DNA may have had humble beginnings as nutrient carrier

Sep 01, 2014 by Adam Hadhazy
DNA may have had humble beginnings as nutrient carrier
An artist’s impression of a DNA molecule. Credit: FBI

New research intriguingly suggests that DNA, the genetic information carrier for humans and other complex life, might have had a rather humbler origin. In some microbes, a study shows, DNA pulls double duty as a storage site for phosphate. This all-important biomolecule contains phosphorus, a sometimes hard-to-get nutrient.

Maintaining an in-house source of phosphate is a newfound tactic for enabling microorganisms to eke out a living in harsh environments, according to a new study published in the open-access, peer reviewed scientific journal PLOS ONE. The finding bodes well for life finding a way, as it were, in extreme conditions on worlds less hospitable than Earth.

The results also support a second insight: DNA might have come onto the biological scene merely as a means of keeping phosphate handy. Only later on in evolutionary history did the mighty molecule perhaps take on the more advanced role of genetic carrier.

"DNA might have initially evolved for the purpose of storing phosphate, and the various genetic benefits evolved later," said Joerg Soppa, senior author of the paper and a molecular biologist at Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany.

Unraveling life's origins

Scientists continue to investigate the development of self-replicating, intricate sets of chemistry—in other words, life—from the chemical compounds thought available on early Earth. Out of this mixture of prebiotic chemicals, two nucleic acids—RNA and DNA—emerged as champions.

Today, these two types of biomolecules serve as the genetic information carriers for all Earthly biota. RNA on its own suffices for the business of life for simpler creatures, such as some viruses. Complex life, like humans, however, relies on DNA as its genetic carrier.

Astrobiologists want to understand the origin of DNA and its genetic cousin, RNA, because figuring out how life got started here on Earth is key for gauging if it might ever develop on alien planets.

Many researchers think RNA must have preceded DNA as the genetic molecule of choice. RNA is more versatile, acting as both genetic code and a catalyst for chemical reactions. Explicating the rise of DNA as a directly from RNA, however, is tricky. Compared to RNA, DNA needs significantly more supporting players for it to work well in a biological setting.

"The switch from RNA to DNA is not easy because many additional enzymes are required for DNA genomes," said Soppa.

This unclear transition from RNA to DNA opens the door for a precursor to DNA possibly having a more mundane job. The new study offers an attractive explanation: that DNA was a fancy way to store nutrients in cells.

Phosphate depot?

DNA is chock-full of phosphate. Cells depend on phosphate to form not only DNA and RNA, but also related genetic machinery, such as the ribosome. Phosphate, furthermore, is a must for building the molecule ATP, life's energy carrier, as well as fatty membrane molecules, certain phospho-proteins and phospho-sugars, and more.

Early Earth, in an artist’s impression, where somehow complex, self-replicating chemistry (in other words, life) emerged. Credit: Peter Sawyer / Smithsonian Institution

"Phosphate is important for an immense set of biomolecules," said Soppa.

Unfortunately for some microbes, ample phosphate is not always available. For example, in salty, nutrient-poor habitats, such as the Dead Sea in the Middle East, an organism called Haloferax volcanii must regularly "eat" ambient DNA to obtain phosphate (plus some other nutritional goodies, such as nitrogen).

Notably, H. volcanii can still survive and reproduce when phosphorus, the element needed to make phosphate, is lacking. Somehow, then, the microbe must turn to an inner source of phosphate, for otherwise it should cease to grow.

In their study, Soppa and colleagues from Germany, the United States and Israel sought out this source. The nature of H. volcanii provided some clues. The organism is classified as archaea, one of the three domains of life, in addition to bacteria and eukarya, the latter encompassing all multicellular organisms, from fungi to fruit flies. Many archaea and bacteria—collectively, "prokaryotes"— have just one, circular chromosome. Eukaryotes, like us, on the other hand, can have any number of the chunky pieces of DNA, RNA and proteins. (Humans have 23 pairs of different , for the record.) H. volcanii is unusual. It has 20 copies of the same chromosome when it's growing happily under favorable conditions, and 10 when nutrients are exhausted and it reaches a stationary phase.

Strength in numbers

Lots of chromosome copies are good to have in a pinch. So-called polyploidal organisms like H. volcanii use their copious chromosomes to tough it out through bad situations, such as high radiation exposure or total dry-outs, called desiccation. Either scenario causes the strands in chromosomal DNA to break. For single-chromosome species, only a few breaks lead to death because it is impossible to repair a chromosome scattered into fragments.

But if there are multiple copies of the cracked chromosomes, fragments can fortuitously line up. Rather like how a jigsaw puzzle is easier to put together if there are numerous duplicates of each necessary piece, the chromosome shards can sync up and restore a functional chromosome.

"In polyploid species, the fragments generated from different copies of the chromosome overlap, and it is possible to regenerate an intact chromosome from overlapping fragments," said Soppa.

Desperate times, desperate measures

The shores of the Dead Sea, which borders Jordan, Palestine and Israel. As the lowest and saltiest lake in the world, it is home to some extreme creatures. Credit: Aaron L. Gronstal

To investigate if H. volcanii's extra chromosomes might help the archaeon survive low phosphate conditions, Soppa and colleagues starved the organism in the lab of the critical substance. The microbe continued to reproduce by splitting one cell apart into two. Interestingly, chromosome counts diminished in the "parent" and the "daughter" cells.

"From quantifying the number of chromosomes prior to and after growth in the absence of phosphate, we have found that about 30 percent of the chromosomes are 'missing' afterwards," said Soppa.

The numbers for another potential in-house source of phosphate, H. volcanii's ribosomes, however, remained steady. The most likely explanation, then, of the microorganism's hardiness when facing a phosphate nutrient shortage: H. volcanii simply cannibalizes some of its own chromosomes.

As further verification, Soppa and colleagues tested the survival skills of H. volcanii cells that contained varying numbers of chromosome copies. Those archaea with just two copies of their chromosome turned out to be more than five times as sensitive to desiccation as those H. volcanii with a hefty complement of 20 chromosomes.

Life, undaunted

This newly described benefit of polyploidy in H. volcanii is a fresh demonstration of how life can make do in severe environments. So-called extremophiles have been discovered in recent decades thriving in strongly acidic hot springs, within liquid asphalt, and in other eyebrow-raising niches. Salt-tolerant bacteria and archaea, like H. volcanii, have been found to survive in deserts, simulated Mars conditions, and even the rigors of a space flight. We should not be surprised, perhaps, if life has managed to take hold on formidable worlds.

"The understanding of how harsh the conditions can be that can be survived by some archaea and bacteria helps us to be more optimistic that could have evolved at very rough and unsuitable places on early Earth or on other planets," said Soppa.

The new role ascribed to DNA, as storage, might help to explain how a completely RNA-dominated primordial era began sharing genetic duties with DNA. Life did not leap from RNA to DNA. Rather, DNA, slowly but surely, learned new tricks.

"The hypothesis that DNA might have evolved as a storage polymer and became genetic material later, makes the step from RNA to DNA as genetic material easier, because it then would be a two-step and not a one-step process," said Soppa. "DNA would have been around, and during long time spans additional roles could have been evolved."

Explore further: Life, but not as we know it

More information: The study is available online: www.plosone.org/article/info%3… journal.pone.0094819

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Life, but not as we know it

Nov 04, 2013

A rudimentary form of life that is found in some of the harshest environments on earth is able to sidestep normal replication processes and reproduce by the back door, researchers at The University of Nottingham ...

New Study Brings Scientists Closer to the Origin of RNA

Dec 24, 2013

(Phys.org) —One of the biggest questions in science is how life arose from the chemical soup that existed on early Earth. One theory is that RNA, a close relative of DNA, was the first genetic molecule ...

Elusive Z- DNA found on nucleosomes

Jan 20, 2012

New research published in BioMed Central's open access journal Cell & Bioscience is the first to show that left-handed Z-DNA, normally only found at sites where DNA is being copied, can also form on nucleosomes.

Molecular monkey arranges X-chromosome activation

Jul 25, 2013

X chromosomes are very special genetic material. They differ in number between men and women. To achieve equality between sexes, one out of two X chromosomes in women is silenced. In flies, the opposite happens: ...

Abnormal DNA maintenance related to cancer

Dec 10, 2012

DNA, like houses and cars, needs ongoing maintenance. Rays of ultraviolet sunlight, chemical pollutants and normal biochemical processes in the cell can damage it. Cells routinely repair this damage before making proteins ...

Down's chromosome cause genome-wide disruption

Apr 16, 2014

The extra copy of Chromosome 21 that causes Down's syndrome throws a spanner into the workings of all the other chromosomes as well, said a study published Wednesday that surprised its authors.

Recommended for you

Crowdsourced power to solve microbe mysteries

3 hours ago

University of New South Wales scientists hope to unlock the secrets of millions of marine microbes from waters as far apart as Sydney's Botany Bay and the Amazon River in Brazil, with the help of an international ...

Reading a biological clock in the dark

Oct 21, 2014

Our species' waking and sleeping cycles – shaped in millions of years of evolution – have been turned upside down within a single century with the advent of electric lighting and airplanes. As a result, ...

User comments : 79

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Szkeptik
not rated yet Sep 01, 2014
Interesting idea, but their "proof" is very shaky. Having more chromosome copies and being more resistant to extremes can be because of more copies of protective protein coding genes.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Sep 01, 2014
Intriguing idea. Looking at it metabolically, re the RNA world, DNA monomers are products from RNA precursors.

A reason to co-opt DNA for genetic material would be viral parasitism. I.e. when RNA cells were evolving into parasites, the rest would evolve defenses. Separating protein production machinery and genetic replication machinery wins in game theory models under parasitism, i.e. such a system is more robust then.

But those models never could predict why DNA was a so much stabler chemical. It is an advantage when you later do error correction in larger sequential genomes vs RNA cells original small multicopy genomes, but evolution wouldn't know that.

The phosphate storage hypothesis seems to combine well with the parasite defense hypothesis, each predicting what the other can not.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Sep 01, 2014
@Szkeptik: I read it thusly: Their main test is that the chromosome number lowered when phosphate levels did. The negative correlation between that number and being less extremophile was testing the basic stability of the polyploidy. (I.e. it was a selective advantage in phosphate rich conditions.)
JVK
1 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2014
Journal article Excerpt 1) "...homologous sets of chromosomes have long been linked to the invention of sexual reproduction [1], and have been developed from mathematical modeling using population genetics principles and assumptions."

My comment: Sexual reproduction in yeasts is nutrient-dependent and pherormone-controlled.

Journal article Excerpt 2) "...the proposal that the functionality as a storage polymer might have been the driving force in the development and acquisition of DNA during the early evolution of life is nothing else than a hypothesis."

A model of nutrient-dependent cell type differentiation via amino acid substitutions includes examples across species. The examples support an explanation of pheromone-controlled cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all species via conserved molecular mechanisms (from atoms to the thermodynamic stability of all genera in all ecosystems).

http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524
http://www.ncbi.n...ed/24693
JVK
1 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2014
...the chromosome number lowered when phosphate levels did.


Does anyone else think that means Darwin's 'conditions of life' are nutrient-dependent?

If so, someone else (not Torbjorn _Larsson_OM) might also realize that nutrient-dependent life is controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones in species from microbes to man.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2014
Does anyone else think that means Darwin's 'conditions of life' are nutrient-dependent?


The conditions of life refers to the environment. The environment cannot be described as nutrient-dependent in the same way that a rock cannot be described as nutrient dependent.
JVK
1 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2014
Are you trying to tell others that life is not nutrient-dependent so that you can continue to tout the pseudoscientific nonsense of mutations, natural selection and the evolution of pheromone-controlled biodiversity?

If so, why? All experimental evidence suggests there has been no evolutionary event that might otherwise link a last universal common ancestor to us. What is the link that you claim differentiates our 'evolution' from the stability of molecules in a rock?

Genomes in turmoil: Quantification of genome dynamics in prokaryote supergenomes http://www.biomed...abstract
supamark23
5 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2014
Oh great, JVK's back spreading his special brand of ignorance... yay.

Remember everyone, JVK doesn't actually have a bachelor's degree in a scientific discipline.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2014
Unsurprisingly, Kohl completely misses the point of my post.

Are you trying to tell others that life is not nutrient-dependent...?


No, I'm telling you that THE ENVIRONMENT cannot be nutrient dependent. It doesn't make any sense as a descriptor.

What is the link that you claim differentiates our 'evolution' from the stability of molecules in a rock?


What on Earth are you talking about?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2014
Are you trying to tell others that life is not nutrient-dependent so that you can continue to tout the pseudoscientific nonsense of mutations, natural selection and the evolution of pheromone-controlled biodiversity?

That is the stupidest thing you have said so far. Of course life is nutrient dependent.
However, differentiation in available nutrients can cause - you guessed it - mutations...
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2014
differentiation in available nutrients can cause - you guessed it - mutations...


Thanks. Are you claiming that the mutations then cause increased organismal complexity by breaking the biophysical constraints of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations detailed in my series of published works since 1995?

http://perfumingt...tations/
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2014
What on Earth are you talking about?


Epigenesis and epistasis. What else?

"It is noteworthy that transcription-coupled, chaperone-mediated histone variant assembly governs much of chromatin biology. Our report potentially reveals an RNA-based mechanism by which specialized histone-variant driven chromatin structures might be maintained in vivo."

http://elifescien...3/e03254
Whydening Gyre
4.9 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2014
differentiation in available nutrients can cause - you guessed it - mutations...


Thanks. Are you claiming that the mutations then cause increased organismal complexity by breaking the biophysical constraints of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations detailed in my series of published works since 1995?

In answer to your question? Yes. The biophysical constraints you describe are only ones of condition by YOUR definition.
Get over it. Pheremones are only one of a hundred communication mechanisms in use by cellular entities. NOT the main control mechanism.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2014
That is the stupidest thing you have said so far.


@ Whydening-Skippy it was pretty stupid. But you must have missed some of his really good ones. Ask about the stinky love potions he sells on the interweb, that is really special stupid.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2014
Are you claiming that the mutations then cause increased organismal complexity by breaking the biophysical constraints of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations


Well if won't claim it I will.

detailed in my series of published works since 1995?


That's why I'm claiming it. You been pushing that crankpot paper since 1995 and still nobody is buying it. Except maybe those new agey crystal rubbers that also buy your stinky love potions hoping to get a normal boyfriend..

http://perfumingthemind.stinky.love.potions.com

anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2014
I'm having a hard time seeing how you get "Epigenesis and epistasis." from the seemingly irrelevant question:

What is the link that you claim differentiates our 'evolution' from the stability of molecules in a rock?
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2014
Examples of amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types in species can be found in my most recently published work. Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Additional support for the model was published in two companion papers that address the fact that the de novo Creation of differentiated cell types is due to amino acid substitutions, which means no 'evolutionary events' are associated with the evolution of biodiversity.

Only 'Genome Dynamics Events' are clearly linked from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in organized genomes of species from microbes to man. The devastating blow to the pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of biodiversity was delivered in these two published works.

http://www.nature...150.html

http://link.sprin...4-1558-7
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2014
no 'evolutionary events' are associated with the evolution of biodiversity.

Only 'Genome Dynamics Events' are clearly linked...


If you had any semblance of reading comprehension at all, you'd see that they didn't redefine anything. They simply renamed evolutionary events to be more specific in their paper. They didn't do it to discount the idea of evolution.

The rates of 4 types of elementary evolutionary events (hereinafter Genome Dynamics Events or GDE) were analyzed


Why else would they say things like:

For example, a quantitative assessment of the contributions of vertical inheritance and HGT to the evolution of prokaryotes based on the topological comparison of thousands of phylogenetic trees suggested that nearly two-third of evolutionary events originate from HGT
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2014
Does anyone else besides anonymous_9001 not understand what this means?

"We cannot conceive of a global external factor that could cause, during this time, parallel evolution of amino acid compositions of proteins in 15 diverse taxa that represent all three domains of life and span a wide range of lifestyles and environments. Thus, currently, the most plausible hypothesis is that we are observing a universal, intrinsic trend that emerged before the last universal common ancestor of all extant organisms."

I think it means this: No evidence of a last universal common ancestor = no evidence of any evolutionary event that could be linked to the evolution of biodiversity in all genera. For contrast, all experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect links ecological variation to nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions and metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction via cell type differentiation.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2014
What they're saying in that excerpt is that the substitutions are not affected by external or environmental factors because they occur in a wide variety of taxa that are subject to a wide variety of said factors. That leaves an intrinsic selective process that occurred in LUCA (last universal common ancestor) and has been operating ever since to purge some codons and gain others.

Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2014
Does anyone else besides anonymous_9001 not understand what this means?.


Skippy apparently you the only couyon in the whole wide world that understands that. You on your own there Cher.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2014
...the [amino acid] substitutions are not affected by external or environmental factors..."

"cryptophytes have evolved a structural switch controlled by an amino acid insertion to modulate excitonic interactions and therefore the mechanisms used for light harvesting." http://www.pnas.o...abstract

"...two amino acids (lysine at position 627 or asparagine at position 701) in the polymerase subunit PB2 protein are considered critical for the adaptation of avian influenza A viruses to mammals." http://dx.doi.org....1001034

"We switched a valine to an alanine and to see the hair and gland changes at the whole-mouse level was astounding." http://www.biotec...ce=print

The most ignorant among us are not capable of pattern recognition. They look at amino acid substitutions and say are not affected by external or environmental factors.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2014
@ JVK-Skippy. You need to change your inker thing Cher. It's fading out on you. But don't rush right out and be in a hurry. You been pushing that theory for 20 or 19 years now and nobody has signed on yet, you won't lose much if you wait until tomorrow.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2014
"First, double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) is bound to the surface of the cell and enters a compartment where it becomes resistant to exogenous nuclease. Next, one strand of the DNA enters the cytoplasm while the other strand is degraded (9). Some bacteria, such as Haemophilus influenzae and Neisseria gonorrhoeae, preferentially take up homospecific DNA. Specificity of DNA uptake in these organisms is determined by the presence of "uptake signal sequences," which are overrepresented conserved sequences found throughout the genome (28). Finally, after a recombination event, the new DNA is integrated into the chromosome." http://jb.asm.org...288.full

The link from DNA as a nutrient to chromosomal rearrangements was clear in 2001. However, PZ Myers and his idiot minions are still touting mutations and natural selection in the context of "evolved" biodiversity. See the anonymous fool's citation to Myers' blog in his criticisms: http://www.ncbi.n...4959329/
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2014
It's a model, not a theory. Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Elekonich and Robinson signed on in 2000 and Elekonich and Roberts (2005) linked the model to life history transitions in the honeybee model organism. When the companion papers from 2013 I cited in my review also linked a single amino acid substitution from the mouse to the human model of ecological adaptations, I thought the pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of biodiversity would end.

With participants here, the pseudoscientific nonsense may never end, no matter how many others present their findings in terms of biologically-based cause and effect (e.g., in all model organisms).
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2014
Re:
No evidence of a last universal common ancestor = no evidence of any evolutionary event that could be linked to the evolution of biodiversity in all genera.


Why hasn't anyone addressed that fact by providing evidence of whatever evolutionary event they think links the evolution of biodiversity to something besides the pseudoscientific nonsense of population genetics? Hasn't PZ Myers or any other ignorant biology teacher told anyone how natural selection can be linked to the evolution of biodiversity via mutations so that his explanation can be compared to the biological facts about amino acid substitutions and chromosomal rearrangements in my model?

I cited 97 published works and concluded: "Minimally, this model can be compared to any other factual representations of epigenesis and epistasis for determination of the best scientific 'fit'." The fact there is no model for comparison attests to the ignorance of those who continue to denigrate my works and works I cite.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2014
See also: Beyond the Blueprint and my comments.
http://www.the-sc...Comments

"To identify potential mates, female crickets listen with ears on their forelegs to the males' songs, produced by the rubbing together of their forewings."

All invertebrates identify potential mates via the nutrients they ingest because the nutrients are metabolized to species-specific pheromones that vary with sex differences and all other cell type differences in species from yeasts to mammals. In our 1996 review, we wrote:

"Parenthetically it is interesting to note even the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has a gene-based equivalent of sexual orientation (i.e., a-factor and alpha-factor physiologies). These differences arise from different epigenetic modifications of an otherwise identical MAT locus (Runge and Zakian, 1996; Wu and Haber, 1995)."

http://www.hawaii...ion.html
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2014
Note how the anti-science troll ducks specific individuals, because he knows we don't care for his spam. I would just report him, FWIW.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2014
The phosphate storage hypothesis seems to combine well with the parasite defense hypothesis, each predicting what the other can not.


No need to duck those who posit exactly what I have detailed in the context of the olfactory/immune system connection but refer to me as a troll.

See my 2012 review:

"Among different bacterial species existing in similar environments, DNA uptake appears to have epigenetically 'fed' interspecies methylation and speciation via conjugation. This indicates that reproduction began with an active nutrient uptake mechanism in heterospecifics and that the mechanism evolved to become symbiogenesis in the conspecifics of asexual organisms. In yeasts, epigenetic changes driven by nutrition might then have led to the creation of novel cell types, which are required at evolutionary advent of sexual reproduction. These epigenetic changes probably occur across the evolutionary continuum..." --BUT THEY COULDN'T IF CELL TYPE DIFFERENTIATION WAS NOT RECOGNIZED.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
Cell type differences are recognized by the "immune system."

From our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review
"Parenthetically it is interesting to note even the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has a gene-based equivalent of sexual orientation (i.e., a-factor and alpha-factor physiologies). These differences arise from different epigenetic modifications of an otherwise identical MAT locus..."

http://www.hawaii...ion.html (1996)
http://www.ncbi.n...24693349 (2012)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
so that you can continue to tout the pseudoscientific nonsense of mutations
IF you are saying that mutations are pseudoscientific nonsense, especially in regard to Evolution, then you are also saying that your own model is pseudoscientific nonsense and you don't know what you are talking about
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 ACCEPTED BY BIOLOGISTS AND GENETICISTS) - to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
THANKS for FINALLY COMING CLEAN ABOUT PROMOTING PSEUDOSCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
Note how the anti-science troll ducks specific individuals, because he knows we don't care for his spam. I would just report him, FWIW.
@Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
THANKS!
BEST idea I've heard yet

Normally, I give him one chance to discuss with people like Anon_9001 and Real Science (or you) but as soon as he starts his anti-evolution creationist rhetoric or dodging and misrepresenting facts like Lenski, or trying to redefine words like mutation, I will now just downvote and report for being pseudoscience

Maybe we should all just get in to the spirit and do it?
After all, one simple link can undermine his whole premise regarding mutation and evolution:

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

JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
"...competition for two carbon sources caused initially isogenic populations of the bacterium Escherichia coli to diversify into two coexisting ecotypes representing different physiological adaptations..." http://dx.doi.org....1001490

The competition for nutrients exemplifies the role that their metabolism plays in the physiology of reproduction, which enables fixation of amino acid substitutions that stabilize the organized genome of species from microbes to man.

The amino acid substitutions are not mutations, which is why others stated: "We cannot conceive of a global external factor that could cause, during this time, parallel evolution of amino acid compositions of proteins in 15 diverse taxa that represent all three domains of life and span a wide range of lifestyles and environments." http://www.nature...306.html

Simply put: Lenski did not describe any evolutionary event but others still claim one occurred.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
Simply put: Lenski did not describe any evolutionary event but others still claim one occurred

Simply put: you are backpedaling because there is scientific evidence proving you wrong so the only way you can save face is to denigrate it without evidence

Please provide examples from the Lenski experiment and then provide a published peer reviewed refute from a reputable source with an impact in the subject proving Lenski wrong.

So far all you have is personal conjecture
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2014
Please provide examples from the Lenski experiment and then provide a published peer reviewed refute


Examples of what from Lenski's experiments?

I wrote: "...competition for two carbon sources caused initially isogenic populations of the bacterium Escherichia coli to diversify into two coexisting ecotypes representing different physiological adaptations..."

Parallel Evolutionary Dynamics of Adaptive Diversification in Escherichia coli is an open access publication http://www.plosbi....1001490

It attests to the fact that nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations are what others continue to report in terms of evolutionary theory because that's what they believe in. Serious scientists believe in biologically-based cause and effect, not mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of biodiversity.
kochevnik
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2014
Serious scientists believe in biologically-based cause and effect, not mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of biodiversity.
Mutations are cause and effect, JVK. More evidence you don't know what you're writing about
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2014
Mutations cause diseases and disorders via perturbed protein folding. If you think that perturbed protein folding leads to the increasing morphological and behavioral diversity of species from microbes to man you are probably a bird-watcher or butterfly collector -- not a serious scientist. That fact has been known for 50 years.

"...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

Does anyone else think that Dobzhansky didn't know what he was writing about?

Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2014
Mutations cause diseases and disorders via perturbed protein folding. If you think that perturbed protein folding leads to the increasing morphological and behavioral diversity of species from microbes to man you are probably a bird-watcher or butterfly collector -- not a serious scientist. That fact has been known for 50 years.

"...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

Does anyone else think that Dobzhansky didn't know what he was writing about?



Emphatically yes!
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2014
@JVK

To clarify my brief response, Dobzhansky was being snobbish in his remark but he did important work in mutations driving evolution.

Strange you would quote him.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2014
Don't worry, Vietvet, I've informed Kohl a couple times already that his hero's publication history is 99% papers about mutations and how they're involved in evolution.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2014
...his hero's publication history is 99% papers about mutations and how they're involved in evolution.


He did not know the difference between an amino acid substitution and a mutation, which is why he linked mutations to evolution despite the clarity of what he reported in the same 1973 article. 1) "I am a creationist and an evolutionist." 2) "...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."

Those who have learned nothing about biology in the past four decades still may think Dobzhansky wasn't referring to them as bird-watchers and butterfly collectors in 1964.

Those who have learned about amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation are now "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" http://www.scienc...88.short
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2014
Rechavi's lab says: 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."

For example they detailed Starvation-Induced Transgenerational Inheritance of Small RNAs in C. elegans http://www.cell.c...00806-X, which is an example of how nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological speciation occurs in the nematodes C. elegans and P. pacificus in my model.

See for example: Serobyan, V.; Ragsdale, E. J.; Müller, M. R.; Sommer, Ralf J., Feeding plasticity in the nematode Pristionchus pacificus is influenced by sex and social context and is linked to developmental speed. Evolution & Development 2013, 15 (3), 161-170. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.12.013

If you can't grasp the difference between an amino acid substitution and a mutation, you should keep quiet.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2014
If you can't keep quiet you should write a review of my most recent publication, which is what Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) did.

See: Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model http://www.ncbi.n...4959329/ It's best to inform as many people as possible that you know nothing about biologically-based cause and effect -- all at once.

He wrote: "Allele changes are not epigenetic and I know of no mechanism that makes deterministic gene sequence changes prompted by epigenetic alterations." See: Starvation-Induced Transgenerational Inheritance of Small RNAs in C. elegans http://www.cell.c...)00806-X

"We show that these starvation-induced small RNAs are transmitted transgenerationally, providing a mean for starved worms to control the expression of relevant genes in
consecutive generations."

Is anyone here capable of intelligent comments about biological facts like that one?
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2014
If you can't keep quiet you should write a review of my most recent publication, which is what Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) did.

See: Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model http://www.ncbi.n...4959329/

"We show that these starvation-induced small RNAs are transmitted transgenerationally, providing a mean for starved worms to control the expression of relevant genes in
consecutive generations."

Is anyone here capable of intelligent comments about biological facts like that one?


You certainly aren't capable of anything intelligent.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2014
Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: (a mammalian model of thermodynamics and organism-level thermoregulation) ISHE poster You tube video http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524
5.5 minutes
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2014
"...phagocytosis by either protein was strictly dependent on receptor activation triggered by bridging of TAM receptor-ligand complexes to the 'eat-me' signal phosphatidylserine on the surface of apoptotic cells." http://www.nature...986.html

The nutrient-dependent thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation that enable organism-level thermoregulation are receptor-mediated, which means that perturbed protein folding (e.g., mutations) cannot lead to increased organismal complexity.

Not only do mutations perturb the de novo Creation of functional receptors that enable nutrients to enter the cell, they perturb the molecular mechanisms that eliminate nutrient metabolites from the cell, which is how they contribute to mental disorders like Alzheimer's and disordered thoughts of anonymous fools and idiot minions of biology teachers like PZ Myers who believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense of neo-Darwinian theory, but nothing else.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
Mutations cause diseases and disorders via perturbed protein folding
SO, when you said that YOUR MODEL CAUSES MUTATIONS, per my above posts, then you are saying YOUR MODEL ONLY CAUSES DISEASES AND DISORDERS?

that is the ONLY way you can take this, by the way...

after all, YOU have already claimed, in YOUR OWN WORDS, that your model causes mutations, so by saying that mutations ONLY cause diseases and disorders, your are saying that your own model is only good for causing DIESASES and DISORDERS...
NOTHING ELSE

YOUR WORDS
NOT MINE

CHECKMATE AGAIN

He did not know the difference between an amino acid substitution and a mutation
and apparently, neither do YOU

If you can't grasp the difference between an amino acid substitution and a mutation, you should keep quiet.
Well
we proved YOU can't grasp the difference using your own words

so

when are you going to keep quiet?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2014
In mammals, phosphatidylserine is produced by base-exchange reactions with phosphatidylcholine and phosphatidylethanolamine. The products of this reaction are novel dinucleotides. Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) is a coenzyme found in all living cells. (The compound is a dinucleotide, since it consists of two nucleotides joined through their phosphate groups.)

The flipping of one base pair results in Fragile X Syndrome, which is the most common form of mental retardation. It may represent what happens via an atomic-level change in energy that perturbs protein folding.

For comparison, the nutrient-dependent flipping of a base pair associated with vitamin C uptake in mammals links frugivory in bats to their adaptive radiations via morphological and behavioral phenotypes. Their phenotypes link nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction in mammals to morphological and behavioral changes during the development of human preferences for food odors and pheromones. ...cont
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2014
... cont

Rather than be quieted by the pseudoscientific nonsense of evolutionary theorists who want others to believe that mutations and natural selection lead to the evolution of biodiversity, ecologists and other serious scientists continue to link biologically-based cause and effect from atoms to ecosystems via the conserved molecular mechanisms of amino acid substitutions that I detailed in my model.

Serious scientists know that models will lead to atomic level (nutrient-dependent) cures for diseases and disorders that evolutionary theorists claim are due to the same molecular mechanisms they think must link mutations to increasing organismal complexity manifested in morphological and behavioral phenotypes of species from microbes to man.

The difference between a serious scientist and a theorist (or any other idiot) is recognized by differences in their beliefs about biologically-based cause and effect. Theorists have no clue; serious scientists understand the evidence.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2014
In metabolism, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide is involved in redox reactions, carrying electrons from one reaction to another.

Most organisms synthesize NAD+ from simple components.[2] The specific set of reactions differs among organisms, but a common feature is the generation of quinolinic acid (QA) from an amino acid—either tryptophan (Trp) in animals and some bacteria, or aspartic acid in some bacteria and plants.[21][22]

Besides assembling NAD+ de novo from simple amino acid precursors, cells also salvage preformed compounds containing nicotinamide. Despite the presence of the de novo pathway, the salvage reactions are essential in humans; a lack of niacin in the diet causes the vitamin deficiency disease pellagra.[28] This high requirement for NAD+ results from the constant consumption of the coenzyme in reactions such as posttranslational modifications, since the cycling of NAD+ between oxidized and reduced forms in redox reactions does not change the overall levels...
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2014
Rather than continue to present facts that link the thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation from atoms to ecosystems via organism-level thermoregulation, it may benefit others if they consider the alternative.

In "Mutation-Driven Evolution" for example, the claim is made that "...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world." http://www.amazon...99661731

That claim is not supported by any experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect, but many evolutionary theorists are convinced that the differences in morphology and behavior they can see are due to mutations that perturb protein folding at the level detailed in the Laws of Physics, which lead to everything known about chemistry and Kohl's Laws of Biology, which are linked to the de novo Creation of olfactory receptor genes via the de novo Creation of RNA and DNA.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2014
(Humans have 23 pairs of different chromosomes, for the record.)

Not a gratuitous remark, that. Fun story (google for: "all scientists are blind" "rule of 48"...and yes: scientists most of all find this funny).
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2014
It's a gratuitous remark unless YOU place it into some context, which is what I have tried to do. Instead of mutations that result in chromosomal rearrangements and/or differences in the number and types of chromosomes, it appears that the differences are nutrient-dependent. Doesn't it?

H. volcanii is unusual. It has 20 copies of the same chromosome when it's growing happily under favorable conditions, and 10 when nutrients are exhausted and it reaches a stationary phase.


If amino acid fixations are linked from the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction to chromosomal rearrangements and increasing organismal complexity -- as they are in my model, cause and effect could be compared to the pseudoscientific nonsense touted by evolutionary theorists. Couldn't it?
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
I followed up on a link to the "rule of 48" and picture of Little PZ Myers, who is the biology teacher most responsible for teaching the idiot minions and anonymous fools here to value theory rather than biological facts.

See:
https://demolitio...ngulism/

"I now can see where my page views have been coming from.

The all time winner? PZ Myers' pestiferous Pharyngula!!!

Dear plonk miners: I gave up Herr Doktor Myers' blog a long time ago. I hear second hand that he has not changed, and visited today very briefly to see if I'm still in the dungeon. Amazingly, I am, but only for daring to combat the Sycophantic Echo Chamber Horde with something different than the Party Line. I will not be taking on Herr Doktor here, so save your fingers and your limited intellects. Stick with what you know and listen to so well in Herr Doktor's Echo Chamber."
---
See:
http://freethough...s-place/
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
For example they detailed Starvation-Induced Transgenerational Inheritance of Small RNAs in C. elegans...


Which was a developmental change at the epigenetic level. It wasn't a modification of the DNA itself, which your model still cannot explain. You don't detail molecular mechanisms relating to the DNA at all. You detail splicing and transcription/translation modification only.

For comparison, the nutrient-dependent flipping of a base pair associated with vitamin C uptake


There is no evidence the vitamin C CAUSED the DNA changes in that paper.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) cited my comments on PZ Myers blog cite in his "review" of my model: see http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

"A multitude of misconceptions and misunderstandings can be seen in his comments on Dr. PZ Myers' blog, Pharyngula (Kohl, 2014b). For example, in comment #125, Kohl says that proteasomes mediate protein folding. Proteasomes do no such thing. They are actually structures whose function is to break down proteins."

My comment was about "... epigenetic effects of pheromones on protein concentrations and protein folding mediated by proteosomes that may result in synthesis of new proteins that effect motion across chemical gradients as is required to find food."

I addressed protein biosynthesis and degradation in the same sentence. Theorists can't seem to grasp the fact that both must occur somewhat concurrently or nutrient-dependent organism-level genomic stability cannot be fixed by amino acid substitutions.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
There is no evidence the vitamin C CAUSED the DNA changes in that paper.


Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) seems unable to grasp anything about biologically-based cause and effect. No evidence in one paper is not evidence that vitamin C did not cause the amino acid substitution that led to the chromosomal rearrangements in frugivorous bats and in human populations of central China that ingested sago palm leaves as a source of increased vitamin C that lead to the changes in their hair, skin, teeth and mammary tissue via one receptor that supposedly arose as a result of a mutation approximately 30K years ago.

Serious scientists are more likely to understand why all experimental evidence is not cited in every paper ever published, especially in reviews. Simply put, there is no reason to repeatedly include evidence that has already established HOW the epigenetic landscape becomes the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of all species.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
"...the results of this study establish vitamin C as a direct regulator of Tet activity and DNA methylation fidelity in ES cells."
http://www.nature...362.html

Although this paper was published after my 2013 review, it is the ability of serious scientists to predict what will be reported that sets the pace of scientific progress. If they could not do that, they would not know what experimental evidence might support their claims or how to perform the experiments that do support their claims.

Simply put, the serious scientists would be like evolutionary theorists who still have nothing more than the pseudoscientific nonsense of population genetics to support their ridiculous claims about mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of what is obviously nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled biodiversity. They would be like Andrew Jones, PZ Myers and other anonymous fools or idiot minions of ignorant biology teachers.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
"John A. Davison... had a Ph.D. in zoology... [and] thought... Evolution was all due to chromosome rearrangements..." http://freethough...-place/"

That's how PZ Myers set the stage for his attack on my credibility: "Behold James Vaughn Kohl.

Ecological adaptation occurs via the epigenetic effects of nutrients on alternative splicings of pre-mRNA which result in amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all species. The control of the differences in cell types occurs via the metabolism of the nutrients to chemical signals that control the physiology of reproduction."

PZ Myers and his idiot minions never addressed the content of any of my published works, and on the same day that I linked to the article on nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled chromosomal rearrangements and morphological and behavioral morphs in birds, I was banned from further participation on PZ's blog.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2014
I was banned from further participation on PZ's blog
AAaaaand here is why...
(Kohl) 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, and you can see the responses: most of the other commenters are more or less stunned, 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
Is there proof? just read above
then there is the coup de grace such as
Rather than be quieted by the pseudoscientific nonsense of evolutionary theorists who want others to believe that mutations and natural selection lead to the evolution of biodiversity
in laymas language, this means: "Only I know what science is, all the 10+thousand others are idiots-forget the evidence, listen to ME ME ME ME"
CRACKPOT
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2014
My comment was about "... protein folding mediated by proteosomes"


Proteosomes (more commonly spelled proteasomes) do not mediate protein folding. Chaperones mediate folding. Proteasomes destroy proteins.

No evidence in one paper is not evidence that vitamin C did not cause the amino acid substitution


So if it's not in that paper, where is it? What indicates vitamin C causes specific DNA base substitutions that lead to amino acid substitutions?

"...the results of this study establish vitamin C as a direct regulator of Tet activity and DNA methylation fidelity in ES cells."


Regulating Tet and methylation is not, in any way, shape, or form, the same as causing base substitutions.

Ecological adaptation occurs via the epigenetic effects of nutrients on alternative splicings of pre-mRNA which result in amino acid substitutions


Still has no explanatory power for DNA base substitutions, which occur at the DNA level, not splicing.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
What do you know about explanatory power? You're an idiot minion of a biology teacher who thinks chromosomal rearrangements don't lead to species diversity but that mutations do.

Germline DNA Demethylation Dynamics and Imprint Erasure Through 5-Hydroxymethylcytosine
http://www.scienc...abstract

Alteration of genic 5-hydroxymethylcytosine patterning in olfactory neurons correlates with changes in gene expression and cell identity http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Starvation-Induced Transgenerational Inheritance of Small RNAs in C. elegans http://www.cell.c...)00806-X
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
What do you know about explanatory power?


I know that splicing and transcription modification have nothing to do with changing DNA sequences. That's all that needs to be said. It's your model's Achilles' heel.

This is your description of your model:

Ecological adaptation occurs via the epigenetic effects of nutrients on alternative splicings of pre-mRNA which result in amino acid substitutions


None of that can be used to explain DNA sequences differences between subsequent generations because epigenetics concerns everything BESIDES sequence.

Germline DNA Demethylation Dynamics and Imprint Erasure Through 5-Hydroxymethylcytosine
http://www.scienc...abstract


Is about the epigenome and totipotency. Has no bearing on gene sequence, so it's irrelevant to this discussion. Same thing applies to your other links. Alleles and regulatory sequences change over time through generations. Your model only concerns changes in EXPRESSION, not sequence.

JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
epigenetics concerns everything BESIDES sequence.


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

"It now appears that alternative splicing is, perhaps, the most critical evolutionary factor determining the differences between human beings and other creatures."

The anonymous fool doesn't seem to realize these facts:
1) organisms that starve to death leave no descendants;
2) those that adapt to ecological variation do so via pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in species from microbes ot man
3) -- not via mutations and natural selection.

Starvation-Induced Transgenerational Inheritance of Small RNAs in C. elegans
http://www.cell.c...)00806-X
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
Just because regulatory elements are more important than we once thought doesn't mean sequence changes are irrelevant. That allele change in the Chinese population you like to talk about all the time? Allele change = sequence change. Not a regulatory change.

1) organisms that starve to death leave no descendants


I really don't understand your obsession with this little tidbit. Since when did anyone deny that organisms that starve to death don't reproduce? Thanks, Captain Obvious. Is the sky also blue?
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2014
@ JVK-Skippy. You done talked this rule number 48 and stinky love potions to death. What you got to say about the other 47 rules?
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
Thanks for asking. A single evolutionary road may lead to Rome http://phys.org/n...ome.html

It's the road that links nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled chromosomal rearrangements to diverse morphological and behavioral phenotypes of white-throated sparrows via conserved molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man -- but not via mutations and natural selection.

Only evolutionary theorists are ignorant enough to believe that pseudoscientific nonsense.

See: Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes http://www.pnas.o...abstract for information on birds.

See Lactic acid bacterial symbionts in honeybees – an unknown key to honey's antimicrobial and therapeutic activities http://onlinelibr...abstract for information on bees.

Why haven't evolutionary theorists learned anything about the birds and the bees?
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2014
Allele change = sequence change. Not a regulatory change.


The allele change is nutrient-dependent and it results in the pheromone-controlled sequence changes in species from microbes to man you ignorant anonymous fool.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2014
The allele change is nutrient-dependent and it results in the pheromone-controlled sequence changes


Through what mechanism and pathway does a pheromone induce a specific DNA base change?
NOM
5 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2014
That's how PZ Myers set the stage for his attack on my credibility: "Behold James Vaughn Kohl.
What credibility? Noone needs to go to much effort to attack it, you do very well all by yourself.
Do please tell the nice men in white coats that it's time to up your medication again.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2014
That's how PZ Myers set the stage for his attack on my credibility: "Behold James Vaughn Kohl.
What credibility? Noone needs to go to much effort to attack it, you do very well all by yourself.


That is what I was going to ask him. Now I have ask him something different.

@ JVK-Skippy could you give us a list of all the peoples who will tell us that you are creditable? So far you are the only one who thinks so that has postem something here.

Do please tell the nice men in white coats that it's time to up your medication again.


NOM-Skippy, I don't that is the problem no. I was just making the theory that the problem is he has been sampling his stinky love potions that he is always trying to sell here at the physorg. Not a good way to show off your product, eh? I'm not sure it's even legal to sell that stuff. I

JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2014
Mutations: Stop that nonsense! http://elifescien...3/e04300

"Overall, it seems that the complexity of how the cell deals with nonsense mutations and how microRNAs are involved is only beginning to be revealed."

In our 1996 review, we detailed the microRNA/messenger RNA-mediated pathway that leads from ecological variation to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled cell type differentiation via amino acid substitutions in species from microbes to man.

From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html

Everyone who is not an ignorant biology teacher, idiot minion, or anonymous fool has since attested to the explanatory power of the model (Elekonich 2001/2005 extended it to insect life history transitions) and my subsequent representations of it -- except for evolutionary theorists who know nothing about the biological basis of cause and effect.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2014
Those Skippys in those linkums didn't say nothing about you being the creditable scientist-Skippy. Unless you go by a stage name, they didn't even mention you the one way or the other way.
Everyone who is not an ignorant biology teacher, idiot minion, or anonymous fool


That would make you a very lonely couyon, am I right Cher?

has since attested to the explanatory power of the model (Elekonich 2001/2005 extended it to insect life history transitions) and my subsequent representations of it --


Glad to hear it Cher. But what I asked for is a list of peoples who say you have the science credibility. You are the one who brought up the credibility thing so if you can't show me some peoples you have credit with, how do I know you are credible? I google with your name and don't see no glowing references.

except for evolutionary theorists who know nothing about the biological basis of cause and effect.


Yeah you must be lonely.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2014
http://scholar.go...sdt=0,43

Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology cited by 80

From fertilization to adult sexual behavior cited by 31
-- includes "Organizational and activational effects of hormones on insect behavior" which extended our microbes to man model to insects via the conserved molecular mechanisms we detailed in the context of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled cell type differentiation.

with mention of Zdenek Klein award at http://www.nel.ed...view.htm
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2014
Well that is really dandy Skippy. It must make your momma proud. But it looks like you wrote more papers about the indian-Skippys in South America than about evolution.

Writing a bunch of stuffs don't exactly make you the BIG CHIEF in the science. Shoot, even the Zephir-Skippy has wrote more stuffs than that, but he never told the lie that everybody who knows any hangs on his every word no.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. I did check up that 80 cited thing you so proud of. It shouldn't count if most of those 80 peoples citeding are you writing another one of those papers about stinky love potions. They ought to change the rule about counting them in with other one.

I give you the credit for trying though. (Non Cher, you still get the bad karma vote for trying fool me.) You might have fooled ol Ira if I was busy or had something else to do all at one time. You caught me at a bad time when I didn't have much to do.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2014
MicroRNA-mediated repression of nonsense mRNAs
http://elifescien...#api_box

The microRNA-mediated repression is nutrient-dependent, which explains why perturbed protein folding/mutations occur with nutrient-stress or with social stress that's epigenetically linked to the physiology of reproduction in my model.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2014
in my model.


That is the place where you got going in the wrong channel Skippy.
JVK
1.3 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2014
Does Singld Out, a gene-based dating service, pass the sniff test?
http://phys.org/n...ing.html

Excerpt: The evolution of odour preference

When we think about the evolutionary threats faced by our ancestors, we like to imagine sabre-tooth tigers and angry, spear-wielding tribesmen. In reality, a great deal of natural, and indeed sexual selection, was driven by the pervasive threat of communicable disease.

My comment: Odor preferences don't evolve. The experience-induced de novo Creation of olfactory receptor genes links food odors via nutrient-uptake to changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance; alternative splicings of pre-mRNA; amino acid substitutions; cell type differentiation in all cells of all species; morphological and behavioral phenotypes; the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction; and ecological adaptations via conserved molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man.
http://www.ncbi.n...24693349
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2014
ok
more proof of STUPID
jk posts
Mutations: Stop that nonsense!
but forgot that his model CREATES MUTATIONS... so not only is it a beneficial mutation, it is one of the known methods of evolution and simply proves MUTATION derived EVOLUTION is CORRECT and the BEST THEORY known!
did you forget, jk? 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 your posting anti-mutation comments only proves your own stupidity

THANKS FOR PLAYING
mensa my left butt cheek!