Birds reveal the evolutionary importance of love

September 14, 2015
Love birds: when zebra finches pair off with mates of their own choosing, they don't lay more eggs - but the eggs are more likely to be fertilized. Credit: MPI f. Ornithology

Humans are extremely choosy when it comes to mating, only settling down and having kids after a long screening process involving nervous flirtations, set-ups by friends, online matchmaking sites, awkward dates, humiliating rejections, hasty retreats and the occasional lucky strike. In the end, we "fall in love" and "live happily ever after." But evolution is an unforgiving force - isn't this choosiness rather a costly waste of time and energy when we should just be "going forth and multiplying?" What, if anything, is the evolutionary point of it all? A new study may have the answer.

Doing a cost/benefit analysis of love is a challenging business, with many potential confounds, and - in the case of humans - some ethical limitations on doing experiments. A new study publishing on September 14th in the Open Access journal PLOS Biology by Malika Ihle, Bart Kempenaers, and Wolfgang Forstmeier from the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Seewiesen, Germany, describes an elegant experiment designed to tease apart the consequences of mate choice.

The authors took advantage of the fact that the zebra finch shares many characteristics with humans, mating monogamously for life, and sharing the burden of parental care. Female finches choose mates in a way that is specific to the individual, and there is little consensus among females as to who the cutest male is.

Using a population of 160 , the authors set up a speed-dating session, leaving groups of 20 females to choose freely between 20 males. Once the birds had paired off, half of the couples were allowed to go off into a life of wedded bliss. For the other half, however, the authors intervened like overbearing Victorian parents, splitting up the happy pair, and forcibly pairing them with other broken-hearted individuals.

Bird couples, whether happy or somewhat disgruntled, were then left to breed in aviaries, and the authors assessed couples' behavior and the number and paternity of dead embryos, dead chicks and surviving offspring.

Strikingly, the final number of surviving chicks was 37% higher for individuals in chosen pairs than those in non-chosen pairs. The nests of non-chosen pairs had almost three times as many unfertilized eggs as the chosen ones, a greater number of eggs were either buried or lost, and markedly more chicks died after hatching. Most deaths occurred within the chicks' first 48 hours, a critical period for parental care during which non-chosen fathers were markedly less diligent in their nest-care duties.

Watching the couples' courtship showed some noticeable differences - although non-chosen males paid the same amount of attention to their mates as the chosen ones did, the non-chosen females were far less receptive to their advances, and tended to copulate less often. An analysis of harmonious behavior revealed that non-chosen couples were generally significantly less lovey-dovey than the chosen ones. There was also a higher level of infidelity in birds from non-chosen pairs - interestingly the straying of male birds increased as time went by while females roamed less.

Overall the authors conclude that birds vary rather idiosyncratically in their tastes, and choose mates on the basis that they find them stimulating in some way that isn't necessarily obvious to an outside observer. This stimulation "turns on" the females to increase the likelihood of successful copulation and encourages paternal commitment for the time needed to raise young; together these maximize the couple's likelihood of perpetuating their genes through their thriving offspring.

Sounds familiar? This is presumably what the human dating game is about, the need perhaps exacerbated by the extended phase of dependence during which our children need parental support. Indeed, these authors' results are consistent with some studies on the differences between love-based and arranged marriages in human society.

Explore further: Monogamous birds... peeping on the neighbors!

More information: Ihle M, Kempenaers B, Forstmeier W (2015) Fitness Benefits of Mate Choice for Compatibility in a Socially Monogamous Species. PLoS Biol 13(9): e1002248. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002248

Related Stories

Monogamous birds... peeping on the neighbors!

January 27, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- It is well documented that male birds seduce females using their songs, colourful plumage and courtship dances. These signals reflect male genetic quality and will be graded by the female to determine a male's ...

Female mice do not avoid mating with unhealthy males

March 13, 2015

Female mice are attracted more strongly to the odour of healthy males than unhealthy males. This had already been shown in an earlier study by researchers from the Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology at the Vetmeduni Vienna. ...

Recommended for you

A new path for killing pathogenic bacteria

August 24, 2016

Bacteria that cause tuberculosis, leprosy and other diseases, survive by switching between two different types of metabolism. EPFL scientists have now discovered that this switch is controlled by a mechanism that constantly ...

Scientists develop new techniques to track how cells develop

August 24, 2016

Understanding how various cell types differentiate themselves during development is one of the fundamental questions in developmental biology. Using genome-editing tools, Harvard scientists are getting closer to finding answers.

101 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

verkle
Sep 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
larry_leeder
4.7 / 5 (14) Sep 14, 2015
To state "Evolution... is an unproven hypothesis at best" indicates at best that you don't understand it, or at worst you have some religious objection.

Evolutionary theory is the most robust explanation we have to explain all life as we know it, incorporating all known evidence. So many scientific disciplines, far beyond basic Biology, would have to be not just wrong but utterly, crashingly wrong for Evolutionary theory to be simply dismissed.
RMQ
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 14, 2015
Verkle, you can't criticize or doubt evolution THEORY. It is a tautology, it is always right, it can't be falsified. If a property X is present in an living organism, then it must be that it was adaptive at some point, and incredibly, that property X appeared by chance! So the heart, appeared randomly and it was useful, that's why organisms have hearts.

Evolution theory is a religion, if you defend it, then you are "smart". If you criticize it, they will fire you.

And as someone already commented, some believe that it is against religion.
Manfred Particleboard
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 14, 2015
Wow, you really don't understand evolution. A heart didn't just appear randomly; do some comparative study between the physiology of mollusks and invertebrates, then look at amphibians and then reptiles and then birds. if you are still skeptical, do some genetic comparisons between the tissues and critical systems of the heart. If you are unable to draw a line of similarity as well as trace mutations and selections through your study, you shouldn't be commenting on science sites.
Manfred Particleboard
5 / 5 (8) Sep 14, 2015
If you want to test the null hypothesis; then suggest that: 'If evolution is a selection process by the external environment on organisms, then breeding an organism with different external influences will produce organisms with different genetic expressions.' Do this with some wheat and grow and initial batch and use this as a reference. then grow subsequent batches with your reference seed under different conditions, i.e. salt, herbivores, temperature, whatever. Take the seed from these batches and continue planting under the same conditions as the parent. After about 10 generations, take a sample and compare it to your original reference, do a genetic comparison if you like too. If they are the same as the reference, then evolution is not an change in genetic makeup due to external influences.
Go ahead, and win a Nobel prize.
RMQ
1 / 5 (9) Sep 14, 2015
Enlighten us explaining us how the first ever heart appeared, Nobel prize dreamer.
RMQ
1 / 5 (8) Sep 14, 2015
It Is nice how some people are predictable. I doubt of the validity of evolution theory, and immediately got "fired".

Nobody would deny the relationship between changes in the environment and changes in organisms. But we don't see new organs showing up... We see how organisms increase resistance to some factors, we see inheritance of genetic traits, and so on. Denying the relationship between the environment and changes in organisms physiology and psychology would be plainly insane.

But acting emotional about a theory, and holding tightly on "the idol" is not serious knowledge.
animah
5 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2015
So RMQ, it follows that you believe all species that exist today -bar none- existed at the time of whichever creation you believe in?

Like poodles and goldfish and tens of thousands of other modern species?

One just has to compare the fossil record with today's animals and plants to see quite clearly that creation myths just can't possibly work.
RobertKarlStonjek
5 / 5 (1) Sep 14, 2015
zebra finch shares many characteristics with humans, mating monogamously for life,

Humans can not be said to do this. Around two thirds of people don't stay married for life. Around half of all marriages fail and many people don't get married at all being gay, loners or simply unsuccessful in love.
RMQ
1 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2015
So how the first heart started? It started without arteries and veins of course, they came in a different random mutation... right.

I don't believe in anything.

And yes, few decades ago, it was "smart" to say that the universe had no beginning because the "smart" guys wanted to contradict the religious texts. That's why Albert Einstein thought the universe as static, and was shocked to see himself the data of the galaxies moving away from each other.... read history of physics.
SkyLy
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2015
Guys, how can you bite on RMQ's bait so easily ? He's just playing with words, the problem is that we all have a different meaning attached to the hypothesis/theory/observations of evolution, and trolls like RMQ use fallacies based on 5% of a 19th century book to invalidate the other 95% that have been validated through observations over and over again.
Evolution is the one and only plausible hypothesis for today's biological state of our planet. The only question we're trying to answer is : how does evolution actually work ?
RMQ
1 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2015
How funny!

You actually say it. You don't know how evolution works! They claim they do and that it is "simple".

That makes me a troll... wow
animah
5 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2015
Actually SkyLy you're right. This is all very well researched so I'll just put a pointer down and leave it at that:

So how the first heart started?

Start here: http://www.livesc...pod.html

Then google "primitive heart tube". Surprise!

If the profound connection between modern organisms' embryology and the fossil record is not apparent from these 2 things, google that next. This is all well researched indeed.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2015
Viruses are linked to the evolution of prairie vole monogamy and human heterosexual love by Luis Villarreal and Larry Young, who is the current president of the Atlanta chapter of the Society for Neuroscience. See: https://www.youtu...04x6MvMY

For comparison to what is currently known about biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry and how ecological variation is linked to biodiversity by chromosomal rearrangements, see:

Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes
http://www.pnas.o...abstract

For an accurate representation of what is currently known about how ecological variation leads to ecological adaptation in all living genera, see: https://www.youtu...youtu.be
RMQ
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2015
The link shows that they discovered heart and brain in fossils. No surprise there.

How the principle of selection and variation explain the first heartbeat. How similar cells got together, form walls, established communication, then fired a pattern that coordinates with the action of the entire organism, how the first blood that was pumped was put there? Because the first heartbeat happened in a medium that allowed it, and it was different that the tissues contained in liquid form in the vessels?

Insult some more, but we know the explanation based on those two principles is impossible. But your faith in your idols is admirable.
RMQ
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2015
You guys keep showing facts about evolution, which is indisputable.

The problem is in the explanation, in the emergence of sudden random highly complex products especially. Like organs. Darwin was very aware of the difficulty explaining the emergence of organs, because they come as part of a larger complex network.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2015
For theorists, emergence does not need to be explained. It's like magic and it has been placed into the context of the magic of evolution.

Here, for example, is the claim that hens and eggs automagically emerged simultaneously. http://matpitka.b...tor.html

Excerpt: "Can one tell whether it was pro-cell or bio-molecules that emerged first? It seems that all these structures could have emerged simultaneously. What emerged was dark matter and its emergence involved the emergence of all the others. Hens and eggs emerged simultaneously."

For comparison see: Evolutionists Cannot Account for the Origin of the Sense of Smell
http://www.haruny...ter/5050
animah
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2015
The link shows that they discovered heart and brain in fossils

Primitive heart RMQ, the keyword is primitive.

Anyway the "first life" problem is abiogenesis and yes that's not all that clear at this point. But that makes no difference to the reality of DNA lineage between primitive and modern organisms and +that+ is evolution.

Or did you think there were poodles and goldfish in the Cretaceous?
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2015
If you are unable to draw a line of similarity as well as trace mutations and selections through your study, you shouldn't be commenting on science sites.


There is no need to draw lines or trace mutations and selections. Natural selection has been removed from ridiculous theories of mutation-driven evolution.

See: http://www.amazon...99661731 Conclusion: "...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world. In this view of evolution there is no need of considering teleological elements" (p. 199).

See also: http://www.scient...plexity/ Excerpt: "Complexity, they say, is not purely the result of millions of years of fine-tuning through natural selection—the process that Richard Dawkins famously dubbed "the blind watchmaker." To some extent, it just happens."
animah
5 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2015
Don't bother JVK, you're on my ignore list for repeating the same exact 3 things for 3 years despite many, many attempts to engage and discuss with a number of very smart people.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2015
...validated through observations....


"The notion has gained some currency that the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is "bird watching" or "butterfly collecting." Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists! I have heard a man whose official title happens to be Professor of Zoology declare to an assembly of his colleagues that "a good man cannot teach zoology. A good man can teach, of course, only molecular biology.

Such pronunciamentos can be dismissed as merely ridiculous. They are, however, caricatures of opinions entertained by some intelligent and reasonable people, whose views deserve an honest and careful consideration and analysis. Science must cope with new problems that arise and devise new approaches to old problems. Some lines of research become less profitable and less exciting and others more so." http://icb.oxford...citation
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2015
you're on my ignore list...


Something must have gone horribly wrong with your list -- as it has with the pseudoscientific nonsense touted by evolutionary theorists.

The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions http://rspb.royal...20151019

Excerpt: We label this interpretation the 'extended evolutionary synthesis' (EES) but emphasize, contrary to some recent claims (e.g. [10]), that the EES is a developing line of contemporary evolutionary thought that exists within the field, and not a denial of the value of past frameworks or of progress in evolutionary biology. To some readers, the use of the EES label might appear grandiloquent but, as we will show, the significance of the proposed changes in evolutionary thinking varies substantially with the researcher's perspective."

The EES is an attempt to salvage some minimal credibility from a ridiculous theory.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2015
Re: "...the significance of the proposed changes in evolutionary thinking varies substantially with the researcher's perspective."

Serious scientists, for example, are: Combating Evolution to Fight Disease http://www.scienc...88.short

The ridiculous ideas of theorists are being replace with facts about exosomes that link microRNAs to adhesion proteins and RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all genera via their physiology of reproduction.

The Exosome Is Recruited to RNA Substrates through Specific Adaptor Proteins
http://dx.doi.org...5.07.060
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 15, 2015
@JVK

Wow! Just wow!

You link to a Islamic creationists blog and expect to be taken seriously?
http://www.haruny...ter/5050

More on Harun Yahya.
https://newhumani...un-yahya

I have to admit I don't know what I laughed harder at, you providing the link or the link itself.

Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2015

There is no need to draw lines or trace mutations and selections. Natural selection has been removed from ridiculous theories of mutation-driven evolution.

@JVK

Natural selection is the foundation of Darwin's theory of evolution, unless you are going to insist on lying, something practice with every comment.

Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2015


Serious scientists, for example, are: Combating Evolution to Fight Disease http://www.scienc...88.short]http://www.scienc...88.short[/url]


Molecular biology and evolutionary biology have been separate disciplines and scientific cultures: The former is mechanistic and focused on molecules; the latter is theoretical and focused on populations. However, these domains are beginning to converge in laboratories addressing molecular mechanisms that explain how evolutionary processes work, and bring these processes to bear on medical problems such as cancer and infectious disease. Each discipline can be viewed as a missing link in the other's description of biology, and in medicine.
http://www.scienc...88.short]http://www.scienc...88.short[/url]

@JVK

How many times has have to be pointed out to you the title doesn't imply what you wish it to be.
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2015
@RMQ
So the heart, appeared randomly and it was useful, that's why organisms have hearts
Excuse me. Are you sure it is evolution theory what you mentioned there? Never heard anything like that in regard to it.
But we don't see new organs showing up...
Likely, such a fact wouldn't be evidence for evolution either.
We see how organisms increase resistance to some factors, we see inheritance of genetic traits, and so on.
I'm not the expert but this seems more related to evolution theory. As far I know, very small changes, some of which may have improved organisms's survival chances have been inherited and became organisms's characteristics. Successive adaptations.
So how the first heart started?
I doubt that this question has been properly formulated. Complex organs, likely, started as a few "differentiated" cells in basic organisms, then these have evolved along with the organisms. But, as I said, I'm not the expert. Someone may improve these humble expositions.
katesisco
not rated yet Sep 15, 2015
Disagree we are choosy. We marry young or are closeted by social mores to forbid doing so.
Shootist
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2015
Wow, you really don't understand evolution. A heart didn't just appear randomly; do some comparative study between the physiology of mollusks and invertebrates, then look at amphibians and then reptiles and then birds. if you are still skeptical, do some genetic comparisons between the tissues and critical systems of the heart. If you are unable to draw a line of similarity as well as trace mutations and selections through your study, you shouldn't be commenting on science sites.


"Unless you understand genetics you cannot speak about evolution" - Razib Khan
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 15, 2015
You link to a Islamic creationists blog and expect to be taken seriously?


I linked to this article, also: The Exosome Is Recruited to RNA Substrates through Specific Adaptor Proteins http://www.cell.c...l%3Dtrue

Do you think anyone takes your complaints about me seriously?
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2015
Do you think anyone takes ... seriously?
1- it is NOT a complaint if it can be validated: it is a proven FACT

2- yes, most people can understand that you are a pseudoscience crackpot pushing creationist dogma

3- almost EVERY real scientist who gives feedback refutes your claims and then also notes the futility with arguing with a creationist who is a religious fanatic
(this pic says it all: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tAbQFwVS0PM/T0chKEoUruI/AAAAAAAAAWw/0Z4uw1EBeAQ/s1600/playingpigeonchess.png ) use copy/paste

4- the ONLY reason you've not been banned from this site is because you're protected by someone and the site is not moderated: you get BANNED from moderated sites due to your lack of evidence, blatant stupidity (it's not ignorance if you are taught the facts but refuse to accept them) and fanatical religious posting

people really CAN see that your evidence doesn't match what you say
and when you link religion, not science... and get caught lying...
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2015
3- almost EVERY real scientist who gives feedback refutes your claims and then also notes the futility with arguing with a creationist who is a religious fanatic


Phylogenomics Reveals Convergent Evolution of Lifestyles in Close Relatives of Animals and Fungi http://www.scienc...15008878

Convergent evolution and coevolution are nutrient-dependent and controlled by biophysically constrained thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation which enable fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in the context of the physiology of reproduction.

Who are the "real scientists" that you claim have addressed those facts or who are refuting my claims?

https://www.googl...volution
https://www.googl...volution
https://www.googl...aptation
antigoracle
3 / 5 (2) Sep 17, 2015
Hey...HEY!!! What about the bees?
bschott
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 17, 2015
Let's see what Stumpid's had to say regarding evolution in this comment section................

Oh yeah...nothing. Just guns a blazin on another poster who clearly knows a lot more than he does, but doesn't conform to his ideology. Odd that a former defender of "freedom" misses the irony in this...not odd when you consider who it is.

I can't believe this guy is using up perfectly good oxygen.
bschott
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2015
For RMQ's inquiry about the heart (and other vital organs) Let's ask Darwin himself...

http://www.darwin...ion.com/

The last paragraph explains a lot....

Personally, I have always been curious about the evolution of nutrient absorption. Odd that we would evolve AWAY from direct absorption to the requirement for a mouth.....being as osmosis is and always will be a more efficient means of acquiring nutrients.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2015
Who are the "real scientists" that you claim have addressed those facts or who are refuting my claims?
@jk
well, lets see... i've specifically posted replies from WHittaker and Extavour... and every scientist that we inquire to WRT your interpretations of their studies

i can post some of the specifics - i have already: did you forget?
you [Captain] are right that we in no way claim that mutations in the heritable genome play no role in evolution...

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...

most scientists we requested clarification to state:
they don't engage trolls, pseudoscience or obviously deranged... most simply say they don't like to give attention to those who are so ignorant or delusional, they misrepresent scientific evidence

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2015
Just guns a blazin on another poster who clearly knows a lot more than he does
@bs
yeah, because all creationists know that their religion trumps science, right?

if you don't know the history behind the jk posts, you should try reading them before commenting and making yourself the laughing stock of PO

by the way: this argument with jk goes back 2 years, and there are more than 5700 posts... feel free to review them and actually learn the subject... maybe then you can learn why the arguments to jk seem to be centered on certain specifics like they are

or am i attacking your religion too?
you are creationist like jk?

that would explain a lot...

OH yeah... feel free to read my reply to you here
http://phys.org/n...ing.html

and here
http://phys.org/n...ate.html

i will leave you to your "last word" post i know you trolls like
LMFAO
bschott
1 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2015
i will leave you to your "last word" post i know you trolls like
LMFAO


Thank you for your scientific input. LMFAO
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2015
Thanks bshott.

Excerpt: To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6] - See more at: http://www.darwin...WFH.dpuf

See also: Origin of Species http://www.bartleby.com/11/
Darwin repeatedly stressed that "conditions of life" must come before natural selection.

SSgt James Stumpy (USAF retired E-5) reports: "...we in no way claim that mutations in the heritable genome play no role in evolution..." and that others "...simply say they don't like to give attention to those who are so ignorant or delusional, they misrepresent scientific evidence..."

These are people who probably know nothing about Darwin's nutrient-dependent "conditions of life."
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2015


See more at: http://www.darwin...WFH.dpuf

This is what I saw.
"We seek to be non-threatening, practical, and informative, using the technology of the Internet to pose tough questions and seek candid answers about God, Creation, Life, Humanity, Thought, History, and Truth."

"Many people refer to us as "Christians," but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus. Like Jesus, we reject many of the issues found in "organized religion" (man-made attempts to reach God through rules and rituals). Actually, we believe religion has kept more people from the truth than anything in history. Although we reject man-made religion, we consider the personal pursuit of God as paramount in each of our personal life journeys."

http://www.allabo...utus.htm

Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2015


These are people who probably know nothing about Darwin's nutrient-dependent "conditions of life."


@JVK

Darwin's "conditions of life" drive evolution through natural selection over vast time resulting in specialization from common descent. Agreed?
kochevnik
not rated yet Sep 17, 2015
Enlighten us explaining us how the first ever heart appeared, Nobel prize dreamer.
It happened on the first heartbeat
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2015
Darwin's "conditions of life" drive evolution through natural selection...


What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot believes in neo-Darwinian theory? See instead:

The Long Noncoding RNA Pnky Regulates Neuronal Differentiation of Embryonic and Postnatal Neural Stem Cells http://www.scienc...15000636

Excerpt: "...the physical interaction between Pnky and PTBP1 along with the evidence for their genetic interaction is consistent with a model in which they function together in a common molecular pathway."

The common molecular pathway links long non-coding RNAs to microRNAs and links microRNAs to adhesion proteins and cell type differentiation via alternative splicings of pre-mRNA.

All links are common to all living genera in my atoms to ecosystems model of cell type differentiation.
http://figshare.c...s/994281
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2015
Darwin's "conditions of life" drive evolution through natural selection...


What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot believes in neo-Darwinian theory?

There is nothing neo-Darwinian about it.

Evolution by natural selection is from Darwin.

Specialization is from Darwin.

Common descent is from Darwin.

No wonder why JVK flunked out of college.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2015
Evolution by natural selection is from Darwin.


Only a biologically uninformed science idiot would claim that. Darwin knew that "conditions of life" must come before evolution by natural selection.

"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... 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." http://www.huffin...211.html

No wonder why JVK flunked out of college.


That's an interesting claim. Are you claiming that I flunked out because I couldn't be taught to believe in pseudoscientific nonsense? If so, you might know why I dropped out after failing to declare a major. The dean of the biology department agreed to let me stay, but I decided self-study was best.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2015
I purchased the 2 volume set "The Physiology of Reproduction" in 1994 for $900.

In 1995, I published "The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality" with co-author, the late Robert Francoeur. Helen Fisher said this about our book:

"This is science at its best, with adventure, ideas, and lots of facts".
http://books.goog...AAAAIAAJ

Her most recent work is reported here: Team publishes research on attractiveness and mating http://phys.org/n...hes.html

My model links more than just heterosexual attraction to behavior. See: The Mind's Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences http://www.sexarc...kohl.htm

This award-winning work was concurrently published as a book chapter in the "Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality." No one ever asked if natural selection of food was linked from the physiology of reproduction to human sexuality.
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2015
@bschott
For RMQ's inquiry about the heart (and other vital organs) Let's ask Darwin himself...
http://www.darwin...ion.com/
The last paragraph explains a lot....
I don't think that phrase depicts Darwin's stance about the complex organs. Apparently, it was taken out of context on a "christian's" site - as @Vietvet pointed - presenting misleading examples for that theory:
Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly).
Ugh... a couple wings, and the skills for using them, as a "minor genetic mutation" on a "member" of a specie... I think I saw something like that on tv. Not on evolution's documentaries. Probably it was on, hmm... X-Men?
This is taken as an "advantage" and, "consequently", the disadvantaged members of the same species "would gradually die out". No wings, hence extinction? Flippant link.
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2015
@JVK
See also: Origin of Species http://www.bartleby.com/11/
Thanks for that! It provides the context for Darwin's phrase.
I intrigued that you posted this as "in support" of @bschott link.
If you search for the phrase in your link, you shall see, I did it. It worth reading:

"VI. Difficulties of the Theory - Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication"
http://www.bartleby.com/11/6004.html

I liked this part: "if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Well, even today it's hard make people to learn and interpret this work properly. Having to find the words to explain evolution on these times... I don't want even imagine it.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 18, 2015
Thanks bs
@jk
the TROLLS organize?
USAF retired
reading/comprehension fail - still can't get that right after more than 25 posts? it proves you can't read or comprehend basics, you know!
Stumpy ...reports
no, Truck Captain Stumpy SHARED the feedback from a few well known preeminent experimental biologists and REAL scientists regarding your inability to comprehend their studies
they also specifically refuted your "interpretations" but also demonstrated your creationist beliefs as well as inability to read/comprehend
These are people who probably know nothing about
says the troll creationist about actual scientists! imagine that

the only reason you are not being sued for libel is because it would require them to put out money for litigation that they would never see again because you couldn't meet the obligation after being found guilty (their words, not mine)

again: it is PROOF from a scientist you promote PSEUDOSCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2015
@jk cont'd
Lets see the whole context of what i shared from an ACTUAL scientist (Dr.)
I can clarify that although our work does, we hope, provide an example of how nutrition/ecology could affect the evolution of potentially adaptive traits, you [Captain] are right that we in no way claim that mutations in the heritable genome play no role in evolution. Indeed, as you [Captain] correctly state, just because we provide evidence that nutritional conditions play a role, this does not negate a role for mutations. 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
refuting YOUR SPECIFIC COMMENTS, jk!
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2015
...Kohl is mistaken if he is claiming that my study (or Rich Lenski's work) provide evidence AGAINST the role of mutations in evolution


My claim is that ecological variation leads to ecological adaptation via the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding, which links physics and chemistry to biology via the physiology of reproduction. See for examples: http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Having to find the words to explain evolution on these times... I don't want even imagine it.


Nearly all serious scientists gave up trying to explain anything to evolutionary theorists. See: Mae-Wan Ho: No Boundary Really Between Genetic and Epigenetic
http://www.huffin...450.html

Excerpt: "...evolutionary science has now "moved on to such an extent" that she and Peter Saunders don't really care anymore about "trying to convince the neo-Darwinists."
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2015
No wings, hence extinction? Flippant link.


Dobzhansky addressed that kind of nonsense more than 50 years ago in "Biology, molecular and organismic" http://icb.oxford...citation

"The notion has gained some currency that the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is "bird watching" or "butterfly collecting." Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists! I have heard a man whose official title happens to be Professor of Zoology declare to an assembly of his colleagues that "a good man cannot teach zoology. A good man can teach, of course, only molecular biology.

Such pronunciamentos can be dismissed as merely ridiculous. They are, however, caricatures of opinions entertained by some intelligent and reasonable people, whose views deserve an honest and careful consideration and analysis. Science must cope with new problems that arise and devise new approaches..."
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 18, 2015
Re: "...caricatures of opinions entertained by some intelligent and reasonable people..."

Captain Stumpy and other biologically uninformed science idiots place the caricatures of opinions and models of biologically-based RNA-mediated cause and effect into the context of ridiculous theories that link mutations to the evolution of increasing organismal complexity.

See: "...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world. In this view of evolution there is no need of considering teleological elements" (p. 199). http://www.amazon...99661731

Providentially, it was published on the same day as my review: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

See also: Life history as a constraint on plasticity: developmental timing is correlated with phenotypic variation in birds.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2015
Re: Life history as a constraint on plasticity: developmental timing is correlated with phenotypic variation in birds. http://dx.doi.org....2015.47 (subscription required)

Abstract excerpt: "...our results provide some support for the hypothesis that variation in life histories affects how the environment shapes development, through either the expression of plasticity or the release of cryptic genetic variation."

See also: Oppositional COMT Val158Met effects on resting state functional connectivity in adolescents and adults http://link.sprin...4-0895-5

It links the honeybee model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled life history transitions to humans via amino acid substitutions and chromosomal rearrangements. For example, in white-throated sparrow morphs of the same species the differences are manifested in their morphological and behavioral phenotypes. http://www.pnas.o...abstract
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2015
"Birds reveal the evolutionary importance of love" is a foolish title.

"Fitness Benefits of Mate Choice for Compatibility in a Socially Monogamous Species" are nutrient-dependent and controlled by species-specific pheromones in the context of RNA-mediated events linked to cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man via the conserved molecular epigenetics of sexual differentiation we detailed in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review. http://www.hawaii...ion.html

We started with sex differences in the cell types of yeast, and included mention of sexual orientation at a time when others had no ideas about how sexual orientation was genetically predisposed or epigenetically altered via effects on hormones that affect behavioral development.

Most bird-watchers have continued to focus on observations and will continue to miss everything learned by serious scientists about molecular epigenetics.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2015
Dobzhansky addressed that kind of nonsense more than 50 years ago in "Biology, molecular and organismic" http://icb.oxford...citation


I'm glad you're finally quoting that with the correct context. It's only taken you like 3 years.
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2015
No wings, hence extinction? Flippant link.

Dobzhansky addressed that kind of nonsense more than 50 years ago in "Biology, molecular and organismic" http://icb.oxford...citation


What confuses me is that, somewhat, you approved that "flippant" description of Darwin's work from @bschott's link. That "religious introduction" to evolution theory not just employs bad examples but finishes it by almost negating evolution due to "irreducibly complex system": "The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity".
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2015
Presidential Address:
THEODOSIUS DOBZHANSKY

"If the living world has not arisen from common ancestors by means of an evolutionary process, then the fundamental unity of living things is a hoax and their diversity is a joke."

"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way."

https://en.wikipe...volution

JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2015
Re:
...almost negating evolution due to "irreducibly complex system": "The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity".


See: http://www.the-sc...ewiring/ The bacterial flagellum -- also considered to be an example of irreducible complexity -- "re-evolved" over the weekend.

Only two nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions were required in the context of the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction.

Dobzhansky did not live long enough to become a young earth creationist. But he got off to a good start with his claim from 1973 that "...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)" http://img.signal...nsky.pdf
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2015
"The Hawaiian islands are of volcanic origin; they
were never parts of any continent. Their ages are
between 5.6 and 0.7 million years. Before man came
their inhabitants were descendants of immigrants
that had been transported across the ocean by air
currents and other accidental means. A single drosophilid
species, which arrived in Hawaii first, before
there were numerous competitors, faced the challenge
of an abundance of many unoccupied ecologic
niches. Its descendants responded to this challenge
by evolutionary adaptive radiation, the products of
which are the remarkable Hawaiian drosophilids of
today."

http://img.signal...nsky.pdf

Another epic fail for JVK
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2015
Dobzhansky did not live long enough to become a young earth creationist. But he got off to a good start with his claim from 1973 that "...the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin


Are you saying that fact supports a young Earth perspective? It says nothing about timescale.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2015
The young earth creationist perspective is supported by the "re-evolution" of the bacterial flagellum in 4 days. http://www.the-sc...ewiring/

The 4 billion year old earth perspective is not supported by the fact that some bacteria appear to have not changed in ~2 billion years.
http://phys.org/n...ars.html

I have seen no discussion of the discrepancy between ~2 billion years and the 4 days it took for the flagellum to "re-evolve," That attests to the amount of pseudoscientific nonsense that evolutionary theorists have been taught to believe in.

No one is brave enough to comment on the obvious disparity in the context of virus-driven genomic entropy. That may be due to the fact that genomic entropy was supposedly contained via natural selection, but someone needs to make that ridiculous claim before it can be refuted by what is known to serious scientists.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2015
There's no discrepancy. The flagella example was under extreme selective pressure. The unchanging bacteria had an extremely stable environment and therefore had no reason to drastically change.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2015
"The 4 billion year old earth perspective is not supported by the fact that some bacteria appear to have not changed in ~2 billion years."

The 4 billion year old earth doesn't need the support of bacteria.

[PDF] Age of the Earth
G Canyon - basfeijen.nl
The age of the Earth is 4.54±0.05 billion years (4.54× 109 years±1%). This age is based on
evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of
the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the ...
http://www.basfei...arth.pdf

JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2015
...almost negating evolution due to "irreducibly complex system": "The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity".

See: http://www.the-sc...ewiring/ The bacterial flagellum -- also considered to be an example of irreducible complexity -- "re-evolved" over the weekend.

So, the flagellum is of "irreducible complexity": evolution theory is wrong?
But it can "re-evolve": evolution theory is correct?
I know what's your stance. But, I fail to see your point, nor why you reply me with this.
Good links anyway.
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2015
The young earth creationist perspective is supported by the "re-evolution" of the bacterial flagellum in 4 days.
The 4 billion year old earth perspective is not supported by the fact that some bacteria appear to have not changed in ~2 billion years.

You assume that this experiment is proof of Earth's creation conceived "between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago". https://en.wikipe...ationism
And, in the same post, you accept as "fact" a fossil to be dated 2 billion years old.
Quite contradictory, don't you think?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2015
The unchanging bacteria had an extremely stable environment...


In an unstable environment, are you claiming that mutations and natural selection can lead to the evolution of a new species?

The flagella example was under extreme selective pressure.


Are you claiming that four days later the extreme selective pressure led to the "re-evolved" flagellum?

no reason to drastically change.


Do you mean to compare "no reason to drastically change" in ~2 billion years of no observable change to "re-evolution" of an irreducibly complex functional structure, which was observed 4 days later?

Or, are you still waiting for someone to discover an encapsulated ribozyme that links prebiotic chemistry and life via "...a system of heredity and evolution through natural selection." Let me rephrase that question: Do you think you will always be a biologically uninformed science idiot, like Vietvet?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2015
The 4 billion year old earth doesn't need the support of bacteria.


And, in the same post [context], you accept as "fact" a fossil to be dated 2 billion years old.


Thanks for your focus on the selective misrepresentation of what is considered by theorists to be evidence if they exclude experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect.

This [earth] age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.


At what point was the earth not at least partially covered with water? If it were completely covered by water a few thousand years ago, how long would it take for viruses to link entropic elasticity to genomic entropy in all living genera without the nutrient-dependent de novo creation of genes and fixation of amino acid substitutions in the context of the physiology of reproduction, which is linked to all biodiversity?
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2015
@Vietvet
THEODOSIUS DOBZHANSKY
...
https://en.wikipe...volution

"The phrase "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" has come into common use by those opposing creationism or its variant called intelligent design."

Creationism, then Intelligent Design...
Even religion seems to be evolving... most ironic...
Probably, an unavoidable universal tendency.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2015
A single drosophilid
species, which arrived in Hawaii first, before
there were numerous competitors, faced the challenge
of an abundance of many unoccupied ecologic
niches. Its descendants responded to this challenge
by evolutionary adaptive radiation, the products of
which are the remarkable Hawaiian drosophilids of
today."


What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot takes an insect species out of the context of everything known to serious scientists, which links marine invertebrates to crustaceans and insects, and links the hormone-organized and hormone activated behavior of insects to the RNA-mediated life history transitions of the honeybee model organism and humans via amino acid substitutions that determine their cell types?

That was a rhetorical question.

See: Oppositional COMT Val158Met effects on resting state functional connectivity in adolescents and adults http://link.sprin...4-0895-5
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2015
Re: "...the hormone-organized and hormone activated behavior of insects to the RNA-mediated life history transitions..."

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

There's no discrepancy. The flagella example was under extreme selective pressure.


The flagella example was an example of a nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation that links microbes to humans.

We were cited in Organizational and activational effects of hormones on insect behavior http://www.ncbi.n...0980296. It was linked to the honeybee model organism of life history transitions in Honey bees as a model for understanding mechanisms of life history transitions http://www.ncbi.n...5925525.

The honeybee model organism was linked to all of life's biodiversity via the sequencing of the octopus genome: http://dx.doi.org...ure14668
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2015
And, in the same post [context], you accept as "fact" a fossil to be dated 2 billion years old.

Thanks for your focus on the selective misrepresentation of what is considered by theorists to be evidence if they exclude experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect.

Nope. All of that was an attempt to understand, or obtain the essence at least (or find the faintest clue in worst of the cases), of what are you trying to, finally, affirm/ reject/accept/deny/propose/demonstrate/whatever, with most of the quotes and links you have posted.

I retract of this: "I know what's your stance."
The only thing I'm certain in regard to you, by now, is that you love to re-post your links a lot.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2015
The young earth creationist perspective is supported by the "re-evolution" of the bacterial flagellum in 4 days
@jk
1- NO, this does NOT support creationist argument
2- you keep repeating this argument but you have YET to demonstrate you actually understand the study and what happened
3- considering mutations can be beneficial & also take place when pressured (as ANON states), then your argument is invalid
4- your argument is called OPINION, untested claim, metaphysical and it is NOT validated by the study. see also: http://www.auburn...ion.html

IOW- you are spreading PSEUDOSCIENCE
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2015

In an unstable environment, are you claiming that mutations and natural selection can lead to the evolution of a new species?

That has happened just as there are beneficial mutations.

http://phys.org/n...ter.html
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2015
...you love to re-post your links a lot.


That is an interesting claim given what my antagonists continue to do.

Vietvet just again claimed
...there are beneficial mutations.


Someone tells a biologically uninformed science idiot such a thing, and no matter how ridiculous it is in the context of experimental evidence, the biologically uninformed idiot repeats it.

http://www.psmag....lsehoods

Captain Stumpy is even worse:
3- considering mutations can be beneficial...


His champion, Dr. Extavour actually co-authored with serious scientists from Israel. See http://www.scienc...0807.htm

Now that the octopus genome sequencing has linked marine invertebrates to crustaceans and insects via the conserve molecular mechanisms I have detailed, watch how Captain Stumpy responds to my mention of his champion's name in the context of her ignorance.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2015
http://dx.doi.org....1002005

Table S18.
Excerpt: Coordinates, the nucleotide range from the first position of the start codon to the last position of the stop codon in the scaffold; Strand – + is forward and − is reverse; introns, number of introns; ESTs, presence of an EST contig with appropriate splicing in one of the three transcriptome assemblies (F, female; M, male; E, eggs); AAs, number of encoded amino acids in the protein; comments, comments on the OGS gene model, repairs to the genome assembly, and pseudogene status (numbers in parentheses are the number of obvious pseudogenizing mutations)."

My comment: Appropriate alternative splicing links the transcriptome assemblies via amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation and/or mutation-driven pseudogene status. The de novo creation of functional genes is compromised by virus-driven mutations linked to pathology during thermodynamic cycles of protein folding.
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2015
@JVK. That's not a claim but my opinion about your peculiar way for replying.

Letting aside that you have posted interesting links, you made incoherent/contradictory conclusions from some of them. You shall account these for most of the "antagonist" replies you've received. For eg:
Dobzhansky did not live long enough to become a young earth creationist. But he got off to a good start with his claim from 1973 that "...the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin... http://img.signal...nsky.pdf

Is this your suppositon that Dobzhansky would convert to YEC due to newer experiments/discoveries? Is that what you say?

People are in YEC because they "believe in a strict literal interpretation of the Bible". https://en.wikipe...ationism
Not a choice based in scientific evidence but beliefs.
And it's not Dobzhansky's opinion of the Bible, creationism and anti-evolutionist, if you read that paper.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2015
I'm not a theologian, but suspect that nearly all evolutionists are too biologically uninformed to make claims about what others believe.

For example: Neuroscience backs up the Buddhist belief that "the self" isn't constant, but ever-changing, and serious scientists (i.e., biophysicists) showed that the thirst mechanism is an important regulator of neuroscientifically established cause and effect that links atoms to ecosystems via hormone-organized and hormone-activated behaviors. See for example: http://www.cell.c...900958-4

See also: Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems http://figshare.c...s/994281

The hormone-organized and hormone-activated behaviors of all vertebrates are linked via RNA-mediated events and chromosomal rearrangements in birds.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2015
Re: The hormone-organized and hormone-activated behaviors of all vertebrates are linked via RNA-mediated events and chromosomal rearrangements in birds.

Is this your suppositon that Dobzhansky would convert to YEC due to newer experiments/discoveries? Is that what you say?


Thanks for asking in such a way as to mislead others by attempting to put words in my mouth. It's a useless debate tactic except when you want to win the votes of the biologically uninformed.

For me, it attests to the unethical behavior of academics who want to include Dobzhansky's works in their ridiculous theories even after serious scientists reported that the flagellum re-evolved in 4 days.

That is not consistent with Dobzhansky's claim about 10 million years of evolution, or anyone else's claims about mutations, natural selection and evolution. Are you claiming that Dobzhansky's creationist views would not be reinforced by evidence of RNA-mediated cause and effect?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2015
Letting aside that you have posted interesting links...


At the same time, you have laid aside the fact that I have published a series of review articles, a book with an update, and an award-winning book chapter that collectively contain hundreds of links that support a model of biologically-based cause and effect that explains how ecological variation is linked to ecological adaptation in all living genera.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2015
not rated yet 3 minutes ago
"The biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and Fall of man, the Curse on the Creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human government), and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel."
http://www.icr.org/tenets

@JVK

I spent some time at your favorite site, Institute for Creation Research. I don't no whether to laugh or cry. What they consider "science" is worse than a joke. Claiming there is evidence of a world wide flood a few thousands years ago is absolutely delusional.

The only reason for you to share their link is that you share their unscientific beliefs.

YOU ARE A YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2015
Thanks for asking in such a way as to mislead others by attempting to put words in my mouth. It's a useless debate tactic except when you want to win the votes of the biologically uninformed
so... you state and recognize that blatantly LYING about the evidence is a useless tactic, and yet it is your strongest and most common tactic????

this can be proven with your insinuations and deliberate misinterpretations of Lenski, Extavour and every other ACTUAL scientist you've linked to in the past...

you "interpret them" in the context of your religion and then reassign their studies to promote your delusional (masturbating) sky faerie... yet the evidence directly refutes your claims, and even the AUTHORS THEMSELVES have told you this

so, that makes you, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, AND PER YOUR OWN DEFINITION a
biologically uninformed science idiot
isn't that right?
your words, not mine!

PS: your model is debunked as PSEUDOSCIENCE already
see links above
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2015
@Vietvet. "I don't no whether to laugh or cry."
That site almost give me the creeps... :p

Your second link doesn't work. What was it about?
Vietvet
5 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2015
@Vietvet. "I don't no whether to laugh or cry."
That site almost give me the creeps... :p

Your second link doesn't work. What was it about?


The correct link:http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

More idiocy from JVK and his choice of links---numerology, astrology, angels, you know the usual crap.
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2015
@JVK. Your last replies calls for proper clarifications, your interpretation of my comments couldn't be more wrong.
Thanks for asking in such a way as to mislead others by attempting to put words in my mouth

If I were to attempt that, I wouldn't have asked this question: "Is that what you say?"; a chance for clarification, just wasted.
It's a useless debate tactic except when you want to win the votes of the biologically uninformed.

A tactic to win votes? I should have simply "joined the party" against you: easier.
Have I attacked you? "Good links" is the worst I said.
By the way, votes doesn't answers my questions.
..you have laid aside the fact that I have published..

Congratulations, keep it up. I didn't attempted to refute any, not my concern. I question about your very conclusions/assumption/suggestions you made here. Especially about Darwin, Dobzhansky and YEC.

Hope this help you properly understand my comments...
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2015
Dobzhansky's claim about 10 million years of evolution

Not evolution, the Universe's creation. His claims:

Universe's age (outdated):
-"Some cosmologists take the universe to be about 10 billion years old"

Earth's age & life (dating rocks & fossils):
-"The estimates of the age of the earth..... based mainly on radiometric evidence"
-"The origin of life on earth is dated tentatively between 3 and 5 billion years ago"

Evolution & Creationism:
-"It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist."

Are you claiming that Dobzhansky's creationist views would not be reinforced by evidence of RNA-mediated cause and effect?
In case you don't know, Creationism accepts and rejects science theories in different degrees: http://ncse.com/c...ontinuum
Whatever you mean by "reinforced", he wouldn't need to switch.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2015
In case you don't know, Creationism accepts and rejects science theories in different degrees...


But look at how many biologically uninformed science idiot reject Dobzhansky's (1973) claim: "...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)" http://www.jstor..../4444260

Nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated gene duplications and amino acid substitutions differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all living genera via the conserved molecular mechanisms I have helped to detail. The conserved molecular mechanisms link atoms to ecosystems and they are manifested in the context of chromosomal rearrangements and biodiversity in white-throated sparrow morphs.

See: Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes http://www.pnas.o...abstract
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2015
Given everything known to serious scientists about nutrient-dependent chromosomal rearrangements in the context of the physiology of reproduction, the claims that creationists do not include "science" in their accurate representations of biologically-based cause and effect -- after Larry Young linked viruses to the evolution of monogamy in prairie voles and heterosexual human love -- are examples of overwhelming ignorance.

The ignorance can be dated via theosophical renderings and mutation-linked pathology to the ongoing nonsense touted here. For comparison, each of these accurate representations links ecological variation to ecological adaptation.

http://kheper.net..._dna.htm
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://blog.crist...ids-dna/
http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
http://dx.doi.org...ure11690
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2015
Hmm, I see...
In absence of refutal, counter-argument, or counter-question to what I expressed in my comments, I have to conclude that you are not in disagreement to what I stated. This is what I can emphasize in order to obtain, at some extent, an useful outcome to this exchange.

Thus, at this point, based on what I can derive from your comments - conclusions, reiteration of claims and "multi-topic" arguments that are referenced to a variety of links (some of which are partially or completely unrelated)- I have to conclude that this is the best you can do in regard to clarifications. I don't think further arguments may improve this.
No further replies required. Thanks.

------
Sidenote about creationist "science":
Likely, different forms of Creationism have different "standards" for its science. For eg, meet the "Flat-Earthers" an its "science" of describing the world as their bare eyes tell: https://en.wikipe...ocieties
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2015
Re:
The ignorance can be dated via theosophical renderings and mutation-linked pathology to the ongoing nonsense touted here. For comparison, each of these accurate representations links ecological variation to ecological adaptation.


The ignorance has been replaced by what is known to serious scientists about biologically-based cause and effect, which links things like food and water to the physiology of reproduction in all genera via the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry.

For an example of the fact that water is required, see: Activation of G-protein-coupled receptors correlates with the formation of a continuous internal water pathway http://www.nature...733.html

different forms of Creationism have different "standards" for its science.


Phys.org moderators don't allow discussion of the different standards in the context of theories.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2015

Phys.org moderators don't allow discussion of the different standards in the context of theories.

@JVK

LMFAO!

There isn't much moderation at PO though I've noticed you've had comments deleted. If this site was properly moderated you would have been banned long ago.

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2015
Creationists linked viruses to all pathology a few months ago in a publication that the moderators here will not let me cite/link. That's how moderators will continue to block discussion of facts about viruses -- until even biologically uninformed science idiots become aware of those facts.

The New Technique That Finds All Known Human Viruses in Your Blood
http://www.theatl...rce=SFFB

Excerpt: "The results look very promising," says Nick Loman from the University of Birmingham, who was not involved in the study. "Going forward, we can combine techniques like this with portable sequencing and have a diagnostic device which provides incredibly rich data for clinicians and epidemiologists. Ultimately what we would like is an entirely unbiased method that captured all pathogens—known and unknown—with exquisite sensitivity."
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2015
For comparison, I will never stop linking to this video. It links viruses to the evolution of prairie vole monogamy and human heterosexual love. https://www.youtu...04x6MvMY
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2015
Creationists linked viruses to all pathology a few months ago...
@jk
you state that your religion has linked viruses to ALL PATHOLOGY, therefore you should be easily able to demonstrate this by linking the virus that links the pathology after heavy bombardment or radiation exposure, right?
so... what actual virus was involved with the massive death toll of Nagasaki and Heroshima after the detonation of the bombs?
the moderators here will not let me cite/link
! it's never stopped you before
2- PSEUDOSCIENCE and religion are NOT SCIENCE
That's how moderators will continue to block discussion of facts about viruses
no, thats how moderators block PSEUDOSCIENCE... it's too bad they haven't yet deleted all your personal sites and links from PO too

i can prove, with one link, that your comment "Creationists linked viruses" is wrong and has NO SCIENTIFIC MERIT:
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2015
I will never stop linking to this video
linking to video's because you can't find supporting evidence in science is just another tactic you've used to obfuscate actual science, biology and reality... it is also why you link religious sites and pseudoscience instead of being able to prove your comments or actually answer questions you still haven't been able to address, even though you commented and proclaimed a link/cause

.

Let me try some kohl-slaw word salads... except that i will be far more technically accurate than jk ever has been!

Utilisation of a member of the paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits for physical assault and battery in a widespread cross-cultural art form that generally involves choreographed movement of the body, often rhythmic, and to music
https://www.youtu...Qp-q1Y1s

JVK
1 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2015
For comparison to the viruses lead to the evolution of human heterosexual love, see

https://www.youtu...0le52U20

Greg Bear at the Center for Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology at the University of Texas at Dallas, February 27th, 2013.
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2015
Utilisation of a member of the paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits for physical assault and battery in a widespread cross-cultural art form that generally involves choreographed movement of the body, often rhythmic, and to music
https://www.youtu...Qp-q1Y1s

Ah.. Monty Python! very funny moments watching at "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1975). The "rabbit monster" and the "bridge-keeper" my favs.
Hope someone will not attempt to make "science" with it too; Greg Bear is being subject to lots of bad publicity here already.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2015
Greg Bear at the Center for Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology at the University of Texas at Dallas, February 27th, 2013 is readily linked to this accurate representation of everything currently known to serious scientists about the difference between healthy longevity and virus-driven pathology in the context of precision medicine.

https://www.youtu...G_9EEeeA

See also: https://youtu.be/yGYTLOGZ40U
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2015
you can't find supporting evidence in science


I reiterate: See also: https://youtu.be/yGYTLOGZ40U
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2015
you can't find supporting evidence in science


I reiterate: See also: https://youtu.be/yGYTLOGZ40U
and i also "reiterate"
linking to video's because you can't find supporting evidence in science is just another tactic you've used to obfuscate actual science, biology and reality... it is also why you link religious sites and pseudoscience instead of being able to prove your comments or actually answer questions you still haven't been able to address, even though you commented and proclaimed a link/cause
Youtube is NOT a peer reviewed journal
youtube is NOT a scientific journal at all
linking to youtube as evidence is like linking to 4chan/b/ as a News outlet

reported for pseudoscience
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2015
See also http://phys.org/n...ogy.html

The code
is counterintuitive to natural selection.


All neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific nonsense has been eliminated from consideration by serious scientists.

See: Mechanisms of stress in the brain http://dx.doi.org.../nn.4086
There is no mention of mutations or evolution.

See also: Molecular insights into transgenerational non-genetic inheritance of acquired behaviours
http://www.nature...eReviews

Excerpt: Possible mechanisms... during development and adulthood are considered along with...the involvement of epigenetic modifications and non-coding RNAs in male germ cells.

I have requested a reprint to see if they include theory or mechanisms.

The detailed molecular mechanisms of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in McEwen et al., can be compared to the possible mechanisms in Bohacek & Mansuy.

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.