The hidden evolutionary relationship between pigs and primates revealed by genome-wide study of transposable elements

September 23, 2015 by John Hewitt report
The hidden evolutionary relationship between pigs and primates revealed by genome-wide study of transposable elements
Secondary structure of ALU RNAs. Credit: rna.berkeley.edu/translation.html

(Phys.org)—In the past, geneticists focused primarily on the evolution of genes in order to trace the relationships between species. More recently, genetic elements called SINEs (short interspersed elements) have emerged as a much better way to trace mammalian phylogeny, at least in the time since its massive radiation some 60 million years ago. That's because the prolific SINE family evolved differently in every lineage to become widespread throughout the entire genome of each. But SINEs are more than just highly mobile markers, they have specific functions—functions which researchers are now decoding to understand not just how, but why they move about like they do.

In humans, the most familiar and abundant SINE is the Alu transposable element. Originally derived from a small cytoplasmic signal recognition conglomerate known as the 7SL RNA, Alu inserts have since propagated themselves to generate an extended family over a million strong representing 11% of our entire genome. With the exception of the Alu inserts in the primate superfamily (and one seemingly anomalous occurrence of the 'B1' SINE the rat) all other SINEs were believed to have been derived from tRNAs rather than the 7SL RNA.

A recent paper published in the bioRxiv now suggests that another species—the pig—has a unique family of SINEs whose evolution has closely paralleled ours. This collaboration between researchers from China, and Firefly Bioworks Inc. here in the US, reports that the swine SINE known as PRE-1 (for porcine repeat element), also likely derives from 7SL RNA. This work potentially pushes back the divergence time of 7SL RNA products to 80-100 million years ago—a re-adjustment that would presumably ground the 7SL RNA diversification or hybridization events to a place before the so-called boreoeutherians diversified into Laurasiatheria and Euarchontoglires.

The hidden evolutionary relationship between pigs and primates revealed by genome-wide study of transposable elements
Credit: overlay by Eugene McCarthy

Who and exactly what were these generously-named beasts you might be asking yourself? The Laurasiatheria are the placental mammals believed to have hailed from the northern supercontinent of Laurasia after it split from Gondwana when Pangaea broke up. Their sister group, the Euarchontoglires, are the Supraprimates. These consensus classifications were made using the larger family of retrotransposons of which SINEs, and longer related LINEs, are themselves members of.

In the pig genetics business, the preferred classification term for the family is 'suidae'. Suidae PRE elements have been known since their original discovery back in 1987. The researchers identified the PRE1 element as a polymorphic insertion in the 5'-flanking region (about 686~985 bp upstream from the transcription initiator ATG codon) of the insulin growth factor binding protein (IGFBP7). Postulating that this 300 base pair insert sequence might be related to Alu inserts, they compared it with representative primate Alu sequences selected from the AF-1 database (software.iiar.res.in/af1/index.html). Incidentally, we should note that pig geneticists don't have a monopoly on the term PRF-1. In related areas of pursuit, like drosophila genetics for example, a search for 'PRE-1' might be just as likely to return 'photoreceptor regulatory element 1'.

The researchers were able to identify additional PRE-1 elements using a 'BLAST' search of similar sequences. They also were able to predict the secondary assembled structure of PRE-1 RNA using RNAstructure Webservers ( rna.urmc.rochester.edu/RNAstructureWeb/Servers/Predict1/Predict1.html ). The upshot of all this work, in the author's own words, is that the 'genomic performance of PRE-1 in terms of 7SL RNA-derived SINEs seemed convincing enough to classify the suidae into a family mainly inhabited by primates'.

It has not escaped our attention that many readers of physorg who may have availed themselves of our previous coverage of the human hybrid origins theory, and a later follow up report, might come to premature conclusions here. With that in mind, I talked the creator of the hybrid origins theory, Eugene McCarthy, to get his take on this new research. He had this to say:

"People have been congratulating me on this SINE study as if it somehow proved the hybrid theory of human origins. That's nice of them, but it's just one run in a nine-inning game. True, it does show that pigs are more closely related to primates than has generally been thought, which in turn suggests that a hybrid cross between pig and chimpanzee is more feasible than many have supposed. But to establish whether we're actually descendants of an ancient cross between pig and chimpanzee, will require a detailed search of the human genome, not just a study of SINEs. I've explained the relevant issues in a recent rebuttal of some of the most common criticisms of the hybrid theory. It's not as simple as some people like to think."

Explore further: New research about human genetic diseases and human development

More information: biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/08/31/025791.full.pdf

Related Stories

Orangutans harbor ancient primate Alu

April 30, 2012

Alu elements infiltrated the ancestral primate genome about 65 million years ago. Once gained an Alu element is rarely lost so comparison of Alu between species can be used to map primate evolution and diversity. New research ...

Jumping genes have essential biological functions

February 19, 2015

"Alu" sequences are small repetitive elements representing about 10% of our genome. Because of their ability to move around the genome, these "jumping genes" are considered as real motors of evolution. However, they were ...

How does a mobile DNA sequence find its target?

May 5, 2015

To understand how transposable elements shape genomes, where they are maintained over generations, it is vital to discover the mechanisms behind their targeted integration. Researchers from the Laboratoire Pathologie et Virologie ...

Recommended for you

Mitosis study finds potential cancer target

August 30, 2016

Structural biologists show in a new study that an apparently key step in the process of cell division depends on a unique interaction among specific proteins, including one that is strongly linked to cancer. Their hope now ...

Kiwi birds younger than originally thought, research shows

August 30, 2016

New Zealand's kiwi may be one of the world's oddest birds – flightless, nocturnal, an enigmatic dirt digger with nostrils at the end of its long bill. But the national symbol also has a lot to tell the world about evolution ...

139 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cgsperling
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2015
Please don't give McCarthy any airtime. He is a known crank.
johnhew
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2015
Except the thing about your 'Tree of Life' is that it only tells you things that you don't know
verkle
Sep 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Nova-Solaris
5 / 5 (14) Sep 23, 2015
Verkle, you are reading an article directly discussing evolution and yet you still come to the conclusion that the article is somehow discrediting itself. It just be hard being you
Koolokamba
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2015
"The pig with its little blue eyes, its eyelashes and its skin has more human qualities than any chimpanzee — think how often naked human beings remind us of swine." — Thomas Mann, The Confessions of Felix Krull
Koolokamba
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2015
Please don't give McCarthy any airtime. He is a known crank.


Known to the bigots and lynch mob as such, yes. But those who prefer such things as freedom of speech and trial by jury have not yet returned a verdict.
Egleton
2.5 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2015
In America everything is about the man, not the substance of his thoughts. His work is judged on it's political correctness. Is he one of the good old boys or not?
That nation has sunk to the level of imbeciles.
I wonder if there is a correlation between the genetically modified "food" that they foist upon themselves and their emotional maturity.?
Koolokamba
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2015
Please don't give McCarthy any airtime. He is a known crank.

"Such is the pride, the stupid prejudice and folly that rules the hour."
—Frederick Douglass
http://www.macroe...ero.html
kkett
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2015
Very interesting article. Who knew: that apparently the closest relatives of primates are pigs. Thanks for the write-up.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2015
A quote from the linked earlier article:

As the increasing apparent, magnificent, speed with which morphological change can occur continues to present itself for us to comprehend, the standard theory of random mutation followed by slow environmental selection, seems to stall.


In other words, evolutionists' theory has come up against a wall.

Time to discard it. Permanently.

Your quoted excerpt says "stall", not "wall".
Had your Vision checked, lately?

Whydening Gyre
3.8 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2015
In America everything is about the man, not the substance of his thoughts. ...

Aren't the substance of his thoughts what makes the man?
VCRAGAIN
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2015
I for one am very interested in the concept of the pig-chimp relationship and wonder what is the problem with a fresh suggestion in the subject of our origins. No-one is claiming anything other than 'maybe we should pay attention to this idea', as if any science can ever be said to be final anyway. The problem is that once something becomes generally accepted, and now is taught in schools as 'fact', no-one realizes how many questions there could be with the concept since the general public is not taught to question. In fact kids are being taught by those who already have it second-hand as 'fact'. Free thinking is still alive in some scientists, and should be applauded. I feel sorry for the closed minded folks with no sense of adventure left !!
Check out http://www.macroe...ins.html for the full story - a mind-blowing theory.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2015
Koola,
Your "1"s don't intimidate me - I have daughters...

To continue;
the fact that human evolution parallels ANYthing, should come as no surprise. All life comes from the same "egg"...
EnricM
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2015
A quote from the linked earlier article:

As the increasing apparent, magnificent, speed with which morphological change can occur continues to present itself for us to comprehend, the standard theory of random mutation followed by slow environmental selection, seems to stall.


In other words, evolutionists' theory has come up against a wall.

Time to discard it. Permanently.


Well, Nope.
It actually just says that instead of slow selection this selection may be quick instead of slow and paulatine. Or that besides of mutation there may be horizontal transfer.

Your Allah is still out of teh game, sorry ;)
Mingx
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2015
cgsperling says McCarthy is a 'known crank'. And who are these people that decide who is a crank, and on what basis? Not on any that have scientific legitimacy. He presents powerful evidence and stands as a leading expert on hybridization, about which cgsperling and his motley crew probably know zilch. I don't see a crank in McCarthy. I see a scientist..one that is properly intrepid. Willing to be laughed at and mocked for years, and outcast if necessary (and it was), if it either be that or failing the standard of integrity of a scientist. All too rare these days isn't it, in the 'mainstream'. Bunch of careerists for the most part.

siberiancat
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2015
This is a very exciting development! Hopefully more researchers will be motivated to take Dr.McCarthy's hypothesis seriously, and come up with ways to poke at it.
Zzzzzzzz
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2015
Verkle, you are reading an article directly discussing evolution and yet you still come to the conclusion that the article is somehow discrediting itself. It just be hard being you


Terribly hard - imagine a existence in which you are driven every waking moment to vigorously defend a fragile illusion, or I should say delusion, so you are compelled to frantically peruse all available communication forms for information you can desperately twist to your purpose. As soon as one bit of information is subverted, another must be found and subverted, in a never ending, unrelenting process. The only release? Death.........
Zzzzzzzz
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2015
In America everything is about the man, not the substance of his thoughts. ...

Aren't the substance of his thoughts what makes the man?

How do you explain Donald Trump?
cgsperling
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2015
Not pride. Not suppression of free speech. Simple science.

P.Z. Myers explains in clear terms why McCarthy's idea is nonsense.
http://scienceblo...sapiens/
antigoracle
3.5 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2015
Now when a woman calls you a pig, you can return the compliment.
Smithder
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2015
McCarthy a crank? Well, by the standards of historically important cranks like Darwin, then yes, he is a crank. Just like Darwin, he is standing up against extant scientific thinking (which has some glaring holes that it is best not to study too hard), and offering a thoroughly plausible explanation that just happens to fit the facts, whilst reflecting what nature is doing all around us. Great scientific breakthroughs are built on the backs of the courage and far sighted intellect of cranks like these.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2015
IMHO, some pig DNA or genes were used in the bioengineering process to create us out of cro-magnon and/or related species 13 thousand or so years ago. This was probably done in a process of increasing our disease resistance, among other things. That we do not have hooves or fangs means nothing. However, the Bible, the oldest book in the world, contains a prohibition against eating pigs in chapter 16 of the Book of Leviticus. No one knows who wrote that book, suggesting the possibility the Bible in some form was given Adam along with an education in a language maybe now forgotten by our bioengineers who modified us to be able to contain souls, cells of God; and gave us our souls. Prior to the Garden of Eden, our earthly predecessors had none. After hybridization with our alien ancestors in carrying out the Great Commissioin, we DID have souls.. Our real genetics is as much off world as on it. AS we enter space, that duty to carry on becomes ours too, our duty as cells of GOD.
Koolokamba
2.7 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2015
Not pride. Not suppression of free speech. Simple science.

P.Z. Myers explains in clear terms why McCarthy's idea is nonsense.


And here's why Myers' way of thinking (and that of his intellectual ally Dr. Prothero) appears more dogmatic than scientific: http://www.macroe...ero.html
lucaturin
2.9 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2015
@cgsperling Airtime? Crank? You silly, terrified little censor.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Sep 24, 2015
That we do not have hooves or fangs means nothing
@osiris
1- yes, we do have fangs, just not very long: they're called Canine teeth
2- we have a lot of the same bones in different developmental and evolved states, so their "hooves" are simply evolved phalanges/tarsals
the Bible, the oldest book in the world
no, only the oldest continuous published one: proto-Elamite & Chinese texts (etc) have been found far older
a prohibition against eating pigs
for being unclean, like shellfish and bottom feeder fish (catfish). this is just about religion, not anything else. don't read into it something that isn't there
No one knows who wrote that book
the biblical authors are known and attributed (also falsely attributed)
there is NO science in it's pages
After hybridization with our alien ancestors
i would ask for sources but this is delusional religious trolling and thus has NO source that can be validated, pretty much just like the bible
Open Minded Skeptic
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2015
This is an interesting addition to the body of science around the pig-chimp hybrid theory. I urge the critics to use scientific arguments to refute it, rather than mud-slinging or emotion. This theory is an uncomfortable one to consider, but that does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. Certainly it is unwarranted to dismiss Dr. McCarthy as anything other than a serious scientist, which he certainly is, and a brave one, at that. Whether his theory is wholly or partially correct is a matter for serious study, not vilification.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2015
This is an interesting addition to the body of science around the pig-chimp hybrid theory. I urge the critics to use scientific arguments to refute it, rather than mud-slinging or emotion. This theory is an uncomfortable one to consider, but that does not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. Certainly it is unwarranted to dismiss Dr. McCarthy as anything other than a serious scientist, which he certainly is, and a brave one, at that. Whether his theory is wholly or partially correct is a matter for serious study, not vilification.

Best comment in the thread...
No one seriously thinks pigs and chimps mated. Just that they have a common ancestry somewhere back in time.
johnhew
2 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2015
^ Say how do you know so much about the intimate lives of swine and chimps?
Evocatus
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2015
I possess a SUNY Stony Brook (DPAS) doctorate in anthropological sciences, and have followed the macroevolution web page cited above for more than a year. McCarthy's hybrid hypothesis is elegantly elaborated and carefully integrated into the state-of-the-art genetics of our times. But much better than that, his work exhibits fine craft, rigorous scientific method, rare synthetic applications, fair intellectual play, and above all, readability. Stodgy naysayers run the risk of looking like the very kind of fundamentalists they loathe. The article cited here demonstrates that the inter-ordinal crossover of chimps and pigs is not as great as once supposed. Larger genetic chasms may have been breached. I invite any vaguely open readers to enjoy themselves, and play along with a paradigm shift that McCarthy suggests. BTW he is not wedded to his theory; he does appear to think that play may precede intellectual matrimony, and, unlike the puritanical american academic liaisons, even follow.
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2015
Thanks for mentioning the "tree of life" nonsense, John Hewitt. Others, see: http://phys.org/n...ies.html

See also: Physiologists uncover a new code at the heart of biology http://phys.org/n...ogy.html

Re:
P.Z. Myers explains in clear terms why McCarthy's idea is nonsense.


Little PeeZee is a biologically uninformed science idiot who attacked me for my claims about RNA-mediated events linked to chromosomal rearrangements and biodiversity shortly before publication of the article that supported my claims.

See: http://www.pnas.o...abstract Excerpt: "...our results illustrate a detailed chain of events linking a chromosomal rearrangement to changes in overt social behavior."

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

http://scienceblo...-aliens/
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2015
Can anyone else explain the link from short interspersed elements to nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all living genera via the physiology of reproduction, which enables fixation of the amino acid substitutions?

I've been focusing more on the biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding since the octopus genome sequencing linked microRNAs and adhesion proteins to cell type differentiation in insects and mammals via the conserved molecular mechanisms we detailed in the molecular epigenetics section of our 1996 review: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html

Excerpt: "Small intranuclear proteins also participate in generating alternative splicing techniques of pre-mRNA and, by this mechanism, contribute to sexual differentiation in at least two species..."
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2015
Thanks to "Evocatus" for mentioning this. See also: http://www.macroe...nts.html

A quick glance suggests McCarthy is focusing some effort on epigenetic links to biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding stability in organized genomes. I saw no mention of amino acid substitutions but it seems clear that he has developed a model for comparison to mine.

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
JVK
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2015
Anyone who looks at the related articles from 2010 and 2011 will find information linked to why I have tried to include a "creationist" perspective on viruses and perturbed RNA-mediated cell type differentiation, which appears to be linked to all pathology.

See also: Greg Bear - Doctors on the Front Lines: Adjusting Patient Care in an Age of Changing Paradigms https://www.youtu...0le52U20

Anytime I have linked to the "creationist" literature on viruses and pathology, the moderators here have removed the post and claimed it was pseudoscience. You're about to see what that term means.

It applies to the entirety of neo-Darwinian theory, which has never been based on experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect.
FainAvis
4 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2015
Widening Gyre - I think if you read McCarthy more closely you would realise he is indeed saying a kind of pigs did contribute genes by hybridisation with an ancestor of chimps. It even has a scientific name - horizontal gene transfer.
-------
Most often hybridisation may be between organisms who are more closely related than pigs and chimps. But perhaps once in a thousand pig chimp matings brings a monstrous runt into the world, and once in a hundred of those runts may carry a fetus to term. It is called back-crossing. The pig need not come anywhere near the back-crosses.
So who are the fathers? Why chimps of course. But a new strain of offspring will develop which carry just a few genes from pig. And after a time there will be one or more male backcrosses born, who is fertile to the backcross females.
Then normal evolution can do its experiments with new genes contributed by pig.
You may say this is against the odds, but they are odds evolution can work with.

Evocatus
5 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2015
So it seems, JVK, please do contact him! No tin foil hat communications needs be utilized, I assure you.
Evocatus
5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2015
FainAvis, But of course you are right: "hopeful monsters" raised up by chance mutations, made fertile and fruitful, (the very EXTRA stuff of Darwinian natural selection processes) are much LESS likely than fertile backcrosses as outlined by McCarthy.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2015
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model
http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/
FainAvis
5 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2015
You should all realise that the people doing the science reported in the current article may or may not have even heard of McCarthy. I wonder if he is cited anywhere.
Yet McCarthy would be pleased, I am sure, with the implications here made.
What are transposable elements anyway? What do these particular TE code for?
Vietvet
4 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2015
Anyone who looks at the related articles from 2010 and 2011 will find information linked to why I have tried to include a "creationist" perspective on viruses and perturbed RNA-mediated cell type differentiation, which appears to be linked to all

@JVK

You include "creationists" perspectives because you are a young earth creationist.

FainAvis
5 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2015
JVK - McCarthy is not a creationist. That can easily be deduced from one fact - in the whole of his website, and I have read most of it, I cannot see a single instance of an appeal to any godlike entity.
Smithder
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2015
When we talk here about very low probabilities, perhaps we are not thinking quite how low this probability is.

The Gorilla has two important indicators that it is a recent hybrid i) its fertility is almost non viable typical of an organism whose genome has not yet stabilised, and ii) as far as I am aware, no fossils of the gorilla have been found.

Then there is us, not quite so infertile as the Gorilla, and we do have a few young fossils. But beyond us, there have only been a dozen or so other hominid type hybrids over the course of several million years. An almost staggeringly remote probability.

It seems to be this virtual improbability, that most people have a problem with. We can accept plants hybridising naturally all around us, and cats and dogs and mallards hybridising in profusion, but the more distant the cross, the harder it seems for us to accept.

But as FainAvis pointed out - these are odds that evolution can (and clearly does) work with.
Mingx
4 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2015
"You should all realise that the people doing the science reported in the current article may or may not have even heard of McCarthy. I wonder if he is cited anywhere. "

It's implausible they would write a pig/human paper without googling at least once 'pig/human'. It was such a tiny and derided niche until recently, you can't google relevant key words and not have McCarthy land on your lap.

No. They didn't cite and that's wrong. And on some level they knew.
Koolokamba
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2015
A quick glance suggests McCarthy is focusing some effort on epigenetic links to biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding stability in organized genomes. I saw no mention of amino acid substitutions but it seems clear that he has developed a model for comparison to mine.


JVK is mistaken here. There is no discussion whatsoever of "epigenetic links" on www.macroevolution.net.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2015
A quick glance suggests McCarthy is focusing some effort on epigenetic links to biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding stability in organized genomes. I saw no mention of amino acid substitutions but it seems clear that he has developed a model for comparison to mine.


JVK is mistaken here. There is no discussion whatsoever of "epigenetic links" on http://www.macroevolution.net.


That's JVK being JVK, hardly a day goes by without him falsely claiming the work of others is linked to his pseudoscience.
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2015
What are transposable elements anyway? What do these particular TE code for?


See: "The Darwin Code: Intelligent Design without God" http://rna-mediat...eg-bear/

JVK - McCarthy is not a creationist.


What difference does that make? He is obviously biologically informed.

JVK is mistaken here. There is no discussion whatsoever of "epigenetic links" on www.macroevolution.net.


That may explain why he has not yet linked RNA-mediated events from ecological variation to ecological adaptation. Obviously, that's what he is doing. You didn't watch the Greg Bear video, did you?

you can't google relevant key words and not have McCarthy land on your lap.


You can't google "RNA mediated" without having accurate representations of biologically-based cause and effect land on your head and beat you into the ground until you start to pay attention to the information.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2015
/rna-mediat...eg-bear/
WARNING!! PHISHING & PSEUDOSCIENCE CREATIONIST SITE
reported
land on your head and beat you into the ground until you start to pay attention to the information
repeating a lie and proselytizing a religion on a science site is no way to promote science
the reason your creationist links get deleted (sometimes) is because there is NO SCIENCE in the creationist movement, and that is not speculation, but proven:
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

creationists are a fanatical religion that is trying to establish power through political power and obfuscation of science. if ever there was a time when it was possible to establish itself, it would be in a court where there are far lass constraints on the definitions of science, and they failed

JVK
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2015
Re:
in a court where there are far lass constraints on the definitions of science


Only a biologically uninformed science idiot would continue to focus on "definitions of science" instead of experimental evidence of biologically-based cause effect.

creationists are a fanatical religion


WARNING!! PHISHING & PSEUDOSCIENCE CREATIONIST SITE


See for comparison: DNA from Neandertal relative may shake up human family tree http://news.scien...ily-tree

The senior author of this unpublished work published "Natural Selection on the Olfactory Receptor Gene Family in Humans and Chimpanzees" http://linkinghub...07620138 -- more than a decade ago.

The de novo creation of genes is the problem for evolutionary theorists since a single RNA-mediated amino acid substitution differentiates the cell types of 2 primate species from gorillas.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
instead of experimental evidence of biologically-based cause effect
@jk
but, i am not the one ignoring Lenski, Dr. Extavour, Dr, Whittaker or the hundreds of other researchers who demonstrated you are wrong and validated (as well as continue to validate) things like: beneficial mutations, evolution, mutation, etc
see also: http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

http://extavourlab.com/

http://beacon-center.org/

need more?ignoring evidence is all you, speed-racer

lets be perfectly clear:
IF you wanted to answer the questions AND
IF you had legitimate evidence AND
IF you actually could produce valid scientific evidence:
YOU WOULD have explained and linked your argument here on PO with the legitimate links to reputable peer reviewed journals that contained validated info

HOWEVER, you are linking your personal site! this means you are:
-PHISHING
-targeting certain people and seeking specific info about them
-intentionally leading people into PSEUDOSCIENCE
JVK
1.1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2015
i am not the one ignoring Lenski, Dr. Extavour, Dr, Whittaker


Others are ignoring your ridiculous interpretations of their works, which is what you should also have started doing instead of continuing your attacks on serious scientists who have detailed links from RNA-mediated events to cell type differentiation in all cell types of all individuals of all living genera via the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent protein folding chemistry.

See also: New methodology tracks changes in DNA methylation in real time at single-cell resolution http://medicalxpr...eal.html

you are linking your personal site! this means you are: -PHISHING


I am linking to http://rna-mediated.com/ and to my FB group https://www.faceb...ediated/ because that is where the most accurate representations of what is known to serious scientists can be found.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2015
Also, if I linked to a google search for "RNA mediated" the result would be somewhat the same. But everywhere else, the information about RNA-mediated cause and effect is more scattered.

https://www.googl...mediated

Obviously, most individual articles are not going to link physics, chemistry, and biology via molecular epigenetics at a time when biologically uninformed science idiots think that they can challenge everything known to serious scientists with their ridiculous claims about mutations and evolution.
AGreatWhopper
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
You ignorant red neck, do you really think that if you just copy and paste the same stupid spammy creationist bullshit EVERY.GOD.DAMNED.TIME that it'll finally stick? I'm going to go take a dump on a church's stoop. That's about the only thing your spammy trolling is going to produce.

This collaboration between researchers from China, and Firefly Bioworks Inc. here in the US, reports...


Are they just publishing media releases? Who wrote that story? In what sense is PO "here in the US"?
AGreatWhopper
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2015
imterrifiedofalgore wrote:

Now when a woman calls you a pig, you can return the compliment.


You must hear that a lot. But, still, that's no way to talk about your mother.
AGreatWhopper
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2015
but it's just one run in a nine-inning game. True, it does show that pigs are more closely related to primates than has generally been thought, which in turn suggests that a hybrid cross between pig and chimpanzee is more feasible than many have supposed. But to establish whether we're actually descendants of an ancient cross between pig and chimpanzee, will require a detailed search of the human genome, not just a study of SINEs


The tinfoil brigade on here demonstrate this over and over, that they have no appreciation of scale. A quart of water to cross a 50 mile desert puts you closer to your goal, but you're still going to die.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
The thirst mechanism has also been linked from virus perturbed protein folding to death by dehydration.

http://www.ncbi.n...3771450/
"Alternative splicing (AS) is one of the key processes involved in the regulation of gene expression in eukaryotic cells. AS catalyzes the removal of intronic sequences and the joining of selected exons, thus ensuring the correct processing of the primary transcript into the mature mRNA. The combinatorial nature of AS allows a great expansion of the genome coding potential, as multiple splice-variants encoding for different proteins may arise from a single gene. Splicing is mediated by a large macromolecular complex, the spliceosome, whose activity needs a fine regulation exerted by cis-acting RNA sequence elements and trans-acting RNA binding proteins (RBP). The activity of both core spliceosomal components and accessory splicing factors is modulated by their reversible phosphorylation."
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
This is the only forum I know about where comments like these (below) appear but comments that link creationist views about viruses and/or other accurate representations of biologically-based cause and effect are removed by moderators who claim my comments are pseudoscience.

You ignorant red neck, do you really think that if you just copy and paste the same stupid spammy creationist bullshit EVERY.GOD.DAMNED.TIME that it'll finally stick? I'm going to go take a dump on a church's stoop. That's about the only thing your spammy trolling is going to produce.


Are they just publishing media releases? Who wrote that story? In what sense is PO "here in the US"?


The companion papers were published last month in "Science Magazine."

For comparison, John Hewitt wrote: "It has not escaped our attention that many readers of physorg who may have availed themselves of our previous coverage of the human hybrid origins theory...." He fact checked this report.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
See also: 2013 http://phys.org/n...ans.html

Excerpt: The role of hybridization in driving morphological change... [manifested] particularly in his studies of avian species (Oxford University Press, 2006), may be the most powerful mechanism of all.

Hewitt's reporting predicted this finding: http://icb.oxford...abstract Excerpt: "Neural sensitivity to sex steroids may differ between the morphs because the gene for estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) has been captured by a chromosomal rearrangement found only in the WS birds."

See for comparison this report by Carl Zimmer: http://www.nytime...tml?_r=1

Excerpt 1)
Food is a powerful force in evolution.

Excerpt 2)
Natural selection is the only known way this gene variant could have become so common in the Inuit.


What was naturally selected?

Zimmer is consistently wrong.
cgsperling
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
...And the cranks all feed off of each other while they all rally around McCarthy. Very entertaining. The deep-seated resentment against people who actually have brains and actually get an education and actually have the patience to do real science gets them boiling. They want to be at that level, but they can't, so they have to resort to trying to drag mainstream science down to their level. But now I am out of popcorn....
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
See also: 2013 http://phys.org/n...nce.html

John Hewitt reported: "While the reduction in fertility associated with large differences of this sort is often severe, the existence of fertile hybrids, particularly in backcrosses, invalidates this objection."

White-throated sparrow morphs exemplify that fact in the context of differences in morphological phenotypes and differences in behavioral phenotypes that are obviously nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in the same species.

Let's compare that fact to what Zimmer reported. I asked
What was naturally selected?
and mentioned that
Zimmer is consistently wrong.


Zimmer, however, is a popular award-winning science journalist who consistently frames his reports to appeal to biologically uninformed science idiots.

He claims:
…natural selection may well favor those of us with genetic mutations that help us thrive on it.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
Re:
…natural selection may well favor those of us with genetic mutations that help us thrive on it.


The accumulation of viruses causes the perturbed protein folding that links mutations to pathology.

If you agree with Zimmer that natural selection links genetic mutations that help us thrive, you have not done any fact checking. Fact checking makes the difference between being merely biologically uninformed and being a biologically uninformed science idiot.

Many people like to believe in anyone who believes they are not a biologically uninformed science idiot, That's why science journalists like John Hewitt may not become as popular as science journalists like Carl Zimmer. There will always be more biologically uninformed science idiots than serious scientists and there will always be fewer science journalists who can report the works of serious scientists.
FainAvis
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2015
cgsperling - Once again JVK has hijacked the comments here. I am sure McCarthy would have zero interest in JVK's opinions about anything. JVK is a mere pest on this site and never contributes a single sentence that is intelligent or interesting. He interjects on every topic with his nonsense. He dribbles bombast and conceit and never knows when to give it a rest.
johnhew
3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
Zimmer I am sure is a good man, yet he and and his ilk are entirely devoid of imagination
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2015
Thanks, John. Obviously, PZ Myers and his ilk are not like Zimmer. Myers placed McCarthy's claims into this imaginative misrepresentation:

http://scienceblo...sapiens/

He concluded "McCarthy's hypothesis is that once upon a time, these two met and had sex,"

That's the type of claim that continues to support the nonsense touted by the biologically uninformed, including science journalists like Zimmer. PZ Myers attacked me for my claims about chromosomal rearrangements after attacking McCarthy for views that meet the criteria for linking biophysically constrained cell type differentiation via RNA-mediated events in all living genera.

http://freethough...s-place/ He prefaced his attack with this: Evolution was all due to chromosome rearrangements, which somehow are not mutations, and he also somehow ignored the existence of..."
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2015
Re:
Evolution was all due to chromosome rearrangements...


PZ Myers and others are too ignorant to understand the fact that nutrient-dependent chromosomal rearrangements link the physiology of reproduction to RNA-mediated ecological adaptations.

What organisms eat typically prevents mutation-driven pathology via RNA-mediated DNA repair, and chromosomal rearrangements exemplify how fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions stabilizes the organized genomes of all species during their life history transitions which extend across generations.

When individuals eat too much, or are exposed to toxic substances in what they eat, viruses proliferate and insert their viral microRNAs into organized genomes to cause nutrient-stress linked pathologies. Even chicken may not be safe given the report that nearly half of the 50 chicken meat samples purchased from markets and butchers in Austria contained viruses linked to cell type differentiation in microbes.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2015
Once again JVK has hijacked the comments here.


I'm trying to help stop the pseudoscientific nonsense of the hijackers who would rather continue touting pseudoscientific nonsense. Others are also "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" http://comments.s....1247472

Why are biologically uninformed science idiots complaining about those who are fighting disease? Have viruses caused perturbed protein folding and altered cell type differentiation in their brain?
johnhew
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2015
It would amaze if the chickenhood had not by now figured out how to artfully deposit some covert and subtle pathogen - viral, prionic, RNA or otherwise - from which to improve their lot, or at a minimum extract some revenge, whilst hostily confined through their many generations within the battery barracks
http://www.thegua...question
cgsperling
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
JVK - Thanks for the link to P.Z Myers' dissection of you. I had the impression that you "..crashes into a thread full of lay people and then lords it over them with his abuse of jargon."
but it is good to hear confirmation of it.

Don't you realize your actions make it obvious what you are?

If you have a theory, go prove it and publish it. Don't waste your valuable time spewing it at science fans on a comment thread.
cgsperling
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
The Pharyngula thread about JVK is SO interesting. I had to go buy more popcorn.

JVK is not just a crank... he is a TOP CRANK !

JVK
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2015
If you have a theory, go prove it and publish it. Don't waste your valuable time spewing it at science fans on a comment thread.


I have detailed my model of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in a series of published works that began with book publication in 1995.

Like Greg Bear, I somewhat enjoy being one of the Top Cranks who has accurately represented biologically-based cause and effect during the time pseudoscientists have continued to tout their neo-Darwinian nonsense.

Make yourself more popcorn and watch this. 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.

Wait to watch this until tomorrow, so you don't have nightmares about what the terrorists plan to do next: http://thedailysh...reg-bear

Help them if you wish by contributing more of your nonsense here, and hope the FBI isn't watching.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2015
Re: "...artfully deposit some covert and subtle pathogen - viral, prionic, RNA or otherwise..."

That is the threat of the dual use technology, which is more threatening to those who do not understand how nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation is biophysically constrained. Instead, they think that they can tweak the molecular mechanisms but prevent a plague of engineered destruction of populations that have not ecologically adapted to the virus that kills them all.

Israel has taken the lead in prevention of this by teaching evolutionary theory in middle schools at the same time students learn about ecological variation and ecological adaptation. The Laws of orderly societies can be compared to societies in countries where theories are assumed to be true.

http://www.educat...olution/ "...learning about evolution is not the primary function of the decision..."
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2015
...The de novo creation of genes is the problem...

There is no such thing....
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
...The de novo creation of genes is the problem...

There is no such thing....

Actually there is, it's not as though they just pop into existence though.

An example:http://www.geneti...abstract
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2015
The companion articles published last month in Science linked the conserved molecular mechanisms of de novo gene creation in all species via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in the context of protein folding chemistry that is biophysically constrained.

Did anyone not get that memo? Perhaps you should set a google alert to find "Holy Grail" since the "Holy Grail" of protein folding was found.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2015
There is no such thing....


Your claim applies only to those who are biologically uninformed. Many of them don't believe in the de novo creation of anything, so they think there is no such thing as scientific creationism because they are science idiots.

See also: http://rna-mediat...creation
and "New genes from non-coding sequence: the role of de novo protein-coding genes in eukaryotic evolutionary innovation" http://www.ncbi.n...26323763

Tell others that it sucks to be a biologically uninformed science idiot so they have the opportunity to inform themselves as serious scientists, and science journalists like John Hewitt have always done.

Ask John Hewitt about Luca Turin, for example, and see my review of the book "The Emperor of Scent: A Story of Perfume, Obsession and the Last Mystery of the Senses." http://human-natu...urr.html
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2015


so they think there is no such thing as scientific creationism.

And they are correct, there is no such thing as scientific creationism.

For clarity there are theological evolutionists like Collins and Dobzhansky that separate their religious beliefs from science but you have young earth creationists like Ken Hamm and JVK
that idiotically toss out out empirical evidence that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

There is nothing scientific about creationism.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2015
I am linking to //rna-mediated.com/ and to my FB group //www.faceb...ediated/
PERSONALLY OWNED PHISHING PSEUDOSCIENC CREATIONIST SITES
reported
because that is where the most accurate representations of what is known to serious scientists can be found
so this PROVES you don't understand anything about what constitutes evidence or science!

Linking to a RELIGIOUS site as evidence and "accurate representation" is like linking to a Cuban cigar manufacturing plant as evidence that NASA is Myan in origin... it neither proves anything nor is it relevant to SCIENCE

this is called Conspiracist Ideation and it only reinforces the FACT that you post PSEUDOSCIENCE & RELIGION because you cannot find reputable science links or studies that promote your beliefs
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2015
Also, if I linked to a google search for "RNA mediated"
why would anyone searching for actual SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION utilise google over Google Scholar?
please note that when i search Google Scholar for "rna mediated", there is NO jvk, no james v. kohl, nor are there any of your personal sites!
see for yourself:
https://scholar.g...dt=0%2C4

this is very telling and more than anything else demonstrates that your sites are NOT SCIENCE... this demonstrates that you are a PSEUDOSCIENCE POSTER, not a scientist, let alone a serious one

the biggest reason i never use google is because of the CRAP that floods it WRT science...
i don't want to read about your perfume when i can read about ACTUAL SCIENCE, especially WRT "rna mediated" or ANY OTHER biological process... this is how SCIENCE WORKS

leave the pseudoscience for the cranks and religious freaks/fanatics like you, jk!
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2015
See also: //rna-mediat...creation
PHISHING PSEUDOSCIENCE CREATIONIST SITE
reported

if you can't actually link evidence from a reputable peer reviewed journal to make a point, then you are only promoting religion and pseudoscience

and as long as you link your personal sites which promote creationist conspiracy ideation and religious dogma, i will continue to report them for being the PHISHING PSEUDOSCIENCE RELIGIOUS SITES that they are

it is why your creationist sites DON'T SHOW UP IN GOOGLE SCHOLAR

and there is ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENCE IN CREATIONISM
it is a politically motivated religion trying to push an agenda of state sponsored belief over science, period
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas
barakn
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2015
Being one of the few people that apparently has read the paper on biorxiv.org, I should point out something overlooked in this discussion. The authors found 1,037,475 PRE-1 elements that comprise an astonishing 8.2% of porcine DNA, and note "PRE-1 elements tend to be clustered in the introns of gene-rich regions" and are scattered liberally throughout all the chromosomes. They also note that PRE-1 elements have an independent history from ALU elements in primate DNA and thus are noticeably different. This makes PRE-1 a perfect marker or tag of porcine DNA, were it present in human DNA. Has it been found in human DNA? No. So while a lot of people are inexplicably hailing this paper as support for McCarthy's idea, it's quite the opposite.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2015
why would anyone searching for actual SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION utilise google over Google Scholar?


Google allows construction of a central theme with fewer distractions. For example, if you wanted to learn how the "holy grail" is linked from physics to chemistry and the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically constrained protein folding, you could execute this search: "holy grail" chemistry Here let me help: https://www.googl...hemistry

For comparison to results from Google Scholar see: https://scholar.g...t=0%2C43

See also: https://scholar.g...t=0%2C43

The science in creationism may not be readily apparent to biologically uninformed science idiots, but cell type differentiation is obviously nutrient-dependent and controlled by the physiology of reproduction.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2015
Re:
PRE-1 elements tend to be clustered in the introns of gene-rich regions" and are scattered liberally throughout all the chromosomes.


Thanks for helping to confirm the obvious link from nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled RNA-mediated cell type differentiation to chromosomal rearrangements and species diversity. When I do that, antagonists attack.

PZ Myers wrote: "Behold James Vaughn Kohl.

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

These facts do not refute evolution; they simply refute the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that most people here were taught to believe is the theory of evolution."
johnhew
1 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2015
Barakn: good points. it shouldn't be too hard to go and have a look for PRE-1 in human DNA I would think. what might happen to them in a hypothetical series of hybridization and backcrossing events I wouldn't even know. they do seem fairly distinct from Alu's although whether they perform complimentary roles is an open question, and their seems to be a deep temporal evolutionary rift between the two. interesting that the class of transposable elements in general have come to represent just over 11% of sequence in both humans and suidae. the authors also not similar progression of Alu's from the general genome population at large towards gradual enrichment over time in coding areas, promotors, and introns
viko_mx
1 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2015
The Creator used the same principle and structural and functional elements from the micro biologic catalog. It is natural for the engineering process. But structures with the same or similar function are formed and maintained by different genes located in specific chromosomes and locations for every single species with which God suggests insolvency of the theory for biological evolution.
johnhew
5 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2015
And what's really nice about the biologic catalog is McMaster-Carr has new 3D CAD part models in all your favorite Solidworks formats now, I mean why shop anywhere else? Welcome this is a farmhouse, we have cluster flies.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2015
I didn't know McMaster-Carr had a biologic catalog. Where are they getting their parts?

Some people seem to think that the proteins in the parts are automagically created in the process of 3D organ printing. They can't seem to grasp the obvious fact that the de novo creation of nucleic acids comes first so that RNA-mediated events can be linked to receptor-mediated cell type differentiation of the parts in any biologic catalog.

But wait, there's another problem. Quality control (QC) at the factory must eliminate any likelihood that entropic elasticity might lead to genomic entropy in the cell types of the parts. That requires a physical link from top-down manufacturing via a QC program common. It's called the innate immune system because it seems to have automagically showed up at the factory door, just when it was needed to defend the de novo creation of parts from virus-driven genomic entropy and the destruction of all parts in the parts catalog.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2015
See also: Incorporating significant amino acid pairs and protein domains to predict RNA splicing-related proteins with functional roles http://link.sprin...4-9706-6

Unfortunately, a subscription is required. Nevertheless, the abstract supports my claims about the need for a QC program that links RNA-mediated gene duplication and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation via pre-mRNAs. Serious scientists have learned that QC requires nutrient-dependent microRNAs to prevent the damage to DNA caused by viral microRNAs.

See also: Distinct E-cadherin-based complexes regulate cell behaviour through miRNA processing or Src and p120 catenin activity http://dx.doi.org.../ncb3227 [subscription required]

This was reported as http://neuroscien...ng-2491/ with a brief video that explains why QC / DNA repair is required.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2015
See also: A pheromone receptor gene, pre-1, is essential for mating type-specific directional growth and fusion of trichogynes and female fertility in Neurospora crassa http://onlinelibr...6.x/full

If pre-1 in unicellular yeast could be linked from ecological variation to nutrient-dependent ecological adaptations in mammals, RNA-mediated cell type differentiation could be linked from microbes to humans via the conserved molecular mechanisms we detailed in the section on molecular epigenetics in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior
http://www.hawaii...ion.html

Excerpt: "Small intranuclear proteins also participate in generating alternative splicing techniques of pre-mRNA and, by this mechanism, contribute to sexual differentiation in at least two species..." [cont]
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2015
[cont] "That similar proteins perform functions in humans suggests the possibility that some human sex differences may arise from alternative splicings of otherwise identical genes."

Re:
it shouldn't be too hard to go and have a look for PRE-1 in human DNA


It shouldn't be too hard to link it to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation.

That suggests the problem is trying to put the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction back into the context of evolution after we extracted it from the pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and natural selection nearly 2 decades ago.

We published ~ 2 decades after Dobznahsky (1973) linked a single amino acid substitution to differentiation of cell types in chimpanzees and modern humans from gorillas. See: http://www.jstor..../4444260

"...identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla."
cgsperling
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2015
Criticisms of the so-called nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model
http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2015
Re:
Small intranuclear proteins...


Are they like primate-specific RNA-derived SINES?

Does the substitution of "short interspersed nuclear elements" (SINEs) for our use of "small intranuclear proteins" help to explain the claim in this journal article that

"...until now, the underlying evolutionary forces responsible for the origin and divergence of the SINEs remain obscure."

I suspect that all underlying evolutionary forces will remain obscure until serious scientists look at journal articles like this one and ask:

1) What evolutionary forces link ecological variation to ecological adaptation?
2) How do they do that in the absence of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man?

Unfortunately, biologically uninformed science idiots do not know the right questions to ask, and evolutionary theorists seem intent to keep putting off any attempts to get them to start using some common sense.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2015
Criticisms of the so-called nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model
http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

Thanks for continuing to mention that.

Andrew Jones cited PZ Myers blog. Mutagenesis experiments make sense in that context and Jones' undergraduate thesis explains why he incorporated more pseudoscientific nonsense into his "criticisms" than the editor could deal with. Thus, the editor's comment was predictable:

He wrote: "The 2013 review article by James Vaughn Kohl published in Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology and criticized in the above Letter to the Editor was subjected to standard peer review and the revised version was accepted by me after it had been accepted by both reviewers."

That's a polite way to tell Andrew Jones that he is a biologically uninformed science idiot and make that fact perfectly clear to all others who are not biologically uninformed science idiots.
cgsperling
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2015
Why is Jones's severe criticism the ONLY other article that cites your work?

Let me guess - it is a VAST CONSPIRACY to maintain the status quo. (rolls eyes)

So how did your paper make it through the "wall of conspiracy" ?

Let me guess - Because the science was UNASSAILABLE !

So again, why does nobody else cite your unassailable science ?
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2015
See: Role of olfaction in Octopus vulgaris reproduction http://www.scienc...14004006

The citation to my 2013 review is indicated here: https://scholar.g...mp;hl=en

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)."

No conspiracy. The problem is that there are too many biologically uninformed science idiots who don't know how cell type differentiation occurs. That's why the sequencing of the octopus genome was important. It showed that the molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation are conserved from marine invertebrates to primates in the context of an unassailable atoms to ecosystems model.
cgsperling
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2015
So, you have one faint positive citation and one detailed negative citation. I generously grant you a total score of .000. Seems you have a ways to go to convince anyone. Better get cracking.
barakn
4 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2015
Barakn: good points. it shouldn't be too hard to go and have a look for PRE-1 in human DNA I would think. what might happen to them in a hypothetical series of hybridization and backcrossing events I wouldn't even know. they do seem fairly distinct from Alu's although whether they perform complimentary roles is an open question... -johnhew
Their "roles" may be an open question, but that is not particularly germane to my argument. What is known is that PRE-1 and Alu sequences are retrotransposons that both rely on the L1 ORF2 protein (part of a virus remnant known as LINE-1 found in all mammals and comprising 20% of the human genome) to insert copies of themselves into DNA. It is quite likely that the extreme chromosomal rearrangement from hybridization would have placed both functional LINE-1 genes and PRE-1 elements near strong promoters, greatly increasing the rate at which copies of PRE-1 were inserted into the rest of the genome.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2015
you have one faint positive citation and one detailed negative citation.


I have published a series of works that include award-winning publications in neuroscience and social science.

https://scholar.g...as_sdtp=

Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology cited 86 times http://cogprints.org/2164/

From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior cited 40 times
http://www.scienc...96900409

The scent of Eros: Mysteries of odor in human sexuality cited 60 times
https://books.goo...;f=false

I generously grant you a total score of .000.


Thanks. Do you think anyone cares what score you grant to anyone else?
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2015
quite likely that the extreme chromosomal rearrangement from hybridization would have placed both functional LINE-1 genes and PRE-1 elements near strong promoters, greatly increasing the rate at which copies of PRE-1 were inserted into the rest of the genome.


Why not simply pirate what we detailed about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in the section on molecular epigenetics from our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review http://www.hawaii...ion.html

Alternatively, you can continue to try to explain cell type differentiation in the terms used by others while attempting to avoid that fact that our model was extended to insects in 2000; to the life history transitions of the honeybee model organism in 2005; to the octopus in 2015, and to all invertebrates and vertebrates via the octopus genome sequencing and everything now viewed in the context of precision medicine?
barakn
5 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2015
Someone has let loose a mosquito in the forum. Its hum is annoying.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2015
Thanks. You appear to have finally realized how cell type differentiation and ecological speciation occur in all living genera via fixation of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in the context of chromosomal rearrangements that biophysically constrain fertility.

The fact that I used the mosquito as a model organism of everything you are now trying to re-convey, as if you are the only expert here, annoys me.

Either admit that you don't know how SINEs are linked from amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation, or continue your piracy while pretending to ignore my publication history, and the publications of others who are not pirates. They are serious scientists who cite the works of other serious scientists, which helps to prevent the piracy.

See the citation to Diamond, Binstock & Kohl in: Organizational and activational effects of hormones on insect behavior http://www.scienc...00001013
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2015
PRE-1 and Alu sequences are retrotransposons that both rely on the L1 ORF2 protein (part of a virus remnant known as LINE-1 found in all mammals and comprising 20% of the human genome) to insert copies of themselves into DNA.
-- barakn

Who do you think discovered how nutrient-dependent microRNAs prevent viruses from linking entropic elasticity to genomic entropy in all mammals via RNA-mediated control of the viral insertions that you claim comprise 20% of the human genome?

How do you think virus-driven genomic entropy was biophysically constrained?
barakn
5 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2015
You really are a master of word salad, aren't you.
continue your piracy while pretending to ignore my publication history,

I'm not pretending.
Shabs42
5 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2015
my FB group https://www.faceb...ediated/ because that is where the most accurate representations of what is known to serious scientists can be found.


Nobody else is going to touch this one? That the one place where the most accurate representation of what is known to serious scientists (as opposed to all those satirical scientists) is a Facebook group ran by JVK? You would think these "serious scientists" would publish some of their work in peer reviewed journals, or at least put it on an independent website.

Why do you still post here? You're far too dedicated to be trolling, but you throw enough big, fancy words around that you should be smart enough to realize you're talking to the exact wrong audience. I might as well go to an evangelical church and start screaming at the top of my lungs about atheism. I would score about as many converts as you have over all the hours and days you've spent typing out your nonsense.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2015
@jk posted
Google allows construction of a central theme with fewer distractions
IOW- it will allow irrelevant/nonsensical data association as long as someone is willing to put it together, regardless of the scientific credibility or the factual/empirical nature of the evidence...
which is my point, really:
why would anyone searching for SCIENCE or SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE choose google over google scholar?

they DON'T!

only pseudoscience, conspiracists or religious fanatics will choose google over SCHOLAR
The science in creationism may not be readily apparent
it is very apparent to anyone who can read or comprehend basic English: there is NO SCIENCE IN IT

this is not conjecture or belief, it is A PROVEN FACT:
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2015
I have published a series of works
@jk
so? so has Steven King! and he was far more prolific an author than you... that doesn't make ANY claim you have made here about the validity of creationist religion relevant OR factual

your argument from authority without evidence is equivalent to a proselytizing religious acolyte pushing cult pseudoscience, not scientific fact
Human pheromones
which you still can't validate because of myriad reasons- like this:
there is no robust bioassay-led evidence for the widely published claims...
you can find that quote here:
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

just because you got one or two actual works cited elsewhere doesn't mean that you are still correct about your arguments
especially when you are arguing religion over science

this is your downfall: there is NO SCIENCE in creationist religion
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2015
Nobody else is going to touch this one? That the one place where the most accurate representation of what is known to serious scientists (as opposed to all those satirical scientists) is a Facebook group ran by JVK? You would think these "serious scientists" would publish some of their work in peer reviewed journals, or at least put it on an independent website
@Shabs42
yeah...i've been telling him that for a long time now... he doesn't get it because he thinks he is far more intelligent than everyone else...

and you would be surprised at the converts he gets here... the scientifically illiterate will fall for the BS, especially if they have a religious background and a need to have absolution from responsibility

great points!
Smithder
3 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2015
Please Cap'n Stumpy - remember -

Don't EVER feed the Trolls.
Smithder
5 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2015
Stepping back what seems like a few hundred posts, we were discussing the, as yet, fringe science of extreme hybridisation driving huge evolutionary jumps, at a rate that has such a low probability of success as to seem to be impossible. But of course, highly improbable does not mean, nor equate, to impossible.

Yet hybridisation is part of the world around us. Plants and many aquatic forms, cast their pollen or gametes into the wind or water currents, and cross fertilisation is rife - wasteful, but rife. This form of reproduction seems to have adapted to this huge level of wastage - how much pollen does a Birch tree make, or a single stalk of grass? Even copulatory sex seems to have retained this wastefulness - how many spermatozoa does a Bull cast in order to achieve a single calf? It seems that evolution has consistently preserved this level of wastefulness, presumably because it confers a significant advantage to the survival of life itself...

Smithder
3 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2015
It fits then, that hybridisation, be it close or distant, is the engine of diversity that feeds the process of Natural Selection with a constant stream of variation. And from this, it follows that 'speciation', the process of refining a genome to that of a pure, uniform species, is the engine of Extinction. Once a species has lost its hybrid diversity, it can no longer produce variations which might survive environmental change. Strange, that 'speciation' then, is the very antitheses of Darwinian Evolution, and that Darwin's work with Pigeon hybrids was only a spark of imagination away from what now we realise is the truth.

Smithder
5 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2015
But then, perhaps the great man did realise this. Perhaps in his deliberations to publish or not, he considered the consequence not only of suggesting to arrogant humans that they were not the ultimate creation of God, but instead had evolved from Apes, but he also saw the consequence of suggesting that the driving force of life was to create the ultimate Smorgasbord of genetic diversity via entanglements that were decried by virtually every major religion as the original sin.
Smithder
3 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2015
In my moments of reflection, I like to think that the great man had actually realised the reality of hybridisation, but by better judgement, decided to leave the final part of the equation for future scientists to discover, in a time when hopefully Religion no longer dictated what science could and could not declare. If this was the case, I find it sad then that in the civilised world where religion has largely lost its grip over Science, that Science itself has now become amazingly resistant to innovations that question entrenched dogma. I think that perhaps Darwin would be ashamed of us, yet very proud of McCarthy...
cgsperling
4 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2015
More entertainment courtesy of JVK -- I discovered that the thread on PZ Myers' blog actually runs into two pages of comments, so you have to back up to page 1 to read it from the beginning. Here is the direct link.

http://freethough...comments
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2015
Thanks. See also:

Evolutionary conservation of codon optimality reveals hidden signatures of cotranslational folding
http://www.ncbi.n...3565066/

Excerpt: "S. cerevisiae, a codon preference in relation to protein secondary structure could only be found for the amino acids glycine in loops and threonine in helices15."

Glycine is the nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitution that links the pheromone-controlled stability of this yeast's organized genome to the stability of all vertebrate genomes via substitution of the only achiral amino acid in the decapeptide hormone, GnRH.

GnRH links chromosomal rearrangements in yeast at the advent of sexual reproduction to sex difference in morphological and behavioral phenotypes in white-throated sparrows, which exemplify everything known to serious scientists about links between atoms and ecosystems via RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in all living genera.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2015
Myers attacked me for providing an accurate representation of how ecological speciation occurs via chromosomal rearrangements.

16 January 2014 at 5:09 am
I posted this link http://www.pnas.o...abstract with this quote "...These behaviors are thought to be mediated by sensitivity to sex steroids, and the chromosomal rearrangement underlying the polymorphism has captured a prime candidate gene: estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1), which encodes estrogen receptor α (ERα).

Four hours later I was banned.

16 January 2014 at 9:12 am
PZ: Mere stupidity I will tolerate, but I really don't need to give a platform to homophobes. Kohl has been banned.

Myers still will not address the obvious links from microRNAs and adhesion proteins to cell type differentiation in all invertebrates and vertebrates, which were revealed in the context of the octopus genome sequencing and in the reports on the holy grail of protein folding -- by researchers in China.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2015
Re:
-- by researchers in China.


Their report makes each of the commenters here, except John Hewitt, the author of this news report, appear to be a biologically uninformed science idiot or merely an anonymous fool.

For another example of an anonymous fool, see:

hybridisation, be it close or distant, is the engine of diversity that feeds the process of Natural Selection with a constant stream of variation.


What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot continues to put hybridization and natural selection before Darwin's "conditions of life?"

That was a rhetorical question.

he doesn't get it because he thinks he is far more intelligent than everyone else...


Everyone else here except John Hewitt.... that's obvious. It is not difficult to demonstrate more intelligence than a biologically uninformed science idiot or any anonymous fool.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2015
Re: What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot continues to put hybridization and natural selection before Darwin's "conditions of life?"

An atoms to ecosystems approach to all RNA-mediated cell type differentiation was provided in "Evolutionary conservation of codon optimality reveals hidden signatures of cotranslational folding"
http://www.ncbi.n...3565066/

Cotranslational folding links nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry to biophysically constrained morphological and behavioral phenotypes in the context of amino acid substitutions that stabilize organized genomes and the physiology of reproduction, which controls nutrient-dependent biodiversity.

The claim that a hidden evolutionary relationship may link pigs to primates is unsupported. Cotranslational protein folding chemistry links ecological variation to ecological adaptation in all living genera. There's no magic of evolution; nothing is hidden.
Smithder
3 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2015
1000 characters is just too little to make a coherent argument.
Smithder
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2015
Darwin's position on 'Conditions of life as the source of variability' is one of the things that lends me to believing that Darwin did not in fact understand that variability stems primarily from hybridisation, while Natural Selection, driven by those 'conditions of life', destroyed variability and drove life forms into speciation (and thus eventually into extinction).

Darwin had no concept of genetics, no idea of the genes brought into the equation by each of the gametes, not the slightest idea of the genetic 'time bomb' contained within the F1 hybrid, and no idea of the potential for chaos that existed when that F1 attempted to produce its gametes.
Smithder
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2015
We on the other hand now understand these aspects of gamete production. Plant breeders have created sizeable industries by hybridisation or genetic manipulation. They know that certain parents can produce a particularly valuable F1 hybrid, and rest comfortable in the knowledge that the grower is going to be back for more F1 seed the following year, because seed produced by those F1 plants stands very little chance of reproducing the valuable characteristics of the F1.

Seed (or offspring) produced by F1 hybrids demonstrates the massive genetic variability that has been created by the process of hybridisation.

So, Darwin had his understanding of 'Conditions of life as the source of variability' completely wrong. It was not the variable conditions that produced variability within the life forms, rather, it was variability caused by hybridisation that allowed life forms to develop variants capable of colonising a variety of conditions.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2015
Darwin had his understanding of 'Conditions of life as the source of variability' completely wrong. It was not the variable conditions that produced variability within the life forms, rather, it was variability caused by hybridisation that allowed life forms to develop variants capable of colonising a variety of conditions.


Thanks.That explains nothing and puts the ridiculous claims of biologically uninformed population geneticists before Darwin's detailed observations. Biologically uninformed science idiots have been making similar claims since neo-Darwinism was invented.

See: A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems (1914) pp. 193-196, 253-254, 261-263.
Undoubtedly there once lived upon the earth races of men who were much lower in their mental organization than the present inhabitants.

If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generation... by applying to them the laws of selection?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2015
A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems (1914) predated the invention of neo-Darwinism. It may not have been directly linked to the bastardization of everything Darwin tried to convey. However, it did not take long for others to claim that the hidden evolutionary relationships reported here linked mutations from natural selection to the evolution of biodiversity, and biologically uninformed science idiots have been doing it ever since.

http://www.huffin...211.html
Excerpt: [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.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2015
1000 characters is just too little to make a coherent argument.


Agreed. See my comments, with citations to my published works on: Relationship between protein thermodynamic constraints and variation of evolutionary rates among sites https://biomolbio...g-sites/

See also: Thermodynamic constraints did not evolve http://rna-mediat...-evolve/
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2015
See also: WEBINAR: The Hidden Effects of Epigenetic Discoveries https://www.labro...nd-oct28

DATE: October 28th, 2015
TIME: 11am Pacific time, 2pm Eastern time

Excerpt: "... the development and health of an individual is influenced by past experiences of that individual's parents.

Research shows, that enriching environments offer opportunities for improved sensory, motor, cognitive, and social stimulation. This improved stimulation has a multitude of positive effects, from increasing learning and memory, to reducing the possibility of acquiring depression or many brain disorders including Huntington's diseases, Alzheimer's and stroke. In this webinar we will talk about how current investigation in Epigenetics can affect patient treatment and impacts research in general."

Investigation of hidden evolutionary relationships between pigs and primates should be limited to what is not explained by what is known about molecular epigenetics.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2015
//rna-mediat...-evolve/
WARNING!!!
PHISHING AND PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE PERSONALLY OWNED BY JK

reported for creationist pseudoscience

.

1000 characters is just too little to make a coherent argument.
@Smithder
whereas your advice not to feed trolls is wise, it makes no difference to fanatical religious acolytes like JVK and his creationist friends... so continuing to at least warn others of the pseudoscience is a means of protecting people from jumping to the conclusion that jk actually comprehends biology

i would suggest simply posting links to refute jk because he is not very scientifically literate: jk still doesn't comprehend the implications of Lenski's long term work, let alone the actual science

to date, he has q 100% failure rate interpreting science (from Astrophysics and Biology to Physics and Zoology), but the links will be great for those who actually care and can read... jk will not comprehend them, but what else is new?

peace
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2015
http://phys.org/n...ogy.html

The code
is counterintuitive to natural selection.


Accurate representations of biologically-based cause and effect also eliminate mutations and evolution. In less than a month, 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

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.

The detailed molecular mechanisms of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in McEwen et al., can be compared to the possible mechanisms in Bohacek & Mansuy.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2015
Accurate representations of biologically-based cause and effect also eliminate mutations and evolution
PSEUDOSCIENCE CLAIMS NOT VALIDATED BY EVIDENCE

please show where the reputable peer reviewed validated claims of Lenski, Extavour or other scientists have been debunked and demonstrated false

the term mutation is spelled out explicitly in NIH texts and other biological resources, demonstrating your refusal to acknowledge science in even the most basic form
See: https://en.wikipe...Mutation

the links/references given for the definition have demonstrated that the term is used by multiple biological fields and the definition is always the same

arguing that a Scientific Theory is wrong and linking personal opinion, or personal interpretations of actual science is the mark of PSEUDOSCIENCE or RELIGION
Vietvet
4 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2015
"Few people are as adamant or ignorant. His excuse is lost faith due to war-time trauma, which also sometimes reinforces the beliefs of others in creationist science linked to God. Even when others do not understand creationist science they realize that it attests to the fact that viruses perturb protein folding and that can thus be linked to all pathology in all individuals of all living genera."
JVK on Oct. 2 2015
http://medicalxpr...ons.html

JVK
1 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2015
...the term is used by multiple biological fields and the definition is always the same...


That's why it is important to learn about biologically-based cause and effect from someone who is not a biologically uninformed science idiot.

See: "Mechanisms of stress in the brain" and other published works by serious scientists who understand that you must start with the epigenetic landscape and link it to the physical landscape of DNA via what is known about physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms that link atom to ecosystems, when the mechanisms are not perturbed by viruses.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2015
It is becoming equally important to learn how quantum physics may be directly linked to quantum biology for comparison to the pseudoscientific nonsense of neo-Darwinian theory. For example, see: http://www.scienc...abstract reported as:

Signals from empty space http://www.scienc...2311.htm

Excerpt: "All in all we found out that our access to elementary time scales, shorter than the oscillation period of the light waves we investigate, is the key to understand the surprising possibilities that our experiment opens up."

I'm not a physicist so I asked: Are they claiming that the speed of light is not constant in a vacuum? The answer could probably be placed into the context of their experimental evidence and linked to the biophysically constrained chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding in all living genera, and the 4 days it took for a species of bacteria to re-evolve its flagellum.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2015
please show where the reputable peer reviewed validated claims of Lenski, Extavour or other scientists have been debunked and demonstrated false


I will mention again that serious scientists do not invalidate ridiculous claims and I cited:
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."

McEwen et al (2015) just confirmed that fact.

All similar claims are tractable to Dobzhasnky (1964): "...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!"... "[These] ...caricatures of opinions entertained by some intelligent and reasonable people...'
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2015
Re:
...caricatures of opinions entertained by some intelligent and reasonable people..."
http://icb.oxford...citation

My antagonists here are not intelligent or reasonable people. They are biologically uninformed science idiots and will never be anything more. Even if they were able to understand molecular biology they would need to link it from physics and chemistry to cell type differentiation before they could understand what McEwen et al (2015) did to their ridiculous theories.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2015
That's why it is important to learn about biologically-based cause and effect from someone who is not a biologically uninformed science idiot
so... because you failed out of college and can't comprehend what is actually going on in biology due to your past failure and reading/comprehension problems... your mensa brain decided the best tactic to refute modern science was to join a fanatical religious group and promote pseudoscience and religion while refusing to accept the scientific method but make claims that everyone who is educated and capable of actually reading and comprehending science is a "biologically uninformed science idiot"???

WTF??
that is what is called "Python logic", explained perfectly here: https://www.youtu...t5ibfRzw

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2015
I'm not a physicist
yes, we noticed
i guess you MISSED this part?
outside any cavities, there are no obvious boundaries defining a normalization volume V. This situation raises the question whether direct measurement of the vacuum field amplitude in free space is physically meaningful and feasible
perhaps you should have read on?
The sub-cycle temporal resolution provided by the ultrashort probe ensures that we can directly detect effects originating from purely virtual photon
just because you HOPE for this:
The answer could probably be placed into the context of their experimental evidence and linked to
DOESN'T mean it is EVIDENCE for your beliefs any more than your previous physics links proved your claim that you "link[ed] the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of amino acids"

wishing only counts in RELIGION
not science
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2015
McEwen et al (2015) just confirmed
personal conjecture without evidence
please also note that you are NOT REFERENCED ONCE in said link provided, therefore it does NOT support your "claim" of being "supportive of your model"

just because you believe it doesn't make it true... you've also stated "Creationists are among the serious scientists", which is proven to be not only false, but blatantly so, as the movement has NO SCIENCE in it, proven here: https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

and repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true

you should read the rest of my arguments against you here: http://phys.org/n...ane.html

quit posting PSEUDOSCIENCE
reported
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2015
Re:
...caricatures of opinions entertained by some intelligent and reasonable people..."
http://icb.oxford...citation

My antagonists here are not intelligent or reasonable people. They are biologically uninformed science idiots and will never be anything more. Even if they were able to understand molecular biology they would need to link it from physics and chemistry to cell type differentiation before they could understand what McEwen et al (2015) did to their ridiculous theories.
FROM YOUR LINK
Not Found

Content not found.
you've 404'ed
IOW - your argument is invalid as you cannot substantiate your claims

considering you are a religious fanatic and your claims are based almost exclusively on PSEUDOSCIENCE and religious interpretations of science, then the only one here who is "not intelligent or reasonable people" is yourself and your followers, like ren, viko and dung et al
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
you've 404'ed
IOW - your argument is invalid as you cannot substantiate your claims


http://icb.oxford...4/4/443. The link was changed before 10/2/15
See: http://www.jstor....contents
and or the pdf http://taxonomy.t...1964.pdf

you've also stated "Creationists are among the serious scientists", which is proven to be not only false


Dobzhansky was a creationist. Only atheists are pseudosceintists. See: Why Science Needs Metaphysics: Science can't tell us whether science explains everything.
http://nautil.us/...aphysics

Stephen Hawking may exemplify someone who needed metaphysics. His virus-driven pathology has been explained by creationists, not by his "Theory of Everything." Treatment with anti-virals might have halted the progression of his neurodegenerative disease or perhaps nutritional supplements did.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
you cannot substantiate your claims


I've cited many works, some repeatedly, and try to provide links. For biologically uninformed science idiots to say that my claims are not substantiated -- as in McEwen et al (2015) -- is a misrepresentation that takes the pseudoscientific nonsense touted here much too far.

See: What it's like to work with the academic greats https://www.times...reatness

Excerpt: "The film The Theory of Everything portrays Stephen and Jane Hawking superbly. But the scientific backdrop fares less well. In particular, the film distorts the personality and style of Dennis Sciama..."

Sciama was also the research adviser to George FR Ellis, who co-authored a 1973 classic with Stephen Hawking (The Large-Scale Structure of Space-Time.)

Their different paths are revealed in the context of the 2004 Templeton Prize awarded to Ellis, who is a serious scientist, not a debilitated atheistic theorist.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2015
American Zoologist © 1964 Oxford University Press
yeah, because nothing has changed in medicine and biology since 1964, right?
gotcha!
Dobzhansky was a creationist
So? his SCIENCE still required EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, just like everyone else in SCIENCE using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD
see also https://en.wikipe...c_method

Only atheists are pseudosceintists
https://en.wikipe...chnology

perhaps you need to actually learn what the scientific method is before opening your mouth and proving you are a complete idiot?
Why Science Needs Metaphysics
and again, please read what the scientific method IS and DOES before spouting off complete nonsense
science needs metaphysics like humans need to live in the center of the sun
Stephen Hawking may exemplify someone who needed metaphysics
PERSONAL CONJECTURE not supported by evidence
2Bcont'd

Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2015
@the idiot jk cont'd
His virus-driven pathology has been explained by creationists
Hawking's problem was a MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS
Hawking suffers from a rare early-onset, slow-progressing form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neurone disease or Lou Gehrig's disease
https://en.wikipe..._Hawking

if this "pathology" was explained by creationists, and is proven to be "virus driven" then you can specifically state the viral vector which is the cause of said ALS

Please list the Viral agents responsible for ALS and Hawkings disease so that we can give you the next Nobel prize for medicine
THANKS
Treatment with anti-virals might have halted the progression of his neurodegenerative disease or perhaps nutritional supplements
again, please list your references and sources... in REPUTABLE PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS which are validated, so that we can send your nobel to you
THANKS
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2015
the idiot jk cont'd
I've cited many works, some repeatedly, and try to provide links
and yet you STILL cannot substantiate your claims!
here is how evidence works: the best evidence is PEER REVIEWED VALIDATED STUDIES WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOUND IN REPUTABLE JOURNALS
everything else can be considered conjecture... and ANY RELIGIOUS SITE can be dismissed as completely irrelevant and without merit
this means your sites as well, since you mix RELIGION with actual science, making it PSEUDOSCIENCE and not empirical or scientific at all

also note:
just because you THINK something supports your claims doesn't mean it DOES... this has been repeatedly demonstrated to you in your "interpretations" of studies and science, which you have a 100% FAIL rate to date! (See Lenski, Extavour, Whittaker and many more)

just like your above claims about Hawking - BELIEF doesn't make it true
EVIDENCE is what is needed

YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL SUBSTANTIATING YOUR CLAIMS
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2015
@jk last post
For biologically uninformed science idiots to say that my claims are not substantiated -- as in McEwen et al (2015) -- is a misrepresentation that takes the pseudoscientific nonsense touted here much too far
actually, it is YOUR claims that have gone too far!
there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that your claims or beliefs are supported by McEwen et al (2015)

you can't spell out any specifics which demonstrate your claim nor can you provide empirical evidence that it is so... and there is ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCES to your work at all, therefore what you have done is simply BELIEVED that something is real without being able to PROVE any of it
This is reinforced by your posts which makes the argument that "we" are wrong, but you still cannot and have NOT provided any evidence supporting this claim AT ALL

this is like your ALS/Hawking claim: belief without evidence

https://en.wikipe...emiology

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.