Poll: Big Bang a big question for most Americans

Apr 21, 2014 by Jennifer Agiesta

Few Americans question that smoking causes cancer. But they have more skepticism than confidence in global warming, the age of the Earth and evolution and have the most trouble believing a Big Bang created the universe 13.8 billion years ago, an Associated Press-GfK poll found.

Rather than quizzing scientific knowledge, the survey asked people to rate their confidence in several statements about science and medicine.

On some, there's broad acceptance. Just 4 percent doubt that smoking causes cancer, 6 percent question whether mental illness is a medical condition that affects the brain and 8 percent are skeptical there's a genetic code inside our cells. More—15 percent—have doubts about the safety and efficacy of childhood vaccines.

About 4 in 10 say they are not too confident or outright disbelieve that the Earth is warming, mostly a result of man-made heat-trapping gases, that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or that life on Earth evolved through a process of natural selection, though most were at least somewhat confident in each of those concepts. But a narrow majority—51 percent—questions the Big Bang theory.

Those results depress and upset some of America's top scientists, including several Nobel Prize winners, who vouched for the science in the statements tested, calling them settled scientific facts.

"Science ignorance is pervasive in our society, and these attitudes are reinforced when some of our leaders are openly antagonistic to established facts," said 2013 Nobel Prize in medicine winner Randy Schekman of the University of California, Berkeley.

The poll highlights "the iron triangle of science, religion and politics," said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.

And scientists know they've got the shakiest leg in the triangle.

To the public, "most often, values and beliefs trump science" when they conflict, said Alan Leshner, chief executive of the world's largest scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Political values were closely tied to views on science in the poll, with Democrats more apt than Republicans to express confidence in evolution, the Big Bang, the age of the Earth and .

Religious values are similarly important.

Confidence in evolution, the Big Bang, the age of the Earth and climate change decline sharply as faith in a supreme being rises, according to the poll. Likewise, those who regularly attend religious services or are evangelical Christians express much greater doubts about scientific concepts they may see as contradictory to their faith.

"When you are putting up facts against faith, facts can't argue against faith," said 2012 Nobel Prize winning biochemistry professor Robert Lefkowitz of Duke University. "It makes sense now that science would have made no headway, because faith is untestable."

But evolution, the age of the Earth and the Big Bang are all compatible with God, except to Bible literalists, said Francisco Ayala, a former priest and professor of biology, philosophy and logic at the University of California, Irvine.

Darrel Falk, a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University and an evangelical Christian, agreed, adding: "The story of the cosmos and the Big Bang of creation is not inconsistent with the message of Genesis 1, and there is much profound biblical scholarship to demonstrate this."

Beyond religious belief, views on science may be tied to what we see with our own eyes. The closer an issue is to our bodies and the less complicated, the easier it is for people to believe, said John Staudenmaier, a Jesuit priest and historian of technology at the University of Detroit Mercy.

The AP-GfK Poll was conducted March 20-24, 2014, using KnowledgePanel, GfK's probability-based online panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. It involved online interviews with 1,012 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points for all respondents.

Respondents were first selected randomly using phone or mail survey methods and were later interviewed online. People selected for KnowledgePanel who didn't otherwise have access to the Internet were provided with the ability to access the Internet at no cost to them.

Explore further: Poll: Obama health law fails to gain support

More information: AP-GfK Poll: www.ap-gfkpoll.com

4.9 /5 (15 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Poll: Obama health law fails to gain support

Mar 28, 2014

Public support for President Barack Obama's health care law—his signature domestic achievement—is languishing at its lowest level since passage of the landmark legislation four years ago, according to ...

Misconceptions of science and religion found in new study

Feb 16, 2014

The public's view that science and religion can't work in collaboration is a misconception that stunts progress, according to a new survey of more than 10,000 Americans, scientists and evangelical Protestants. ...

A third of Americans don't believe in evolution

Jan 01, 2014

One third of Americans utterly reject the theory of evolution and believe instead that humans "have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," a new survey has found.

Poll: Science doubters say world is warming

Dec 14, 2012

Nearly 4 out of 5 Americans now think temperatures are rising and that global warming will be a serious problem for the United States if nothing is done about it, a new Associated Press-GfK poll finds.

The evolution of creationism

Nov 05, 2012

Throughout history, people have sought to understand how the world came to be and how it has changed over time. This curiosity has produced a rich legacy of science and philosophy and impacted and influenced religion and ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 41

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

alfie_null
5 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
Clearly, tobacco companies are slacking off.
Z99
1 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2014
How in the world do you "randomly" select from the positive responses of an initial survey???
It should be obvious that selection bias in this case is inescapable and uncontrollable.
As far as acceptance of the Big Bang:, it is clear from the results of the BICEP study that the most favored models of inflation are quite probably wrong. I'd guess that we will be hearing more and more about the Big Bounce going forward.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2014
If one is not interested in science then who cares if they don't believe in the big bang or genetic code or evolution, or AGW,... the only ones who would get frustrated over another's choice of ignorance are those who desire to control them.

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2014
"When you are putting up facts against faith, facts can't argue against faith," said 2012 Nobel Prize winning biochemistry professor Robert Lefkowitz of Duke University. "It makes sense now that science would have made no headway, because faith is untestable."


But the vast majority of people who believe in AGW themselves rely on faith that the facts given to them by science are genuine,... and yet still burn CO2 as much as people who deny the science.

There is a difference between facts and hypothesis; hypothesis makes use of facts, but does not itself evolve into a Fact, until it becomes a scientific theory by submitting to the scientific method of empirical testing.
Shitead
1.9 / 5 (15) Apr 21, 2014
When it comes to cosmology, the scientists are just as biased and parochial as the Bible Belt Baptists. From a single observable fact, that the spectra of light from distant stars is red-shifted, cosmologists have woven a godless crazy-quilt Book of Genesis that is every bit as silly as the bible version. Expanding universe, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc., etc., etc, ad infinitum. It was bad enough when these speculations were just hypotheses, but now they are all treated as fact. Beating a crazy idea with a large hammer until it fits a mathematical model is no more science than is debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Shape up! You are giving all science a bad name.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 21, 2014
@Shitead

You are awesome. What is happening within online scientific discourse today is anti-innovative. People who claim to love science treat it remarkably like religion, and good ideas which diverge from the textbooks are too often shouted down.

Capitalism succeeds in part because old ideas are replaced by newer, better ones. In science, by contrast, new ideas are expected to extend from the older, dysfunctional ones. This is not authentic innovation. Oftentimes, we must start over.

We do indeed need to get our act together, and our survival depends upon it. A gravity-dominated universe is not a connected universe, and these models leave the likely false impression that very little will change here on Earth over millions of years. And it leads people to imagine that where they see change, we are the cause.

These models create a false sense of security, and they virtually guarantee that we will be unprepared when the universe does finally change.
aaron35
Apr 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2014
Excerpt: "Beyond religious belief, views on science may be tied to what we see with our own eyes."

Dobzhansky (1964) wrote: "...the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is "bird watching" or "butterfly collecting. Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists!"

Serious scientists just linked the conserved molecular mechanisms of DNA methylation from ecological variation to ecological adaptations manifested in morphological differences between archaic and modern humans. See: Reconstructing the DNA Methylation Maps of the Neandertal and the Denisovan http://www.scienc...abstract

Not only did they link the fossil record from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in our organized genomes, the link was established without the pseudoscientific nonsense from population genetics about mutations, natural selection, and evolutionary theory.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2014
Excerpt: "...facts can't argue against faith," said 2012 Nobel Prize winning biochemistry professor Robert Lefkowitz"

It's settled then. 2004 Nobel Laureate Linda Buck co-authored 'Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction' and the conserved molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations via DNA methylation link that report to 'Signaling Crosstalk: Integrating Nutrient Availability and Sex' in yeasts.

Therefore, people who believe that Darwin's 'conditions of life' are nutrient-dependent and that the physiology of reproduction is controlled by pheromones in species from microbes to man can continue to believe that food is the most important consideration in any Biblical or other creationist explanation of species diversity.

However, attempts to convince evolutionary theorists of that fact will probably continue to fail because they really, really, really want to believe in their theories about mutations et al.
rwinners
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 21, 2014
"When it comes to cosmology, the scientists are just as biased and parochial as the Bible Belt Baptists."

Couldn't have put it better myself. All the "How the ********* Began" programs are hosted by people who are as biased as the local priests I encountered when growing up. The all want me to take their 'science' as fact when it is all unprovable. Big Bang? Prove it. I like science that is relavent.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2014
Re: "The all want me to take their 'science' as fact when it is all unprovable. Big Bang? Prove it. I like science that is relevant."

I was told two weeks ago on a forum that Daniel Kahneman's work on identifying the mechanics for how bias works was off-topic in a thread on cosmology. In other threads on the same site, I've been ridiculed and socially isolated for questioning Big Bang cosmology.

We are constantly told that the only explanation for a microwave fog coming at us from all directions is a primordial expansion. But, everything we see with our telescopes is matter in the plasma state, and laboratory work with plasmas consistently demonstrate that when plasmas conduct electricity, they generally give off microwaves.

Consensus in science is really quite overblown. The PhD programs are designed to create & sustain the consensus. The fairy tale is that these beliefs naturally emerge in each individual scientist. The reality is that the programs are ideological bootcamps.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
"it is clear from the results of the BICEP study that the most favored models of inflation are quite probably wrong."
how? according to whom? However, even if the most favored models of inflation are shown to be wrong you still need to come up with a better theory that works better than the big bang if you wish to change the model.
"I'd guess that we will be hearing more and more about the Big Bounce going forward."
Perhaps. However big bang theory and the big bounce theory are compatible. the big bang doesn't deal with what happened before the start of our current "bang".

The rest of the posters so far are the reason this study doesn't surprise me, their are some crazy paranoid conspiracy theorists out there as made clear by the previous posts.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
While I share the disappointment of the scientists, i have to also take into account:
Does it really matter what the uneducated masses believe about issues that do not impact their lives? As long as their alternate belief does not lead them to irrational acts I see no problem.
Even though it would be nice: Not everyone must be scientifically literate.
Though everyone must be able to judge (or be told) whether they are scientifically literate or not. (and, if not scientifically literate, stay out of things based on scientific discourse.)
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2014
... if not scientifically literate, stay out of things based on scientific discourse.


Agreed. That's why I wrote:

It's settled then. 2004 Nobel Laureate Linda Buck co-authored 'Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction' and the conserved molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations via DNA methylation link that report to 'Signaling Crosstalk: Integrating Nutrient Availability and Sex' in yeasts.

Anyone who is not scientifically literate enough to understand the biological facts of life in species from microbes to man, should not try to convince anyone else to ignore them and adopt the simple-minded beliefs in evolutionary theory touted by others who do not understand biological facts.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2014
Anyone who is not scientifically literate enough to understand the biological facts of life in species from microbes to man, should not try to convince anyone else to ignore them and adopt the simple-minded beliefs in evolutionary theory touted by others who do not understand biological facts.


You are a poster boy for that part, aren't you (caps for emphasis):
Though everyone must be able to judge (OR BE TOLD) whether they are scientifically literate or not.

...because you obviously don't realize it yourself.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
To the public, "most often, values and beliefs trump science"


And of course superhuman scientists, who are not members of "the public" don't defend their scientifically derived worldviews to the metaphorical death. EVERYONE is invested in their own worldview, and everyone defends it like their lives depend on it. The funny part is that most people see this easily in others, and hardly at all in themselves...

This article is incredibly insightful and at the same time abysmally lacking introspection.
no fate
1 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
When it comes to cosmology, the scientists are just as biased and parochial as the Bible Belt Baptists. From a single observable fact, that the spectra of light from distant stars is red-shifted, cosmologists have woven a godless crazy-quilt Book of Genesis that is every bit as silly as the bible version. Expanding universe, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc., etc., etc, ad infinitum. It was bad enough when these speculations were just hypotheses, but now they are all treated as fact. Beating a crazy idea with a large hammer until it fits a mathematical model is no more science than is debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Shape up! You are giving all science a bad name.


This is (big) bang on. Especially the last line. Fortunately we don't have to accept something as fact just because misguided but otherwise intelligent people say it is. Correct interpretation of data is more important. When a theory is accurate, most evidence doesn't contradict it.
aaron35
Apr 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
I've been ridiculed and socially isolated for questioning Big Bang cosmology
@halfven
not here... here you are ridiculed and socially isolated for supporting a known failed philosophy called EU which only needs high school physics and observation to debunk. take this comment
everything we see with our telescopes is matter in the plasma state
it is easily refuted by observation (and visiting which supports the observation) of the moon. We also have other observations/studies/empirical data supporting things which you dislike, such as crater formation, grand canyon formation, etc, ...
PhD programs are designed to create & sustain the consensus
personal conjecture based upon ignorance
the programs are ideological bootcamps
which can be disproved by S.Carrol, M.Kaku, S.Hawking, and so many more which present ideas against the norm.
IOW- you are still wrong because you cannot see what you dont want to believe in, you only see what you want & don't understand THAT
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2014
Anyone who is not scientifically literate enough to understand the biological facts of life in species from microbes to man, should not try to convince anyone else to ignore them and adopt the simple-minded beliefs in evolutionary theory touted by others who do not understand biological facts
@jvk
then why do you keep posting here and elsewhere?
you don't even understand or know the lexicon used by biologists/geneticists in the field which you proclaim to be knowledgeable in... which is used by said professionals to facilitate comprehension and transfer ideas quickly and without confusion to another.
your ignorance/stupidity on this part is shown by our own inability to accept that your own model causes mutations (BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION)

therefore, by your own post above, you
should not try to convince anyone
of any facts given your ignorance/stupidity (I call it stupidity because you HAVE been shown the error of your ways)
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
you HAVE been shown the error of your ways)


My model links nutrient-dependent DNA methylation to pheromone-controlled species diversity in species from microbes to man via ecological variation and ecological adaptations.
http://www.socioa...53/27989

Svante Paabo and others just published in Science and linked DNA methylation to morphological differences in the fossil record of archaic and modern humans. Reconstructing the DNA Methylation Maps of the Neandertal and the Denisovan:
http://www.scienc...abstract

There is no mention of the role of mutations, which explains why I do not use the term in explanations of biologically based cause and effect. The roles of mutations, natural selection, and evolution have been eliminated from any further consideration whatsoever by experimental evidence that links biological facts to ecological adaptations and species diversity.
billpress11
2 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2014
Personally I agree to varying degrees with all except the BB theory which I would give a .01% chance of standing the test of time.

The reason I feel this way is because the BB theory is NOT supported by good science, it is supported mostly by MAGIC.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2014
There is no mention of the role of mutations..


You're doing a fantastic job ignoring the rest of Paabo's work.

Here's a book from him titled 'Genomes, Mutations And Phylogenies':

http://www.amazon...12070715

A video series where he describes using mutations to track human evolution:

http://www.dnalc....p-1.html

http://online.wsj...60501880

Dr. Pääbo hopes to find more genomes of extinct species to better understand humankind's lineage. Meanwhile, he'll continue to study the genetic changes that have occurred since the days when humans and Neanderthals intermixed. "In some sense, it really proves that these mutations accumulate with time," he says. "We captured evolution red-handed."

anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
http://www.pgafam...te-paabo

Dr. Svante Paabo is one of three ADI researchers the Foundation selected in 2013 that is investigating the genomic regions that are highly conserved but uniquely mutated in humans (Human Accelerated Regions or "HARs") and their functional significance.


Their own statement from his department's page:

http://www.eva.mp...dex.html

The Department of Evolutionary Genetics studies the genetic history of humans, apes and other organisms. We are interested in both the forces that affect the genome directly, such as mutation and recombination, and in the effects of selection and population history.

The department consists of two tenured faculty members: Svante Pääbo and Mark Stoneking; and two non-tenured members, Janet Kelso and Michael Lachmann.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
... ignoring the rest of Paabo's work.


That might appear to be the case to an anonymous fool.

In 2010, Paabo published with co-authors: "A functional test of Neandertal and modern human mitochondrial targeting sequences" and tentatively linked nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions to ecological adaptations as Dobzhansky did in 1964.

See also:

Natural Selection on the Olfactory Receptor Gene Family in Humans and Chimpanzees.

Loss of Olfactory Receptor Genes Coincides with the Acquisition of Full Trichromatic Vision in Primates

MicroRNA-Driven Developmental Remodeling in the Brain Distinguishes Humans from Other Primates

Extension of cortical synaptic development distinguishes humans from chimpanzees and macaques

A Revised Timescale for Human Evolution Based on Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes (turned away from nutrient-dependent de novo Creation of olfactory receptor genes and touted mutations)

Clearly, however, Paabo's back! Mutations are not!
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
Others may not be aware that mutations have been removed from any further consideration by information on how ecological variation leads to species diversity via nutrient-dependent DNA methylation and the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction. That suggests the role of DNA methylation in alternative splicings of pre-mRNA will be the next nail in the coffin of pseudoscience (e.g., evolutionary theory) that must be considered before anonymous fools and idiot minions of biology teachers again interrupt scientific progress.

Therefore, our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review article may be of interest to those who no longer trust evolutionary theorists to know enough about biology to accurately represent cause and effect. Instead, see: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html

Nothing known about alternative splicings of pre-mRNA has changed.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
Therefore, our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review article may be of interest to those who no longer trust evolutionary theorists to know enough about biology to accurately represent cause and effect. Instead, see: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html

Nothing known about alternative splicings of pre-mRNA has changed.


@ James-Skippy, this is a family friendly physorg, so knock it off with the perverted behavior stuffs, okayeei you?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
... ignoring the rest of Paabo's work.


That might appear to be the case to an anonymous fool.

...

Clearly, however, Paabo's back! Mutations are not!


None of this indicates a denial of mutations by Paabo or anyone else.

That suggests the role of DNA methylation in alternative splicings of pre-mRNA...


In all species?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2014
which explains why I do not use the term in explanations of biologically based cause and effect
@jvk
and like I pointed out before...
on Feb 19 2014 in this thread : http://phys.org/n...lts.html
I asked you
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
TO WHICH YOU REPLIED
YES!
You keep calling me an idiot minion because I can actually UNDERSTAND the lexicon used in YOUR FIELD, and apparently you cannot. when you decide to not use a term because of a personal bias then everything after that is NOT SCIENTIFIC, it is PSEUDOSCIENCE.
now, I've tried to tell you that your own model is already included in evolution, and RealSCience, Anon_9001, AA_P et al have showed you that you are ignoring WAY too much!

IOW - you are arguing against your own model when you say mutations cannot occur or cannot explain diversity etc.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
In 2010, Paabo published with co-authors
@jvk
how does this trump
Dr. Svante Paabo is one of three ADI researchers the Foundation selected in 2013 that is investigating the genomic regions that are highly conserved but uniquely mutated
&
We are interested in both the forces that affect the genome directly, such as mutation and recombination
your assertion that
Paabo's back! Mutations are not!
is not valid as the posts that Anon gave are LATER than your post... therefore, given that Paabo is interested in "both the forces that affect the genome directly, such as mutation and recombination" per Anon's post, that only means that you are ignoring reality or too stupid to read and comprehend. which is it?
BTW- according to all sources tried to date, the only thing "questioned" about mutations is whether single mutations are sufficient to create a new species
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
You're making way too much sense, Stumpy. Cut it out. Don't you know that Kohl's speculation is more valid than statements from the sites of the very same people he's speculating about?
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
Nothing known about alternative splicings of pre-mRNA has changed.


Requirement for highly efficient pre-mRNA splicing during Drosophila early embryonic development http://elifescien...abstract

I don't know why anyone would think that I'm speculating about anything. Experimental evidence predictably arises as it always has when refutation of ridiculous theories is required. Eventually, only the anonymous fools and idiot minions remain convinced that their belief in simple-minded explanations of systems complexity can be stated in any form of intelligent conversation.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
You keep calling me an idiot minion because I can actually UNDERSTAND...


I call you an idiot minion because idiots are not willing to learn to understand anything. They just assert that they already understand whatever it is they think they understand and attempt to draw support from other idiots, who typically are also the idiot minions of biology teachers who were one idiot minions themselves. It's a self-propagating ignorance that continues because there are almost always more idiot minions than serious scientists who have been trained to look for experimental evidence to support their conclusions.

"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." -- 1996 http://www.hawaii...ion.html
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2014
Well, they diagnosed the basic problem (you can't reason a person out of a position they didn't use reason to put themselves in). But the interviewed scientists are picked to be accommodationists, as blind to what their belief in belief makes them reject as the outright religionists.

I.e. you can't be any kind of creationist and still accept evolution, because you don't accept the mechanisms and appeal to magic influences.

And oy, the anti-evolutionist pheromone crackpot is here to selll his flim-flam products again, as bad as the creationists. :-/
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2014
Another idiot minion writes:

you can't be any kind of creationist and still accept evolution


You can't be intelligent and make comments like that. See for example: Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution http://img.signal...nsky.pdf

"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of Creation."

Then, see: Combating Evolution to Fight Disease http://www.scienc...88.short

"..."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."

Ecological variation confers the ability to adapt -- not via mutations and natural selection -- but via natural selection for food, DNA methylation, and amino acid substitutions that stabilize DNA in organized genomes.
Jaeherys
5 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
@JVK

Alternate splicing and DNA methylation changes throughout the life of many organisms and is usually cell type, tissue, and cell program specific. Secondly, messing around with alternate splicing can be even worse than messing around with methylation! Not only do you get relatively immediate effects but you pretty much just spit out null or dominant negative isoforms of the currently functional gene, thats not good for life. Nutrient-dependent changes in methylation and splicing are transient and in response to more food and therefore temporarily increase cell metabolism. Only the specific induction of certain genes in specific cell types elicit large scale methylation changes without killing the cell, e.g. c-Myc and lymphomas or TORC1 in response to eating, turning on genes through TFs and change in heterochromatin. All of this sounds like what happens when you learn a lot quickly and everything appears to be connected, when it really isnt. Science is cruel sometimes!
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
And oy, the anti-evolutionist pheromone crackpot is here to selll his flim-flam products again, as bad as the creationists. :-/


I guess I'm just curious Torbjorn...how helpful do you think this kind of attitude is? I'm no more a creationist or anit-evolutionist than you are, but I'd really have a difficult time making this kind of judgmental statement. Do you think you're winning hearts and minds? Do you even care if you do or don't? Do you care if you actually solidify these beliefs in others by your general attitude and demeanor towards people? If you don't care then why do you post here? I'm just baffled by this kind of behavior. I don't HAVE to understand it, but I'd like to try.

How exactly are creationists "bad"? What is "bad" to you, just out of pure curiosity?
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2014
Nutrient-dependent changes in methylation and splicing are transient


Thanks. You seem to be saying that there is another way to link the sensory environment to species diversity -- a way that does not involve the conserved molecular mechanisms we detailed in http://www.hawaii...ion.html

The biophysically constrained mechanisms were subsequently extended to invertebrates in http://www.ncbi.n...10980296 and even more fully detailed in http://bfg.oxford...050.long

Now that the archaic and modern human genomes have been linked via DNA methylation to amino acid substitutions and morphology in mice, which is consistent with the fossil record, what makes anyone think that all of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled species diversity is not connected by conserved molecular mechanisms in yeasts?

http://stke.scien...291/pe28
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2014
Signaling Crosstalk: Integrating Nutrient Availability and Sex = yeasts
http://stke.scien...291/pe28

Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction = all vertebrates
http://www.cell.c...900981-5

Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: (a mammalian model of thermodynamics and organism-level thermoregulation) = all species from microbes to man
http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2014
Do you care if you actually solidify these beliefs in others by your general attitude and demeanor towards people?


That's a great question -- one that has plagued me each time I see such attitudes expressed. It's as if idiot minions think they can mirror the position of people like Richard Dawkins in an age of information that has invalidated his nonsense.

Neo-Darwinism, the Modern Synthesis and selfish genes: are they of use in physiology?
http://jp.physoc....abstract

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology
http://ep.physoc....235.long

More than a decade later we still have anonymous fools who have learned nothing about biologically based cause and effect after Noble (2011) made this clear:

"If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based."
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2014
I call you an idiot minion because idiots are not willing to learn to understand anything
@jvk
so, in your own words, you are calling YOURSELF and IDIOT MINION, because you've been taught a few things here on phys.org and REFUSED to learn them.
in fact, you are also saying that you're an idiot because you attempt to misinterpret results and known studies for your own purposes, which have been continually thrown back in your face. such as the Lenski experiments.

therefore, you've just called YOURSELF AND IDIOT MINION, jvk. and we've got demonstration after demonstration to prove it here in comment sections all over phys.org. after all, you cant even comprehend the terms used in your own field... so that makes you...????
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
In my model of conserved molecular mechanisms, the experience-dependent de novo Creation of olfactory receptor genes links olfaction and pheromones to:

Continuous Postnatal Neurogenesis Contributes to Formation of the Olfactory Bulb Neural Circuits and Flexible Olfactory Associative Learning

http://www.jneuro...abstract

"...the OB-mutant (Fig. 7) and the late-postnatal neurogenesis mutant (Fig. 8), showed severe impairments in flexible olfactory associative learning. These results indicate that continuous postnatal neurogenesis and ongoing supply of newborn interneurons regulate optimized behaviors in flexible olfactory associative learning."

It is the regulation of optimized behaviors that is required for ecological variation to lead to ecological adaptations, which obviously would be perturbed by mutations (e.g., because they perturb protein folding). Thus, the idiot minions that believe in mutation-driven evolution again are exposed by biological facts.
Sigh
5 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2014
If one is not interested in science then who cares if they don't believe in the big bang or genetic code or evolution, or AGW,... the only ones who would get frustrated over another's choice of ignorance are those who desire to control them.

You are too narrowly focused. There are other, far more important reasons.

It only takes a small percentage of people who refuse vaccination, in the mistaken belief that vaccines are both ineffective and harmful, to lose herd immunity. Then if you can't take a vaccine, or if you are one of the people whose immune system didn't respond, you are at risk. Rygg would say your property rights to your own body are being violated.

You might be affected if others mistakenly believe that your skin colour or religion makes you inferior, and enshrine your lower status in law. In a democracy, other people's decisions will affect you. Are you seriously arguing that you don't care whether those decisions are based on false beliefs?