Evolutionary explanation for why some lessons more easily learned than others

Aug 04, 2014

It's easy to guess why it doesn't take long to learn to avoid certain behaviors and embrace others. But how do we know what drives these predilections? A study led by Aimee Dunlap at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, and co-authored by University of Minnesota researcher David Stephens, offers insight into the evolutionary underpinning of animals' innate ability to quickly absorb critical life lessons.

Animals are flooded with stimuli, but survival often depends on their ability to form specific associations that enhance fitness while ignoring others entirely. Psychologists have a name for it: the Garcia Effect. In the 1960s, John Garcia showed that rats are primed to learn certain associations (taste and illness) and not others (light and illness).

"Different learning abilities evolved in different environments, and we had a hypothesis about how that should happen," says Stephens. "What we wanted to know the general properties that cause natural selection to favor some learned associations over others."

Dunlap and Stephens tested their hypothesis using techniques associated with experimental evolution. "Experimental evolution is different than artificial selection," says Stephens. Instead of selecting for specific traits, the idea is to create specific environments and ask whether they generate selection in the predicted way.

By testing their hypothesis over 40 generations of fruit flies in environments designed to evoke specific associations (between quinine and color or odor). They were able to produce some populations of flies who learned quinine-color associations, and others who learned quinine-odor association. This confirmed the hypothesis that statistical reliability across many generations of selection determines what animals can learn and what they can't.

"We're coming to know quite a lot about the underlying neural and molecular biological mechanisms that cause associations to form," says Stephens. "If you know odor makes a stronger association for this population and color for that population, that raises a really interesting mechanistic question of what's happening inside the neural systems of these flies—how these different learning abilities arise."

Explore further: When it comes to food, obese women's learning is impaired

More information: The study was published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences July 28.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

When it comes to food, obese women's learning is impaired

Jul 16, 2014

Obese women were better able to identify cues that predict monetary rewards than those that predict food rewards, according to a study by Yale School of Medicine researchers and their colleagues in the journal ...

Learning early in life may help keep brain cells alive

May 27, 2014

According to a recently published study in Frontiers in Neuroscience, Rutgers behavioral and systems neuroscientist Tracey Shors, who co-authored the study, found that the newborn brain cells in young rats t ...

Learning to evolve: With a little help from my ancestors

Jul 30, 2007

Learning to fly is easy, if you are a bird. But why is it that birds learn so easily how to fly" It is well known that birds learn through practice, and that they gradually refine their innate ability into a finely tuned ...

Recommended for you

Shape up quickly—applies to fish, too

2 hours ago

Fish can live in almost any aquatic environment on Earth, but when the climate changes and temperatures go up many species are pushed to the limit. The amount of time needed to adjust to new conditions could ...

User comments : 47

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JVK
1 / 5 (10) Aug 04, 2014
Re:
We're coming to know quite a lot about the underlying neural and molecular biological mechanisms that cause associations to form


All the mechanism are nutrient-dependent and it is easy to see from what is known about ecological, social, and neurogenic niche construction in species of nematodes that the associations are controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones, which control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man.

Serious scientists need look no further that this report: Starvation-Induced Transgenerational Inheritance of Small RNAs in C. elegans http://www.cell.c...)00806-X

They will understand why Rechavi lab's "...principle aim in the lab is to attack scientific dogmas... [and why they] use powerful genetic tools to discover novel biological principles by which RNA affects formation and inheritance of complex traits.
http://www.odedre...out.aspx

They are not theorists!
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2014
Why don't you ask Rechavi yourself what he thinks of mutation & natural selection. I'm guessing you won't like his answer, which is why you just assume and speak on his behalf like you do with everyone you initially.think would side with you. Didn't turn out so well for Fink, Chelo, or Bredy, huh? Need I contact Rechavi too?
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2014
http://www.scienc....1.short See comment: "Darwin is the founder of the theory of ecology, i.e. of the ultimate causes of evolution. It is strange, again, that ecology did not contribute much to the modern synthesis..." My comment: Ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations via conserved molecular mechanisms that link cell type differentiation to morphological and behavioral phenotypes. Many researchers think the phenotypes evolved via mutations and natural selection.

The phenotypic differences are clearly the result of nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of all species. http://figshare.c...s/994281

"...the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla." -- Dobzhansky (1973)
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2014
Nothing about evolution will make sense in the light of ecological variation until researchers admit there is no such thing as mutation-driven evolution. Biodiversity is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man. We are ecologically adapted, not mutant monkeys.

There is no need to ask anyone what they think about mutations & natural selection because they were never a part of Darwin's theory. Ecological variation was included as one of Darwin's 'conditions of life.' He knew all organisms must eat. He did not know that nutrients metabolize to pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man. If he had known that, he would have realized that another condition of life is that individuals of all species do not eat more than what is available to sustain them.

Unlike you, Darwin would have realized that organisms starve to death, which means they do not mutate into some other species. Please contact Rechavi to confirm!
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2014
There is no need to ask anyone what they think about mutations & natural selection because they were never a part of Darwin's theory.


Natural selection was an integral part of On the Origin of Species. Have you read it?

organisms starve to death, which means they do not mutate into some other species


By what logic did you derive this? It makes absolutely no sense. Mutations don't contribute to biodiversity because organisms starve?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2014
Nothing about evolution will make sense in the light of ecological variation until researchers admit there is no such thing as mutation-driven evolution.
@jk
so you are saying here that YOUR OWN MODEL does NOT make sense in the light of ecological variation?
YOUR OWN MODEL causes mutations, moron!remember.. I asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF MUTATION) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
THIS MEANS that your comment above is a DIRECT REFUTE AGAINST YOUR OWN MODEL
this would also indicate that you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, and can be used as MORE PROOF that you are just another pseudoscience spamming troll

JVK
1 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2014
By what logic did you derive this? It makes absolutely no sense. Mutations don't contribute to biodiversity because organisms starve?


Thanks for asking and providing another foolish comment.

There's a model of biophysically-constrained cause and effect and model organism that clearly shows the impact of starvation is not evolution; it is ecological adaptation.

http://www.cell.c...)00806-X

What biologically based model of cause and effect do you claim links mutations and natural selection to the evolution of biodiversity in any organism or species that somehow mutates into another kind of organism or species?
animah
5 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
Says JVK - James V Kohl, purveyor of sex paraphernalia, thus great peddler of Sin and the destruction of Christian morality.

In any case your product, "scent of Eros" is snake oil and cannot possibly work. As Rob van den Hurk (a pheromone specialist) noted, pheromones work "in concentrations of nanograms to picograms. When administered in higher concentrations, pheromones often result in no or a repulsive behavioral effect. "

This kind of concentration is not consistently achievable in a consumer product. A user is also likely to over-apply. So At best your "Scent of Eros" has no effect, and there is a good chance it is actually repulsive to women.

So for you to pretend science supports your self-serving commercial aims is beyond the pale.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
The anonymous "animah" has posted this same comment on several different discussion threads. The intent is to limit discussion to the invented theories about evolution. No attempt is made to address the facts included in my published works with details about cell type differentiation.

Obviously, there are many people too afraid that the facts will eliminate evolutionary theory from any further consideration whatsoever. But that's what happens when people begin to look at what they accepted because they were taught to believe in, and accepted it as if it ever was anything more than pseudoscientific nonsense.

It never was, and evolutionary theory never will be more than the invention of population geneticists and their idiot minions.

See: Replace the Modern Synthesis (Neo-Darwinism): An Interview With Denis Noble
http://www.huffin...211.html

"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent...."
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
The anonymous "animah" has posted this same comment on several different discussion threads. The intent is to limit discussion to the invented theories about evolution. No attempt is made to address the facts included in my published works with details about cell type differentiation.

Obviously, there are many people too afraid that the facts will eliminate evolutionary theory from any further consideration whatsoever. But that's what happens when people begin to look at what they accepted because they were taught to believe in, and accepted it as if it ever was anything more than pseudoscientific nonsense.

It never was, and evolutionary theory never will be more than the invention of population geneticists and their idiot minions.

See: Replace the Modern Synthesis (Neo-Darwinism): An Interview With Denis Noble
http://www.huffin...211.html

"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent...."
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
The intent is to limit discussion to the invented theories about evolution
@jk
that is also YOUR intent. You can't even remember that your own model causes MUTATIONS but now you are going to say Animah is wrong? why? he hasn't said anything untruthful!
Obviously, there are many people too afraid that the facts
LIKE YOU! that is why you argue against mutations, which, by the way, YOUR OWN MODEL CREATES! oops, sorry THAT would be considered STUPIDITY... my bad!
evolutionary theory never will be more than the invention of population geneticists and their idiot minions
MORE IGNORANCE on your part: it INCLUDES your own model as a small part/influence on the overall whole... THAT is what you are angry about.

want to try for more?

THIS is the reason you SHOULD have continued in college and gotten an EDUCATION before starting to publish YOUR BS HERE! You don't understand BIOLOGY or your own work, or how it applies to the whole.

you look stupid when you do that!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
pseudoscientific nonsense.
@JK
pseudoscience NONSENSE is arguing against mutations when your own model creates mutations

PSEUDOSCIENCE NONSENSE is not being able to comprehend the reality in front of you, kinda like you and your posts about Lenski's work

PSEUDOSCIENCE NONSENSE is posting links to studies that directly refute your own argument, like you usually do with ANonymous9001 or RealScience

PSEUDOSCIENCE NONSENSE is applying YOUR delusion to Rechavi... tell you what, how about I invite Rechavi to the comments or directly inquire about your comments and ask Rechavi to define it for you?

PSEUDOSCIENCE NONSENSE is what you post regularly... sorry sparky, you lose again

CHECKMATE
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
"A detailed delineation of microRNA–target interactions, such as miR-103 and Pik3cg in a specific cellular context within the hypothalamus, is of immense importance for the understanding of (patho-)physiological mechanisms of energy homeostasis regulation by the CNS." http://www.jneuro...abstract

In 1996, our model of pheromone-controlled alternative splicings of pre-mRNA incorporated what was known about microRNAs in the context of sexual differentiation of cell types in species from microbes to man. It may not have been obvious that all cell type differentiation occurs via the conserved molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitutions at that time. However, anyone who claimed that mutations caused the cell type differentiation that is obviously manifested in the morphological and behavioral phenotypes of species from microbes to man was due to mutations and natural selection had never provided an experimental evidence.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
Rechavi's lab has provided experimental evidence of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations that are clearly the result of ecological variation, not mutations and not natural selection for anything except food.

For example, Starvation-Induced Transgenerational Inheritance of Small RNAs in C. elegans http://www.cell.c...)00806-X provides experimental evidence that organisms that starve to death do not reproduce and that they do not mutate into some other organism or species because they are an evolutionary DEAD END, literally.

The link from nutrient-dependent ecological to social to neurogenic niche construction is clear in nematodes, and their physiology of reproduction is controlled by pheromones. I think that's why Rechavi's lab is dedicated to using "...powerful genetic tools to discover novel biological principles by which RNA affects formation and inheritance of complex traits."

They have a model organism for that!
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
Natural selection was an integral part of On the Origin of Species. Have you read it?


Chapter 4
IF under changing conditions of life organic beings present individual differences...
Chapter 5
...variability is generally related to the conditions of life...
When a variation is of the slightest use to any being, we cannot tell how much to attribute to the accumulative action of natural selection, and how much to the definite action of the conditions of life.
Instances could be given of similar varieties being produced from the same species under external conditions of life...

Chapter 6
By my theory these allied species are descended from a common parent; and during the process of modification, each has become adapted to the conditions of life...

Darwin's 'conditions of life' are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. They must be addressed by anonymous fools before anyone else starts touting mutations and natural selection as the means to enable biodiversity.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
The anonymous fools and idiot minions of biology teachers like PZ Myers have never understood why Darwin put 'conditions of life' ahead of natural selection in the context of biodiversity.

He did that so anonymous fools and idiot minions of biology teachers like PZ Myers would not appear to be anonymous fools and idiot minions. Alas, Darwin's ecological approach was abandoned by anonymous fools and idiot minions of biology teachers like PZ Myers who now come here asking if I ever read "On the Origin of the Species."

I did not need to read much of it; only the parts where his ecological approach was clear. Dobzhansky's claims (1964) about the importance of understanding molecular biology enabled the clarification of what Darwin's 'conditions of life' have always been. They have always been nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled and Rechavi's lab will probably continue to provide experimental evidence of that biological fact even if idiot minions and anonymous fools ignore it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2014
@Kohl-train
WAIT a minute!
IF your statement
nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled
SPECIFICALLY refers to your model, then your comment
They must be addressed by anonymous fools before anyone else starts touting mutations and natural selection as the means to enable biodiversity
means that you dont know what you are talking about, because YOUR MODEL CREATES MUTATIONS moron! remember.. I asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF MUTATION) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
So when you said
anyone who claimed that mutations caused the cell type differentiation that is obviously manifested in the morphological and behavioral phenotypes of species from microbes to man was due to mutations and natural selection had never provided an experimental evidence
you are saying YOU GAVE NO EVIDENCE
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2014
However, anyone who claimed that mutations caused the cell type differentiation that is obviously manifested in the morphological and behavioral phenotypes of species from microbes to man was due to mutations and natural selection had never provided an experimental evidence.
@jk
this comment here SPECIFICALLY SHOWS that EITHER:
you are illiterate OR
you are STUPID

YOUR OWN MODEL IS PROOF THAT MUTATIONS CAUSE DIVERSITY and SUPPORTS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND NATURAL SELECTION VIA MUTATIONS!
when you say no one provided experimental evidence, you are only saying that YOU DIDN"T PROVIDE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
so WHICH IS IT?

Please refrain from posting your PSEUDOSCIENCE NONSENSE on a legitimate science site as it is redundant, factually incorrect, and confusing. Your OWN POSTS ABOVE only prove that YOU ARE THE
anonymous fools and idiot minion
around here! Not the biologically trained like Anon, RealScience or anyone else

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2014
Cap'n.
He's never going to give in. In fact, I think he does it just to egg you (or anyone) on...
The fact that a mutation can cause a system to react and adapt and to epigenetically (via chemical reactions between proteins, enzymes, et al) and convey that adaptive info to successive generations is readily understandable by even the least untrained.
He is confusing quorum sensing w/ his position on pheromones.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
Darwin's 'conditions of life' are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.


Darwin's "conditions of life" are the external circumstances an organism is exposed to, aka the environment, geography, topography, temperature, weather, etc.

The weather can not be described as "nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled" for obvious reasons.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
Cap'n.
He's never going to give in. In fact, I think he does it just to egg you (or anyone) on...
The fact that a mutation can cause a system to react and adapt and to epigenetically (via chemical reactions between proteins, enzymes, et al) and convey that adaptive info to successive generations is readily understandable by even the least untrained.
He is confusing quorum sensing w/ his position on pheromones.
@Whyde
Yep. I know

the study I am collecting data for, remember?
he is a great source for my study... he routinely ignores EMPIRICAL DATA and his reactions are classic and easy to understand... right out of the pseudoscience handbook just about.

He is one of those that gives a nice, consistent base line of retorts/comments/replies that are almost like a copy/paste from a list of idiocy... just predictable and consistent... makes him a great candidate for the study as well as a fun one to prod with his stupidity. After all, he makes it SO easy!

animah
5 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
@WG and CS - and what takes the cake is that JVK is a bona fide creationist!
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
Dobzhansky (1973) "I am a creationist and an evolutionist." in Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution http://www.jstor..../4444260

How could anyone familiar with Dobzhansky's works not be a creationist? The alternative is to be a bird watcher or butterfly collector because "...the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is "bird watching" or "butterfly collecting." Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists!" http://icb.oxford...citation

Is anyone else here not a bird watcher or butterfly collector? I am a serious scientist (medical laboratory scientist) with 40 years experience in diagnostic medicine and a publication record to support my assertions. The comments here appear to come only from anonymous fools and idiot minions of the biology teachers who taught them to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense of evolutionary theory.
.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2014
I am a serious scientist
nope. glorified lab technician and perfumer
40 years experience in diagnostic medicine
nope. glorified lab tech... and unless you went to MED school and have a license, you CANNOT DIAGNOSE without working under the authority of a licensed professional Doctor. "Diagnosing" is the same as practicing without a license is ILLEGAL in the US
The comments here appear to come only from anonymous fools and idiot minions
well, if you would STOP POSTING then there would be NO idiot posts here
pseudoscientific nonsense is being in medicine or biology and NOT KNOWING the definition of mutation
pseudoscientific nonsense is arguing AGAINST mutation when your own model CAUSES MUTATIONS
pseudoscientific nonsense is being a perfumer and thinking THIS makes you important with regard to science, biology and evolution

Tell me again how you diagnose without a license... your STATE would LOVE to hear that one!

there are REGULATIONS against it mensa-boy
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2014
40 years experience in diagnostic medicine
@jk
THIS is one of those small comments that could land you in jail and it also makes you look like a COMPLETE IDIOT
just because you are AROUND diagnostic medicine, or you provide results from Lab Samples, DOES NOT MEANT that YOU YOURSELF are in Diagnostic medicine! it means YOU ARE A LAB TECH

a PARAMEDIC has to DIAGNOSE certain conditions and medical emergencies... and ALSO WORKS under a doctors license. So does a NURSE, although a NURSE ALSO HAS A LICENSE of their own!
A LAB TECH only runs lab submissions and gives results... NOT DIAGNOSES

ONLY AN IDIOT would assume that you diagnose without a license being a lab tech! and trying to make it sound important is NOT helping your argument, it can get you in trouble

YOU FAILED OUT OF COLLEGE... you DID NOT GO TO MEDICAL SCHOOL
YOU ARE NOT A DOCTOR or even a paramedic!

YOU DO NOT DIAGNOSE MEDICAL CONDITIONS
you only report LAB RESULTS
You might work in the dpt, but so do secretaries
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2014
How could anyone familiar with Dobzhansky's works not be a creationist?
by paying attention to the empirical data and seeing the results, and knowing by observation of all the rest of the studies to date that the theory of evolution is real and there is more empirical data supporting it than you admit to (because of your ignorance)
40 years experience in diagnostic medicine
this still cracks me up!
the secretary is in the department, but does THAT make her "in diagnostic medicine"? NOPE
a secretary answering phones at a car mechanics shop is not also considered a mechanic too, are they?
a person answering phones in a LAB or at a college is not necessarily a PhD, professor or an experimental scientist are they?

YOU ARE NOT a diagnostician... you MAY work in the department in a hospital or lab but THAT is NOT THE SAME THING as being in Diagnostic medicine!
It means you are some IDIOT MINION for a real diagnostician running lab samples!

EPIC FAIL at appeal to authority
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2014
http://www.ascp.o...the-ASCP

"The American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP) is the world's largest professional membership organization for pathologists and laboratory professionals. Our mission is to provide excellence in education, certification and advocacy on behalf of patients, pathologists and laboratory professionals across the globe. With more than 100,000 members, the society's influence has guided the application and evolution of the pathology and laboratory medicine specialty since 1922."

My ASCP member ID is 25331607

Captain Stumpy is a Staff Sergeant in the Air Force

Modernmystic
5 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2014
JVK, so you're a serious scientist and you're a creationist?

I took a tour recently into some caves, where they know precicely how long it takes stalagmites and stalactites to grow. Based on this knowledge and a ruler we know...for a FACT...that the Earth is far older than 5000 years. Forget all the far more sophisticated and accurate science we've devised to specifically date the Earth...a cave tour guide in the middle of Ohio can tell you creationism is nonsense without a nit of scientific training...

Modernmystic
not rated yet Aug 07, 2014
.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2014
My ASCP member ID is 25331607
@jk
1- The American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP) IS NOT DIAGNOSTIC MEDICINE
2- YOU ARE NOT A DIAGNOSTICIAN
3- You are NOT IN DIAGNOSTIC MEDICINE... you MAY be in a lab under the BRANCH in a hospital or lab, HOWEVER that does not GIVE YOU "40 years experience in diagnostic medicine" ANY MORE than OWNING a GARAGE on a house gives you experience being a TOYOTA
ROTFLMFAO - Your APPEAL TO AUTHORITY is FAILING RAPIDLY by those who KNOW all about medicine and how hospitals work!
Captain Stumpy is a Staff Sergeant in the Air Force
And this proves you are ILLITERATE!
I am a RETIRED SERGEANT (Army- I was sergeant in the AF too) as well as a RETIRED TRUCK CAPTAIN in the FIRE DEPARTMENT

you STILL can't get those right! maybe I should find an 8 year old to translate it for you?
a serious scientist and you're a creationist
ONE reason for his FAILURE
he tries to MODIFY the DATA to fit the RELIGION

kohl = EPIC FAILURE: frm college to diagnostics
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2014
I am a RETIRED SERGEANT (Army- I was sergeant in the AF too) as well as a RETIRED TRUCK CAPTAIN in the FIRE DEPARTMENT


Dang, Cap'n - Double dippin' much? :-)(Just kiddin ya, a little...)

But - will you adopt me?
Or become a patron of my art?
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2014
Actually, isn't JK is a member of the OTHER ASCP( American Society for the Clinically Pathalogic...)?
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2014
http://www.kumc.e...ist.html

"The majority of CLS graduates sit for the national certification examination that grants them the credentials of Medical Laboratory Scientist, or MLS. An MLS (also formerly known as a clinical laboratory scientist or medical technologist) is a "disease detective" helping to pinpoint the cause of disease through the examination and anaylsis of blood, tissue and other body fluids."

"helping to pinpoint the cause of disease" is the operative phrase. Retiring with a rank of E-5 from the Air Force or less from the Army is not an example of outstanding career achievement, and it is not pertinent to any discussion of biologically-based cause and effect.

Neither is driving a fire truck.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2014
a cave tour guide in the middle of Ohio can tell you creationism is nonsense without a nit of scientific training...


Thanks. Those with scientific training may want to tour the Creation Museum, which is a few miles due south of Cincinnati, Ohio into Kentucky -- just off the I-275 bypass. It is difficult to know how much pseudoscientific nonsense you have accepted as fact until you compare it to the Creationist approach, which helps you realize why Dobzhansky (1973) was a Creationst and why he would no longer be an evolutionist now that theories about mutations and natural selection have been refuted by experimental evidence that nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitutions differentiate the cell types of all individuals of all species from microbes to man via conserved molecular mechanisms like those detailed by Francis Collins (NIH director) in his 2006 book "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2014
helping to pinpoint the cause of disease through the examination and anaylsis of blood, tissue and other body fluids
is not an example of diagnosis either... this is like owning a garage on your house and thinking it gives you experience being a Saab
Retiring with a rank of
MEDICALLY retired, not 20 year retirement. SEE, YOU ARE ILLITERATE... we've discussed this before
it is not pertinent to any discussion of biologically-based cause and effect
neither is PRETENDING to be something you ARE NOT, like a diagnostician! it is called APPEAL TO AUTHORITY and YOU ARE NEITHER AN AUTHORITY NOR A DR.

so my comment is EVERY BIT AS RELEVANT as yours, but also shows the FALLACY underlying your beliefs as well as posts

YOU WANT PEOPLE TO THINK YOU ARE IMPORTANT and know what you are talking about
you are a perfumer and a lab tech
THATS IT

and attempting to DIAGNOSE without a LICENSE is ILLEGAL IN THE US, mensa boy
your admissions above can be used against you
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2014
Dang, Cap'n - Double dippin' much? :-)(Just kiddin ya, a little...)

But - will you adopt me?
Or become a patron of my art?
set up a profile on this site
http://saposjoint.net/Forum/

post to the article: "The Chinese Junk and sailing" that I started here: http://saposjoint.net/Forum/viewforum.php?f=1

we'll talk
Those with scientific training may want to tour the Creation Museum
not unless they want to get a good laugh...
or feel seriously depressed about the state of the poor kids who will visit and actualy believe that pseudoscience nonsense!

Creationist beliefs are based upon a FALLACY, and altering your data to support a faith/religion is NOT SCIENCE

http://www.talkorigins.org/

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

http://www.tim-th...lar.html
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2014
It is difficult to know how much pseudoscientific nonsense you have accepted as fact until you compare it to the Creationist approach
A philosophy like creationists have is fine as a FAITH or BELIEF, because it is BASED upon a fallacy, and you must then suspend logic and common sense as well as SCIENCE in order to believe it

Creationists DEBUNKED THOROUGHLY HERE: http://www.talkorigins.org/

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

just because you BELIEVE it to be true, doesn't meant that IT IS TRUE
animah
5 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2014
@Captain Stumpy: Surprised and very glad you are also a mad timber sailor. I have owned a Bombigher for 11 years :-)
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2014
Francis Collins (NIH director) led the human genome project to its completion. In his 2006 book "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief," he details the reasons for his change from atheist to agnostic to Christian.

Adnan Oktar is an Islamic Creationist who wrote: The Miracles Of Smell And Taste

Robert T. Francoeur and I wrote: "The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality," which links the Islamic and Christian perspectives on Creation to what was known about cell type differentiation in all species in 1995 with an update in 2002.

Anyone who thinks Creationist beliefs are based on a fallacy, or that faith is not evidence-based, should try to support their ridiculous beliefs about evolution with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect. The alternative is to continue to view the ridiculous ramblings of atheist bloggers as if they were capable of correctly representing anything at all.


Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2014
@Captain Stumpy: Surprised and very glad you are also a mad timber sailor. I have owned a Bombigher for 11 years :-)
@Animah
NICE!
http://www.sandem...or-sale/
what kind do you own? The link above is for a beautiful schooner

I prefer the wood hull, but I think I would need a metal one for what I want to do (arctic/antarctic)

I also regularly read "Captain Fatty Goodlander" @Cruising World (my favorite author there)

Have you read this link: http://freethough...s-place/

it is about kohl and his idiocy like the posts above. Myers pretty much destroys his arguments easily and pegs him on the money regarding his tactics.

I personally think he is overcompensating for his past failures: trying to SOUND smart because he failed out of college, etc
that is why he gets SO MUCH wrong
other than his religion interfering with his science, anyway
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2014
he details the reasons for his change from atheist to agnostic to Christian
elderly and decrepit often convert to religions towards the end of their life. reading about HIS conversion is not going to help solve ANY SCIENCE
Anyone who thinks Creationist beliefs are based on a fallacy, or that faith is not evidence-based, should try to support their ridiculous beliefs about evolution with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect
the basis for MY belief in evolution is the EMPIRICAL DATA and the SCIENCE supporting it, not some fallacious sky fairy with stone tablets and rules: and YOU'VE BEEN SHOWN THE EVIDENCE ALREADY and you still ignore it... why bother posting it again?
After all, YOUR OWN MODEL supports MY CLAIMS and EVOLUTION!
I don't view BLOGGERS
i don't CARE about a persons FAITH UNLESS IT Interferes WITH THE SCIENCE (LIKE YOU)
RELIGION/FAITH has NO PLACE IN SCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2014
Anyone who thinks Creationist beliefs are based on a fallacy, or that faith is not evidence-based, should try to support their ridiculous beliefs about evolution
so you try to DIVERT the attention away from YOUR FALLACIOUS claims by calling SCIENCE fallacious?
sorry mensa boy... not going to work

YOU are a perfumer and a lab tech who failed out of college (or dropped out because it was hard and you couldn't handle it) so now you want to push YOUR faith/religion on people and try to use SCIENCE to do it?
NOT GONNA HAPPEN

you've based your foundation upon a KNOWN FALLACY
anything you try to prove from that point is no better than a LIE because it has NO FOUNDATION in reality.

religion is good for only ONE thing: controlling people
you are being USED to control others, and you are being CONTROLLED by your betters in the faith/religion which only makes you a patsy, not a scientist
this is PAINFULLY obvious when you cannot even get the science straight

Lenski et al
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2014
Those with scientific training may want to tour the Creation Museum... much pseudoscientific nonsense you have accepted
Isnt that the place where they show people riding on dinosaurs? That will only happen in the future. It never happened in the past.

"the Karroo Formation of southern Africa is believed to contain 800 billion fossil vertebrates... range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow... if the 800 billion animals in the Karroo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth... there are about 100 fossils elsewhere on earth for each fossil in the Karroo Formation... there would have been over 2,100 living animals per acre of land – "ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs" when the flood hit. This is clearly impossible... Surely the world was not 670 times more crowded at the time of the Flood than it is today!"
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2014
But thats only the animals. If you consider the diversity of plant life reflected in the fossil record, and all the species which would have had to die in the flood, the spectre of a living, seething biolayer covering the entire earth to a depth of many feet comes to mind.

I suppose the fanatics down at the museum have an explanation for this. But it cant be a very good one now can it? Ken hamms caveat at the end of every lame attempt to explain evidence; "Well we know god made it, so there has got to be a good explanation for it, even if we dont know what it is."

Perhaps the entire earth was populated by only 2 of everything. But then it would still have had to be a very, very big ark. And this would not explain the distribution of species over regions and continents.

I bet there are some estimates for the number of plants and animals which had to die in the flood based on the fossil record and minimum pop sizes. But maybe god ran the earth as a zoo. He still does you know.
animah
5 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2014
@CS Thanks - mine is a yawl, smaller than Hollander (the 44-40 you linked to) but very much in the same style. Arctic sailing sounds fantastic, certainly with a steel hull and a big prop guard!

@JVK, I guess you are okay with going to hell then, seeing as you fit the biblical definition of a "merchant in the temple" as a promoter of sexual promiscuity and sin.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2014
@CS Thanks - mine is a yawl, smaller than Hollander (the 44-40 you linked to) but very much in the same style. Arctic sailing sounds fantastic, certainly with a steel hull and a big prop guard!

Does sound cool, Cap'n. and that was a sweet looking ship...:-)
380k EURO ain't so easy to come by, tho...
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
Thanks. Those with scientific training may want to tour the Creation Museum, which is a few miles due south of Cincinnati, Ohio into Kentucky -- just off the I-275 bypass. It is difficult to know how much pseudoscientific nonsense you have accepted as fact until you compare it to the Creationist approach,


Actually my experience was the exact opposite...

which helps you realize why Dobzhansky (1973) was a Creationst and why he would no longer be an evolutionist now that theories .....


Why do we have a tail bone?
Why does ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny?
Why are we biologically related to every other life form on the planet?
How can we possibly see light from stellar phenomena 13 billion light YEARS away?
Give us your understanding of radio carbon dating.

That's just a starting point for you.