Society bloomed with gentler personalities and more feminine faces

Aug 01, 2014
For a senior honors thesis at Duke that became an academic paper three years later, Robert Cieri used facial measurements from more than 1,400 ancient and modern human skulls. Some of the measurements he made himself; others were taken from previous studies. Credit: Robert Cieri, University of Utah

Modern humans appear in the fossil record about 200,000 years ago, but it was only about 50,000 years ago that making art and advanced tools became widespread.

A new study appearing Aug. 1 in the journal Current Anthropology finds that changed in ways that indicate a lowering of at around the same time that culture was blossoming.

"The modern human behaviors of technological innovation, making art and rapid cultural exchange probably came at the same time that we developed a more cooperative temperament," said lead author Robert Cieri, a biology graduate student at the University of Utah who began this work as a senior at Duke University.

The study, which is based on measurements of more than 1,400 ancient and modern skulls, makes the argument that human society advanced when people started being nicer to each other, which entails having a little less in action.

Heavy brows were out, rounder heads were in, and those changes can be traced directly to testosterone levels acting on the skeleton, according to Duke anthropologist Steven Churchill, who supervised Cieri's work on a senior honors thesis that grew to become this 24-page journal article three years later.

What they can't tell from the bones is whether these humans had less testosterone in circulation, or fewer receptors for the hormone.

The research team also included Duke animal cognition researchers Brian Hare and Jingzhi Tan, who say this argument is in line with what has been established in non-human species.

In a classic study of Siberian foxes, animals that were less wary and less aggressive toward humans took on a different, more juvenile appearance and behavior after several generations of selective breeding.

"If we're seeing a process that leads to these changes in other animals, it might help explain who we are and how we got to be this way," said Hare, who also studies differences between our closest ape relatives—aggressive chimpanzees and mellow, free-loving bonobos.

Those two apes develop differently, Hare said, and they respond to social stress differently. Chimpanzee males experience a strong rise in testosterone during puberty, but bonobos do not. When stressed, the bonobos don't produce more testosterone, as chimps do, but they do produce more cortisol, the stress hormone.

A composite image shows the facial differences between an ancient modern human with heavy brows and a large upper face and the more recent modern human who has rounder features and a much less prominent brow. The prominence of these features can be directly traced to the influence of the hormone testosterone. Credit: Robert Cieri, University of Utah

Their social interactions are profoundly different and, relevant to this finding, their faces are different, too. "It's very hard to find a brow-ridge in a bonobo," Hare said.

Cieri compared the brow ridge, facial shape and interior volume of 13 modern human skulls older than 80,000 years, 41 skulls from 10,000 to 38,000 years ago, and a global sample of 1,367 20th century skulls from 30 different ethnic populations.

The trend that emerged was toward a reduction in the brow ridge and a shortening of the upper face, traits which generally reflect a reduction in the action of testosterone.

There are a lot of theories about why, after 150,000 years of existence, humans suddenly leapt forward in technology. Around 50,000 years ago, there is widespread evidence of producing bone and antler tools, heat-treated and flaked flint, projectile weapons, grindstones, fishing and birding equipment and a command of fire. Was this driven by a brain mutation, cooked foods, the advent of language or just population density?

The Duke study argues that living together and cooperating put a premium on agreeableness and lowered aggression and that, in turn, led to changed faces and more .

"If prehistoric people began living closer together and passing down new technologies, they'd have to be tolerant of each other," Cieri said. "The key to our success is the ability to cooperate and get along and learn from one another."

Explore further: Onset of puberty in female bonobos precedes that of chimpanzees

More information: "Craniofacial Feminization, Social Tolerance and the Origins of Behavioral Modernity," Robert Cieri, Steven Churchill, Robert Franciscus, Jingzhi Tan and Brian Hare. Current Anthropology, Aug. 2014. DOI: 10.1086/677209

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Bonobos' unusual success story

Jan 23, 2012

Mate competition by males over females is common in many animal species. During mating season male testosterone levels rise, resulting in an increase in aggressive behavior and masculine features. Male bonobos, ...

Bonobos stay young longer

Dec 16, 2013

Despite the fact that chimpanzees and bonobos share similar starting conditions at birth they develop different behavioural patterns later in life. These differences might be caused by different hormone levels. ...

Peaceful bonobos may have something to teach humans

Mar 08, 2011

Humans share 98.7 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees, but we share one important similarity with one species of chimp, the common chimpanzee, that we don't share with the other, the bonobo. That similarity ...

Are brains shrinking to make us smarter?

Feb 06, 2011

Human brains have shrunk over the past 30,000 years, puzzling scientists who argue it is not a sign we are growing dumber but that evolution is making the key motor leaner and more efficient.

Recommended for you

Why are UK teenagers skipping school?

Dec 18, 2014

Analysis of the results of a large-scale survey reveals the extent of truancy in English secondary schools and sheds light on the mental health of the country's teens.

Fewer lectures, more group work

Dec 18, 2014

Professor Cees van der Vleuten from Maastricht University is a Visiting Professor at Wits University who believes that learning should be student centred.

How to teach all students to think critically

Dec 18, 2014

All first year students at the University of Technology Sydney could soon be required to take a compulsory maths course in an attempt to give them some numerical thinking skills. ...

User comments : 104

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

foolspoo
5 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2014
These types of reads give me the chills. in a very positive way.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2014
'The meek shall inherit the earth.'

-It is a promise and a Goal. Wars are staged to compel the compulsive young hotheads to go off and get themselves killed while the pragmatic, resourceful, and intelligent minority figure out how to avoid getting killed by becoming officers, industrialists, priests, or politicians, or by simply emigrating.

The US was created as a refuge for the best and brightest from around the world, in order to accelerate this Mechanism of domestication. The noncompliant here are further tempted to stray by the availability of drugs, alcohol, and organized crime, which usually gets them either killed or quarantined within the penal system, and thus unable to reproduce.

With each gen this Process of rarifaction produces citizens who are gentler, more compliant, and more able to exist peacefully in close proximity. As with cattle in pens and barns. The culling continues leaving the Remnants to inherit a more peaceful and Purposeful Empire.
Arties
Aug 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dr_toad
Aug 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mayday
5 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2014
It seems to me that the development of common, sustained languages would have the most significant impact on spurring cooperation, sharing & building knowledge, and increasing general sustenance efficiency. Without a common means of negotiation, force quickly becomes the most effective option. The ability to share and project common experiences across time promotes empathy and understanding. Alternatively, the rise in cortisol production hints at the use of storytelling to elicit compliance through fear.
jsland
not rated yet Aug 02, 2014
50,000 years ago was the time when humans and neanderthals often lived side by side in the same areas, often sharing the same caves, sharing, accomodating the other. It was also the start of the build up to an Ice Age which lasted till about 20,000 BP and which might have done in the neanderthal. Was relating to other species so close to ourselves while facing increasing climate change and food scarcity etc the impetus which forced humans to adjust, relate, or die out? If so, what cultural changes will we see today as we face a hugely faster change of climate. A pre-historic decrease of testosterone in the face climate change might show us more helpful ways now of solving crises than flight or fight. (" Wiley - Blackwell. "Climate change played major role in mass extinction of mammals 50,000 years ago, study finds." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 18 May 2010.)http://www.scienc...4614.htm
JVK
1.3 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2014
http://www.scienc...1114.htm

1) "Was this driven by a brain mutation, cooked foods, the advent of language or just population density?"

2) "If prehistoric people began living closer together and passing down new technologies, they'd have to be tolerant of each other," Cieri said. "The key to our success is the ability to cooperate and get along and learn from one another."

One of the above suggests that nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations are the basis of our success, which is consistent with what is known about cell type differentiation via nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions in species from microbes to man.

Where does the suggestion that our success was driven by a brain mutation come from, if not from the pseudoscientific nonsense of evolutionary theorists?

If "The key to our success is the ability to cooperate..." are we more like eusocial bees than birds? Or does a model of ecological adaptations explain it?
tj10
1 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2014
Title this one under: SILLY EVOLUTION "JUST SO STORIES"

http://crev.info/...s-silly/

To see why check out crev.info's take on this. I'm not sure how this qualifies as science because you can't really test this idea at all.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2014
Title this one under: SILLY EVOLUTION "JUST SO STORIES"

http://crev.info/...s-silly/

To see why check out crev.info's take on this. I'm not sure how this qualifies as science because you can't really test this idea at all.


Your link is Creationism/Intellegent Design bullshit.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2014
http://www.odedre...out.aspx

"Our principle aim in the lab is to attack scientific dogmas. Mainly, we aim to use powerful genetic tools to discover novel biological principles by which RNA affects formation and inheritance of complex traits. While linking rare Mendelian traits to specific sequence variations has been accelerated, the genetic basis of many common diseases is not understood despite the undertaking of many genome wide association studies. It appears that our current genetic models fall short of faithfully explaining the inheritance of most complex traits."

Dobzhansky (1964) compared the claims of Creationists and Evolutionist when he wrote: "...the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is "bird watching" or "butterfly collecting." Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists!" http://icb.oxford...citation

Dobzhansky (1973): I am a creationist and an evolutionist.
sirchick
5 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2014
Title this one under: SILLY EVOLUTION "JUST SO STORIES"

To see why check out crev.info's take on this. I'm not sure how this qualifies as science because you can't really test this idea at all.


yeah lets all check out a website no one has heard of and is famously NOT known for scientific knowledge.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2014
Guess that means you're not going to check out this one:

http://www.odedre...out.aspx or comment on Dobzhansky's famous works.

What about the 'debunking" projects? http://www.odedre...cts.aspx

How long has it been since you've had your dogma attacked by serious scientists?
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2014
The US was created as a refuge for the best and brightest from around the world...


who subsequently were taught to believe in a ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection and the evolution of biodiversity.

Now, that pseudoscientific nonsense is being taught in Israeli middle schools so their students can learn the difference between ridiculous theories and how biological facts link ecological variation to ecological adaptations in species from microbes to man.

http://www.educat...olution/
tj10
1 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2014
vietvet: "Your link is Creationism/Intellegent Design bullshit."

sirchick: "yeah lets all check out a website no one has heard of and is famously NOT known for scientific knowledge."

Nice takedown guys! Lots of good hard scientific data in them thar posts!

JVK
1 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2014
http://www.scienc...abstract "One straightforward hypothesis is that neurons with different genomes will have distinct molecular phenotypes because of altered transcriptional or epigenetic landscapes."

Let's compare that to the theory of mutation-initiated natural selection and the evolution of facial features and the brain. No wait... biophysical constraints prevent evolution via mutations of genes.

http://onlinelibr...abstract "Genetic variation plays no role in this holistic conceptualisation of the life process."

Why don't evolutionary theorists simply admit they know nothing about biology?
tj10
1.8 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2014
Wait, you guys all stand by this story as good science? I want a straight answer.

Based on what experimental data?

Go ahead and make your case!
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2014
Wait, you guys all stand by this story as good science? I want a straight answer.

Based on what experimental data?

Go ahead and make your case!


My response wasn't about the story but to your idiotic link
tj10
1.2 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2014
"My response wasn't about the story but to your idiotic link"

You dismiss the content of the link simply because it doesn't come from an evolutionist. He makes many good points. He criticizes the article because there IS no experimental data.

So why is it an idiotic link?

Even IDers can be right sometimes, but you show your own bias in that you don't even give what they say a chance. You turn them off without even honestly considering the content.

If you claim it is an idiotic link, back up that opinion with hard data.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2014
"My response wasn't about the story but to your idiotic link"

You dismiss the content of the link simply because it doesn't come from an evolutionist. He makes many good points. He criticizes the article because there IS no experimental data.

So why is it an idiotic link?

Even IDers can be right sometimes, but you show your own bias in that you don't even give what they say a chance. You turn them off without even honestly considering the content.

If you claim it is an idiotic link, back up that opinion with hard data.


Coming from a Creation/Intelligent Design site makes it unscientific and IDIOTIC.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2014
Lots of good hard scientific data
The evidence has all been presented and everybody here has seen it. It's only religionists who have no regard for evidence and keep posting the same sorry bullshit over and over again.

But just in case you missed it, the only evidence that matters and the only evidence that godders have no answer for is this: archeologists have been digging in the holy land for a century and have found ONLY conclusive evidence that the bible stories are all FALSE.

And so we can conclude that you all believe in a god who is either ignorant of his own creation, or worse, is willing to LIE to you in order to find out how much you TRUST him.

Either way he is not the immaculate, omnipotent moral paragon you think he is. And obviously, he is instead the invention of incompetents and liars.

If some god created the universe he is most definitely not the one who prefers circumcised believers and rabbits with cuds. Because THAT god has proven he doesn't exist.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2014
An IDer might be right about the time of day but their theories have no scientific basis.

The study makes assertions that can't be backed up without more research but I'll rely on scientist, not creationist and IDers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2014
their theories have no scientific basis
Well they can and do claim that science doesn't know everything and they're right, as any scientist is quick to admit. And so they can jump into that gap and claim that creationism is possible, and they are unfortunately right. Some being could have wished everything into existence, including dropping photons from apparently distant galaxies into place in just the right positions and sending them on their way.

But the evidence for biblical fallacy is already in and it is conclusive. The god who can do absolutely anything chooses to either ignore evidence or to obliterate it and replace it with irrefutable counter-evidence. Why would any honest, decent, caring god do this? Does he wish us to follow his example perhaps?

An omniscient, omnipotent god who resorts to lies is not one we can believe when he promises to grant our wishes and give us immortality. Because those things are equally absurd, things that only humans would promise.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2014
If there is a creator god only scientists, not priests and their malformed twins the philosophers, are capable of finding it.

If there is or ever was such a being then he can only be revealed in the evidence. And only scientists have the tools, the knowledge, and the experience to properly gather and interpret evidence.

Do believers think their gods speak to them directly? Evidence says that the epiphany is a form of hallucination. Do they say they have proof that their wishes are granted? Have they talked to all those others who have been disappointed? Are they aware that statistically the placebo effect is identical to the power of prayer?

Humans are easily deluded and it doesn't take a very powerful god at all to do this.
sirchick
4.4 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2014
Title this one under: SILLY EVOLUTION "JUST SO STORIES"

To see why check out crev.info's take on this. I'm not sure how this qualifies as science because you can't really test this idea at all.


yeah lets all check out a website no one has heard of and is famously NOT known for scientific knowledge.


I feel my point is still pretty valid.

If you post a link at least show us some credible reviews of the website for us to take it seriously...reviews of course need to come from highly respected scientists in this field... otherwise you just spammed a random link that no one will check out. :)

I'm open to hear from highly acclaimed scientists in this field to approve your website as a good source of science....

I suspect I'll be waiting for a longgggg time however :)
animah
5 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2014
credible reviews


Sure LOL

National Academies of Science (300+ Nobel laureates)

http://www.nas.ed...dex.html

The Royal Society (established 1662, 200+ Nobel laureates)

https://royalsoci...olution/
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2014
If there is a creator god only scientists, not priests and their malformed twins the philosophers, are capable of finding it.

Just my opinion, but I think it will be an artist...:-)
animah
5 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2014
credible reviews


Sure LOL

National Academies of Science (300+ Nobel laureates)

http://www.nas.ed...dex.html

The Royal Society (more Nobel laureates!)

https://royalsoci...olution/
sirchick
not rated yet Aug 05, 2014
credible reviews


Sure LOL

National Academies of Science (300+ Nobel laureates)

http://www.nas.ed...dex.html


Did you even read what I wrote? Please do so in future before responding.

Neither of those websites you linked, are "reviewing" the website that the user posted a few comments back, which was "against" the idea of evolution.

Your links don't seem to be anything about the reviewing of the website that the user spammed in here. So what was your comment about exactly?
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2014
Extended evolutionary psychology: the importance of transgenerational developmental plasticity
http://journal.fr...abstract

The article goes a long way towards ending discussion about the pseudoscientific nonsense of population genetics in the context of the evolution of biodiversity.

It does not address what is known about nutrient-dependent cell type differentiation via amino acid substitutions, but clearly someone else will soon address the biological facts, since cell type differentiation is the obvious link from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man.

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
http://www.ncbi.n...3960065/
tj10
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2014
"The study makes assertions that can't be backed up without more research but I'll rely on scientist."

Thank you. That was my point! Why didn't any of you point that out? Why did you only admit that when a "creationist" brought it up?

See, you guys just take it all as if it is "gospel truth"?

No evidence to back it up? No problem. A "scientist" said it so I'm gonna believe it.

This is a hypothesis that cannot be tested! So, how can it be science?

We're dealing with history here. History cannot be observed, tested, or repeated. You can make up any number of stories to try and explain the data, but the problem is that you can't really test them.

Only stories that deal with purely natural causes are permitted as possible explanations because anything that allows for any kind of a role for God cannot be science by definition - at least according to the 21st century definition of science.

Your a priori starting point is that God, even if He does exist, has nothing to do w/life.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2014
@ti10

Why did you link to a Creationist/Intelligent Design site?
animah
5 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2014
We're dealing with religion there. Religion cannot be observed, tested, or repeated. You can make up any number of stories to try and explain the belief, but the problem is that you can't really test them.

Your a priori starting point is that God, even if He does exist, has nothing to do w/life.

God as a concept is singularly unhelpful in curing cancer, going to space, understanding star formation, black holes, subatomic particles, anatomy, genetics, P=NP or any other scientific practice.

All of these scientific pursuits are ultimately designed to improve life (and I daresay you enjoy massive benefits from it).

So yes, you are correct: It may be balm for your heart but from in the practice of sciences, god's existence or absence is irrelevant. Numbers are numbers regardless.
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2014
@animah
I think we're talking past each other. Verkle irates the hell out of me because he insists on dragging a religious dogma into scientific discussion. He repeatedly denies the truth of evolution, I just want him to scientifically explain the origin of species, which of course he can't without using evolution. Get my point?
animah
5 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2014
I do mate. I kinda feel sorry for the guy because he so obviously, desperately needs beyond personal strength of conviction, to come here and be recognised as first among Men for his mundane epiphany. I wish he had more interesting challenges to throw than these shrink-wrapped cliches :-)

JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2014
...in the practice of sciences, god's existence or absence is irrelevant.


No. It's opinions like that one that are irrelevant to science. Biological facts are relevant here, and they have been since the time that Dobzhansky (1973) wrote: "I am a creationist and an evolutionist." This was after he wrote: "...the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is "bird watching" or "butterfly collecting." Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists!" (1964)

What we have here, as usual, is the pseudoscientific nonsense of bird watchers and butterfly collectors who are masquerading anonymously as informed laypersons who think they know something about science. They don't. The likelihood that they know anything like Dobzhansky knew about Creation is practically zero, which means they also know nothing about God.

..."denies the truth of evolution..." Dobzhansky's truth? What truth are you talking about?

animah
5 / 5 (3) 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, You can't avoid it breaking down. A user is also likely to over-apply (because it doesn't work). So At best it 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 (4) 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...."
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2014
JVK,
Would you say your work, theoretical position and opinions have evolved from a when you started your research?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2014
We're dealing with history here. History cannot be observed, tested, or repeated. You can make up any number of stories to try and explain the data, but the problem is that you can't really test them
Historical events leave evidence. History can be reconstructed from this evidence. The history of the Middle East did not include 2M Jews in Egypt, an exodus of said Jews through a region under the control of a garrisoned Egyptian army, or a genocidal Joshuan rampage which destroyed 200 cities, towns, or villages.

It did not include great Jewish kingdoms stretching from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates. None of these things happened. Evidence tells us this. Evidence tells us that Jesus is a copy of perhaps a dozen prior godmen, none of whom existed either.
Only stories that deal with purely natural causes are permitted
The creation of evidence is a natural phenomenon. A god who ignores it or alters it is not the morally superior being he describes himself to be in his book.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2014
Would you say your work, theoretical position and opinions have evolved from a when you started your research?


Thanks for asking. My model has continued to incorporate what is known about biologically-based behavior since book publication in 1995 of http://www.amazon...exuality

The model is now a thoroughly detailed refutation of evolutionary theory.

Would you say it does not clearly show that the pseudoscientific nonsense - still taught to students as if it was factually based - is anything other than the invention of population geneticists who had no idea about what enabled increasing organismal complexity and refused to recognize it was nutrient-dependent and now refuse to recognize it is pheromone-controlled?

Do you think that referring to amino acid substitutions as mutations or epi-mutations will save theorists from ridicule?
supamark23
5 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2014
@JVK - dude, stop spamming your BS fantasy about evolution not being real. We get it, you don't believe that evolution is happening (it *is* happening, btw) so stop spamming already.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2014
Thanks supamark23. HOW is evolution happening?

"Scientists are exploring how organisms can evolve elaborate structures without Darwinian selection."

"Others maintain that as random mutations arise, complexity emerges as a side effect, even without natural selection to help it along. Complexity, they say, is not purely the result of millions of years of fine-tuning through natural selection—the process that Richard Dawkins famously dubbed "the blind watchmaker." To some extent, it just happens."

http://www.scient...20130722

The complexity of the color change in the wings of butterflies was enabled by a change in 6 generations that I attribute to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation. http://www.pnas.o...abstract

See: http://www.ncbi.n...3960065/ for other examples from model organisms.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2014
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
@jk
let me FIX this for you
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model that supports MUTATIONS and MUTATION DRIVEN EVOLUTION for the theory of evolution!
THATS BETTER!
If you claim it is an idiotic link, back up that opinion with hard data
@tj10
IF there is LEGITIMATE SCIENCE to your point, then you can find it on a LEGITIMATE SCIENCE SITE with peer reviewed journals. failure to do that undermines your argument and it can be dismissed out of hand because it is not a legitimate post or legit science. IF YOU MAKE A CLAIM, the burden of PROOF is upon YOU, not US
Even IDers can be right sometimes
and a broken clock is right twice a dat too, but you wouldn't want to use it for your timekeeping.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2014
@JVK - dude, stop spamming your BS fantasy about evolution not being real. We get it, you don't believe that evolution is happening (it *is* happening, btw) so stop spamming already.
@supamark
check out JVK and his stupidity here: http://freethough...s-place/

PLUS he has already admitted that he FAILED OUT of college (he says he quit because -of course- everyone else is wrong)
HOW is evolution happening?
@JK
well ONE WAY is mutation AS PROVEN BY YOUR OWN MODEL, moron...
ANOTHER PROOF is Lenski's work

But you already know this...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2014
No evidence to back it up? No problem. A "scientist" said it so I'm gonna believe it
@tj10
you are ignorant of the scientific method
it is not "a scientists said it so..."
it is A SCIENTISTS PROVED it and you can see the empirical data here in this study, etc
History cannot be observed, tested, or repeated. You can make up any number of stories to try and explain the data, but the problem is that you can't really test them
so you think forensics is basically just one big LIE and based upon hunches too then?

READ OTTO's post about that above... pretty good point... and very cogent. It essentially undermines your whole argument. Sorry sparky... you are not even getting marks for effort. Try posting some legitimate science supporting your conclusions in a journal that is peer reviewed and has an impact on the subject.

REAL SCIENCE. EMPIRICAL DATA. PROOF
not pseudoscience and religion/faith
(which, by DEFINITION is unprovable)

supamark23
5 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2014
@JVK - Are you seriously asking "how" evolution happens? You are aware that every time your DNA (or any organism's) replicates there are errors, not all of which are corrected (about 1 error/billion base pairs in humans, but it varies from species to species due to differences in the check/repair faculty of the organism)? Mutations in germ cells are passed along to the offspring, and if it's beneficial that offspring will have a smidge more success in reproducing. That advantage will be passed along and over time they out -reproduce others. If the mutation isn't beneficial or harmful, it won't have an effect on fitness or number of progeny. If the mutation is harmful, the organism will either die before reproducing, or will reproduce at a lower rate.

That is how, over time, evolution works - generally small incremental changes/improvements via random mutation in genes over a generally long time span. It has been proven as fact time and again.
supamark23
5 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2014
@Stumpy - that was an interesting read about JVK... and weird.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2014
@Stumpy - that was an interesting read about JVK... and weird.
@supamark23
I especially like the part here
He crashes into a thread full of lay people and then lords it over them with his abuse of jargon. And he does it over and over again... they don't know how to deal with all the specific buzzwords he throws at them, and they have these doubts…maybe he's saying something I should know about. No, he's not. He's babbling in scientese.

And he just keeps hammering away with his pseudo-scientific pronouncements.
HOW TRUE and very well put! that is JK on the nose!
(I thought JK was far more appropriate for him... short for JOKE... what do YOU think?) LOL

The saddest thing is there is actually SOME science to what he does... the problem? Myers put it best
what he writes is a particularly pretentious, obfuscatory way of saying what he means — he's trying to obscure rather than explain
PLUS - he doesn't know the lexicon of the field... which hampers him greatly!

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2014
That is how, over time, evolution works - generally small incremental changes/improvements via random mutation in genes over a generally long time span. It has been proven as fact time and again.
@Supamark
Just so you know... no matter HOW MUCH empirical data you throw at him, he will IGNORE it.

One reason that the self-described mensa member has a problem with his comments here? he tries to over-explain and ends up pushing PSEUDOSCIENCE with his proclamations which are predominately from intelligent design or xtian basis...
he is trying to prove his religion by altering the data from science

He failed at college and now he takes it out on ANYONE with a better education than he has... which, in his case, would be high school graduate with ANY further studies and experience (other than his glorified lab tech position)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2014
Would you say your work, theoretical position and opinions have evolved from a when you started your research?

Thanks for asking. My model has continued to incorporate what is known about biologically-based behavior since book publication in 1995...

I'm going to take that as a yes. So you do believe in evolutionary process...

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2014
Just a thought to all. JVK is "click-mining" for search engine standing.
For every entry he plugs in here, it registers with google. Along with every time he receives a star rating. Additionally any reference anyone of you make to his name or research, it gets connected to him via search algorythms...
Don't respond and don't even bother rating, he'll go away soon enough...
animah
5 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2014
@WG: Or, fix his SEO with association to words that truly describe his product: fraudulent, a scam etc. People who search for his wares on Google deserve to see this.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2014
http://scholar.go...as_sdtp=

Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology (cited by 80)

From fertilization to adult sexual behavior (cited by 31)

The mind's eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences

Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors

Putative Human Pheromones Increase Women's Observed Flirtatious Behaviors and Ratings of Attraction

HUMAN NATURE REVIEW

Anonymous fools and idiot minions (cited by 0)

"Here we demonstrate that the relationship between brain metabolism and aggression is causal, conserved over evolutionary time, cell type-specific, and modulated by the social environment." http://www.pnas.o...abstract

They link our model from 1996 to what is currently known about molecular epigenetics and biologically-based cause and effect.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2014
Organizational and activational effects of hormones on insect behavior
http://www.ncbi.n...10980296

"Effects of hormones on brain and behavior occur through three mechanisms: (1) behaviors both organized and activated by hormones, (2) behaviors only organized by hormones, and (3) behaviors only activated by hormones (reviewed in Arnold and Breedlove, 1985; Diamond et al., 1996)."

Diamond et al., 1996) is "From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior," the review article of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations associated with food odor and social odors called pheromones, which control the nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction via conserved molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man.

http://www.hawaii...ion.html
animah
5 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2014
The toothed whales (Odontoceti) clade of mammals lacks olfactory structures and has extremely high pseudogene levels (i.e. non-functional olfactory genes). Pheromones play no role in their species.

Many plants lack the genes to synthesize volative compounds and do not produce pheromones or have receptors, relying exclusively on shape and color to attrack pollinators.

Commercial flower species often have no pheromone production or receptors because they have been bred exclusively for color and shape and the associated scent genes have regressed. Yet they reproduce and evolve JUST FINE.

Plus, pheromones are complex molecules and must have evolved somehow!

So no, pheromones are not a universal model at all. You're a scientese-speaking crank, and the "scent of eros" product you make is a fraud.

An article about James V Kohl: http://freethough...s-place/
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2014
http://www.the-sc...st104880

The Swiss pharmaceutical giant will reportedly pay $450 million for a Danish biotech company that develops drugs that silence microRNAs.

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
http://www.socioa...53/27989
"...the epigenetic 'tweaking' of the immense gene networks that occurs via exposure to nutrient chemicals and pheromones can now be modeled in the context of the microRNA/messenger RNA balance, receptor-mediated intracellular signaling, and the stochastic gene expression required for nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. The role of the microRNA/messenger RNA balance (Breen, Kemena, Vlasov, Notredame, & Kondrashov, 2012; Duvarci, Nader, & LeDoux, 2008; Griggs et al., 2013; Monahan & Lomvardas, 2012) in adaptive evolution will certainly be discussed...."
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2014
animah seems to be very disturbed.

Obviously, the "Scent of Eros" product he purchased did not work for him. Perhaps that is because he IS very disturbed and no matter what a psychopath looks like, he smells like a psychopath.

Tracking niche variation over millennial timescales in sympatric killer whale lineages
"Niche variation owing to individual differences in ecology has been hypothesized to be an early stage of sympatric speciation."

http://news.scien...-species

My comment: This is yet another example of nutrient-dependent changes in phenotypic expression. Nutrients are metabolized to pheromones, which control reproduction in species from microbes to man.
animah
5 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2014
Nonsense. Species that have no pheromone receptors or production genes can't be controlled by them.

If nutrients had anything to do with breeding techniques, we would know. We've controlled the evolution of tens of thousands of animal and plant species for millenia.

Besides, a large proportion of nature's pheromone signalling pathways is produced not by complex organisms but by bacteria and microflora that live on them. Your model is laughably simplistic. Nutrients are not a substitute for ecology!

So from now on, let me help you with your SEO: Therefore James V Kohl is a fraud and a professional failure.
kochevnik
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2014
@tj10 Wait, you guys all stand by this story as good science? I want a straight answer.

Based on what experimental data?

Go ahead and make your case!
Why are christopaths always begging rationalists for knowledge? Why can't their gawd give them knowledge? Indeed, according to their fable pre-xtians were cast out of paradise for daring to gain knowledge! It reminds me of a dog begging for morsels, hiding under the kitchen table during dinner. We indulge them out of pity
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2014
"...the epigenetic 'tweaking' of the immense gene networks that occurs via exposure to nutrient chemicals and pheromones can now be modeled in the context of the microRNA/messenger RNA balance, receptor-mediated intracellular signaling, and the stochastic gene expression required for nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. The role of the microRNA/messenger RNA balance (Breen, Kemena, Vlasov, Notredame, & Kondrashov, 2012; Duvarci, Nader, & LeDoux, 2008; Griggs et al., 2013; Monahan & Lomvardas, 2012) in adaptive evolution will certainly be discussed...."

Your reference alludes to "evolution"... Guess your "theory" has "evolved"...
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2014
Darwin placed ecological variation before natural selection and said nothing about mutations, since he knew nothing about genetics. Population geneticists stuck serious scientists like me with their use of terms and definitions of evolution.

Ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations manifested in the increasing orgnanismal complexity of morphological and behavioral phenotypes in species from microbes to man, which can now be explained in an atoms to ecosystems model of ecological adaptations.

The model has not evolved and it has continued to place the theory of mutation-initiated natural selection into the context of pseudoscientific nonsense, not the evolution of biodiversity, which is obviously nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.

Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems
http://figshare.c...s/994281
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2014
James V Kohl is a fraud and a professional failure.


Oddly, however, my history of award-winning publications in peer-reviewed journals (and a concurrently published book chapter) suggest only that the anonymous animah is a psychopath.

Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology
http://www.nel.ed...view.htm
tj10
1 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2014
... just in case you missed it, the only evidence that matters and the only evidence that godders have no answer for is this: archeologists have been digging in the holy land for a century and have found ONLY conclusive evidence that the bible stories are all FALSE.


I think you have been reading too many atheist websites recently and too happy to jump on whatever you read as trustworthy and true. That's a ridiculous claim and patently false. There may be some issues still unsolved, but all FALSE? That's just not true at all!
http://www.biblic...-ebooks/

Secondly, this has nothing to do with the credibility of evolution and/or the scientific accuracy of the article in question. Smoke screen!
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2014
http://www.huffin...211.html

"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... The anglophone tradition was taught. I was taught, and so were my contemporaries, and so were the younger scientists. Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... No, it wasn't dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact."

I don't know any atheist who does not assume that the theory of evolution invented by population geneticists was based on facts. They simply assummed that it was, which is why they continue to make asses of themselves when any serious scientist attempts to address facts, which are summed up nicely in: http://www.pnas.o...abstract
kochevnik
5 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2014
@tj10 Secondly, this has nothing to do with the credibility of evolution and/or the scientific accuracy of the article in question. Smoke screen!
tj10 it is you who has nothing to do with the credibility of evolution and/or the scientific accuracy of the article in question. Smoke screens are your only tool

JVK impresses me as at least slightly insane. The force of christopathy is strong in that one
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2014
Oddly, however, my history of award-winning publications in peer-reviewed journals (and a concurrently published book chapter) suggest only
appeal to authority here too?
is this like your appeal to authority in THIS thread: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
the thread WHERE YOU BLATANTLY LIE about your "40 years experience in diagnostic medicine" - you DO know that this is ILLEGAL in the US, right? Diagnosing without a license?

I know some much bigger (than you) sociopaths who are also authors of "award-winning publications"... and I have FAR more documents out there being referenced DAILY by people than you... SO WHAT

you've put out a blatant lie and a known fallacy (a repeated one at that, which makes this STUPIDITY as you've been shown the error of your ways)
THIS simple fact negates ALL your accolades and undermines anything you might say as it suggest that your work is also fallacious
it is based upon a fallacy so ...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2014
Population geneticists stuck serious scientists like me with their use of terms and definitions of evolution
a man that is unaware of the lexicon of his field and cannot comprehend that arguing against mutations also argues against his own model is NOT A SERIOUS SCIENTIST

in fact, he is not even a SCIENTIST. he is a fraud!
it has continued to place the theory of mutation-initiated natural selection into the context of pseudoscientific nonsense, not the evolution of biodiversity, which is obviously nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled
MORE PROOF of inability to comprehend your own field
YOUR MODEL OF NUTRIENT BS CAUSES MUTATIONS, and THEREFORE IT SUPPORTS MUTATION DRIVEN EVOLUTION, mensa boy

you argue about mutations when you don't even know what the word means
you already admitted your model causes mutations, but now you argue against mutation driven evolution? are you STUPID? your model supplies ALL the proof that mutation WORKS and supports the THEORY !
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2014
"Evolution has trained us to find causal patterns at any cost. As our ancestors wandered the African savanna, the ability to suss out effects from their causes marked a line between life and death. She ate that speckled mushroom and then fell ill."

The Bridge From Nowhere http://nautil.us/...-nowhere

Creation enabled our ability to find causal patterns that cost us nothing. The fact that everything is connected to everything else was perfectly clear. That fact led some people to realize that eating some things can make us ill, which means that health and illness are nutrient-dependent.

We've since learned that Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction http://www.ncbi.n...16290036 via cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man. Thus, anyone who believes that mutation-initiated natural selection led to the evolution of biodiversity must not believe in patterns that cost us nothing to believe in.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2014
There may be some issues still unsolved, but all FALSE?
Re your ref;

"... the Magazine as a whole attempts to break the chain of evangelism by presenting—and I mean it really tries hard... Some [articles] are unbelievably inaccurate, and at times the Magazine editor, Hershel Shanks, will allow his Jewish-religious viewpoints to interfere with his choice of articles, and often his choice of words... My first contention with Shanks is his horrendously obvious slant towards neoAlbrighteans."

--IOW biblical maximalists, meaning that archeology starts with the bible. Shanks is an amateur biased by his religious beliefs.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2014
As to what most mainstream archeologists have concluded:

"Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:
This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."

-And as for the godman
http://youtu.be/AjHk9nKUNNs

-A retread. If it ain't broke why fix it? 'Nothing new under the sun/son.'

BTW there IS no mt Sinai. And Nazareth didn't exist in Jesus' time. Etcetcetc.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2014
As to Jews in Egypt;

"Regarding the Exodus of Israelites from Egypt, Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass said:
"Really, it's a myth,"... "This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem."

-If you say 'some issues still unresolved' to mean 'yet to be thoroughly discredited, then you're right. The Nazareth myth is a recent discovery.

Re the zeitgeist movie, skip over the crisp in front. I posted that version by mistake.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2014
Ahaahaaa goddam spellcheck. Crisp = crap.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2014
Time to move on, folks. Please consider addressing biological facts instead of nonsensical misrepresentations of ridiculous theories. Others are doing that, with focus on the microRNA/messenger RNA balance!

Here: Pregnancy Stress Spans Generations
http://www.the-sc...rations/
supamark23
5 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2014
Oh look, JVK ahs discovered epigenetics.... welcome to 15 years ago. Too bad JVK doesn't actually understand it.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2014
Oh look, another ignorant anonymous fool doesn't realize that I coauthored "From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior" in 1996 (more than 15 years ago) and we included a section on the molecular epigenetics of cell type differentiation via alternative splicings of pre-mRNA, which others have now recognized is the way that cell type differentiation occurs in species from microbes to man. 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 (Adler and Hajduk, 1994; de Bono, Zarkower, and Hodgkin, 1995; Ge, Zuo, and Manley, 1991; Green, 1991; Parkhurst and Meneely, 1994; Wilkins, 1995; Wolfner, 1988). That similar proteins perform functions in humans suggests the possibility that some human sex differences may arise..
supamark23
5 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2014
Oooh, you co-authored a paper! You weren't the lead author, and since you don't even have a relevant bachelor's degree, I suspect all you did was be the lead lab monkey. At the "renowned" research institute U of Hawaii - Manoa... quite an achievement. lol.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2014
The first author of the 1996 review was the distinguished professor, MIlton Diamond, who later exposed the misrepresentations of John Money, who had put nurture ahead of nature in the college textbooks for several decades. See: http://www.ftmaus...oan-case

I was first author of the award-winning review: Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology http://www.nel.ed...view.htm

I wrote an award-winning monograph for the Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality that was concurrently published as a book chapter in the Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality. Author's copy here: The Mind's Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences http://www.sexarc...kohl.htm

What kind of idiot attacks someone like me without knowing anything about them, or about anything else pertinent to biologically-based cause and effect?

That was a rhetorical question.
sirchick
5 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2014
Wouldn't the random mutations of say the flu virus every season be evidence of evolution, given it can evolve to a level able to first affect one species like bird/swine then able to infect humans or some other species.

A lot of people that don't agree with evolution (usually non scientists / religious people) say no one has observed because it takes so long for any thing to evolve, but surely the flu virus is a prime example.

Granted a lot of people would debate on whether a virus is considered alive in the first place. But i believe its a good example of evolution.

Or in fact - any anti biotic resistant bacteria for that matter. Evolution is the leading cause of why anti biotic are starting to not work.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2014
Wouldn't the random mutations of say the flu virus...A lot of people that don't agree with evolution (usually non scientists / religious people) say no one has observed ...but surely the flu virus is a prime example.
Or in fact - any anti biotic resistant bacteria for that matter
@sirchick
You are on the right track, for sure.
This was essentially what Lenski PROVED, but jk above argues against... he "believes" there is another mechanism at work

The saddest part is that jk keeps attempting to use his model as "proof" against mutations
his model CAUSES mutations (and works by mutation)
jk is a creationist who doesn't own a dictionary or is not able to look up the specific terms (or lexicon) of his field that he posts about
he tries to manipulate the DATA to prove his FAITH...

IOW - he is a TROLL as well as a liar, especially with regard to some of his self-proclaimed "experience" in diagnostics
See my Aug 4/ Aug 7 post above about "appeal to authority"
see links too
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2014
[amino acid ] Substitutions Near the Receptor Binding Site Determine Major Antigenic Change During Influenza Virus Evolution http://www.scienc...abstract

My comment to the Science Magazine site: "The idea of biophysical constraints seems antithetical to the idea of nature somehow selecting mutations that cause amino acid substitutions. However, I am not a biophysicist or evolutionary theorist.

The problem may be my focus on nutrient-dependent receptor-mediated amino acid substitutions in species from bacteria to humans (non-viral organisms). Since I am not a virologist or physicist, I'm not sure that the laws of physics apply to viruses and their replication.

If they do, natural selection for random mutations is not likely to result in amino acid substitutions because the thermodynamics of changes in organism-level thermoregulation preclude such randomness. Stability of protein biosynthesis and degradation that probably depends on protein folding ..."
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2014
...If they do, natural selection for random mutations is not likely to result in amino acid substitutions ..."

"Not likely" - what the hell does that mean? By whose definition?

Nutritional input causes cellular change. That's easy. Just because the survivors of an nutritional change are able to reproduce does NOT mean it is pheromonically "controlled". They're just there to provide an avenue of continued exploration.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2014
"...no mutational mechanism that is biased toward amino acid substitutions has been described."
http://dx.doi.org....1003766

Although that biological fact prevents serious scientists from examining ridiculous claims about mutation-initiated natural selection and the evolution of biodiversity, it does nothing to prevent the anonymous fools and idiot minions of biology teachers like PZ Myers who are drawn into debate from telling others that they believe in pseudoscientific nonsense.

By whose definition?


"...no mutational mechanism that is biased toward amino acid substitutions has been described." -- is not a statement that needs any word defined, unless you want to define biological facts to make it appear that they fit a ridiculous theory.

Mutational mechanisms do not lead to increased organismal complexity; amino acid substitutions do and they are nutrient-dependent. The nutrients metabolize to species-specific pheromones that control reproduction.

anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
Could someone copy the paragraph that Kohl got that quote from and paste it here? I can't copy text from a .pdf on my phone. Kohl, as usual, is taking that quote out of context.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Despite the limited sequence identity at the vls unexpressed cassettes among strains, six clearly identifiable regions of high variability were maintained in all strains. When recombined into the vlsE expression locus, these regions are expressed as antigenically important loop structures on the surface of the bacterium [21,23](Fig. 3A). Our analyses revealed that diversity among the unexpressed cassettes is elevated by natural selection favoring mutations that code for amino acid changes in the antigenically important regions (Fig. 2, Fig. 3), thus elevating antigenic evolvability at VlsE. The regions of the unexpressed cassettes that correspond to antigenically important loop regions contained significantly more non-synonymous polymorphisms than synonymous polymorphisms, supporting the hypothesis that variation in the cassettes is maintained by diversifying selection. This conclusion was supported by three independent statistical tests of diversifying selection on the cassettes.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Importantly, these signatures of selection were strong enough to overcome acknowl-
edged detection limitations resulting from averaging frequencies of non-synonymous polymorphisms over both antigenic loop and conserved alpha helical regions, using samples from a single species [40], and using analytical methods which yield conservative estimates [41]. The high rate of non-synonymous polymorphisms in the unexpressed cassettes likely results from random mutations that are favored by natural selection if they enhance antigenic evolvability at VlsE, as no mutational mechanism that is biased toward amino acid substitutions has been described.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Re: "...antigenically important loop structures on the surface of the bacterium [21,23](Fig. 3A). Our analyses revealed that diversity among the unexpressed cassettes is elevated by natural selection favoring mutations that code for amino acid changes..."

No matter how many times anonymous fools or idiot minions of biology teachers like PZ Myers try to tell you about natural selection favoring mutations that lead to the evolution of biodiversity via amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all species, they will not have established biologically-based cause and effect.

Biophysically-constrained biologically-based cause and effect is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled and "NO MUTATIONAL MECHANISM THAT IS BIASED TOWARD AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTIONS HAS BEEN DESCRIBED" by the anonymous fool or any other idiot, which means their theories about the origins of biodiversity are nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense.

JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
In viruses, NO MUTATIONAL MECHANISM THAT IS BIASED TOWARD AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTIONS HAS BEEN DESCRIBED."

For contrast, amino acid "Substitutions Near the Receptor Binding Site Determine Major Antigenic Change During Influenza Virus Evolution" http://www.scienc...abstract

"Substitution of a single amino acid at one of these positions substantially changed the virus-specific antibody response in infected ferrets. These findings have potentially far-reaching consequences for understanding the evolutionary mechanisms that govern influenza viruses."

The far-reaching consequences of not understanding HOW ecological variation in the supply of glucose determines the ability of the virus to adapt via amino acid substitutions may kill us all. At that point, it won't matter whether evolutionary theorists admit they never understood biological facts. And there will be no serious scientists left to laugh about ridiculous theories that mutations cause evolution.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
I was first author of the award-winning review: Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology http://www.nel.ed...view.htm
So why are you wasting time trying to sell your stuff here at physorg? Youre obviously not getting anywhere. Shouldn't you be writing more papers to convince experts and scholars instead of hobbyists and amateurs?

Perhaps you only enjoy pretending to be smarter. Perhaps your papers aren't being accepted any longer and you have been kicked out of all the serious forums. I'm guessing.

Because if you were serious about your theories, or had a choice in the matter, then that's what you would be doing, isn't it?
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Thanks, but enough about me and the series of published works I have authored or co-authored from 1995 to 2013: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...3960065/

Let's talk about why you are here along with all the other anonymous fools and idiot minions of biology teachers who taught many people to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense of a ridiculous theory. I'm here because this is where the ignorance is. Are you here to continue to display it?

Here's a link to what the anonymous fool, Andrew Jones had to say about my 2013 review. http://www.ncbi.n...4959329/ Excerpt: Mutations are, according to him, only involved in disease and cannot result in adaptive traits, despite the massive amount of evidence contrary to that."

I provided examples of amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types because "NO MUTATIONAL MECHANISM THAT IS BIASED TOWARD AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTIONS..." Get it?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Yeah, keep taking that quote out of context. It's hilarious how you persist after being called out.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
"...likely results from random mutations that are favored by natural selection if they enhance antigenic evolvability at VlsE, as no mutational mechanism that is biased toward amino acid substitutions has been described."

The molecular mechanisms that enable nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions to differentiate all cell types of all individuals in all species have been thoroughly detailed in the context of my model. Examples were provided, including one from the nematode model organism studied by Rechavi's group.

http://www.odedre...out.aspx "Our principle aim in the lab is to attack scientific dogmas. Mainly, we aim to use powerful genetic tools to discover novel biological principles by which RNA affects formation and inheritance of complex traits."

You have yet to grasp the biological facts about cell type differentiation that have taken serious scientists years to detail and are stuck with your gene-centric pseudoscientific nonsense.


TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2014
Let's talk about why you are here along with all the other anonymous fools and idiot minions of biology teachers who taught many people to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense of a ridiculous theory. I'm here because this is where the ignorance is
No, you just stated that the ignorance is among the teachers and the people who taught them. Why aren't you trying to change their minds?
Are you here to continue to display it?
And like I say, you're here because you enjoy talking down to people. Much easier to pretend you know what you are talking about HERE than in the serious forums. THERE you get your ass chewed up and handed to you. And then banned.

Just because you don't get banned here doesn't mean you aren't full of shit you know.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Let's talk about why you are here along with all the other anonymous fools and idiot minions of biology teachers who taught many people to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense of a ridiculous theory. I'm here because this is where the ignorance is
No, you just stated that the ignorance is among the teachers and the people who taught them. Why aren't you trying to change their minds?
Are you here to continue to display it?
And like I say, you're here because you enjoy talking down to people. Much easier to pretend you know what you are talking about HERE than in the serious forums. THERE you get your ass chewed up and handed to you. And then banned.

Just because you don't get banned here doesn't mean you aren't full of shit you know.


Your best post ever.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2014
Let's talk about why you are here along with all the other anonymous fools and idiot minions of biology teachers who taught many people to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense of a ridiculous theory. I'm here because this is where the ignorance is
No, you just stated that the ignorance is among the teachers and the people who taught them. Why aren't you trying to change their minds?
Are you here to continue to display it?
And like I say, you're here because you enjoy talking down to people. Much easier to pretend you know what you are talking about HERE than in the serious forums. THERE you get your ass chewed up and handed to you. And then banned.

Just because you don't get banned here doesn't mean you aren't full of shit you know.


Your best post ever.
Danke.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2014
No matter how many times anonymous fools or idiot minions of biology teachers like PZ Myers try to tell you about natural selection favoring mutations that lead to the evolution of biodiversity via amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all species, they will not have established biologically-based cause and effect.
@jk
so what you are saying above is that YOU HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED A BIOLOGICALLY BASED CAUSE AND EFFECT
remember when I asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
Well, THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF MUTATION, to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
Therefore YOU ARE CLAIMING ABOVE THAT YOU ALSO HAVE NOT FOUND A BIOLOGICALLY BASED CAUSE AND EFFECT
BECAUSE YOUR MODEL SUPPORTS EVOLUTION BY SUPPORTING AND DESCRIBING MUTATIONS
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2014
"...no mutational mechanism that is biased toward amino acid substitutions has been described."
http://dx.doi.org....1003766
@JK
more from YOUR OWN LINK
"The high rate of non-synonymous polymorphisms in the unexpressed cassettes likely results from random mutations that are favored by natural selection "

"Antigenic evolvability at VlsE is also elevated by insertion-deletion (indel) mutations at unstable tandem-repeat motifs, which are present in all B. burgdorferi lineages analyzed"

"the presence of the highly-mutable tandem repeat motifs in all strains despite the absence of sequence homology (Fig. S3B) suggests that mutable sequences may be selectively maintained as a mechanism to generate the genetic diversity among the cassettes that is needed to elevate antigenic evolvability"

see... we can cherry pick too, from your OWN LINKS to support arguments against you!
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
http://www.scienc...14002172

"The hoary concept of evaluating traits according to nature versus nurture continues to persist despite repeated demonstrations that it retards, rather than advances, our understanding of biological processes."

"...the arbitrator (differential survival and reproduction) has stayed constant..."

http://www.hawaii...ion.html
"This discourse calls attention to features that are central to the so-called nature-nurture discussion."

The fact that differential survival and reproduction is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man, makes the entirety of my antagonist's ridiculous comments appear to be like those one would expect from scientifically illiterate children.

No one has addressed the content of my published works, or the works of others except to say "Nuh-uh." Repeated demonstrations of ignorance retard progress.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2014
No one has addressed the content of my published works, or the works of others except to say "Nuh-uh." Repeated demonstrations of ignorance retard progress.
well, since all YOU are doing is looking at the OVERWHELMING evidence against YOU and saying "nuh-uh... yall are just idiot minions for believing in educated people with proof"... then so what?

you STILL IGNORE the evidence in front of you, so why should WE specifically address your publications? maybe we just don't like to argue PSEUDOSCIENCE!

Anon posted these in another thread, I will re-post them here
HERE IS PROOF that jk is an idiot and IGNORES EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!

http://scholar.go...t=0%2C14

http://symposium.....extract

http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

and the final stroke against jk:

http://freethough...s-place/
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
If anyone has intelligent comments to offer, now is the time -- before I exit the discussion.
supamark23
5 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
JVK - go ahead and exit the "discussion", please. You're an ignorant buffoon with no understanding of the things you go on about. You aren't even intelligent enough to get a degree in biology - and biology is STEM easy mode. You really ought to see a psychiatrist about your OCD... because OCD is the only explaination for you vomiting up the same disproven crap over and over again to the same ridicule by people with an actual education.

Not only would we appreciate you leaving this article, but the entire site as well - because what you're doing, spreading falsehoods, does nobody any good.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
If anyone has intelligent comments to offer, now is the time -- before I exit the discussion.
by all means, PLEASE EXIT... you've offered NO INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION to date

it would be best for ALL involved if you left and let those who actually KNOW what is going on to comment
Especially since you cannot even remember the definition of mutation or that your own model causes mutations which support the theory of evolution

We are used to you running out on everyone once you've been proven a PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT

thanks for leaving!
it would be nice if you left the site too.... but that is only wishful thinking
PROOF that jk is WRONG:
http://scholar.go...t=0%2C14

http://symposium.....extract

http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

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

JVK
1 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
Chromatin state dynamics during blood formation http://www.scienc...abstract

links what we wrote about sex differences in cell type differentiation to the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled cell type differentiation of all cells in all individuals of all species via conserved molecular mechanisms that transfer information about the microRNA/messenger RNA balance via cell type differences in blood cells that are linked directly from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in organized genomes via alternative splicings of pre-mRNA and amino acid substitutions.

http://www.hawaii...ion.html
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2014
Chromatin state dynamics during blood formation http://www.scienc...abstract

so what exactly are you trying to say about THIS link?

or did you link it because no one has an AAAS membership as it is so expensive?

you post a link but don't post what you think is going on...

I thought you were leaving anyway?
sirchick
5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2014
If anyone has intelligent comments to offer, now is the time -- before I exit the discussion.


You expect any one to take you seriously when you make childish comments like that? So people disagree with you so you question their intelligence..thats a good way to be mature. And thats certainly the way to behave in a scientific community.. maybe thats why you like to spout theories in comment sections rather than publish them because you lack the maturity to even socialise with people in scientific field. You probably offend everyone that disagrees with you.

This website seems to conclude evolution is what is involved with viruses:
http://www.histor...volution
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2014
If anyone has intelligent comments to offer, now is the time -- before I exit the discussion.


You expect any one to take you seriously when you make childish comments like that? So people disagree with you so you question their intelligence..thats a good way to be mature. And thats certainly the way to behave in a scientific community.. maybe thats why you like to spout theories in comment sections rather than publish them because you lack the maturity to even socialise with people in scientific field. You probably offend everyone that disagrees with you.


I'd pay good money to see him go to an evolutionary biology conference and present his model. Something tells me he wouldn't have the gall to be quite as outspoken there as he is here though. Calling a room full of PhDs idiot minions and telling them mutation and natural selection is pseudoscience wouldn't end well for him.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2014
You expect any one to take you seriously when you make childish comments like that? So people disagree with you so you question their intelligence..thats a good way to be mature. And thats certainly the way to behave in a scientific community.. maybe thats why you like to spout theories in comment sections rather than publish them because you lack the maturity to even socialise with people in scientific field. You probably offend everyone that disagrees with you.


I'd pay good money to see him go to an evolutionary biology conference and present his model. Something tells me he wouldn't have the gall to be quite as outspoken there as he is here though. Calling a room full of PhDs idiot minions and telling them mutation and natural selection is pseudoscience wouldn't end well for him.

He'd look like he tried out for UFC....

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.