New find challenges 'simple' Australian artefacts assumption

Apr 09, 2014 by Geoff Vivian
Ground-edged axes like this one were found at a site near Windjana Gorge in the central Kimberley. Credit: Chris Langeluddecke 

Purposely sharpened or 'retouched' stone axes evolved in Australia thousands of years before they appeared in Europe according to researchers studying the south-east Asian archaeological record.

They found 30,000-year-old flakes from ground-edged at a site near Windjana Gorge in the central Kimberley.

In a recent paper with Professor Sue O'Connor, UWA archaeologist Jane Balme says the evidence collected challenges common assumptions about paleolithic innovations.

"The suggestion that all innovation has to come from the Old World is not true because clearly ground- were created here," Prof Balme says.

She notes that they were also made in Japan at a slightly later date, by people who would have had no contact with either Australian Aborigines or people in Africa and Europe.

Prof Balme says retouched axes are just one example of material culture developing independently in various parts of the world, as people have always evolved new technologies to meet their needs.

"We're not really sure what these ground axes were used for but probably for chopping trees and related plants.

"If you've got plants as a major … source of resources for technology then you have one of these axes."

She says migrating game was common in Europe, so hunters chasing those herds probably developed the stone points often found in European excavations.

"A lot of the articles we refer to in this paper are relatively recent, by Europeans, but they still talk about stone artefacts in Australia as being not as complicated as those in the old world," Prof Balme says.

"The point of the paper was to discuss how something that looks simple is actually very complicated."

She says archaeologists often over-rate, durable and easy to find stone's importance.

"Stone is not the only technology when we are thinking of those sorts of societies.

"In the early societies most of the technology was probably made from plants."

She gave the example of spears which were probably made out of wood.

"If in Australia the first people that came here came from an island technology, fishing was probably a very important part of their economy," she says.

"So string is going to be important for people who want to exploit those resources, whereas it might not be somewhere else."

"We have to be aware that stone was such a small part of peoples' , that it's not necessarily representative of the entire setting.

"It may appear simple but other areas could be very complicated."

Explore further: Researchers claim to have found origin of Blarney Stone

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

World's oldest axe found in Australia

Nov 05, 2010

Archaeologists revealed they have found a piece of a stone axe dated as 35,500 years old on sacred Aboriginal land in Australia, the oldest object of its type ever found.

Researchers claim to have found origin of Blarney Stone

Mar 18, 2014

(Phys.org) —A team of researchers at Scotland's University of Glasgow's Hunterian Museum believe they have solved the mystery of the origin of the famed Blarney Stone—it came from the area surrounding ...

New paleolithic site found in Tianjin, China

Mar 13, 2013

A joint team of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP), Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Preservation Center of Cultural Heritage in Tianjin found a new paleolithic site ...

Recommended for you

Study sheds new light on the diet of extinct animals

5 hours ago

A study of tooth enamel in mammals living today in the equatorial forest of Gabon could ultimately shed light on the diet of long extinct animals, according to new research from the University of Bristol.

Ancient clay seals may shed light on biblical era

Dec 20, 2014

Impressions from ancient clay seals found at a small site in Israel east of Gaza are signs of government in an area thought to be entirely rural during the 10th century B.C., says Mississippi State University archaeologist ...

Digging up the 'Spanish Vikings'

Dec 19, 2014

The fearsome reputation of the Vikings has made them the subject of countless exhibitions, books and films - however, surprisingly little is known about their more southerly exploits in Spain.

User comments : 135

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2014
All very good points, and parts of a strong argument for a more nuanced interpretation of various technologies in the Arcaelogical record.

Terrain, paleoclimate, local material culture, diet, religion, trade, etc, all had an impact on when and where these technological changes occurred, and virtually guaranteed that they would occur multiple times in areas widely separated chronologically, culturally, and geographically.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2014
Occurrences in areas widely separated chronologically, culturally, and geographically exemplify the common theme of ecological adaptations due to ecological variation. Thus, the changes are also manifested in morphological and behavioral phenotypes associated with nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled diversity. For example, these findings, link the ~30,000 year time-frame to a modern human population that arose in what is now central China. The mouse-to-human model of base pair changes and amino acid substitutions links the conserved molecular mechanisms of species diversity from ecological adaptations in microbes to man.

Can anything still be said about the importance of mutations to evolution and species diversity except that what many people once believed was never based on experimental evidence of biologically based cause and effect?

See: "Alternative RNA Splicing in Evolution" http://jonlieffmd...volution
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2014
... model of base pair changes ...

JVK, we've been through this.
The term 'mutations' is typically used in biology to mean DNA sequence changes, so base pair changes ARE mutations.

Can't you at least find a NEW mistake to make rather than repeating errors that have already been pointed out to you?
Sinister1812
3 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2014
They adapted to a harsh land, built huts, had tribes, hunted big game, had their own laws, languages, religions and cultures. When white people came, they took a lot of that away. Some of the people in the remote areas, still live with their ancient customs and traditions today.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2014
...base pair changes ARE mutations.


Ecological variation results in nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled base pair changes and the ecological adaptations are manifested in species diversity. If the base pair changes were not biophysically constrained (e.g., by the law of physics and the chemistry of protein folding) you could correctly refer to them as the mutations that cause diseases and disorders.

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
http://www.socioa...53/27989
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2014
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
... a model that is already included in evolution as it also causes mutations PER YOUR OWN ADMISSION IN OTHER THREADS

In genetics, a mutation is a change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element. Mutations result from unrepaired damage to DNA or to RNA genomes (typically caused by radiation or chemical mutagens), errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.[1][2][3] Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes

see: http://www.merria...mutation for more details
JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2014
Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes


Is there any extant literature that explains how mutations that perturb protein folding somehow result in normal biological processes? Everything that I have published or presented in the past two decades, and everything I have read in the past 3 decades has revealed that there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation. That explains why no one has attempted to explain how beneficial mutations might result in species diversity.

From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior (1996)
http://www.hawaii...ion.html
"Small intranuclear proteins also participate in generating alternative splicing techniques of pre-mRNA and, by this mechanism, contribute to sexual differentiation in at least two species, Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans. That similar proteins perform functions in humans suggests the possibility that some human sex..."
cjn
5 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2014
Is there any extant literature that explains how mutations that perturb protein folding somehow result in normal biological processes? Everything that I have published or presented in the past two decades, and everything I have read in the past 3 decades has revealed that there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation.


Really? How about this recent article on selection for Lactose Tolerance in adults?
http://www.nature...-1.13471

Lactose tolerance is present in infants, so they can process breast milk. It has little value after the mother is no longer lactating or a child can no longer suckle, in this natural regard. In some populations, lactose tolerance can and does, however, enable adolescents and adults to process milk from other mammals. If this was "nutrient dependent", then we'd all retain that capability. I can assure that, as I once had lactose tolerance, and now do not, this process has nothing to do with nutrient interaction
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2014

From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior (1996)
http://www.hawaii...ion.html
"Small intranuclear proteins also participate in generating alternative splicing techniques of pre-mRNA and, by this mechanism, contribute to sexual differentiation in at least two species, Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans. That similar proteins perform functions in humans suggests the possibility that some human...


No matter how many times you cite yourself, splicing has nothing to do with changing the genomic sequence. Offering it as an alternative to mutations over and over is an effective way of telling everybody that you don't understand the difference between the genome and the transcriptome.

Now that we have established the fact that splicing makes sequence changes to the mRNA, I ask you again: what makes sequence changes to the DNA?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2014
what makes sequence changes to the DNA?


Why do you continue to ask the same foolish question and ignore cause and effect that I have detailed in Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
http://www.socioa...53/27989

What kind of idiot attributes species diversity to mutations instead of to ecological variation in the availability of food, and asks -- after I have detailed all aspects of nutrient-dependent changes in base pairs -- what makes sequence changes to the DNA?

Clearly, it is anonymous fools like this one who prevent others from realizing that mutations do not cause sex differences -- if others have not already realized that.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2014
lactose tolerance can and does, however, enable adolescents and adults to process milk from other mammals.


The link from sunlight and vitamin D production to morphology manifested in skin pigmentation is one of the clearest examples of ecological adaptation that I have seen -- especially in areas where malaria is endemic. The ecological adaptation shows up in the hemoglobin S variant that theorists think is due to a mutation.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2014
I'm not ignoring anything. As I've told you before many times, nothing in your paper details genomic changes. You only ever address epigenetic changes. Sex differences and cell differentiation are the result of EPIGENETIC processes. You don't explain GENETIC sequence changes at any point.

For the sake of everything that is holy, please learn the difference between genetics and eoigenetic.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2014
epigenetics*
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2014
"One of the key biochemical characteristics of E. Coli is that it's a lactose fermenter (LF). However, non-lactose fermenting (NLF) strains have previously been reported especially in gastrointestinal infections."

https://www.linke...entID_-1

Predictably, if more of your microbiome was comprised of NLF E. coli, you would be lactose intolerant -- not due to any mutation, however. Cause and effect is clearly manifested as ecological adaptations linked directly to nutrient availability.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2014
please learn the difference between genetics and epigenetic.

What am I missing in this 2012 review?

Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors
http://www.socioa...38/20758

What kind of anonymous fool tells the author of such an article that he needs to learn the difference between genetics and epigenetics?

That was a rhetorical question.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2014
You're missing a description/mechanism of how genetic changes are made.

Example: lactose affects Lac operons and can down- or upregulate transcription of downstream genes.

I'm not contesting nutrients or pheromones affecting expression or splicing, but you never say how genome-level sequence changes are made.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2014
...you never say how genome-level sequence changes are made.


Tell me how you think the sequence changes responsible for evolution are made by mutations so we can compare your ridiculous opinion to my detailed explanation of cause and effect that begins with base pair flipping at the level of quantum physics.
-------------------------------------
A quantum theory for the irreplaceable role of docosahexaenoic acid in neural cell signalling throughout evolution http://www.ncbi.n...23206328
cjn
5 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2014
JVK: How are nutrient-based epigenetic changes inherited to support speciation?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2014
...you never say how genome-level sequence changes are made.


Tell me how you think the sequence changes responsible for evolution are made by mutations so we can compare your ridiculous opinion to my detailed explanation of cause and effect that begins with base pair flipping at the level of quantum physics.
-------------------------------------
A quantum theory for the irreplaceable role of docosahexaenoic acid in neural cell signalling throughout evolution http://www.ncbi.n...23206328


That paper doesn't concern "base pair flipping at the level of quantum physics". Another irrelevant citation.

As for how sequence changes are made, this is something that's been covered a million times. Replicative enzymes have their own error rates. Mutagens of all sorts can also cause sequence changes.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2014
My MODEL begins with nutrient-dependent base pair flipping. Your opinion appears to begin with replicative enzymes that automagically arise before introducing errors, which then automagically result in increasing organismal complexity in species from microbes to man.

Thank you for repeatedly earning the prestigious title of "anonymous fool."

The base pair flip and SNP precede the amino acid substitution here:
http://www.socioa...53/27989

"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. The alanine substitution for valine does not appear to be under any selection pressure in mice. The cause-and-effect relationship was established in mice by comparing the effects of the alanine, which is under selection pressure in humans, via its substitution for valine in mice (Kamberov et al., 2013)."
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2014
JVK: How are nutrient-based epigenetic changes inherited to support speciation?


Thanks for asking. That's what I've detailed in a series of published works during the past two decades. I summarized those works in a 5.5 minute video.

See: http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524

"Chemical ecology drives adaptive evolution via 1) ecological niche construction, 2) social niche construction, 3) neurogenic niche construction, and 4) socio-cognitive niche construction (Kohl, 2012). Nutrients are metabolized to pheromones that condition effects on hormones that affect behavior in the same way that food odors condition behavior associated with food preferences. For example: glucose (Roland and Moenter, 2011) and pheromones alter the secretion of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) and luteinizing hormone (LH). Across species comparisons of epigenetic effects on genetically predisposed nutrient-dependent and hormone-driven invertebrate and vertebrate social and sexual behavior indicate..."
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2014
My MODEL begins with nutrient-dependent base pair flipping.


It's hard to follow when you ad-hoc things into your model that aren't described in your papers. What do you mean by base pair flipping? All I can find are confirmation changes that expose the bases outside the helix.

https://www.psc.e...out.html

JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2014
Let's compare how I might follow you if you had ever said anything that was not foolish.

Tell me how mutations in base pairs arise and how they somehow cause evolution. Then we can discuss the base-pair flipping that enables ecological adaptations, which I exemplified in my 2013 review with citations to Kamberov et al (2013) and Grossman et al (2013).

You claim that this is not discussed in my model, which links SNPs (base pair flipping) to amino acid substitutions.

Why aren't we discussing what you know? Could it be because you know nothing and have only the opinions of an anonymous fool, which cannot be intelligently discussed. You have refused to attempt to discuss any aspect of what I have modeled, yet now seem to think I should add details from atoms to ecosystems.

Do your own homework, or attempt intelligent discussion!
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2014
Tell me how mutations in base pairs arise


As if this is something you haven't been told a million times before. Errors from replicative enzymes, radiation, mutagenic chemicals, etc.

how they somehow cause evolution


If you change a base pair, depending on where it is, it may change promoter strength and change how often a gene is expressed or amino acid sequence in the resulting protein and alter its function.

citations to Kamberov et al (2013) and Grossman et al (2013).


Those papers say nothing of "base pair flipping" and you still have not answered my previous question. What do you mean by "base pair flipping"? It's a vague term by itself.

SNPs (base pair flipping)


SNPs are certainly not related to bp flipping as it's discussed in the link I posted before, if that's what you're referring to. Flipping =/= substitution

JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2014
Experimental evidence for control of gene transcription by small molecules that target two alternatively folded forms of DNA in dynamic equilibrium clearly shows that whatever you believe somehow happens due to mutations actually happens due to ecological variation that results in ecological, social, neurogenic and socio-cognitive niche construction, which is clearly nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.

Your belief in pseudoscientific nonsense is amazing when compared to the facts about cell type differentiation in individuals of all species. You cannot even address any issues involved in the gene, cell, tissue, organ, organ system pathway except by involving a ridiculous theory, and yet you want others to believe that Flipping =/= substitution because that was your interpretation from a new article published in 2003.

I've published 3 reviews since then and presented my findings at least 10 times.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2014
control of gene transcription


Controlling transcription and altering DNA sequence are two ENTIRELY different things. I find it absolutely amazing you still don't understand the difference. Are you making a false equivalency on purpose?

you want others to believe that Flipping =/= substitution because that was your interpretation from a new article published in 2003


That's not my interpretation and it's not the only article concerning base flipping. Base flipping is the transition of the base from the interior of the double helix to the outside. It's utilized by DNA glycolyases as part of the DNA repair process.

http://en.wikiped...d_repair

Flipping in and of itself, however, is not substitution.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2014
Flipping in and of itself, however, is not substitution.


Let's start from there. Tell me how mutations result in evolution via changes in base pairs.

Alternatively, stop being an anonymous fool.

http://www.cell.c...)00207-1

anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2014
Flipping in and of itself, however, is not substitution.


Let's start from there. Tell me how mutations result in evolution via changes in base pairs.



I told you 9 hours ago:

"If you change a base pair, depending on where it is, it may change promoter strength and change how often a gene is expressed or amino acid sequence in the resulting protein and alter its function."
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2014
Perturbed protein folding (mutations) do not result in beneficial alterations and functional proteins, which are required for increasing organismal complexity.

That's why mutations are linked to diseases and disorders. I asked you to tell me
"...how mutations result in evolution via changes in base pairs.


JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2014
I'm certain that any intelligent person who has looked at your responses must now be thinking this: What kind of anonymous fool cannot grasp the fact that increasing organismal complexity is nutrient-dependent?

How can any anonymous fool continue to attribute evolution to mutations?

Organisms eat; they don't mutate. They adapt to ecological variation via the epigenetic effects of what they eat on morphology and behavior. The epigenetic effects are manifested in base pair changes and amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types in individuals of all species.

Pheromones control the changes by controlling the physiology of reproduction.

Attributing nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations to mutations exemplifies what happens when pseudoscientific nonsense is taught to anonymous fools who believe what they are taught because they cannot grasp biological facts.
Anda
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2014
You are both really boring...
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2014
You are both really boring...


Thanks for anonymously expressing your opinion. However, I did not find it meaningful.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2014
Unique expression patterns of multiple key genes associated with the evolution of mammalian flight http://rspb.royal...act?etoc

Fugivory is directly linked to unique patterns of multiple key genes associated with ecological adaptations that resulted in mammalian flight, which are also associated with experience-dependent de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes, skull development, and brain development.

A Cluster of Olfactory Receptor Genes Linked to Frugivory in Bats " This morphological and behavioral background suggests olfaction is linked to dietary specialization..."

http://mbe.oxford...abstract

Does any experimental evidence link mutations to the evolution of anything in any species or does that idea represent only the typical pseudoscientific nonsense that others have extended to humans in articles like this one about 'artifacts."
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2014
I'm certain that any intelligent person who has looked at your responses must now be thinking this: What kind of anonymous fool cannot grasp the fact that increasing organismal complexity is nutrient-dependent?
@jvk
actually, they are more likely wondering: why is this jvk feller so ignorant of basic jargon, as well as empirical data proving that he is wrong?
can he not read? is he incapable of following along?
Does any experimental evidence link mutations to the evolution of anything in any species
OK
http://phys.org/n...lts.html
&
http://www.scienc...afa3a136

I am sure you can look up more of Lenski's work in Sceince Mag in your free time... given that you will not read it, or you will not understand it, I am wasting time, BUT... it PROVES YOU WRONG! there is evidence of mutations in species as well as beneficial mutations!

nice try jimmy.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2014
1999 "...mutations underlying high-temperature adaptations in a particular bacteriophage are surprisingly reproducible, right down to the specific changes in the DNA sequence. Now Wichman, Bull, and their students are trying to identify the factors that favor this kind of predictability. "It's really too early to tell what the rules are..."

2013 Here are the rules: Nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions are controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man.

Only the amino acid substitutions that stabilize protein folding are naturally selected to become fixed in the genome. Mutations that perturb protein folding are never selected for fixation for obvious reasons (unless you are one of PZ Myers' idiot minions). For example, fixation of mutations that perturb protein folding cannot be a mechanism that results in increasing organismal complexity.
tadchem
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2014
The bottom line is that the fossil record for anthropogenic tools is still very sparse.
The earliest tools would have been tools of opportunity - those used before people started deliberately shaping tools - and would have been nearly indistinguishable from natural articles, even at the time.
There is no data to *disprove* the hypothesis that use of tools of opportunity began long before the earliest emigration from Africa - about 70,000 years ago, but proving it would be equally challenging.
The only definitive difference between a tool and a natural article at this time (pre-toolworking) would have been the user.
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2014
The original garden of eden - where the jew god, sprouted two jews from dirt, was in Australia.

The ethnopaleogenic records now prove it, along with the development of 200,000 year old chainsaw fossils.
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2014
My MODEL begins with nutrient-dependent base pair flipping.


Since the standard definition of 'mutation' in biology is change to DNA nucleotide sequence, base-pair flipping IS mutation. So, JVK, your model BEGINS with mutation.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2014
Base pair flipping by itself doesn't change sequence. It's just a conformation change.
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2014
@9001 - 'base flipping' is indeed a conformation change, referring to a single base being rotated out (typically for access). 'Base pair flipping' can refer to both bases of a pair flipping, but this is rare - as you say, it is a vague term (unlike mutation).

However in RNA structure-solving programs such as EtaRNA, base pair flipping definitively refers to exchanging a pair of linked bases in an RNA hairpin. Granted, that is an RNA rather than a DNA usage, but it is a nucleic acid sequence change.

Since JVK introduced 'base pair flipping' in and article on DHA that highlights that DHA's gene does not accumulate mutations, and JVK equated 'base pair flipping' with SNPs (which are sequence changes), I decided to use the vague term as JVK had used it to. And the way he used it shows that his model involves mutations.

But you are correct - I should be clearer, so I will rephrase my comment to JVK.

RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2014
My MODEL begins with nutrient-dependent base pair flipping.

...
You claim that this is not discussed in my model, which links SNPs (base pair flipping) to amino acid substitutions.


@JVK - Since the standard definition of a 'mutation' in biology is a change to a DNA nucleotide sequence, SNPs ARE MUTATIONS (or base pair flipping, as you have used the term, IS mutation. So, JVK, your model BEGINS with mutation.

JVK
1 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2014
My model begins with epigenetic effects on the microRNA/messenger RNA balance, which links nutrient stress and social stress to ecological adaptations via SNPs. The adaptations are perturbed by mutations because mutations perturb protein folding, which is why they contribute to diseases and disorders, but never contribute to ecological adaptations and species diversity.

Why haven't you learned anything about biology during the past decade or more given the number of references to the role of microRNAs and utter pseudoscientific nonsense of evolutionary theory?

http://medicalxpr...nce.html
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2014
Why haven't you learned anything about biology during the past decade or more given the number of references to the role of microRNAs ...?

When have I ever argued against a major role for RNAs?

It is you who needs to learn what mutations (as the term is used in the field) are and what role they play. To start with:
My model begins with epigenetic effects on the microRNA/messenger RNA balance, which links nutrient stress and social stress to ecological adaptations via SNPs. The adaptations are perturbed by mutations because mutations perturb protein folding, which is why they contribute to diseases and disorders, but never contribute to ecological adaptations and species diversity.

First, some mutations do not affect protein folding at all.
Second, of the mutations that do affect protein folding, many have harmful effect but some have beneficial effects.
Third, your model's SNPs are sequence changes, which are MUTATIONS - what do you fail to understand about that?
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2014
My model's SNPs are nutrient-dependent, which is what links them across species to the physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction that prevents mutations, which perturb protein folding, from becoming fixed in the DNA of the organized genome of any species.

What I don't understand is your ongoing idiocy -- exemplified when you make claims about my model because you are too simple-minded to understand anything about the physics, chemistry, and biology that link the sensory environment to species diversity without the involvement of mutations.

You may be the last person on Earth to finally acknowledge the fact that Darwin's 'conditions of life' are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. However, someone must continue to provide others with pseudoscientific nonsense -- if only to show how pervasive it has been, and how pervasive it may remain, long after facts about cause and effect have become known. Keep exemplifying idiocy; it's what you do best!
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2014
@RealScience

However in RNA structure-solving programs such as EtaRNA, base pair flipping definitively refers to exchanging a pair of linked bases in an RNA hairpin. Granted, that is an RNA rather than a DNA usage, but it is a nucleic acid sequence change.


However, it's merely a gameplay element of an RNA structure simulation. It has no analogous mechanism in vivo as far as I know. Even if it did, it could only explain G to C/A to T changes and vice versa.

If Kohl is referring to the base flipping used in the excision repair pathway, he's only making it harder for himself because he now has to explain why and how repair mechanism is being used to make deliberate changes to non-mismatched base pairs. That's the problem with being vague; you create more questions than you answer.

Oh, and no matter how many times you claim the conditions of life are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, it still doesn't make any sense. Abiotic factors can't be nutrient-dependent.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2014
I'm certain that any intelligent person who has looked at your responses must now be thinking this: What kind of anonymous fool cannot grasp the fact that increasing organismal complexity is nutrient-dependent?
@jvk
actually, they are more likely wondering: why is this jvk feller so ignorant of basic jargon, as well as empirical data proving that he is wrong?
can he not read? is he incapable of following along?

I'm not that intelligent personally but that perfectly sums up what im thinking too. he just doesn't get it and is too emotionally invested in his little theory too.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2014
I'm not that intelligent personally but that perfectly sums up what im thinking too. he just doesn't get it and is too emotionally invested in his little theory too
@jsdarkdestruction
I wouldn't say you are not that intelligent... you are quite intelligent. jvk is just so firmly locked into a belief that he cannot comprehend the reality of the empirical data because it directly refutes his worldview and belief system. this is common with religious types (or cults etc) that ignore data to believe in something that is impossible or proven wrong.
this is a type of mental disorder that is common with certain cults, religions, deniers of science or empirical data, etc.

that is why you are intelligent. you can adjust your world view based upon empirical data! this is the WAY of science... it is how scientists work. it is the scientific method.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2014
What kind of idiot attributes species diversity to mutations instead of to ecological variation in the availability of food
Why do you keep comparing wild animals with humans? Technology ended natural selection as the principle driver of human development.

A tribe which could master a new tech or a complex strategy of employing it against their neighbors would prevail in conflict. They would gain repro rights over the women of other tribes. And whatever intellectual advantages they possessed would quickly propagate.

This caused significant change over centuries instead of eons. Dietary adaptation became secondary to the primary thing which made us human: tech-driven conflict.

"We're not really sure what these ground stone axes were used for but probably for chopping trees and related plants."

-They should perhaps consider how they could have been used as weapons, or used to make weapons.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2014
Why do you keep comparing wild animals with humans?


Thanks for asking. I do it because the conserved molecular mechanisms of ecological adaptations clearly link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man.

What kind of idiot refuses to acknowledge a biological fact like that?
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2014
he now has to explain why and how repair mechanism is being used to make deliberate changes to non-mismatched base pairs.


Ecological adaptations occur only when increased genomic stability results from SNPs and amino acid substitutions. The increased organismal complexity that is the result of the substitutions is attributed to mutations by idiots.

Thus the difference between science and pseudoscientific nonsense becomes clear. Only idiots believe in pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and evolution of species diversity.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2014
Ecological adaptations occur only when increased genomic stability results from SNPs and amino acid substitutions. The increased organismal complexity that is the result of the substitutions is attributed to mutations by idiots.


Are you referring to excision repair? If so, why and how is it now being used for something besides excision repair? This would fly in the face of everything scientists have characterized about that pathway. If not, what enzymatic process are you referring to that involves base pair flipping?
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2014
What are you trying to tell me has been characterized by others about the pathway for excision repair that is somehow associated with mutations and evolution?

Start providing citations for your imaginary support of pseudoscientific nonsense, or quit making stuff up and challenging the facts I continue to supply with references to my published works that contain hundreds of citations.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2014
What kind of idiot refuses to acknowledge a biological fact like that?
What kind if an idiot ignores tech-based culture in human development?

There's this little tribe in the woods that has slowly adapted to their indigenous foods over a few thousand years. And then one day along come the Huns who kill all the males and usurp all the females. So much for molecular mechanisms of ecological adaptations that clearly link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA soup of your intellect.

Tribal warfare and conquest was the norm throughout the Pleistocene. Natural selection never had a chance. It is WHY the genome is so homogenous.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2014
What are you trying to tell me has been characterized by others about the pathway for excision repair that is somehow associated with mutations and evolution?


God, your reading comprehension is atrocious...

I'm asking you what you're trying to tell us. Do I need to go through it step by step?

1. You brought up "base pair flipping" as part of the mechanism you claim makes base pair changes.
2. The only thing I can find that's even close to "base pair flipping" is base flipping in which a base flips from its usual conformation inside the helix to being outside the helix, which makes it accessible to enzymes involved in DNA repair pathways.

So, are you claiming that repair mechanisms somehow make non-repair related base changes in your model? If not, what is the mechanism that "base pair flipping" is a part of?

As I've said before, I've read your papers. None of them actually say how DNA sequence changes are made. If they did, you'd be able to point out the exact citations.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2014
If they did, you'd be able to point out the exact citations.


You keep asking me to do your homework for you. Instead, learn how vitamin C protects against ionizing radiation. Tell me which exact citation best details biophysically constrained cause and effect at the level of base pair flipping. Then tell me how mutations result in species diversity.

Alternatively, admit that you will always be an anonymous fool who is incapable of understanding anything about physics, chemistry, or biology and who therefore believes in pseudoscientific nonsense.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2014
I've done my homework, but oddly enough, when you're looking for something that doesn't exist, it's futile. There are no relevant mentions of "base", "sequence", "gene" (in conjunction with sequence), or anything else pertaining to those in your 2013 paper. Ctrl+F doesn't lie.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2014
You keep asking me to do your homework for you. Instead, learn how vitamin C protects against ionizing radiation
And how does it protect against Scythian arrows? Or wooden spears for that matter.

Here's some adaptation for you; humans are immune to certain prions because of the prevalence of cannibalism during their development. Hunting and fighting are very similar you know? Both involve stalking and ambushing. And when protein is chronically scarce, why leave all that good protein strewn about the battlefield to rot?

The next tribe is usually considered a little less human than yours.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2014
Your inability to link nutrient-dependent (e.g., vitamin-dependent) changes in base pairs from the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction is the problem. My paper is a review article and it is not possible to examine every detail of nutrient-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance in any review. This does not discount the facts about how vitamins epigenetically effect SNPs via base pair flipping.

"For a recent review of other epigenetic effects that might be attributed to vitamin D, see Patrick and Ames [55] who note that the complete details of likely benefits of vitamin D are outside the scope of their article."

Serious scientists make such statements because they realize the limitations on explanations that can be presented with concision, and that anonymous fools will therefore claim that mutations somehow cause species diversity because they never understood anything about biological facts anyway.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2014
I wonder what nutrient-dependent changes occur in base pairs when cannibalism is a major source of nutrients? Chronic overpopulation forced us to consume things that no self-respecting primate would... grass, spoiled milk, fermented fruit juice, fungus, haggis. And each other.

But hey cannibalism is not unheard of among apes. And their numbers are kept in check by most of the natural attritive elements that we in our wisdom have done away with.
http://news.natio...ons.html
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2014
nutrient-dependent (e.g., vitamin-dependent) changes in base pairs


That occur through what enzymatic pathway?

nutrient-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance


That's fine and dandy. Nobody contests that, but the problem occurs here:

vitamins epigenetically effect SNPs via base pair flipping


A base pair flip in the DNA is not epigenetic and you still refuse to tell us what enzymatic process is responsible for that flipping.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2014
A base pair flip in the DNA is not epigenetic and you still refuse to tell us what enzymatic process is responsible for that flipping.


The base pair flip in the DNA is epigenetic in my model. If it isn't in your pseudoscientific theory, it doesn't make any difference what enzymatic process is responsible. That's why it's a waste of time to tell you anything more about the enzymatic process. You'll just come back and say nuh-uh; it's due to mutations. Again, you can't grasp the physics, chemistry, or the biology. That's why everything must be due to mutations. It's what you believe because you're an anonymous fool, and facts are of no importance whatsoever.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2014
The base pair flip in the DNA is epigenetic in my model.


Epigenetics, by definition, deals with alterations that aren't sequence changes.

If it isn't in your pseudoscientific theory, it doesn't make any difference what enzymatic process is responsible. That's why it's a waste of time to tell you anything more about the enzymatic process. You'll just come back and say nuh-uh; it's due to mutations


A previously characterized enzymatic process can be independently verified. If whatever you claim is responsible actually does what you claim it does, then it should be described somewhere else.

I can't, for example, say "nuh-uh" to the claim that ATP synthase uses the proton motive force derived from the electron transport chain to bind ADP and phosphate in order to make ATP.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2014
Epigenetics, by definition, deals with alterations that aren't sequence changes.


Did you just make that up, or is there a citation for it?

http://en.wikiped...genetics

"The term also refers to the changes themselves: functionally relevant changes to the genome that do not involve a change in the nucleotide sequence. Examples of mechanisms that produce such changes are DNA methylation and histone modification, each of which alters how genes are expressed without altering the underlying DNA sequence."
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2014
I basically just paraphrased what you quoted there... Were you under the impression I contradicted the wiki quote? Because I didn't.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2014
Speaking of DNA

"...Clovis culture, which appeared in North America about 13,000 years ago, appears to be the forerunner of Native Americans throughout the Americas... ancient DNA, extracted from the remains of a 1-year-old boy... The Anzick family is directly ancestral to so many peoples in the Americas," says Eske Willerslev, from the University of Copenhagen... "

"...early sites in Brazil and Chile, as well as a site in Oklahoma also suggest that humans were in the Western Hemisphere as early as 30,000 years ago to perhaps 60,000."

-Population pressures caused repeated waves of migration through already-occupied lands. In the Americas, the Clovis people arrived with a superior tech which enabled them to quickly spread their seed across 2 continents, through various ecologies and climes from tropical to subarctic.

How does this in any way relate to natural selection? Diet had NOTHING to do with the success of these people.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2014
2013 Here are the rules: Nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions are controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man
Here is a better rule jvk: a Clovis point in your gut negates any nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control your physiology.

Any adaptations that you, your family, and your tribe had managed to accrue, were all for naught. Trying to apply mechanisms of natural selection to humans is naive.
RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2014
@9001 - I also do not know of an in vivo mechanism analogous to EteRNA's base pair flip (but I also don't know that there isn't one, and it wouldn't surprise me if nature sometimes did that since the parts are already handy and evolution finds occasional mutations useful).

But JVK both said that his model begins with 'base pair flipping' and equated the term to a SNP, and since a SNP is a mutation I took the opportunity to use his own words against him again rather than get into a definition argument on a vague term (I make a point of using his own words and his own citations to show him to be wrong because JVK is such a pretentious person, being simultaneously arrogant and wrong.

However I should have been more thorough - I left the flipping->SNP link out of my first comment (I had just returned from a trip and had a slew of e-mails to deal with).

But I now see that JVK has made some even sillier mistakes since then!
RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2014
Epigenetics, by definition, deals with alterations that aren't sequence changes.


Did you just make that up, or is there a citation for it?

http://en.wikiped...genetics

"The term also refers to ...changes to the genome that do not involve a change in the nucleotide sequence. ... without altering the underlying DNA sequence."


First, JVK, you have had the difference between epigentics and sequence changes explained to you MANY times in other threads.

Second, you asked 9001 if he had made up the definition for epigentics or if there was a citation for it, and then followed that with a citation defining the same term.

And third, your citation AGREED with the very definition you challenged 9001 on.

What part of "that do not involve a change in the nucleotide sequence" and "without altering the underlying DNA sequence" did you fail to understand this time?

Three strikes and you are out again!
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2014
Development of food intake controls: Neuroendocrine and environmental regulation of food intake during early life. http://www.scienc...14000622

The authors make it clear that anonymous fools and idiot minions of biology teachers must examine and understand developmental plasticity associated with local adaptations in diet that result in growth within and between populations and species before they can integrate what is currently known about how ecological adaptations lead to species diversity manifested in morphological and behavioral phenotypes into biological plausible explanations.

Attributing species diversity to mutations and evolution is pseudoscientific nonsense as are the idiotic misrepresentations of culture-driven "Clovis point in your gut" cause and effect.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2014
From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.scienc...96900409

The authors make it clear that "Neuroendocrine and environmental regulation of food intake during early life" enable the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man sans any ridiculous pseudoscientific theories of cause and effect.

In mammals, the neuroendocrine links from nutrient uptake to pheromone-controlled reproduction have been detailed in the context of hormone-organized and hormone-activated behavior. The 1996 model was extended to invertebrates in 2000 and to their life history transitions in 2005. Now that the authors of "Development of food intake controls..." have returned to focus on hormone-organized and hormone-activated behavior, the pseudoscientific nonsense of evolutionary theory is clearer than it's ever been.

http://www.socioa...38/20758
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2014
First, JVK, you have had the difference between epigentics and sequence changes explained to you MANY times in other threads.


"Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors" is one of my published reviews. http://www.socioa...38/20758

Anyone who thinks they can explain the difference between epigenetics and sequence changes to me, should do so by placing whatever they think they can explain into the context of a review article that explains what is currently known about physics, chemistry, and molecular biology -- since I've been publishing review articles for nearly two decades.

No need to place your pseudoscientific nonsense into the context of one of my reviews -- use a review by anyone. But, until then, stop touting your ridiculous opinions. Your ignorance is unbearable.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2014
Epigenetics concerns expression changes. Gene sequence is not the same as gene expression. It's as simple as that. Did you happen to actually read the wiki article you cited?

Epigenetics: changes to the rate of transcription through processes like silencing and histone modification
Genetics: changes to the base sequence of the gene or regulatory regions

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Apr 15, 2014
since I've been publishing review articles for nearly two decades
appeal to authority argument and also phenomenally stupid in this case given your intellectual inability to comprehend the basic lexicon of your own field.
I would also like to point out that you have said, time and again, that your model does NOT create mutations, but then admitted that it DOES create mutations when the word mutation was NOT used, and the basic definition WAS used.
this points to a basic ignorance of the jargon in the field, which is where you fail above. you've been talking circles & ask
placing whatever they think they can explain into the context of a review article
but given your inability to recognize logic or empirical data in review articles, then the point is moot, really
when you IGNORE empirical data from articles to definitions in your field for your own private belief system it is called stupidity, or perhaps delusional behaviour, whatever soothes your ego
cjn
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
@ JVK: You've never answer the question I have posited numerous times. Here it is again:

If nutrient interaction is the driver for phenotypic expression, why are there 9 million unique multicellular species genomes?

It seems unnecessary (and impossible if genomes changes cannot be inherited) to have so much genetic variety without an equal number of nutrients to drive it.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
You've never answer the question I have posited numerous times


You simply do not accept the answer I have repeatedly provided and detailed with examples in my published works.

Here is is again: It is the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that controls the physiology of reproduction and nutrient-dependent species diversity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2014
Attributing species diversity to mutations and evolution is pseudoscientific nonsense as are the idiotic misrepresentations of culture-driven "Clovis point in your gut" cause and effect
I know. You discovered this idea of yours awhile ago and it made you feel very clever.

"Genghis Khan, the fearsome Mongolian warrior of the 13th century, may have done more than rule the largest empire in the world; according to a recently published genetic study, he may have helped populate it too.

"An international group of geneticists studying Y-chromosome data have found that nearly 8 percent of the men living in the region of the former Mongol empire carry y-chromosomes that are nearly identical. That translates to 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants living today.

"This is a clear example that culture plays a very big role in patterns of genetic variation and diversity in human populations..."

...but that don't make it right.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
Epigenetics: changes to the rate of transcription through processes like silencing and histone modification
Genetics: changes to the base sequence of the gene or regulatory regions


When all else fails to make sense--anonymous fools will try to use definitions to make sense of something, without telling us what that is.

Meanwhile, scientific progress is being made because definitions are not necessary when researchers explain cause and effect via epigenesis or preformation.

Acquisition of Germ Plasm Accelerates Vertebrate Evolution http://www.scienc...abstract

There is no mention of mutations because no experimental evidence suggests they play a role in species diversity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2014
""It's the first documented case when human culture has caused a single genetic lineage to increase to such an enormous extent in just a few hundred years."

"Khan's eldest son, Tushi, is reported to have had 40 sons. Documents written during or just after Khan's reign say that after a conquest, looting, pillaging, and rape were the spoils of war for all soldiers, but that Khan got first pick of the beautiful women. His grandson, Kubilai Khan, who established the Yuan Dynasty in China, had 22 legitimate sons, and was reported to have added 30 virgins to his harem each year."

-First documented, but we can assume, because of the marked lack of diversity in our species, that waves of conquest were the norm throughout the Pleistocene. And tribes fleeing conflict migrated through many diverse ecosystems in search of peace.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
Culture plays no role in biophysically constrained ecological adaptations in an atoms to ecosystems model. Therefore, it is ridiculous for anyone to imply that culture automagically plays a role in human lineages.

The mouse-to-human model I detailed shows how one nutrient-dependent base pair change linked to one amino acid substitution is manifested in morphological and behavioral phenotypes.

You seem to be focused on how much sex someones ancestor might have had.
cjn
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
You simply do not accept the answer I have repeatedly provided and detailed with examples in my published works.

Here is is again: It is the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that controls the physiology of reproduction and nutrient-dependent species diversity.


I'm trying to understand the basis for your postulation, not debate it, at the moment.

So, if it is species-specific pheromones, produced (I assume) only by the species, and only with respect to the nutrient, how are new species created? How does it account for the volume of extant and extinct species?

Since epigenetics is the driver of phenotypic expression in your model, how are adaptations inherited?

At what point between fertilization and "birth" does nutrient metabolism begin to shape phenotypic expression?

Please answer all three; it will support greater understanding of you position than calling your dissenters "idiots".
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
"This great migration brought our species to a position of world dominance that it has never relinquished and signaled the extinction of whatever competitors remained—Neanderthals in Europe and Asia, some scattered pockets of Homo erectus in the Far East and... Hobbits."

-It took moden humans less than100k years to spread worldwide. And the population pressures and resulting conflict which drove them did not stop once the earth was full; it continued to drive wave after wave of conquest. In crossroads like the Middle East, admixture occurred time and again.

"the recency of our common ancestry and continual gene flow among human groups have limited genetic differentiation in our species.

"The difference in dates between Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve is usually attributed to a higher extinction rate for Y chromosomes due to greater differential reproductive success between individual men, which means that a small number of very successful men may produce many children..."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
Culture plays no role in biophysically constrained ecological adaptations in an atoms to ecosystems model. Therefore, it is ridiculous for anyone to imply that culture automagically plays a role in human lineages
Genghis Kahn was from north-Central Asia. His diet was primarily meat. He and his decendents commingled with women across Asia from Siberia to tropical India, from the pacific coast to the shores of the Black Sea.
You seem to be focused on how much sex someones ancestor might have had.
You seem to be completely oblivious to it. Why? Sex is how we pass on our genes. What good is adaptation if it is not passed on?

Who mates with whom is more important than where they mate. Humans are a tropical species that never had time to acclimate.

Romes population at one time was upwards of 80% slave. Slaves from conquered lands ran businesses and held public office, while the citizens they replaced went to live in the provinces. Slaves intermarried with indigenes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2014
The mouse-to-human model I detailed
"The difference in dates between Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve is usually attributed to a higher extinction rate for Y chromosomes due to greater differential reproductive success between individual men, which means that a small number of very successful men may produce many children..."

-I'm sorry but there is no 'mouse model' which can reflect this.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
"At what point between fertilization and "birth" does nutrient metabolism begin to shape phenotypic expression?

Please answer all three; it will support greater understanding of you position than calling your dissenters "idiots".


I'm not calling my dissenters idiots, I'm calling anyone who does not attempt to learn about cause and effect from my detailed reviews an idiot. Since I've answered all your questions in reviews, you are an idiot because you will not read them, and because you insist I have not answered your questions. But, it is not only my reviews that attest to cause and effect, it's everything in the current extant literature. See for example:

http://www.medpag...gy/45260

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
...a small number of very successful men may produce many children..."

-I'm sorry but there is no 'mouse model' which can reflect this. [/q/]

Thanks. That's what makes it pseudoscientific nonsense. Science progresses via experimental evidence, not by positing theories about population genetics that are never tested.

http://www.socioa...53/27989
Excerpt: These two reports (Grossman et al., 2013; Kamberov et al., 2013) tell a new short story of adaptive evolution. The story begins with what was probably a nutrient-dependent variant allele that arose in central China approximately 30,000 years ago. The effect of the allele is adaptive and it is manifested in the context of an effect on sweat, skin, hair, and teeth. In other mammals, like the mouse, the effect on sweat, skin, hair, and teeth is due to an epigenetic effect of nutrients on hormones responsible for the tweaking of immense gene networks that metabolize nutrients..."
cjn
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
I'm not calling my dissenters idiots, I'm calling anyone who does not attempt to learn about cause and effect from my detailed reviews an idiot. Since I've answered all your questions in reviews, you are an idiot because you will not read them, and because you insist I have not answered your questions.


I've viewed your link before and it still does not answer my questions. Please post your answers to them here, so that we may all better understand them.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
Epigenetics: changes to the rate of transcription through processes like silencing and histone modification
Genetics: changes to the base sequence of the gene or regulatory regions


When all else fails to make sense--anonymous fools will try to use definitions to make sense of something, without telling us what that is.


When all else fails to make sense, James will try to equate distinct established terms. Again, epigenetics, by definition, has nothing to do with DNA sequence. If you want to be contrarian about established definitions for no apparent reason, I hear there are a couple guys named Merriam and Webster that need a good talking to.

Just think, James- this entire conversation and the dozens preceding it could have been avoided if you just named the enzymatic mechanism once. That's all I'm asking.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
definitions are not necessary when researchers explain cause and effect
this is phenomenally stupid on your part jvk.
you know as well as I do that in order for communication to succeed and for ideas to be successfully shared there must be a common lexicon used for transmission of ideas. When a new idea is given, there must be a definition and word offered that allows all parties to accept the goal of transmission of data. this is where you FAIL EPICALLY, because any person that quotes what you did above is likely ignorant of a great many things, and it shows in your interpretation of the studies that you link to, because YOU DONT FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON!

continued next post
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Apr 15, 2014
I'm not calling my dissenters idiots, I'm calling anyone who does not attempt to learn about cause and effect from my detailed reviews an idiot
again, jvk, this is egotistical, narcissistic and EPIC FAILURE as well as totally wrong!
you call ANYONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOUR MODEL AN IDIOT, no matter HOW much evidence is shown to you PROVING their comments, like Anon9001 above, RealScience etc etc... they've actually been trying to show you where you are blind, ignorant or stupid, and you throw it in their faces while making blanket accusations and also calling everyone who disagrees with you "idiot". Heck, you've even called Lenski an idiot, albeit indirectly, then you backpedaled !

this is why you will forever be considered a pseudoscience hack. ...and before you go on about your publications... the EU publishes as well, and they have been proven wrong over and over,! and it only takes high school level physics to point out the flaws in their philosophy.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
...this entire conversation and the dozens preceding it could have been avoided if you just named the enzymatic mechanism once. That's all I'm asking.


You're asking me to tell you again and again about something that you, like others, choose to continue to ignore, because you believe in a ridiculous theory instead of this enzymatic fact:

A nutrient-dependent epigenetic variant links glucose and glucose dehydrogenase-dependent base pair changes.

Glucose dehydrogenase is the enzyme, and I have told you that before. For comparison, you have never explained anything about any aspect of mutations and evolution but will next again ask me to explain every aspect of the biophysically constrained links from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA that I have detailed with examples in species from microbes to man.

Meanwhile, every other idiot who has continued their attempts to denigrate me and my works will continue to ignore facts and examples.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
Please post your answers to them here, so that we may all better understand them.


What kind of idiot asks me to help them understand what they cannot understand in the context of review articles that explain cause and effect in species from microbes to man?

That was a rhetorical question. Posting answers to questions here has only resulted in more questions and criticisms. The bottom line is always the same. If you can't understand the extant literature, it's because you believe in pseudoscientific nonsense. If you knew anything about biologically based cause and effect, you would be able to cite the literature that links atoms to ecosystems rather than imply that the literature exists or cite literature containing the pseudoscientific nonsense you were taught to believe.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2014
Thanks. That's what makes it pseudoscientific nonsense. Science progresses via experimental evidence
Yo mr pissant are you accusing me of making those quotes up? Or you accusing my sources of pseudoscience and falsifying data?

"This differential reproductive success of males and females can lead to fewer male lineages relative to female lineages persisting into the future. These fewer male lineages are more sensitive to drift and would most likely coalesce on a more recent common ancestor. This would potentially explain the more recent dates associated with Y-chromosomal Adam."
-Stone et al. (2007). "Fundamentals of Human Evolution". Genes, Culture and Human Evolution. ISBN 1-4051-3166-7.
-Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca (2007). "Human Evolution and Its Relevance for Genetic Epidemiology". Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 8: 1–15. doi:10.1146/annurev.genom.8.080706.092403. PMID 17408354.

-Your mouse models contain no such differential reproduction.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2014
If you knew anything about biologically based cause and effect... the pseudoscientific nonsense you were taught to believe
And I suggest that equating human development to mice exposes an awe-inspiring chasm in your education.

"The idea that genes and culture co-evolve has been around for several decades but has started to win converts only recently. Two leading proponents, Robert Boyd of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Peter J. Richerson of the University of California, Davis, have argued for years that genes and culture were intertwined in shaping human evolution. "It wasn't like we were despised, just kind of ignored," Dr. Boyd said. But in the last few years, references by other scientists to their writings have "gone up hugely," he said."

-Maybe you haven't learned anything new in the last decade or so. Time to catch up. Perhaps a few courses in history to start off?
cjn
5 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2014
What kind of idiot asks me to help them understand what they cannot understand in the context of review articles that explain cause and effect in species from microbes to man?...


Always back to insulting others. The fact that you cannot answer my questions demonstrates that you can't explain your own theory in practical application. You have provided no evidence to support it, and there no conceivable necessity for the mechanism's existence. The "literature" you site is work that is predicated on a misinterpretation of their source documents. The authors, when queried, have attested to that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2014
Males who survived inter- and intra-tribal conflict were the ones who won reproductive rights. In Sparta it was forbidden to marry before age 25, although trysts were tolerated if the young warrior was clever enough to get away with it.

They were also by the way kept on restricted diets to encourage stealing food, the intent being to develop their ingenuity and resourcefulness.

"There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to give aid to each other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection" (Darwin, 1871)

-There are no mouse models for any of this are there? Little rodent hoplites maybe?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
A nutrient-dependent epigenetic variant links glucose and glucose dehydrogenase-dependent base pair changes.

Glucose dehydrogenase is the enzyme, and I have told you that before.


And I told you before that glucose dehydrogenase does no such thing.

In enzymology, a glucose dehydrogenase (acceptor) (EC 1.1.99.10) is an enzyme that catalyzes the chemical reaction

D-glucose + acceptor \rightleftharpoons D-glucono-1,5-lactone + reduced acceptor

Thus, the two substrates of this enzyme are D-glucose and acceptor, whereas its two products are D-glucono-1,5-lactone and reduced acceptor.


They, as the name implies, dehydrogenate glucose. That's all they do. They don't flip base pairs. They don't interact with DNA at all. As I said before, if you name something that's well documented, it's not hard to see if they do what you say they do. As it turns out, glucose dehydrogenases are well characterized and you're flat out lying in saying that they make DNA changes.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Apr 15, 2014
If you can't understand the extant literature, it's because you believe in pseudoscientific nonsense
@jvk
so you finally admit you cant understand the extant literature! its about time!
If you knew anything about biologically based cause and effect
you would not make comments like
A nutrient-dependent epigenetic variant links glucose and glucose dehydrogenase-dependent base pair changes.Glucose dehydrogenase is the enzyme, and I have told you that before
again... explain Lenski et al ?

given your propensity to cite articles that you yourself don't even understand, which is proven right here in this thread, perhaps you should take some time and at least brush up on the lexicon of your chosen field so that you can argue intelligibly?
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
As it turns out, glucose dehydrogenases are well characterized and you're flat out lying in saying that they make DNA changes.


Are you trying to say that nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled epigenetically-marked bases do not explain how hundreds of cell types in the human body and in the brain are differentiated and how they maintain their glucose-dependent and other nutrient-dependent receptor-mediated identities?

If so, please tell me how mutation-driven changes in protein folding result in cell type differentiation without the involvement of glucose dehydrogenase. That's the bottom line here, isn't it?

I explain and you say nuh-uh, but never explain how you think mutations cause species diversity. In the world of evolutionary theory, the base pair flipping, protein folding and amino acid substitutions automagically occur, which means that anonymous fools can make up any argument they wish to deny biological facts, but they can't explain anything.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to give aid to each other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection" (Darwin, 1871)


Darwin did his best to first convey and then repeatedly convey the fact that 'conditions of life' must precede consideration of natural selection. His 'conditions of life' are obviously nutrient-dependent, which makes your quote useless in the context of any explanation of how species diversity occurs via natural selection. Patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy are not characteristics of any species that has not already been subjected to ecological variation that enables ecological adaptations via natural selection of food and pheromone-controlled reproduction.

What kind of idiot fails to grasp those facts?

anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (1) Apr 15, 2014
Now we've come back full circle to you being confused about epigenetic changes and genetic changes.

Cells within a complex organism are indeed differentiated through epigenetic means because your brain cells don't have a different genomic sequence than your skin cells do, but the sequence is not static as it's passed through subsequent generations. That's where your model breaks down. That's what this conversation is about because that's what you've yet to explain.

Glucose dehydrogenase is not responsible for making genetic sequence changes.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
Re: conditions of life.
"For man is enabled through his mental faculties "to keep with an unchanged body in harmony with the changing universe." He has great power of adapting his habits to new conditions of life. He invents weapons, tools, and various stratagems to procure food and to defend himself."

http://infidels.o..._05.html

In the same chapter, we read: "A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy... and this would be natural selection."

The kind of idiot who cannot grasp the fact that natural selection of food and the ability to procure it precedes anything else called 'natural selection' in the context of something else is exemplified in the posts here by TheGhostofOtto1923. Some people would like others to believe in mutation-initiated natural selection rather than learn about biological facts / conditions of life.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
Darwin defined conditions of life as the external circumstances to which an organism must adapt, ie topography, temperature, humidity, etc- the environment. Abiotic factors of the environment cannot be nutrient-dependent. That doesn't make any sense, no matter how many times you repeat it. That's like saying your house is nutrient-dependent.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
I wrote:
A nutrient-dependent epigenetic variant links glucose and glucose dehydrogenase-dependent base pair changes.


The anonymous fool wrote:
Glucose dehydrogenase is not responsible for making genetic sequence changes.


I did not say that glucose dehydrogenase was responsible; I said it was the nutrient-dependent enzymatic link to genetic sequence changes.

Hopefully, everyone who is not an anonymous fool now understands why it is pointless to discuss biological facts with anonymous fools. They merely regurgitate the undigested facts from physics, chemistry, and molecular biology, and spew forth their vomit across the entirety of what has been detailed in the context of ecological adaptations.

Why? Because they believe in pseudoscientific nonsense, that's why. They seem to also believe that mutations are responsible for nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled conditions of life -- but they won't say that because it's a clear indicator of their ignorance.
cjn
5 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2014
Are you trying to say that nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled epigenetically-marked bases do not explain how hundreds of cell types in the human body and in the brain are differentiated and how they maintain their glucose-dependent and other nutrient-dependent receptor-mediated identities?


In multicellular organisms, inter-cellular signalling is what supports differentiation and some cell expression behavior. To pretend like you came up with this idea is intellectually dishonest.

What this signaling does not do, is change the genomic make up of the organism in a manner which is heritable. Thus, no Lamarkian-changes which you espouse can ever be passed-on to offspring.

You still have failed to answer any of my questions. Yet again: If nutrient-interaction is the sole determiner of phenotypic expression, then why does there exist 8+ million unique genomes? From whence did they all originate, if genomic changes are impossible?
cjn
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
Darwin defined conditions of life as the external circumstances to which an organism must adapt, ie topography, temperature, humidity, etc- the environment. Abiotic factors of the environment cannot be nutrient-dependent. That doesn't make any sense, no matter how many times you repeat it. That's like saying your house is nutrient-dependent.


I love when people [like JVK] bring up "Darwin", like his is a mythic figure that we all bow to the alter of. That, and "Dawin's theory of evolution".

Darwin was just a man, who was limited to the knowledge-base of the time, and had no concept of DNA or other modern revelations. His definition of things is irrelevant in the context of what we know today -something any scientist would understand.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
...topography, temperature, humidity, etc- the environment...


Most people recognize these as ecological factors that are the determinants of ecological variation in nutrient availability, which determine whether or not organisms can adapt via natural selection of food. The anonymous fool thinks ecological factors like temperature are abiotic -- as if the temperature at which bacterial cultures of E. coli grow is an abiotic factor in their ability to somehow evolve via mutations.

Arguably, if you first remove the thermodynamics of protein folding from organism-level thermoregulation you can attribute species diversity to anything. The chicken and egg problem can start with a fried egg. So why not attribute the automagical emergence of the chicken to mutation-driven evolution of a thermodynamically fried egg?

That's what everyone else does, isn't it?

Of course not, only anonymous fools and academically irresponsible people who tout pseudoscientific nonsense do that.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
I love when people [like JVK] bring up "Darwin", like his is a mythic figure that we all bow to the alter of. That, and "Dawin's theory of evolution".


I did not bring up Darwin. I responded to nonsense quoted from his Chapter 5.

Let me make my position clearer: "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. (p 1014)"

http://jp.physoc....abstract

Some people don't realize that Darwin knew nothing about genetics and they attribute things to him that he could not possible have known about while ignoring what he did know, which was that 'conditions of life' precede consideration of natural selection for variations in nutrient-dependent morphological and behavioral phenotypes.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
no Lamarkian-changes which you espouse can ever be passed-on to offspring.


What kind of idiot touts such nonsense? That was a rhetorical question.

See: Enhanced evolution by stochastically variable modification of epigenetic marks in the early embryo. http://www.pnas.o...abstract

It's past time for intelligent comments. I'll wait a bit longer to see if anyone posts them to this thread. But, as everyone else has seen, it does no good to respond to idiots; they simply make more idiotic statements. There are too many of them. I'm overwhelmed.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
I wrote:
A nutrient-dependent epigenetic variant links glucose and glucose dehydrogenase-dependent base pair changes.


The anonymous fool wrote:
Glucose dehydrogenase is not responsible for making genetic sequence changes.


I did not say that glucose dehydrogenase was responsible


So what IS?
cjn
5 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2014
You still have failed to answer any of my questions. Yet again: If nutrient-interaction is the sole determiner of phenotypic expression, then why does there exist 8+ million unique genomes? From whence did they all originate, if genomic changes are impossible?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
Darwin did his best to first convey and then repeatedly convey the fact that 'conditions of life' must precede consideration of natural selection
You mean any life but human life don't you? And of course the life they domesticated right? Natural selection plays little part in humans who have little else to eat but the pharaohs grain.
Patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy are not characteristics of any species that has not already been subjected to blah
They are not characteristic of any species but humans. And a few of their domesticates.

"According to Patrick (1915), "man the fighting animal" had evolved out of conditions of incessant conflict between races, with the continuous extermination of the unfit. Survival in this perpetual struggle had been the product of order and mutual aid within groups, but with fear, hatred, and the rule of might prevailing between groups."

-Traits rarely found among rodents.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2014
"According to Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1970 et seq.), destructive intergroup aggression in humans depends, to a large extent, on "cultural pseudospeciation". Owing to this process, first analyzed by Erikson (1964, 1966, 1984), ethnic groups tend to perceive one another as different species and to behave accordingly. Therefore, war appears to be the result of our innate repulsion for outsiders, not a simple effect of aggressive drive. By instigating intergroup aggression, pseudospeciation favors intragroup solidarity, friendship, and altruism."

"In the case of human evolution, a very powerful selective force was acting against the smallest brained humans, even after their brains were twice as large as those of any other primate. Had this not been so, the average size of the human brain would not have been doubled within such a relatively brief span of evolutionary time. This force was acting on the human species alone..."
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2014
I repeat: It's past time for intelligent comments. I'll wait a bit longer to see if anyone posts them to this thread. But, as everyone else has seen, it does no good to respond to idiots; they simply make more idiotic statements. There are too many of them. I'm overwhelmed.

anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2014
Still refusing to tell us what makes genetic sequence changes. I'd expect nothing less.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2014
Still refusing to tell us what makes genetic sequence changes.


In the peppered moth example of pseudoscientific nonsense, it was lead and manganese contaminated leaves eaten by the moth larva.

In the case of the human hemoglobin S variant associated with endemic malaria it was consumption of fermented milk products.

My point is that I have detailed how conserved molecular mechanisms that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA, and anonymous fools imply I have not told them what makes genetic sequence changes. Let me try this one more time:

I repeat: It's past time for intelligent comments. I'll wait a bit longer to see if anyone posts them to this thread. But, as everyone else has seen, it does no good to respond to idiots; they simply make more idiotic statements. There are too many of them. I'm overwhelmed.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2014
The lead and manganese hypothesis was refuted by 2 follow up studies and statistical analysis. That's not to say that heavy metals don't cause mutations, because they certainly do, but they wouldn't cause such a specific, targeted alteration. Their effect would be spread randomly throughout the genome and the melanic effect could not be reliably causally linked.

As for the hemoglobin S, "consumption of fermented milk products" is not a mechanism. I must ask again, do you know what a mechanism is? Example: ATP synthase and it's related enzymatic pathways are the mechanism by which ATP is made. What is the biochemical mechanism by which fermented milk products lead to the hemoglobin S allele? Why isn't this repeatable? My ancestors ate fermented milk products, but I don't have hemoglobin S. Thus, there is no causal link. Same thing applies to Lenski's work. All his populations were exposed to lactose, but only one evolved to use it. It can't have caused the promoter shift in that case.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2014
You do not refute a model of biologically-based cause and effect with statistical analyses. You either provide experimental evidence of mutation-driven evolution at the level of conserved molecular mechanisms across species or you will be considered an anonymous fool (if not a known fool, like those who claim Lenski's work exemplifies mutation-driven evolution).

Microbes, moths, and men have something in common. The physiology of their reproduction is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I repeat: It's past time for intelligent comments. I'll wait a bit longer to see if anyone posts them to this thread. But, as everyone else has seen, it does no good to respond to idiots; they simply make more idiotic statements. There are too many of them. I'm overwhelmed.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2014
And you still refuse to provide a mechanism. Maybe I should ask again: Do you even know what a mechanism is?

You do not refute a model of biologically-based cause and effect with statistical analyses.


Conveniently ignoring the two experimental studies refuting it?
cjn
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2014
You still have failed to answer any of my questions. Yet again: If nutrient-interaction is the sole determiner of phenotypic expression, then why does there exist 8+ million unique genomes? From whence did they all originate, if genomic changes are impossible?
cjn
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2014
Let me pose this question another way: Do you believe that, at a minimum, all Eukaryotic organisms share a common ancestor?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2014
I repeat: It's past time for intelligent comments. I'll wait a bit longer to see if anyone posts them to this thread. But, as everyone else has seen, it does no good to respond to idiots; they simply make more idiotic statements. There are too many of them. I'm overwhelmed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2014
I repeat: It's past time for intelligent comments. I'll wait a bit longer to see if anyone posts them to this thread. But, as everyone else has seen, it does no good to respond to idiots; they simply make more idiotic statements. There are too many of them. I'm overwhelmed.
ive got an idea. Why don't you make a sockpuppet and then talk to yourself? You are apparently the only one here who thinks what you say makes any sense.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2014
ATP production is facilitated by ATP synthase; nutrient-dependent, pheromone-controlled base changes are facilitated by _______.

Fill in the blank, Kohl. It's that simple. What is the enzymatic mechanism directly responsible?
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2014
Morphological and behavioral phenotypic changes result from increased nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled DNA methylation of transposable elements upstream of specific genes in mammals as exemplified in the Agouti mouse. The changes do not result from a mutation of the Agouti gene or mutated genes in any other species.

Therefore, only an anonymous fool would ask about a specific enzyme associated with base pair changes after first misrepresenting what I wrote about how nutrient-dependent epigenetic variants link glucose and glucose dehydrogenase-dependent base pair changes.

The fool will keep coming back with more questions because of a ridiculous belief in mutation-driven evolution. Thus, rather than attempt to explain to fools or to idiot minions everything from the level of quantum physics to chemistry to conserved molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man, I will continue to add to the 900+ posts in the Science section at Pheromones.com

I'm done here.
cjn
5 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2014
Morphological and behavioral phenotypic changes result from increased nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled DNA methylation of transposable elements upstream of specific genes in mammals as exemplified in the Agouti mouse. The changes do not result from a mutation of the Agouti gene or mutated genes in any other species.


Let me help you out here:
"A transposable element (TE, transposon or retrotransposon) is a DNA sequence that can change its position within the genome, sometimes creating or reversing mutations and altering the cell's genome size. Transposition often results in duplication of the TE.... They are generally considered non-coding DNA, although it has been unambiguously shown that TEs are important in genome function and evolution"

These ARE genomic changes, by action and definition.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2014
Transposons are (relatively) large pieces of DNA, so they're incapable of making base-by-base changes. Transposons can't explain SNPs.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2014
Next time you're about to explain how something works, James, take a quick look at wikipedia to see if it actually does what you think it does. It'll save you a lot of time and embarrassment.

Saying that transposons are responsible for what we consider mutations is almost as funny as the time you told me mRNA was responsible.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2014
At first blush this appears to be research to uphold worldview...not research to shape worldview. It doesn't matter how simple or complex aboriginal Australian tools were in any physical (racial), political, religious, or even scientific sense unless you MAKE it so. This is politics in search of scientific justification.

I saw absolutely nothing in the article that directly compares and contrasts various tools in disparate cultures. It doesn't matter in any ultimate sense when WHICH tool was made WHERE or even IF it was at all. The ultimate point is that human beings have collectively done some impressive things on an engineering, scientific, an philosophic level all on our own. Everything else is totally academic at best and agenda driven preaching at worst.

Put simply this is about personal values, not about actual objective science.
rockwolf1000
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2014

I'm done here.


Is that a promise? That's best news I've heard all day.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2014
Saying that transposons are responsible for what we consider mutations is almost as funny as the time you told me mRNA was responsible.


You idiot!

Large Numbers of Novel miRNAs Originate from DNA Transposons and Are Coincident with a Large Species Radiation in Bats http://mbe.oxford...abstract

James V. Kohl
Medical laboratory scientist
Founder: Pheromones.com
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2014
I asked you to explain how SNP occur since transposons are not capable of making them and you provide a citation that has nothing to do with SNPs. What causes SNPs?
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2014
I'm done here.


Skippy, I think you tell the lie, eh?

Saying that transposons are responsible for what we consider mutations is almost as funny as the time you told me mRNA was responsible.


You idiot!

Large Numbers of Novel miRNAs Originate from DNA Transposons and Are Coincident with a Large Species Radiation in Bats http://mbe.oxford...abstract

James V. Kohl
Medical laboratory scientist
Founder: Pheromones.com


So James-Skippy not last the one day without telling the lie, eh?

SIT DOWN and SHUT UP, let these smart peoples try to teach you something Cher.

Oh yeah I almost forget to ask this, So you still sale that stinky love potion stuff? Are you sure it is not going to get you into heated water with the government agents what look after such businessing? Watch out yourself Skippy because I don't think they let you play on the internet in the jail like these nice peoples at the physorg.
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2014
Large Numbers of Novel miRNAs Originate from DNA Transposons and Are Coincident with a Large Species Radiation in Bats http://mbe.oxford...abstract

James V. Kohl


As cjn pointed out, transposons jumping around change DNA sequences.

Changes to DNA sequences are by definition MUTATIONS, JVK, so your statement and your citation contradict your earlier claim that mutations do not contribute to evolution.

Checkmate!

(You will be reminded of this is you pop up on another thread spouting the same failed hypothesis.)
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2014
Checkmate indeed.

http://users.rcn...._Disease

Transposons are mutagens. They can cause mutations in several ways:...
anonymous_9001
not rated yet Apr 18, 2014
Oh, but they still don't cause SNPs, which are still the result of imperfect copying.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.