Geneticists solve 40-year-old dilemma to explain why duplicate genes remain in the genome

Geneticists solve 40-year-old dilemma to explain why duplicate genes remain in the genome
An informational graphic of the process of gene duplication, showing how sister genes can confer mutational robustness by allowing organisms to adapt to novel environments. Credit: Mario Fares, 2014.

Geneticists at Trinity College Dublin have made a major breakthrough with important implications for understanding the evolution of genomes in a variety of organisms.

They found a mechanism sought for more than four decades that explains how gene duplication leads to novel functions in individuals.

Gene duplication is a biological phenomenon that leads to the sudden emergence of new genetic material. 'Sister' – the products of gene duplication – can survive across long evolutionary timescales, and allow organisms to tolerate otherwise lethal mutations.

The Trinity geneticists have now identified and described the mechanism underlying this increased tolerance, which is known as 'mutational robustness'.

By experimentally demonstrating that this robustness is important for to adapt to novel conditions, including those that are stressful to the cells, they have underlined the likely reason for the existence of gene duplication.

"Natural selection - a process that keeps essential things in the cell - also removes genes that are redundant from the genome," said Dr Mario A Fares, Assistant Professor in Genetics at Trinity, and leading author of the study.

"The mechanism resolving the conflict between sister genes and their apparent evolutionary instability had remained a mystery for decades, but we have now cracked this latest part of the genetic code."

Gene duplication is a frequent phenomenon in (which safeguard their within cell membranes), including yeast, plants, and animals. But understanding how duplication leads to biological innovation is difficult because evolution cannot be easily traced seeing as it occurs on timescales in the order of millions of years.

Despite their apparently redundant nature, duplicate genes that originated 100 million years ago can still be found in today's organisms. This phenomenon has always suggested the existence of a mechanism maintaining them in the genomes. The researchers in this study chose to work with yeast – an organism whose entire genome has been duplicated over time – to join up the dots.

They 'evolved' yeast cells in the laboratory under conditions that allowed the spread of mutations rejected by natural selection, by simply reducing the effect that had on these 'maladapted' cells. They found that duplicate genes tolerated the maladaptive mutations to a greater degree than non-duplicate genes.

The geneticists' simple experimental approach revealed that these genes, duplicated 100 million years ago, were still able to respond to different environments as they changed, as well as highlighting their potential to generate new adaptations that might give them an advantage in new environments.

"Discovering the mechanism of innovation through marks an exciting beginning for a new era of research in which evolution can be conducted in the laboratory and theories hitherto speculative tested," added Dr Fares.

"Our discovery also has implications for explaining the importance of redundancy in the human society as well. The role of increased redundancies in a fashioned job market in lenient economical conditions could lead, in crisis times, to the emergence of new companies, specialized workforces, and the optimization of individual capabilities, for example, although this requires a profound investigation."

The research, recently published online in the high-profile international journal, Genome Research, was supported by Science Foundation Ireland (SFI).


Explore further

New study explains evolution of duplicate genes

Journal information: Genome Research

Citation: Geneticists solve 40-year-old dilemma to explain why duplicate genes remain in the genome (2014, September 30) retrieved 23 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-09-geneticists-year-old-dilemma-duplicate-genes.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.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

NOM
Sep 30, 2014
Not impossible to prove, just impossible to get through the thick skull of a fundie.

Sep 30, 2014
Not impossible to prove, just impossible to get through the thick skull of a fundie.


It's worse than that.

Verkle's faith is so weak he can't publicly state his interpretation of the Bible is his reason for his anti-science views.

He's a pathetic coward.

Sep 30, 2014
Redundancy is an evidence of design, as humans often keep backup information. If we used the computer, for example data is backed up on a DVD or Flash Drive.

An intelligent designer can reflect on the need for redundant systems, and can either give the organism redundant systems, or give it the capacity to generate redundant systems dynamically.

Human programmers do this all the time with object oriented programming. Network administrators do this all the time with networking computers and servers: redundant systems, but perhaps each actually doing a slightly different function, though they are materially identical.

This sort of discovery is not really surprising to a person who believes in a Creator, because it makes perfect sense in that paradigm. In fact, this makes even more sense than some other aspects of biology from the perspective of Creation.

Some information or systems may not benefit as much from redundancy, so they don't have it (Liver, pancrease).

Sep 30, 2014
Moreover, software engineers and developers often keep copies of older versions of a software, in case something unknown is wrong with the new version, they can "reset" while they work on a new patch.

This same principle can be applied in biology where a cell may have 2, 4, even 10 or more copies of the same gene, or in the case of Yeast, 2 copies of the entire genome.

If you have a copy of an older version of a gene, you can adapt to those conditions again if you encounter them again.

This is a biochemical "learning engine" and it is evidence of intelligent design.

Sep 30, 2014
Verkle: Um, Google "transitional fossils"? A couple of hundred thousand links to choose from. Or how about:

http://www.transi...ils.com/

http://en.wikiped..._fossils

I think the fundamental cause (pun intended) of your wilful ignorance is that because you refuse questioning, your argument for the makeup of the universe is purely on esthetic grounds.

Unfortunately, the universe is deaf to belief. Scientific enquiry leads where it leads. The only way to unseat findings is more findings.

It's called progress. It's how cancer gets cured. You're not helping.

Sep 30, 2014
Redundancy is an evidence of design

I disagree. On the contrary, I think perfection would be the sign of a perfect creator.

The genome is anything but. In fact, designing DNA to be so changeable in an environment where evolution is not supposed to happen would be a sign of incompetence.

Sep 30, 2014
Redundancy is an evidence of design

I disagree. On the contrary, I think perfection would be the sign of a perfect creator.

The genome is anything but. In fact, designing DNA to be so changeable in an environment where evolution is not supposed to happen would be a sign of incompetence.


Who said anything about "evolution" not happening?

Designing an organism which cannot adapt to it's environment would be incompetence.

Intelligence is the ultimate form of adaptation because it can produce other adaptations by knowledge and invention.

Redundancy of information is a form of intelligence by having backups, or alternate versions of tools.

You have several sockets in your wrench set, ranging from perhaps 5mm to 25mm if it's metric, or 1/4 through 1 inch if it's standard. Does it make you or the designer incompetent? No. Each has a specific purpose, and some are used more often than others.

Design.


Sep 30, 2014
Apologies, I guess I assumed you rejected evolution based on your ID world view.

That said I stand by my other argument: The genome is highly imperfect.

For example regarding your analogy, I'm pretty sure keeping your backup inside your production code base is always a bad idea :-)

Sep 30, 2014
Apologies, I guess I assumed you rejected evolution based on your ID world view.

That said I stand by my other argument: The genome is highly imperfect.

For example regarding your analogy, I'm pretty sure keeping your backup inside your production code base is always a bad idea :-)


Nope.

Ever heard of "Templates"?

It allows you to create functions or objects which operate on different types of variables, dynamically. In biology, this would be analogous to a "Phenotype," where the same organism expresses different genes from the same genome under different conditions.

Design.

Sep 30, 2014
Interesting analogy - but I still disagree.

We have been copying patterns found in nature for centuries, and software engineering is no different. Finding evidence of design in nature because we copy nature in our designs is, in formal logic terms, "affirming the consequent".

Sep 30, 2014
@Returners - BS dressed up in pretty rhetoric is still BS
@verkel - blind arrogant ignorance as usual

Sep 30, 2014
If evolution were true we should be able to see millions of transitional fossils in the record
@verkle
this assumes that every death creates a fossil, not that, as proven factually, fossils are occurrence of a series of circumstance in the past allowing a death to fossilize into what we find... and also, your hypothesis is wrong
the mantra that "there are no transitional fossils"; it simply is not true. This oft-repeated fallacy does not agree with what paleontologists actually know
http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html
It should be traceable
it is. see also: http://www.talkor...comdesc/
But we find virtually none
blatant LIE
Evolution ...very difficult to prove...impossible to prove
another blatant lie
as you can see from the links here also: https://en.wikipe...volution
Evolution is a proven fact, and there is even proof in our DNA, but you ignore that

go back to your religious sites and leave science to the educated

Oct 01, 2014
Redundancy has an implied strategy.
Whenever organization occurs, especially under labels labeled 'life', a 'copy' is an efficient and effective way to maintain the level of organization obtained or acquired.
Copies are rarely perfect copies - polymorphism occurs. Often from beyond repair damage .
When repair is impossible, a fall-back copy, perfect or not, is necessary to maintain the organization of life. DNA has copies and repairs. A double strategy.

Well said animah.


Oct 01, 2014
verkle proves limited cognition AND willingness to learn AND willingness to seek FACTS
If evolution were true we should be able to see millions of transitional fossils in the record.
No why ?
Have you not thought (again!) fossils are skeletal remnants - devoid of 'soft tissue' where the bulk of changes are likely between generations ?

verkle
It should be traceable.
It is, it requires intelligence & training to interpret.

verkle
But we find virtually none.
Wrong/Liar. Your narrow bias for a personal god who 'did it' prevents you being smart in any appreciation that "change is the only certainty".

verkle
Evolution is a theory that is indeed very difficult to prove. In fact, it looks like it is impossible to prove.
No.Tell that to microbiologists who routinely see adaptation and those working in higher mathematics of computational biology, you would be laughed at as redneck Kook, uneducated, biased, preferring to arbitrarily believe in a punishing personal deity.

Oct 01, 2014
Returners showing his ignorance of probability with
It allows you to create functions or objects which operate on different types of variables, dynamically. In biology, this would be analogous to a "Phenotype," where the same organism expresses different genes from the same genome under different conditions.

Design.
No.

All needed for evolution is:-
1.Things (particles, units) with discontinuous properties (atoms, bonding)
2.Energy (or informational potential) differential
3.Lotsa time for it to happen with lotsa space for permutation expression
4.Repeat 1-3

Genetic algorithms on advanced computing platforms have been exploited to produce complexity from simplicity, it is routine. there is evidence it has produced functional complexity from adroit use of 'selection criteria'.

The question arises of course who put 1-4 above there in the first place, well who knows but, ask how that thing communicates.

It (god) is woefully impotent, same as all people, badly worded books !

JVK
Oct 01, 2014
Chem. Soc. Rev., 2012, 41, 5367-5372
DOI: 10.1039/C2CS90063G
From themed collection Prebiotic chemistry
http://pubs.rsc.o...306-0012

In the themed collection they seem to have missed the fact that there is one achiral amino acid: glycine. That fact makes this representation wrong, from: Chirally Sensitive Electron-Induced Molecular Breakup and the Vester-Ulbricht Hypothesis

"All molecular forms of life possess a chiral asymmetry, with amino acids and sugars found, respectively, in L- and D-enantiomers only [1]."

If you start from a misrepresentation of biophysical constraints on RNA-mediated events, protein folding and DNA stability, you can invent almost anything to explain evolution via mutations and natural selection. And that's exactly what population geneticists continue to do.

Gene duplication automagically occurs because it must to fit the ridiculous theory invented by other population geneticists.

Oct 01, 2014
concurrent changes in morphological and behavioral phenotypes


That is a severe oversimplification, even before touching on your unsubtantiated creationist-via-pheromones obsession (and I do wish you would stop spamming, James V Kohl).

See The Extended Phenotype (Dawkins): 'Animal behaviour tends to maximize the survival of the genes "for" that behaviour'

Behavioural phenotypes both select *and* are in return selected for. Think about it - otherwise it would not be possible for species to increase in complexity and fitness.

So right there, the influence of your putative mutagenetic pheromones gets cut in half even before we get into the details.

JVK
Oct 02, 2014
"Small intranuclear proteins also participate in generating alternative splicing techniques of pre-mRNA and, by this mechanism, contribute to sexual differentiation..." and all other cell type differentiation via conserved molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man.


If you would rather have behavioral phenotypes select and be selected for to result in cell type differentiation, tell us what's selected and how.

Why should anyone believe in the magic of your ridiculous explanation? Is there a model for that? Is there a model organism that exemplifies biologically-based cause and effect? Is there anything at all besides the pseudoscientific nonsense you were taught to believe in?

The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution http://www.ncbi.n...17640887 Did Dawkins ever revise his position on natural selection, which "...occurs as a consequence of mutational production of different genotypes ..." and "...is not the fundamental cause of evolution."

Oct 02, 2014
The scarecrows in the articel is unnecessary, artificial evolution is still evolution. Already Darwin knew and used that observation.

On that point, note how both creationist crackpots have to misquote/misclaim - lie - on purpose. Nice to show us how morally and intellectually rotten they are!

Evolution of species have timescales of millions of years, but we have examples that span all sorts of timescales, down to the days that our immune system provides us with; selection and survival of T cells after infection. Then cancers that evolve to handle first our immune system, then our medicines, over months; same timescale with flu viruses. Bacterial resistance takes years to evolve, so doe multicellularity in the lab. Et cetera.

Here is 29+ tests of evolution besides the famous "no rabbit in the precambrian" test that everyone (but crazies) know: [ http://www.talkor...comdesc/ ]

JVK
Oct 02, 2014
Re: RNA sequencing

Thank you for attending the Make new discoveries - with Qlucore's visualization based software webinar. We hope you found it useful and informative. To review the webinar or tell a colleague about it, here it is on-demand: https://engage.ve...e-fontes

You, too, can begin to discover what evolutionary theorists think automagically occurs to then result in gene duplication, which subsequently somehow leads to mutations and natural selection in the context of the evolutionary of biodiversity without describing an evolutionary event.

The beauty of this presentation is that it also uses statistics to explain what happens -- only what happens is actually placed into the context of experimental evidence of biologically based cause and effect instead of assumptions based on the invention of neo-Darwinism.

JVK
Oct 02, 2014
In theory, "...92% of duplicates in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, originated through [nutrient-dependent] whole-genome duplication (WGD) roughly 100 MYA (Wolfe and Shields 1997), have returned to single gene copies in extant S. cerevisiae."

See the article: http://genome.csh...abstract

In fact, attributing changes via mutations and the return to single gene copies to WGD during 100 MYA eliminates everything known about secreting and sensing in species from microbes to man.

Indeed, secreting and sensing control how ecological variation leads from nutrient uptake to the metabolism of nutrients to pheromones, which are secreted and sensed so that the controlled physiology of reproduction leads from RNA-mediated events to fixation of amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types.

The alternative is uncontrolled mutations, and no experimental evidence links it to ecological adaptations in yeasts or any other species. Cancer is not good!

JVK
Oct 02, 2014
artificial evolution is still evolution


Does anyone else believe that?

To learn how much ignorance is displayed in such a brief comment, see:

Epigenomics and the concept of degeneracy in biological systems http://bfg.oxford...050.long

Please don't be too critical of people like Torbjorn_Larsson_OM. Ridiculous theories must make sense to someone, or no one would believe in them. He is but one person among many who never thought to ask: "Is there a biologically-based model for that?"

People who can't ask the right questions can be taught to believe in anything. Can't they?

To them, the mutations that lead to cancer are good things because, in theory, they also somehow lead to the evolution of biodiversity during hundreds of millions of years that -- in yeasts and all other species -- eliminate the mutations so that 92% of duplicates in Saccharomyces cerevisiae return to single gene copies in extant S. cerevisiae.

Oct 02, 2014
[nutrient-dependent] whole-genome duplication


Nutrient-dependent in the context of any biochemical process is a redundant statement. Of course duplication depends on the prerequisite molecules. It's still as useful as saying "gas-dependent car".

The alternative is uncontrolled mutations, and no experimental evidence links it to ecological adaptations in yeasts or any other species.


No experimental evidence, except for all of these:

http://www.scienc...37.short

http://rspb.royal...11.short

http://www.scienc...54.short

http://www.pnas.o...49.short

http://www.nature...515.html

http://onlinelibr...C.f01t03

and all the rest you get searching Google scholar for mutation and ecological adaptation.

JVK
Oct 02, 2014
Genomes in turmoil: Quantification of genome dynamics in prokaryote supergenomes http://www.biomed...abstract
"The rates of 4 types of elementary evolutionary events (hereinafter Genome Dynamics Events or GDE)..."

Until you link to a publication that clearly details how a biologically-based evolutionary event, you provide only attestations to the fact that even serious scientists did not know what to call the RNA-mediated events that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in organized genomes of specie from microbes to man via conserved molecular mechanisms.

Now that we know the conserved molecular mechanisms always involve RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that link the physiology of reproduction to morphological and behavioral changes, continuing to refer to any increasing organismal complexity as if it arose via mutations and natural selection exemplifies ignorance.

Thanks for doing that. You're a great example!

JVK
Oct 02, 2014
From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior 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..." [i.e., via RNA-mediated events]

"Parenthetically it is interesting to note even the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has a gene-based equivalent of sexual orientation (i.e., a-factor and alpha-factor physiologies). These differences arise [via RNA-mediated events] from different epigenetic modifications of an otherwise identical MAT locus..."

Signaling Crosstalk: Integrating Nutrient Availability and Sex http://www.ncbi.n...3932994/ "The [RNA-mediated] mechanism by which one signaling pathway regulates a second provides insight into how cells integrate multiple stimuli to produce a coordinated response."

JVK
Oct 02, 2014
"...chromosomal rearrangements promote coupling between the genes involved in intrinsic and extrinsic reproductive barriers, thus facilitating speciation (Faria et al. 2011)." http://onlinelibr...616/full -- co author: Dolph Schluter, who in 2009 wrote Evidence for Ecological Speciation and Its Alternative http://www.scienc...37.short --linked above by 'anonymous_9001'

Andrew Jones' (aka anonymous_9001) criticisms of of my published work [http://www.socioa...ew/24367] includes a reference to an attack by PZ Myers on my scientific credibility. Myers didn't like my position on how chromosomal rearrangements are linked from nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled cell type differentiation to biodiversity without mutations.

See for more overwhelming displays of ignorance:
http://freethough...-page-1/



Oct 02, 2014
Until you link to a publication that clearly details how a biologically-based evolutionary event...


I linked 6 of those 5 hours ago. Go through those papers and point out faulty assumptions or methodologies and how they invalidate their results and we'll have a starting point for a discussion. You've yet to do that however. All you do is say everything else is invalid. You don't provide reasons WHY everything else is invalid.

JVK
Oct 02, 2014
They are invalid because "RNA molecules function as the central conduit of information transfer in biology." http://www.pnas.o...abstract

RNA-directed DNA methylation links nutrient uptake from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in organized genomes of species from microbes to man via conserved molecular mechanisms.

No matter how I say that and no matter how many times, you insist there is some across- species link from mutations and natural selection to the evolution of biodiversity. When I say RNA-mediated events link amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all species -- and provide examples in a published work -- you come back and tell everyone I'm wrong because PZ Myers thinks in terms of mutations and can't understand RNA-mediated chromosomal rearrangements and pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations.

http://www.scienc...40.short

Oct 03, 2014
ecological adaptations are nutrient-dependent, RNA-mediated, and pheromone-controlled via the physiology of reproduction. There's a model for that!
@jk
yep... and that model causes MUTATIONS
so, you are either stupid or illiterate. You've already ADMITTED that your model causes MUTATIONS! remember.. I asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
Therefore, we can conclude that your point here is to SPAM and TROLL with pseudoscience
Ignorance is always an option!
you definitely provide proof of this!
there is only ONE site needed to stomp all over your pseudoscience, jk: http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

It proves you WRONG regarding mutations and supports the theory of EVOLUTION, which is supported by science and fact, not a wanna-be diagnostician who failed college and is a glorified lab tech

JVK
Oct 03, 2014
Parallel Evolutionary Dynamics of Adaptive Diversification in Escherichia coli
http://dx.doi.org....1001490

"... in medium with glucose and acetate as carbon sources, E. coli cells preferentially metabolize glucose and excrete acetate until the glucose is depleted and then undergo a diauxic switch to acetate consumption [32]."

The E. coli ecologically adapt to variation in their supply of potential nutrients. Only an idiot would claim that they mutated into another species when it is perfectly obvious that Lenski is observing ecological adaptations in his ongoing experiments.

Desai's group is doing the same thing with yeasts. http://www.scienc...abstract

The lastest from Lenski with others states "...the L ecotype grows faster on glucose but secretes by-products that S can better exploit, generating negative frequency-dependent selection."

"negative frequency-dependent selection" = pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction.

Oct 03, 2014
RNA transfers information, therefore mutation & NS doesn't occur as an evolutionary mechanism?

That is, as most of your conclusions are, a non sequitur fallacy. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Oct 03, 2014
The E. coli ecologically adapt to variation in their supply of potential nutrients. Only an idiot would claim that they mutated into another species when it is perfectly obvious that Lenski is observing ecological adaptations in his ongoing experiments.


Mutation and selection (by the mutation allowing the oxic citrate E. coli to take advantage of a new niche) is a means of ecological adaptation. They're not in opposition like you seem to think they are.

Oct 03, 2014
Only an idiot would claim that they mutated into another species
@jk
and here you again demonstrate that you failed out of college likely due to comprehension problems
1- i never said anything about single mutation speciation- so that claim is YOURS, not mine, therefore YOU are the idiot there
2- Lenski's experiments are showing a MUTATION -HIS words
3- Lenski is quoted as saying ""We find they are getting less fit in the ancestral niche over time," Lenski said. "I would argue that citrate users are—or are becoming—a new species."

So go tell HIM that he is an idiot... never mind. I will forward your post above to him along with his quote.
4- your own model causes mutations

therefore, we can conclusively state that you are not only incapable of comprehension, but you are an egotistical creationist who tweaks the data (including your perception of definitions) to fit your faith- therefore you are NOT a true scientist

& you lie (ex. diagnostician)

not unexpected from a perfumer

Oct 03, 2014
Parallel Evolutionary Dynamics of Adaptive Diversification in Escherichia coli
http://dx.doi.org....1001490
now... from your link I provide
...allowed invasion of mutations causing an alternate physiology
so the authors support mutation too
Desai's group is doing the same thing...
now about the second link
those authors also state
In some cases, a single mutation can open up previously unavailable opportunities for a population to colonize a new metabolic niche (2) or survive in a previously intolerable drug concentration (3)
So there goes your anti-beneficial-mutation bullsnot

in BOTH links, the authors SUPPORT that mutations, and evolution, are working just as planned, and as Lenski was explaining.

Your attempts at twisting the word salad to support your POV is almost pathetic, and only shows the length you are willing to go to to promote your delusional faith based thoughts.

Evolution is NOT threatened by these studies, it is reinforced by them

Oct 03, 2014
You know... as anti-mutation as you claim to be, I find it interesting that you linked the following
Desai's group is doing the same thing with yeasts. http://www.scienc...abstract
Along with Lenski's papers, this one destroys your belief that mutations are not beneficial, right there in black and white. There is also things like this
These differences in adaptability are not random: Populations with lower initial fitness systematically adapt more rapidly than populations with higher initial fitness, driving the overall pattern of convergent evolution in fitness (Fig. 1C)
therefore, Anon is correct, and you are again proving yourself the idiot by posting the evidence that refutes your own claims

(16) (tables S6 and S7)], indicating that most mutations observed in these "multi-hit" genes are likely beneficial. Moreover, mutations in genes involved in negative regulation of Ras, cell cycle regulation, and filamentous growth were enriched .
science trumps faith

JVK
Oct 03, 2014
Evolution Is Not Random (At Least, Not Totally)
By Tanya Lewis, Staff Writer | October 02, 2014 07:41am ET
http://www.livesc...dom.html

Evolution: are the monkeys' typewriters rigged? http://rsos.royal...full.pdf "These mutations are guided by both the physical properties of the genetic code and the need to preserve the critical function of proteins, the researchers said."

RNA-mediated events preserve the critical function of proteins during thermodynamic cycles of protein biosythesis that are nutrient-dependent. Fixation of amino acid substitutions that benefit the stability of DNA in organized genomes occurs via the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction. Mutations perturb protein folding, which is why they are associated with diseases and disorders not species-wide ecological adaptations. Local adaptations also are RNA-mediated, not mutation initiated.

Oct 03, 2014
not mutation initiated.
not according to your own links above, jk-skippy!
Mutations perturb protein folding, which is why they are associated with diseases and disorders not species-wide ecological adaptations

well according to the links YOU left us to look at in Science Mag...
(16) (tables S6 and S7)], indicating that most mutations observed in these "multi-hit" genes are likely beneficial. Moreover, mutations in genes involved in negative regulation of Ras, cell cycle regulation, and filamentous growth were enriched
so you are WRONG AGAIN... then there is this
lower initial fitness systematically adapt more rapidly than populations with higher initial fitness, driving the overall pattern of convergent evolution in fitness (Fig. 1C)

in fact, not even according to your own model! which causes MUTATIONS!

see: http://www.scienc...abstract/ for more information!

another EPIC FAILURE for you, jk

you sure you are mensa?
they know you are claiming this too?

Oct 04, 2014
ATTN: James V. Kohl:
Per your mistaken beliefs about the work of Lenski and your citations of the work of C.G. Extavour in this thread (and others): http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Dr. Extavour (Associate Professor, Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University) specifically states in a personal reply regarding your comments
Kohl is mistaken if he is claiming that my study (or Rich Lenski's work) provide evidence AGAINST the role of mutations in evolution
I would also like to add more from her reply to clarification about Kohl's statements, but I will have to write a second post.

So, what do we have so far? jvk is posting his INTERPRETATION of a study based upon his FAILED education, which he was kicked out of university because he refused to learn the BASICS.

This is the same thing as a LIE, because jvk distorts all incoming data with a skewed perception based upon his FAITH

to continue:

Oct 04, 2014
kohl was suggesting that the study (using Drosophila) was supporting his failed and continuing argument against mutations as well as the Theory of Evolution
To which I requested clarification directly from the author: I gave MY interpretation of the study (and what kohl said) and she replied
you are right that we in no way claim that mutations in the heritable genome play no role in evolution. Indeed, as you correctly state, just because we provide evidence that nutritional conditions play a role, this does not negate a role for mutations. Indeed, in that very same paper, we provide evidence that heritable differences in the genome sequences between Drosophila species, in other words, mutations, ALSO play a role in the evolution of the trait we are studying.
Kohl: you misrepresent studies, and every time that you do, I will continue to contact the article author and clarify what they are publishing.

IOW - kohl failed again because he ignores empirical evidence
AND FACTS

JVK
Oct 04, 2014
Thanks. Perhaps Dr. Extavour will review my published work(s) and comment rather than comment on your interpretation of what's clearly detailed in the context of RNA-mediated events that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all species.

If not, she may continue to claim that "...this does not negate a role for mutations." Unfortunately, until she or someone else provides experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that describes the role for mutations, the weight of scientific evidence argues against any theoretical approach that includes mutations.

See for examples in species from microbes to man:

Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction
http://www.hhmi.o...oduction

Signaling Crosstalk: Integrating Nutrient Availability and Sex
http://www.ncbi.n...3932994/

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.
http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

JVK
Oct 04, 2014
Dr. Extavour may want to contact researchers from the Wyss Institute at Harvard so that she can update her knowledge base about how ecological variation and nutrient-dependent RNA-directed DNA methylation lead to amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation manifested in morphological and behavioral diversity in species from microbes man via conserved molecular mechanisms of pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations.

Please tell her she can follow this link http://wyss.harva...page/493 and learn about recent scientific progress -- at her academic institution -- that supports my accurate representations of biologically-based RNA-mediated events and severely limits the likelihood that biologically based evidence of cause and effect will ever link mutations to the evolution of biodiversity.

If she is not a tenured professor, she may need to inform herself to become tenured.

JVK
Oct 04, 2014
See also, and inform Dr. Extavour -- if she has not already lost her position,
http://wyss.harva...-science

"Research in Biological Control combines biology, engineering, physics, and computer science to decipher how living cells and organisms control complex behaviors through collective interactions among large numbers of components. Understanding the governing principles behind biological control will lead to new approaches for restoring physiological functions disrupted by disease and aging...."

The "governing principles behind biological control" are biophysically-constrained by ecological variation in the supply of available nutrients, which are metabolized to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction via RNA-mediated events.

No biologically-based evolutionary events have been described! The pseudoscientific nonsense and ridiculous claims continue to be regurgitated by those who have not kept up with current publications.

Oct 04, 2014
will review my published work(s) and comment rather than comment on your interpretation
She didn't use my "interpretation" of your works, you MORON, she read YOUR QUOTES which I supplied as well as forwarded with LINKS to PO AND your idiotic perfume site, so we can see AGAIN that you have issues with LITERACY and reading comprehension!

This is just re-visiting your whole "interpretation" of the word MUTATION, in which you seem to think means something entirely different than what it means... even though, when you break down the meaning and describe it, you are ALL for the definition! remember.. I asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
So don't give me the line, mensa boy, you are either blatantly LYING and misrepresenting the truth or illiterate

Oct 04, 2014
If she is not a tenured professor, she may need to inform herself to become tenured
Are you really that stupid?
did you mISS the part I posted about
Dr. Extavour (Associate Professor, Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University)
Is this MORE proof that you are illiterate? or are you just TROLLING and being blatantly stupid?

or is your delusional religion affecting your ability to comprehend reality?
See also, and inform Dr. Extavour -- if she has not already lost her position
she has NOT lost her position, and she is NOT likely to lose it based upon the low rate heckling that a crackpot looney pseudoscience poster from physlorg

I love how you denigrate a PhD who has REAL research and proves you WRONG...

you DO realise that given your lack of anonymity, you are liable legally for your posts here? I would LOVE it if you got sued for libel with your above drivel... you couldn't prove to a COURT that you are any expert except in perfume

Oct 04, 2014
recent scientific progress -- at her academic institution -- that supports my accurate representations of biologically-based RNA-mediated events and severely limits the likelihood that biologically based evidence of cause and effect will ever link mutations to the evolution of biodiversity
LASTLY...
this is almost hysterically FUNNY, by the way!

why?
because YOUR OWN MODEL SUPPORTS THE FACT THAT MUTATIONS ARE LINKED TO EVOLUTION AND BIODIVERSITY

did you forget that, mensa boy?

or is that whole illiteracy problem cropping up not allowing you to comprehend what is being written?

THIS is why people make fun of you... you are blatantly stupid, ignoring the reality AS WELL AS the empirical evidence around you AND... worst of all, you cannot comprehend what is actually being written and said!

NICE TRY mensa boy, but you are an EPIC FAILURE
from college
as a perfumer
as a "self proclaimed" diagnostician (practicing without a license, as it were)
as a research scientist

JVK
Oct 04, 2014
I love how you denigrate a PhD who has REAL research and proves you WRONG...


Proof that mutations lead to the biologically-based increasing organismal complexity manifested in the morphological and behavioral diversity of species from microbes to man would show they had a role in addition to odors and the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes that links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in organized genomes.

What research do you think she has published that proves I am wrong? See the link to her lab: http://www.oeb.ha...oeb.html

" Although the inheritance mode is seen in most model organisms, it is actually likely to be the less prevalent mode of germ cell specification, and inductive germ cell specification may be ancestral to the Metazoa."

Place inductive germ cell into the context of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Invite her to sue me if I'm wrong about the role she thinks mutations may play.

JVK
Oct 04, 2014
This is the link to the pdf of her most recently published work:
http://www.extavo...SocB.pdf

Loss of function mutations are mentioned, not any mutations that would link nutrient uptake to increasing organismal complexity via evolution.

Lassance (also at Harvard) Functional consequences of sequence variation in the pheromone biosynthetic gene pgFAR for Ostrinia moths http://www.pnas.o...abstract seems to think that mutations caused the amino acid substitution that led to a difference in the pheromone production of the moths.

That's the kind of pseudoscientific nonsense that Tristam Wyatt has included in his books. He probably believes ridiculous claims that pheromones evolved, because that's what he was told.

Some people believe anything they're told:
http://www.amazon...p;sr=1-1 (2014)

Oct 04, 2014
What research do you think she has published that proves I am wrong?
are you stupid?
you mean to tell me that your mensa brain totally missed that link above? it is THERE for a reason, jk

try using it!
I TOLD you that you were skewed... and I forwarded your quotes AND linked them for proof... so this is NOT a miscommunication on ANYONE's part but YOURS
Invite her to sue me if I'm wrong about the role she thinks mutations may play
If she were to litigate, it would likely be over your derogatory sexist remarks that make it look like she is stupid and doesn't know what she is talking about above... I will forward THOSE to her as well

so you are pissed at being PROVEN WRONG YET AGAIN
get used to it, mensa boy

and try READING FOR COMPREHENSION once in a while

that is why I tend to put certain things in caps for you... so that you cannot misinterpret the meaning or word due to your literacy or transposition of characters like a dyslexic on acid looking through a prism


Oct 04, 2014
This is the link to the pdf of her most recently published work:
I already linked the relevant material above

try reading for comprehension, mensa boy (are you SURE you are a member? we normally don't allow just ANYONE in Mensa, especially ones who prove to be stupid after being corrected repeatedly)
Some people believe anything they're told:
that is why we've PROVEN it to you time and again
that is why I lined the links above
that is why when I talk directly to an author, I link to the relevant material so that there is no problems with me interpreting things wrong
that is why there is a scientific method and that we do not allow RELIGION to dictate the results in it, unlike YOU

LEARN TO READ
then LEARN TO DO SCIENCE

Oct 04, 2014
@jvk
I can't decide if you are stupid, delusional or just a running a scam.

My money is on all three.

JVK
Oct 04, 2014
Re: Denigration of my membership in Mensa.

No one I know has been foolish enough to present at one of their annual meetings if they are not an expert on their topic. First you don't get invited to speak. But even if you do, you don't try to con an audience that probably includes some of the most intelligent people anyone will ever meet. I presented at annual meetings in 1992 and 2010.

Here are some video clips from the 2010 presentation:

https://www.youtu...cyr898rY
https://www.youtu...rZOuXiH0
https://www.youtu...vD51-qYk

The intro is the same on all, but different segments from the hour-long presentation follow the intro.

https://www.youtu...zT031EvU

Every breast is large to an infant male... showed up in Young and Alexander without attribution to my works:

See page 151 http://www.amazon...91846617

JVK
Oct 04, 2014
See mention of: Modrell, M.S., Price, A. L., Havemann, J., Extavour, C.G., Gerberding, M. and Patel, N.H. Germline replacement following ablation of the primordial germ cells in Parhyale hawaiensis. (in revision) http://www.oeb.ha...oeb.html

I suspect she knows the role of RNA-directed DNA methylation in the context of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance via RNA-mediated events and amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types in all individuals of all species.

I'm anxious to see if her group mentions anything about a role for mutations in the evolution of anything that cannot be directly linked from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in organized genomes via olfactory/pheromonal input (e.g., food odors and pheromones).

If not, these folks from Berkeley may be willing to tell her:
http://www.scienc...4349.htm

Oct 04, 2014
No one I know has been foolish enough to present at one of their annual meetings if they are not an expert on their topic.
they let YOU talk.. that means that you have just contradicted yourself
sorry bubba... unless you were talking about perfume, you were talking out of your league
Here are some video clips
I don't like your spam and trolling HERE, i am NOT going to watch you do it on video
Every breast is large to an infant male
leave your breasts out of it- it is not relevant NOR is it on topic, unless you are trying to retract your claims to/about Dr. Dr. Extavour
without attribution to my works
maybe they knew you were not a scientist?

continue to post, jk, you are only proving my point

nice job reading for comprehension... I don't think you've got it yet, but at least keep trying

maybe one day you will be able to afford an interpreter

read that link yet?
read what you wrote yet?
read WHY she said you are WRONG yet?
it's linked above, jk
quit being stupid

JVK
Oct 04, 2014
http://www.scienc...4349.htm

"...an RCas9 tethered to a protein translation initiation factor and targeted to a specific mRNA could essentially act as a designer translation factor to "up-" or "down-" regulate protein synthesis from that mRNA."

That would mimic the effect of nutrient uptake on the microRNA/mRNA balance, which is the basis of RNA-directed effects of DNA methylation that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in organized genomes via amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all species via conserved molecular mechanisms.

Now that others realize how protein biosynthesis is regulated they can include the Laws of Physics, which link chemistry to molecular biology, instead of simply attributing evolution to vague processes of protein biosynthesis that somehow enable mutations to lead to the RNA-mediated biodiversity manifested in morphological and behavioral phenotypes.

JVK
Oct 04, 2014
see also: http://www.scienc....2.short

"RNA can both store information in its linear sequence and take on critical structural and catalytic roles in the cell, such as during the translation of messenger RNA into proteins. These latter functions depend on the complex higher-order structures RNA is able to form. Homan et al. now report a method to probe these intricate conformational states. They chemically modified exposed segments of three complex RNA structures. They then sequenced the RNA to map the locations of the multiple modifications in each individual linear RNA molecule. This allowed the researchers to deduce interactions in three-dimensional space, and to uncover new and previously hidden conformations, providing valuable information on the folding and function of RNAs."

Biodiversity manifested in increasing organismal complexity has always been RNA-mediated. It cannot arise via mutations and evolution. That's pseudoscientific nonsense!

Oct 05, 2014
Biodiversity manifested in increasing organismal complexity has always been RNA-mediated. It cannot arise via mutations and evolution. That's pseudoscientific nonsense!
this comment means that your own model is PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC NONSENSE then because your own model CAUSES MUTATIONS, per your own words, the definition and reality
I asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
you said so yourself
so you're a LIAR?
in that very same paper, we provide evidence that heritable differences in the genome sequences between Drosophila species, in other words, mutations, ALSO play a role in the evolution of the trait we are studying
Dr. Extavour provides the ammo proving you are an idiot who can't comprehend reality nor the studies in the field of biology and genetics


JVK
Oct 05, 2014
http://www.extavo...SocB.pdf
"The protein coding sequences are 97% identical between these two species, and none of the amino acid changes occur within the known kinase domain. This suggests that slight structural or nonkinase activity-related alterations in the InR protein could modulate signalling in such a way as to contribute to phenotypic change. Natural variation in a coding region indel polymorphism in InR among D.melanogaster populations is consistent with this hypothesis [58]."

She helped to show that natural genetic engineering (i.e., Creation) enables RNA-directed nutrient-dependent DNA methylation to alter the phenotype associated with more efficient pheromone-controlled reproduction, which is perturbed by mutations. The Laws of Physics and everything known about chemistry and conserved molecular mechanisms support her findings and attest to the fact that mutations are never beneficial to increasing organismal complexity.

Oct 05, 2014
let me fix this for you using her OWN WORDS
She helped to show that
(in her OWN WORDS)
I can clarify that although our work does, we hope, provide an example of how nutrition/ecology could affect the evolution of potentially adaptive traits, [Captain Stumpy] you are right that we in no way claim that mutations in the heritable genome play no role in evolution. Indeed, as you correctly state, just because we provide evidence that nutritional conditions play a role, this does not negate a role for mutations. Indeed, in that very same paper, we provide evidence that heritable differences in the genome sequences between Drosophila species, in other words, mutations, ALSO play a role in the evolution of the trait we are studying.

So Kohl is mistaken if he is claiming that my study (or Rich Lenski's work) provide evidence AGAINST the role of mutations in evolution.
[sic]

in her own words little jimmy
not your INTERPRETATION

again
you are the
EPIC FAILURE TROLL of the year

Oct 06, 2014
Let's see. I'm literally salivating because everyone and his stalker troll is here today and the plums are ripe for the plucking,

Intelligent design is alright but does not necessarily have to exclude evolution. Let's go back to those pre-biblical writings, found on those cuneiform tablets from Mesopotamia. When Ninharsag of the Anunnaki decided that she could create human hybrids to do the hard work for them - crossing their own genes with those of Neanderthals - over 200,000 years ago, they probably built in a lot of redundancy. That would of necessity produce a larger overall biomass to provide the supporting biological infrastructure for the redundancies in the cells of those hybrids. That would explain the Nephilim, or the "giants", which are written about in those texts, and in the bible. He still needs some work, IMO. There was no perfection there, let me tell you. They all had very bad teeth, for one thing.

JVK
Oct 06, 2014
Nobel Prize in Medicine is Awarded for Discovery of Brain's 'Inner GPS'
http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0

If you are not able to understand the link from the above to works by the 2004 Nobel Laureates, Linda Buck and Richard Axel, you should stop making comments and start learning about how:

1) "Spatial Olfactory Learning Contributes to Place Field Formation in the Hippocampus" http://cercor.oxf...abstract

and how

2) Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction http://www.scienc...05009815

These articles provide additional information on the conserved molecular mechanisms of epigenetically-effected RNA-directed DNA methylation that links olfactory/pheromonal input to the morphological and behavioral diversity of species from microbes to man without the pseudoscientific nonsense of mutations and the evolution of biodiversity.

Oct 06, 2014
Let's go back to those pre-biblical writings, found on those cuneiform tablets from Mesopotamia. When Ninharsag of the Anunnaki decided that she could create human hybrids to do the hard work for them - crossing their own genes with those of Neanderthals - over 200,000 years ago, they probably built in a lot of redundancy
@baud
i would ask for empirical evidence from a peer reviewed reputable source with an impact in the subject but i've already been down this rabbit hole...

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

and
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
and
http://math.ucr.e...pot.html
If you are not able to understand the link from the above to works by the 2004 Nobel Laureates, Linda Buck and Richard Axel, you should stop making comments and start learning about how
@jk
you should take your own advice
we already know you cannot comprehend the lexicon of biologists/geneticists


Oct 07, 2014
Cap'n Stumpy, are you the designated troll on this blog? Or the resident critic? I don't get it. You've got an overactive gene in your argumentation subroutine. I guess that going down the list of contributors and reacting negatively to selected posters is some kind of addiction.

What is empirical evidence if it isn't found in archeological digs, translations and interpretations of ancient writings, books by accomplished researchers and authors, supporting evidence from Mars exploration etc. etc..? Yup, it all ties in. Critics are just lazy people. Read the damn books, for crying out loud.

JVK
Oct 07, 2014
Thanks baudrunner. SSgt Stumpy needs more encouragement to eliminate himself from what might otherwise become intelligent discussion -- even on phys.org

I hope a few others will join you and reprimand him for insisting that accurate representations of biologically-based cause and effect must include the pseudoscientific nonsense of evolutionary theory.

http://www.biomed.../5/S3/S4 "Mammalian females use x-chromosome inactivation to equalize the imbalance of X-chromosome gene expression created by females having two X chromosomes in contrast to the male XY."

http://www.hawaii...ion.html
"Genomic-imprinting is also manifest in specific parts of the X-inactivation region's related XIST gene. Here male- and female-specific methyl-group patterns participate in X-inactivation in females and also in the preferential inactivation of the paternal X in human placentae of female concepti (Harrison, 1989; Monk, 1995)...

JVK
Oct 07, 2014
Re: http://www.hawaii...ion.html

Our 1996 Hormones and Review has gone virtually unnoticed as biology teachers and their idiot minions have continued to ignore the link from ecological variation to ecological adaptations via RNA-mediated events. Even now, Marlene Zuk asks serious scientists to simply look away as nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled transcription continues to eliminate ridiculous theories about mutated genes, natural selection, and the evolution of biodiversity.

See: Behavioral ecology and genomics: new directions, or just a more detailed map? http://beheco.oxf...72.short

"Having a sequenced genome, or chromosomal region, or a transcriptome, is not necessarily helpful."

It's a disaster to anyone still touting pseudoscientific nonsense. The sequencing links RNA-mediated nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled events from variation to ecological adaptations.

Oct 07, 2014
are you the designated troll on this blog? Or the resident critic?
lets see... you're posting nonsense with no empirical evidence backing up your claims while suggesting that we do your homework to find the proof that your claims are valid?
i guess I am the critic
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
considering the ignorance of jk and the FACT that he can't figure out his own model creates mutations which he says are not beneficial?
http://math.ucr.e...pot.html
I am the voice of reason between the two of you
what might otherwise become intelligent discussion
considering you don't know the lexicon of your chosen field, and that you are too stupid to remember saying your own model makes mutations, and that you lie about others work because it doesn't fit your pet faith-du-jour, then there is NO possible way that this can become an intelligent discussion as long as you are involved, jk

SEE ABOVE for PROOF, btw


Oct 07, 2014
I hope a few others will join you and reprimand him
sorry... i am not your type, jk
i am straight... so back off on that front
also... the only reason you are insisting on help is because you still cannot back up your own claims that mutations are not beneficial while still claiming that your model causes mutations
remember.. I asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
your words, spanky
then we add to that the fact that you cannot comprehend Lenski's work, or Dr. Extavour... you've been called out and proven a liar, jk
you have also been called and and proven stupid in that you refuse to even try to comprehend your own field even after being shown your errors

|just because you believe it
doesn't make it true

Oct 07, 2014
It's a disaster to anyone still touting pseudoscientific nonsense.


No it's not. Read the whole paper before cherry picking quotes next time.

Examining the genome in conjunction with, for example, developmental and physiological processes will likely provide clearer connections between genes and the environment and the ultimate phenotype that is produced.


Key words: IN CONJUNCTION WITH

Just as Noble was pressing for study of genes AND their regulation, not JUST their regulation, Zuk presses for examination of genes AND other factors.


JVK
Oct 07, 2014
You're not paying attention. RNA-directed nutrient-dependent DNA methylation links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA via RNA-mediated events, not by genes and other factors. in Paleofantasy:...Zuk cites works that show:

"...evidence of selective sweeps at 100 regions in the genome that were located near a gene with a known function. Skin pigmentation, odor detection, nervous system development, and immune system genes appeared to show the recent signs of recent evolution."
See for example: http://www.plosge....0030090

Each example of "recent evolution" can be linked from RNA-mediated events to to the amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all species.

That's what I did in Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

I included an example of a modern human population that ecologically adapted.

JVK
Oct 07, 2014
The example of the modern human population followed across-species examples with details of how the nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions arose and were controlled by the physiology of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction.

What kind anonymous fool other than anonymous_9001 (aka Andres Jones) continues to claim that examination of genes AND other factors is required because an evolutionary biologist makes that ridiculous claim?

Noble's claim clearly attests to the need to link the physiology of reproduction, which is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled via RNA-mediated events. http://ep.physoc....235.long

That's why "Cas9-guide RNA complexes are also effective genome engineering agents in animals and plants." http://www.nature...011.html

It's also how evolutionary theory has killed people throughout the past 8 decades -- by preventing acknowledgement of biologically-based cause and effect.

Oct 07, 2014
Your "nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions" are not as non-random as you think they are. If citrate caused the promoter shift in Lenski's E. coli, why didn't all of his populations exhibit the same response? They were all exposed to citrate.

JVK
Oct 07, 2014
I have repeatedly explained Lenski's results and Desai's results in the context of Kondrashov (2012). Gene duplication as a mechanism of genomic adaptation to a changing environment
http://rspb.royal...abstract

We are not mutating into another species and we were not naturally selected to evolve. Mutations perturb protein folding and cause disease and disorders not evolution.

http://perfumingt...ntasies/


Oct 07, 2014
1. The promoter shift is not a gene duplication.

2. Duplications are also classified as mutations.

From Kondrashov:

As any mutation, a duplication event by itself may also have consequences on organism's fitness.


3. They're also subject to selection:

it is clear that some gene duplications have been fixed in the course of evolution by positive selection [16–26]


4. Just as mutations can be either beneficial, neutral, or detrimental, duplications can be too:

However, several authors have made the claim that many CNVs are selected against in the genome owing to an increase in gene dosage, including cases of CNVs contributing to disease [28–30,36,37]


5. I'm still not sure why you're under the impression evolution and adaptation are different. They're essentially synonymous. As far as I can tell, you harbor an arbitrary stance against the word even though adaptation IS evolution. It's evolution leading the increased fitness to an environment.

NOM
Oct 07, 2014
Kohl is clearly an idiot. He fails to understand even the basics. There is no point discussing this with him further.

JVK
Oct 07, 2014
http://comments.s....1247472

Science 7 March 2014:
Vol. 343 no. 6175 pp. 1088-1089
DOI:10.1126/science.1247472
Perspective
Combating Evolution to Fight Disease

Oct 08, 2014
You're not paying attention
No, you were cherry picking quotes that you thought supported your conjectures while not being able to comprehend what was written, obviously
what I did in Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
no, what you did with this model is show that mutations are beneficial... which everyone knows. remember.. I asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
You also added a mechanism to which they can be beneficial, which everyone also was aware of
I included an example of a modern human population that ecologically adapted
with the mutations that your model talks about, right?
you can't see how illogical you are being, can you?
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Oct 08, 2014
We are not mutating into another species and we were not naturally selected to evolve
personal conjecture without evidence
Mutations perturb protein folding and cause disease and disorders not evolution
therefore, by your own admission, your own model cannot provide any possible proof of "ecological adaptation" due to the simple knowledge that your model causes mutations
again, I prove that with your own wordsI asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
you do realise that the more you talk anti-mutation, the more that educated people see you as being a complete idiot...proof
Kohl is clearly an idiot. He fails to understand even the basics. There is no point discussing this with him further

Oct 08, 2014
http://comments.sciencemag.org/content/10.1126/science.1247472
you DO realise that no one is responding to you because you've not been able to do anything but post crackpot bullsnot?
all you are doing is TROLLING Science Magazine, you know
I thought Robert Frye knew better than that, because he attended a 1993 symposium I organized
and having a troll fight on ScienceMag proves what?
even Frye knows that you are a crackpot!
Mutation is but one of the factors that contribute to variation. In addition, we have known for a long time that mutations are not solely random, constant or gradual.
He also misunderstood the piece, IMHO, missing this part
Among the cornerstone assumptions were that mutations are the sole drivers of evolution ...But discoveries of molecular mechanisms are modifying these assumptions
This is why you are never taken seriously, and why you failed out of college

because you can't grasp the basics


Oct 08, 2014
Captain
https://www.coursera.org/ have a wide range of free courses.

I highly recommend the Data Scientist specialization course from John Hopkins to anyone who wants to understand data.It takes a while to get through all the units but it's very useful.
https://www.coursera.org/jhu

JVK
Oct 08, 2014
http://www.plosbi....1001964

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

No matter how it's portrayed, no one is claiming anything about cell type differentiation in any species that we did not explain in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review.

Cell type differentiation is nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated and pheromone-controlled via conserved molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man.

Oct 25, 2014
Captain
https://www.coursera.org/jhu
@OZGuy
Thank you very much for those links!
I appreciate it...
Maybe we can all get jk to take some courses given his abject failure at college when younger... maybe then he can learn about REAL science and leave off his repetitious word salads of meaningless bullsnot in an attempt to appear pedantic but instead proving he is ignorant of biological FACTS and pushing a known pseudoscience

while also completely ignoring the lexicon of his chosen field!
that is what kills me, really!
he can't even sound intelligent because he is making up definitions to suit his own purposes!
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

Again, THANKS Oz!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more