from him that clearly states he has continued to attribute the biologically-based cause and effect of species diversity to mutation-driven evolution, I will ask him if that is what he believes to be an accurate representation of results from his experiments.

"Here, we used digital organisms..." http://www.pnas.o...abstract

"We also derive this power-law relation theoretically..." http://www.scienc...abstract

See also my comment at: http://www.the-sc...E--coli/

Lenski is simply doing what he was taught to do so that he can get funding, which is to use theory and interpret results in the context of theory to avoid the need to provide experimental evidence of biological facts that can be replicated in experiments on other species.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
Note: There were no responses to what I said in this post:

http://www.the-sc...ost96884

"Germain said it best, so far as I'm concerned in Open questions: A rose is a rose is a rose - or not? "...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."

Some people claim Lenski's experiments are evidence of mutation-driven evolution. I think they exemplify how the conserved molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations enable species diversity in species from microbes to man."

I attribute the lack of responses to the acknowledgement of what Germain wrote and the fact that only idiot minions believe Lenski has shown mutation-driven evolution.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
If you supply a quote from him that clearly states he has continued to attribute the biologically-based cause and effect of species diversity to mutation-driven evolution, I will ask him if that is what he believes to be an accurate representation of results from his experiments

@jvk
ok. I will use verbatim quotes from all links I found that referenced Lenski in all threads, especially where posters use him as a reference
as well as your statements about people who support evolution with proof of mutations, etc, as they are every bit as valid and directed at him as any other professor who teaches evolution with the current theory
and your conjecture about his motivations below
Lenski is simply doing what he was taught to do so that he can get funding, which is to use theory and interpret results in the context of theory to avoid the need to provide experimental evidence of biological facts that can be replicated in experiments on other species
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
I wrote:
If you supply a quote from him...


The idiot minion wrote:
ok. I will use verbatim quotes from all links I found that referenced Lenski...


The idiot minion is obviously going to continue pretending that Lenski has stated what others simple-mindedly infer and attribute to Lenski's experiments.

There is no excuse for basing missattributions of biological facts on a ridiculous theory. And yet, that is all any idiot minion can do.

I repeat: "We need to tell the roses from the daffodils, but also be careful not to call two roses a rose and a lily."

Idiot minions want one to call one species of E. coli a rose and tell others that another species of E. coli is a mutant lily -- just as they would like to call one species of human a human and another species a mutant ape.

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
http://www.socioa...53/27989
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2014
The idiot minion wrote:

@jvk
and AGAIN you have problems with comprehension! WOW
and you claim mensa membership? really?
I said I would quote you and I will.
read it again... when I refer YOUR REMARKS to Lenski and request clarification based upon your comments, I will use your own words VERBATIM.
are you really so stupid that you cannot understand that?
the above is NOT about referencing Lenski back to YOU... I am hoping that Lenski would prefer to directly address you (as I dont think you can comprehend basic English as proven above), but I will also accept a reply and then I promise to post his words verbatim as well... that clear enough for you?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
I added a comment: http://www.the-sc...E--coli/

Re: "... [the researchers] can freeze the samples at any time and revive them so they can compete the evolved strain with the ancestors," says Kawecki, who studies evolution in Drosophila."
-----------------------------------
Other Drosophila researchers showed that species diversity is nutrient-dependent. Insulin signalling underlies both plasticity and divergence of a reproductive trait in Drosophila

If species diversity is also pheromone-controlled in Drosophila, biological facts suggest ecological variation results in ecological adaptations in species from microbes, like E. coli, to man. That suggests researchers should quit referring to ecological adaptations in terms of mutation-driven evolution.

Experimental evidence continues to suggest that the only biologically plausible explanation of species diversity was published as: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled...
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
I said I would quote you and I will.


The idiot minion wrote:

ok. I will use verbatim quotes from all links I found that referenced Lenski in all threads, especially where posters use him as a reference


Of course I thought that meant we would be discussing what Lenski actually said, instead of what others think he said.

JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
Sorry, the comment I added is at:

http://www.the-sc...ost97625
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
...you are thus implicitly acknowledging that DNA sequence changes might sometimes contribute to evolution.

Is there a model for that? If not, why would anyone implicitly acknowledge any such thing?

Of course there is a model for that – as has already been pointed out your own citation, Chelo, was a validation of Haldane's model for DNA changes contributing to evolution. Do you deny this or are you merely ignoring it?
... Attempts to attribute to me such nonsense

I didn't attempt to attribute it to you – I ASKED if that was what you meant, since otherwise your response did not answer the question that I had asked earlier.

So you now claim that DNA sequence changes contributing to evolution IS NONSENSE, regardless of the cause of the changes?
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
I wrote:
I'm claiming that mutations did not cause splits in the "tree of life."


RealScience continues to misrepresent what I have stated by taking it out of context, so that it appears to make no more sense than mutation-driven evolution. Only by bastardizing nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations can an idiot continue to tout ridiculous theories, and that's the only thing of important to an idiot. As long as idiots can continue to tout their nonsense, their world is safe from biological facts.

Organisms can somehow mutate into other species that may or may not look different but always have subtle species-specific differences in the pheromones that control the physiology of their reproduction. But by eliminating nutrient uptake and substituting mutations, idiots can eliminate everything known about how the epigenetic landscape becomes the physical landscape of DNA, and attribute the differences to mutations. And that's what idiots do best!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
Of course I thought that meant we would be discussing what Lenski actually said, instead of what others think he said.

@jvk
you really should address your comprehension issues

when I get a reply, I will post his words verbatim as well, unless otherwise specified
like I said I would do. When in doubt, I go to the source and get clarification, especially when there are people who are making claims that seems to be in direct contradiction of the study

Just as I will post the reply from Dr. Cassandra Extavour (regarding your claims), but she has stated that she may not be able to address it before the 30th, as she will be out of town till then

I also noticed that you completely FAIL to address RealScience continued probing and request for clarification of your comments, almost as if you cannot keep up with the conversation.

nice to see you still haven't learned a thing (which apparently includes English)
see you tomorrow
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
Good luck with getting your replies, Stumpy. I've made similar correspondence with authors of papers that Kohl blatantly misrepresents.

Hey James, remember that time I contacted Chelo and confirmed that his paper was not at all evidence that mutations are never fixed like you claimed?
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
I wrote:
I'm claiming that mutations did not cause splits in the "tree of life."

RealScience continues to misrepresent what I have stated by taking it out of context

Bull. Here is a direct quote from you:
Are you REALLY claiming that changes in DNA sequences never contribute to evolution?
Regardless of the cause of the changes?


SOMETHING caused splits in the "tree of life". IE- insects, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, microbes, et al....


I'm claiming that mutations did not cause splits in the "tree of life."

You QUOTED my question before your comment, so your comment on splits in the tree of life is IN THE CONTEXT of that question and I have NOT taken your statement out of context. Nor did I misrepresent it – in contrast, when your statements were not clear I ASKED YOU whether you meant what you appeared to mean.

So give a straightforward answer: Do you or do you not claim that changes in DNA sequence never contribute to evolution?
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
I wrote: "Ecological variation and ecological adaptations are biophysically constrained. A forthcoming review addresses the need for an acceptable model of how ecological variations cause ecological adaptations, which are obviously manifested in species diversity, and why an acceptable model of species diversification must include an atoms to ecosystems approach, which has been ignored by biology teachers and their idiot minions."

Consciousness in the universe: A review of the 'Orch OR' theory
http://www.scienc...13001188

Now that others have moved forward into aspects of biophysically-constrained consciousness, I must leave the idiot minions behind. There is too much progress being made to consider opinions that have no basis in ecologically validated biological facts.

In my model, biophysically-constrained ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction lead to consciousness. Mutations do not! It's as simple as that.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
I forgot to note that: "Earlier theoretical models have revealed complex intracellular phenomena where molecular structures are directly involved in information processing (Barlow, 1996; Hameroff et al., 2002; Hameroff et al., 2010; Pidaparti et al., 2007; Woolf et al., 2009; Craddock et al., 2010). All of them have suggested the existence of sub-cellular platforms for information processing which preferentially regulate protein signaling pathways required to store fragments of information at the level of individual proteins." --Aur, D (unpublished)

None of the earlier theoretical models have taken a mutation-driven approach to consciousness so far as I know. That's probably because only an idiot minion would think that mutation-perturbed protein signaling pathways might somehow result in the increasing organismal complexity that led to consciousness.
RealScience
5 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2014
I must leave the idiot minions behind
I hope that you mean that you are quitting your repetitious spamming this comments board with pseudo-science that has already been shown to be wrong (and that even your own citations contradict). But if you return to these comments with theories that require you to disregard evidence and misinterpret papers you cite, 'idiot minions' will be here to show where you are wrong. And there are questions waiting for you that you have failed to answer, too.

Take some advice - you should scrap those parts of your theory that cause you to willfully ignoring evidence and to misrepresent the works of other, and you should look at what nature actually does instead of trying to impose your theory upon nature.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
http://news.rice....achines/

"Co-evolved mutations in genetic sequences that code proteins show researchers how a protein is likely to fold and what forms it may take as it carries out its function."

Reports like this one will continue to prevent idiot minions from understanding the fact that mutation-perturbed protein folding does not result in species diversity.

However, anyone who cannot recognize the obvious fact that species diversity is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled is probably no longer able to be educated.

That is what we have seen here. The idiot minions think they can teach me what they were taught to believe in, which is pseudoscientific nonsense.
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2014
Yes, we're undergoing progressive 'graciation' as we make life ever easier for ourselves - for example our bones are getting slenderer, probably due to our lighter physical workloads.
...or there's some kind of selection pressure on lankiness

I have an additional problem with your use of the word 'graciation'. I understood what you intended it to mean.But something was nagging at me, so I decided to look it up online in order to find out just how the dictionary defines it.Guess what. I could not find a single English dictionary that could define it in accordance with the above usage. In other words, it would appear that it has NO E. definition.It is however, in French&is defined as 'the practice of releasing caught fish alive'(catch&release policy):
http://fr.wiktion...aciation
http://www.lingue...ion.html
The only other use appears to be in blogs,or as a mis-substitution for 'ingraciate'.Where did your def. come from?
RegardsDH66
RealScience
5 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2014
"Co-evolved mutations in genetic sequences that code proteins show researchers how a protein is likely to fold and what forms it may take as it carries out its function."


Reports like this one will continue to show that even articles the YOU cite support that:
1) amino-acid substitutions are mutations as the term is used in this field
2) the folding of proteins resulting from such mutations does not violate any biophysical
3) such mutations contribute to evolution

Anyone who cannot recognize that is probably no longer able to be educated.
You are the one trying to preach pseudoscientific nonsense.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2014

Take some advice - you should scrap those parts of your theory that cause you to willfully ignoring evidence and to misrepresent the works of other, and you should look at what nature actually does instead of trying to impose your theory upon nature.
But then he would have to admit that God's hand is not guiding evolution, and that would force him to re-evaluate his belief in God and the bible, and that would force him to actually consider the science supporting evolution, and that would force him to actually learn about that science!

Too much work! Easier to just ignore what doesn't fit and pretend it's all answered by "Natural selection of nutrients" leading "to the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in every other species on this planet" and just repeat that over and over! After all, if you repeat it enough times, it becomes true, right?
Surly
5 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2014
JV, you just said:
Reports like this one will continue to prevent idiot minions from understanding the fact that mutation-perturbed protein folding does not result in species diversity.

But earlier, you said:
Random genetic mutation pushes organisms to diversify, while natural selection is a homogenizing force


You argue that mutations can't explain evolution because they create diversity. Then you argue that mutations can't explain evolution because they don't create diversity.

Which is it?
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2014
Which is it?


Thanks for asking.

I have detailed a model of cause and effect, only to have people like "Surly" claim that I said:

"Random genetic mutation pushes organisms to diversify, while natural selection is a homogenizing force, favoring characteristics that enhance survival under specific conditions."

http://phys.org/n...lts.html

That statement was attributed to Lenski, which explains why the idiot minions here cannot comprehend what is known about biologically-based cause and effect. But then, the idiot minions confuse people like "Surly," which may cause such people to join the ranks of idiot minions rather than learn.

http://www.socioa...53/27989
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
(viewed 329 times so far this month, but probably not even once by an idiot minion).
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2014
Selective Methylation of Histone H3 Variant H3.1 Regulates Heterochromatin Replication
http://www.scienc...abstract

"...amino acid substitutions... drastically reduced methylation on nucleosomes... suggesting that residues... are important for conferring specificity and high affinity binding...[which ensures protein folding that is not perturbed by mutations]"

"...this study demonstrates how histone variants can determine [nutrient-dependent] epigenetic states through direct modulation of chromatin-modifying enzyme activity."

Despite this experimental evidence of nutrient-dependent cause and effect via amino acid substitutions, idiot minions would like you to believe in mutation-driven evolution, which is not biologically plausible. The experimental evidence that amino acid substitutions differentiate cell types in all species is not sufficient for evolutionary theorists, which is why I hope that everyone will begin to refer to them as idiot minions.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2014
But then he would have to admit that God's hand is not guiding evolution, and that would force him to re-evaluate his belief in God and the bible...


Thanks. I get that a lot from idiot minions who cannot supply any experimental evidence that supports their ridiculous ideas about biologically based cause and effect. They want to make all issues depend on my beliefs because their beliefs have never been based on anything.

Easier to just ignore what doesn't fit and pretend it's all answered by "Natural selection of nutrients" leading "to the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in every other species on this planet" and just repeat that over and over!


Darwin's 'conditions of life' are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. What does not fit into the theories held by you and other idiot minions? Is there a reason that only a few idiot minions contribute to discussions here after nearly 1000 views (in 2 months) of my most recent published work?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2014
http://www.scienc...abstract

@jvk
first of all, you ADDED
[nutrient-dependent]
to the line giving your own slant on the article when it is NOT present
second: this article does NOT prove that mutation and natural selection dont exist
this study demonstrates how histone variants can determine epigenetic states through direct modulation of chromatin-modifying enzyme activity. Further, the ability of ATXR5/6 to discriminate between the variants H3.3 and H3.1 provides a mechanism for the mitotic inheritance and genome-wide distribution of H3K27me1 in plants. According to this model, ATXR5/6 are recruited to the replication fork during S phase through their interaction with PROLIFERATING CELL NUCLEAR ANTIGEN (PCNA) (2), where they specifically monomethylate K27 at newly incorporated, CAF-1–dependent H3.1 to rapidly restore this epigenetic mark (Fig. 4D) and prevent overreplication. This model does not rule out the possibility that some H3.1 might escape DNA replication
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2014
continued...
from the editors summary
The covalent marks on histones (the principal components of chromatin) play a critical role in the regulation of gene expression. Somehow these marks are preserved when a cell in a tissue divides so that the daughter cells maintain the gene expression program and tissue identity of the parent cell. Jacob et al. (p. 1249) show that the Arabidopsis histone methylase ATXR5 is specific for the replication-dependent histone variant H3.1 and maintains the repressive histone H3 lysine-27 methyl mark on the H3.1 variant during genome replication, thus, preserving cell-type–specific regions of heterochromatin and gene repression through cell division and beyond.

this does NOT prove that mutation doesn't exist, nor does it prove that mutations are not selected for in evolution

sorry jimmy
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2014
this does NOT prove that mutation doesn't exist, nor does it prove that mutations are not selected for in evolution


Of course it doesn't prove what doesn't happen. Nothing proves what doesn't happen! It is merely experimental evidence that supports a model of what DOES happen in species from microbes to man via conserved molecular mechanisms that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in organized genomes.

However, it seems unlikely to me that mutations could organize the genome of even one individual in one species. That's why mutations are consistently linked to diseases and to mental disorders that -- unlike yours -- may not be explosion-induced.

What we need here is experimental evidence that suggests how mutations organize genomes via some process of selection. Is there a model for that? Perhaps not, since it is not biologically plausible. But let me know if you think there is experimental evidence that links mutations to evolution.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2014
However, it seems unlikely to me that mutations could organize the genome of even one individual in one species

@jvk
and so because it seems unlikely to YOU it must be wrong?
this is the basis of your fallacious claims?
this is why you claim that mutations are never selected for in evolution? really? thats it?

well, hold the presses! jvk THINKS it is UNLIKELY!
first off: your MODEL also CREATES MUTATIONS which are then selected for, so your own model, by your own admission in other threads, is proof that you are ignoring relevant data for the sake of a biased perspective.
you are not the only one with an AAAS membership, either, AND you have YET to provide PROOF of your CLAIM THAT MUTATIONS ARE NEVER SELECTED FOR BY EVOLUTION

I think the only reason you haven't been BANNED form here is that your gobbledy goop is so confusing that even the professionals cant figure out what you are trying to say
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2014
and so because it seems unlikely to YOU it must be wrong?


Of course not. It must be wrong unless experimental evidence suggests it is biologically plausible, which would mean the link from mutations to evolution could also be ecologically validated.

I think the reason I have not been banned from here is because I am the only participant who has published a series of works that detail a model of how ecological variations become ecological adaptations. The fact that the detailed model also refutes the ridiculous beliefs associated with mutations and evolution may or may not add value to my model, but its explanatory power has not been challenged -- and of course there will always be the awards I've won for publishing that attest to the validity of my claims.

Meanwhile, claims that my MODEL also CREATES MUTATIONS are among the most ridiculous I have ever encountered even when attempting to discuss experimental evidence with idiot minions like you: SSgt Stumply.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2014
http://www.nature...962.html

'The idea that splicing factors may regulate one another to generate complex patterns of splicing is consistent with recent computational models45."

Even if the computational models did not attest to the fact that ecological variation results in the complex patterns of alternative splicing that are linked across-species to increasing organismal complexity, the clear pattern of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptations via ecological, social, neurogenic and socio-cognitive niche construction would still link food odors and pheromones to species diversity in flies and every other species on the planet that did not mutate into existence due to natural selection for something.

The question arises: What kind of idiot believes in mutation-driven evolution? But that, of course, is a rhetorical question -- since every idiot knows what kind of idiot believes in such nonsense.
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2014
I get that a lot from idiot minions who cannot supply any experimental evidence that supports their ridiculous ideas about biologically based cause and effect.

Great - experimental evidence supporting mutations contribution to evolution have been cited to you numerous time, including Lenski, and including your own citation of Chelo (who was shown to be supporting the role of mutation and Haldane's model).

In contrast YOU have failed to present any experimental evidence (or any other evidence, for that matter) to support your belief that mutations are never selected for. You have even ADMITTED that you have no experimental evidence to support your belief.

So if a lack of experimental evidence to support a belief is your criterion for being an idiot minion, then YOU are the idiot minion, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.

RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2014
It must be wrong unless experimental evidence suggests it is biologically plausible, which would mean the link from mutations to evolution could also be ecologically validated.

Bull.
First, hereditary information was stored in DNA for billions of years before any experimental evidence suggested that it was biologically plausible, so experimental evidence of plausibility is NOT a requirement for something to exist.

Second, mutations being selected for trumps any theory that says that is implausible, and Lenski and Chelo both show experimental evidence that mutations are selected for.

Third, as has been pointed out in other threads, the variety and distribution of sickle-cell alleles in malarial areas is ecological validation of a link from mutations to evolution.

Three strikes and you are out.
...the reason I have not been banned from here is because

Because people are having a good time laughing at you repeatedly getting your butt kicked by 'idiot minions'?
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2014
experimental evidence of plausibility is NOT a requirement for something to exist.


Nothing exists just because you think it does -- even if you think it exists in your world.

You continue to mistake misrepresentations from population genetics for evidence of selected mutations. Please get yourself tested to see which of the mutations (mentioned in the article below) are associated with your intellectual disability, and tell us more about how you have benefited from them.

Mutations in USP9X Are Associated with X-Linked Intellectual Disability and Disrupt Neuronal Cell Migration and Growth
http://www.scienc...14000627

"Our study indicates potential pathological mechanisms including perturbed neuronal cytoskeletal dynamics, resulting in defective migration and axonal growth, that may underlie ID associated with USP9X mutations."

ID is almost always associated with IMs (idiot minions)
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2014
An experimental test on the probability of extinction of new genetic variants
http://www.nature...417.html

"...classical theory in population genetics is confirmed, but natural selection might not be of invariable magnitude and sign. Our findings thus set the stage for the development of more general theoretical models explaining the fate of new alleles across long evolutionary timescales..."

Confirming classical THEORY in population genetics confirms that there is no experimental evidence, which means everything is reported in terms of pseudoscientific nonsense. They confirmed that fact by showing that mutations were not fixed in the organized genome of the nematode I used to exemplify nutrient dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations in my published work.

Nutrient-dependent epialleles are fixed in the genome by pheromone-controlled reproduction if the allele helps to stabilize the genome. Mutations perturb stability.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2014
It must be wrong unless experimental evidence suggests it is biologically plausible

@jvk
then why do you ignore the Lenski results? they are experimental evidence
claims that my MODEL also CREATES MUTATIONS are among the most ridiculous I have ever encountered
well WHY did you make the claim then, little jimmy?
When I asked you that specific question (about does your model cause...) I used the definition of mutation that is part of the biologist/geneticist lexicon, taken from their sites as linked to you later for proof, and (before you were made aware of the fact that I just used the definition of mutation) you agreed that your model did as described, which is a direct statement that your model causes mutations!!
And I can prove it with your own words, jimmy, so you can call me idiot all you want, all you are doing is proving to everyone that you cannot understand the lexicon (as I established already)
they were YOUR words, jimmy
are you now saying you LIED then?
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2014
Nothing exists just because you think it does --
Exactly - your putative biophysical constraints against mutations do not exist just because you think they do.

And something doesn't stop happening just because you think that it never happens, either - natural selection sometimes selects FOR mutations regardless of what you think.

In contrast to your wishful thinking, EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE has been presented numerous times that mutations are sometimes selected FOR.

You continue to mistake misrepresentations from population genetics for evidence of selected mutations


A claim that something NEVER happens only needs a single counter-example to prove it wrong.
In Lenski's case the bacteria had their DNA sequenced, so we KNOW that there were DNA sequence changes. And that some of these are selected FOR has been experimentally confirmed by pitting descendents against ancestor populations.

Experimental evidence thus shows that your 'model' includes a FAILED HYPOTHESIS.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2014
your putative biophysical constraints against mutations do not exist just because you think they do.


If biophysical constraints did not prevent mutations, which you believe are somehow involved in evolution, Nei would not need to claim that constraint-breaking mutations cause mutation-driven evolution.

Biophysical constraints exist that prevent mutations from enabling evolution because mutations perturb protein folding. That's why Masatoshi Nei now claims that constraint-breaking mutations cause mutation-driven evolution in his book "Mutation-Driven Evolution" which was published on the same day as my review: http://www.socioa...53/27989

The fact that you continue to claim Lenski's experiments show anything at all about biologically-based cause and effect is evidence that you will never be anything more than an idiot minion of the teacher who taught you to believe in pseudoscientific nonsense.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2014
Is anyone willing to discuss the difference between Nei's claims about constraint-breaking mutations and my claim that biophysical constraints link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man via the conserved molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction?

Claims that Lenski's experiments provide evidence that mutations somehow cause evolution are like claims that chaos automagically results in increasing organismal complexity and consciousness at a time when biophysical constraints on the ecological adaptations that led to our consciousness are being detailed at the level of quantum physics.

http://www.scienc...13001188

The idiot minions seem to have been left so far behind the current evidence of biophysically constrained cause and effect, that they will never catch up. Their simple-minded teachers have taught them to also be simple-minded.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2014
Re: Study demonstrates evolutionary 'fitness' not the most important determinant of success

http://phys.org/n...ess.html
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2014
JVK.
Lighten up, Francis... You need to understand that (most) other people use the standard definition, not your interpreted one...
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2014
Is anyone willing to discuss the difference between Nei's claims about constraint-breaking mutations and my claim that biophysical constraints...


You have admitted that there is no experimental evidence that mutations are never selected for, and you keep ignoring experimental evidence that mutations are indeed selected for.
When you stop ignoring experimental evidence and actually look at what happens, I'll be happy to enter into a civil discussion with you.

In the mean time, as long as you keep thinking that your model of reality trumps actual reality, and blindly ignoring any evidence that you don't like, you are doomed to remain a slave of your own failed hypothesis and the laughing stock of this discussion board.

(I usually disapprove of laughing at anyone, but your arrogance combined with your willful refusal to look at evidence that you have asked for makes you fair game.)
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2014
Is anyone willing to discuss the difference between Nei's claims about constraint-breaking mutations and my claim that biophysical constraints...


You have admitted that there is no experimental evidence that mutations are never selected for, and you keep ignoring experimental evidence that mutations are indeed selected for.


Is anyone willing to discuss the difference between Nei's claims about constraint-breaking mutations and my claim that biophysical constraints link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man via the conserved molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2014
Odor memories regulate olfactory receptor expression in the sensory periphery

" We show that the molecular basis of odor detection in the periphery of the olfactory system changes with experience, which may have subsequent effects on odor processing and perception..." http://dx.doi.org...jn.12539

If anyone thought that mutations were involved in linking the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genome of any species from microbes to man, they might set up an experiment. Fortunately, no one is wasting money on such nonsense, because only idiot minions think that mutations are selected for.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
Confirming classical THEORY in population genetics confirms that there is no experimental evidence


Chelo et al. EXPERIMENTALLY confirmed the theory. Did you even read that paper?

epialleles


You do realize epialleles and alleles are different things, right? You still have yet to address changing ALLELES and your model provides no mechanism by which they change. You only address EPIgenetic changes while genetic changes also occur.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
The epigenetically-effected alleles are epialleles because they are epigenetically-effected. The changes are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. If the changes were attributed to mutations, the epialleles would not be epigenetically controlled.

You should tell us which mutated out-of-control alleles contribute to evolution, and how that occurs -- since you are the anonymous fool suggesting that occurs.

I quoted: "We show that the molecular basis of odor detection in the periphery of the olfactory system changes with experience..." The molecular basis is epigenetically effected by experience-driven changes in amino acid substitutions that stabilize the genome and also enable de novo CREATION of olfactory receptor genes.

Like every species on the planet, the olfactory receptor genes do not mutate into existence and yet they are responsible for species diversity. Mutations are not responsible for species diversity. That belief is responsible for the idiocy of idiot minions.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
Once again, I'm not talking about epigenetic changes. I'm talking about genetic changes.

Epiallele- any of two or more genetically identical alleles that are epigenetically distinct owing to methylation.

http://www.answer...piallele

do not involve differences in the underlying DNA sequence


http://genomebiol...3/10/249

In contrast to alleles, epialleles have identical DNA sequence and differ only in gene expression and chromatin features


http://www.plosge....1002331

There is no epigenetic mechanism of altering the UNDERLYING DNA SEQUENCE. Address how observed sequence changes occur, since your paper does not.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2014
I quoted: "We show that the molecular basis of odor detection in the periphery of the olfactory system changes with experience..." The molecular basis is epigenetically effected by experience-driven changes in amino acid substitutions that stabilize the genome and also enable de novo CREATION of olfactory receptor genes.


From the abstract:

Here, we demonstrate that odor learning induces plasticity in olfactory receptor expression in the honeybee


EXPRESSION. Not sequence. Altering expression does not create new genes. It does not make base sequence changes.

Do you understand the difference between changing a gene's nucleotide sequence and changing how often it is expressed? This is critical.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
Do you understand the difference between changing a gene's nucleotide sequence and changing how often it is expressed?


Yes. I do, albeit only starting at the level of quantum physics, which includes some as yet unexplained phenomena.

This is critical.


Please tell others how mutations change a gene's nucleotide sequence and how the change results in evolution. It might help them to understand the explanatory power you attribute to mutations in the context of a ridiculous belief in a biologically implausible theory.
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
Do you understand the difference between changing a gene's nucleotide sequence and changing how often it is expressed?
Yes. I do, albeit only starting at the level of quantum physics

You ADMIT that you don't understand the difference between changing a gene's nucleotide sequence and changing how often a gene is expressed without using quantum physics?

I'll explain it for you:

Gene expression is reading a gene, so reading 'pray' three times instead of reading it twice would be a change in how often it is expressed.

Changing a gene's nucleotide sequence changes the way a gene is spelled, like changing the 'r' to an 'l' so that 'pray' gets changed to 'play'.

So the difference between the difference between changing a gene's nucleotide sequence and changing how often it is expressed is the same as the difference between changing 'pray' to 'play' and reading 'pray' three times instead of twice.

And you thought that you'd sound smart mentioning quantum physics. FAIL.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
I think more in terms of what I've published: "...DNA uptake (Palchevskiy & Finkel, 2009) appears to have epigenetically 'fed' interspecies methylation and speciation via conjugation (Fall et al., 2007; Finkel & Kolter, 2001; Friso & Choi, 2002). This indicates that reproduction began with an active nutrient uptake mechanism in heterospecifics and that the mechanism evolved to become symbiogenesis in the conspecifics of asexual organisms (Margulis, 1998). In yeasts, epigenetic changes driven by nutrition might then have led to the creation of novel cell types, which are required at evolutionary advent of sexual reproduction (Jin et al., 2011). These epigenetic changes probably occur across the evolutionary continuum that includes both nutrition-dependent reproduction in unicellular organisms and sexual reproduction in mammals...http://www.socioa...38/20758
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
It's the link from DNA uptake to the base pair changes, and amino acid substitutions that brings quantum physics into the model. Again, however, I've published a series of works that already detail most of this.

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

Why aren't we discussing my published works, or how you think mutations are involved in evolution? What happens when a mutation-induced change in a base pair occurs that leads the organism to evolve or be naturally selected against so that another organism evolves?

Start with Lenski's bacteria for example. Did he report what caused the nucleotide sequence change that somehow led to evolution of the E. coli strain into another E. coli strain that ??? became a different species ???? or what ????

What is it that you know that you're not telling me (or anyone else)?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2014
You still show a fundamental misunderstanding here. Methylation does not change nucleotide sequences.

What happens when a mutation-induced change in a base pair occurs that leads the organism to evolve or be naturally selected against so that another organism evolves?


When genotype changes, the resulting transcript changes. When the transcript changes, the product resulting from its translation may change, depending on what codons are affected and how they're affected. This can alter the structure and therefore, the function of the protein it makes or it may affect the strength of its promoters/repressors and change how often it's transcribed.

Did he report what caused the nucleotide sequence change...?


Replicative machinery errors are well documented. The enzymes aren't perfect. They mess up and change the sequence sometimes. This has been studied in isolation ad nauseum.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2014
You still show a fundamental misunderstanding here. Methylation does not change nucleotide sequences.


Who said methylation changes nucleotide sequences?

Replicative machinery errors are well documented. The enzymes aren't perfect. They mess up and change the sequence sometimes. This has been studied in isolation ad nauseum.


Thanks. That explains everything. Doesn't it? Errors cause species diversity, not nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction in species from microbes to man.

When genotype [automagically] changes, the resulting transcript changes. When the transcript changes, the product resulting from its translation may change, depending on what codons are affected and how they're [automagically] affected. This can alter the structure and therefore, the function of the protein it makes or it may affect the strength of its promoters/repressors and change how often it's transcribed.


That's more nonsense in 3 sentences than I've ever read.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
"... although the functional significance of differential AR expression and DNA methylation in the basal ganglia nucleus Area X needs to be examined within the context of song learning and production, the present results provide insight into the neural mechanisms underlying learnability, and this in turn contributes to the understanding of the evolution of behavior at the molecular levels of gene expression and epigenetic regulation."

If the neural mechanisms underlying learnability are nutrient-dependent, food odors could readily be linked to nutrient uptake, methylation, and to differences in auditory signals associated with the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in birds.

If the neural mechanisms or anything else linked to reproduction in birds are changed due to mutations that cause species diversity, is there a model for that? For example, do the songs mutate before the birds mutate into different species?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2014
Who said methylation changes nucleotide sequences?


When you discuss only epigenetic processes and provide no mechanism in your paper for making sequence changes, it heavily implies you think it's responsible. If you would like to expand on what you think makes sequence changes as I've asked you before, now would be the time.

When genotype [automagically] changes


There's nothing automagical going on here. The enzymes are not perfect and this can be seen when you isolate them. It's the reason there are proofreading pathways.

what codons are affected and how they're [automagically] affected


http://www.biogem...odon.jpg

If a codon changes, the resulting amino acid may change. No need to invoke magic.

JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2014
If a codon changes, the resulting amino acid may change. No need to invoke magic.


IF A CODON CHANGES -- invokes magic! That's the magic of theory. There's no need for any anonymous fool or any theorist to link ecological variation to the change in a base pair, or to anything else. Thus, the amino acid substitution is not linked to the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction (Darwin's 'conditions of life').

Instead, the amino acid substitution is -- like everything else -- an automagically occurring cause of mutation-driven evolved diversity in species from microbes to man. That's neo-Darwinism for you.

Meaningless pseudoscientific nonsense is all that's left of Darwin's works. But anonymous fools and idiot minions of ignorant biology teachers like PZ Myers still want others to believe that they know something about how species diversity "evolved."
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2014


Instead, the amino acid substitution is -- like everything else -- an automagically occurring cause of mutation-driven evolved diversity in species from microbes to man.


@JVK
Why don't you answer my question regarding why your silly theory only applies to creatures whose names begin with the letter "M" you dormant simpleton?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2014
IF A CODON CHANGES -- invokes magic!


How so? You can see mutations happen experimentally. Polymerases have particular fidelities (replication accuracy) that have been experimentally determined many times over.

http://jvi.asm.or...19.short

http://nar.oxford....extract

http://jvi.asm.or...58.short

http://www.nature...553.html

http://jvi.asm.or...69.short

http://jvi.asm.or...84.short

http://pubs.acs.o...i025918c

http://genome.csh...17.short

http://vir.sgmjou...pdf+html
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
It's not magic if you know what induced the change. It's magic when you claim the change automagically occurs in nature in precisely the same way you induced it in the lab and that the change subsequently led to species diversity.

I marvel at your ignorance, which I cannot comprehend. In nature, nutrient availability is directly linked to the induction of receptors that enable the nutrient to enter the cell where it epigenetically determines cell type differentiation. For example BRAC1 determines cell type differentiation in breast cancer and also (usually later) in brain cancer since it is part of a nutrient-dependent pathway involving estrogen receptor regulation of cell types. This does not mean a gene causes cancer. It means that, like the differentiation of every other cell type in every organism, cell type differentiation is nutrient-dependent.

Please tell someone who you are and how you have continued to remain an anonymous fool for so long to help them avoid your fate.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2014
It's not magic if you know what induced the change.


So why can't you tell us what induces those changes in vitro? What enzymes are responsible if deterministic gene sequence changes do indeed occur?

It's magic when you claim the change automagically occurs in nature in precisely the same way you induced it in the lab


So polymerases magically don't make errors in vitro?

epigenetically determines cell type differentiation


Within one species/individual, sure, but there are also GENETIC differences that differentiate species from one another.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2014
The million dollar question which would clarify 95% of the confusion surrounding your model if correctly answered (I'll give you yet another chance):

The spliceosome is to splicing, as _______ (you put pre-mRNA previously) is to nutrient-dependent, pheromone-controlled, specifically directed base substitutions.

This SHOULD BE extremely easy for you to answer. It's a very simple question. 5 seconds worth of typing and you won't have to weasel your way out of answering relentless questions regarding clarification of your model any more.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2014
So why can't you tell us what induces those changes in vitro?


I have detailed a model of what happens in vivo -- in all species -- and published it as:
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
http://www.socioa...53/27989

Anyone who cannot understand the role of nutrients, which are obviously responsible for the alternative splicings, should continue to remain in their world of ignorance. That's expected of all anonymous fools and idiot minions who want me to answer their questions but refuse to provide any experimental evidence that indicates why they do not question anything about the ridiculous theories they were taught to believe in.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2014
Ugh... James, can you please read what I'm writing? I'm not talking about splicing. I'm talking about changes to the sequence of the genome. Splicing does not take place at the genomic level. I can't make this any clearer.

Splicing makes changes to mRNA. What makes changes to DNA? Whatever it is, you don't cover it in your paper.
RealScience
5 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2014
It's not magic if you know what induced the change. It's magic when you claim the change automagically occurs in nature in precisely the same way you induced it in the lab


Except that researchers have experimentally sequenced numerous genes and even numerous creatures' genomes, in parents and their children, and the experimental results show that the same changes occur in vivo. The first examples were found in vivo decades ago, before the results were replicated in vitro.

If you are widely read in this field, you will know of many examples. If you admit that you know so little that you don't even know of at least three examples, I'll be happy to provide citations.

(And you still haven't answered anon_9001 on what makes changes to the DNA sequence.)
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2014
Epistasis and Allele Specificity in the Emergence of a Stable Polymorphism in Escherichia coli
http://www.scienc...abstract

Even Lenski's group now reports, albeit with much obfuscation, that the changes are nutrient-dependent and (by default) pheromone-controlled.

"...the ability of the S lineage to invade and coexist with the L lineage depended on both the ecological opportunity and synergistic interactions among these mutations."

If, for example, they had merely left off the words "these mutations" they would have accurately represented what occurs in species from microbes to man via conserved molecular mechanisms that allow ecological variation to result in ecological adaptations and synergistic interactions.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2014
Splicing makes changes to mRNA. What makes changes to DNA? Whatever it is, you don't cover it in your paper.[/q/]

What do I not cover in my paper that does not make it clear that changes to DNA are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man?

What experimental evidence suggests that the changes in species from microbes to man are caused by mutations?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2014
What do I not cover in my paper that does not make it clear that changes to DNA are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man?


You don't propose a mechanism by which it happens. Splicing makes changes to mRNA. What makes changes to DNA? Why don't you try filling in the blank again.

The spliceosome is to splicing, as _______ (you put pre-mRNA previously) is to nutrient-dependent, pheromone-controlled, specifically directed base substitutions.

You should be able to name pathways/enzymes here. It's an extremely simple question.

What experimental evidence suggests that the changes in species from microbes to man are caused by mutations?


Our knowledge of how polymerases work and how they make spontaneous DNA changes. What suggests they don't make mistakes in vivo?
RealScience
5 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2014
Even Lenski's group now reports, albeit with much obfuscation, that the changes are nutrient-dependent and (by default) pheromone-controlled.

"...the ability of the S lineage to invade and coexist with the L lineage depended on both the ecological opportunity and synergistic interactions among these mutations."

If, for example, they had merely left off the words "these mutations" they would have accurately represented what occurs

Wrong again. Poor JVK, you really are comprehension-challenged, so I'll explain yet another of your own citations to you.

- continued -

RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2014
- continued -

Your new Lenski citation says:
By sequencing genomes and reconstructing the genetic history of one lineage, we showed that three mutations together were sufficient to produce the frequency-dependent fitness effects that allowed this lineage to invade and stably coexist with the other. These mutations all affected regulatory genes and collectively caused substantial metabolic changes

1) Lenski's group SEQUENCED the genomes of the E. coli and found that MUTATIONS HAD OCCURED, so 'these mutations' DOES accurately represented what occurred.

2) These mutations did not violate any biophysical constraints on protein folding. Instead these mutations provided enough benefit to allow the lineage with it to invade another lineage and then coexist with it.

3) Lenski does NOT report that the changes are nutrient dependent. The mutations CAUSED metabolic changes, rather than being CAUSED BY metabolic changes.

Three strikes, and you are out again!
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2014
Your paper only covers epigenetic changes to DNA, not SEQUENCE changes to DNA.

Splicing makes changes to mRNA. What makes SEQUENCE changes to DNA? Whatever it is, you don't cover it in your paper.
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2014
The closest your paper comes is:
Two additional recent reports link substitution of the amino acid alanine for the amino acid valine (Grossman et al., 2013) to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution.
...
what was probably a nutrient-dependent variant allele that arose in central China approximately 30,000 years ago.
...
However the nutrient-dependent substitution of alanine for valine (Grossman et al., 2013; Kamberov et al., 2013)

Nowhere do the Grosman or Kamberov references say that the substitution is nutrient dependent, so it is dishonest for you to imply that they do.

Regardless, your own paper acknowledges that the EDAR allele arose 30,000 years ago, and that allele is a DNA sequence change and thus a MUTATION under the standard definition.
So YOUR OWN PUBLISHED PAPER conflicts with your statement that:
they don't contribute to evolution -- no matter how you define 'mutation.'
.

JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2014
Nowhere do the Grosman or Kamberov references say that the substitution is nutrient dependent, so it is dishonest for you to imply that they do.


They don't say that the amino acid substitution involves the thermodynamics of intracellular signaling that leads to organism-level thermoregulation, either. That's probably why they attribute the changes to a mutation. That's what most researchers do who do not understand that protein folding is biophysically constrained.

But none of that matters here. What matters is that you are not capable of grasping the complexity of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations in my model and will forever insist that it involves mutations. Link the anonymous fool, you've been taught to believe in pseudoscientific nonsense.

Keep believing in it. The world needs example of idiots, and you serve that purpose -- without serving any other.

http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524 Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled adaptive...
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2014
Nowhere do the Grosman or Kamberov references say that the substitution is nutrient dependent, so it is dishonest for you to imply that they do.


They don't say that the amino acid substitution involves the thermodynamics of intracellular signaling that leads to organism-level thermoregulation, either.

And how does that excuse your dishonesty in implying that they say that the change is nutrient dependent?

That's probably why they attribute the changes to a mutation.

The EDAR variants have been SEQUENCED so we KNOW that the alaninine for valine substitution is caused by a DNA sequence change, and a mutation is DEFINED as a sequence change.

By acknowledging that the EDAR allele contributes to evolution, you paper supports that DNA sequence changes (which fall under the STANDARD definition of a mutation) contribute to evolution. This CONFLICTS with your statement that:
they don't contribute to evolution -- no matter how you define 'mutation.'

Checkmate.
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2014
you are not capable of grasping the complexity of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations in my model and will forever insist that it involves mutations.

DNA sequence changes are MUTATIONS according to the standard definition used in genetics, so if your model involves DNA sequence changes then it involves mutations BY DEFINITION, regardless of what drives the changes.

It appears that you are not capable of grasping how the term mutations is used in genetics, and will forever insist that mutations play no role in evolution because you fail to understand what 'mutation' means.

It appears that you are also incapable of seeing evidence that non-nutrient-controlled mutations also contribute to evolution in spite of examples being pointed out to you, because that doesn't fit your model.
You are like a weather forecaster standing in a downpour, insisting that it can't be raining because it doesn't fit your model. You even ADMIT to ignoring evidence.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2014
Serious scientists have already linked nutrient-dependent receptor-mediated interactions from epialleles to breast and brain cancer associated with BRCA1 and brain development. Yet, here you are again trying to tell people that nutrient-dependent SNPs and amino acid substitutions that lead to changes in skin, hair, teeth, and mammary tissue in mice and humans are not also linked to pheromone-controlled reproduction because you want others to believe in pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations. Whatever your reason is for trying to retard scientific progress, you should stop wasting everyone's time. Too many others are making scientific progress after abandoning the nonsense you continue to regurgitate.

See for example: Genes without prominence: a reappraisal of the foundations of biology
http://rsif.royal...abstract
and the latest from Jon Lieff
http://jonlieffmd...volution
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2014
Checkmate


This isn't a game, you idiot. If it were, you would be too stupid to play.

GeMes, Clusters of DNA Methylation under Genetic Control, Can Inform Genetic and Epigenetic Analysis of Disease

http://www.scienc...1400069X

One variant caused by DNA methylation can alter one or more of a few hundred methylated nucleotides associated with health or pathology via interactions among complex gene networks and glycosylation. And yet you think that mutations are somehow involved in species diversity. You may be the most ignorant anonymous participant I have ever encountered, but the anonymous fool is still in the running for first place with:

The spliceosome is to splicing, as _______ (you put pre-mRNA previously) is to nutrient-dependent, pheromone-controlled, specifically directed base substitutions.


You could still win whatever game you're playing with him, nonetheless.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2014
You still refuse to tell us what causes base changes. Is it that you're unwilling to tell us or unable? Or are you unwilling to tell us that you're unable to answer? It's a very simple question, James. All you have to do is fill in the blank.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2014
If I told you, I would have to kill you for stealing everything known about biologically based cause and effect and pretending you came up with the idea. For comparison, you won't tell us what causes the mutations (changes in base pairs) that you think somehow links them to species diversity. No one worries that anyone would steal that idea, however. It's not even biophysically plausible, which makes it incredibly stupid. You should definitely start touting whatever you think it is -- because only an anonymous fool can get away with such nonsense.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2014
I've explained this to you in very clear terms multiple terms. Re-read the links I posted above describing the fidelities of polymerases. Radiation and mutagens can also cause mutations. This is common knowledge to everybody but you, apparently.

Edit: So you can't tell us what would fill in that blank because it's "super secret". Laughable.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2014
http://www.physic...em=26912
Biophysics Seminar in 210 Physics
Speaker: Xuefeng Wang, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Subject: Cellular forces measured and perturbed at the molecular level
Mammalian cells are truly remarkable signal receivers and processors. Besides chemical, electrical and sometimes optical signals, they can also sense external mechanical stimuli and accordingly direct many important functions such as cell adhesion, stem cell differentiation and embryo development. Cell membrane hosts mechano-sensitive proteins (receptors) which bind to external target molecules (ligands) and form receptor-ligand bonds with the local environment or neighboring cells.

How is the cause of mutations, linked to the evolution of species in your model? Fill in the blank in your own ridiculous question before ridiculing me for not telling you again about what is obviously nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2014
It can't be that obvious if you can't answer such a simple question. DNA changes are integral to evolution and if you can't explain how they happen in your model, then your model is missing a huge portion.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2014
Context-specific microRNA function in developmental complexity
http://jmcb.oxfor...abstract

Excerpt: "Since being discovered as regulators of developmental timing in C. elegans, it has become widely established that miRNA-mediated regulation of gene expression is a fundamental biological phenomenon required to facilitate key developmental processes such as cellular proliferation, programmed cell death, and cell lineage determination and differentiation..."

Since we know that a single amino acid substitution differentiates species of nematodes, anyone who is not an anonymous fool already knows how ridiculous it is to attribute species diversity to anything besides epigenetic effects on conserved molecular mechanisms that link the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled differentiation of cell types in all individuals of all species.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2014
miRNA-mediated regulation of gene expression


For emphasis:

EXPRESSION


You still seem to be unable to grasp the difference between gene expression and gene sequence. Nothing you quote says anything about changes in gene SEQUENCE and nothing in your papers covers it either. Lenski observed a multitude of SEQUENCE changes. How do they occur in your model?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2014
Thanks for asking.

Lenski observed the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations that are detailed in the context of the biophysically-constrained conserved molecular mechanisms in my model.

Why do you think the multitude of SEQUENCE changes were caused by mutations? Is there a biologically plausible model of that?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2014
Once again, you don't detail a mechanism. You say they're nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, but you don't propose a mechanism by which they happen.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2014
you don't propose a mechanism by which they happen.


You have not proposed a mechanism or anything that might be considered biologically plausible.

Why would you expect me to tell you anything more about cause and effect, when you can't begin to explain anything about anything?

Others are discussing everything about everything and you remain a simple-minded anonymous fool who tells me I'm wrong about something or that I don't know something or whatever...

Get a life, you idiot!
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2014
Why do you think the multitude of SEQUENCE changes were caused by mutations? Is there a biologically plausible model of that?


JVK, that's idiotic even by your standards. We've been through that. A DNA sequence change IS a mutation, by DEFINITION. Hundreds of thousands of scientists aren't going to redefine the term simply because you don't like the standard definition, so get used to it and
move on, or at least stop repeating the same stupidity over and over again.

And to pretend that you don't know of a model for mutations changing DNA sequences is to show your ignorance of genetics. At least learn the basics of the field before you go pretending that you're an expert.

- continued -
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2014
- continued -
As for

Why do you think the multitude of SEQUENCE changes were caused by mutations? Is there a biologically plausible model of that?

...

You have not proposed a mechanism or anything that might be considered biologically plausible.

MANY mechanisms for mutations are well known. Surely EVEN YOU have heard of mutagenic chemicals, free radicals, ionizing radiation, polymerase errors, etc.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2014
Pointless verbaige from Kohl.

Meanwhile, he still cannot explain where genomic changes come from in his model. All he needs to do is fill in the blank.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2014
Enhancer and Promoter Atlases
http://www.the-sc...Atlases/

Consortium annotates the human genome with cell type-specific information about transcription start sites, active enhancers, and their expression throughout the body.

By Ashley P. Taylor | March 26, 2014

Excerpt: The FANTOM team found evidence to suggest that bidirectional transcripts are signatures of active enhancers.

Q. Were they looking for evidence of fixed mutations?
A. There's no such thing in any population.

Map of how DNA controls cells may boost gene therapies
http://www.newsci...sw_ldV8F

Excerpt: "...until now researchers only knew how to interpret the results if the identified mutation was in the gene variant."

Q. What do you call a mutation that is not found in a gene variant?
A. A nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation.
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2014
Q. What do you call a mutation that is not found in a gene variant?
A. A nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation.

1) You have not provided experimental evidence that these DNA sequence changes are nutrient dependent or pheromone controlled.

2) From your citation:
mutations linked to disease occur more often in the DNA responsible for the enhancers and promoters than in the gene variants...

What you are calling "nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations" cause DISEASE more often than mutations to gene variants.

3) In keeping with standard definitions, the article refers to what you are calling "nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations" as mutations. You have said that "nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations" enable species diversity, so you have just supported that what are mutations under the standard definition DO contribute to species diversity.

Three strikes again!
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2014
1) You have not provided experimental evidence that these DNA sequence changes are nutrient dependent or pheromone controlled.


That's what I did in two published works in the past two years based on a series of published works beginning in 1995.

See the experimental evidence reviewed and used to exemplify nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations and come back with more ridiculous comments on this thread.

http://www.socioa...38/20758

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

What kind of idiot tells people that ecological adaptations cause disease more often than mutations cause disease?

That was a rhetorical question.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2014
You still can't grasp the difference between epigenetic changes and genetic changes, which your published works don't cover at all. You can talk about nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled expression changes until the cows come home, but it still doesn't deal with changes to the genetic sequence itself.
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2014
What kind of idiot tells people that ecological adaptations cause disease more often than mutations cause disease?

You did!

Your post cited http://www.newsci...qfc7FnTq

This reference says:
mutations linked to disease occur more often in the DNA responsible for the enhancers and promoters than in the gene variants...


Your comment on mutations not in gene variants was:

Q. What do you call a mutation that is not found in a gene variant?
A. A nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation.

So YOU called something that YOUR own reference says causes disease more often than mutations in gene variants "A nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation".

That's what kind of idiot!

Checkmate again.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2014
Oh my god, Realscience, that's absolute gold.
cjn
5 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2014
God help me, but I'm wading back into this BS.

If cells are able to differentiate base solely upon some pheromone or nutrient signal, then why does EVERY species have a unique genome, when there are countless examples of consumption of the same nutrient? If the genome is not changed via base-pair substitutions, insertions, or deletions, then how do you explain the varied genomes of EVERY species?

Ignoring genomes, why are all species which utilize the same nutrients not homogenous in form? One would think that in your model, an "optimal" form for a nutrient would be realized, regardless of source genome.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2014
Don't worry, cjn. I've made slow but steady progress with James over the past couple of years. At first, I was also under the impression he thought epigenetic differentiation was responsible for all species variety. Later, once he brought up people like Shapiro, did I realize he thought things other than mutations were responsible for genome changes.

However, even since then, I have been unable to pry what causes those genome changes out of him. He refuses to answer even the most direct questions.

Every time I asks, he gives me what he thinks *influences* genome changes, but not what *causes* them. He says they're nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, but he won't name an enzyme or pathway that he thinks is involved.

The closest he's come is, as I mentioned previously, filling in the blank in my example metaphor with "pre-mRNA". This is, of course, hilariously incorrect, because pre-mRNA does not alter the genome in any way, shape, or form.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2014
...he won't name an enzyme or pathway that he thinks is involved.


Cell type differentiation is obviously glucose dependent and I have told the anonymous fool on several occasions that the enzyme involved is obviously glucose dehydrogenase. Clearly, however, we cannot expect anonymous fools or idiot minions of biology teachers who have been taught the pseudoscientific nonsense of mutation-driven evolution to understand anything about biophysical constraints on protein folding, which I have detailed

http://figshare.c..._/643393

and now others have also detailed.

http://rsif.royal...abstract

The foolishness of those who continue to challenge authors of peer reviewed published works like:

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

(700 views this month) continues to amaze me.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2014
I'm not talking about cell type differentiation, which modifies gene EXPRESSION, which I have never questioned. I'm talking about genome SEQUENCE changes. That's beside the fact that glucose dehydrogenases, as the name implies, simply dehydrogenates glucose. It doesn't have anything to do with the genome directly.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2014
I'm not talking about cell type differentiation...


You have no idea what you're talking about!

You're an anonymous fool who knows nothing about biophysical constraints on nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled cell type differentiation. That's why you, and all the fools like you, want to attribute everything to mutations.

Did I ever mention that mutations perturb protein folding which is why they cannot be involved in ecological adaptations that lead to species diversity? That was a rhetorical question.

710 views this month;
http://www.socioa...53/27989
RealScience
5 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2014
710 views this month;

So now we find out why you continually spam this message board with non-science that has been shown to be false - you don't care how often you are shown to be wrong, as long as it gets your page views up... that is pitifully desperate!
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2014
I'm not talking about cell type differentiation...


You have no idea what you're talking about!

You're an anonymous fool who knows nothing about biophysical constraints on nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled cell type differentiation. That's why you, and all the fools like you, want to attribute everything to mutations.


Intraspecies/intraorganismal cellular differentiation and evolution are hardly comparable. One EPIGENETICALLY makes different cell types from a static genome sequence and the other regards epigenetic AND GENETIC changes, which do not occur in the differentiation process.

Edit: The honeybee model, for example, shows how you can get multiple phenotypes from the same genome, but it doesn't say anything about genotypes changing over time.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2014
710 views this month;

So now we find out why you continually spam this message board with non-science that has been shown to be false - you don't care how often you are shown to be wrong, as long as it gets your page views up... that is pitifully desperate!


But seriously, how many of those 710 views do you think can be attributed to my posts here -- compared to my publication history, award-winning reviews, and 900+ blog posts in the past 4 years? If others were as ignorant as you are, no one would be viewing what I've published. And there have certainly been no signs of intelligent life here, have there?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2014
Edit: The honeybee model, for example, shows how you can get multiple phenotypes from the same genome, but it doesn't say anything about genotypes changing over time.


Now, you're going to presume to tell me about what the honeybee model says. (It's the model organism I used to link the conserved molecular mechanisms of microbes to man in Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors.) http://www.socioa...ew/17338

See also:
Epigenomics and the concept of degeneracy in biological systems
http://bfg.oxford...050.full

Each time I begin to think you cannot say anything more ignorant that you have already said, you surpass all expectations by doing just that. You and RealScience are competing to see who can display the most ignorance -- aren't you?
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2014
But seriously, how many of those 710 views do you think can be attributed to my posts here -- compared to my publication history, award-winning reviews, and 900+ blog posts in the past 4 years? If others were as ignorant as you are, no one would be viewing what I've published.

That's funny - at least 20 of those hit have been me clicking on links in your comments to see which of your articles you are citing, and to see if even your own articles support your claims.

And of your 900+ blog posts, at least 500 have been to phys.org and have been refuted.

And of your papers, how many have been on genetics (rather than epigentics) and have been published in a genetics journal?

And there have certainly been no signs of intelligent life here, have there?

Correct, there have been no signs of intelligent life in your posts...
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2014

Each time I begin to think you cannot say anything more ignorant that you have already said, you surpass all expectations by doing just that. You and RealScience are competing to see who can display the most ignorance -- aren't you?


That's funny, because I'd say the same about you. I repeatedly ask you a very direct and simple question - what causes changes to the genome - and you just keep giving irrelevant citations to things that don't involve genomic alterations at all. I point that out and you provide another non-answer. Repeat ad nauseum.

I can't make this any clearer. Your model concerns epigenetics. Genetic changes occur and your model currently says nothing about how they occur. You continue to attempt reconciliation by providing epigenetic mechanisms that don't have anything to do with the genome in reality (ex- answering my fill-in-the-blank with "pre-mRNA" that one time).
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2014
"... taken together these observations make the dynamic equilibrium of the noncanonical DNA structure an attractive target for small molecule control of gene expression." -- try to find out where this came from. I'm done providing links to anonymous fools and idiot minions who have no understanding of biologically based cause and effect.

What I have detailed in my forthcoming review is small molecule control of gene expression.

I shut off further notifications on this thread. If anyone has any intelligent comments to add, you can comment on my blog posts at Pheromones.com under the "Science" section.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2014
There is a difference between altering expression and altering sequence. If, after all this time, you don't understand the difference between changing a gene's base sequence and changing how often it's expressed, you prove that you don't understand anything about the most basic tenets of biology.
cjn
5 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2014
All this and you still did not answer my simple question: Why is there such a diversity of genomes (1 unique genome per species, 8 million+ non-bacterial species -not including unique individual genomes within a species), if the sole determining factor for differentiation is nutrient or pheromone-based?
RealScience
5 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2014
There is a difference between altering expression and altering sequence. If, after all this time, you don't understand the difference between changing a gene's base sequence and changing how often it's expressed, you prove that you don't understand anything about the most basic tenets of biology.

Well said, *9001!

And JVK has already ADMITTED that he can't understand the difference between changing a gene's nucleotide sequence and changing how often a gene is expressed without using 'quantum physics'.
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2014
I shut off further notifications on this thread.

Great!

But I'll give 10-to-1 odds that you'll soon be spamming another thread with the same mistakes (please prove me wrong on this prediction).
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2014
I shut off further notifications on this thread.

Great!

But I'll give 10-to-1 odds that you'll soon be spamming another thread with the same mistakes (please prove me wrong on this prediction).
Bah bad odds, he has said this or similar on several occasions, but just keeps coming back to post his mantra again.

Argumentum ad nauseam. The fact it is no more right the 100th time you say it as it was the first time it was said is lost on him.
cjn
5 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2014
I don't understand the desire to shoehorn this idea into a widely-socialized science... and in the face of universal disagreement, call the dissenters "idiots" because they received an education.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do believe the PhD's who taught me genetics and molecular biology over someone who "worked in a lab once". (Which is the equivalent argument to "I know Texas, because I had a layover at DFW airport.")

Further, "being published" means nothing if your premise is universally countered. I've read enough journals to know that crap-science gets published regularly. And, of course: http://www.nature...-1.14763
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2014
But seriously, how many of those 710 views do you think can be attributed to my posts here
@jvk
well, you can attribute at least 20 to me alone doing homework, referencing, and sharing with other professionals in the field (not including their attempts to read/decipher your BS) as I have read all links you've posted here. I am going to stop, however, given that you are only TROLLING to boost your views
if OTHERS are doing the same thing, then you can piss at LEAST 10-25% MINIMUM of your "views" out the window due to trolling/spamming here alone

GIVEN your inability to refute any LOGICAL argument here, especially with Real, Anon and cjn, then I would say that you are the most prolific spammer here after zeph

@cjn
LMFAO. "I know texas because"... THAT is absolutely the same thing as what jvk does! what a GREAT analogy!
yall DO know he failed out of college, right? he even admitted it! one reason he is so bitter to educated people!