Most European men descend from a handful of Bronze Age forefathers

May 19, 2015
Credit: George Hodan/public domain

Geneticists from the University of Leicester have discovered that most European men descend from just a handful of Bronze Age forefathers, due to a 'population explosion' several thousand years ago.

The project, which was funded by the Wellcome Trust, was led by Professor Mark Jobling from the University of Leicester's Department of Genetics and the study is published in the prestigious journal Nature Communications.

The research team determined the DNA sequences of a large part of the Y chromosome, passed exclusively from fathers to sons, in 334 men from 17 European and Middle Eastern populations.

This research used new methods for analysing DNA variation that provides a less biased picture of diversity, and also a better estimate of the timing of population events.

This allowed the construction of a of European Y chromosomes that could be used to calculate the ages of branches. Three very young branches, whose shapes indicate recent expansions, account for the Y chromosomes of 64% of the men studied.

Professor Jobling said: "The falls within the Bronze Age, which involved changes in burial practices, the spread of horse-riding and developments in weaponry. Dominant males linked with these cultures could be responsible for the Y chromosome patterns we see today."

In addition, past population sizes were estimated, and showed that a continuous swathe of populations from the Balkans to the British Isles underwent an explosion in male population size between 2000 and 4000 years ago.

This contrasts with previous results for the Y chromosome, and also with the picture presented by maternally-inherited mitochondrial DNA, which suggests much more ancient .

Previous research has focused on the proportion of modern Europeans descending from Paleolithic—Old Stone Age—hunter-gatherer populations or more recent Neolithic farmers, reflecting a transition that began about 10,000 years ago.

Chiara Batini from the University of Leicester's Department of Genetics, lead author of the study, added: "Given the cultural complexity of the Bronze Age, it's difficult to link a particular event to the population growth that we infer. But Y-chromosome DNA sequences from skeletal remains are becoming available, and this will help us to understand what happened, and when."

Explore further: Most modern European males descend from farmers who migrated from the Near East

More information: The study 'Large-scale recent expansion of European patrilineages shown by population resequencing' is published in Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms8152

Related Stories

DNA reveals the origins of modern Europeans

March 23, 2015

Europe is famously tesselated, with different cultural and language groups clustering in different regions. But how did they all get there? And how are they related?

Recommended for you

51 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

verkle
May 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tmarksur
4.6 / 5 (11) May 19, 2015
"Modern science is becoming a better and better tool to validate the ancient facts presented in the Bible."
This is correct if and only if you replace the word validate with invalidate, and facts with claims. Because that is what science has done in all it's history and continues to do every day (Even in this article. All these researches are based on assumptions about the evolution of humans on this planet which go completely against whatever any religion has ever said about our origins).

I suspect the word 'fact' does not mean what you think it means.
Lex Talonis
4.5 / 5 (8) May 19, 2015
"Makes sense that these men came from the families of Japheth. Modern science is becoming a better and better tool to validate the ancient facts presented in the Bible."

And the bronze age guys descended from African monkeys.

Success! The bible is a book of verifiable fakts.

TogetherinParis
1.7 / 5 (6) May 20, 2015
Well, the Biblical "men of renown" might well have been neanderthals. Some bottleneck, perhaps a great flood, narrowed European ancestry.
cjones1
2 / 5 (4) May 20, 2015
Sea level was 400 feet lower 18,000 years ago and 200 feet lower 10,000 years ago. This would have certainly caused major coastal changes as the seas rose. I understand that 40 days & 40 nights was a figure of speech meaning a really long time. One can imagine the social upheavals that resulted. War, starvation, and pestilence. I notice that horse riding was considered a catalyst in the gene pool results. I can only imagine based on the success of N. American natives who increased their influence due to utilizing the wild horses brought by the earlier explorers from Europe.
JVK
May 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
AGreatWhopper
1 / 5 (4) May 20, 2015
Makes sense that these men came from the families of Japheth. Modern science is becoming a better and better tool to validate the ancient facts presented in the Bible.



We're talking about human evolution, not how a talking turd learned how to type and troll. And you haven't told your Jesus spook to pull his goddamned dick out of my ass, so I take it you like that. I guess that's where he met a talking turd.
JVK
May 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (7) May 20, 2015
@JVK

The young earth creationists are taking everything currently known about physics, chemistry, and the conserved molecular mechanisms of virus-induced entropic elasticity and linking it from the anti-entropic epigenetic effects of the sun's biological energy to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation of all cells in all individuals of all genera.

No, young earth creationist don't give a crap about your word salad Their beliefs are rooted in the myths that make up the Bible.

The young earth creationists are taking everything currently known about physics, chemistry, and the conserved molecular mechanisms of virus-induced entropic elasticity and linking it from the anti-entropic epigenetic effects of the sun's biological energy to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation of all cells in all individuals of all genera.

AGreatWhopper tries to help others to understand biologically-based cause and effect by claiming that we're talking about human evolution and
Vietvet
3.3 / 5 (7) May 20, 2015


See for comparison: http://www.icr.or...cle/8661
Excerpt: "Perhaps the evolutionists have placed the cart before the horse on this issue, as proposed by several creationist scientists.4,6 In fact, in an ironic twist, the evidence mentioned above indicates that viruses likely arose from their hosts and not the other way around."


Creationist scientists is an oxymoron.
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) May 23, 2015
The young earth creationists are taking everything currently known about physics, chemistry, and
@jk
the young earth creationists are pushing a known lie and using politics to try and undermine science

even the court system can see there is NO science in the movement: https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

creationists still cannot make sense of radiation, carbon 14 or trees that are proven older than their chosen faerie-comic-book dating system which uses interpretations of lies and other stories stolen from other religions and modified for personal use and control
https://www.youtu...Z6MrBl9E

you still haven't been able to convince the scientific community that you've found pheromones, but you sure like making perfume with them
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (6) May 23, 2015
JVK
1 / 5 (4) May 23, 2015
Link to Bacteria's Unique Design—Pooling Resources https://answersin...sources/

"As a result of genetic exchange among bacteria, the genome for any given bacterial genus or species is not easily defined. The material available to bacteria is like a "genetic ocean" that is constantly ebbing and flowing through bacteria, often via viruses (called bacteriophages) that infect bacteria and acquire and carry bacterial DNA to other bacteria. An estimated 1031 bacteriophages (ten thousand billion billion billion) fill the earth, and bacteriophages infect 1024 bacteria per second.1 There is a tremendous amount of genetic material flowing in and out of bacteria at any given time!"

See also: The Darwin Code: http://rna-mediat...eg-bear/ and Scientists Map 5,000 New Ocean Viruses https://www.quant...viruses/
JVK
1 / 5 (3) May 23, 2015
Re: Scientists Map 5,000 New Ocean Viruses https://www.quant...viruses/

Excerpt: "Mathematical models of ocean ecosystems suggest that by killing so many microbes, viruses could release carbon and other organic nutrients back into the environment, providing an easy source of nutrients for other organisms."

In http://www.ncbi.n...3960071/ I wrote: "Among different bacterial species existing in similar environments, DNA uptake (Palchevskiy & Finkel, 2009) appears to have epigenetically 'fed' interspecies methylation and speciation via conjugation (Fall et al., 2007; Finkel & Kolter, 2001; Friso & Choi, 2002). 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 (Margulis, 1998)."

Is another model of nutrient-dependent reproduction linked to mutation-driven evolution?
JVK
1 / 5 (4) May 23, 2015
...the young earth creationists are pushing a known lie...


Dobzahsky (1973) wrote: "...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" (p. 127)."

The young earth creationists are following his lead. See: Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution http://www.jstor..../4444260 " I am a creationist and an evolutionist."

They are focusing on the de novo creation of light-induced amino acids and the biophysical constraints that link the chemistry of photosynthesis to the diversity of morphological and behavioral phenotypes via the conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation that were unknown to Dobzhansky in 1973.

Claims that "young earth creationists are pushing a known lie" reflect poorly on Dobzhansky. Does anyone think he was lying? Why would he lie about a thing like that?
Vietvet
4 / 5 (4) May 23, 2015
@JVK

...the young earth creationists are pushing a known lie...


Dobzahsky (1973) wrote: "...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" (p. 127)."

Claims that "young earth creationists are pushing a known lie" reflect poorly on Dobzhansky. Does anyone think he was lying? Why would he lie about a thing like that?


Since Dobzhansky wasn't a young earth creationist your comment is a reflection of your dishonesty and stupidity.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) May 23, 2015
Is another model of nutrient-dependent reproduction linked to mutation-driven evolution?
and again, jk floods the site with irrelevant nonsense or non specific data which he thinks supports his conclusions

and again, jk seems to think there is science in the creationist movement... if a court, judge and jury can see that this is a fallacious claim, you would think an intelligent mensa boy could grasp it
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

jk debunked here:
http://www.socioa...ew/24367
and here:
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf
and here:
https://www.youtu...Z6MrBl9E
&
https://www.youtu...NWwk7LIg
&
https://www.youtu...jWkVKyRo
&
https://www.youtu...5uqzlwsU

i see jk is still trying to "pray away" the science and get his results
JVK
1 / 5 (3) May 23, 2015
The inability of theorists to link Dobzhansky's claim about the amino acid substitution that differentiates the cell types of primates to their theories about evolution debunks their ridiculous claims.

Amino acid substitutions are nutrient-dependent and they are fixed in the organized genomes of all genera via the physiology of reproduction.

No one has debunked my model of biologically-based cause and effect. All that biologically uninformed science idiots have done is state that they don't like my model,

Few people help to jump-start a paradigm shift. Nearly everyone finally accepts the facts. Since the facts about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation aren't going to change, it's only a matter of time until Captain Stumpy begins to pray for others to forgive him for being a biologically uninformed science idiot.
Vietvet
3 / 5 (4) May 23, 2015


No one has debunked my model of biologically-based cause and effect. All that biologically uninformed science idiots have done is state that they don't like my model,

I asked before and I'm asking again. Provide a list of biologists that explicitly endorse your model.

No one takes your model seriously, it is fatally flawed.

JVK
1 / 5 (3) May 23, 2015
From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html was the first invited review of RNA-mediated hormone-organized and hormone-activated behavior. It was cited 38 times and established the basis for what is currently known about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man.

I've told these anonymous fools about others who have cited my works, yet they repeatedly claim that no one takes my model seriously. If it was fatally flawed, our 1996 review would not ever have been cited.

Instead see: Androgens and Androgen Receptor Mechanisms, Functions, and Clinical Applications Chapter 15 Androgens and Brain Function: Behavioral Perspectives
p. 336 "Therefore, for a given environment, differential influences on cortical maturation can significantly alter the interaction between that environment and the biochemical events influencing brain development (Diamond et al., 1996)."
JVK
1 / 5 (3) May 23, 2015
See also: Organizational and activational effects of hormones on insect behavior http://www.ncbi.n...10980296

"The development of species-typical and sex-specific adult behaviors in vertebrate animals is influenced by gonadal steroid hormones, non-gonadal hormones, and non-hormonal factors working on the underlying neural circuitry (reviewed in Diamond et al., 1996; Kawata,
1995; Schlinger, 1998)."

I've published several other invited reviews since then; two have won awards, and here we are among biologically uninformed science idiots who think they can simply keep claiming that no one takes my model seriously, because they are foolish enough to believe whatever it is they believe in.
ubavontuba
not rated yet May 24, 2015
@Uba
i didn't realize that you were a creationist/7th day adventist
When did I supposedly say I was a creationist/7th day adventist?

Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015
@Uba
i didn't realize that you were a creationist/7th day adventist
When did I supposedly say I was a creationist/7th day adventist?



CaptainStumpy is drawing that inference because of your childish fetish of trolling the profile pages of anyone and everyone you disagree about AGW with for the sole purpose of down voting, no matter the topic.

JVK is a creationists crank (that is the nicest way to describe him) and yet you down vote me and Stumpy for challenging him. Ergo you're a creationist----unless you don't bother to actually read the comments, just down vote.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2015
CaptainStumpy is drawing that inference because of your childish fetish of trolling the profile pages of anyone and everyone you disagree about AGW with for the sole purpose of down voting, no matter the topic.
Oh! I thought that was expected here, as you, Captain Stumpy, Thermodynamics, et al regularly do this to me.

JVK is a creationists crank (that is the nicest way to describe him) and yet you down vote me and Stumpy for challenging him. Ergo you're a creationist----unless you don't bother to actually read the comments, just down vote.
Oh! It doesn't occur to you maybe I downvote you for just generally being rude and obnoxious?

Challenging someone's religion/philosphy/belief system is fine with me. It's the way you go about it that is not.

Vietvet
3.4 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015
@unavontuba
. " Oh! I thought that was expected here, as you, Captain Stumpy, Thermodynamics, et al regularly do this to me."

When it comes to AGW you do get down voted based on the quality of your comments. No one goes to your profile page for the purpose of down voting you.

Seriously, when you go trolling, do you even read the comments before down voting?

You've never left an on topic comment concerning JVK's bs and you've never voted either way on his comments or shown any interest in biology but you down vote anyone who rightfully takes him on who disagrees with you over AGW.

I've got to admit I get a chuckle when you go on your down voting rampage but it is sad at the same time.

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2015
When it comes to AGW you do get down voted based on the quality of your comments. No one goes to your profile page for the purpose of down voting you.
B.S.. I've seen where within moments of posting, even on non-AGW articles, you downvote me.

Seriously, when you go trolling, do you even read the comments before down voting?
If it's a non-AGW article, generally yes. If it's AGW, there's not much point.

You've never left an on topic comment concerning JVK's bs and you've never voted either way on his comments or shown any interest in biology but you down vote anyone who rightfully takes him on who disagrees with you over AGW.
How is your public bullying of JVK supposedly more righteous than my negative opinion of said bullying?

I've got to admit I get a chuckle when you go on your down voting rampage but it is sad at the same time.
I'm glad you appreciate the intended humor, but I wish you would also take the lessen.

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2015
Vietvet,

Maybe you don't see the irony.

You knock JVK's belief systems without bothering to self-examine your own.

For instance, why is it don't you accept the standard definition for global warming (rhetorical)? It's a simple definition. What about it makes you talk all around it, without just accepting it for what it is (again, rhetorical)?

The answer is obvious. To accept the definition, as it is, would disable your personal belief system.

Therefore you go out of your way to redefine the argument, even changing the name (to "Climate Change") just to preserve your beliefs.

How is this any different than what JVK does?

Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015
@Uba
i didn't realize that you were a creationist/7th day adventist
When did I supposedly say I was a creationist/7th day adventist?
@Uba
well, logically speaking: you downvoted a post that was against creationists/7th day advents even though it was completely factual

Therefore, there can be only two conclusions:
1- you are one
2- you are simply on a hate downvoting spree (but this does not mean you aren't still one/believe the same as one)

as i can see that you are simply targeting people and downvoting them regardless of content, then i know that the second is true
however, it also still means that the first is likely true as well, given that you are defending them through proxy voting

there cannot be any other conclusions, much like your other support of known fallacious pseudoscience, this is only supporting evidence that you don't like science nor facts

likely, it is due to your religious overtones
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015
I thought that was expected here, as you, Captain Stumpy, Thermodynamics, et al regularly do this to me.
@Uba
and you know as well as i do that this is a blatant lie
i do not downvote you when you are factual, nor when you have a decent argument
so this is a cop out and a blatant lie (as you and i have also collaborated to find data on at least one biological thread concerning European Bison)

as for knocking jvk's belief system
i don't knock his "belief"... i knock his insistence that it is SCIENCE
i also knock his fallacious science and his blatant lies, and when he ignores scientific data for his religious purposes, like Lenski or Extavour
People who have a serious and legit reputation, not a rep for lies or selling perfume, nor make felonious fallacious claims about historical diagnostic medical experience, etc

you are caught in yet ANOTHER lie, uba
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015
No one goes to your profile page for the purpose of down voting you.
@Vietvet
considering that this seems to be her latest tactic, perhaps we should consider talking to everyone else and telling them to give the same treatment she is giving us?

it would only be fair

RichManJoe
not rated yet May 24, 2015
If you spend about two seconds thinking about this, it isn't suprising, in fact, it isn't really news.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) May 24, 2015
Here are four links to recent literature with my comments on the differences between theories and facts about the creation of new genes and development of species-specific behaviors in species from microbes to man. 1) http://rna-mediat...robiome/ 2) http://rna-mediat...nformed/ 3) http://rna-mediat...-theory/ 4) http://rna-mediat...ies-raw/
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) May 25, 2015
Here are four links ...
@jk
1- self promoting SPAM trolling and baiting
2- your site is simply you wanting to spread the pheromone perfume news
3- you have already proven to the scientific community that you have the scientific integrity of a gnat on crack when you posted this link: http://www.icr.or...esearch/
in this thread
http://phys.org/n...ars.html

your post shamefully is nothing more than self promotion of religious dogma and non-scientific principles
proof of that is here: http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

plus, you still have not been able to answer Jones here: http://www.socioa...ew/24367

you have been debunked, and you have the evidence equivalent of garbage
plus, you have not been able to come to grips with the fact that your own model causes mutations to work, though you claim all mutations are pathological

epic fail
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) May 25, 2015
2- you are simply on a hate downvoting spree (but this does not mean you aren't still one/believe the same as one)
Admittedly, I do dislike chatterbots. They pollute the forum with nonsense and I find them particularly vulgar and annoying.

Why did you come back?

Vietvet
3.4 / 5 (5) May 25, 2015
@unavontuba

You obviously crave respect but your down voting fetish is no way to earn it.
VCRAGAIN
2 / 5 (4) May 25, 2015
All those condemning the 'creationists' as anti-science should carefully look at their own attitudes. Science may consider accepted knowledge as final and 'done' - but that is NOT the correct way to look it. Everything is only a THEORY and even if it is SAID to be proven, could also equally well be dis-proven as new facts arise. We are still babies as far as the cosmos, our existence, and science are concerned, so it really makes sense only if those who profess to be 'experts' on any subject, are reasonable to other ideas and keep searching for a greater understanding of all things. Certain 'experts' had decided that the Big Bang and Expansion were facts, it is now apparent that 'maybe there was no Big Bang' - oops - now what ? So this is the place where other ideas - (Electric Universe anyone?) - can be considered instead. Maybe SOMETHING created this reality, that does not mean we have to accept particular religious ideas, we simply DO NOT KNOW. Just be patient and listen !!
JVK
1 / 5 (3) May 25, 2015
These articles individually and collectively attest to the importance of the anti-entropic energy of the sun to DNA repair and the physiology of reproduction that links the creation of earth to the creation of amino acids and the substitutions that differentiate all cell types. Notice, there is a pattern of creation. Nothing appears to be random.

Patterns and ecological drivers of ocean viral communities
http://www.scienc...abstract

Proteomics reveals dynamic assembly of repair complexes during bypass of DNA cross-links
http://www.scienc...abstract

Structure and function of the global ocean microbiome
http://www.scienc...abstract

Eukaryotic plankton diversity in the sunlit ocean
http://www.scienc...abstract

Determinants of community structure in the global plankton interactome
http://www.scienc...abstract
JVK
1 / 5 (3) May 25, 2015
See also: http://www.the-sc...st118480

Genome Digest
What researchers are learning as they sequence, map, and decode species' genomes
By Amanda B. Keener | May 21, 2015

The unique miRNAs appear to link the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled life history transitions of bees to RNA-mediated metabolic networks and genetic networks in all genera via base pair substitutions and amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types.

See for example: Oppositional COMT Val158Met effects on resting state functional connectivity in adolescents and adults http://link.sprin...4-0895-5
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) May 25, 2015
@unavontuba

You obviously crave respect but your down voting fetish is no way to earn it.
Simple-minded deflection. Why didn't you answer my question?

Vietvet
5 / 5 (2) May 25, 2015

global warming
An increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase great enough to cause changes in the global climate. The Earth has experienced numerous episodes of global warming through its history, and currently appears to be undergoing such warming. The present warming is generally attributed to an increase in the greenhouse effect, brought about by increased levels of greenhouse gases, largely due to the effects of human industry and agriculture. Expected long-term effects of current global warming are rising sea levels, flooding, melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, fluctuations in temperature and precipitation, more frequent and stronger El Niños and La Niñas, drought, heat waves, and forest fires. See more at greenhouse effect.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

I have no problem with this definition

Vietvet
5 / 5 (2) May 25, 2015
@unavontuba

Vietvet,

You knock JVK's belief systems without bothering to self-examine your own.

My acceptance of AGW is not based on any "belief systems" but on the accumulated empirical evidence. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas has long been an established fact, not a theory or hypothesis but a fact.

Thirty years ago I was hoping some unknown negative feedback would be found but that hasn't happened. I follow the evidence. I don't make unsubstantiated claims, misrepresent the works of scientists, take quotes out of context nor do I sell "perfume" based on pseudoscience.

JVK
1 / 5 (3) May 25, 2015
I don't make unsubstantiated claims, misrepresent the works of scientists, take quotes out of context nor do I sell "perfume" based on pseudoscience.


Apparently, you also don't have the ability to search Google for "RNA mediated." If anyone with that ability finds any published works that suggest my representations of biologically-based cause and effect are wrong, please provide the citation. Opinions don't count, compared to citations like this one:

http://nar.oxford...abstract
"...it appears that some, if not all-epigenetic writer enzymes may be regulated by RNA. Thus, RNA may be a major gatekeeper for epigenetic inheritance in vertebrates."

If, for comparison, there is a model of biologically-based cause and effect that links mutations to a major or minor gatekeeper for epigenetic inheritance or other inheritance in any species, we could compare it to my model.

https://www.googl...mediated
Vietvet
5 / 5 (2) May 26, 2015
@JVK

http://nar.oxford...abstract
"...it appears that some, if not all-epigenetic writer enzymes may be regulated by RNA. Thus, RNA may be a major gatekeeper for epigenetic inheritance in vertebrates."

How does a partial sentence taken from a multi page study in any way endorse your model?

You aren't cited in the study and note how difference in the language of the sentence and the pronouncements you make. "Appears" and "may" are lacking in your vocabulary, just has you lack integrity.

JVK
1 / 5 (3) May 26, 2015
How does a partial sentence taken from a multi page study in any way endorse your model?


Thanks for asking. They reached the same conclusion that we did in our 1996 review of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation. See our section on molecular epigenetics.

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

See also:
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model http://www.ncbi.n...3960065/

"Appears" and "may" are lacking in your vocabulary...


My model does not APPEAR to be anything else and it does not link things that MAY happen to anything that MAY or MAY not occur.

It links nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man without the APPEARANCE of mutations that MAY automagically lead to evolution.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) May 26, 2015
Re:
You aren't cited in the study...


I am in this one, and so is the published work from Elekonich and Robinson (2000) that linked our 1996 review article to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in insects. Role of olfaction in Octopus vulgaris reproduction http://www.scienc...14004006

Excerpt: "The OL acting as control centre may be target organ for metabolic hormones such as leptin like and insulin like peptides, and olfactory organ could exert regulatory action on the OL via epigenetic effects of nutrients and pheromones on gene expression (Kohl, 2013; Elekonich and Robinson, 2000)."

What did you find in YOUR Google search? https://www.googl...mediated

Did you try https://www.googl...%22+Kohl
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 26, 2015
All those condemning the 'creationists' as anti-science should carefully look at their own attitudes
@vcr
when creationists start doing actual science and conforming to the scientific method, i am sure we will speak differently of them
see: https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

the problem is that you speak of "theory" when you don't understand what it takes to get labeled a THEORY in science, so you should take a refresher course in the scientific method too: https://en.wikipe...c_method

while you are at it, you can review actual scientific data and see why there is a difference in promotion of religious dogma and actual scientific theories: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

last thing: creationist physics just plain don't work- that is PROVEN FACT

whereas known laws of physics do! also proven

Quantum mechanics is the MOST successful of these, giving you the computers/cell/etc you use to post here... NOT creationist dogma
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 26, 2015
Apparently, you also don't have the ability to search Google for "RNA mediated
@jk
and neither do you, apparently, because your first goto is always to your own site and self promotion, much like your intentional lies about Lenski, Extavour and your own model

I only draw scientific studies from known REPUTABLE sites, and your site is NOT ONE OF THEM
you already linked and accept creationist dogma, and that is also NOT SCIENCE, therefore your posts are SPAM and RELIGIOUS, not SCIENCE

came to grips yet with the FACT that your model SELF ADMITTEDLY causes mutations?

Have you been able to convince anyone else in science that Jones is wrong?
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf]http://rspb.royal...full.pdf[/url]

NOT YET

been able to convince ANYONE about pheromones?
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf]http://rspb.royal...full.pdf[/url]

NOPE

the scientific method exists for a reason: to rule out pseudoscience like YOURS
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2015
verkle claims
Makes sense that these men came from the families of Japheth
Yet its females that carry the mitchondrial gene, not feeble short lived men who cannot create life !

verkle claims
Modern science is becoming a better and better tool to validate the ancient facts presented in the Bible
Really ?

Then you must accept the scientific method over & above mere claim Eg as in old middle eastern book which makes the most STUPID unscientific claims of all time ?

ie A claimed loving deity punished ALL of creation for EVER, because it setup a young girl (Eve) to take a fruit from a tree the deity specifically put there AND pointed out KNOWING in advance that Eve would consume it.

This is called a setup and is obviously the character of a dream long ago when presumably sincere people were curious to know why everything suffers from Nature's "Eat & be Eaten".

Is the claimed deity a good example of how to parent children ?

Your deity acts exactly as a Devil !
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jun 01, 2015
... creationist physics just plain don't work- that is PROVEN FACT...


Energy at life's origin http://www.scienc...92.short

The energy comes from the sun, which links the physics of creationists to representations of biologically based cause and effect in Biblical Genesis and perhaps also to the basis for the claims of this Islamic creationist in "Evolutionists Cannot Account for the Origin of the Sense of Smell" http://harunyahya...ter/5050

The claims of biologically uninformed science idiots can be compared to accurate representations of cause and effect that extend the de novo creation of amino acids from the biophysically constrained chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding to cell type differentiation in all genera via the fixation of amino acid substitutions in the context of the nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jun 01, 2015
Your deity acts exactly as a Devil !


Viruses perturb protein folding, which is how they are linked to pathology. Your "Devil" is in the details of protein folding. The details link perfect heath and the perturbed creation of perfect cells.

Creation is nutrient energy-dependent and RNA-mediated cell type differentiation links health and pathology via metabolic networks and genetic networks.

How did you learn to tell others about the "Devil" without learning about creation?

...curious to know why everything suffers from Nature's "Eat & be Eaten".


What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot continues to tout the pseudoscientific nonsense of that ridiculous theory?

Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.
Mazur (2014)
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jun 01, 2015
See also: http://phys.org/n...nce.html
Phage spread antibiotic resistance

If someone told you to not eat chicken because it contained viruses that contribute to pathology, but someone else convinced you that eating chicken would make you more godly, who would you blame for the virus-perturbed protein folding that is linked to all pathology?

Most of us know the answer and intelligent people don't blame their creator. They accept the fact that serious scientists know how cell type differentiation occurs and how it is perturbed.

What serious scientists know about physics, chemistry, and the conserved molecular mechanisms of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation is included in the links from nutritional epigenetics to pharmacogenomics and "precision" / "personalized" medicine.

Ask your doctor about pharmacogenomics testing, or suffer the consequences of your overwhelming ignorance. http://www.medsca...24253661

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.