The biological spoils of war: Study finds those who take part in violent conflict have more wives, children

December 29, 2014
Credit: George Hodan/public domain

Violent conflict may, under certain conditions, offer a biological benefit to those who take part in it, a Harvard study has found.

The study, authored by Luke Glowacki, a doctoral student working with Richard Wrangham, Ruth Moore Professor of Biological Anthropology and Curator of Primate Behavioral Biology in the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, found that, among members of an East African herding tribe, those who engaged in conflict - in the form of violent raids carried out on neighboring groups - had more wives, and thus more opportunities to increase their reproductive success through having more children. The study is described in a December 29 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"The currency of evolution is reproductive success," Glowacki said. "By having more wives you can have more children. What we found was that, over the course of their lives, those who took part in more raids had more children."

Importantly, though, that benefit - the increased reproductive success enjoyed by raiders - is mediated by powerful cultural forces, Glowacki said.

"What I really like about this paper is the finding isn't just 'biology made me do it,'" he said. "It's very clear what the pathway to greater is - it's access to livestock, which are obtained through raiding and then used for marriage. But the cultural mechanism is mediated by the elders who control virtually all aspects of the society. After a raid young men give any livestock they capture to the elders and the raider cannot use them at that point even if he wants to get married. Later in life, as the raider gets older he can gain access to them, so there's a lag in receiving benefits from participating in a raid."

Examining the connection between violence and reproductive capacity, however, is no easy feat.

For Glowacki, the project involved living with the Nyangatom, a group of nomadic herders living in a region of southwest Ethiopia and South Sudan, for more than a year, and observing virtually every part of day-to-day village life - from digging water holes to migrations.

Typically carried out by Nyangatom men between 20 and 40 years old armed with weapons like AK-47 rifles, the raids sometimes result in serious injuries and deaths. Those who take part in the raids, however, must turn over any livestock they obtain to village elders, who use them to obtain wives for themselves. It may not be until years later that elders agree to provide a raider with the cows necessary to obtain their first wife, or subsequent wives.

"In many cultures, particularly in east Africa, in order to get married you have to give livestock to the bride's family - we refer to it as bridewealth," Glowacki said. "If you don't have cows, you simply cannot get married - it doesn't matter how handsome you are or how much status you have, if you don't have cows to give the bride's family, you cannot get married."

Though he found clear evidence that violence offers a benefit to warriors, Glowacki's over-riding interest is in a much larger question.

"The overriding question I'm interested in is how humans cooperate, and one type of cooperation is participating in intergroup conflict," he explained. "Why do people do things that benefit their group if they have to pay a cost? For the Nyangatom there are no formal institutions governing society, and yet they manage to make a living from one of the toughest landscapes on Earth, and they do that through cooperation."

In fact, he said, cooperation plays a key role in virtually every aspect of Nyangatom life.

"I set out to study who herds together, who digs water holes together, who plants together, and also who participates in conflict events together," he added. "I conducted interviews about the raids, and collected reproductive histories by asking how many wives raiders have, how many children each has had, how many are alive, how many died and how they died."

Using that data, Glowacki was able to build conflict histories for the that took part in raids and village elders detailing who participated in raids, how often they participated, whether they were married and the number of wives and children they had.

In an analysis of 120 men, Glowacki said, the data was clear - those who participate in more raids had more and more over the course of their lives.

But while raiders did benefit from taking part in conflict, the lack of an immediate payoff, Glowacki believes, helps to keep violence in check.

"We don't have quantitative data to that effect, but there are some groups in neighboring Kenya where raiders who capture cows in a raid don't have to give them to the elders or they can sell them at a market for money, and the violence is significantly greater" he said. "The Nyangatom have a mechanism that mediates the benefits the warriors receive," he added. "There is a lot of status and privilege that comes with participating in raids - when you come back to the village, the women are singing and people are parading. They're celebrating you, but you still go home alone."

Explore further: Warriors do not always get the girl

More information: Warfare and reproductive success in a tribal population, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1412287112

Related Stories

Warriors do not always get the girl

May 11, 2009

Aggressive, vengeful behavior of individuals in some South American groups has been considered the means for men to obtain more wives and more children, but an international team of anthropologists working in Ecuador among ...

Recommended for you

93 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Gigel
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2014
Or maybe it is just the effect of the selection done by old men that favour young men who participate in many raids.
Jeweller
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2014
From Brian Francis Pretorius, 4 White Road Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa.
After having read this article properly after the third time. I think I took it in.
It leaves me feeling that American Researchers are completely disconnected with the fact that they are dealing with Human Beings in their so-called studies.
Often, I find it completely insulting the way they "look at" African People.
Then, not realising just how denegraging they have been, they publish them.
I am SO hurt by what they do in the name of research.
Rosser
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2014
Regarding Jeweller's comment, I'd like to put it more broadly. The article seems to be saying that the means justify the end. I don't agree.
PointyHairedEE
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2014
Well, gosh, this must include all men everywhere, regardless of race or creed. After all, those two in the picture look an awful lot like me. If their title begins with "Psy", run far, run fast.
Jeweller
not rated yet Dec 29, 2014
PointyHairedEE. Hello, From Brian. in Cape Town, South Africa. I do not mean to be rude in any way at all Maybe it's because I'm 56 years of age, but I do not know what "Psy" refers to .
If I am being too stupid to reply to, then just don't reply.
Jeweller
not rated yet Dec 29, 2014
Wait a minute I worked out what you were saying, no need to explain now ( I think)
OOOOOh my dear, I am veeeery slow.
Jeweller
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2014
I apologise for being so slow in understanding.
My excuse though is that I become quite emotional and throw reason to the wind when I read articles from afar written by people who have never actually lived here and experienced the people who live here.
Maybe they should ask the Ivy League people who come here and study at The University of Cape Town. Ask them, The quality of Education is Comparative to the Best in Europe here.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (12) Dec 29, 2014
I think they have cause and effect backwards here. Cultures which encourage polygamy and maximum growth find themselves short of resources, and so have to fight to secure them. The cultures which were best at outgrowing and overrunning their neighbors are the ones which have survived. And, of course, religion is an integral part of this equation.

Its interesting how these academes try so hard to avoid the obvious - that religion is the main CAUSE of overpopulation and subsequent conflict in the world today. Religions force their women to reproduce until it kills them.
Jeweller
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2014
TheGhostofOtto1923 When you say these things and they eventually sink into my mind, I become quite overwhelmed by the gravity of what you have said and I need some time to let it sink in to my conciousness.
I do do that and in a few days , I will understand properly,
I hope that you know that I am only a tradesman, A Jeweller. Not an intellectual.
I leave that to my very well Educated Sisters.
RoMiSo
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2014
i disagree with ALL who already commented. The study is interesting, its pragmatic conclusions are - as long as they don't get simply generalized - fine, and there are almost no new knowledge points in it.
Take it what it is: a mental exercise of a doctoral candidate in translating anthropological "field observation" into an intellectual, academic sketch.

Otherwise, I thank all commenters for their interesting points. Happy New Year! Rob
RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2014
"The currency of evolution is reproductive success," Glowacki said.


This statement is incorrect for all but the simplest organisms. The purpose of evolution with respect to the individual is to influence the genetic makeup of the next generation. There are a number of ways of achieving this.

The only way available to the simplest organisms is reproductive success, however this is a very blunt instrument as the genes that are responsible for the parental phenotype are not the same as those conferred to the offspring. If they were then all children of the same parent would be identical.

The two strands of DNA inherited from the parent's parents are shuffled to form one strand. A strand from each parent then makes up the diploid set of the offspring. The genes responsible for unique traits of the parent are the most vulnerable to loss during this shuffling process (meiosis).

There are many other ways of influencing the genetic makeup of the next generation.
RobertKarlStonjek
3 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2014
Favoured genes have physical and behavioural appearance ant therefore those having them can be selectively provisioned, favoured, supported, voted for, endorsed, mentored and favourably treated in general. Those with unfavourable genes can be discriminated against and this has certainly been a feature of every human society and is seen in other primates as well.

There is no guarantee that one's own offspring will have any of the favoured traits that we would like to pass on. How many brilliant scientists did Einstein produce? He produced one Schizophrenic (who had a striking resemblance to Einstein) and one university professor (that had a striking resemblance to his mother who out-scored Einstein at university). But Einstein aided the success of many students with minds like his through his lectures at Princeton.

Why do biologists think that it is all down to biology and nothing to do with psychology???

I also note that Darwin was not a biologist...
McIek
Dec 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2014
RobertKarlStonjek (RKS)
Favoured genes have physical and behavioural appearance


You just linked genes to behavioral appearance, automagically.

"Proteins – sequences of amino acids – fold into intricate shapes before assuming their duties. So it is no surprise that the third main molecular sequence in the cell – the RNA, made up of single strands of nucleotides – folds as well." http://news360.co...9000011#

How have evolutionary theorists managed to exclude that fact from their thought processes, when everything known about cell type differentiation can be explained in the context of RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated events that link amino acid substitutions to protein folding and biodiversity in species from microbes to man.

Tell us RKS! As moderator of this FB group, https://www.faceb...?fref=nf -- What do you think links Darwin's 'conditions of life' to evolutionary psychology?
EnricM
4.3 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014

Its interesting how these academes try so hard to avoid the obvious - that religion is the main CAUSE of overpopulation and subsequent conflict in the world today. Religions force their women to reproduce until it kills them.


Nailed it.
RobertKarlStonjek
5 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2014
JVK,
Any bias in favour of a particular phenotype increases the frequency of their genes, eventually.

The environment that humans must excel in is mostly made up of other humans. As it is the environment that selects, and people are the environment, then people are the selection agent in the case of humans.

This is true of other species, but much less so.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2014
I conjured a picture of the Vikings when I read this...not Africa.

It seems quite "logical" that, in the past, violent behavior begat more begats. The better you were at it the fewer men you lost and the more women you gained (though the number of men lost up to a point is of less overall significance, wombs are the ruling factor in reproduction). This also assumes a wide range of raiding territory though. In modern times I think it's easy to juxtapose our AMAZING mobility into antiquity....this is not the case by any means though. For most people living in antiquity they never traveled more than 100 km from their home for ANY reason. For those who did it required access to (what was then) high technology and resources.

Overall, the point makes sense...just a little less so a thousand or more years ago.
tadchem
5 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2014
"those who engaged in conflict - in the form of violent raids carried out on neighboring groups - had more wives, and thus more opportunities to increase their reproductive success through having more children"?
I would replace the word "engaged" with the word "survived." The fatalities did not 'increase their reproductive success'.
AndrewBaker
5 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2014
Alpha males both fight and procreate more than others, maybe? I go with that. We are all aware - I hope - that gambling, alcoholism, drug addiction (including nicotine and alcohol), sex addiction and other similar activities that give a 'high', are all associated with the pleasure centers of the brain, and dopamine/serotonin levels; so it would not be unexpected that high levels of other activities are also common amongst certain types of male, or female , for that matter.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2014
people are the selection agent in the case of humans.

This is true of other species, but much less so.


Ecological variation is the raw material by which natural selection can drive evolutionary divergence [1–4]. http://rspb.royal...81.short

"Proteins – sequences of amino acids – fold into intricate shapes before assuming their duties. So it is no surprise that the third main molecular sequence in the cell – the RNA, made up of single strands of nucleotides – folds as well." http://news360.co...39000011

Natural selection for nutrients occurs in the context of odor cues that link the metabolism of nutrients to the species-specific pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction and the RNA-mediated fixation of amino acid substitution that stabilize DNA in organized genomes.

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2014
How have evolutionary theorists managed to exclude that fact from their thought processes


What? How is that fact at odds with evolution? Everyone is well aware that RNA folds. The ribosome as well as the various RNases are RNA enzymes. My thesis, advised by an ecologist and a biochemist, concerned the evolution of RNA enzymes.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2014
Are you inferring that one person or that two different people taught you to believe in that pseudoscientific nonsense about the evolution of RNA enzymes?

Was one an ecologist and one a biochemist? Or was there just one science idiot who was a biochemist and also an ecologist?

In any case, please tell us how RNA enzymes evolve.

In my model, the creation of enzymes is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in the context of experience-dependent epigenetic effects on RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that link thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation to odor-induced receptor creation and to the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man.

I note, however, that you are not including any citations to works that support your assertion about the evolution of RNA enzymes. Is that because you are making up a theory to match your assumptions based on definitions? I get that a lot.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2014
You're not helpless. Go to Google Scholar and search for "ribozyme evolution".

http://www.cell.c...7-3?cc=y
http://www.ncbi.n...11539560
http://www.ncbi.n...14629039
http://www.nature...781.html

How many do you want? I could do this all night.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2014
My thesis, advised by an ecologist and a biochemist


http://www.cartha...ademics/

Have the unnamed advisers published in ecology or biochemistry? It's a small college. Do they advise others on other topics?

How can you be sure they are not science idiots teaching you to be one, since that's what you turned out to be? How can they be compared to Milton Diamond who co-authored our 1996 review of RNA-mediated cell type differences or to Karl Grammer who co-authored our 2001 review on pheromones, neuroendocrinology, and behavior?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2014
Have the unnamed advisers published in ecology or biochemistry?
what, exactly, does that have to do with the accuracy of the science involved?

are you saying that unless a scientists takes the time to be multidisciplinary, then said science put out is not factual?

That is utterly ridiculous!
Thats like saying that gravity doesn't work if you don't recognize it (like in the cartoons)!!

QUIT trying to redirect the conversation and answer the questions!
What? How is that fact at odds with evolution?
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2014
How many do you want? I could do this all night.


It would be equally meaningless. Please tell me how RNA enzymes evolve and support your claim about cause and effect with the appropriate links.

Others: look at the links he infers support his claims. He's tossing out pseudoscientific nonsense to support his own ridiculous claims. Even if someone had shown that RNA enzymes somehow evolved in vivo, it seems unlikely they could be linked to any aspect of the bio-physically constrained chemistry of protein folding, which is linked to light-induced amino acid substitutions in plants and animals.

Single-residue insertion switches the quaternary structure and exciton states of cryptophyte light-harvesting proteins http://www.pnas.o...abstract

"...cryptophytes have evolved a structural switch controlled by an amino acid insertion to modulate excitonic interactions and therefore the mechanisms used for light harvesting."
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2014
are you saying that unless a scientists takes the time to be multidisciplinary, then said science put out is not factual?


Thanks for asking. I'm saying he advisers may also teach PE, like in high school. My chemistry teacher was the basketball coach.

Obviously, someone taught the anonymous fool to be a science idiot. I want to know who, and how hard they had to try. The fool seems to believe everything he reads if it contains the word mutation. If it does, he claims it's proof that we evolved from microbes.

http://jp.physoc....007.full
"If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based." (p 1014)
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
JVK,
If evolution is really that hard for you to grasp, a similar analogy is the process of the theory of free market economics. A company must be not only able to make efficient use of available capital, but must adapt and change it's products to remain solvent in the face of changing consumer demands.

Does that help?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
Winston Churchill Quotes

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.


-Winston Churchill

JVK, 4 minutes isn't long enough to produce biological changes necessary for an organism to go from aerobic to anaerobic...no matter how many nutrients are...well doing whatever it is you think they do (it's truly impossible to pin you down on that one). So...you're wrong, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2014
http://www.plosbi....1001214

"... tissue-specific changes in the expression of trans-regulators, such as miRNA, rather than sequence changes in cis-regulatory regions, are the driving force underlying developmental remodeling across hundreds of genes."

Until those of you taught to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense of ridiculous theories, which were invented on the basis of assumptions after the word 'mutation' was defined, learn about biologically based cause and effect, you should recognize the fact that your ignorance extends to what may as well be called the Dark Ages of science, when one theory was as good as the next; none were tested; and assumptions ruled what is now based on what is known about cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man.

It's what's known that makes you science idiots, because you have not attempted to learn what's known and comment here based on overwhelming ignorance.

Modernmystic
5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
Well, you don't have to know ANYTHING about science...IOW be a true "science idiot" (though the term science ignorant would be more civil AND accurate) to know that without oxygen people DIE...as in dead...as in stop talking, walking, reproducing etc...all those things that dead precludes one from engaging in :)

Therefore if we were "created" when we know life was extant on the Earth we'd be dead.

So WHATEVER it is you're trying to say doesn't trump that SIMPLE bit of logic. It absolutely obliterates your thesis...
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2014
http://omicsonlin...id=34029

"The control of methylation and equally the demethylation is extremely crucial for epigenetic control mechanisms (gene suppression/expression) and any dysregulation would cause abnormal tissues/cancer."

In my model, RNA-directed DNA methylation links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all species from microbes to man.

Look at the comments here and elsewhere by those taught to believe in a ridiculous theory about mutations and evolution.

You're not helpless. Go to Google Scholar and search for "ribozyme evolution".


Tell us what you learn about gene sequence changes that supports any of the pseudoscientific nonsense you accepted without thinking to ask: "Is there a model for that?"
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014

In my model, RNA-directed DNA methylation links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all species from microbes to man.


Then your model is incorrect, because we know men couldn't have survived the primordial Earth just as we know life was present then. This is saying that life doesn't mutate, but we know humans couldn't possibly survive the environment 3 billion years ago; and yet here humans are (despite your theory)...the thesis cuts it's own legs out from underneath itself...
JVK
1 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2014
If evolution is really that hard for you to grasp...


"If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based." (p 1014) -- Denis Noble (president of the International Society for Physiological Sciences.

I cited: http://jp.physoc....007.full

What kind of idiot responds

If evolution is really that hard for you to grasp...

-- as if Denis Noble cannot grasp the ideas about evolution that science idiots were taught to believe in.

He politely tells you that you are a science idiot, and you confirm that.

You're right, Denis, but you only say that because you have learned what we didn't


Why haven't you learned to understand evolution in the same way science idiots have learned for decades-- by being taught by other science idiots?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
Can you explain how human beings survived without oxygen 3 billion years ago? Is there a nutrient model that allows them to live without oxygen for billions of years? I'm seriously asking, if you have an answer I'd love to hear it. If you don't...then you're wrong...period.

Are you ignorant about the environment of the primordial Earth? If so it's quite easy to educate yourself...
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
JVK

You didn't provide any refrences to what he's even reffering too.

"If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based." (p 1014) -- Denis Noble

That's not saying anything at all about evolution not being real.
He worked at Oxford, are you telling me a professor at Oxford got there by ignoring scientists?

I said you don't grasp evolution because anyone who understands it knows it's right.
gwargh
5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
Man, I come back to this site like once a year, and things never seem to change too much, although JVK seems to be a *special* kind of commenter.

Let me see if I understand the gist of his theory - changes in phenotype occur because RNA responds to pheromones, modifies DNA, which causes RNA to modify protein folding. And all of this was created in one go somehow? What?
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
I said you don't grasp evolution because anyone who understands it knows it's right.


Anyone who believes that birds evolved from dinosaurs via allosteric mutations that link them to the rest of nutrient-dependent biodiversity on this planet is a science idiot. I can show show that by providing links to two different recently published works.

http://www.scienc...abstract Invents the term "allosteric mutation."

http://www.scienc...abstract ".found markedly positive selection..., strongly suggesting that there is one or more unknown amino acid sites important to spectral tuning of this ultraviolet-sensitive cone (fig. S40)."

-- linked to a single amino acid change: http://www.pnas.o...ipsecsha

My model links RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled biodivesity.
JVK
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
Let me see if I understand the gist of his theory...


You're not intelligent enough to realize the difference between a theory and a model of biologically based cause and effect.

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

The model integrates everything currently known about physics and the chemistry of protein folding. It links everything known about conserved molecular mechanisms across species via examples.

For comparison, here's the most recent claim based on theory.

"...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

If theory makes more sense to you than my model, come back in another year so everyone can laugh about your ignorance.
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
Jvk

Okay, you don't believe birds evolved from dinosaurs. That leaves you only two other options. One, that birds and dinosaurs share a common reptilian ancestor. Two, you're a creationist moron.

I don't expect a reply because you are obviously a creationist moron.

Modernmystic
5 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
I said you don't grasp evolution because anyone who understands it knows it's right.


Anyone who believes that birds evolved from dinosaurs via allosteric mutations that link them to the rest of nutrient-dependent biodiversity on this planet is a science idiot. I can show show that by providing links to two different recently published works.

http://www.scienc...abstract

My model links RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled biodivesity [sic].


Birds die without oxygen too...

Can you explain how a mainly hydrogen atmosphere supported birds, or whatever multicellular life form you care to name within the appox. four minutes of life they'd have to absorb enough nutrients to make them immortal supernatural Jebus warriors of creationism?
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2014
Your theory is wrong.

It doesn't make sense to people because it's retarded, not because you're a million times smarter than everyone.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution http://www.jstor..../4444260

"I am a creationist and an evolutionist."

"...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."

How does my model of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of all individuals of all species via their pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction make me a moron? Why doesn't everyone who believes in the biological basis of findings in works by Christ (with others)

1) epigenetic pharmacology http://www.ncbi.n...3698935/

linked to

2) heterochronic parabiosis and rejuvenation in the mouse model http://www.scienc...abstract
believe in the truth about biologically based cause and effect?
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
Note: The biologically uninformed science idiots here have merely extended their ridiculous commentaries to yet another discusssion thread. See for example:

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

The most intelligent things they can say are exemplified here as:

Your theory is wrong.

you are obviously a creationist moron.

Birds die without oxygen too...

you don't grasp evolution because anyone who understands it knows it's right.


See for comparison: Clinically Actionable Genotypes Among 10,000 Patients With Preemptive Pharmacogenomic Testing
http://www.nature...29a.html
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
@jvk

Just as I expected you didn't respond to my comments about bird evolution.

Proof you are a creationist moron.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2014
A response to jvk on another site really nailed it.

Owlmirror

November 6, 2014
"Their experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect refutes Lenski's claims about mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of E. coli."

"Because biologically-based cause and effect is actually God? You pray to microbes, peptides, and enzymes?"

http://scienceblo...n-state/

JVK
1 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
http://phys.org/n...lei.html

Excerpt: "... we've found beautiful patterns that mark alternative splicing and other events that shape the protein-coding capacity... eventually we'd like to go into humans and other organisms and ask if we see similar patterns."

See also: Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: (a mammalian model of thermodynamics and organism-level thermoregulation) http://media.anth...view/396

For a quick review of pattern recognition, see: http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2014
@jvk

You know, we have something in common. You've been a lab tech. I had two years of biology in high school and my first college major was biology.

Neither one of us are biologist.

Happy New Year.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
Why doesn't everyone who believes in the biological basis of findings in works by Christ (with others)
1- who says YOUR religion is the only/best/top/most powerful?
2- you cannot even prove that your "christ" existed, and you are attributing creation as well as science to him
3- your religion is based upon a false premise, therefore even YOU are working under false assumptions with regard to your religion which was actually borrowed from everywhere else and then mutated into the "fairy-tale-revived-from-the-dead-sole-power-entity" that it is today

IF we assume that your religion is correct, then we must also assume that all other religions from the past are correct as they ALL have exactly the same background as yours and the same means of verification

although, to be honest, MOST other religions, especially from the middle east, India and China are far older (thus hold more credence and MUST, by your standards, be more powerful or more relevant)

[to be contd]
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2014
@jvk

For a quick review of pattern recognition, see: http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524

You have a pattern of self reference across many sites. You scream for recognition for your willfully ignorant views on evolution.

How does it feel knowing you'll go to your grave known only for hawking a perfume based on pseudoscience?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
[cont'd]
therefore, if we work under the SAME set of assumptions that you are under, JVK, then we can honestly state that the universe came into being when the Wakinyan fought the water monsters for control of the universe, causing the great explosion/bang in which all creation died and was reborn, culminating in the final life version/age of the current earth

you did get one thing correct
The biologically uninformed science idiots here have merely extended their ridiculous commentaries to yet another discusssion thread
[sic]
given that jk is posting here, then the biologically uninformed science idiots have spread

Neither one of us are biologist
@Vietvet
100Stars!

My major probably had far more biology than jk ever had in his life and neither am I... but Anonymous9001 actually IS a biology major, just FYI
and Antialias_physorg has a PhD in Biology...and jk thinks he knows more than he does too
:-)

2 funny
HAPPY NEW YEAR GUYS
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
How does my model of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of all individuals of all species via their pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction make me a moron?
for starters, your model causes mutations
then you claim it doesn't but yet admit it does
anyone who reads your model will SEE that it makes mutations
you claim this model supplants & surpasses the Theory of Evolution
but most important,
because you ignore ALL empirical data that proves you wrong about beneficial mutations

THAT is what makes you a moron, Stupid and a TROLL-ing PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT
NOT the model itself... and worse yet, you actually state
Why doesn't everyone who believes in the biological basis of findings in works by Christ (with others)
this is NO DIFFERENT than me claiming the creator of the universe is Daffy Duck (and it would explain far more than your sky faerie too)

assumptions without facts/proof, jkTROLL
OZGuy
5 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2014
JVK do you test your batches of "love potion" by smelling them? Perhaps they are more inclined to induce hallucinations than sexual attraction. it would explain a lot of your comments.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
18 more years of science idiots despite these works:

Dec 1996 "Small intranuclear proteins also participate in generating alternative splicing techniques of pre-mRNA and, by this mechanism, contribute to sexual differentiation [of cell types] in at least two species... Diamond, Binstock & JVK http://www.ncbi.n.../9047261

Dec 31, 2012 http://jonlieffmd...volution "... alternative splicing is, perhaps, the most critical evolutionary factor determining the differences between human beings and other creatures."

Jan 2014 http://genomebiol.../15/1/R3
"...we present a powerful method that will be important for future studies of RNA–protein interaction site dynamics in multiple eukaryotic organisms and in important biological contexts."

Dec 31, 2014 http://www.scienc...14009538
Excerpt: Alternative splice sites have distinct RBP binding and secondary structure profiles
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
2- you cannot even prove that your "christ" existed, and you are attributing creation as well as science to him


I can prove that he was alive and well at the time he co-authored: The Pharmacology of Regenerative Medicine http://www.ncbi.n...3698935/

I am attributing science idiocy to you and all others who have commented here, and you just proved that you are the biggest idiot of them all. Who else would criticize Christ's work without reading about it?

You would first need to learn what he said to put it into the context of heterochronic parabiosis and olfaction, which was one of the Science breakthroughs of 2014. http://www.biosci...kthrough

Is there anyone who participates here, besides me, who is not a science idiot?

Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 31, 2014
@jvk
With every post you demonstrate your ignorance and hubris and just plain stupidity.

Why do you provide links that don't support your deeply flawed model in the face of evidence that proves you are just a word salad spouting creationist?

It is also interesting that your best bud John Hewitt is a AGW dienialist.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
Who else would criticize Christ's work without reading about it?
who said i was criticizing George J. Christ,corresponding author, you moron!
I was talking about your moronic creationist dogma and your personal jesus christ

but i guess you are far too inebriated to get that, even though YOU are the one who brought it up and who also put Goerge, creationist Christ and your diatribe all into one post

moron
I can prove that he was alive and well
ONLY the george Christ, NOT the other guy!
that one is completely made up
there is NO empirical evidence whatsoever proving he existed

your own personal ignorance is astounding, and you claim we are the science idiots?

at least we can read a dictionary
at least we are sober enough not to mix our religious and scientific dogma/beliefs
LMFAO

biggest oops moment MORON ever!
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
Climate hoaxers pulling out all stops, threaten "sour shrimp" for your Christmas cocktail @imabanned @RogerHighfield http://news.scien...e-change
0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites
Reply Retweet Favorite
More

https://twitter.c...57279744
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
I am attributing science idiocy to you and all others who have commented here, and you just proved that you are the biggest idiot of them all.
really?
i can prove you are not only stupid, but you are NOT a serious scientist, NOR are you in any way to be considered rational, regardless of your past accomplishments with two direct quotes:

here is the first:
I am a creationist and an evolutionist
you cannot be both, sorry
there is either science or creationism, and they do not mix
even the court system recognized that there is no science in creationist dogma https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

the second quote is an ANSWER you gave to me 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
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
and you still say no beneficial mutations?
LMFAO
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2015
Captain Stumpy "you cannot be both, sorry"

I am a creationist and an evolutionist
is a quote from Dobzhansky (1973)

Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution http://www.jstor..../4444260

and you still say no beneficial mutations?


The Pharmacology of Regenerative Medicine http://www.ncbi.n...3698935/

Which mutations are beneficial?
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2015
@jvk

Last chance.

Three facts of evolution.

Common descent. All life is related.

Species change.

Species raise and go extinct, replaced by new species.

Empirical science robustly backs these statements.

What say you?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2015
is a quote from Dobzhansky
it is also a quote from YOUR posts
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
you don't specifically accredit to anyone, so it MUST be your own thoughts

plus your defense of Ren82 and creationist dogma
added to your complete disregard for the scientific method while denigrating mutations and the Theory of Evolution AND calling anyone who believes the experimental evidence supporting beneficial mutations idiots...
makes you a creationist
Which mutations are beneficial?
how about Lenski and Extavour's work?

or will you still ignore that empirical evidence? (or try to misinterpret it again)
you tried lying about the results till you got CAUGHT
(WHOOPSIE - Epic fail, that one!)

there is also your own model you keep promoting!
your own model CAUSES MUTATIONS
if you promote it as legitimate/beneficial, then you've modeled beneficial mutations
what part of that don't YOU get?
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2015
I can judge the truth of my comments by the anti science groupies I've attracted, like the ubavontuba troll
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2015
@ubavontuba

Your down voting me must mean you believe in the pseudoscience jvk spouts. I'm not surprised.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2015
Empirical science robustly backs these statements.

What say you?


What more can be said than the other participants here are all biologically uniformed science idiots who continue to ignore everything known to serious scientists about physics, chemistry, and molecular biology?

A 3D Map of the Human Genome at Kilobase Resolution Reveals Principles of Chromatin Looping http://www.cell.c...)01497-4

Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction http://www.scienc...05009815

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

Vascular and Neurogenic Rejuvenation of the Aging Mouse Brain by Young Systemic Factors
http://www.scienc...abstract
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2015
http://www.scienc...14010407

The article links nutrient-dependent RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions from ecological variation to ecological adaptations. The link requires knowledge of bio-physically constrained protein folding and recognition of the fact that mutations perturb protein folding.

That fact links RNA-mediated sex differences in cell types to their origins in the yeast model. The yeast model links sex differences in cell types to the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man via conserved molecular mechanisms of protein folding during the development of species-specific foraging and reproductive sexual behaviors required for survival in multicellular organisms.

http://www.pnas.o...abstract Conclusion "Morph thus interacts with sex, and we should expect that the neural mechanisms meditating the behavioral effects..."
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2015
My thesis, advised by an ecologist and a biochemist, concerned the evolution of RNA enzymes.


http://www.cartha...ademics/

Andrew Jones appears to now recognize that he has brought disgrace to Carthage via his review of my published work. If he graduated, we can be rather certain that his diploma will be revoked -- if only because educational facilities do not want to become linked to the teaching of science idiots who are biologically uniformed.

2015 is the year in which 'heads will role' across academia. Those who continue to teach the pseudoscientific nonsense of evolution via mutations will be removed or relocated. They will be found in closets or storage areas in the basement -- until they willingly retire themselves and make way for those who understand the reason why physics, chemistry, and molecular mechanisms must be integrated into their lesson plans.

Thanks to the efforts of Andrew Jones in 2014, serious scientists will have a Happy New Year!
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2015
Those who continue to teach the pseudoscientific nonsense of evolution via mutations will be removed or relocated
If this is the case, then you should be first on the list for the following reasons:
1- your pseudoscience and creationist views
2- your model causes mutations and thus you are trying to supplant a Theory of "evolution by Mutation" with a model of "Evolution by Mutation"

or did you not remember that part, el stupido?
given that your model causes mutations
and you are pushing to supplant science with creationists dogma
then you will be doubly targeted
we can be rather certain that his diploma will be revoked
They cannot revoke a diploma because a person posts SCIENCE

Andrew Jones has absolutely nothing to worry about because
HE IS 100% CORRECT

i see that you cannot refute his comments with science so you've taken to attempted denigration through blatant lies and kohlslaw word salad attacks

that only supports Jones position, you know
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2015
Andrew Jones has absolutely nothing to worry about because HE IS 100% CORRECT


What is he correct about?

I cited: http://www.pnas.o...abstract "Morph thus interacts with sex, and we should expect that the neural mechanisms meditating the behavioral effects..."

Andrew Jones seems to think that mutations can be somehow linked to the evolution of morphological and behavioral phenotypes, but he won't tell us how -- or provide an example from any extant or extinct species.

The white-throated sparrows aren't mutating. They exemplify what happens at the beginning of ecological speciation.
Dr_ Rock
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2015
The white-throated sparrows aren't mutating. They exemplify what happens at the beginning of ecological speciation.


I see... So, if I would sample different birds and sequence part of their genome I would get identical nucleotide sequences? Mmmmm...then Huynh et al. must have messed up when they, obviously, found nucleotide polymorphisms: biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/11/96.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2015
Thanks. It is rare that a science idiot makes a pertinent comment, but you have somehow managed to make one.

They write: "If purifying selection removes a deleterious mutation, any variation in strong LD with that mutation will also be removed [5]. If positive selection fixes a beneficial mutation, any linked variation will also be fixed [2]."

Many serious scientists are intelligent enough to recognize how biological energy contributes to ecological speciation. Most anonymous fools portray biological energy in the context of how deleterious and beneficial mutations are somehow linked to the evolution of increasing organismal complexity. They're biologically informed, but that doesn't mean they can't recognize cause and effect when they see it -- except in your case.

Do you think they found a link between nucleotide polymorphisms and mutations, or that they didn't recognize what causes beneficial SNPs to arise during the course of ecological speciation?
Dr_ Rock
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2015
Do you think they found a link between nucleotide polymorphisms and mutations, or that they didn't recognize what causes beneficial SNPs to arise during the course of ecological speciation?

Can you explain to me how a SNP initially arises on the molecular level?
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2015
Can you explain to me how a SNP initially arises on the molecular level?

Of course I can. But first: Can you explain to anyone how a SNP arises due to whatever causes a mutation?

I've been trying to get someone to explain that pseudoscientific nonsense for comparison to everything currently known about physical and chemical constraints on RNA-mediated protein folding. But unless a science idiot like you tries to explain it, there's no point to me explaining how SNPs actually arise.

First, the science idiot must realize that they have accepted a definition of 'mutation' and assumed that everything attributed to mutations made sense to serious scientists who hear the claims of the biologically uninformed and ask: "How can anyone be that ignorant?"

Tell us. How do SNPs arise in the context of biologically-based cause and effect attributed to mutations?
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2015
@ JVK-Skippy. I will give you the compliment on one thing Cher. You get as much traction out of your stinky sweaty nutriments theory as Zephir-Skippy does from the dense AWT vacuum model theory. Is there anything at all that it does not explain?
Dr_ Rock
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2015
Of course I can. But first: Can you explain to anyone how a SNP arises due to whatever causes a mutation?

Is this your way of deflecting my question? Do I have to answer it for you? I'm asking YOU because YOU have to show us that you have at least some basic understanding of molecular biology. If it's too hard for you to use scientific nomenclature feel free to use your motorcycle metaphor (youtube.com/watch?v=JCHAWLdF37s).
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2015
Of course I can.


You've yet to do so. You'll, of course, end up merely telling us again that SNPs are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled even though that's not a mechanism. My car is gas dependent, but that alone doesn't explain HOW it works. That's precisely what you're doing here. You list factors that may go into influencing mechanisms in your model, but you never actually elucidate the mechanism itself.
pandora4real
1 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2015
People that take part in conflict and violence have less respect for other people and the environment, so they breed more. Not really surprising. If you think the mindset isn't a priori, look at birthrates among military personnel that have never been deployed into a conflict zone. More breeding, again. If you think life is sacred and care that human vermin are destroying the environment, you're less likely to sign up for the military than if you believe that humans are somehow still a part of nature, obeying the sky daddy's command to be fruitful and multiply. Or your ancestors, or your special genes or whatever stupid excuse they come up with.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2015
...you never actually elucidate the mechanism itself.


I have linked biological energy to nutrient-dependent cell type differentiation via the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction that enables population-wide fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man.

This occurs in the context of thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation. The claim that I have not elucidated the mechanisms takes less than 6 minutes to refute via watching the video representation of my model: http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524

YOU have to show us that you have at least some basic understanding of molecular biology.


YOU or some other science idiot needs to show the others that you can understand the difference between a mutation and an amino acid substitution.

The anonymous fool needs to tell us how his car runs on energy that causes its engine to mutate into something more complex.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2015
Dr Rock mentioned my motorcycle metaphor:

See: youtube.com/watch?v=JCHAWLdF37s

Andrew Jones (aka the anonymous fool) could also try to tell us how his car, which runs on gas, becomes something akin to a mutant when he replaces any deteriorated parts.

Evidently, he cannot grasp the fact that the gas once was biological energy akin to the energy from the sun that causes amino acid substitutions. The substitutions differentiate cell types in plants and animals and the energy animals get from food that enables RNA-mediated cell type differentiation to link ecological variation to ecological adaptations in species from microbes to man. All this occurs via the conserved molecular mechanisms of bio-physically constrained protein folding, and I am asked to "...show us that you have at least some basic understanding of molecular biology."

That shows that science idiots will always be science idiots no matter what you show or how you show it.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2015
JVK,

What would an experiment look like that would disprove evolution?

Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2015
Also the energy that powers cells is electrochemical gradients, it has nothing to do with the fusion of atoms which power the sun.

It's not even the same fundamental force, life is powered by electromagnetism, stars are powered by the strong force.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2015
What would an experiment look like that would disprove evolution?


Thanks for asking. This disproves nothing; it only suggests how ridiculous the theory is. It's a thought experiment for people who are science idiots. DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME! Dinosaurs are not known to make good pets. But wait long enough and your dinosaur may evolve into a pet bird, which you can take home and put in cage until it dies.
--------------
Start with a dinosaur and a coelacanth. Wait 65 million years. Did the dinosaur evolve into a bird and the coelacanth evolve into something else during the same time?

Was there something different about the coelacanth compared to other vertebrates? Is it the nutrient-dependent stability of DNA in its organized genome? If there are no differences in the pheromone-controlled stability of the DNA in the organized genomes of all vertebrates, how did birds evolve from dinosaurs while the coelacanths were left behind?
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2015


Start with a dinosaur and a coelacanth. Wait 65 million years. Did the dinosaur evolve into a bird and the coelacanth evolve into something else during the same time?

Was there something different about the coelacanth compared to other vertebrates? Is it the nutrient-dependent stability of DNA in its organized genome? If there are no differences in the pheromone-controlled stability of the DNA in the organized genomes of all vertebrates, how did birds evolve from dinosaurs while the coelacanths were left behind?


Another example of @jvk's creationist driven ignorance.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2015
But coelacanths have evolved. "coelacanth" refers to an entire order of animals, specifically lobe finned fish. They were once common, but they were believed to be an extinct order. But they found a living species, hence the term, living fossil.
It has evolved different morphology and it would have different virus and bacterial resistances.

Birds evolved relatively early with dinosaurs, in the Triassic. Dinosaurs and birds actually lived together, not one after the other. That may sound weird, but dinosaurs are closely related to turtles and turtles have beaks.
Dinosaurs don't exist because even if some of them survived the extinction what kind of planet was left for them? The earth had changed, the earth cooled down, ice caps formed, flowering plants evolved and the forests changed forever.
It wasn't the dinosaurs world anymore, it was too much change and it was almost all change in favor of mammals.

Evolution is driven by necessity of the environment

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2015
YOU or some other science idiot needs to show the others that you can understand the difference between a mutation and an amino acid substitution
@jk
hold on there pheromone-boy, why should they do your homework for you?
you cannot even remember or differentiate between epigenetics and genetics, and Anon has been proving that point over and over
he has also shown where you get it wrong, over and over, just like when i pointed out that your assertions about Extavour's work was wrong, and then SHE concurred with ME and against YOU... which is why you are so pissed at her now
or did you forget all that?
Indeed, in that very same paper, we provide evidence that heritable differences in the genome sequences between Drosophila species, in other words, mutations, ALSO play a role in the evolution of the trait we are studying.
So Kohl is mistaken if he is claiming that my study (or Rich Lenski's work) provide evidence AGAINST the role of mutations in evolution

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2015
There is also the FACT that you yourself say there are no such things as beneficial mutations, and then you turn right around and give everyone your model which, you guessed it, provides a MUTATION
you have GOT to be the worst TROLL here
Andrew Jones (aka the anonymous fool) could also try to tell us how his car, which runs on gas, becomes something akin to a mutant when he replaces any deteriorated parts
this is called misdirection and a STRAWMAN fallacy
you are attempting to generate a logical fallacy that is easily torn down by you

too bad that it has nothing to do with reality or the arguments at hand
you are claiming that there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation because you are intentionally ignoring Lenski and Extavour's work
OR
you are intentionally trying to misdirect or misinterpret the work to justify your creationist beliefs
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas
there is NO science in creationism
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2015
jk's stupidity continued with
Was there something different about the coelacanth compared to other vertebrates?
you should read Steve 200mph Cruiz because he makes you look pretty stupid with your assertions... especially since you are proclaiming to be some sort of expert in the area of biology and anti-evolution/creationist beliefs

worst yet
how did birds evolve from dinosaurs while the coelacanths were left behind?
what makes you think there were no changes whatsoever in them?
your "gut"?
did your god tell you that one?
or are you making ASSumptions again?

If you are going to remain in science, you must follow the evidence, not try to force it to your religious beliefs
doing THAT makes you the idiot, not us

get a grip and start answering Anon
or is the reason you are avoiding specific answers because you don't know (because you failed out of college) and you cannot compete with the education of Anon?

why do you hate intelligent people so much?
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2015
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Conclusion: "The anonymous fools and idiot minions of biology teachers like PZ Myers continue to ignore everything known about the bio-physically chemistry of protein folding and tout pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations."

Attempting to discuss facts on phys.org is futile.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2015
@jvk

http://phys.org/news/2014-12-eukaryotic-cell-ii-cytoskeleton.html#firstCmt

Conclusion: "The anonymous fools and idiot minions of biology teachers like PZ Myers continue to ignore everything known about the bio-physically chemistry of protein folding and tout pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations."

Attempting to discuss facts on phys.org is futile.


That's because you hand-wave away known facts about evolution. You deflect , obsticate and ignore questions. You quote out of context and mis-interpret the work of others. Your willful ignorance of paleontology, geology, zoology, and cladistics is driven by your stubborn creation beliefs.

You are the only one failing to discuss facts.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2015
@JVK

To talk persuasively about science you have to make sure you personally know how to measure or prove every single statement you make that you treat as a fact. If you can't do that you will have a Swiss cheese theory. It's not like politics, emotional out bursts do not get you anywhere.

I'll prove that, look at this picture: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx#/image/File:Archaeopteryx_lithographica_(Berlin_specimen).jpg

Now call me an idiot and go on a rant about pheromones, and look at the picture again. Does archaeopteryx lose its feathers? The universe on a fundamental level continues to ignore all our prejudices about it, you have to agree with what nature tells you, and nature agrees with the theory of evolution.
adam_russell_9615
2 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2015
You may think that "the currency of evolution is successful reproduction" but that is not proven. I submit that having kids and abandoning them to grueling poverty does not lead to success.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2015
Mapping Social Behavior-Induced Brain Activation at Cellular Resolution in the Mouse
http://www.cell.c...)01043-2

See also: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior
http://www.hawaii...ion.html
Others have now discovered the link from c-fos

"Intracerebral GnRH response. Mammalian pheromones from opposite sex conspecifics typically influence a pulsatile intracerebral GnRH response (Meredith and Fernandez-Fewell, 1994) and subsequent increases in serum LH and/or testosterone in the males of several mammalian species (Meredith and Howard, 1992). Similarly, male pheromones may influence the LH secretion of females (Vandenbergh, 1994). Supporting these findings, olfactory stimuli appear to activate the immediate early gene c-fos (Guthrie, Anderson, Leon, and Gall, 1993). In signal transduction systems, c-fos appears to couple short-term intracellular signals..."
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2015
Mapping Social Behavior-Induced Brain Activation
this is relevant to your anti-science claims how?
by all means, be specific as to how this supports your diatribe against mutations!
OR against the Theory of Evolution!

Or is this another attempt at redirection like above, or a strawman?
or are you just going to make stuff up about dead people who cannot argue against you again?

like you did in THIS thread
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

No real reason to do it, either
just a diversion so that you don't have to answer RealScience's post

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.