New research demands rethink on Darwin's theory of 'fecundity selection'

November 3, 2015

A key concept in Darwin's theory of evolution which suggests nature favours larger females that can produce greater numbers of off-spring must be redefined according to scientists behind ground-breaking research published today (3rd November 2015).

The study, published in the scientific journal Biological Reviews, concludes that the theory of 'fecundity selection' - one of Charles Darwin's three main evolutionary principles, also known as 'fertility selection' - should be redefined so that it no longer rests on the idea that more fertile females are more successful in evolutionary terms. The research highlights that too many offspring can have severe implications for mothers and the success of their descendants, and that that males can also affect the evolutionary success of a brood.

Darwin's theory of fecundity selection was postulated in 1874 and, together with the principles of natural selection and sexual selection, remains a fundamental component of modern evolutionary theory. It describes the process of among organisms, defined by the number of successful offspring which reach breeding age.

After years of research, an evolutionary biologist from the University of Lincoln, UK, has proposed a revised version of the theory of fecundity selection which recommends an updated definition, adjusts its traditional predictions and incorporates important new biological terms.

The research indicates that rather than aiding survival, too many offspring can be extremely costly, and can in fact reduce the lifetime reproductive success of females. It highlights that in many species, mothers who produce fewer offspring tend to raise them more efficiently, and that in some cases fathers can take the lead in nurturing young by evolving 'male pregnancy'.

The study also concludes that nature will favour all physical traits that influence 'optimal' fertility in either sex, and that climate and also influence the evolution of reproductive processes – factors which Darwin originally overlooked.

The research, led by Dr Daniel Pincheira-Donoso from the University of Lincoln's School of Life Sciences, reveals that phenomena such as climate change could therefore play a significant role in the fertility of species around the world.

Dr Pincheira-Donoso said: "Evolutionary theory is all about reproductive success, or the number of 'successful' offspring an individual can produce. The more successful offspring, the more genes encoding successful traits are passed on to the next generation.

"However, advances in fecundity selection theory reveal that a higher number of successful descendants can actually result from the production of fewer offspring which can be looked after more efficiently. We therefore need to acknowledge that fertility should be more efficient, not necessarily higher, and that males can have a substantial role in influencing the production of efficient broods.

"Also, a stream of evidence shows that climate and food availability play very important roles in the evolution of fecundity among species. This opens up opportunities for the development of theories involving major natural phenomena, such as rapid changes in the climate. We must explore how these climatic changes can affect the reproductive strategies which evolution has been shaping for thousands or millions of years"

Based on previous studies of the life-history, physical and ecological aspects of fecundity, Dr Pincheira-Donoso's work also concludes that the theory should distinguish between fertility during an animal's lifetime and during one particular breeding season, rather than grouping all time periods together. This is because some animals may have one extremely large brood per breeding season, while others produce one on a more regular basis, which can have enormous implications for the overall reproductive success, and hence evolutionary potential, of species.

Explore further: Manipulative mothers subdue show-off sons

More information: Daniel Pincheira-Donoso and John Hunt, 'Fecundity selection theory: concepts and evidence' Biological Reviews (2015). DOI: 10.1111/brv.12232

Related Stories

Manipulative mothers subdue show-off sons

September 12, 2011

The gaudy plumage and acrobatic displays of birds of paradise are a striking example of sexual selection, Charles Darwin's second great theory of evolution. But new research shows that this powerful process may collapse when ...

Age and fertility in social insects

July 6, 2015

A new research unit coordinated at the University of Freiburg tackles the question of why the otherwise usual trade-off between fecundity and lifespan in multicellular organisms is not present in social insects like bees, ...

Recommended for you

Scientists develop new techniques to track how cells develop

August 24, 2016

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

A new path for killing pathogenic bacteria

August 24, 2016

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

77 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JVK
1.9 / 5 (15) Nov 03, 2015
Excerpt: "We must explore how these climatic changes can affect the reproductive strategies which evolution has been shaping for thousands or millions of years"

My comment: But first, what did Darwin claim about how sex differences evolved that shape the reproductive strategies that theorists now claim evolution has since been shaping for thousands of millions of years?
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (14) Nov 03, 2015
My comment: But first, what did Darwin claim
You do realise that by asking this and making this claim that you are stating "no one has learned anything about biology since the days of Darwin" right?

There is no "theorists now claim" issue
there is empirical evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution
this evidence is supported and validated by claims and experimental evidence from people like Dr. Extavour and Lenski

Quit spamming and trolling with pseudoscience

reported
bschott
2.6 / 5 (16) Nov 03, 2015
You do realise that by asking this and making this claim that you are stating "no one has learned anything about biology since the days of Darwin" right?


Once again you have taken something a poster said and completely mis translated it into YOUR OWN rediculous statement of finality. Then claimed it is THEIR view. Then posted arguments against YOUR VERSION of the statement THEY made as though they actually made it.

You have a serious problem. You need help now. I doubt anything will work.

Quit stalking posters and putting words in their mouths.

Reported for forum misconduct.

JVK
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 03, 2015
According to evolutionary theorists who are not dead yet, how did the evolution of sex differences in cell types occur?

Also, if "A Prkci gene keeps stem cells in check" http://phys.org/n...lls.html how did it evolve to do that but not keep cell types from evolving sex differences?

Quit spamming and trolling with pseudoscience


Quit claiming that is what I am doing and answer the question about how the bacterial flagellum re-evolved in four days.

I claim that it was created and re-created via what is currently known about nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in species from microbes to humans. Ecological variation links all ecological adaptations, such as the bacterial flagellum, via the physiology of reproduction and feedback loops.

Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction http://www.ncbi.n...16290036
JVK
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 03, 2015
Thanks bshott. If others would also report Captain Stumpy's misconduct, we could eliminate at least 50% of the nonsense from phys.org and medical Xpress.

For example, Stumpy-nut claims:
there is empirical evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution
this evidence is supported and validated by claims and experimental evidence from people like Dr. Extavour and Lenski


What biologically uninformed science idiots cannot explain is how that evidence can be viewed the context of the re-evolved bacterial flagellum.

It took four days for the feedback loops that link the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in all living genera to epigenetically effect the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically constrained RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry. That chemistry links atoms to ecosystems via 2 amino acid substitutions that were reported as if they were mutations.

JVK
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 03, 2015
Re: ... chemistry links atoms to ecosystems via 2 amino acid substitutions that were reported as if they were mutations.

Re: Advances in RNA Characterization: Moving Beyond Traditional Techniques http://www.the-sc...hniques/

The advances can be compared to the claims of theorists: See: "Somatic mutation in single human neurons tracks developmental and transcriptional history" reported as: http://medicalxpr...ons.html and reported as "Single neuron may carry over 1,000 mutations" http://www.scienc...2698.htm

See also: www.the-scientist...e-Brain/

Pseudoscientists need only start from the "re-evolved" bacterial flagellum in attempts to make their case for evolved brains with sex differences.

Mutations or substitutions?
JVK
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 03, 2015
Re: Mutations or substitutions?

Stumpy-nut claims:
...empirical evidence... is supported and validated by claims and experimental evidence from people like Dr. Extavour and Lenski

I claim that Stumpy-nut is a biologically uniformed science idiot who has been taught to believe in ridiculous theories.

If you know a biologically uniformed theorist, ask for feedback on the question of whether mutations can be linked across species to human brain development or if the alternative would be to examine what is known to serious scientists, which is that "Acetylation of histones removes the + charge from the NH3+ reducing the tightness of binding to the DNA and opens the chromatin structure making the DNA more accesible and INCREASING transcription."

Serious scientists also know what happens when the chromatin structure stays open.

See the discussion at: http://www.the-sc...e-Brain/
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2015
Quit stalking posters and putting words in their mouths
@bsTROLL
what do all of the following links have in common?
http://phys.org/n...ial.html]http://phys.org/n...ial.html[/url]

http://phys.org/n...ial.html]http://phys.org/n...ial.html[/url]

http://phys.org/n...ive.html

http://phys.org/n...omo.html

http://phys.org/n...ies.html

http://phys.org/n...ory.html

that's right: in EVERY thread, he denigrates the Theory of Evolution while promoting a religious based creationist argument with statements like
Biologically uninformed science idiots continue to ignore the basis for Darwin's theory...
there is plenty more to support my conclusions
in his own words
you can read that for yourself, if you care to

but you are here to simply bait people into flame wars and troll fights with you, as noted by your posts
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2015
@bsTROLL cont'd
plus, he has repeatedly stated, over and over
You need to learn why Darwin placed "conditions of life" before natural selection and stressed the links between ecological variation and ecological adaptation before neo-Darwinists invented their ridiculous theories about how long it might take mutations to lead to the evolution of a new species.
(you can read that direct quote in the links above)

so, what you are actually doing is trying to garner support for a creationist flooding the site with religion and pseudoscience because i made you look like a fool

the evidence makes you look like a fool, bs (and jk too)
not me

you can only be affected by what i say if you are guilty of misconduct or any other conduct i've ascribed to you

Thus, i am reporting your attempts to bait into a flame war with no evidence
FainAvis
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 03, 2015
@JVK. You are a troll.
Refer to the comment guidelines:- "Brevity is the soul of wit." The guidelines are telling you to be brief. It is inappropriate to deliver novel length comments chewing your cabbage over and over again. We all know what you are pedalling. Your behaviour is like the religious caller who gets told time and again 'Do not visit!' but still turns up to tell us how we are sinning.
BartV
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 03, 2015
Darwin's musings on selection are OK if "evolution" really could create new and improved genes in every species. Doesn't work if you just take selection out of a fixed gene pool.

Has any scientist ever in the last 50 years observed the random making of a new gene that actually did something? The answer is no. But all of evolution depends on this.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 03, 2015
Has any scientist ever in the last 50 years observed the random making of a new gene that actually did something? The answer is no. But all of evolution depends on this.
@bartv
first, i suggest you read up on Evolution and the Theory as well as some of it's empirical evidence, validated in studies... you can start here:
http://talkorigin...comdesc/

studies will be linked & referenced

then i suggest you do some reading of authors such as Lenski and Dr. Extavour
http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

http://www.oeb.ha...oeb.html

then i also suggest getting familiar with the scientific method and it's terminology (in biology/medicine and relevant science thereof)
https://en.wikipe...c_method

nothing in science is static, and to communicate with precision and accuracy, you will need to be proficient in the terminology
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2015
@bart cont'd
and by the following
nothing in science is static
i mean, especially for you and jk's benefit: science is always on the edge of discovery and new knowledge

jk thinks scientists should never say they don't know, but yet that is where scientists spend all their time: on the edge of what we DO know searching for answers to what we don't know
it is OK to say "we don't know" something
https://www.simon...ngs-out/

http://www.math.u...nman.pdf

but when we DO have certain knowledge, we can discuss it within parameters of measurement and probability. for some things, we know it for sure (it is not likely you will fall out of the gravity well without help)
here is a site to help you along with learning
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

it's FREE, and it is the same courses taken by paying students

enjoy
JVK
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2015
nothing in science is static


The structure of the DNA double helix is not static, but every aspect of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory assumed it was and claimed that mutations led from natural selection to evolution of different species -- as if the nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction did not link atoms to ecosystems from the re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum in four days to cell type differentiation in humans via the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding.

Neo-Darwinian theorists have always been biologically uninformed science idiots, and some of them always will be. Watch as they harass a neurosurgeon and claim that his religion influences his beliefs about biologically-based cause and effect -- as if evolutionary theorists had ever learned anything about cell type differentiation.

but when we DO have certain knowledge


Do not include yourself. You know nothing.
JVK
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2015
Darwin's musings on selection are OK if "evolution" really could create new and improved genes in every species.


Odor exposure causes the creation of new genes and cause and effect has been detailed across species from quantum mechanics to quantum consciousness.

http://www.ncbi.n...4151765/ flies
http://www.tandfo...4.945047 octopuses
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2015
Do not include yourself. You know nothing.
@jk
i proved you are a chronic liar, creationist as well as pseudoscience poster

shall i continue to link some of your pseudoscience claims?
THAT is something that IS static in the scientific community: the proliferation of stupidity by those who are attempting to gain attention or financial recompense through fraudulent means
Those like you: perhaps you should read the definition of pseudoscience again?
A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms
https://en.wikipe...oscience

reported
AND
your week is up
JVK
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2015
A Spectroscopic Mechanism for Primary Olfactory Reception
http://chemse.oxf...abstract

See also my review of the book written about Luca Turin

Book Review: The Emperor of Scent: A Story of Perfume, Obsession and the Last Mystery of the Senses by Chandler Burr
New York: Random House (2003).

http://human-natu...urr.html

Excerpt: "Turin's work combines several disciplines with raw insight."

Conclusion: "...others may benefit from knowing more about Planck's attitude: "…a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Captain Stumpy is part of the old generation that refuses go grow up and face the facts, or to accept them as if he and they were part of a generation of intelligent scientists.
JVK
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 03, 2015
shall i continue to link some of your pseudoscience claims?


You should stop ignoring the claims by serious scientists about supercoiled DNA, which protects organized genomes from virus-driven entropy.

https://www.googl...iled+dna

'Supercoiled' DNA puts the simple double helix to shame https://www.washi...o-shame/

reported
AND
your week is up


Tell us about re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum in four days in the context of what is known to serious scientists about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man, you FOOL.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2015
Captain Stumpy is part of the old generation that refuses go grow up and face the facts
actually, i follow the evidence, and you've not been able to demonstrate either empirical evidence of your claims or validation of your interpretations

This, by definition, is called PSEUDOSCIENCE
Tell us about re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum
1- you already linked the study: what is it about that study you don't understand?

2- why aren't you asking the authors?

3- why do you continue to attempt redirection of the topic when you get outed as a pseudoscience religious fanatic?

4- argument is called "god of the gaps": see
https://www.youtu...kg4hMRjs

one last point:
just because YOU don't know something doesn't mean NO ONE knows anything
JVK
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 04, 2015

just because YOU don't know something doesn't mean NO ONE knows anything


Let's compare what I know about cell type differentiation to what biologically uninformed science idiots think they know. See:

phys.org/news/2015-10-prkci-gene-stem-cells.html
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.4 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
For a "groundbreaking" research it looks much like a rehash of old r/K selection theory.

"In ecology, r/K selection theory relates to the selection of combinations of traits in an organism that trade off between quantity and quality of offspring. The focus upon either increased quantity of offspring at the expense of individual parental investment, r-strategists, or reduced quantity of offspring with a corresponding increased parental investment, K-strategists, varies widely, seemingly to promote success in particular environments."

"The theory was popular in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was used as a heuristic device, but lost importance in the early 1990s, when it was criticized by several empirical studies.[4][5] A life-history paradigm has replaced the r/K selection paradigm but continues to incorporate many of its important themes.[6]"

[ https://en.wikipe...n_theory ]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 04, 2015
So, the trolls:

@BartV: Evolution isn't a musing, but - as everyone knows - the factual basis for biology. [ https://en.wikipe...volution ]

As such, and as a complex process, it happens to be the best evidenced fact of process and its theory description humanity has. Thousands of genes are witnessed to change and sort out alleles during speciation, and hundreds of speciation events have been witnessed already. ["Why Evolution Is True", Jerry Coyne.]

But we have also witnessed de novo "new genes". The most frequent mechanism is gene duplication and later change. "Now they have demonstrated the evolution of a new gene experimentally." [ http://www.scient...entists/ ]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 04, 2015
I should addd on new genes that there are many, many field examples as well, where phylogeny has been tracked to the process of duplication, but also at times the random snipping together of gene and pseudogene (inactivated, "retired" genes) parts and their later activation into genes that produce proteins with new functions.

*****

Finally, a public service announcement:

The pheromone creationist troll is, of course, the new Davison (also famous for his pretentiousness and pseudoscience, combined with oblivious and utter stupidity). Here is what a real biologist notes: "He's babbling in scientese." [ http://freethough...s-place/ ]
bluehigh
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
* Reported for forum misconduct. * - bschott

> Some doors should never be opened.

* just because YOU don't know something doesn't mean NO ONE knows anything *
- Captain Grumpy?

> Captain, I'm drinking strong Irish Coffee and you are still not making any sense.

> Argue the content please. Not just rant.

bluehigh
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
Torb_Jerk, you were doing well with a strong argument then you used Wikipedia as a reference and that shows you know zilch. More so, you degenerated into being another scumbag by resorting to personal attacks. So I'll join in ... You are a weak minded shithead.

bluehigh
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2015
@JVK

Please, STFU ... Yes it's interesting but for goodness sake give it a rest.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2015
@bsTROLL
what do all of the following links have in common?


What Biff?

in EVERY thread, he denigrates the Theory of Evolution


Darwin must be turning in his grave Biff.

what you are actually doing is trying to garner support for a creationist flooding the site with religion and pseudoscience because i made you look like a fool


OK Biff, put the pills down now, you've had enough.

the evidence makes you look like a fool, bs (and jk too)
not me


Evidence of what Biff?

Once again you have taken something a poster said and completely mis translated it into YOUR OWN rediculous statement


Yes, you did post several times here, lets see how many things you said someone else said when they didn't:

promoting a religious based creationist argument with statements like
Biologically uninformed science idiots continue to ignore the basis for Darwin's theory...


Yes, clearly accurate

JVK
2 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
we have also witnessed de novo "new genes". The most frequent mechanism is gene duplication and later change.


Gene duplication is RNA-directed. Google https://www.googl...lication

The pheromone creationist troll is, of course, the new Davison...


Food odor exposure links atoms to ecosystems via the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes.

Yes it's interesting but for goodness sake give it a rest.


Thank's for the suggestion.
For God's sake, why would anyone give it a rest? Physorg and MedicalXpress let biologically uninformed science idiots tout pseudoscientific nonsense and denigrate my works but won't allow me to post links to research from young earth creationists at a time when a 7th Day Adventist is a US Presidential hopeful.

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM (a wiki-idiot) wants evolution to be true but won't search for "RNA mediated" to find accurated representations of how cell type differentiation occurs.
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
Re: Energy-dependent supercoiled DNA and cell type differentiation

Across a lifetime of nutrient-stress and/or social stress, the innate immune system of all cells in all tissues of all organs in all our organ systems is suppressed by viruses and we often needlessly suffer and die because neo-Darwinian theorists claim that random mutations are sometimes beneficial when stress-driven accumulation of mutations always leads to pathology.

A life-history paradigm has replaced the r/K selection paradigm but continues to incorporate many of its important themes.[6]"


See: Honey bees as a model for understanding mechanisms of life history transitions
http://www.ncbi.n...15925525

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

A single RNA-mediated amino acid substitution links the honeybee model organism to humans.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2015
but you are here to simply bait people into flame wars and troll fights with you


Flame wars Biff?

jk thinks scientists should never say they don't know,


From every post of his it appears as though he wishes they would Biff...just sayin.

i proved you are a chronic liar,


Way to go Biff! Proved to whom?Did every one clap?

here is a site to help you along with learning


He looks like he knows more than you Biff, maybe you should find out where HE goes instead.

you already linked the study: what is it about that study you don't understand?


Oops, another misfire Biff. I'm betting you are the one who doesn't understand the study, but that is just a personal opinion based on interacting with you.

just because YOU don't know something doesn't mean NO ONE knows anything


Practice this one in front of a mirror...a lot!

Argue the content please. Not just rant.

Please STFU....give it a rest


Amen Blue.

JVK
2 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
Re: A single RNA-mediated amino acid substitution links the honeybee model organism to humans.

Robinson co-authored Organizational and activational effects of hormones on insect behavior. They cited our 1996 model.

Robinson co-authored Honey bees as a model for understanding mechanisms of life history transitions. They did not cite either of my award-winning published works.

Watch what happens at National Geographic now that Rupert Murdoch has fired most of the "fact-checkers" who have been allowing pseudoscientific nonsense to be reported as if it was mainstream science.

See: http://phenomena....y-today/

Excerpt: "Church's group, for example, is reassigning other codons to other unnatural amino acids, further reducing the odds even more that mutations can rescue the bacteria. Ultimately, they hope to push these creatures into an alternate biological universe, walled off from our own."
bschott
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2015
JVK - You are obviously very well read in terms of genetic expression, DNA/RNA functionality and cell processes. Flood posting isn't going to make anyone want to hear what you have to say if it is theoretical, and sadly, as Biff notes, not empirically supported.

I'm not saying you aren't correct as I am not knowlegable enough to judge (although I can happily admit this, unlike some self appointed forum bouncers with the capslock button welded down). Just throwing out there that you give your 2 "biggest fans" ammo for the forum moderators when you do flood post.

Stump yells pseudoscience at anyone who posts something that doesn't conform to his belief system, it's just his way when he doesn't understand what you are saying and he clearly despises anyone who has the audacity to believe in God.

Give him the attention he deserves....
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
Re:
...reducing the odds even more that mutations can rescue the bacteria.


Reportedly, two mutations rescued the bacterial flagellum, which re-evolved over the weekend. See: http://www.the-sc...ewiring/

If, ever again, the biologically uninformed science idiot, Carl Zimmer reports that the odds of mutations causing the death of us call can be reduced without checking his facts about how RNA-mediated cell type differentiation occurs, I don't think we'll see any further reports from Zimmer in National Geographic.

New "fact checkers" will destroy the credibility of all publishers that continue to report the pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and evolution as if it was mainstream science.

Watch what happens if Phys.org continues to remove my posts that include links to research reported in creationist literature that links viruses to genomic entropy in species from microbes to humans.
anonymous_9001
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2015
bschott,

JVK - You are obviously very well read in terms of genetic expression, DNA/RNA functionality and cell processes.


No, he's not. All he does is takes various biological terms and throws them together into a sentence with no concern as to whether it makes sense or not. He knows vocabulary, but reading comprehension is a completely different story. He has no clue how DNA and RNA function because he considers mutations and amino acid substitutions to be completely separate processes when, in reality, substitutions are the RESULT of mutations. An altered codon leads to a different amino acid. The latter is a consequence of the former, not an alternative.
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
... he considers mutations and amino acid substitutions to be completely separate processes when, in reality, substitutions are the RESULT of mutations. An altered codon leads to a different amino acid.


Who's teaching this biologically uninformed science idiot to believe the pseudoscientific nonsense that reporters place into the context of mutations and evolution despite the fact that all serious scientists know the difference between a mutation and a nutrient energy-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitution?

See his "Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model"
http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

Excerpt: "On the molecular level, he references only epigenetic processes (although he does not describe them in detail) which affect when genes are transcribed, reversible alterations like genome methylation, silencing, control of splicing, chromatin remodeling, and so on."

JVK
2 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
Re:
...epigenetic processes (although he does not describe them in detail) which affect when genes are transcribed,


The epigenetic landscape is linked to the physical landscape of DNA via top-down causation.

Energy Effects gene transcription that Affects behavioral phenotypes via the Effects of hormones on morphological phenotypes and the Affects of hormones on behavior (in all vertebrates and invertebrates).

Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) and other biologically uninformed science idiots who do not understand the difference between Effect and Affect cannot be expected to understand the difference between an amino acid substitution and a mutation.

Dr. Ben Carson, and anyone who has ever worked as a medical laboratory scientist, can explain the difference, but no one can force a biologically uninformed science idiot to inform themself or make them stop touting pseudoscientific nonsense.

Publication of "Criticisms" tried to make that perfectly clear.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2015
Argue the content please
@Blue
difficult to do when the content makes no sense
you made this comment to Torbjorn
then you used Wikipedia as a reference and that shows you know zilch
you know, in that link there are 36 references, a lot of which are very good, like "Effects of r-selection and K-selection on components of variance for 2 quantitative traits" https://www.ncbi..../567.pdf

but most will not understand it as well as the Wiki article, so why not use wiki when the references and material provided are correct?
Don't assume that because someone says they're important or makes the argument that they're a scientist that it is a valid argument: jk has made these claims, but Anon happens to hold a 4yr degree (which jk admitted he couldn't do- jk failed out of college)

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2015
@blue cont'd
if you will take note: the bulk of jk's argument above is "argument from authority"
except that jk is not an authority. jk can't even get enough experimental evidence that is repeatable to prove that human pheromones exist
you only need to read the abstract of this study to get the point about that one: http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

jk confuses terminology, refuses evidence (Lenski, Extavour are fine examples) and then continues to promote religion and creationist dogma over science. this is evident on his personally owned sites (see above, elsewhere)

Best overview of jk's abilities (from an actual biologist)
http://freethough...s-place/

jk even attacks homosexuals and gets banned from Myers site b/c of his comments

Anon holds a degree in Biology- hasn't misrepresented science
jk sells perfume & has been caught lying repeatedly
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2015
@blue
last post
read jk
New "fact checkers" will destroy the credibility of all publishers that continue to report the pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and evolution as if it was mainstream science.

Watch what happens if Phys.org continues to remove my posts that include links to research reported in creationist literature that links viruses to genomic entropy in species from microbes to humans.
note he attacks Evolution Theory because he doesn't have evidence. he uses fear, threats and religion: he is saying that creationist have been scientifically researching biology
Now please read the references in this wiki page:
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

note, this is upheld by the Supreme Court- there is no science in creationism!
none!
and yet jk promotes it as if it is legitimate science (now read this: https://en.wikipe...oscience )

you can't have science if you refuse to accept/use the scientific method
anonymous_9001
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2015
the difference between an amino acid substitution and a mutation


Now we're full circle back to you not being able to explain the mechanisms and involved pathways and enzymes that are responsible for these substitutions and what differentiates them from mutations. I'll remind you again that splicing does not make individual substitutions and only happens to mRNA, not DNA.

bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2015
@Anon

he considers mutations and amino acid substitutions to be completely separate processes when, in reality, substitutions are the RESULT of mutations. An altered codon leads to a different amino acid. The latter is a consequence of the former, not an alternative.


As i said above I am not able to judge in this arena. I always thought mutations arose as a result of the insertion of a different protein to a DNA chain and that this happened for various reasons. When JVK speaks of "nutrient energy dependant RNA mediated amino acid substitution" I take that to mean he's basically saying genetic alterations driven by nutrient absorption. I don't know if that take on it is correct but if that is what he is saying I would agree with it. Otherwise we wouldn't be worried about consuming carcinogens in our food.

At the end of the day, like all interactions in nature, the quantum functional mechanism is charge differential.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2015
I am not able to judge in this arena
@bsTROLL
read this
In biology, a mutation is a permanent change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements. Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired, errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements
Mutation can result in several different types of change in sequences...
see also section 3.7 Nomenclature (Amino acid substitution)
you can read the above at this link: https://en.wikipe...Mutation

the definitions are matched by the NIH, biology texts and the referenced material in the link

jk refuses to accept definitions and only accepts de Vries definition of mutation from history
I don't use definitions ...
http://phys.org/n...ion.html

just search for "definitions" and follow his argument
anonymous_9001
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2015
I always thought mutations arose as a result of the insertion of a different protein to a DNA chain and that this happened for various reasons.


A mutation is any change in the DNA sequence. There are indeed many reasons- chemicals, radiation, mistakes during replication, viral genome insertion, etc.

JVK seems to think that mutations are uncontrolled changes to DNA and are always bad, whereas amino acid substitutions are precisely controlled and deliberate and are always beneficial. A faulty distinction because he can't explain how substitutions occur or how they're different from mutations.

An easy example is Lenski's E. coli experiment. He made 12 identical populations. Over time, they all acquired unique genome changes. If JVK were correct and these changes were specifically induced by the nutrients they were exposed to, they would all have the same changes, but they didn't. Only 1 of 12, for example, mutated to be able to use citrate.
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
Intelligent scientist
...he's basically saying genetic alterations driven by nutrient absorption


Anonymous fool
...splicing does not make individual substitutions and only happens to mRNA, not DNA.


Intelligent scientist
...the quantum functional mechanism is charge differential.


Anonymous fool
If JVK were correct and these changes were specifically induced by the nutrients they were exposed to...


I am correct, you fool! The base pair changes link atoms to ecosystems via the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent protein folding chemistry that links RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to the stability of organized genomes in all living genera via the fixation of the substitutions in the context of the physiology of reproduction.

I provided examples for across species comparisons in my model, which you thought was a sloppy review that should not have been published.
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
Intelligent scientist
...he's basically saying genetic alterations driven by nutrient absorption


But also via the pheromone-controlled nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction that links microbes to humans.

http://www.ncbi.n...3960071/ "Among different bacterial species existing in similar environments, DNA uptake (Palchevskiy & Finkel, 2009) appears to have epigenetically 'fed' interspecies methylation and speciation via conjugation (Fall et al., 2007; Finkel & Kolter, 2001; Friso & Choi, 2002). This indicates that reproduction began with an active nutrient uptake mechanism in heterospecifics and that the mechanism evolved to become symbiogenesis in the conspecifics of asexual organisms (Margulis, 1998)."

Symbiogenesis is pheromone-controlled.
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
Obviously, there must be a way to keep nutrient-dependent stem cell differentiation "in check," which explains why this discussion is not taking place at:

http://phys.org/n...lls.html

As soon as intelligent people realize that the re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum in 4 days exemplifies the fact that ecological variation led to ecological adaptation in the context of a nutrient-dependent functional structure, they realize that the adaptation appeared much to quickly to be placed into the context of mutations and evolution by anyone who is not a biologically uninformed science idiot.
anonymous_9001
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2015
Intelligent scientist

...he's basically saying genetic alterations driven by nutrient absorption


Regardless of the cause of a substitution, it's still a mutation. You're just hung up on your made up definition that classifies all negative substitutions as mutations.

And you're still unable to explain why only 1/12 of Lenski's acquired the cit+ adaptation when all of them were exposed. What was different about the 1 that the other 11 didn't have?

Anonymous fool

...splicing does not make individual substitutions and only happens to mRNA, not DNA.


You either think splicing occurs in DNA or that splicing can utilize single-codon introns. Either way, you're wrong. The shortest known introns are, at the minimum, 13-20 nt in length.

http://www.ncbi.n...C523646/
http://www.indian...h150.pdf

Taking notes, bschott? Kohl has no clue how the mechanisms he discusses work. He knows their names and little else.
anonymous_9001
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2015
Intelligent scientist

...he's basically saying genetic alterations driven by nutrient absorption


Regardless of the cause of a substitution, it's still a mutation. You're just hung up on your made up definition that classifies all negative substitutions as mutations.

And you're still unable to explain why only 1/12 of Lenski's acquired the cit+ adaptation when all of them were exposed. What was different about the 1 that the other 11 didn't have?

Anonymous fool

...splicing does not make individual substitutions and only happens to mRNA, not DNA.


You either think splicing occurs in DNA or that splicing can utilize single-codon introns. Either way, you're wrong. The shortest known introns are, at the minimum, 13-20 nt in length.

http://www.ncbi.n...C523646/
http://www.indian...h150.pdf

Taking notes, bschott? Kohl has no clue how the mechanisms he discusses work. He knows their names and little else.
anonymous_9001
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2015
Whether a DNA change is adaptive or not has nothing to do with what you call it. Can we agree on that?
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2015
Obviously, there must be a way to keep nutrient-dependent stem cell differentiation "in check,"

What organism would be silly enough to evolve direct "nutrient-dependent stem cell differentiation" ?
in the context of a nutrient-dependent functional structure

What does that even mean ?
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2015

My comment: But first, what did Darwin claim about how sex differences evolved that shape the reproductive strategies that theorists now claim evolution has since been shaping for thousands of millions of years?

That is not a comment, that is a question. Comments are affirmative.
You can google the answer up yourself.
bschott
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2015
Taking notes, bschott?


I am Anon. Just not sides on this one as I don't know enough about the specifics of DNA structure and formation from the chemical standpoint. When I read JVK's conclusions about the topics that I do have some understanding of, I don't find them to be unreasonable. It's neat stuff and one day I will have to research much deeper into it.

I only posted because i saw Biff setting up a debate once again by putting words in someone else's mouth and then commenting as though it was actually said.

Kinda like planting evidence to ensure guilt.
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
Kohl has no clue how the mechanisms he discusses work.


We detailed the molecular mechanisms in the molecular epigenetics section of our 1996 review. http://www.hawaii...ion.html

Comments are affirmative.


Sorry, you are right. Darwin claimed that "conditions of life" must be placed before natural selection.

What organism would be silly enough to evolve direct "nutrient-dependent stem cell differentiation" ?


Nutrient-dependent stem cell differentiation is an ecological adaptation to the availability of nutrient energy.

theorists now claim evolution has since been shaping for thousands of millions of years


Darwin did not make that claim. He was not a science idiot even though he was more of a bird watcher and butterfly collector compared to today's molecular biologists.
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
Whether a DNA change is adaptive or not has nothing to do with what you call it. Can we agree on that?


We can probably agree on any facts that you think link ecological variation to re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum in four days.

Why don't you want to discuss those facts?

Re:
Kinda like planting evidence to ensure guilt.


Thanks again bshcott.

Others will note that no one provides any experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect to defend themselves or to defend their accusations.

By the time the jury goes out, the case for mutation-driven evolution will have been dismissed by any intelligent people in the courtroom. Thus, no matter what the jury decides, the theorists have convicted themselves by touting pseudoscientific nonsense -- ever since neo-Darwinism was invented by population geneticists.
anonymous_9001
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2015
We detailed the molecular mechanisms in the molecular epigenetics section of our 1996 review.


That paper discusses epigenetic imprinting and splicing, neither of which make sequence changes to DNA. A methylated adenine is still an adenine and splicing happens to mRNA, not DNA.

Darwin did not make that claim.


You're right. He didn't make a claim of thousands of millions of years. He did however, make a statement of 300 millions years. Although we now know this is far from the generally accepted 4.5 billion, it's nowhere near your 6000.

http://apps.usd.e...ing.html

Why don't you want to discuss those facts?


The facts about compensatory regulatory mutations? That paper is very clear as to what they observed happening at the molecular level.
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
What are "compensatory regulatory mutations?"
What do they compensate for?
What do they regulate?
How do they regulate whatever they compensate for?

How are they included in Darwin's "conditions of life?"

That paper is very clear as to what they observed happening at the molecular level.


This paper is very clear as to what actually must occur at the molecular level to link atoms to ecosystems.

Structural diversity of supercoiled DNA http://dx.doi.org...omms9440
anonymous_9001
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2015
All those questions are readily answered by the article you posted:

http://www.the-sc...ewiring/

the initial mutations, which ramped up NtrC levels, enabled a minor upregulation of FleQ's target genes. The second mutations to NtrC itself then improved the protein's interaction with the FleQ targets, boosting their expression, and the bacteria's ability to swim.
Uncle Ira
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2015
@ JVK-Skippy. How you are Skippy? I am good too, thanks for asking.

Watch what happens if Phys.org continues to remove my posts that include links to research reported in creationist literature that links viruses to genomic entropy in species from microbes to humans.


So how long I got wait and watch before I see what happens? Not as long I been waiting for Really-Skippy to finish up with his toes I hope.

Uncle Ira
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2015
@ JVK-Skippy. How you are again? Yeah, I am still fine and dandy me, thanks.

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM (a wiki-idiot)


,,,,, is probably one of the smartest Skippys here when it comes to reading all the scientific papers by real scientist and explaining them in plain English. What? You think he ought to write some of that gobbledygook like yours all the time?

wants evolution to be true but won't search for "RNA mediated" to find accurated representations of how cell type differentiation occurs.


You tell the GREAT BIG LIE on him Skippy so just hold your mule's halter, eh? He has searched and searched some more, just like everybody else has been doing. It's not his fault that all he can find is the silly gobbledygook you post all over the interweb. You just mad because he thinks it was all written by the science idiot. He is right, it was.
JVK
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2015
See also: Scientists uncover mechanism that propels liver development after birth http://medicalxpr...ver.html

The mechanism is nutrient-dependent and RNA-mediated. It links metabolic networks to genetic networks via food odors and pheromones in all invertebrates and vertebrates via the mouse model organism and amino acid substitutions linked to morphological and behavioral phenotypes in humans via chromosomal rearrangements.
JVK
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2015
See also: Research catches double-stranded RNA virus in the act of transcription
http://phys.org/n...ion.html

See also: Link between small mammals and evolution of hepatitis A virus to humans discovered http://www.eureka...0315.php

When you recognize the pattern that links virus-driven pathology in all species from microbes to humans, but only when their supercoilded DNA is altered by the epigenetic effects of nutrient stress and/or social stress, tell all the neo-Darwinian theorists you know that you will vote, or that you would be voting for Dr. Ben Carson if you could vote for the man who will almost undoubtedly become the next US president -- if only because he is not stupid enough to believe in neo-Darwinian theory.
JVK
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2015
the initial mutations, which ramped up NtrC levels, enabled a minor upregulation of FleQ's target genes. The second mutations to NtrC itself then improved the protein's interaction with the FleQ targets, boosting their expression, and the bacteria's ability to swim.


The re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum over-the-weekend boosted the ability of the bacteria to find food. Are you trying to tell others that mutations linked the ability of the bacteria to find food to evolution? If not, what kind of pseudoscientific nonsense are you trying to get people to believe in by separating it from what is known about nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled cell type differentiation in species from microbes to humans?
anonymous_9001
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 04, 2015
The re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum over-the-weekend boosted the ability of the bacteria to find food.


Obviously.

Are you trying to tell others that mutations linked the ability of the bacteria to find food to evolution?


The compensatory mutations restored function and allowed the bacteria to find food. What are you trying to get at here?
Uncle Ira
2 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
@ Captain-Skippy. How you are? I am doing so good I feel a little guilty, better than I probably deserve I mean.

You ask about the not-zephir-Skippy and the not-returnering-Skippy puppet voter? I do not know for sure but I got three or two ideas in mind. I think it is either the Bennie-Skippy or the Nunemean-Skippy because they are always complaining about getting down voted. Or maybe one of the guys that you and Mike-Skippy and green-Skippy and thermo-Skippy are always sparring with on the environment article pages.
JVK
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2015
The compensatory mutations restored function and allowed the bacteria to find food. What are you trying to get at here?


I've done what I needed to do repeatedly. You will not make any claim about how mutations restored the bacterial flagellum in 4 days because that's not evolution or re-evolution.

All you do is tout pseudoscientific nonsense.

The compensatory mutations restored function and allowed the bacteria to find food.


bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2015
When I read JVK's conclusions about the topics that I do have some understanding of, I don't find them to be unreasonable


Yes indeed. Now if only JVK would back off the flood a little then maybe in the fullness of time others might be open to further consideration. In the meanwhile he needs a gag.

@Captain, quotes and links to references in Wikipedia articles are useful. Quoting text in or the Wikipedia articles has little value. Wikipedia articles are opinions of unqualified editors and, as in the past you have been strongly insistent, should be preceded by IMHO.

Quotes from Britannica, where articles are written by qualified editors are often more reliable.

Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2015
Wikipedia articles are opinions of unqualified editors and, as in the past you have been strongly insistent, should be preceded by IMHO
@blue
i'm not arguing that all wiki pages are validated truth, mind you

i can agree with that when said Wiki article is obviously not supported by evidence (and i have noted this in the past)

but when it is supported by overwhelming evidence, as in the Mutation link above, or the McLean v. Arkansas (or a page that i've read and validated the comments thereof) then i consider it a viable link unless you can refute with better evidence (which would include all references therein)

like certain other sites, sometimes i don't agree or there is evidence i think is missing, so i will instead use references

there is no need to dismiss a wiki link unless you can demonstrate that there is evidence that is blatantly ignored, left off, or directly refutes the claim (and said evidence should also be validated, etc)

Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2015
that's not evolution or re-evolution
@jk
if you are going to make this comment, you should also qualify your definitions

evolve:
to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state : to develop by a process of evolution
http://www.merria...y/evolve

from the study
A central process in evolution is the recruitment of genes...
Under strong selection for motility, these bacteria consistently regained flagella within 96 hours via a two-step evolutionary pathway. Step 1 mutations increase intracellular levels of phosphorylated NtrC...
Step 2 is a switch-of-function mutation that redirects NtrC away from nitrogen uptake and toward its novel function as a flagellar regulator. Our results demonstrate that natural selection can rapidly rewire regulatory networks in very few, repeatable mutational steps
http://www.scienc...abstract

IOW- you're wrong, jk!
Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2015
I only posted because... putting words in someone else's mouth ...
Kinda like planting evidence to ensure guilt.
@full-of-bs & TROLLING
before you continue with this particular argument:

1- google jvk and all his comments on phys.org

2- note that this argument is not specific to this particular thread

3- note jvk's arguments as well as claims, and then verify what i said above WRT his historical claims

history/context is important when discussing jk's posts
this is a long term argument
you will see that this is NOT a singular event/argument

his claims have been flooded here on PO for years
anyone with half a brain would have googled that and checked
and i tire of continually posting his quotes when it is repeated so often that even YOU could find it

I have made NO false claims about what jvk has posted given his historical arguments and including the above

your support of the mensa-princess is funny, though, and you do provide comic relief
JVK
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2015
this is a long term argument


No, it is not. It is simply the failure of biologically uninformed science idiots to admit they are fools who still want to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense touted in the context of gene-centric theories.

See also: http://phys.org/n...tic.html
JVK
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2015
1- google jvk and all his comments on phys.org

2- note that this argument is not specific to this particular thread

3- note jvk's arguments as well as claims, and then verify what i said above WRT his historical claims

Here, let me help: https://www.googl....org+jvk

If you find any experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that supports past representations that were based on a ridiculous theory about mutation-driven changes in species that automagically evolved, please tell us how the ridiculous theory links atoms to ecosystems outside the context of the nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated physiology of reproduction in all living genera.
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2015
No, it is not
@jk
really?
http://phys.org/n...ive.html

http://phys.org/n...yme.html

http://phys.org/n...ous.html

http://phys.org/n...ion.html

http://phys.org/n...lei.html

http://phys.org/n...ies.html

just 5 of the 37+ links to threads i found

now (again, just for starters) read the difference between de vries definition of "mutation" and the modern def

jk refuses to accept that science changes with new evidence

any half@ssed semi-competent google user can find more... but i am the one "putting words in someone else's mouth"? LMFAO

yall ASSume no one can google or find out what you are saying?
LMFAO

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2015
@jk cont'd
now (again, just for starters) read the difference between de vries definition of "mutation" and the modern def
now also note that in those threads you are continually making the same argument over and over, as well as promoting the fallacious argument that modern biological and medical science is somehow stuck in the past using definitions (among other things) that are not kept up to date

you also argue that Evolution Theory is not factually based (need i get more of those links?) and that your model (etc) replaces it
as well as arguing for creationist dogma over science (plenty of links there too)
you also think there is science in creationism (too many links to quote in only 1000char)

but you think this is NOT a continuation of the same tired BS arguments?

why is that?

you still can't accept Lenski or Dr. Extavour's findings without lying
even when outed as lying by various scientists, you can't accept your failure!
JVK
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2015
you still can't accept Lenski or Dr. Extavour's findings without lying


No one who is not a biologically uninformed science idiot accepts Lenski's findings as if they were anything more than examples of how ecological variation is linked to ecological adaptation via the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction.
cgsperling
3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2015
Wow, that's cool. I just discovered the slider bar. I only have to set it at about 3.0, and all of JVK's nonsense disappears. Quite useful.
JVK
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2015
How did you make all the explanations of how the bacterial flagellum re-evolved in four days disappear?
Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2015
explanations of how the bacterial flagellum re-evolved in four days
@jk
this has already been discussed, and you didn't understand it then, so why do you think you will suddenly understand it now?
i've already discussed this with you here: http://medicalxpr...tal.html

so why keep cross-posting this spam/trolling baiting stupidity?
No one who is not a biologically uninformed science idiot accepts Lenski's findings
this is actually discussed in that link as well, and your "interpretations" of Lenski are discussed in many threads, where you failed to comprehend the basics or Lenski's work

why keep repeating it when you will ignore it anyway?
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

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.