Where is the proof in pseudoscience?

Where is the proof in pseudoscience?
Science or pseudoscience? Credit: Flickr/Aff

The word "pseudoscience" is used to describe something that is portrayed as scientific but fails to meet scientific criteria.

This misrepresentation occurs because actual science has creditability (which is to say it works), and pseudoscience attempts to ride on the back of this credibility without subjecting itself to the hard intellectual scrutiny that real science demands.

A good example of pseudoscience is homoeopathy, which presents the façade of a science-based medical practice but fails to adhere to scientific methodology.

Other things typically branded pseudoscience include astrology, young-Earth creationism, iridology, neuro-linguistic programming and water divining, to name but a few.

What's the difference?

Key distinctions between science and pseudoscience are often lost in discussion, and sometimes this makes the public acceptance of scientific findings harder than it should be.

For example, those who think the plural of anecdote is data may not appreciate why this is not scientific (indeed, it can have a proper role to play as a signpost for research).

Other misconceptions about science include what the definition of a theory is, what it means to prove something, how statistics should be used and the nature of evidence and falsification.

Because of these misconceptions, and the confusion they cause, it is sometimes useful to discuss science and pseudoscience in a way that focuses less on operational details and more on the broader functions of science.

What is knowledge?

The first and highest level at which science can be distinguished from pseudoscience involves how an area of study grows in knowledge and utility.

The philosopher John Dewey in his Theory of Inquiry said that we understand knowledge as that which is "so settled that it is available as a resource in further inquiry".

This is an excellent description of how we come to "know" something in science. It shows how existing knowledge can be used to form new hypotheses, develop new theories and hence create new knowledge.

Where is the proof in pseudoscience?
Testing the knowledge. Credit: Flickr/biologycorner

It is characteristic of science that our knowledge, so expressed, has grown enormously over the last few centuries, guided by the reality check of experimentation.

In short, the new knowledge works and is useful in finding more knowledge that also works.

No progress made

Contrast this with homeopathy, a field that has generated no discernible growth in knowledge or practice. While the use of modern scientific language may make it sound more impressive, there is no corresponding increase in knowledge linked to effectiveness. The field has flat-lined.

At this level of understanding, science produces growth, pseudoscience does not.

To understand this lack of growth we move to a lower, more detailed level, in which we are concerned with one of the primary goals of science: to provide causal explanations of phenomena.

Causal explanations

Causal explanations are those in which we understand the connection between two or more events, where we can outline a theoretical pathway whereby one could influence the others.

This theoretical pathway can then be tested via the predictions it makes about the world, and stands or falls on the results. Classic examples of successful causal explanations in science include our explanation of the seasons, and of the genetic basis of some diseases.

While it's true that homoeopathy supporters try very hard to provide causal explanations, such explanations are not linked to more effective practice, do not provide new knowledge or utility, and so do not lead to growth.

In the same way, supporters of neuro-linguistic programing claim a causal connection between certain neurological processes and learned behaviour, but fail to deliver, and astrologists offer no coherent attempt to provide an explanation for their purported predictive powers.

The lack of testable causal explanations (or models, if you will) that characterises pseudoscience gives us a second level of discrimination: science provides casual explanations that lead to growth but pseudoscience does not.

Operational aspects of science

The third level of discrimination is where most of the action between science and pseudoscience actually takes place, over what I earlier called the operational details of science. Getting these details right helps deliver useful causal explanations.

This is where battles are fought over what constitutes evidence, how to properly use statistics, instances of cognitive biases, the use of proper methodologies and so on.

It is where homeopathy relies on confirmation bias, where the anti-vaccine lobby is energised by anecdotes, and where deniers of climate science selectively highlight agreeable data.

This level is also where the waters are muddiest in terms of understanding science for much of the population, as seen in comments on social media posts, letters to the editor, talkback, television, media articles and political posturing.

The knowledge is out there

It is important to address these basic operational understandings, but we must also highlight, in both science education and science communication, the causal explanations science provides about the world and the link between these explanations and growth in and utility.

This understanding gives us better tools to recognise pseudoscience in general, and also helps combat anti-science movements (such as young-earth creationism) that often masquerade as science in their attempt to play in the same rational arena.

A vigorous, articulate and targeted offence against pseudoscience is essential to the project of human progress through , which, as Einstein reminds us, is "the most precious thing we have".


Explore further

Even scientists look for purpose in nature, study finds

This story is published courtesy of The Conversation (under Creative Commons-Attribution/No derivatives).
The Conversation

Citation: Where is the proof in pseudoscience? (2014, January 31) retrieved 21 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-01-proof-pseudoscience.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jan 31, 2014
Homeopathy is strictly observational. And the observations that we see go way beyond the placebo effect, and this has been proven numerous times WITH scientific studies. I hardly think that homeopaths are more mesmerizing than medical doctors. If anything, the opposite would be the case.

Jan 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 31, 2014
from the article
While the use of modern scientific language may make it sound more impressive, there is no corresponding increase in knowledge linked to effectiveness. The field has flat-lined.
At this level of understanding, science produces growth, pseudoscience does not.

and this is just ONE reason that pseudo-sciences should be shunned and pointed out
aether/EU has done absolutely NOTHING for science/society other than give us scientifically illiterate youths clinging to ignorance through regurgitation of hack material promoted by CON MEN
I love the final quote
A vigorous, articulate and targeted offence against pseudoscience is essential to the project of human progress through science, which, as Einstein reminds us, is "the most precious thing we have".


just one more reason to argue against Aether and EU hypothesis that are supported on this site by the pseudo-science crackpots

Jan 31, 2014
offence against pseudoscience is essential to the project of human progress
The eighty years standing delay of acceptation cold fusion experiments is a nice example of progress in the name of fight against pseudoscience.

Jan 31, 2014
I'm surprised none has mentioned the pseudoscience behind the man caused global warming or dare I suggest pseudoreligion behind it. Look at all the studies where data was thrown out because it did not fit the theorem or the if you don't agree you can't have any discernible intelligence or education etc etc. You cannot question or validate this you just have to believe...

Jan 31, 2014
While the use of modern scientific language may make it sound more impressive, there is no corresponding increase in knowledge linked to effectiveness. The field has flat-lined.
At this level of understanding, science produces growth, pseudoscience does not.

and this is just ONE reason that pseudo-sciences should be shunned and pointed out
aether/EU has done absolutely NOTHING for science/society other than give us scientifically illiterate youths clinging to ignorance through regurgitation of hack material promoted by CON MEN
I love the final quote
A vigorous, articulate and targeted offence against pseudoscience is essential to the project of human progress through science, which, as Einstein reminds us, is "the most precious thing we have".

Interesting paradox... without "pseudo-science" (observed, but not explained) we'd have no need for "science" (to explain)...
hmmm....

JVK
Feb 01, 2014
Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes
http://www.pnas.o...abstract

I wonder if social pseudoscientists will ever realize that the experimental evidence in the white-throated sparrow adds to the overwhelming experimental evidence that refutes their pseudoscientific theory of mutation-initiated natural selection. If they do, will they admit to their overwhelming ignorance of biologically-based cause and effect?

I doubt it. That's not what pseudoscientists do. They admit nothing, and hope that no one else will notice that they are not scientists and that they have never been scientists at any time in the history of scientific progress "…guided by the reality check of experimentation."

"…we will not consider geographical and ecological factors because of space limitation. Our primary purpose is to clarify the roles of mutation and selection in the evolution of reproductive isolation…" Nei & Nozawa,2011

JVK
Feb 01, 2014
http://www.skepti...ical-of/

There is mention of Creationism, but not "young-Earth creationism" at this link, which was provided in the article.

"Other things typically branded pseudoscience include astrology, young-Earth creationism, iridology, neuro-linguistic programming and water divining, to name but a few.

What's the difference?"

If the social pseudoscience of mutation-initiated natural selection is not supported by experimental evidence, what's the difference between mutation-driven evolution and Creationism?

I think that the difference may involve the biophysical constraints on protein folding that prevent mutation-driven evolution. Does anyone know of any experimental evidence that suggests there was a lack of biophysical constraints on protein folding some time during the past few hundred million years?

I can't remember how the protein folding occurred back then that enabled receptor-mediated entry of nutrients into cells.

Feb 01, 2014
The eighty years standing delay of acceptation http://www.scienc...22fb.htm is a nice example of progress in the name of fight against pseudoscience.

Couldn't _possibly_ be the fault of you cold fusion pundits (I hesitate to call any of you guys researchers - you've probably scared away anyone capable of quality research). It _must_ be someone else's fault. Conspiracy by all the governments of the world. Mind control beams from Big Oil. Etc.

Feb 01, 2014
Interesting paradox... without "pseudo-science" (observed, but not explained) we'd have no need for "science" (to explain)...
hmmm....

@Whydening Gyre
i really think there is plenty for science to do and explain...
pseudo-science only serves to muddy the waters and allow false assumptions a hand-hold among the ignorant and scientifically illiterate.
case in point... aether/eu hypothesis... Zephyr obviously is intelligent, so why waste so much time and energy in selling a hypothesis that died a century ago??
then there is JVK - who only wants to sell his perfumes, and goes on sites like this to push his pet theory ...
the ONLY reason people like JVK and Zephyr and cantdrive argue HERE is because if they argue with knowledgeable professionals in the field, they are proven to be the complete cranks that they really are!
its already happened time and time again...
but it is free/public here, so they can push their pseudosciences!
and the gullible will follow unknowingly

Feb 01, 2014
Pseudo-science cases:
JVK pushes his perfume on Phys.org because other biologists will not fall for his pseudoscience word salad.

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

For those EU proponents, see Tim Thompson refute everything cantdrive says on the physorg site in the HIGGS article, or just go read Thompsons pages

http://www.tim-th...aqs.html

the above is a good start, but there are MANY more that destroy the EU claptrap...

and as for aether...
well, aether was proven wrong a century ago... and is STILL being proven wrong with incredible precision...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1284

there is so much more... but the acolytes will continue to push... even with all the evidence in their faces, they cling to their hypothesis like children to a blanket (or religions to their dogma)
logic will win, but only if you are logical, and can understand reality
which leaves out the crackpots

which is the message above IMO

Feb 01, 2014
why waste so much time and energy in selling a hypothesis that died a century ago
Because this idea was misunderstood, ignored and neglected. The dense ae ther model was proposed with Oliver Lodge in 1904 and it was never considered seriously with mainstream (even with aetherists itself, which opposed it), disproved the less. This situation is not so rare - actually many pseudoscientific hypothesis were disproved, just because they were misunderstood in their time, often with their authors itself. The LeSage gravity model, the tired light hypothesis of Fred Zwicky or Plasma universe of Hannes Alfven belong into this category too. At the root of the dismissal of these models was always some missunderstanding, usually connected with dual understanding of the problem.

Feb 01, 2014
I already explained, that the luminiferous ae ther model could work, if we consider the transverse light wave spreading in it, not the longitudinal, as the sparse thin aether implies. The LeSage model was dismissed from fear of alleged heating caused with shielding of small waves with objects - but the gravitational waves are much larger and less temporal. The tired light model has been dismissed, because astronomers believed, that the light will be scattered with density fluctuations smaller and more stable, than the period of light undulations - nobody did consider fluctuations larger and less stable. The usual problem therefore is, the people cannot imagine well the opposite, emergent model of physical reality. Their thinking is oriented to deterministic transverse light models. Even in biology, sociology and economy many misunderstandings and false dismissals follow from the fact, the people ignore the dual, emergent effects, which are often contradicting the causality studied.

Feb 01, 2014
astrologists offer no coherent attempt to provide an explanation
This is just another example of false dismissal of dual perspective. The astrology seems nonsensical, when transverse waves of vacuum are only considered. But the longitudinal waves may apply there too, albeit they will manifest only with CMBR noise (i.e. in similar way, like the sound waves at the surface of water). But their shielding during conjunctions of planets may lead to temporal changes of climate or even mood of people ("new moon" effect). Many such a theories were dismissed just because of ignorance of dual model of reality.

In biology the Lamarckian evolution was originally dismissed on behalf of Darwinian evolution based on vertical gene transfer, because the people misunderstood/undervalued the role and significance of horizontal gene transfer. The vertical gene transfer has indeed its firm role in sexual reproduction of well defined species, but most of small organisms don't reproduce so.

Feb 01, 2014
The same old zombie arguments you have made here and on numerous other sites Zephyr, and as wrong now as they were then! Your theory is mathless, and therefore useless! You do not have the ability to explain that which you hope to replace, nor can you given coherent reasoning to do so. That is the very definition of pseudoscience!

You have been shown time and again that your model fails, but you cling to it because you ignore the science and do not understand the maths that show it to be wrong. Fleetwood spent a reasonable amount of time showing you why your idea of waves are wrong right on this site not 6 months ago - yet here you go again with exactly the same BS as he showed you was wrong! That's a zombie argument!

At this level of understanding, science produces growth, pseudoscience does not.


And that is exactly where you are.

Feb 01, 2014
Your theory is mathless, and therefore useless!
This is the most funny argument, I ever heard. For example Darwin's evolutionary theory existed well for whole years without single line of math. Most of everyday phenomena are real, despite they have no math developed for it.
Fleetwood spent a reasonable amount of time showing you why your idea of waves are wrong
Yes, and he just used the same fringe arguments, which I already listed above. The problem with dismissal of many alleged pseudoscience models is, the arguments used for their dismissal were pseudoscientific by itself. IMO the net damage caused with false dismissal of pseudoscience is much larger, than the damage caused with blind acceptation of it.

Feb 01, 2014
ANY studies that involve humans are very difficult to subject to scientific rigor as all humans are different and there is no legal way to control the environment for those humans.

Feb 01, 2014
But Zephyr for your "theory" to be of any use, it MUST have a basis in math! It is a mathematical construct that has no math to back it up. Your imagination is a wonderful thing Zephyr, but it has no base in reality!

Comparing your "theory" to Darwin's theory is trying to compare apples to koala bears. There is no comparison.

He did not use fringe arguments, he showed you why you were wrong and you simply glossed over the parts you would not or could not understand. And when you start spouting about the danger of dismissing pseudoscience, consider Applegate and the Heaven's Gate cult.

That you continue to pontificate for cold fusion says more about your mental picture of yourself as some sort of down-trodden misunderstood genius than it does about the actual science of cold fusion.

Feb 01, 2014
The Oliver Lodge model is the stuff of the same category, after all it's nearly as old, as the cold fusion research. What you call the "actual science of cold fusion" is just a very last few years of it - these experiments are way older, but they were ignored in the name of "proper science". Which should serve as a memo and a deep warning for us: for ignorance and dismissal of experimental results with official physics the one hundred years is nothing, even during seemingly liberal era of modern human society. Even Galileo wasn't ignored that long! Your misunderstanding of role of math for science belongs into discussion bellow this article.

Gmr
Feb 01, 2014
We see here, in the wild, and in real-time, the co-opting of scientific language for pseudo-science. Many of the charges are counter-leveled with no basis in fact simply to muddy the waters, when none of the true pseudo-sciences has ever produced anything.

It's one thing to claim your team is a bunch of winners. It's another to do so in the face of a season of total catastrophic losses. At some point, one has to go back to reality as a referent.

Pseudoscience has not produced one useful, repeatable, reliable, verifiable anything.

That's a losing season, folks.

Science has any number of grand slams and real wins. Real products, real world benefits, real world results. Real data. Real prediction. These are often the points pseudoscience attacks in order to negate, remove, or reallocate the success.

That's the key in pseudoscience. Its "proof" is just tearing down the other guy and saying "See? SEE? I'm right because he's wrong!"

JVK
Feb 01, 2014
Pseudo-science cases:
JVK pushes his perfume on Phys.org because other biologists will not fall for his pseudoscience word salad.

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


PZ Myers began his defamation of Anderson and me by claiming that chromosome rearrangements are not involved in speciation. "It's mutation-driven."

The article by Horton et al (2014), linked above shows that what I've detailed since 1996 in a series of published works occurs in white-throated sparrows and the conserved molecular mechanisms lead to their diversity in morphological and behavioral phenotypes via chromosomal rearrangements, sans mutations.

If you scan the discussant's comments, you see that no one addressed the importance of current experimental evidence that refutes mutation-driven evolution via details that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man.


JVK
Feb 01, 2014
Social pseudoscience begins in Nei & Nozawa,2011 with this statement:

"…we will not consider geographical and ecological factors because of space limitation. Our primary purpose is to clarify the roles of mutation and selection in the evolution of reproductive isolation…"

http://gbe.oxford...abstract

Re: PZ Myers attack: "This type of speciation by chromosomal rearrangements is also known to occur in yeasts and mammals."

It is the result of ecological variation!

Feb 01, 2014
Pseudoscience has not produced one useful, repeatable, reliable, verifiable anything.

'pseudoscience' highlights the limits of current science.
The hard core 'scientists' that demand repeatable, verifiable....would never discover anything new as they don't have the vision or insight to pursue fringe anomalies.
All progress depends upon the unreasonable man.

Feb 01, 2014
Pseudoscience has not produced one useful, repeatable, reliable, verifiable anything
If you define the pseudoscience like the science, which has not produced one useful, repeatable, reliable, verifiable anything, then yes - but after then we are talking about circular reasoning fallacy. In its time the blood circulation, plate tectonics, germ theory, atom concept, heliocentric model, endosymbiosis, hypnosis, Lamarckian evolution, synaptic plasticity, existence of meteorites, wave theory of light, X-rays (they even have their defamative name from it), even construction of planes etc. were all considered a pseudoscience. Bonus: list of fundamental articles, rejected with peer-review journals as a pseudoscience.

Feb 01, 2014
Sorry, the correct link is here
All progress depends upon the unreasonable man.
Yes, many findings are based on negentropic process. They're sorta guessed from many overlapping indicia in non-deterministic way or found by accident. Which is why we usually cannot apply the math to protoscience. The really fundamental findings are labeled breaking just because they cannot be predicted from known facts in deterministic way.

Feb 01, 2014
Another article about pseudoscience which makes no mention of dogma …

Also, there is a growing awareness in the scientific community -- thanks to Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and decision theory -- that biases are a natural byproduct of the way the mind (Kaheman's "system 1") works.

This article could have been written by Carl Sagan back in the 80's. And yet, the past two decades have been filled with discoveries about how the mind makes decisions in complex situations that lead to a model for how the mind works in practice WHICH WAS NOT PREDICTED.

Feb 01, 2014
and here we see the last ditch efforts of pseudoscience attempt to legitimize their efforts:
hannes says:
Also, there is a growing awareness in the scientific community -- thanks to Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and decision theory -- that biases are a natural byproduct of the way the mind (Kaheman's "system 1") works

but forgets totally that this is about replication, reliability of facts, and advances moreso than anything, whereas his comments infer that pseudosciences are stagnant due to general conspiracy and dogmatic aggression

and Zephyr
but after then we are talking about circular reasoning fallacy

admits that pseudoscience has done nothing, BUT...
it is SCIENCE that uses circular reasoning????
WTF? Really?
Just read through HALF of your post, Z... all you do is argue in circles and provide NO real science usually... although I really DID love your post lately from the guy CLAIMING to be a Cambridge study... but no one can find that link in Cambridge anywhere

Feb 01, 2014
JVK babbles on with his jargon heavy word salad
and attacks other biologists who, although are actually TRAINED in the field, dont understand how he can make such unreliable claims based upon a dead crackpot idea
PZ Myers began his defamation of Anderson and me by claiming that chromosome rearrangements are not involved in speciation. "It's mutation-driven."

here's a thought... if a court will not call it defamation because the biologists are using real science while you are using pseudoscience, then it is NOT DEFAMATION, it is statements of FACT

and Ryygy
The hard core 'scientists' that demand repeatable, verifiable....would never discover anything new as they don't have the vision or insight to pursue fringe anomalies

this is ridiculous
and others say it as well!
Essentially science only succeeds because crackpots are here! Wow
CERN ... they succeeded because Ryggy and Zeph et al claim aether, eu, etc and because jvk doesnt understand the meaning of "mutation"

JVK
Feb 01, 2014
Captain Stumpy,

Please address the fact that evolutionary theory is social pseudoscience or provide experimental evidence that supports the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that can be compared to the experimental evidence that supports my model of ecological adaptations.

Please stop your anonymous foolishness! Thank you for your consideration in this regard.

JVK
Feb 01, 2014
http://comments.s...ent-4917

These results appear to conflict with previous reports of biologically plausible non-random experience-dependent receptor-mediated species divergence due to ecological variation and adaptations. At least two of those reports were co-authored by Dr. Akey.

The adaptations show up in nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled differences in cell types, which appear to be due to alternative splicings of pre-mRNA and amino acid substitutions, and the adaptations also show up in chromosomal rearrangements like those recently reported in sparrows with different morphological and behavioral phenotypes (see Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes).

The differences in sparrows appear to be consistent with vertebrate-wide nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptations like those in the mouse-to-human example detailed in Kamberov et al (2013) and Grossman et al (2013)...

Feb 01, 2014
Hannes Alfven
Osteta / Nestle / Zephyr
JVK
ryggesogn2

is there a comprehension problem?
Go RE-READ the article!
Obviously you are NOT understanding it!

The lack of testable causal explanations (or models, if you will) that characterises pseudoscience gives us a second level of discrimination: science provides casual explanations that lead to growth but pseudoscience does not.

and
This level is also where the waters are muddiest in terms of understanding science for much of the population, as seen in comments on social media posts, letters to the editor, talkback, television, media articles and political posturing

I mean... do yall really understand any of what was written?
We can re-post article and proof all day, but yall ignore FACTS because it doesnt fit your FICTION

yall dont do SCIENCE
you do FICTION with a Sci-fi twist but CLAIM it is REAL
your pseudoscience is not any better than literary fiction, except Lit. Fict. is interesting

JVK
Feb 01, 2014
http://comments.s...6170.471

"...DNA from a small number of Neandertal ancestors might have been swamped later by the sheer abundance of modern human DNA."

"Swamped" is an interesting word choice. Dr. Akey is senior author of the article with an abstract that states: " We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000–10,000 years."

Creationists might take that to mean the "swamping" occurred after a flood of Biblical proportions, which appears to be somewhat consistent with Dobzhansky's "Creationist" belief. Clearly, however, that's only if you place his stated belief into the context of a shorter time frame, which enabled rapid ecological adaptations to occur via the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction, changes in base pairs, amino acid substitutions, and chromosomal rearrangements.

"I am a creationist and an ...

Feb 01, 2014
Captain Stumpy,

Please address the fact that evolutionary theory is social pseudoscience or provide experimental evidence that supports the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that can be compared to the experimental evidence that supports my model of ecological adaptations.

Please stop your anonymous foolishness! Thank you for your consideration in this regard.


@JVK
please go back to school and get a firm understanding of real science and biology and learn it for yourself as i have psoted time and again proof of your illegitimacy.

i think PZ Meyers was quite specific in pointing out your fallacies.

thank you for your attention in this matter.

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

p.s. your model also uses mutation but you cannot admit it. read definition of mutation used by biologists. thanks

Feb 01, 2014
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
Max Planck
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.

Max Planck


Feb 01, 2014
AGWites here become very Popperarian here but refuse to apply the same rigor to their AGW faith.

Feb 01, 2014
Re: "pseudosciences are stagnant due to general conspiracy and dogmatic aggression"

You'd be wise to learn Kahneman's model, because you are using a word here -- conspiracy -- which is completely misleading. What decision theory suggests is that independent rational thinkers have two separate systems for thought: There is the rational system ("system 2"), which we use for thinking like a scientist. But, that system is incredibly slow and requires enormous effort. It cannot keep us alive. Studies show that the most important trait for determining life expectancy is response time, so the human mind has created a "system 1" which anticipates threats.

That fast system DOES NOT OPERATE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE. It produces narratives that are associatively coherent -- in other words, it selects stories on the basis of INTERNAL CONSISTENCY. And, in order to make this system fast, it wires directly into our PERCEPTION.

Simply put, the mind is NOT like a computer.

Feb 01, 2014
"the unwillingness of its practitioners to consider alternate theories or adapt their explanations based on new data, is what makes it pseudoscientific.3"
http://www.randi....nce.html]http://www.randi....nce.html[/url]

Sounds like AGWism.

"Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift, proposed in 1912 in a paradigm of gradualist geophysics, was labeled pseudoscientific and only finally accepted in the late 1950s as plate tectonics emerged as an explanatory framework."
http://www.randi....nce.html]http://www.randi....nce.html[/url]
Is perception reality? How can anyone really know?

Feb 01, 2014
What I also find quite inconsistent with many here who seem to espouse Poppererian falsification for science are very supportive of socialism.
It was Marxism that Popper used as his example of 'pseudoscience'.

JVK
Feb 01, 2014
@JVK
please go back to school and get a firm understanding of real science and biology and learn it for yourself as i have psoted time and again proof of your illegitimacy.

i think PZ Meyers was quite specific in pointing out your fallacies.

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

p.s. your model also uses mutation but you cannot admit it. read definition of mutation used by biologists. thanks


Like you, Myers never addressed the experimental evidence that clearly links ecological variation to adaptations via chromosomal rearrangements. This is common among theorists and their ignorant minions who are led to believe that biology teachers actually know something about the current extant literature, when they typically know nothing more than their teachers did, which is all you may ever know. Do you plan to become I teacher. I worked for 38 years as a medical laboratory scientist.

JVK
Feb 01, 2014
Mutation-Driven Evolution http://www.amazon...99661731
p. 196: "

"Epigenetic control of development is very important..., alternative splicings of introns also plays an important role in generating polymorphic proteins.... These polymorphic proteins... are sometimes used for determining different developmental pathways, as in the case of sex determination in insects."

IN MY MODEL ,THAT OCCURS VIA NUTRIENT-DEPENDENT PHEROMONE-CONTROLLED AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTIONS AND CHROMOSOMAL REARRANGEMENTS.

"(1) Mutation is the source of all genetic variation on which any form of evolution is dependent... (2) Natural selection is for saving advantageous mutations and eliminating harmful mutations. Selective advantage of the mutation is determined by the type of DNA change, and therefore natural selection is an evolutionary process initiated by mutation."

THIS IS NOT BIOLOGICALLY PLAUSIBLE AND HAS NOT BEEN VALIDATED BY ANY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE THAT VALIDATES MY MODEL.

Feb 01, 2014
"JC challenge to MM: Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being 'anti-science,' I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide.

He has not responded to my challenge, other than to retweet some rather dubious blog posts.

Ironically, this kind of behavior typifies 'anti-science' – insult the scientist, not their argument."
http://judithcurr...re-14467

Feb 01, 2014
@Halfven
because you are using a word here -- conspiracy -- which is completely misleading

I am using the word but it is the pseudoscience crackpots who keep inferring that their studies are being ignored due to it
There is the rational system ... effort

true
Studies show ... "system 1" which anticipates threats

also sometimes referred to as the reptilian brain responses or the primitive, instinctive brain function in laymans terms
used to protect the individual from physical threats
sometimes overriding the rational center etc
That fast system DOES NOT OPERATE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE

actually, it does, but it reacts using a different set of criteria

I guess what you are saying is that scientists dont use the logical brain?
Or is it just people who point out that pseudoscience is irrational that dont use the logical brain?
Seems to me that it is the pseudoscience acolyte that fails to use the logical brain...

what exactly IS your point?

Feb 01, 2014
@Alfven
That fast system DOES NOT OPERATE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE. It produces narratives that are associatively coherent -- in other words, it selects stories on the basis of INTERNAL CONSISTENCY

but you failed to mention that you can work around this brain by being methodical and logical. You CAN re-assess your perceptions and change your beliefs. You CAN learn how to think logically and scientifically.
The problem with the pseudoscience crowd (like Ryggy, jvk, zephyr etc) is their LACK of ability to re-assess their motivations and face logic. In the face of logic and real legitimate science, they retreat into a shell of dogma and verbiage (see jvk above) and also name calling. AKA chest thumping
This is the reptilian response.

With the evidence not in their corner, they attack.

Even with SOME real science in their theory (jvk, cantdrive etc) they cannot admit that their theory is groundless
because it has been refuted by REAL scientists, they instead flout it HERE

Feb 01, 2014
@Hannes Alfven
And, in order to make this system fast, it wires directly into our PERCEPTION

I agree that your reptilian brain can affect your perceptions
I will use responses here to demonstrate how the pseudoscience crackpot uses it to push a theory with more/bigger holes than the titanic

See jvk say
This is common among theorists and their ignorant minions who are led to believe that biology teachers actually know something about the current extant literature

this lashing out is meant to bolster his argument but instead he cant see how it undermines it
he doesnt realise that ANYONE with logic can look him up and find that he is a research biologist in the field, where as jvk is a glorified lab tech who tries to use his Mensa membership to promote his research...
given a choice, I would believe the man in the field, not the lab tech with an axe to grind and a hack false concept he is using to enrich himself!
it dont take a genius to prove crackpots are crazy

JVK
Feb 01, 2014
...they retreat into a shell of dogma and verbiage (see jvk above)


Neandertals and Moderns Made Imperfect Mates Science 31 January 2014:
Vol. 343 no. 6170 pp. 471-472

http://comments.s...6170.471

I'm retreating from Captain Stumpy's nonsense, and hope others will join me at the Science Magazine comments section.

Feb 01, 2014
So then after jvk attempts to discredit all biology teachers he says
Do you plan to become I teacher. I worked for 38 years as a medical laboratory scientist

this is supposed to mean that I am walking in the footsteps of the ignorant

however, what it REALLY says is that jvk has a baseless claim and cannot support it with rational folk who are ACTUALLY WORKING IN THE FIELD and therefore he comes to an open, free, public forum to shove it down the throats of the uninitiated in the hopes that he can spread his CRACKPOTTERY...
well, jvk, I was a professional investigator for more than 20 years and I have seen many a con-man and I can tell you that your tactics mirror them...
but in all actuality, it is irrelevant what the background is because, in the end, the claims made by jvk are refuted by SCIENCE

and herein lies the SOURCE of jvk's anger, just as it is the source of discontent for so many other crackpots pushing pseudosciences

they cant get recognition for their idle BELIEF

Feb 01, 2014
@jvk
I'm retreating from Captain Stumpy's nonsense, and hope others will join me at the Science Magazine comments section

my sincerest apologies for hurting your Mensa feelings
you are not the only Mensa member here, by the way

so i am sorry i am making you take your ball and go play elsewhere because you cant use your crackpot stuff here to bolster your comments, and because you cannot refute your pseudoscience with a real professional biologist in the field...

i will let you call me names though...if it helps
yes, i get AAAS journal too...so what? you made a comment? and?

thanks for reinforcing all the statements made in the article above, though... it shows others how pseudoscience acolytes like you work and gives them something to watch out for in the future.

PEACE

JVK
Feb 01, 2014
From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior (1996)
http://www.hawaii...ion.html

"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, Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans..."

With details on the conserved molecular mechanisms of epigenetic effects, we linked nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations involving amino acid substitutions and chromosomal rearrangements in sex chromosomes at the advent of sexual reproduction in yeasts via a common signaling pathway in vertebrates (Horton et al., http://www.pnas.o...bstract) and invertebrates (Maleszka et al http://bfg.oxford...bstract)

Not one evolutionary theorist has addressed any of the data in any of these three published works.

Feb 01, 2014
@jvk
Not one evolutionary theorist has addressed any of the data in any of these three published works


so...like i pointed out
you cant get your theory recognized by real scientists so you come here to argue?
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
do you really think that if you get Bob the local plumber to say "you are right" that this is going to make all the other Biologists/researchers in the field come running to your side and pat you on the back and say "good job"????
this is a public forum
free
general public
even though there ARE some professionals here

you keep comming here to argue your point...
this only reinforces the above assessments of your lack of validity

is that a challenge to your masculinity?
is that why you keep coming back?

it appears to me that your lack of ability to "prove to the world" that you are correct is the simple and resounding fact that
you are pushing pseudoscience and it is NOT REAL SCIENCE!

surely a Mensa member would understand that...

JVK
Feb 01, 2014
It is probably obvious to everyone else who has followed the comments here that the reason the experimental evidence of ecological adaptations has not been addressed is because it is overwhelming. Anyone who has touted mutation-driven evolution but has looked at the experimental evidence realizes they were wrong.

When have you heard that any academic admitted being wrong? Even when faced with overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, they simply hope that not too many people learn about the evidence until after they are dead. You, on the other hand, are not an academic. You are nothing but a fool who believes in the foolishness of academics who don't even try to address the biological facts of ecological adaptations via amino acid substitutions and chromosomal rearrangements.

Your anonymity gives you an advantage that academics don't have. You can dissappear without dying, and no one will ever know how wrong you were. Please dissappear now, and save us all any more bother.

Feb 01, 2014
@jvk
When have you heard that any academic admitted being wrong?

quite a lot, actually
Even when faced with overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, they simply hope that not too many people learn about the evidence...

I could use this very same argument about YOU
You...are not an academic

never claimed to be one
although I am going back to school
and it IS an academic field of study
Your anonymityblah dissappear now, and save us all any more bother

so... you are MAD because a NON ACADEMIC showed you how much of a CRANK you are, so now you want to pout about it?
And you think this hurts my feelings?
Besides, you claim I was wrong
but I think I PEGGED YOU fairly SPOT ON
as you are just proving MY POINT with YOUR ARGUMENTS

sorry jvk, you continue to dig your own grave with your narcissistic pontifications and crackpot ramblings
but in the end, YOU are STILL the lab tech
that is PROMOTING the CRACKPOT PSEUDOSCIENCE
not me

and all on topic, to boot!

Feb 01, 2014
When have you heard that any academic admitted being wrong? Even when faced with overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, they simply hope that not too many people learn about the evidence until after they are dead.


"A 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.

Max Planck"


JVK
Feb 01, 2014
http://www.amazon...99737673

In his book, linked above: Neuroanatomist Simon LeVay wrote:

" James Kohl, an independent researcher who also markets "human pheromones" to the general public, believes that pheromones may have a primary influence in setting up a person's basic sexual orientation. Other, more consciously perceived aspects of attractiveness, such as facial appearance, are attached to a person's basic orientation through a process of association during early postnatal life, according to Kohl.

This model is attractive in that it solves the "binding problem" of sexual attraction. By that I mean the problem of why all the different features of men or women (visual appearance and feel of face, body, and genitals; voice quality, smell; personality and behavior, etc.) attract people as a more or less coherent package representing one sex, rather than as..." see p210


JVK
Feb 01, 2014
Award winning book chapter & Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality article:
http://www.sexarc...kohl.htm

Award winning Neuroendocrinology Letters Review article
http://www.nel.ed...view.htm

PZ Myers attack on "...a creationist with a Harvard science degree" who worked with Catherine Dulac at Harvard, who is involved in research on the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes. http://elife.elif...1/e00070

http://scienceblo...ionists/
"Obviously, Dr Nathaniel Jeanson is one of the fruit loops who plodded through a graduate program."

Did I mention that PZ Myers is the most ignorant atheistic biology teacher I have ever encountered. He knows nothing about anything and teaches it to his students. I'll bet he's teaching everything he knows to Captain Stumpy.

Feb 01, 2014
@jvk
Did I mention that PZ Myers is the most ignorant atheistic biology teacher I have ever encountered

biased conjecture without merit based upon the fact that he destroyed your hypothesis and proved you wrong in print and you cannot do anything about it as it is factual and true
He knows nothing about anything and teaches it to his students

biased conjecture already proven wrong by position, title and stature in biology education system
obvious ploy to detract from your own shortcomings and the fact that you are pushing a fallacious pseudoscience hypothesis with very little actual scientific merit
I'll bet he's teaching everything he knows to Captain Stumpy

I would take his education over yours any day
at least he is competent and able to teach
and is considered qualified

was there a point to all this other than to reinforce the above article and prove my assessment?

Feb 01, 2014
Re: "but you failed to mention that you can work around this brain by being methodical and logical. You CAN re-assess your perceptions and change your beliefs. You CAN learn how to think logically and scientifically."

Okay, now I'm learning a little bit about YOU which you are not intending to share. I know how people make decisions from the model, and I also know a bit about the evidence for one particular topic which is commonly thought to be pseudoscience -- the Electric Universe. And one of the features of this evidence is that it has not (yet) been presented in a manner which is conducive to making rational decisions.

This actually happens ALL OF THE TIME in science, especially in textbooks: We teach the material in a manner which does not permit us to question it. In fact, Jeff Schmidt has argued in Disciplined Minds that the physics PhD program does this intentionally, in order to weed out the students who will stop to think about what it is they are memorizing.

Feb 01, 2014
In the case of the Electric Universe, the evidence is all spread out. And as things stand, it takes enormous time to actually track down all of the sources. So, what happens when people lack the information they need to make an objective decision about a subject -- we know from Kahneman's model -- that they fall back onto the irrational narratives. And this happens IMPLICITLY: In other words, it happens AT THE LEVEL OF YOUR PERCEPTION. The failure of the persuader to provide the proper context that answers the questions which their audience is asking induces your own mind to INVENT associatively coherent narratives.

Since associative coherence as a criteria for selection is based upon whether or not the details are internally consistent, EVIDENCE is not a factor. Internally consistent stories can involve just two details. In fact, the less, the better.

This is how bias creeps into science, because these associatively coherent stories are over-simplifications of the world.

Feb 01, 2014
When people use words like "conspiracy" within the context of a discussion about "pseudoscience", that particular combination is a reflection of their own refusal to learn and apply a model for how the mind works. When you see those two words used together, the person is suggesting that they cannot see any reason why independent, rational people might exhibit collective herd-like behavior.

Well, we can see very clearly from Kahneman's model how biases can form into culture, because the propensity for biases is actually encoded into how we react to uncertain, complex environments. The biases arrive within these associatively coherent narratives which Kahneman's "system 1" presents to us.

Scientists are JUST AS SUSCEPTIBLE to all of this as everybody else, because it all happens beyond the observation of the rational mind. This is why we can see biases in other people much easier than ourselves.

It also suggests that people need to be more open-minded about bias and dogma.

Feb 01, 2014
People who advocate for ideas which are struggling to compete with mainstream theories, and who are convinced through diligent research that there is something to what they are reading, should learn about Kahneman's model and decision science.

Watch the lecture at http://www.youtub...tgSwY88, and if that interests you, read the book Thinking, Fast and Slow.

By combining this mental model with knowledge about the audience you are targeting, you can put yourself into your reader's shoes. You can answer the questions your audience is thinking, before they even ask them. This is how people who do product innovation at the largest corporations in the world design product packaging: The packaging is designed to be the answers to the questions which people are asking.

People who disagree with mainstream science would be wise to do a little bit of homework on how to craft their message. Once the information has been presented properly, THEN let's talk about pseudoscience.

Feb 01, 2014
One more thing: If you deeply reflect upon Kahneman's model, what you will notice is that "system 1" -- the "irrational" system -- is designed for SPEED. The reason it is there is to keep us ALIVE.

THE RATIONAL MIND IS FAR TOO SLOW TO KEEP US ALIVE.

So, what system 1 does is constantly scan our senses and combine that with the patterns we are already familiar with, in order to alter our perception, to keep us alive.

So, when a scientist decides to invest heavily into one theory to the detriment of others, or when they are working in a research position which would be blown to pieces by certain arguments or observations, SYSTEM 1 VIEWS THOSE THINGS AS EXISTENTIAL THREATS.

What this means is that scientists are actually MORE PRONE to reacting irrationally than the uncommitted layperson who has no reason to feel threatened by changing their mind.

THIS IS WHY OUTSIDER LAYPEOPLE HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY IN SCIENCE. It's also why institutions tend to become authoritarian over time.

Feb 01, 2014
that people need to be more open-minded about bias and dogma
The proponents of Plasma Universe aren't less prone to bias and dogma, than the mainstream physics. I'm pretty opened to all alternative models thinkable and from what I know about it I can just tell, the Plasma Universe has very much to do with classical pseudoscience.

Feb 01, 2014
Kahneman's model basically exposes how bias creeps into research, and it leaves scientists in the uncomfortable position of saying that they can do things which are actually impossible. Yes, we can become reflective of our irrational tendencies, but we've all met lots of highly educated scientific thinkers that are clearly NOT reflective.

What is extraordinary is that professional scientists seem to continue to watch Kahneman lecture as though he is not basically blowing the building up. Everybody is all nodding their heads in apparent appreciation. The guy is basically lighting a fuse beneath CONSENSUS SCIENCE, and nobody is throwing any chairs.

I think once mainstream science sees that these arguments WILL be used against consensus science, they will exhibit a very different reaction.

Meanwhile, science writers completely oblivious to these huge cultural trends continue to write vanilla fluff pieces like this about pseudoscience that sound like they were written 2 decades ago.

Feb 01, 2014
Re: "The proponents of Plasma Universe aren't less prone to bias and dogma, than the mainstream physics. I'm pretty opened to all alternative models thinkable and from what I know about it I can just tell, the Plasma Universe has very much to do with classical pseudoscience."

"from what I know about it" and "I can just tell" are the clues that your decision are not actually based upon the diligent work of an investigator. You haven't chased down the sources. You haven't talked with the theorists for clarifications. You haven't done ANY ethnography on this complex subject, to figure out how people are making decisions about it.

What you did, if you are like other people, is you saw some rebuttals, and you might not have even understood all of the details in the rebuttals, but you made a call to STOP LEARNING the Electric Universe.

Then, you went online here, and pronounced to others -- some of whom have read much more than yourself on the subject -- your opinion.

Feb 01, 2014
The fact is that critical ionization velocities have been observed to be associated with the HI hydrogen filaments in radio surveys.

The fact is that the MHD models applied by astrophysicists are known to not apply to plenty of phenomena in space which THEY ARE STILL ROUTINELY APPLIED TO.

The fact is that quasi-neutrality DOES NOT imply non-conductive. A quasi-neutral plasma still conducts. That is a fact.

The fact is that plasma filaments exhibit the behavior of an ion sump: Conductance through these filaments induces an attractive force upon ions in interstellar space. This process -- known to plasma physicists as Marklund convection -- can be used as the basis for explaining how stars form which is very consistent with what we observe.

The fact is that ALL PLASMA FILAMENTS GENERATE MICROWAVES, so if you thought that the CMB could only be predicted by a metaphysical big bang, then you've made an IRRATIONAL decision.

Now, I suspect that you don't know what a CIV is. True?

Feb 01, 2014
are the clues that your decision are not actually based upon the diligent work of an investigator
This is just my opinion in this matter. I already explained, that the proponents of plasma universe misinterpreted the gravitomagnetic phenomena of dark matter for classical plasma behavior, because their equations are similar. Nobody else has brought such an explanation of the whole Plasma Universe stuff, so you can be sure, I know about it at least something. Which is the most robust evidence of Plasma Universe model according to you? I'm not asking you for links of reference list, just about your opinion in this matter.

Feb 01, 2014
Re: "Which is the most robust evidence of Plasma Universe model according to you?"

Read papers by Gerrit Verschuur. Some of them have been published in the Astrophysical Journal, but most are in IEEE. Verschuur is NOT part of the Thunderbolts group. He doesn't even routinely communicate with them. He's one of the world's most famous radio astronomers.

Use his two books -- Interestellar Matters and The Invisible Universe -- to learn how radio astronomy works. And use that material to understand what he is saying in his papers.

Verschuur's line of investigation will probably take down the Big Bang. Nobody will see this coming when it happens.

We are waiting for somebody to present it in a form that does not take months to understand. Personally, I'd also like to see it presented in a format which people can use to question the information.

But, don't forget that there is no MONEY in ANY of this stuff which can be made. So, why would ANYBODY care?!

JVK
Feb 01, 2014
was there a point to all this other than to reinforce the above article and prove my assessment?


Yes. My point was that PZ Myers attacks but has never substantiated his attacks with discussion of experimental evidence. He simply ignores it, and lets people like you -- his equally ignorant minions -- continue what he started.

He provided the best example of academic nonsense that I could imagine and stopped my participation by labeling me a "homophobe" no doubt not realizing that I had published an award-winnning book chapter in the Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality in 2007, that used the same model for the development of heterosexual and homosexual male preferences (thus, Simon LeVay's comment in his book).

If PZ Myers had done his homework and learned about me before calling me a crank and then a homophobe, he could not have missed the trail of experimental evidence that clearly makes him the fool, perhaps even in everything he has ever written.

Feb 01, 2014
Verschuur claimed not too long ago to observe local contamination within the WMAP data. The WMAP team, not surprisingly, defended their work by invoking some sort of a statistical analysis that suggested that Verschuur's claimed correlations -- between local knots in interstellar filaments and WMAP hotspots -- were not statistically relevant.

But, there are very big problems in this response: First, the WMAP team does not read IEEE. We know this because people who read the Astrophysical Journal will generally tell you that they do not read IEEE. So, we basically know that the WMAP team does not know of any model which justifies Verschuur's claims -- namely, they do not know what Marklund convection is. They might not even know what a critical ionization velocity is. That would not be a stretch, because neither do radio astronomers, actually.

2nd: Interstellar filaments are DYNAMIC phenomena in the IEEE view of these filaments. Of course there will be misalignments.

Feb 01, 2014
3rd: The reason we observe interstellar "clouds" at 21-cm is because radio waves go through them. So, when you are looking at a patch of sky, you are seeing numerous phenomena moving at different speeds, all signals on top of each other. So, there is some Gaussian fitting that has to happen here, and if it is to be ACCURATELY DONE, it has to be done by a HUMAN. The WMAP team definitely did NOT replicate Verschuur's approach, because that took Verschuur many, many thousands of hours of careful curve-fitting.

4th: Many instruments we use to observe in radio cannot be used to replicate Verschuur's observation of CIV's. He explains this in his papers.

5th: When care is taken to generate linewidth histograms for this HI hydrogen signal, the shifts tend to center at PARTICULAR SPEEDS. ALL 4 CIVs show up in some regions. Just one in others ...

The CIV's suggest that ionization in space is an ACTIVE, ONGOING PROCESS.

Feb 01, 2014
The CIV's also suggest that this ionization is definitively associated with the filaments themselves. And that points the finger at Marklund convection as a possible mechanism.

Critical ionization velocities CANNOT be there if you are true believer in the Astrophysical Journal. They undermine everything else. It's like STARTING OVER -- rewinding the tape back to Fred Hoyle ridiculing the Big Bang.

You cannot reinvent the Big Bang theory with evidence for ionization happening all over the sky. Astrophysicists and cosmologists will see these claims, and their "system 1" will immediately size it up as a threat to everything that they know in science, and they will -- without awareness -- post-rationalize a narrative for the public for why this simply CANNOT be true …

So, whoever explains these findings has his work cut out for him, because he has to figure out all of these post-rationalizations before they are verbalized, and SHUT THEM ALL DOWN before they even get a chance.

Feb 01, 2014
The WMAP team actually never even made it to the point of addressing the CIV's. They stopped at questioning Verschuur's statistics on his contention that there was contamination in the WMAP.

What was completely lost in the science reporting on the WMAP contamination, if you go back and review those popular science stories, is that there are known phenomena from the plasma laboratory which quite logically fit together to form a model that can explain the CIV's. It's up to the human race -- not just Verschuur or the Thunderbolts group -- to decide to create and elaborate this model. It's a HUGE endeavor. These small, unfunded groups should not be expected to do all of this -- and in the face of such hostile reaction. Verschuur fears the publication of his own conclusions.

And the reason that we WILL eventually decide to do that is because humans care that their beliefs in science are accurate. But, we are still at the point of people not understanding the observation.

Feb 02, 2014
@Alfven
...WILL be used against consensus science...

first off, you are assuming that consensus is being given without just cause
Consensus is usually arrived at by multiple persons making multiple separate experiments and arriving at the same general or specific conclusions
this is not the same as a congressional consensus which relies upon a vote
And the rational person does have the ability to research and learn and change his/her mind but it may also be up to the opponent to provide documentation that supports the argument in the case of ideas that are not supported by the general evidence
And linking to reputable sites is the only way that everyone can be on the same wavelength for the argument
choosing a journal is important as it needs to reflect the argument
selecting a site that is known to produce disreputable studies on cosmology is tantamount to arguing religion as the legitimacy is not verifiable
Therefore the linked material MUST be legitimate, verifiable, logical and show the abilities of prediction as well as applicability to the argument

Feb 02, 2014
@Alfven
taking a study of electrical engineering and trying to apply it to cosmology is the mark of ignorance and only shows where people are reaching for straws to support their argument
When someone views something like Fulgurites and Lichtenberg figures and then speculates it caused the grand canyon, this is a hypothesis, but is it also testable. Given the size/scope of the canyon and damage caused, as well as the known materials of the canyon, there would be evidence of electrical discharge left over... (such as fulgerites, etc) but there is none, nor is there evidence to support the hypothesis other than the visual similarities, even though there are fractals all throughout nature that are not formed by lightning or massive electrical discharges.
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it does not change the fact that the hypothesis is factually incorrect

Feb 02, 2014
@alfven
misunderstand what we see:
This also applies to people who see craters and assume, because it resembles scarring left over from electricity, that the craters on the moon, for example, are caused by electrical discharge or plasma discharge... and again we come to the testable part, which, of course, happened, and does not support the hypothesis. Again, there would be measurable quantities and evidence left over, and given that those quantities are not seen, then we must advance a new hypothesis, which, in this case, was easy: there are comets and asteroids all over the place= good starting place!
So we have a working theory and evidence (from watching asteroids smack things) and we get a great theory that answers the questions...maybe not all of them, but a good thoery can be adjusted with new evidence (a shortcoming of the pseudosciences)

most pseudosciences are completely not adjustable
see cantdrive for proof
still stuck in 1970!

Feb 02, 2014
@Alfven
a theory has to be testable, logical, and must have supporting evidence
the logical mind can be taught how to work around bias by using facts as well as showing experimentation that demonstrates reality and supports the bond between the pronouncement and its applicability to reality
this applies to any science... if the hypothesis is good, and the tests confirm it, then it can be then moved to the realm of theory, but saying that you have supplanted a working successful theory takes an exceptional replacement that MUST be functionally greater in accuracy than the earlier theory which is the failing of EU/Aether as well as jvk's hypothesis as it does not FULLY REPLACE the existing theory, contrary to what the adherents want to believe
there may be some GOOD science in it... but that does not mean that the whole thing is the BEST ANSWER and fits ALL the data
another failing of people like jvk and cantdrive
they cant see that someone else may actually be correct!

Feb 02, 2014
@Alfven
now, specifically about your WMAP argument:
I have seen your links and I have read the WMAP proclamations
I have read the study
personally, I believe that the evidence for your hypothesis is going to have to be much stronger. Also, it seems to be the height of conceit to assume that the cosmologists/physicists didnt take into account hydrogen gas in our own galaxy during this study and that they are not trained in things like plasma physics.
There are ways to eliminate certain types of background noise and determine whether or not a signal is coming from a weak source close by or far away
the analysis from WMAP seems to be factually correct and supports the data shown, whereas the continual tweaking of your model leaves a lot of room for error and plenty of problems...
I could take the Justice department Violent crime data and continually tweak it and prove that all men are violent offenders and should be considered a hazard to the human race, given enough time

Feb 02, 2014
@jvk
If PZ Myers had done his homework and learned about me before calling me a crank ...clearly makes him the fool, perhaps even in everything he has ever written

again, you demonstrate my arguments
you are only here to make an argument against a perceived enemy (who is not present and therefore defenseless) with jargon heavy verbiage that applies makes sense only to you as most Biologists shun you as a crackpot...
this makes you angry and so you take it out here because the biologists have emasculated you publicly

you feel strengthened here because you feel that no one can refute your arguments but you cannot see that given your own inflexibility to consider other arguments and the fact that your model does not answer all questions and cannot supplant the current reigning model, that you are only further undermining yourself and your model which further emasculates you making you angrier

this is nothing more than a temper tantrum for your failures, jvk

Feb 02, 2014
@jvk
what he writes is a particularly pretentious, obfuscatory way of saying what he means — he's trying to obscure rather than explain.
But then, that's what he does. He crashes into a thread full of lay people and then lords it over them with his abuse of jargon. And he does it over and over again, and you can see the responses: most of the other commenters are more or less stunned, they don't know how to deal with all the specific buzzwords he throws at them, and they have these doubts…maybe he's saying something I should know about. No, he's not. He's babbling in scientese

the most accurate description of your methodology on this site
About your pheromone hypothesis
speaking of murky, difficult, ephemeral phenomena, I think the human dependence on pheromones is probably real, but only one tiny part of our behavioral repertoire, and almost certainly not a major influence on development.

Mensa membership does NOT make you correct
http://www.anapsi...nes.html

Feb 02, 2014
Please dissappear now, and save us all any more bother.


PLEASE follow your own advice !

Feb 02, 2014
"A vigorous, articulate and targeted offence against pseudoscience is essential to the project of human progress through science, which, as Einstein reminds us, is "the most precious thing we have"".
Not quite. Ellerton is leaving out the context of the quote. He actually said:
"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have."
"primitive and childlike"? Science is not the perfection implied.
And I think his allusion to "young-earth creationism" is resorting to an easy to knock down straw man (who even claims it to be science?). Easier than defending evolution's weaknesses.

Feb 02, 2014
@Alfven Which is the most robust evidence of Plasma Universe model according to you? I'm not asking you for links or reference list - just about your opinion in this matter.

So what I got for it? Instead of direct answer I got pile of blurbs, references to another books and advices to read them (I did it already). This is exactly one of ways, in which the pseudoscience manifests ("...?? ....RTFM!!")..

JVK
Feb 02, 2014
Ellerton is leaving out the context... "One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have."


I put this into the context of the child-like belief in mutation-initiated natural selection when no experimental evidence shows what mutations are fixed in the genome (none are), or how they could be naturally selected (they can't be) by organisms that ecologically (e.g., biologically) adapted to become evolutionary theorists (idiots).

Ecological adaptations occur in the context of biophysical constraints on protein folding that have been removed from the theory of mutation-driven evolution.

And I think his allusion to "young-earth creationism" is resorting to an easy to knock down straw man (who even claims it to be science?). Easier than defending evolution's weaknesses.


YEC incorporates the biophysical constraints of Darwin's 'conditions of life.'

JVK
Feb 02, 2014
what he writes is a particularly pretentious, obfuscatory way of saying what he means — he's trying to obscure rather than explain.


I've detailed the experimental evidence that shows that food odors and pheromones are equally important in all species.

speaking of murky, difficult, ephemeral phenomena, I think the human dependence on pheromones is probably real, but only one tiny part of our behavioral repertoire, and almost certainly not a major influence on development.


1) http://medicalxpr...ess.html .......... We detect sickness.
2) http://the-scient...dy-odor/ ..........We detect age
3) http://dx.doi.org....0085977 ...We detect differences in fat content
4) http://www.scienc...14000599 .......We detect difference in the amino acid content of milk.

JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER MAMMAL THAT HAS ECOLOGICALLY ADAPTED (VIA OUR SENSE OF SMELL!


Feb 02, 2014
Other things typically branded pseudoscience include astrology, young-Earth creationism, iridology, neuro-linguistic programming and water divining, to name but a few.

Let's not forget "magnetic reconnection" and the "frozen-in field" condition....

Feb 02, 2014
Umm, does some peer-reviewed publication dedicated to water divining exist? I'd appreciate the link this time... The lack of peer-reviewed replication usually is, what characterizes the pathological skepticism too.

JVK
Feb 02, 2014
http://www.anapsi...nes.html Last updated January 1, 2014 Pheromones in Humans: Myth or Reality? ©1992 David Wolfgang-Kimball

The most recent published work that was cited appears to be from 1983. What kind of idiot introduces something like this in discussion of pseudoscience? For comparison, see:
Neo-Darwinism, the Modern Synthesis and selfish genes: are they of use in physiology?
http://jp.physoc....abstract

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

Captain Stumpy again attests to PZ Myers incredible ignorance. Students, their parents, and grandparents, are paying tuition and other expenses to be taught about a ridiculous theory by biology teachers who haven't learned anything about cause and effect since the time they were taught to believe in that ridiculous theory.

Feb 02, 2014
taking a study of electrical engineering and trying to apply it to cosmology is the mark of ignorance and only shows where people are reaching for straws to support their argument

Such a statement only serves to exemplify your extreme ignorance about the physics of plasma. The physics of plasma includes the study of complex electrical circuits, those who don't get it will tend to resort to magical phenomena such as "magnetic reconnection" to explain what is otherwise a simple to understand process.

Feb 02, 2014
@cantdrive
Let's not forget "magnetic reconnection"

I guess you really CANT read then?

http://adsabs.har...82..379M

see also, "Magnetic Reconnection from a multiscale instability cascade"; Moser & Bellan; Nature 484(7385): 379-381, February 2012

https://www.youtu...3s8ODaKg

http://on.aol.com...17865737

see article above... actually read it. it applies to you, cantdrive

Feb 02, 2014
@jvk
Captain Stumpy again attests to PZ Myers incredible ignorance...

again I point out that it is Meyers who is a degreed professional working in the field and it is JVK who is nothing more than a lab technician who is suggesting that we bow to his superior intellect

your hypothesis is not capable of explaining it all, nor is it capable of replacing the existing theory

your hypothesis is may have some validity in specific settings but its scope is limited to specific settings and cannot comprehensively define and replace historical observation, data, experimentation and the application to the existing theory

your hypothesis is based upon a fallacy, which is nothing more than you BELIEVE it to be more accurate, and you have YET TO PROVE IT to the scientific community, because you are UNABLE to

Feb 02, 2014
@cd
Such a statement only serves to exemplify your extreme ignorance about the physics of plasma. The physics of plasma includes the study of complex electrical circuits, those who don't get it will tend to resort to magical phenomena such as "magnetic reconnection" to explain what is otherwise a simple to understand process

1: see above article
2: attempt at obfuscation
3: misrepresentation
PLASMA PHYSICS IS INCLUDED IN COSMOLOGY
but COSMOLOGY is normally NOT INCLUDED in the electrical engineering curriculum unless taken as an elective from what I have seen

http://adsabs.har...94..154D

http://cegt201.br...ee.shtml


Feb 02, 2014
@Zephyer
does some peer-reviewed publication dedicated to water divining exist?

here is one study... no link found yet

Ongley, P. (1948). "New Zealand Diviners". New Zealand Journal of Science and Technology 30: 38–54. via Hines, Terence (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (Second ed.). Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. p. 420.

here is a link for "grave dowsing" same general principles

http://www.uiowa....sing.pdf

a study[18] was undertaken in Kassel, Germany, under the direction of the Gesellschaft zur Wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) [Society for the Scientific Investigation of the Parasciences]

GWUP-Psi-Tests 2004: Keine Million Dollar fď��Ä�r PSI-Fähigkeiten

I tried the above link but it 404'd

more info at

https://en.wikipe.../Dowsing


Feb 02, 2014
Peer-reviewed journals usually don't return the 404 message... Anyway, given the simplicity in which dowsing can be tested (and potential usage, which the dowsing could have), the general lack of peer-reviewed articles about it is suspicious. Many phenomena are so poorly conditioned and fuzzy, that the relevance of pathological skepticism and pseudoscience are nearly balanced, but in this case I believe, the more serious attitude would be useful here. The nonexistence of evidence is not an evidence of non-existence.

In addition, until we have no idea, how the phenomena is working, it's testing under different conditions may give random results, which are equivalent the absence of phenomena. For example, the triboluminiscence is real, but if you will check it the random chemicals, you can get easily the impression, that the relevance of this phenomena for reality is bellow experimental error. Many studies which are testing these phenomena with blind trials are doing the same mistake.

Feb 02, 2014
Try to imagine, you would try to prove the existence of electricity with random trial and approach error, i.e. in similar way, which the various boundary phenomena are checked in scientific way. Some materials are getting electric under friction, but many others not. Even is such materials can get electrified, they will get different charges during this, so after sufficient number of trials the effects of electrostatic forces will average in experimental datasets.

In brief, if we would apply strictly blind approach, we may recognize, that no electricity actually exist in the nature, because - you know - the results are so inconclusive in most cases. And even if they appeared to work, they did lead to quite opposite contradicting results (the electrification of glass and amber, for example). So, by all criterions of scientific replication the electricity doesn't exist - end of story. This analogy just illustrates, how the contemporary science handles so-called paranormal phenomena.

Feb 02, 2014
Peer-reviewed journals usually don't return the 404 message... Anyway, given the simplicity in which dowsing can be tested (and potential usage, which the dowsing could have), the general lack of peer-reviewed articles about it is suspicious.
No, actually , it's not at all suspicious. It would make perfect sense, given that dowsing has been around for as long as there have been farmers. Furthermore, just because you cannot find evidence of experimentation on the internet does not mean that experimentation has not been done. As you so succinctly put it, the nonexistence of evidence is not evidence of nonexistence.

JVK
Feb 02, 2014
...it is Meyers who is a degreed professional working in the field...


No matter what reasons are behind the attacks on my credibility, the ecological origin of all biological laws is apparent:
1) in the context of systems biology;
2) in the context of the metabolism of nutrients by microbes; and
3) in the context of how the metabolism of nutrients results in species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction.

Taken together, the systems biology of nutrient metabolism to species-specific pheromones, which control the physiology of reproduction, can be expressed in a summary of Kohl's Laws of Biology:
1) Life is nutrient-dependent (see for review Kohl, 2012).
2) The physiology of reproduction is pheromone-controlled (see for review Kohl, 2013).

Darwin's 'conditions of life' are also nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, which shows what idiots PZ Myers and others have always been for touting the social pseudoscience of mutation-driven evolution.

JVK
Feb 02, 2014
...you have YET TO PROVE IT to the scientific community, because you are UNABLE to


Did I mention that: "Dobzhansky [8] and Muller [9], partially preceded by Bateson [3,7,10] proposed that hybrid sterility and inviability are caused by incompatible alleles alternatively fixed in two previously isolated populations (BDM model). The BDM model is so straightforward that it became the null model of speciation [7] and except for a few strong proponents (notably [1,2]) chromosomal speciation was largely neglected."

http://linkinghub...10001795

PZ Myers and other idiots simply accepted a pseudoscientific proposal that was never subjected to experimental testing until last year. Yet these are the fools who are telling people I must prove that my model of ecological adaptations is an accurate representation of biologically based cause and effect. These fools are not the intellectual giants that drive scientific progress. Are they? Myers teaches!

Gmr
Feb 02, 2014
But, if you proved it, it would shut up all of the critics at once.

Why not do it? Is it won't or can't?

Feb 02, 2014
just because you cannot find evidence of experimentation on the internet does not mean that experimentation has not been done
I'm talking about peer-reviewed research. The projects ignored with mainstream due to pathological skepticism and pluralistic ignorance don't lack the experimentation, they lack the peer-reviewed research. This is a difference.

Feb 02, 2014
@jvk
Yet these are the fools blah blah blah Are they?

again you lash out and continue to profess your intellect in a public forum while angrily condemning scientists working in the field as "fools" etc...
IF your statements are correct and
IF your models are superior to the current reigning model and
IF you can prove your models superior with evidence and
IF your experiments/hypothesis takes everything into consideration
THEN
like ALL HYPOTHESIS it will be reviewed
tested
critically analyzed for false indications and possible wrong interpretations as well as mistakes in the experiments that would offer indications that cannot happen
THEN, if it passes, it will succeed the current model
just like EVERY OTHER HYPOTHESIS

it will NOT succeed because you are on Phys.org cramming it down our throats
now CONSIDERING that you are published
and CONSIDERING there is no consensus on your model
and CONSIDERING biologists I the field DEBUNKED it
I would say you dont have a leg to stand on

Feb 02, 2014
@jvk
Did I mention that:

well did I mention that you are on a pop sci site?
Did I mention that you are arguing at the wrong crowd?
Did I mention that you are pushing a belief that you cannot get the scientific community to recognize and that given their lack of interest and the fact that people in the field have poo-poo'ed it then you are most likely just arguing due to your emasculation in public?

Yep... I mentioned it...
perhaps you should take it to heart?
You need to argue your point to the scientists that debunked you, not here...
arguing here only supports the arguments against you and reinforces the "pretentious" label that Meyers assigned you

like i said... all hypothesis go through the same series
tests of validity
so far, yours have failed
there is SOME good science in it, but it doesnt do what you say and it is not all inclusive per your statements
therefore
PSEUDOSCIENCE


yep
Feb 02, 2014
Soul of Amber by Alfred M Still. "...what is accepted as true by a particular generation may be classed as gross superstitions by succeeding generations;it can never be absolute truth."


JVK
Feb 02, 2014
But, if you proved it, it would shut up all of the critics at once.

Why not do it? Is it won't or can't?


I've done it, and published the proof of speciation via chromosomal rearrangements in species from microbes to man in a series of publications since 1995. You haven't been paying attention, have you? And no one else is going to discuss the data that proves them wrong.

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

Excerpt: "...because of a lack of recombination between ZAL2 and ZAL2m (3), fixed polymorphisms have accumulated and driven the evolution of alternative phenotypes that differ in plumage (Fig. 1), territorial behavior, and parental behavior."

Excerpt: "...our results illustrate a detailed chain of events linking a chromosomal rearrangement to changes in overt social behavior."

What do you think PZ Myers said about that before banning me?

JVK
Feb 02, 2014
On both physorg, and pharyngula - JVK has dismissed the audience on the comments threads as being ignorant in the extreme.


That's not true. I've asked the audience for experimental evidence that supports their ridiculous belief in mutation-driven evolution, and when no experimental evidence was provided I dismissed the comments due to the demonstrable extreme ignorance.

And, here it is again. The demonstrable ignorance simply doesn't go away, does it?

Instead, it's propagated by those who refuse to look at the data, and that's what pseudoscience is all about, isn't it?

For contrast, I see no demonstrable ignorance on the Science Magazine site, even after published articles attest to natural selection for something unknown. At least no one claims that mutations are naturally selected, since most people know that's merely a ridiculous theory shared by social pseudoscientists who believe in people like PZ Myers.

http://www.scienc....summary

Gmr
Feb 02, 2014
JVK. Evolution works. Natural selection has stood as a mechanism.

Question: How does your theory account for patterns like island dwarfism? Or other island specific mutations? Just curious. Does the chemistry change suddenly? Is the miasma different somehow in traveling to an island? Does inter- and intra-specific competition have any effect on this giant cloud of pheremones or tubs of chemistry we're awash in?

JVK
Feb 02, 2014
How does your theory account for patterns like island dwarfism?


It's a model!

Or other island specific mutations?


Is there a model of how island specific mutations drive evolution?

Just curious. Does the chemistry change suddenly?


Obviously, you're not curious enough to read my published works.

RE: Does inter- and intra-specific competition have any effect on this giant cloud of pheremones or tubs of chemistry we're awash in?

Have you ever read anything published by the late Lynn Margulis? Have you ever considered asking an evolutionary theorist for experimental evidence that supports that theory? PZ Myers has a blog where questions like that never seem to come up. I have a blog with more than 800 referenced posts that explain why questions like that never come up. The theorists know don't know enough about biology to ask the questions.

NATURAL SELECTION FOR WHAT?

Gmr
Feb 02, 2014
How does your theory account for patterns like island dwarfism?


It's a model!


That's - not really an answer. It's a valid answer in a Monty Python-esque sense, I suppose - but it's not an answer.

This is a pattern we see - island dwarfism. How does your theory account for it, or would it account for it?

Or how would it account for the radiation of finches in the Galapagos? Just curious.

Feb 02, 2014
@jvk
That's not true. I've asked the audience for experimental evidence that supports their ridiculous belief in mutation-driven evolution,

YOU want OTHERS to go get a Ph.D. In biology just to refute YOU

(EVEN THOUGH YOU wont believe the ones that ALREADY HAVE refuted you!)

whereas YOU YOURSELF are too darn lazy to go get THAT SAME EDUCATION in order to learn WHY YOUR HYPOTHESIS is so ridiculous to the learned scientific community and to UNDERSTAND WHY that SAME scientific community shuns YOU as the CRACKPOT!

If YOU are too lazy to do it, why then should WE?

More to the point, given that we have SEEN SCIENTISTS IN THE FIELD REFUTE YOUR CRACKPOT hypothesis, WHY THEN should we read through YOUR publications and subject ourselves to MORE of your fatuous conceit...

WHEN YOU are TOO LAZY to learn that SAME SUBJECT MATTER YOURSELF????

i GOTTA heat the reasons behind THIS logic of yours!

Feb 02, 2014
@Cocoa
Captain Stumpy - good luck to you - I am pretty doubtful there is any chance of making any head way - but have at it

I see the TRUTH in your argument
what we have here is a compulsive mental issue that is also manifesting itself as aggressive manic behavior, and given the extreme lack of self esteem from being publicly emasculated by the educated elite that he desires to emulate he is trying to gain back his self esteem by ranting on a pop.sci site with scientific sounding verbiage while telling everyone else that THEY need to just read his crap or get educated.
I guess we COULD walk in his footsteps, but I never did want to be a lab technician, so that is right out.
It is very fascinating to see how he continually reinforces the very image of the pseudoscience crackpot, though, with his inane posturings

i wonder if that last post i made will give him a stroke? i really should have been nicer, but he is being stupid... not ignorant, but STUPID.

at least he is funny !

Feb 02, 2014
@jvk
And, here it is again. The demonstrable ignorance simply doesn't go away, does it?
Instead, it's propagated by those who refuse to look at the data, and that's what pseudoscience is all about, isn't it?

the funniest thing about YOU making this comment is that it perfectly describes YOU!

I mean... you have biologists IN THE FIELD that you are attempting to completely rewrite the book on telling you that your hypothesis is NOT legitimate, that your science has some limited validity but cannot fully explain all of the data, and yet you, in your infinite lab tech wisdom, are saying TO THE PROFESSIONALS...
and I will paraphrase what I have seen thus far...
"hey... read my paper and see how brilliant I am and how stupid you are"

which is, by definition, how pseudoscience works
therefore, you are only continuing to prove by your posts that you are a pseudoscience crackpot

@Gmr
love the argument!
keep it up!
his "model" python logic!
he is having a kitten and cant even answer!

JVK
Feb 02, 2014
What we see now is a repeat of everything that went on after PZ Myers labeled me a "crank" -- as he had done with the late John Anderson -- until he labeled me a "homophobe" and banned me from participation.

No one provided experimental evidence to support their belief, because -- as we've seen, again -- there is no experimental evidence that supports the ridiculous belief that mutations are responsible for something that somehow results in natural selection and evolution.

Meanwhile, there are clear examples of ecological adaptations (sans mutations) in the birds
http://www.pnas.o...abstract

in the bees
http://bfg.oxford...abstract

and in other model organisms from microbes to man. The examples make it clear that nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptations occur in the context of ecological variations and biological facts. Only a pseudoscientist could ignore the data, and they all do.

Feb 03, 2014
@jvk
No one provided experimental evidence to support their belief

1 read the article
2 the comments here are related TO THE ARTICLE
3 only YOU are arguing about mutation and your hypothesis, which only reinforces the comments made about you as we are commenting about how you apply TO THE ARTICLE
4 you continually refer back to your crackpot hypothesis in an attempt to derail the discussion about the ARTICLE, which only reinforces what we are saying as it points out that you are nothing more than a pseudoscience lab tech pushing a failed hypothesis which has been debunked by a biologist and you are doing it JUST LIKE THE ARTICLE SAID YOU WOULD
5 ya cant even fully answer Gmr and you still want to argue, again reinforcing what we are saying which is also reinforcing what the ARTICLE is saying
6 even YOUR HYPOTHESIS USES MUTATION

p.s. we dont need to provide "experimental evidence" since you are HERE giving a live demonstration
thanks

JVK
Feb 03, 2014
Insights into the evolution of Darwin's finches from comparative analysis of the Geospiza magnirostris genome sequence...

http://www.biomed...64/14/95

... was the first indication of ecological diversification via positive selection for amino acid substitutions in the finch lineage.

Abrupt ecological adaptations in pigeons was addressed in the context of chromosomal rearrangements in Genomic Diversity and Evolution of the Head Crest in the Rock Pigeon

http://www.scienc...abstract

No matter how the theorists misinterpret the data, the fact that the cr "mutation" is present in every pigeon analyzed with a crest means it's not a mutation. It's just another reason why the role of incremental adaptive selection for mutations in rationalizing morphological evolution is viewed as nonsense. There's no experimental evidence to support the theory.

It's social pseudoscience at its best! Thank PZ Myers for teaching it!

JVK
Feb 03, 2014
5 ya cant even fully answer Gmr and you still want to argue, again reinforcing what we are saying which is also reinforcing what the ARTICLE is saying


Q. So, now what happens--after I answered the question about the finches

6 even YOUR HYPOTHESIS USES MUTATION


Q. So, now what happens--after I addressed use of the term MUTATION

Has any social pseudoscientist ever attempted to discuss: "High-level studies of development focus on how genetic differences affect the dynamics of gene networks and epigenetic interactions to modify morphology." http://dx.doi.org...3-0121-3

Is there a biology teacher like the idiot PZ Myers who will comment on the problem of mutation-driven evolution of teeth?

Increased complexity requires multiple changes in developmental regulation.
http://dx.doi.org...ure10876

Everything about adaptation is based on chemical ecology. Mutation-driven evolution is the ultimate example of social pseuodoscience

JVK
Feb 03, 2014
From this article: "It is characteristic of science that our knowledge, so expressed, has grown enormously over the last few centuries, guided by the reality check of experimentation."

From PZ Myers: "Evolution was all due to chromosome rearrangements, which somehow are not mutations, and he also somehow ignored the existence of allelic differences between species:"

Ecological variation and nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled allelic differences in amino acid substitutions enable de novo gene creation and the chromosomal rearrangements that result in speciation.

PZ Myers does not understand anything about HOW the epigenetic landscape becomes the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man.

What we will continue to see in any thread where scientific discussion might otherwise occur is the ignorant comments of theorists because there are no intelligent evolutionary theorists -- only those who have been taught "evolution for dummies."


JVK
Feb 03, 2014
In this case, all experimental evidence shows that mutation-driven evolution is pseudoscience. The social pseudoscientists like PZ Myers have not learned anything about the biology of behavior that was not known at the time of the Scopes trial.

When Haldane's ideas about mutations were added to the nonsense that already had bastardized Darwin's theory by ignoring his CONDITIONS OF LIFE, the course of evolutionary biology was set. Evolutionary theorists have since felt justified in ignoring anything learned about conserved molecular mechanisms of epigenetics.

The latest report on sex differences in goats may help to make my point clear: FOXL2 Is a Female Sex-Determining Gene in the Goat http://www.scienc...3015984. The gene plays many different roles in different species, which means amino acid substitutions and chromosomal rearrangements are the cause of sex differences, like they are in yeasts (and that means theorists are idiots).

JVK
Feb 03, 2014
I forget to define idiot, so that people will know who fits into the category: When I say someone like PZ Myers is an idiot, I'm using the term to classify him among those who act in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. Clearly he is not intellectually disabled, or no one would pay any attention to what he has to say.

Instead, his followers are taught to also act in self-defeating or significantly counterproductive ways by ignoring experimental evidence just as PZ Myers has always done. That makes them idiots, too.

Perhaps I've offended the idiots because they think I am saying they are intellectually disabled. Clearly, they are not. But stupid dumb ass isn't a term I typically use to refer to someone who is really only an idiot follower of an idiot biology teacher. I did use the term dumb ass a few times on PZ Myers blog, however. There were too many of his followers that exceeded the limits of my definition of idiot -- from http://en.wikiped...ki/Idiot

JVK
Feb 03, 2014
I answered a question on the Science Magazine site and just received this message

Your comment on Neandertals and Moderns Made Imperfect Mates has been
approved and is now live at:

http://comments.s...6170.471

"In my model, the epigenetic effects of nutrient uptake and the metabolism of
nutrients to species-specific pheromones link de novo creation of olfactory
receptor genes in different cell types to infertility when spermatozoa are no
longer able to "sniff out" an "egg" in invertebrates: Elekonich and Robinson
(2000) and vertebrates: Diamond, Binstock and Kohl (1996).

If you look at the problem in the context of what we portrayed about the
conserved molecular mechanisms at the advent of sexual reproduction in
yeasts, you may see the continuum of ecological adaptations that began with
the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled chromosomal rearrangements that
are required before sex chromosomes existed."

Feb 03, 2014
jvk speculates
there are no intelligent evolutionary theorists

because obviously only lab technicians with mensa memberships can be correct
FALLACY NOT SUPPORTED BY DATA
PZ Myers does not understand anything about HOW the epigenetic landscape

FALLACY
Meyers does not subscribe to your hypothesis that it is the ONLY possible solution
and has shown that his knowledge is factual, whereas you keep arguing that only YOU can be correct
all experimental evidence shows that mutation-driven evolution is pseudoscience

FALLACY NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS
you would know this had you stayed in school and continued your education and actually gotten the degrees necessary
Your comment ... has been approved

we didnt say you didnt occasionally use real science
we said that your pushing a crackpot hypothesis by using pseudoscience

Feb 03, 2014
@jvk continued
When I say someone like PZ Myers is an idiot, I'm using the term to classify him among those who act in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way

FALLACY NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS
you are angry with Meyers for emasculating you in public and you are venting here!
if you had any shred of possible truth to your claims that he is "an idiot" and said anything that was not factual about you, you would have used litigation to prove yourself, and as you have yet to be successful in that endeavor, I can conclude there is no basis for your claims
social pseudoscientists like PZ Myers have not learned anything about the biology of behavior that was not known at the time of the Scopes trial

FALLACY NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS
it is the height of ignorance and conceit to assume that the world stopped evolving and did not continue with its scientific endeavors and that only YOU seem to know the truth of the matter
speaks to signs of conspiracy & mental derangement

Feb 03, 2014
@jvk
please re-read below
1 read the article
2 the comments here are related TO THE ARTICLE
3 only YOU are arguing about mutation and your hypothesis, which only reinforces the comments made about you as we are commenting about how you apply TO THE ARTICLE
4 you continually refer back to your crackpot hypothesis in an attempt to derail the discussion about the ARTICLE, which only reinforces what we are saying as it points out that you are nothing more than a pseudoscience lab tech pushing a failed hypothesis which has been debunked by a biologist and you are doing it JUST LIKE THE ARTICLE SAID YOU WOULD

p.s. we dont need to provide "experimental evidence" since you are HERE giving a live demonstration
thanks


FOCUS ESPECIALLY ON POINTS 1-4 and the P.S.
i left out the rest as you get distracted too easily...
BESIDES the fact that you have been publicly DEBUNKED by real scientists...i want you to comprehend why you are being labelled a pseudoscientist

JVK
Feb 03, 2014
http://www.annual...9-141554
"Chromosomes, Conflict, and Epigenetics: Chromosomal Speciation Revisited"

Only through constant inquiry into myriad systems of hybridization, incipient species formation, recent and long-past speciation events and comparative genomics will we garner a comprehensive understanding of the speciation process.


Experimental evidence from comparative genomics shows how chromosomal rearrangements lead to different morphological and behavioral phenotypes.
http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Evidence that shows PZ Myers is an idiot theorist followed by idiots:
http://freethough...s-place/

Evidence that Captain Stumpy is an idiot:
p.s. we dont need to provide "experimental evidence"


Feb 03, 2014
"Pseudoscience" is any science that does not agree with present science
The definition of pseudoscience is as tricky, as the finding of the reliable approach in science, i.e. prediction of the future. It's therefore simpler to define, what the pseudoscience definitely isn't and to apply the pseudoscience labeling to the rest. For example, the pseudoscience definitely isn't any research, which has no peer-reviewed attempt for its replication published yet. The reason is, nobody of established physicists would risk the public disgrace from false refusal and dismissal of new finding, but when he simply ignores it, he doesn't risk anything. For example, after publication of cold fusion some labs replicated it and many other labs allegedly failed in its replication - but these failures were never published in Nature. Nobody did risk anything: retraction, public shame and accusing of incompetence - and the result was corresponding. Today is too easy to bury findings into oblivion.

Feb 03, 2014
Another criterion follows from my above post: until we don't know, how the unexpected phenomena is actually working, then the zero result of randomized blind experiments (which are so often used in medical trials) cannot be considered as the proof of its nonexistence. If you don't know how the electricity is working, then the various positive and negative charge and current effects tend to compensate mutually and you will get no reliable confirmation of anything. You can therefore falsify only various particular theories and models of such phenomena, not the phenomena as such. The absence of theory for some phenomena doesn't mean, that the phenomena doesn't exist too.

The current praxis is, that the phenomena is ignored, until it has no confirmed theory developed, because in contemporary science nobody wants to risk anything. Today many journals (including the Nature and Science) openly dismiss every experimental study, which is not supported with theoretical model at the same time.

Feb 03, 2014
The overemployment of scientists doesn't help the healthy attitude very much, because many scientists are essentially cheaters and they want to publish in prestigious journal at any price. Therefore the journals do apply much stringer acceptation criterion, than it would help the acceptation of the new finding and fluent progress. Which is the problem by valuing of the research by its simulacrum, i.e. with impact of journal, in which it has been published. The impact criterion was originally designed for librarians, i.e. for buyers of journals and its application for scientists (publishing authors) has turned its meaning on the head. If we would rid of impact based classification, then the peer-reviewed journals could publish unexpected findings (not yet supported with theories) much more easily. And the publishing of negative results would be much more easier for authors. Today both positive feedback of journals, both negative feedback of replicators is replaced with plain ignorance.

Feb 03, 2014
@jvk
Evidence that Captain Stumpy is an idiot:
p.s. we dont need to provide "experimental evidence"

tsk
hey Mensa, you FORGOT SOME VERY VALID TEXT!
Here, I will help you by ADDING THE PART THAT YOU MISSED
p.s. we dont need to provide "experimental evidence" since you are HERE giving a live demonstration

this statement is factually correct!
There is NO NEED for experimental data as you continually ignore the obvious and keep coming back supporting the claims with live demonstrations in your OCD manner, proving over and over the comments about you and establishing without a doubt that you meet the requirements of a pseudoscience crackpot.
Please feel free to continue as: per the article AND real biologists
pseudoscience attempts to ride on the back of this credibility without subjecting itself to the hard intellectual scrutiny that real science demands

which means: your hypothesis=BUNK
the standard theory is valid as it meets/exceeds scientific scrutiny

JVK
Feb 03, 2014
the standard theory is valid as it meets/exceeds scientific scrutiny


An experimental test on the probability of extinction of new genetic variants

http://www.nature...417.html

"In 1927, J.B.S. Haldane reasoned that the probability of fixation of new beneficial alleles is twice their fitness effect. This result, later generalized by M. Kimura, has since become the cornerstone of modern population genetics. There is no experimental test of Haldane's insight that new beneficial alleles are lost with high probability...."

In my published work I showed that nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitutions are fixed in the genome of this model organism and that fixation is clearly responsible for speciation via neurogenic niche construction.

http://www.socioa...53/27989

That's the experimental evidence that the idiot theorists refuse to address.

Feb 03, 2014
That's the experimental evidence that the idiot theorists refuse to address

@jvk
so... again, I reiterate, YOU FAILED to meet the criteria of coming up with a hypothesis that is fully explanatory and (THIS PART IS IMPORTANT) is more specific as well as more encompassing than the current reigning theory
and your hypothesis cannot answer more questions better than the reigning theory
and your hypothesis is SPECIFIC to a small area
and it STILL CAUSES MUTATIONS which keeps it under the general umbrella of the existing theory
and this has been PEER REVIEWED and the current professionals in the field have taken it to task and your hypothesis FAILED them
and this is their fault because they are idiots?

did you write for Monty-Python in the past?

Still the same old thing... you failed, were publicly emasculated so you come here to rant.

jvk meets/exceeds the Pesudoscience crackpot definition!

no one can be as smart as you
do we bow or just throw money?
(last two lines = hyperbo

Feb 03, 2014
@jvk
before you get all excited
no one can be as smart as you
do we bow or just throw money?

the above is meant as hyperbole only

given that the professionals have dismissed you publicly, and your current trials and tribulations, i didnt want you to get your hopes up and think i was supporting you
...and in that vein:

ALSO - given that you are posting all these links to support your supposed mental superiority, why not also post the critiques of your hypothesis too?
other than Meyers, we've read some of that, although you can post more if he has more to share! we really dont mind at all!
in fact... feel free to post ANY REFUTE of your hypothesis that you want! we dont mind being judge, jury etc here... given that you can articulate both sides effectively and dont misrepresent by posting only in your favour, that is...


JVK
Feb 03, 2014
Why not simply address the data from experiments that I have continued to supply despite your ongoing denigrations of whatever it is you think has been critiqued by others?

PZ Myers did not critique my model or my published works, and the non-anonymous "professionals" who are followers of his atheistic diatribes did not do so, either. Like anonymous fools, they simply attacked. Support for my model can be found from several well-informed leaders in the biological sciences -- as you already know, but you wish to conceal that fact here. But none of the support for my model matters, and none of your nonsense matters.

The only thing that differentiates pseudoscience from science is the experimental evidence that you refuse to discuss.


Feb 03, 2014
No matter how the theorists misinterpret the data, the fact that the cr "mutation" is present in every pigeon analyzed with a crest means it's not a mutation.

It can also mean that it was a "mutation" originally that was "Naturally elected"...
Survivor wins.
As observers we view the mirror image...
To REALLY see reality - flip it over.

Feb 03, 2014
Speaking of pseudoscience, here is blacklight powers demo of its hydrino power source from last week.
http://www.blackl...ats-new/

-Ive watched about half of it and I see a few tiny explosions in some nice lab equipment and a whole lot of talk. Initially I was thinking it would be good to have a running commentary by a physicist on what dr mills is saying, but then he starts talking theory and I realize that no mainstream physicist would swallow any of this.

This does not necessarily mean he is wrong, only extremely difficult to corroberate... until he gets an actual reactor up and running that is, which is apparently some ways off. But then so are tokamaks so we have all the time in the world to wait dont we?

It didnt look all too different from this
http://www.youtub...nspLNaZQ

JVK
Feb 03, 2014
No matter how the theorists misinterpret the data, the fact that the cr "mutation" is present in every pigeon analyzed with a crest means it's not a mutation.


It can also mean that it was a "mutation" originally that was "Naturally elected"...


It can mean anything you like if you're willing to alter the story to make it fit what you want to represent. That's what makes evolutionary theorists seem so ignorant. Biological facts don't change depending on who's telling the story.

Pigeon Study Contradicts Darwinian Natural Selection http://www.huffin...099.html

Pigeon DNA proves Darwin right http://www.nature...20130205

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
http://www.socioa...53/27989

JVK
Feb 03, 2014
"If individual genes can affect shared developmental systems in this precipitous fashion, the role of incremental adaptive selection (i.e., Darwinism) in rationalizing morphological evolution becomes highly questionable." Newman (adaptive selection)

"Domesticated species are important tools for comparative genomics, with traits honed by humans over thousands of years. "The different domestic animals complement each other," he says, "because they've been selected for different purposes." Leif Andersson (selection)

Who, besides that idiot PZ Myers and his minions, is still telling stories about mutation-initiated natural selection?

Feb 04, 2014
Why not simply address the data

@jvk
why not re-read the freakin article
But none of the support for my model matters, and none of your nonsense matters.

well. some support eu hypothesis too, but that does not mean that it is going to overtake the standard model any time soon as they are electrical engineers trying to talk astrophysics without the education and background needed to understand a lot of things... which brings me back to you, really..
and your hypothesis... given that there are some legitimate points, BUT it is NOT ALL INCLUSIVE as you contend, therefore it cannot replace the existing theory
also... obviously it matters a great deal to you as you KEEP COMMING BACK
just because you THINK you are right doesnt mean that you are
after all, were you correct, you would have replaced the existing theory
but you have not

Feb 04, 2014
@jvk
The only thing that differentiates pseudoscience from science is the experimental evidence that you refuse to discuss

the funny thing is that the discussion is centered around the article except when you get into the mix

the discussion is about how pseudoscience adherents tend to latch on like bulldogs to a hypothesis and run with it proclaiming it to be the truth of ages while denying the reality of all the other relevant data around them...just like YOU are doing

the discussion is about how pseudoscience acolytes get all worked up and pissy when told they are wrong, and lash out with whatever is at hand, while trying to show others that they are right... usually using technical sounding verbiage that may/may not be legitimate which si something MEYERS pointed out that YOU ARE PRONE TO DO REPEATEDLY


Feb 04, 2014
@jvk
what we have here is a failure to communicate!
You are angry over your public emasculation by real biologists working in the field
your anger over their review of your data only shows your lack of understanding and comprehension (and education) of all the data that is involved
you have become nothing more than a pseudoscience adherent
The basic point is that you are lashing out here because you have been measured by the scientific community, your hypothesis has been found wanting and it is not able to functionally replace the standard working theory
you are here shoving this down our throats because you perceive yourself to be superior to everyone
You keep coming back because you have tied your entire mental image of yourself into an illusion that is not supported by scientists and now that you are proven wrong, you want to take it out on people that you perceive as inferior
you are only reinforcing the image of cranks and how they work

Feb 04, 2014
@jvk
Who, besides that idiot PZ Myers and his minions, is still telling stories about mutation-initiated natural selection?

here's a thought... if your hypothesis is so accurate, WHY HAS THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY SHUNNED IT?
Here's another thought: what makes you think that a lab tech without the education and background in the field has any insights that the scientists (who actually took the time to get the education and training and have a much broader observation as well as knowledge) had not considered or even addressed or included?
Like I said... you may have a few valid points of real science, but you cannot replace the existing theory because your hypothesis lacks substance and the ability to functionally answer all the questions that the current theory already answers
thats how science works... you would have learned that had you stayed in school
just because I can build a thermite bomb doesnt mean I can build a nuclear fusion reactor
just because you can make perfume, doesnt mean you can usurp the scientific community

JVK
Feb 04, 2014
I asked
Who, besides that idiot PZ Myers and his minions, is still telling stories about mutation-initiated natural selection?


The idiot minion of the idiot PZ Myers responded
here's a thought... if your hypothesis is so accurate, WHY HAS THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY SHUNNED IT?


It's not my hypothesis; it's a MODEL developed on accurate representations of biologically based cause and effect that have become established during the past 3-4 decades, which is how long the biology teacher, PZ Myers has ignored them.

Like I said... you may have a few valid points of real science, but you cannot replace the existing theory because your hypothesis lacks substance and the ability to functionally answer all the questions that the current theory already answers...


"...variations of the phenotype, on which natural selection could act, do not arise at random; they are produced by interactions between the organism and the environment during development..." MW Ho (1979)

JVK
Feb 04, 2014
The End of Bad Science and Beginning Again with Life (2000) http://www.i-sis....aris.php

"...neo-Darwinism is wrong and dangerous... It is also obstructing and preventing the necessary shift to holistic ecological sciences..."
MW Ho (2000)

PZ Myers and his idiot minions refuse to look at any evidence of their ignorance.
They will continue to tout their racist, sexist, homophobic views of mutation-initiated natural selection until people who understand the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA drive them from their positions in academia and drive them away from participation in discussions like this, which should be about pseudoscience vs experimental evidence.

"Bad Science" should have ended with extension of our 1996 mammalian model of epigenetic cause and effect to invertebrates in 2000.

What we see here is not science, it is PZ Myers' nonsense: evolution for dummies.

Feb 04, 2014
It's not my hypothesis; it's a MODEL developed on accurate representations of biologically based cause and effect that have become established during the past 3-4 decades

@jvk
to which you have applied a hypothesis that mutation-driven evolution does not exist, whereas the proof is not there to support your hypothesis because EVEN YOUR HYPOTHESIS USES MUTATION per the definition used by biologists

which brings us back to your continual posting about it in some frantic delirium induced crazed manner which, I suppose in YOUR mind, represents your attempt to provide proof whereas it only supports the arguments against you

if YOU cannot convince the scientists who understand this the best, what makes you think that shouting about it over and over here is going to do you any good?

Do ya think we are going to petition the scientific community on your behalf?

This trait is the earmark of the pseudoscience crackpot
the continual TROLLING of a site with an unproven hypothesis

Feb 04, 2014
PZ Myers and his idiot minions refuse to look at any evidence of their ignorance.
They will continue to tout their racist, sexist, homophobic views of mutation-initiated natural selection until people who understand the basic principles of biology

@jvk
and again your trait of attacking the scientific community out of anger for emasculating you publicly is a strong indication that your continual TROLLING of this site with your hypothesis and failed attempts to convince the educated are born out of a delirious pseudoscience hallucination.
Your insistence that only YOU can be right and your denigration of the scientific community are KEY MARKERS of the pseudoscience crackpot
and only support the assertions that your continual additions to this site are nothing more than PSEUDOSCIENCE TROLLING

Feb 04, 2014
until people who understand the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA

@jvk
only more supporting evidence of crackpot pseudoscience
this is nothing more than your assertion that only your hypothesis is valid and makes any sense
you continually come here for "debate" but belittle anyone who actually "debates" you with name calling (as shown to RealScience in another thread)
your conclusions that we are "idiot minion" because we happen to believe a theory that is backed up with valid evidence and scientific proof only serves to remind us that pseudoscience crackpots are loath to admit any wrongdoing on their part and willfully turn a blind eye to reality and science, even with word salad verbiage like yours, when a real scientists debunks you, you cannot be wrong, proving only that your pseudoscience is baseless and without merit

keep supporting the assertions
you are only helping me!

Feb 04, 2014
proving only that your pseudoscience is baseless and without merit
That means is has no base in reality, and it is wrong.

Appears you needed that explained to you JVK given you have stated several times about how us "minions" can't understand your remarkable insight and intellect and you aren't going to post here any more. And obviously, given that you are still posting your pseudo-science here, and given that Stumpy has tried so hard to dumb down the explanations so you can understand them, someone needed to step in and dumb them down even more for you.

Here let me try one more time:

You are wrong.


JVK
Feb 04, 2014
Of course my MODEL is the only one that's valid. But it's not just because it's the only model that's biologically plausible.

See: Differential effect of chloride ions on β-galactosidase isoenzymes: A method for separate assay

http://www.scienc...71904463

"Chloride ions stimulated and stabilized the 'acid' β-galactosidase but strongly inhibited the 'neutral' enzyme."

What other ion, closely linked in the atoms to ecosystems approach (i.e., Kohl's Laws of Biology), is most suited to stabilizing the protein that is required for ecological adaptations to occur in an environment of NaCl in water?

If you guess anything other than sodium because you are absolutely certain that sodium explodes in water, you are probably an idiot minion of PZ Myers who does not understand biologically-based cause and effect, and does not understand chemistry or anything about the biophysical constraints on protein folding that enable ecological adaptations.

JVK
Feb 04, 2014
Here let me try one more time:

You are wrong.


Is there any experimental evidence of that?

I know I should have stopped posting here, but it's become too much fun to toy with the idiot minions, and as everyone else can see they're crawling out from the woodwork like the anonymous and insignifcant little roaches that they are and always have been.

PZ Myers appears to be the "Roach King" that rules their world, where they are free to mutate into other species without the biophysical constraints of every other organism on a planet where life is nutrient-dependent and the physiology of reproduction is pheromone-controlled.

The only remaining question is how many more anonymous idiot minions will tell me I'm wrong before one of them examines the experimental evidence.

Feb 04, 2014
Of course my MODEL is the only one that's valid. But it's not just because it's the only model that's biologically plausible

@jvk
IF it were the only one biologically possible, then why has the scientific community not rallied behind the model and offered full unfettered support?
Maybe because, as Maggnus so eloquently put it
You are wrong.

it is the height of conceit to assume that you, as an uneducated lab tech, have the qualifications to usurp the whole scientific community
IOW
You are wrong.

Meyers obviously has the education to understand that your model lacks sufficient capability, therefore
You are wrong.

the modern scientists that reviewed your theory also prove
You are wrong.

therefore, you are pushing pseudoscience AND
You are wrong.

Meyers understood that
You are wrong.

but you cant seem to grasp that
You are wrong.

attacking people, jargon verbiage and constant repetition only support the fact that
YOU ARE WRONG

Feb 04, 2014
I know I should have stopped posting here

@jvk
this is the ONLY thing that you have said that has merit in a long time
too much fun to toy with the idiot minions

funny, we say the same thing about you
it is so easy to prove you wrong that we continually do so with relish

you really dont get it, do you?
You are a TROLL
a SPAMMING TROLL at that.
You come here pushing your pheromone hypothesis and failed model because you cant convince the scientist in your field that you are right, most likely because they can plainly see how wrong you are, and that your "model" is already considered and included in the current theory
then you attack anyone who refutes it, which then causes you to dump more garbage into the thread... the markers of pseudoscience and spamming trolls

therefore you are a pseudoscience spamming troll

p.s. you only call people idiot minions when they dont agree with you
too bad you are wrong
we just know how wrong you are, which makes you angry

JVK
Feb 04, 2014
I call people idiot minions who cannot support anything they say with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect. How could you not grasp that fact? Have you ever provided any experimental evidence to support your ridiculous theories? What else could I call you since all you have done is tell everyone that PZ Myers emasculated me in blog posts for his idiot minions?

See instead: http://phenomena....ng-nest/

Carl Zimmer asks: "Have the plants evolved any strategies to make their spore-bearing structures better material for nests? Do they lure the hummingbirds with special odors?"

If they do, we don't need to discuss pseudoscience; we can start discussing conserved molecular mechanisms of biologically based ecological adaptations in animals and in plants (e.g., from atoms to ecosystems).

Alternatively, others can listen to the idiot minions tell you about mutation-driven evolution. Is there a model for that?

JVK
Feb 04, 2014
Anyone who questions the ecological validity and/or the biological plausibility of my model for comparison to the ridiculous theory of mutation-driven evolution need only look at the data.

As always, the idiot minions do not want you to do this; they want you to believe what they do.
But they are pseudoscientists.

I urge others to look at the comments on PZ Myers blog before the university forces him to pull it, not for fear of litigation, but for fear that it will make everyone else who teaches there look so foolish that students will demand tuition refunds, and the ACLU will demand answers.

So, here it is again -- one link that says it all except for the truth about biologically based cause and effect:

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

Then see the pdf of abstracts from 2013 "SYMPOSIUM 5 SPECIATION GENOMICS" at the SMBE. It opens here: http://smbe2013.o...6235.pdf

JVK
Feb 04, 2014
... I have talked with some practicing scientists who work with bacteria every day - and they say there is mountains of evidence to support the theory of mutation and natural selection driven evolution - which is why every biology book on the planet contains a discussion of this process.

I did some quick googling - came up with shit loads of articles on the evidence for the evidence of the evolution of bacteria - sadly I could not understand any of them. Here is one example.

http://www.pnas.o...07.short


It was published in 1998, you idiot minion.

So - JVK is right - should I believe all the scientists - and every biology book in the world - or JVK? Reading the comments of JVK - no brainer for me. Not a nickels worth of point in arguing with JVK - as captain points out - pointless. But interesting reading.


I spent the last two years of my career trying to save people from death by evolutionary theory. I worked in the hospital microbiology lab.

Feb 04, 2014
@jvk
Have you ever provided any experimental evidence to support your ridiculous theories?

every time you post again in this thread it reinforces my theory
Anyone who questions ... my model ... need only look at the data

I deleted the excessive verbiage to show you how idiotic you sounded
you are saying that "if only the entire scientific community would just listen to me and see how smart I am"
maybe it is YOU who should go back to school and learn just what it is that you are missing?
before the university forces him to pull it

1-it is a blog
2-it is on a .com website
3-the university does not have control over it
4-if you had any ability to get it pulled over your scathing disembowelment as a pseudoscience crank and certifiable loony, it would have been done ages ago
5-blanket declarations are just one more action that is common among the pseudoscience crackpots
like your comment about about anyone questioning your model...

Feb 04, 2014
@jvk
It was published in 1998, you idiot minion

I guess with all that mensa intellect you forgot to learn to read?
Cocoa also said that there was scads of evidence of mutation and only YOU are publishing your particular crackpot hypothesis
mostly because your inability to read/comprehend as your hypothesis is most likely included in the reigning theory, as your hypothesis also is about MUTATION
(now you can get all that stuff about how it is not about mutation even though, per your own publications, it causes mutation PER THE DEFINITION OF MUTATION that is used by the people in the field)
I worked in the hospital microbiology lab

working in a hospital lab doesnt make you the intellectual giant and give you the ability to usurp the scientific community any more than standing in a garage makes you a Mercedes
I worked in orthopaedics but that doesnt mean I am an orthopaedic surgeon!
or even a DR!


Feb 04, 2014
@jvk
I spent the last two years of my career trying to save people from death by evolutionary theory

let me guess
ya got canned?
To continue...
Cocoa could have just as easily posted the following link

http://www.pnas.o...abstract

which also shows MUTATION as well as reinforces the current theory
WHICH, by the way, I am sure you will tell us shows only that blah blah blah
BUT, as everyone else will see
there is PLENTY of information supporting the MUTATION theory and the current THEORY OF EVOLUTION which, you will notice leaves out your qualifiers
mostly because even your hypothesis causes mutations which firmly puts your hypothesis under the blanket umbrella of evolution theory

Feb 05, 2014
@jvk
they want you to believe what they do.

and here is what you still cant comprehend
What they believe after that is up to them...
I dont care if they believe in the tooth fairy
or that Santa caused the world to evolve from the elves at the north pole

it is just that when people see how obstinate you are
how you ignore everything EXCEPT your data
how you blanket condemn others as being ignorant minions etc
when you call the entire scientific community idiots just because they cannot see your obvious brilliance etc
when you keep referring back to your crackpot hypothesis and saying "if they would only see the" etc

THESE are earmarks of the pseudoscience crackpot in which you so skilfully repeatedly display
thank you for showing everyone what it looks like so that they may understand what it looks like
and thank you for showing them in THIS article about pseudoscience cranks

Meyers would be proud of you
he assessed you right on the head
and so you continue

JVK
Feb 05, 2014
There is current experimental evidence that each time a cell reproduces innate differences in the two cell types enables nutrient-dependent ecological adaptations. Like all other experimental evidence that has ever been published, this current evidence refutes Lenski's ridiculous theory that he has witnessed mutation-driven evolution of E. coli.

"There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. This is seen as a good example of evolution through mutation and natural selection that has been observed as it occurs."

http://en.wikiped...bacteria

What this shows, is that the scientific consensus based on Lenski's experiments is actually a consensus of idiot minions that have not grasped the fact that life is nutrient-dependent -- even if the only nutrient available (e.g., since 1935) is nylon.

JVK
Feb 05, 2014
Cocoa could have just as easily posted the following link

http://www.pnas.o...abstract

which also shows MUTATION as well as reinforces the current theory


Thanks. I am reminded of the multi-step origin of nutrient use (citrate and nylon) in E. coli where gene duplications produce new functions by promoter capture events that change gene regulatory networks in what was described as a 1-2-3 process (Blount et, al. with Lenski, 2012). In that context, as here, I question use of the term mutation as it is used to describe any pattern of change that results from transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, which is what we also see in speciation. However, mutations perturb the biophysical constraints of protein folding, which is required for increased organismal complexity via ecological adaptations.

Let's continue to discuss the experimental evidence until you provide some that shows how E. coli somehow mutates into another species.

JVK
Feb 05, 2014
Meyers would be proud of you he assessed you right on the head and so you continue


PZ Myers attacked before learning I had already detailed how genetic diversity leads to chromosomal rearrangements and speciation. When Horton et al (2014) was published, their experimental evidence showed how obvious it has always been that chromosomal rearrangements, not mutations, must be responsible for speciation.

http://www.pnas.o...abstract

His attacks on John Anderson and on Nathaniel Jeanson were also evidence of how much ignorance he has incorporated into his teachings on biology. However, as we continue to see here, it does not matter how much idiocy he incorporates, he will always have idiot minions who claim that he is right and experimental evidence that he is wrong should be ignored.

Once someone is taught to be an idiot minion they rarely adapt to become intelligent sentient beings. They simply follow their "Roach King" into oblivion.

Feb 05, 2014
. However, as we continue to see here, it does not matter how much idiocy he incorporates, he will always have idiot minions who claim that he is right and experimental evidence that he is wrong should be ignored.

Quack! Quack quack quack quack!

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
A mutation!
Our results suggest that in this species, differentiation of ESR1 has played a causal role in the evolution of phenotypes with alternative life-history strategies.
behavioral changes in the population resulting from the mutation!
More on mutation-driven behavior change: http://jbr.sagepu...67.short
And more: http://pubs.acs.o...e=bichaw
and more: http://www.scienc...37.short
and more: http://www.scienc.../S089662

Feb 05, 2014
@jvk
enables nutrient-dependent ecological adaptations

IOW- mutations
this current evidence refutes

your hypothesis
a consensus of idiot minions that have not grasped the fact that

blanket accusation of the entire scientific community
how original
statement is proof that you are a crackpot pseudoscience lab tech
I question use of the term mutation

because obviously only you are intelligent enough to understand these things, right? The term is used and defined for the field, it is only YOU that has a problem using it as obviously YOU dont understand it

http://dictionary...mutation

https://en.wikipe...Mutation

I propose that first you learn what normal year one biologists/etc learn about the use of terms in the field and then consider that your lab tech background is not equivalent to a PhD

see Maggnus post above for more clarification on your ignorance/stupidity about terms and comprehension
are you sure you are Mensa?

Feb 05, 2014
@jvk
Let's continue to discuss the experimental evidence

YOU cannot comprehend that your hypothesis includes MUTATION per the definition and you want to discuss experimental evidence?
Mutation per dictionary:
1a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome
1b an individual, species, or the like, resulting from such a departure
2 the act or process of changing
Biological definition of mutation:
In genetics, a mutation is a change of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element. Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes including: evolution, cancer, and the development of the immune system.

to be continued

Feb 05, 2014
@jvk continued

Mutation can result in several different types of change in sequences. Mutations in genes can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Mutations can also occur in nongenic regions. One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms which have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.

AGAIN... @jvk, THIS MEANS that EVEN YOUR HYPOTHESIS CREATES MUTATIONS

now... given your inability to comprehend this, and the fact that the scientific community ignores you as a crank because even your hypothesis is covered under Theory of Evolution, this means, by definition that
YOU ARE A PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT
you are pushing a CRACKPOT HYPOTHESIS


JVK
Feb 05, 2014
Thanks.

You have just addressed experimental evidence with links that incorporate a ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection and behaviors manifested in sexism (mutations that somehow led to sex differences), racism (mutations that somehow led to racial differences), and homophobia (mutations that somehow led to differences in sexual orientation).

Whether or not PZ Myers can identify you as one of his idiot minions, I suspect that you can be identified by someone monitoring this thread and called as a witness in the next trial during which litigants will discuss the teaching of Creation instead of the teaching of the ridiculous theory of mutation-driven evolution that you have learned about from teachers who know nothing about the basic principles of biology or levels of biological organization required to link sensory input to biologically based cause and effect in species from microbes to man.

Do you think ignorance qualifies you for the secret witness program?

Feb 05, 2014
@jvk
Once someone is taught to be an idiot minion they rarely adapt to become intelligent sentient beings

this is very true, and I support it... however, there really is still hope for you to become intelligent and sentient, jvk!
I would recommend going back to school and LEARNING why the scientific community shunned your hypothesis
you may then be able to affect a change for the good (in you, that is)
ranting here about the ignorance of just about every other scientist in the world does NOTHING MORE than REINFORCE the fact that you are pushing a failed hypothesis and you are nothing more than an acolyte for a FAITH, a belief that cannot be supported by PROOF
especially given that the scientists as a whole reject you
a few outliers that understand that there is SOME science in your work that may be valid
but there are softies/suckers in every group
Please re-read this article and know that YOU CAN learn real science

and read Maggnus links!
MORE PROOF against YOUR HYPOTHESIS

Feb 05, 2014
@jvk
You have just addressed experimental evidence with links that incorporate a ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection and behaviors manifested in sexism (mutations that somehow led to sex differences), racism (mutations that somehow led to racial differences), and homophobia (mutations that somehow led to differences in sexual orientation)

oh WOW
so... because we learn real science from degreed professionals in the field and not lab tech's that are hailed by said professionals as crackpot pseudoscience cranks... we are homophobic, sexist, racist AND ignorant?

Again... you blanket the entire scientific community with disparaging remarks and you feel this is justified because obviously only YOU can see the light?

THIS IS THE FIRST, STRONGEST MARKER of a PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT

see above article

Feb 05, 2014
P.S.
teaching of Creation

@jvk
there is no room for religion in science as science requires PROOF whereas religion is based upon faith

which is exactly the same thing you are doing... you are requiring us to take your word of proof against the entire scientific community, based upon YOUR authority and your contention that YOUR studies are the only valid proof

THIS IS FAITH – NOT SCIENCE
Do you think ignorance qualifies you for the secret witness program?

I am not blackening the Mensa name by supporting an obviously distorted hypothesis that is refuted my scientists while offering libellous aspersions of respected professionals
(calling you out is well supported by the evidence herein as you continually display the pattern of behaviour of a pseudoscience crackpot per the common definition)

I hope no one feels litigious as this is a public forum and you have no right to privacy here


JVK
Feb 05, 2014
This book is displayed at the "Scopes Museum" and it is opened to page 196:

See for review: http://www-person...Text.htm

Summary: "The following passages were taken from the biology textbook used by John Scopes, the teachings of which fueled so much controversy in the 1925 �Scopes Trial� in Dayton, Tennessee.� Prosecuting attorney William Jennings Bryan was greatly concerned about the implications of these passages, which he viewed as the troublesome result of accepting Darwin�s theories and applying them to human society.� After reading the actual textbook, does this change your conception of the issues involved in the Scopes Trial?"

My comment:

If PZ Myers or his idiot minions had ever learned anything about biologically-based cause and effect, they would not be touting the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that entered the picture (e.g., in stealth mode) after the Scopes trial.

What will it take to shut them up?

Feb 05, 2014
What will it take to shut them up?


Evidence.

What will it take to shut you up? Obviously proof that your theory is wrong won't do it. Nor is the laughing of all of your peers (the other lab techs, janitors and the other patients around you). Nor is the scoffing of all those engaged in actually doing the science. So what then?

Quack, quack quack quack.......

Feb 05, 2014
@jvk
If PZ Myers or his idiot minions had ever learned anything about biologically-based cause and effect, they would not be touting the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that entered the picture (e.g., in stealth mode) after the Scopes trial

again with the "i am right and everyone else must be wrong because I am mensa and so smart that I cannot make mistakes" attitude?
REALLY?
IOW – you are a PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT
What will it take to shut them up?

SEE MAGGNUS POST ABOVE

JVK
Feb 05, 2014
"The mechanism by which one signaling pathway regulates a second provides insight into how cells integrate multiple stimuli to produce a coordinated response."

http://stke.scien...291/pe28 = de novo gene creation

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

Taken separately or together, ignoring all experimental evidence appears to = idiot minion, racist, sexist, homophobic follower of the "Roach King" PZ Myers.

Feb 05, 2014
= de novo gene creation
No it does not equal de novo gene creation.
The study found that the upstream kinases and phosphatase that control the activity of Snf1 also act on Gpa1 and provide a direct means to coordinate cell behavior and integrate the mating response with nutrient sensing.
Existing genes, just a different method of expression.
= chromosomal rearrangements.
No it doesn't.
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
A mutation!
Thus, our study provides a rare glimpse of how a chromosomal polymorphism has affected the brain and social behavior in a vertebrate. Our results suggest that in this species, differentiation of ESR1 has played a causal role in the evolution of phenotypes with alternative life-history strategies.
Behavioral changes as a result of the mutation!

Quack!

JVK
Feb 05, 2014
Unless an intelligent discussant steps in, I am somewhat assured that the nonsense of the idiot minions will persist indefinitely, as it did on PZ Myers blog.

The obvious problem there (and here) is: de novo gene creation means "Creation" is the holy grail of evolutionary biology. That fact is one hell-of-a problem for anonymous atheists who believe what their "Roach Kings" taught them to believe.

Why aren't they crawling back into the woodwork after the lights came on for everyone else? Everyone else knows that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology?" http://dx.doi.org...3.06.006

If Dobzhansky, a creationist, knew about nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled amino acid substitutions, he would not have claimed that mutations caused evolution. And he was close to recognizing that Creation of new species occurs via amino acid substitutions in 1973.

Forty years later, all that's left of Dobzhansky's insight is PZ Myers' and his idiot minions.

JVK
Feb 05, 2014
Correction to McEwen (2012): "...on page 17184, right column, first paragraph, line 4, "effect" should instead appear as "affect."

This link opens the pdf:
http://www.pnas.o...pdf+html

I mention this because it clarifies the fact that PZ Myers' and his idiot minions do not know the difference between an epigenetic effect on hormones and affects of hormones on behavior. They say things like Maggnus did (above):

Behavioral changes as a result of the mutation!


Does anyone else think that is a biologically plausible or ecologically valid statement?

If so, you will enjoy discussions of social pseudoscience with idiot minions on PZ Myers' blog.

If not, see my blog at Pheromones.com

Or see my Facebook page https://www.faceb...Research

Feb 05, 2014
de novo gene creation means "Creation" is the holy grail of evolutionary biology. That fact is one hell-of-a problem for anonymous atheists who believe what their "Roach Kings" taught them to believe.
Oh now I see what you're trying for. God did it! No wonder you're a laughing stock!

not, see my blog at Pheromones.com

Or see my Facebook page https://www.faceb...Research
Bahahahahaha I can't convince people who understand science, but come to my facebook page so I can dazzle you with my brilliance! What a loon!

Does this mean you're going to stop posting your idiocy here now?

Feb 05, 2014
@jvk
Unless an intelligent discussant steps in...

I didnt get any further... I DID want to point out that until you can finally understand basic biology terms, there is most likely not going to be any agreement with any intellectuals as most intelligent people (especially in the field of biology) work under a certain guidelines which are established when you are in the basics of the educational system, and things like syntax, grammar and vernacular are taught so that everyone can be on the same page... but I guess you didnt get far enough to comprehend that
see my blog at

why would anyone who understands that you are pushing an unfounded crackpot hypothesis go visit you?
In fact... going there/referencing yourself is nothing more than markers supporting the assertion that you are a crackpot pushing PSEUDOSCIENCE!
Especially when you comment that anyone who doesnt see it your way is stupid, creationist etc

given your lack of scientific standing?
nice try Mensa
DEBUNKED

Feb 05, 2014
Bahahahahaha I can't convince people who understand science, but come to my facebook page so I can dazzle you with my brilliance! What a loon!

Does this mean you're going to stop posting your idiocy here now?


Hey Maggnus!
he REALLY DOESNT GET IT does he?

jvk references HIMSELF= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he has been PUBLICLY DEBUNKED= PSEUDOSCIENCE

his hypothesis is actually just an off-shoot, side support reinforcing Evolution Theory while he continually proclaims that it is THE only way... forgetting that it also causes MUTATION and thus falls under the umbrella of evolution!jvk= PSEUDOSCIENCE

He says that anyone who doesnt agree with him is an idiot= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he proclaims everyone in the field of biology who is educated are conspired against him or are idiots because they believe a theory that has enormous amounts of proof= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he gets angry when he is proven WRONG= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he wont go away because he thinks we will suddenly get stupid and agree= TROLL


JVK
Feb 07, 2014
PZ Myers and his idiot minions do not understand this scientific fact: "...pictures of cells frozen in time can be useful, but also misleading with respect to each one's ultimate behavior as well as that of the population to which they belong. We need to tell the roses from the daffodils, but also be careful not to call two roses a rose and a lily." http://www.biomed...007/12/2

In the context of ecological adaptations compared to mutation-initiated natural selection, Lenski's experiments have plagued me due to interpretations that one E. coli is a rose but after 50,000 generations another E. coli has somehow mutated into a lily.

If there is anyone left here who is not an idiot minion or pseudoscientist and who knows about experimental evidence that specifically addresses the interpretations of results of Lenski's experiments, I would appreciate learning more about how to communicate with others the importance of 'sniffing out' differences in organisms.

Feb 07, 2014
@jvk
AAAaand AGAIN:
he REALLY DOESNT GET IT does he?

jvk references HIMSELF= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he has been PUBLICLY DEBUNKED= PSEUDOSCIENCE

his hypothesis is actually just an off-shoot, side support reinforcing Evolution Theory while he continually proclaims that it is THE only way... forgetting that it also causes MUTATION and thus falls under the umbrella of evolution!jvk= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he is inept at COMPREHENSION (& ignores facts) = PSEUDOSCIENCE

He says that anyone who doesnt agree with him is an idiot= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he proclaims everyone in the field of biology who is educated are conspired against him or are idiots because they believe a theory that has enormous amounts of proof= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he gets angry when he is proven WRONG= PSEUDOSCIENCE

he wont go away because he thinks we will suddenly get stupid and agree= TROLL

and NOW he thinks that repetition will bring results? That we will suddenly get stupid and agree with him?= PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT TROLL

Feb 07, 2014
and who knows about experimental evidence that specifically addresses the interpretations of results of Lenski's experiments

@jvk
this is nothing more than a TROLL baiting someone
he makes an offer that sounds reasonable, but when challenged, like what RealScience is doing in another article, he simply resorts to disparaging remarks, calls everyone stupid, etc etc... the SAME thing as here,
EVEN IN THE FACE OF FACTS, STUDIES AND PUBLICATIONS THAT REFUTE HIS PERSONAL HYPOTHESIS

therefore, debate at your own risk as jvk will only drag you down and beat you over the head with his SPEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT PHILOSOPHY

for more proof of this see RealScience pummel his ego and force jvk into a corner where he vents and call us all idiot minions:

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

he is really MAD that he cant understand that his hypothesis is already covered under Evolution!


Feb 07, 2014
I would appreciate learning more about how to communicate with others the importance of 'sniffing out' differences in organisms.
Well I, for one, can certainly "smell" what you are trying to peddle!
he has been PUBLICLY DEBUNKED= PSEUDOSCIENCE
Oh, I see I'm not the only one!
Lenski's experiments have plagued me due to interpretations that one E. coli is a rose but after 50,000 generations another E. coli has somehow mutated into a lily.
That's because you don't understand that gratuitous mutations are not a reflection of the Creator and His hand is not guiding anything.

Are you sure you have a Mensa membership? I'm pretty sure they only allow smart people in!

JVK
Feb 07, 2014
for more proof of this see RealScience pummel his ego and force jvk into a corner where he vents and call us all idiot minions:

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

he is really MAD that he cant understand that his hypothesis is already covered under Evolution!


My model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations is the antithesis of mutation-initiated natural selection in the context of mutation-driven evolution.

The problem here is that Lenski's idiot minions and PZ Myers' idiot minions do not want anyone with the least bit of intelligence to look at my model and compare it to their theoretical approach, which is not biologically plausible and has not been validated by experimental evidence from model organisms. They would rather that everyone was someone's idiot minion.

They think you're nobody unless you're somebody's idiot minion, because they are nobodies who believe in mutation-driven evolution.

Feb 07, 2014
@jvk
you wacky thing you...
there you go with your comprehension problems again! You would think Mensa would be more careful about handing out memberships...
nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations

cause MUTATIONS which then, by definition, places it FIRMLY under the reigning Theory of Evolution!

On top of that... RealScience has definitely destroyed your argument
as well as Myers
and Lenski
etc etc etc

again, your seething internal conflict is with the scientific community that spurned you, and you come here to vent
this is a SCIENCE site!
Not a PSEUDOSCIENCE site
take your faith to a blog and vent there, so people know how to avoid you
coming here and calling us names is NOT helping you
nor is it helpful that you cannot understand basic english...

you only reinforce the above proclamations about you and your hypothesis
your attitude is textbook crackpot with pseudoscience verbiage supported by delusions

have a nice day!

Feb 07, 2014
Where is the proof in pseudoscience?
The proof is just in the proof, that the given science really is a pseudoscience. You cannot want some rigorous proof and use the subjective labeling at the same moment.

JVK
Feb 07, 2014
nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations

cause MUTATIONS which then, by definition, places it FIRMLY under the reigning Theory of Evolution!


Is that the reigning Theory of Evolution that has never been substantiated by experimental evidence that shows how mutations, if ever they could become fixed in the genome via violations of biophysical constraints, somehow accumulated and became beneficial to the species that somehow selected the mutations so that they could be somehow inherited?




JVK
Feb 07, 2014
"Teeth tell us a lot more about the ecology of animals than just looking at the skeleton."
http://phys.org/n...est.html

Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations clearly lead to the morphological transition from C. elegans to P. pacificus, a nematode with "teeth' and other ecological adaptations that are manifested in rewiring of its primitive nervous system and behavior.
http://phys.org/n...ing.html

Thus, the problem that Skull 5 presented to evolutionary theorists was one that involved the first complete skull with teeth, which showed that everything attributed to mutations and differences in our ancestors during the past 1.8 million years was actually just nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled natural genetic variation (as it obviously is in every other species on the planet).

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

Feb 07, 2014
Is that the reigning Theory of Evolution that has blah blah blah

@jvk
it is the reigning Theory of Evolution that includes your hypothesis in its explanations as well as unequivocally stands strong due to the overwhelming preponderance of supporting evidence that is systematically taught in education systems that you ignored and/or were not privy to due to whatever reasons, and that you would understand should you ever take it upon yourself to become educated.

Evolution Theory = works
your hypothesis= included in evolution theory as a minor contributor

your speculation that your hypothesis replaces evolution theory= pseudoscience faith based conjecture

still mad at RealScience for thrashing you?

as there is a 1000 character max. you cannot teach biology 101 here, however, there are plenty of free courseware titles out now...
maybe you could take a few and learn WHY the scientific community debunked you?
then you will stop this petty nonsense and disruption.

JVK
Feb 07, 2014
Same thing in birds:
http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

"This study highlights again how uneven the diversity of birds was during the Cretaceous. There are many more enantiornithines than any other group of early birds, each one with its own anatomical specialization." offers study co-author Luis Chiappe, from Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County."

Horton et al (2014) was the study I reported to PZ Myers and his idiot minions that caused him to ban me because their experimental results showed chromosomal rearrangements were responsible for differences in the morphology and behavior of two different "morphs" of sparrows. http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Their scientific approach covered more ground than others had covered and it showed how foolish it was for PZ Myers to attack me after first attacking John Anderson based on his view of speciation via nutrient-dependent chromosomal rearrangements.

JVK
Feb 07, 2014
as there is a 1000 character max. you cannot teach biology 101 here.


That does not prevent you from addressing any ot the experimental evidence I have cited. Please tell us how teeth mutated into existence in species from nematodes to humans, so that we can compare the approach of an idiot minion to the biological facts of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations.

Feel free to ask for help from someone intelligent, if you know anyone who is.

Feb 07, 2014
Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations clearly lead to the morphological transition from C. elegans to P. pacificus,
There is nothing in that article to support the contention you have made here, and in fact, the article could more easily support the contention that the activation and rewiring of the additional neurons was the direct result of mutational changes in the manner in which the neurons were rewired.

If you are going to cite examples to support your theory, perhaps you should make sure they actually do support it.

As for Horton et al, this is the third time you have posted the same article, and my replies to it are the same. You highlight a MUTATION and the resulting behavior which has arisen as a result of the MUTATION!.

If you are having trouble reading the cites that you make, then perhaps you can ask another lab assistant to help you by having them read it and explain it to you BEFORE you post it!

Feb 07, 2014
which showed that everything attributed to mutations and differences in our ancestors during the past 1.8 million years was actually just nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled natural genetic variation
It does not show this! Or, more precisely, it is more easily explained by the conclusion that a mutation in the gene(s) controlling tooth growth allowed the individual's carrying it to survive while those individuals who did not carry it to die out. Over the course of generations, there continued to be beneficial mutations, such that, over the course of a few thousand generations, the buildup in mutations resulted in the difference between the two skulls.

JVK, you continually point to conflicting evidence to support your premise without taking into account the fact that it might also support (or even better support) another!

Feb 07, 2014
This study highlights again how uneven the diversity of birds was during the Cretaceous. There are many more enantiornithines than any other group of early birds, each one with its own anatomical specialization." offers study co-author Luis Chiappe, from Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County."
And the same argument here! The anatomical specializations were the result of beneficial mutations in aspects of the first common ancestor which lead over the course of many generations to the speciation seen, as those mutations that conferred beneficial results were passed onto offspring. The same thing seen in the finches of the Galapagos lo-on 100 years ago now. It is not that nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations caused the gene to express in a different manner, rather the mutation of the gene allowed them to take advantage of a new means of nutrition.

YOU are trying to overthrow convention. PROVE IT!

Feb 07, 2014
Please tell us how teeth mutated into existence in species from nematodes to humans
You are asking him to describe a fallacy. Teeth of a form show in every species back to the very earliest of placodermi found in the Silurian era, and there is evidence of tooth like structures back to the pre-Cambrian fossils of the Burgess Shale in Canada and the Battle Creek formation in Australia. To equate the structures in nematodes to teeth in humans is a stretch at best, however clearly the evolutionary pressure to form teeth or similar structures is strong. This makes sense of course, given that some type of structure is needed to help break down nutrients found in the environment. Birds had teeth too JVK, but over the course of a few million years, nutritional/ecological pressures favoured mutations that changed them to look ever more like the beaks we see today.

JVK
Feb 07, 2014
YOU are trying to overthrow convention. PROVE IT!


There has never been any proof for what you say I must overthrow.

The Dobzhansky–Muller incompatibility model in which the emergence of genetically incompatible mutations were independently derived and fixed in allopatric lineages was someone's idea of a joke.

Serious scientists didn't even bother to test whether mutation-initiated incompatibilities could cause anything until evolutionary theorists forced them to do so by continuing to tout the nonsense of mutation-driven evolution for decades after the joke was first made public.

Now, most people realize that "evolutionary theorists" ARE the joke. Idiot minions, like you, tell serious scientists like me to prove biological facts when no experimental evidence has ever provided support for mutation-driven evolution.

JVK
Feb 07, 2014
CONCLUSION:The difference in skull shape and robustness of the beak between commensal and non-commensal house sparrows is consistent with adaptations to process the larger and rachis encapsulated seeds of domesticated cereals among human associated populations. http://www.biomed...8/13/200

The difference in morphological and behavioral traits in the white-throated sparrow (Horton et al, 2014) are also linked to ecological adaptations via diet and pheromone-controlled reproduction. What the idiot minions seem to want everyone else to believe is that the accumulation of some mutations caused differences in beaks, other accumlations cause difference in the skull, and others caused differences in plumage color, song and behavior.

Simply put, to idiot minions, all species-specific differences are due to mutations, despite that fact that mutations are biophysically constrained and that means they cannot cause beneficial changes that are then somehow naturally selected.

JVK
Feb 07, 2014
"Differentiation in the mandibles and male genitalia (figure 2) is quantified and used as a proxy for the presence of divergent selection [7]. Studies on the functional morphology of insect mandibles have identified their ecological relevance..."
http://rspb.royal...abstract

PZ Myers, Lenski, and their idiot minions seem to think that penises and jaws concurrently mutated into existence. With thoughts like that, it is no wonder they flap their overdeveloped jaws for fear that others might otherwise notice their underdeveloped penises.

Feb 07, 2014
There has never been any proof for what you say I must overthrow.
There have been multiple studies showing both that mutations can occur and that they can be beneficial. You have provided no evidence to counter that myriad of data. YOU are making the charge that the established science of mutational evolution is wrong, so YOU are necessarily required to explain why your theory should supplant the theory that is so well established.
The Dobzhansky–Muller incompatibility model in which the emergence of genetically incompatible mutations were independently derived and fixed in allopatric lineages was someone's idea of a joke.
Not as bad as the joke of From fertilization to adult sexual behavior. (Diamond M, Binstock T, Kohl JV.). "gonad to hormones to behavior" model!

Feb 07, 2014
Now, most people realize that "evolutionary theorists" ARE the joke. Idiot minions, like you, tell serious scientists like me to prove biological facts when no experimental evidence has ever provided support for mutation-driven evolution.
No, most people realize that quack scientists with an axe to grind can be safely ignored while they shout cries of "I'm being repressed!" while standing in the mud of their misunderstandings! You know, pretend pseudo-scientists like you pushing snake oil love potions on the gullible while trying to slide a sweaty hand up the dress of an unsuspecting farmer's wife.