John Glenn: Evolution should be taught in schools

May 20, 2015 byJulie Carr Smyth
John Glenn: Evolution should be taught in schools
In this photo taken on Thursday, May 14, 2015, former astronaut and senator John Glenn gestures while answering questions during an exclusive interview with The Associated Press at the Ohio Statehouse. Glenn said facts about scientific discovery should be taught in schools - and that includes evolution. The 93-year-old said that he sees no contradiction between believing in God and believing in evolution. When he went back into space in 1998, he had announced that "to look out at this kind of creation out here and not believe in God is to me impossible." (AP Photo/Paul Vernon)

John Glenn, who declared as a 77-year-old in a news conference from space that "to look out at this kind of creation out here and not believe in God is to me impossible," says facts about scientific discovery should be taught in schools—and that includes evolution.

The astronaut, now 93 with fading eyesight and hearing, told The Associated Press in a recent interview that he sees no contradiction between believing in God and believing in evolution.

"I don't see that I'm any less religious by the fact that I can appreciate the fact that science just records that we change with evolution and time, and that's a fact," said Glenn, a Presbyterian. "It doesn't mean it's less wondrous and it doesn't mean that there can't be some power greater than any of us that has been behind and is behind whatever is going on."

Glenn—the first American to orbit the Earth, a former U.S. senator, a onetime Democratic presidential candidate, flier of combat planes in two wars, and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom—ruminated on many other topics in the interview last week with the AP, including:

— Possible reasons why he never got assigned to another space flight after orbiting Earth in Friendship 7 in 1962 (until his 1998 trip into space, that is).

Glenn said he was eager to get back into space after his 1962 flight and pestered Bob Gilruth, the director of NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center, every few weeks for a year and a half.

He didn't learn until decades later—from reading Richard Reeves' biography of President John F. Kennedy—that he had been intentionally grounded by NASA after his orbital flight, an event that generated intense excitement and public attention.

John Glenn: Evolution should be taught in schools
In this photo taken on Thursday, May 14, 2015, former astronaut and senator John Glenn, left, answers questions with his wife Annie during an exclusive interview with The Associated Press at the Ohio Statehouse. Glenn said facts about scientific discovery should be taught in schools - and that includes evolution. The 93-year-old said that he sees no contradiction between believing in God and believing in evolution. When he went back into space in 1998, he had announced that "to look out at this kind of creation out here and not believe in God is to me impossible." (AP Photo/Paul Vernon)

"Kennedy had indicated to NASA that he would just as soon that I was not assigned to another flight," Glenn said. "Now, whether it was because of the impact if I got killed on the second flight would that reflect politically, I never knew. I never discussed that with anybody. All I knew was I didn't get reassigned to another flight."

— He doesn't plan to stump for or endorse any candidates in 2016, despite past backing that has been pivotal to Democrats' efforts in Ohio. "That's in the past," said Glenn, who has weathered a year of health difficulties, including a small stroke after a 2014 heart-valve operation, and has lost half his vision and some hearing.

— He and his wife, Annie, 95, will devote their energies to ramping up the John Glenn College of Public Affairs at Ohio State University. The growing college announced last week that it will manage Ohio's first-in-the-nation, state-specific social studies content for the website iCivics.

"This is not going to be a Republican college or a Democratic college. Quite the opposite of that," Glenn said. "It's going to be what we hope will be the best college of studies of government and policy of any place in the country."

— He still disagrees strongly with the decision to dismantle the space shuttle program but is optimistic that humans will return to space through technology currently in development.

— Of all his experiences, his military service in World War II and Korea stands out, including his plane being hit by fire. "Nothing compares to actual combat," he said.

— His age: "I need all the godspeed I can get," Glenn joked about the famous line from 1962, spoken by fellow Mercury 7 astronaut Scott Carpenter. With Carpenter's death in 2013, Glenn became the last survivor of the famous team. He last saw Carpenter about a year before he died.

Explore further: Astronaut John Glenn, 92, has heart procedure

Related Stories

John Glenn to mark 50 years since orbit of Earth

February 20, 2012

(AP) -- John Glenn plans to mark the 50th anniversary of his historic spaceflight with a series of events Monday at Ohio State University, including a celebratory dinner and a chat with the International Space Station.

Glenn chats with space station to mark anniversary

February 20, 2012

(AP) -- NASA surprised John Glenn with the kind of anniversary gift only a space agency can give, enabling him to speak live with the International Space Station on Monday as he marked 50 years since his historic spaceflight.

Glenn marks 50 years since historic orbit of Earth

February 21, 2012

(AP) -- John Glenn made his historic spaceflight alone in 1962 but celebrated its 50th anniversary Monday among hundreds of people within his orbit, from fellow headline-making astronauts and NASA's administrator to family, ...

Recommended for you

Fat from 558 million years ago reveals earliest known animal

September 20, 2018

Scientists from The Australian National University (ANU) and overseas have discovered molecules of fat in an ancient fossil to reveal the earliest confirmed animal in the geological record that lived on Earth 558 million ...

337 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JVK
1.4 / 5 (11) May 20, 2015
Israeli Middle Schools School to Include Theory of Evolution
http://www.educat...olution/

"...learning about evolution is not the primary function of the decision, but rather to use it as a building block for students to learn more about their ecology."

They appear to be teaching their students how ridiculous it is to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense of neo-Darwinism.

"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact." http://www.huffin...211.html

It's nice to know others are teaching facts about ecology and facts about ridiculous theories at the same time.
JVK
1.7 / 5 (11) May 21, 2015
They are teaching facts that link ecological variation to ecological adaptation without the pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and evolution.

Without comparing the facts to the pseudoscientific nonsense of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, students may not know the difference when they encounter advocates of ridiculous theories -- as they will later in life.

The earlier that students are taught to recognize the difference between facts and pseudoscience, they better prepared they will be to make scientific progress in the future and to help others who are "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" http://www.scienc...88.short
SaulAlinsky
1.7 / 5 (6) May 21, 2015
*farts*
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (11) May 21, 2015
Why [would] God will allow evolution when [he] can create heavens, Earth and all living creatures and man [in] the seven days?


A more interesting question wrt "creation" is, ...why would god forgo the use of existent physical processes in evolving life,... and why would he create a world with an obvious defect, ....a "seam" in the universe, of incompatibility existent between discoverable physical processes and existent life, as "creationism" implies.
DavidTheShepherd
1.4 / 5 (9) May 21, 2015
he sees no contradiction between believing in God and believing in evolution.

Perhaps he didn't read his bible lately or more probably he chooses to interpret what he reads in his own peculiar way.
For example Exodus twenty verses eight thru eleven clearly state that everything was created in six days. The context of those verses make it quite clear that the same six days that apply to man are the exact identical days that applied to God.

So Glen either has blinkers on or else has chosen to ignore or re-interpret those verses [ repeated in chapter thirty one verse seventeen ] according to his own desire.

Just pointing out the not so obvious....

DavidTheShepherd
1.4 / 5 (9) May 21, 2015
.why would god forgo the use of existent physical processes in evolving life,...


Simple - He chose to create it HIS way, not yours!

There are currently no known existing physical or biological processes that can either create life or perform the requisite "evolution" from a single cellular ancestor into all of current life forms we see today.

Before you can even begin to have the so-called biological darwinian evolution, you need LIFE. It's simply impossible to have life arise from the dead all by itself.

You've got 6000 years of documented history to back it up. You've got daily occurrences of living things dying and never so much as give a hint that it's going to come back to life - even though all the required biological/chemical materials are in place.

No one has ever recorded anything as rising from the dead all by itself after it died - so just how are you going to demonstrate that life as we know it started from dead materials all by itself?????!!!!
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (11) May 21, 2015
why would god forgo the use of existent physical processes in evolving life...why would he create a world with an obvious defect, ....a "seam" in the universe, of incompatibility existent between discoverable physical processes and existent life, as "creationism" implies.

Simple - He chose to create it HIS way, not yours!


But those discoverable physical processes, whatever in principle they are, are not mine, but "His", since according to you, he created them. He also gave man the capacity to discover facts of reality that has allowed man to do great things,.... would not man eventually discover that there is no physcal mechanism to create life, i.e. the "seam" mentioned above, and would not this "seam" be an imperfection?
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (10) May 21, 2015
Before you can even begin to have the so-called biological darwinian evolution, you need LIFE. It's simply impossible to have life arise from the dead all by itself.

You've got 6000 years of documented history to back it up.


If course there are many things in mans history that was not understood at one time, that subsequently became understood. This of itself does not render those things incomprehensible for all furture time. The bible's account is fundamentally based on this error of logic. It is static and ignores the gift of reason that "God" bestowed upon us.

Granted "life" is a mystery as is "conscious awareness",... but as is typical is mans history of understanding, we use labels or placeholders for experiences not understood, and it may be a mistake to take those labels as a "thing unto itself".
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (12) May 21, 2015
No one has ever recorded anything as rising from the dead all by itself after it died - so just how are you going to demonstrate that life as we know it started from dead materials all by itself?????!!!!

There would be a nuts-and-bolts reason for the experience of life to no longer be possible after death, just as if you blow your car engine, it's capacity for bringing you to church would no longer be possible,... granted a working car is usualy not regarded as a "living" thing,... but these are just words after all.

You say there is no proof that life comes from the inanimate, yet its not impossible in principal, and the evidence is far more compelling than the notion that "life" is another "thing" independent of physical processes, to which there is no proof at all.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (12) May 21, 2015
IOW, there are only two possibilities in principal 1) man discovers a physical mechanism operative for evolution of life, or 2) man discovers that no such mechanism is possible to explain life.

#1 shows that god is capable of creating a universe with physical laws that could lead to life, while #2 exposes an imperfect god who was evidently not capable of creating consistent physical laws accountable for life and ended up having to "duck-tape" it with "creation".
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2015
For example Exodus twenty verses eight thru eleven clearly state that everything was created in six days. The context of those verses make it quite clear that the same six days that apply to man are the exact identical days that applied to God.


Perhaps Glenn understands that the bible was written by man, including the sentence that says 'this is the word of god',... men who never even tried themselves to understand the things around them.
JVK
1 / 5 (9) May 21, 2015
After a sip of milkshake, genes and brain activity predict weight gain
http://medicalxpr...ain.html

They do not link the anti-entropic epigenetic effects of nutrient-dependent microRNAs to viruses and viral microRNAs that cause the entropic elasticity, which must be controlled by DNA repair mechanisms, to enable the link from the light-induced de novo creation of amino acids to the amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of all genera via fixation in the context of the physiology of reproduction.

Nevertheless, their report is a clear example of how biological facts can be compared to ridiculous claims like: "...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world. In this view of evolution there is no need of considering teleological elements" (p. 199). http://www.amazon...99661731
DavidTheShepherd
2 / 5 (12) May 22, 2015
Perhaps Glenn understands that the bible was written by man, including the sentence that says 'this is the word of god',... men who never even tried themselves to understand the things around them.

If Glen understands that the bible is written by man, then why should he believe anything that it says? Why then does he believe there is a God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob since the only way he can acknowledge the existence of such is via the bible.
Therefore he contradicts himself by saying that he believes in the bible whilst simultaneously saying he believes that evolution is true. It's either the one or the other - the bible is quite clear on that.
It's just man's own wayward thinking that wants to meld evolution with its billions of years into the bible. If you're going to believe the bible then believe everything it says or else simply go and believe fully in the atheistic viewpoint that there is no God who created life and that life arose from the dead all by itself.
DavidTheShepherd
1.8 / 5 (10) May 22, 2015
IOW, there are only two possibilities in principal 1) man discovers a physical mechanism operative for evolution of life, or 2) man discovers that no such mechanism is possible to explain life.

#1 shows that god is capable of creating a universe with physical laws that could lead to life, while #2 exposes an imperfect god who was evidently not capable of creating consistent physical laws accountable for life and ended up having to "duck-tape" it with "creation".


Friend, the only god that creates via evolution is the atheistic god.
The God of the bible clearly states that he created everything in 6 days and therefore there is no space for the billions of years that evolution requires. This is stated clearly and plainly in the bible - so easy that a child can understand it.

Therefore, for you to say to say that the God of the bible created life via evolution is simply an eisegesis that does not exist in the bible. You presuppose that the billions of years are true.
DavidTheShepherd
2.1 / 5 (11) May 22, 2015
You say there is no proof that life comes from the inanimate, yet its not impossible in principal, and the evidence is far more compelling than the notion that "life" is another "thing" independent of physical processes, to which there is no proof at all.


Friend, you are the one who is speaking non-science here. I have given you the documented, fully observable and repeatable case studies that comes from 6000 years of experimentation -

That which dies, stays dead. Hence, it's quite clear that life cannot arise from the dead all by itself.

What is so hard to understand about that fact?

if you have ANY evidence to the contrary, please provide your documented and fully confirmed and repeatable evidence so we can examine it and see if it is true.

YOU are the one bringing blind faith into this discussion. YOU are the one who insists on there being some way that life can arise from the dead all by itself or has done so in the past. BUT there's zero evidence for it!!!!
DavidTheShepherd
2.1 / 5 (11) May 22, 2015
He also gave man the capacity to discover facts of reality that has allowed man to do great things,.... would not man eventually discover that there is no physcal mechanism to create life, i.e. the "seam" mentioned above, and would not this "seam" be an imperfection?


Here you bring your own judgement of what is perfect or imperfect into the picture.
Firstly we don't know the history of that supposed "seam". We don't even know what it is!
We have no idea when that supposed "seam" came into being so if we're going to speculate about perfection or imperfection then let's assume that the "seam" is an imperfection that wasn't there in the beginning.
Then it's quite reasonable that it appeared after the fall of man. But either way it's still speculation.
DavidTheShepherd
2.1 / 5 (11) May 22, 2015
If course there are many things in mans history that was not understood at one time, that subsequently became understood.


We have certainly come to understand much more than just the basics of what is required for life as far as the physical components and arrangements thereof is concerned.
This gives us a solid basis from which to infer quite definitely that those components are not going to arise from purely random physical/chemical processes all by itself.
More importantly the arrangement of those components will not arise by accident either.
You have to defy the laws of chemistry, physics and biology in order to have life arise all by itself from dead materials.
DavidTheShepherd
2.1 / 5 (11) May 22, 2015
If course there are many things in mans history that was not understood at one time, that subsequently became understood

You need to face the facts:
1. Louis Pasteur has already shown that life only comes from life.
2. No matter whether your magical physical processes are able to assemble the required components of life in the right order, there's still the matter of kick-starting the process of life off in the right manner. This is the very point that should be faced when looking at something that just died - all the components are there in the right place - but there's no life!

So unless and until you or someone else comes up with evidence to the contrary, life cannot arise from the dead all by itself. Face facts.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) May 22, 2015
See also:

I forgot. How do mutations cause evolution?

http://rna-mediat...olution/
JVK
1 / 5 (8) May 22, 2015
You have to defy the laws of chemistry, physics and biology...


Given the laws, pathology arises via perturbations of what is known about the de novo creation of light-induced amino acids and the amino acid substitutions that link photosynthesis from RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in plants to cell type differentiation in all animals.

What is known about viruses and viral microRNAs links non-living "proteins" to the genetic entropy that is prevented by nutrient-dependent microRNAs and the repair of DNA.

RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA via the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding in all genera.

Compare that fact to this claim "...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world." http://www.amazon...99661731
tscati
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015
You mean there are schools that DON'T teach evolution? Wierd...
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (12) May 24, 2015
...he believes that evolution is true. It's either the one or the other - the bible is quite clear on that.
@DavidTS
the bible is not clear on it at all
it makes statements, true, but there is absolutely no scientific validity in any comments in the bible, and even the comments that make sort-of sense from a moral perspective are intentionally misleading
the bible is nothing more than a codification of rules in order to be able to judge someone based upon your personal interpretation of said rules for the sake of being "good" or "justified" at a specific religion or claiming it to be yours
the bible has also been proven logically as well as scientifically wrong on far too many points to utilise it as a basis for justifying any scientific proclamations

science should be left to science and it's collection of evidence with it's rules... not to religious interpretations or overtones like jk

there is a difference between a faith and a religion
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) May 24, 2015
Given the laws, pathology arises via perturbations of blah blah blah type differentiation in plants to cell type differentiation in all animals
@jk
again with the definitive proclamations when you still cannot justify your own model?
you state something must be true "Given the laws" but then you forget that "Given the laws" and your posts as well as your anti-mutations pontification, that your own model causes mutations (per your own admission) and thus your own model (again, per your admissions) is impossible and therefore must be, per YOUR perspective, pathological and causing perturbations

shall i post your own words to prove you wrong again?
i can

then you also ignore Lenski's proof, and while at one time using Extavour as support for your claims, not denigrate her work because she said you were wrong (i can provide THOSE quotes too)

http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

you have a lot of work to prove first
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) May 24, 2015
Face facts.
@davidts
good advice to take advantage of
1- creationists state the world is young, but ignore the data proving otherwise, like tree's that are proven to be far older than the stated creationist age of earth - that means either the bible is wrong or the creationists can't count
2- creationists/7th day adventists have no science in their movement, and that has been proven here: https://en.wikipe...Arkansas
3- you should research the history of creationists before spouting their dogma: https://www.youtu...jWkVKyRo
4- there is a difference between a faith and a religion: you can have a faith and be a scientist
5- there is no room for religion in science because religion requires adherence to dogma regardless of logic or common sense (or evidence to the contrary), therefore religion is destructive and non-scientific by it's very nature

version782
1 / 5 (7) May 24, 2015
God creating the world in 6 days means God created the totality of the history of earth in 6 days. The assumption that God made the earth in 6 days then history starts is false, the totality of everything that will ever happen on earth (a history of billions of years) was imagined by god in six days. This is meant to display the awesome power of God, that he can create a world with billions of years of history in six days. Praise the Lord
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (11) May 24, 2015
God creating the world in 6 days means God created the totality of the history of earth in 6 days
@version
ok, lets go with that for a moment...
assuming that he/she did, and that he/she is all powerful and all knowing... and that we are made in his/her image, then why the false information?
why knowingly plant false bones and false data that has implications and follows physical laws that are clear and concise and have been mapped?
why produce a creature to which you will continually punish as well as continually try to kill off?
why make a fallible ANYTHING?
why have things like death?
why introduce evolving species that can be tracked and seen to be evolving?
why allow or even consider the need for ANY adaptation?
why make everything with such a similar genetic code when you can create ANY and all diversity?

logic and science works
religion is about conformity to dogma
version782
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015
Captain, I think you misunderstood me, the totality of the history of the earth includes all future events as well. Since divine predestination is true, the future has already been created within that six day period. God creates the TOTALITY of all future and past events contained within our particular universe in six days, as a four dimensional object. He creates the entire Act in six days and then initiates it, it that will last billions of years before humans emerge through the process of evolution that God imagined. Why God creates fallibility is one of the great mysteries of God, but some time it will be revealed as a righteous aspect of his divine eminnence.
JVK
2.1 / 5 (7) May 24, 2015
Here are four links to recent literature with my comments on the differences between theories and facts about the creation of new genes and development of species-specific behaviors in species from microbes to man. 1) http://rna-mediat...robiome/ 2) http://rna-mediat...nformed/ 3) http://rna-mediat...-theory/ 4) http://rna-mediat...ies-raw/
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (13) May 24, 2015
@ Captain-Skippy. How you are podna? It's been awhile eh?

I got the one more why to add on your list if don't mind too much.

Why would someone as powerful as a god with all super powers let a bunch silly couyons like we have here try to explain what god wants us to do, and how god wants us to live? Why don't god just tell us his own self so there would not be so much confusion about what is the godly truths?

Wouldn't you think god could get his message out to everybody so we wouldn't have to join up with Baptists and Catholics and different Jewish sects and Buddhists and Muslims and a whole lot others that I never heard about?

God don't seem so godly when it comes to him explaining neatly just what he wants us all to believe. And he sure picked out some really bad liars to write all that miracle stuffs about floods, Egyptians, virgins having babies and talking trees on fire and the causeway on the Red Sea..

So why god can't speak for him self, eh?
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) May 24, 2015
http://rna-mediat...nformed/

Excerpt:
http://www.scienc...abstract
The sunlit surface layer of the world's oceans functions as a giant biogeochemical membrane between the atmosphere and the ocean interior (1).

MandoZink
5 / 5 (10) May 24, 2015
God creating the world in 6 days means God created the totality of the history of earth in 6 days. The assumption that God made the earth in 6 days then history starts is false, the totality of everything that will ever happen on earth (a history of billions of years) was imagined by god in six days. This is meant to display the awesome power of God, that he can create a world with billions of years of history in six days. Praise the Lord


As the great philosopher Bertrand Russell said:

"There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago."

Totally appropriate speculation on the real wizardry of Magic Jesus.

Abra-ca-zinga!
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (4) May 24, 2015
It's all about information. There is an intelligence to life that will forever evade detection. I believe we were created, but the ultimate gift of the creator was true free will, and to give us that he had to leave us the house and the keys to the car and never look back. The world is our oyster. The whole thought of it all is maddening and overwhelming.
qquax
4.6 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015
One of the last of the great generation, back when the US still had the right stuff.

What a contrast to some of the comments here. Never ceases to amaze me, in what sort of petty god some people insist to believe in.

Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015
Since divine predestination is true
@version
nope, i didn't misunderstand you, it is you misunderstanding me

you cannot state with any authority the comment that divine predestination is true because the only authority you can quote is a proven-false book that has been shown to be contradictory as well as contain religious stories stolen from other sources and modified for the publication and control of a populace

so your post is essentially a commentary on how a set of opinions or beliefs controls your thought process and doesn't allow you to acknowledge scientific data rather than justification for your beliefs
religion is nothing more than Conspiracist ideation and follow the same refusal of knowledge: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

if you want to produce a fact, then produce it, but be able to substantiate it as well
making a claim that it is so is NOT substantiation
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015
Here are four links to recent literature with my comments on the differences between theories and facts about the creation of new genes and development of species-specific behaviors in species from microbes to man. 1) http://rna-mediat...robiome/
this is cross posted as well as TROLLING SPAM

this is also links to a known pseudoscience posters personal web site, not to any peer reviewed scientific studies...
if you have those, you should link them from Journal sources, not sources like your personal site where you can MINE DATA and PHISH

it is also completely DEBUNKED in this thread: http://phys.org/n...age.html

your continued cross posting only proves your desperation and lack of scientific evidence
which is why you keep linking to your personal site or to creationists sites

reported
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015
Wouldn't you think god could get his message out to everybody
@Ira
thanks for sharing that and you make a GREAT point, too

the funny thing is, that is exactly what their great sky faerie actually TOLD them he was going to do as well, and that comes from their own book, not speculation!

according to their own book in JER 31:28 - 31:37 that their attempts to "teach us" about their god is wrong, but against their own holy scripture (KJV)

again, that is from their own book and their own rules... not something i made up, so why are they ignoring their own book and still trying to push their idiocy on the world?
it is called: RELIGION

there is a difference between a religion and a faith

and since Uba is a religious nut downvoting everything regardless of content, we should do likewise to her, don't you think?
the golden rule in action, right?
Stevepidge
1.7 / 5 (12) May 25, 2015
Stumpy, you are trying to disprove God by trapping his existence in dogma. Faith is where God lives. Faith and freewill are inseperable. If he comes out right and beats you over the head then he has denied you the greatest gift of life, freewill. He is the perfect parent, he loves all his creation equally, even the smallest substrates of matter. Everything has volition. Enjoy your freewill, even to denounce his existence, he wants us all to experience true freedom of existence.
Stevepidge
1.7 / 5 (11) May 25, 2015
Evolution is a truth, in its basest meaning it is equivalent to change. It is the driverless change that I disagree with as put forth by neo darwinists. I think the photonic field from the sun carries information that can be used by our enzymes to choose when or if to ultimately affect change in the DNA. Everything makes yes or no choices, zeroes or ones. To deny volition to everything while reserving it for ourselves is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015
The defenders of the evolution mythology wаnts to convince people that physical laws acting on Earth and in the entire universe as is accepted by science have more information than in organisms which according to this theory evolved thanks to them. It is understandable why for the supporters of this theory is so hard to prove it and from the beginig rely on lies and unsubstantiated to scientific facts hypothesis.
The main ingredient of living organisms is information and DNA is only carier of this sinformation which provides a convenient way to be processed this information in the cells.
JVK
1.4 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015
... the photonic field from the sun carries information ...


How could the sun's biological energy not be the source of information that links what is currently known about physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms to cell type differentiation in all genera?

Why would anyone continue to believe that de Vries' definition of "mutation" -- and the ridiculous assumptions of population geneticists about how long it would take for accumulated mutations to result in the evolution of one species from another -- have ever been validated by experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect?

The larger issue has become one that prevents serious scientists from discussions of any phys.org/news topic. Attempts to intelligently discuss anything are thwarted by biologically uninformed science idiots who seem to think that serious scientists are idiots because the serious scientists do not share ridiculous opinions.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (6) May 25, 2015
Thanks to it all processes in the cell are highly synchronized and optimized.
gkam
3.8 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015
"Stumpy, you are trying to disprove God by trapping his existence in dogma. Faith is where God lives."
--------------------------------------------

Faith is the "belief" in something for which there is no proof. It can be anything, and all faith is just wishing.

I refuse to follow the ridiculous fantasies from the Age of Ignorance.
JVK
1.4 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015
Please join me in down-voting Captain Stumpy and Uncle Ira and reporting their ridiculous posts.

That is probably the only way to eliminate the pseudoscientific nonsense from discussions here.

Remember, serious scientists are "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" http://www.scienc...88.short

They are using what is known about physics, chemistry, and the conserved molecular mechanisms of RNA-mediated events to fight theorists who are armed with nothing more than ridiculous opinions.

See instead: https://www.googl...mediated
viko_mx
1 / 5 (7) May 25, 2015
Only for those who have voluntarily decided to remain in darkness and wished to not to see the works of God everywhere around us, God does not exist.
Because God has serious demands on us, and they do not want or are not prepared to meet them for what they have right of free choice.
gkam
4.2 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015
What kind of insecurity drives people to invent imaginary beings?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (6) May 25, 2015
Why imaginary? Because you can not see God directly? By this way will make you believe by force but God do not whant this way. He want to test people in the faith and in the natural striving to the truth. Who has a pure heart will understand it because God has left to us the Bible and everywhere Creation speaks for Gods works.
gkam
4.3 / 5 (7) May 25, 2015
Please end the homilies. I could say that about anything I make up.

Why do you do it about what someone else made up while living in the Age of Ignorance?
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) May 25, 2015
- so just how are you going to demonstrate that life as we know it started from dead materials all by itself?????!!!!


Interesting that "life" operates/functions because of those "dead" materials to start with...
or - don't you consume food? Are you made of non-"dead" chemicals?
JVK
1 / 5 (7) May 25, 2015
http://www.nature...250.html

Conclusion: "While our data indicate that the translocation of LAT1-4F2hc with LAPTM4b to lysosomes plays a major role in the stimulation of mTORC1 by EAAs, they do not reveal how and where precisely amino acids such as Leu are sensed.

Finally, while the 35-kDa LAPTM4b isoform has been shown to promote cancer via binding to p85 of PI3K and PI3K/Akt activation16, 17, it is possible that the 24-kDa isoform, which lacks the binding site for p85, also has a role in cancer promotion by enhancing mTORC1 activation via amino acids, a finding supported by our observed stimulation of cell growth and proliferation by this LAPTM4b isoform."

My comment: They will also need to show how RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions are fixed in the organized genomes of all genera before eliminating any remnants of the pseudoscientific nonsense that supposedly links mutations to the evolution of biodiversity.
gkam
3.9 / 5 (7) May 25, 2015
Stop relying on alleged " RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions" to try to prove god. The entire thing is like trying to disprove AGW with solar forcing in W/sq whatever, leaving out other significant factors.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) May 25, 2015
...life as we know it started from dead...


Young earth creationists have linked viruses to the perturbed perfection of creation that links the de novo creation of light-induced amino acids to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation via the fixation of amino acid substitutions in the context of the physiology of reproduction.

They have shown the importance of starting with 'conditions of life' instead of with mutations that contribute to pathology. Darwin also started with 'conditions of life.'

Population geneticists bastardized his theory, and neo-Darwinism replaced everything Darwin knew about ecological variation and ecological adaptation.

The viruses in the food we ingest link the viruses in bacteria from viral microRNAs to entropic elasticity that is prevented from becoming genomic entropy by the anti-entropic epigenetic effects of nutrient-dependent microRNAs.

Why doesn't everyone know that?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015
Captain, I think you misunderstood me, the totality of the history of the earth includes all future events as well. Since divine predestination is true, the future has already been created within that six day period.

So much for "free will"...
God creates the TOTALITY of all future and past events contained within our particular universe in six days, as a four dimensional object. He creates the entire Act in six days and then initiates it, it that will last billions of years before humans emerge through the process of evolution that God imagined.

So God intentionally PLANNED using evolution?
Why God creates fallibility is one of the great mysteries of God, but some time it will be revealed as a righteous aspect of his divine eminnence.

Meaning - we have to (scientifically) figure it out.
Which is pretty much what science is doing, isn't it?
JVK
1 / 5 (7) May 25, 2015
Stop relying on alleged " RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions"


Stop attesting to your ignorance. First you start with the light-induced de novo creation of amino acids. Then you link them from the biophysically constrained formation of the membrane that contains photosynthesis to the amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all genera.

Starting with amino acid substitutions that automagically appeared as needed would be akin to starting with mutations that automagically caused evolution because you needed them to explain away biologically-based cause and effect that is readily linked to creation by everything that has ever been known about physics, chemistry, or biology.
gkam
4.6 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015
"The viruses in the food we ingest link the viruses in bacteria from viral microRNAs to entropic elasticity that is prevented from becoming genomic entropy by the anti-entropic epigenetic effects of nutrient-dependent microRNAs."
----------------------------------

We are not impressed with cut-and-pasted jargon.

Are you Ryggy?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015
Why do some of you feel it necessary to enter a science site and prosthelytize?
Does it make you feel better in some sort of "Daniel in the lion's den" way?
Is it a function you must perform to secure your position in a future heaven?
If you'd spend more time analyzing/observing without assuming that if you can't figure it out, god must have done it, maybe you'd gain a little humility (as well as lose a little hubris) with respect to other's thought processes.
It's the act of trying to "leapfrog" observations, that garners ridicule, because you are attempting to ridicule some one else's hard work. It begs indignant refutation and rightly so.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015
Enjoy your freewill, even to denounce his existence, he wants us all to experience true freedom of existence.

So, then - why have police or politicians or government?
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (13) May 25, 2015
Please join me in down-voting Captain Stumpy and Uncle Ira and reporting their ridiculous posts.


@ JVK-Skippy. How you are today Cher? I am just fine and dandy, thanks for asking. I do not mind you down-voting me even a little bit, so why you don't do just that, okayeei?

But in between the down-votes maybe you would answer just one of my questions, eh?

The one about the hydrogen smelling other hydrogen's energies would be good.

Or maybe you would like to tackle the one about about why something who goes by the name "God" would not be able to speak up for him self and make him self understood? If I was the "God-Skippy", I would surely not let all the couyons do my talking for me.
Whydening Gyre
4.9 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015
Starting with amino acid substitutions that automagically appeared as needed would be akin to starting with mutations that automagically caused evolution because you needed them to explain away biologically-based cause and effect that is readily linked to creation by everything that has ever been known about physics, chemistry, or biology.

The didn't "automagically" appear. Think about ALL the acid substitutions that occurred and then realize that the ones appear in a surviving organism are the substitutions that that didn't kill that organism.
it's the 1 out of however many actually attempted substitutions that survives and therefore has opportunity to move up the ladder...
version782
1 / 5 (1) May 25, 2015
t
gkam
4.1 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015
Ira has it right: If a god wanted me to follow some other goober, why would he not tell me instead of the goober?
JVK
1 / 5 (7) May 25, 2015
We are not impressed with cut-and-pasted jargon.


You are not impressed with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect. Eat more chicken!

Bacteriophages isolated from chicken meat and the horizontal transfer of antimicrobial resistance genes http://aem.asm.or...abstract

The link to antibiotic resistance in E. coli is explained by the role of viral microRNAs compared to nutrient-dependent microRNAs in my model. Yet biologically uninformed science idiots want you to believe that antibiotic resistance is caused by mutations that lead to evolution.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) May 25, 2015
Ira has it right:


How could a biologically uninformed science idiot have anything right?

it's the 1 out of however many actually attempted substitutions that survives


No. It is the amino acid substitution that is fixed in the organized genomes of all genera that determines the differences in cell types. How did you determine that survival of amino acids in cells came before the cells that needed the nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions to survive?

The one about the hydrogen smelling other hydrogen's energies would be good.


I've addressed how differences in hydrogen atom energies are linked to base-pair changes and amino acid substitutions in an invited review of nutritional epigenetics.

Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems
http://figshare.c...s/994281
JVK
1 / 5 (7) May 25, 2015
I reiterate: "...learning about evolution is not the primary function of the decision, but rather to use it as a building block for students to learn more about their ecology."

This "Message From Above" has repeatedly been conveyed by intelligent participants in this discussion, while biologically uninformed science idiots ignore it.

Communication between the mitochondria and the nuclear epigenome links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape to DNA in the organized genomes of all genera.

The fact that the communication is inside-out and requires the formation of a receptor that allows amino acids to enter the cell to stabilize an organism's genome via fixation in the context of reproduction does not suggest the possibility of mutation-driven evolution.

Given that fact, what can be said about those who continue to suggest that mutations are linked to the evolution of increasing organismal complexity and biodiversity?
gkam
3.7 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015
"Given that fact, what can be said about those who continue to suggest that mutations are linked to the evolution of increasing organismal complexity and biodiversity?"
---------------------------------------------------

Gosh, JVK, I don't know, but it does nothing to prove god.

Why don't you look it up in Wiki?
viko_mx
1.6 / 5 (7) May 25, 2015

Can you explain with your words how mutations can leed to emerging of new geneticaly compatible information in DNA of one organism? How this organism aquire new genetic information compatible with available genetic information and at the same time mechanisms for control and sinchronization of this new information by random genetic changes? How wotk this miracle? It must be easy for you to explain why you beleave in god of happy chance. What is the mechanism behind such idea? Givе me example mutation with positive efects to give organism recognized by the international scientific community.
Stevepidge
1.6 / 5 (7) May 25, 2015
Enjoy your freewill, even to denounce his existence, he wants us all to experience true freedom of existence.

So, then - why have police or politicians or government?


You tell me?? Can you prove they are necessary for a society to function? Or are they only necessary to reign in egotistical materialistic societies?
gkam
3.3 / 5 (7) May 25, 2015
"How wotk this miracle? Givе me example mutation with positive efects to give organism recognized by the international scientific community."
------------------------------------

The change in the color of moths around and downwind of former coal-burning plants in England.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) May 25, 2015
The change in the color of moths around and downwind of former coal-burning plants in England.


--Almost as pitiful an example as hemoglobin S, which theorists think is a mutation in human populations where malaria is endemic.

The peppered moths color change was attributed to ingestion of leaves contaminated with lead and manganese. The contamination of the leaves by pollution was reversed and the moths changed back to their fawn color -- because the physiology of reproduction is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.

Reproduction is not controlled by moth color and bird predation -- except in the ridiculous theories that population geneticists assumed would explain RNA-mediated cell type differentiation across species in the context of de Vries definition of mutation and their assumptions. No moth species has ever evolved into another species and malaria does not cause different species of humans to evolve. Different colors are not different species.
JVK
2 / 5 (8) May 25, 2015
gkam has surpassed Uncle Ira and SSgt James Stumpy (aka Captain Stumpy) with the amount of pseudoscientific nonsense touted.

Is there any prize money to be awarded to the biggest of the biologically uninformed science idiots?

anonymous_9001 (aka Andrew Jones) could have won it, but he appears to have dropped out of the competition, again.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015
gkam has surpassed Uncle Ira and SSgt James Stumpy (aka Captain Stumpy) with the amount of pseudoscientific nonsense touted.

Is there any prize money to be awarded to the biggest of the biologically uninformed science idiots?

anonymous_9001 (aka Andrew Jones) could have won it, but he appears to have dropped out of the competition, again.


@ JVK-Skippy how you are again Cher? I am fine again too me. Why you want to keep dragging my name in here?

Oh yeah, I almost forget. How's the down-voting and reporting campaign going? I just peek-a-rooed your profile page, you are all the way up to the average of 1.1. That's pretty good considering they won't let you go under 1.0.

Oh yeah, I almost forget again. Cher that is one goofy looking picture you got up there. But he is a little better than the other one where you were getting your toes tickled as you got your picture took.
gkam
4.5 / 5 (8) May 25, 2015
Wow, JVK, . . thanks!
JVK
1.9 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015
you are all the way up to the average of 1.1


That's impressive, given the intellectual prowess of most participants here. They are too uninformed to do anything but down-vote my posts and do not want to inform themselves.

gkam for example would rather continue to believe that all mimicry in moths and butterflies is due to mutations rather than learn about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation that links cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all genera.

Chromosomal rearrangements maintain a polymorphic supergene controlling butterfly mimicry
http://www.nature...341.html
JVK
1.9 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015
Both these blog posts link to the latest from Jon Lieff on established biophysically constrained links from the chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding to cell type differentiation that links the metabolic networks and genetic networks of primates to viruses in our gut bacteria

http://perfumingt...he-mind/

and

http://rna-mediat...unction/
JVK
1.5 / 5 (8) May 25, 2015
From page 3 of a Google search for "RNA mediated"

Small RNA-mediated DNA (cytosine-5) methyltransferase 1 inhibition leads to aberrant DNA methylation http://nar.oxford...518.full

Conclusion: "...it appears that some, if not all-epigenetic writer enzymes may be regulated by RNA. Thus, RNA may be a major gatekeeper for epigenetic inheritance in vertebrates."

Our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review article linked the molecular epigenetics of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation to the physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction in species from yeasts to other mammals. Elekonich and Robinson (2000) linked our model to insects and Elekonich and Roberts (2005) linked it to the life history transitions of the honeybee model organism.

See: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015
anonymous_9001 (aka Andrew Jones) could have won it, but he appears to have dropped out of the competition, again.


Nah, just quietly watching you repost the same misrepresentations, falsehoods, and practically illiterate word-salad you have been for years.
howhot2
5 / 5 (7) May 26, 2015
From the article; what a beautiful cool guy John Glenn is;
JVK
1 / 5 (7) May 26, 2015
Nah, just quietly watching you repost the same misrepresentations, falsehoods, and practically illiterate word-salad you have been for years.


-- While others die from the pseudoscientific nonsense reported by people, like you, whose meaningless results from mutagenesis experiments were meaningfully interpreted.

Ovarian cancer-specific markers set the stage for early diagnosis, personalized treatments
http://medicalxpr...rly.html

Excerpt: These mRNA isoforms are predicted to encode proteins with unique amino acid sequences...

Nutrient-dependent RNA-directed DNA methylation links RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation in all cells of all genera.

Examples were included in my 2013 review http://www.ncbi.n...3960065/

Fixation of the amino acid substitutions occurs via the nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction, not by the magic of evolution.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) May 26, 2015
So, then - why have police or politicians or government?


You tell me?? Can you prove they are necessary for a society to function? Or are they only necessary to reign in egotistical materialistic societies?

Well, common sense tells us, it's a little of both...
viko_mx
2 / 5 (8) May 26, 2015
@gkam

Are you sure that the color of moths depend of mutations? Are the mutations are resposible for the color of hair of people, or this depend on genetic variations contained in the gene pool of humanity? In my previous post I asked for an example for mutation with positive effect for the organism, which is recognized by the international scientific community. No free interpretations. So far I understand that your faith in the god of the happy chance has no scientific basis, but is due to emotional reasons because you can not explain the fundamental mechanisms behind evolution.
gkam
4 / 5 (8) May 26, 2015
" but is due to emotional reasons because you can not explain the fundamental mechanisms behind evolution."
----------------------------------------------

That is not a good argument for "God did it".

If I cannot explain something, I do not immediately make up some silly story, or buy the ones passed down from the Age of Ignorance.

And when I do find some examples, what will your response be? To ignore it?
JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 26, 2015
No one has explained the fundamental mechanisms of evolution. That's why serious scientists are "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" http://www.scienc...88.short

Excerpt: "Molecular biology and evolutionary biology have been separate disciplines and scientific cultures: The former is mechanistic and focused on molecules; the latter is theoretical and focused on populations."

Focus on populations led to ridiculous theories that have been replaced by facts about the molecular epigenetics of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation. For comparison: "[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact." http://www.huffin...211.html
gkam
4.6 / 5 (9) May 26, 2015
Cut and paste proves nothing.

Your focus on one tiny part of something misses the mark in the interactions of complex systems.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) May 26, 2015
If I cannot explain something, I do not immediately make up some silly story, or buy the ones passed down from the Age of Ignorance.


You told us mutations caused the color change in moths, which exemplifies your acceptance of the most ridiculous theory serious scientists could possibly imagine would be accepted by biologically uninformed science idiots. You might as well SCREAM to everyone who can hear you. I AM A BIOLOGICALLY UNINFORMED SCIENCE IDIOT. That's what Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) did in his "Criticisms...." http://www.ncbi.n...24959329

Note: Most people would not want others to know how much ignorance they have displayed. Jones seems proud of it.

JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 26, 2015
Cut and paste proves nothing.

Your focus on one tiny part of something misses the mark in the interactions of complex systems.


This is a link to my most recent invited review of nutritional epigenetics.
Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems http://figshare.c...s/994281

gkam
4 / 5 (8) May 26, 2015
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2015
You told us mutations caused the color change in moths...


Considering that's what happened, he's right. You subscribe to the idea that the lead and manganese were the proximate cause of the color change, being a non-random, deterministic result of their introduction to the environment despite multiple controlled follow-up experiments and statistical analysis of the original one disproving that.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (6) May 26, 2015
JVK, thanks for sharing your work. But what does it prove?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 26, 2015
You're welcome. Thanks for asking.

It proves that neo-Darwinian theory is a horrid and ridiculous misrepresentation of biologically-based facts about cell type differentiation that only the biologically uninformed continue to accept.

Their acceptance permits them to ignore all experimental evidence from physics and chemistry that has been linked to the conserved molecular mechanisms of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation.

My published and unpublished works prove there is only one model of top-down causation that can be linked to cell type differentiation in all genera. It is the model that starts with the sun's anti-entropic biological energy and links atoms to ecosystems via the epigenetic effects of sunlight on the viruses and viral microRNAs that contribute to entropic elasticity and to pathology (e.g., genomic entropy) when they are not biophysically constrained by the nutrient-dependent chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 26, 2015
I want an apology.


I am sorry that you have been taught to believe in pseudoscientific nonsense.

Anonymous_9001 is not sorry about that.

He is sorry to learn that no one is going to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense by the end of this decade, and that his published criticisms of my model will continue to limit the possibility of him ever being considered a serious scientist, or anything except a biologically uninformed science idiot.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) May 26, 2015
@JVK

The only thing you've proved is they you are delusional.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 26, 2015
http://www.ircm.q...FLG=1033

This was reported today on the Science Mission FB page with the headline

"Proper DNA organization is required for cell's normal functioning"

The proper organization of DNA is nutrient-dependent and controlled by the physiology of reproduction in all genera. It links RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation via the molecular mechanisms we detailed in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review. From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html

The biophysically constrained molecular mechanisms of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation have since been extended to all cell types in all genera via what is known about protein folding, which links mutations to pathology -- not to increasing organismal complexity manifested in the biodiversity of morphological and behavioral phenotypes.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2015
Stumpy, you are trying to disprove God by trapping his existence in dogma
@Steve
not at all
i cannot disprove your deity
i CAN disprove your insistence that your bible is infallible word or that it is anything more than an archaic comic/book because archeological evidence proves it

there is a huge difference between a FAITH and RELIGION
He is the perfect parent, he loves...blah blah blah
i don't care WHAT a person believes in, nor do i care that there is no evidence for their belief
what i DO care about is when they substitute actual scientific protocol with religious dogma and then call it science- like creationists, jk, ren, verkle and more

that is not science, it is religion
and this is a science site, not a religious forum

Evolution/Mutation are not only observed, but validated through competition
See: http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

http://www.extavourlab.com/

Dr. Extavour validated Lenski's work
others have also

Science works
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 26, 2015
Please join me in down-voting Captain Stumpy and Uncle Ira and reporting their ridiculous posts
Apparently jvk has finally found that he cannot refute actual science with his one ridiculous pseudoscience, so now appeals to the crackpots to downvote and report?

lets examine his motivation: he states all mutations are detrimental and that there are no beneficial mutations, and that only idiots believe in mutations, or only idiots believe that mutations can support biodiversity... but then posts a model that CAUSES MUTATIONS

but i promote pseudoscience?

then he states pheromones are the reason: except that he cannot convince scientists human pheromones exist
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

then he publishes a model that is immediately DEBUNKED
http://www.socioa...ew/24367

he can't refute it with actual science, so instead ?
DOWNVOTE & REPORT those picking on me!
LOL
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 26, 2015
Please join me in down-voting...
lets take this a STEP FURTHER, jk

how about this:
for every time you post to your own site (A KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE) which has demonstrated that you do NOT abide by the site posting rules for PSEUDOSCIENCE, SPAM, TROLLING and self promotion of your BS...
then EVERYONE SHOULD REPORT AND DOWNVOTE YOUR POSTS TOO

especially since i can support my position using reputable links to KNOWN SCIENCE, like i did above, and all you can do is LIE about other peoples work and insist they support you, even though when directly inquired, like when i talked to Dr. Extavour, you are found to be LYING

shall i repeat those exact words as well?

you can't even get your own story straight- denigrating mutations then promoting them with your model

the only reason you are still posting is because the site is not moderated and you're protected by another poster/author from the site here!

if it were actually moderated, you would be GONE
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) May 26, 2015

"And when I do find some examples, what will your response be? To ignore it?"

Because your examples have no scientific basis and are only the manifеstation of wishfull thinking.
The Bible is very old book, contain the Gods wisdom and truth, and the human history. God has told us to study the truths in it and verify the Gods truths in reality. Contrary to this open and fair attitude towards people, the theory of evolution is imposed by fraud and "consensus" in society without any scientific basis. This theory is in the position to be proven before became such popular in society but it is not. Why so happened is more than clear. You can not control easily people with christian spirit and moral standard. They are the living conscience of society and their presence greatly disturbs those who entail them darkness. Мaterialists are easy for control by the love to money and material values.
gkam
4.6 / 5 (9) May 26, 2015
"You can not controle easily people with christian spirit and moral standard."
------------------------------------

I think you Christian folk burned them alive,. . . slowly.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) May 26, 2015
Aggression has always been a demonstration of powerlessness and lack of arguments and the main fuel for it is pride. But God says that the man rises up as humble yourself. Contrary the pride is the precursors to the fall. Without christians humanity will not survive for long time and before that would be a very sad and depressed civilization without any hope. There is also independent and fair judgment which is not affected by human weakness. However, there is still time to reconsider your priorities. Vanity indeed is meaninless thing.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2015
Aggression has always been a demonstration of powerlessness and lack of arguments and the main fuel for it is pride
which is why jvk wants everyone to down-vote and ban me and those who don't comply with his religious argument
IOW- it is the dark ages all over again: burn the heretic

Science is about finding answers to things we do NOT know, and then validating those answers by repetition and trying to falsify the data
that is the POWER of the scientific method
that is also why jk, religion and pseudoscience will always be at the fringe of science trying desperately to garner attention through politics and spreading false information (as proven in Arkansas VS McLean)

Science is not about vanity- only RELIGION can take that spot
because the ONLY purpose for religion and the codification of rules is to JUDGE someone
to cause one to JUDGE another

THAT is vanity
THAT is the reason religion will always fail to SCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2015
The Bible is very old book, contain the Gods wisdom and truth, and the human history.
@viko
another point: this has been proven wrong so many times it is not even funny

this is also the height of VANITY as well as PREJUDICE
you claim that the book is infallible but you cannot prove it
not only that, but you cannot even read it and state, with ANY authority, that your religion is ANY better than ANY OTHER religion out there

your religion has burned people alive, and even within your own book calls for genocide
your book also has been proven to be "edited" for content (canon) and also falsified (falsely authored), but you claim some authority by longevity?
The egyptian writings outdo you there, and they had most of the symbolic and mythological stories FIRST (proven fact)

therefore, your religion and book is based upon a lie
you cannot claim divine knowledge and love based upon a lie
especially as it can be proven fallacious
See the first few chapters as PROOF
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) May 26, 2015
"Your religion has burned people alive, and even within your own book calls for genocide"

This is not true. My faith have noting to do with violence because it is a faith of free man and respects the freedom of choice given to us by God. Witch hunts was practice of the catholic church in the dark ages. It pursued milions of true christians such as Jan Hus, Martin Luther, Waldenses who followed the biblical truth and does not want to accept false pagan dogmas of the roman catholic church at this time. Educate yourself. You can start with the book of Revalation. Lie thrives in society thanks to ignorance of people.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2015
This is not true
yes, it is
read your book- old testament G (NUM) tells people to kill everyone
in fact, Numbers 31:17-18 call for genocide AND RAPE/forced slavery
shall i get into what they talk about with daughters?
My faith have noting to do with violence
and we are NOT debating your "faith" here, because it is not relevant unless you are stating that your FAITH is no different from your religion

we are debating the RELIGION, as well as the bible which you claim is infallible and the word of your god...
i am FAR more educated in the bible than you are, having been raised catholic and southern baptist by bi-polar parents wanting me to learn
& lies DO thrive in society, and it starts with the LIES in your own bible

you don't even know your own BIBLE so before you start pontificating about it on a SCIENCE site, you should learn a thing or two yourself

your religion is no better than Buddhist's, Wiccan's or ANY other religion
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2015
Witch hunts was practice of the catholic church in the dark ages
nope
it was a practice of puritans too, as well as https://en.wikipe..._context

and shall we also talk about salem oregon? not a catholic place when they killed witches
you are specifically thinking about the inquisition, and that was catholic, and as a matter of fact, CHRISTIAN
if you want to talk biblical truth, then sell your daughter: EXO 21:7-8
kill children: EXO 21:15.17
Torture is good: PROV 20:30
Rape is the woman's fault always: DEUT 22:23-24
there is no such thing as modern medicine, because science isnt real: MAT 9:22
try using THAT one next time you have pneumonia and live!
Christianity is NOT about peace: LUK12: 51-53
ENSLAVE neighbors just because they think differently: LEV 25:44-46

if you think your religion is about peace and love, you are DELUSIONAL
it says the OPPOSITE in your own bible
even in your own new testament

EDUCATE YOUR OWN SELF
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2015
Haha, Captain. Thanks for those passages. I was unaware of some of them (I am a bad Catholic and have not entirely read my bible).

How much you want to bet viko will rationalize them away, missing that the whole point is that since the Bible IS open to interpretation, as demonstrated by his rationalization, we no longer have to accept literal interpretations of it?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) May 26, 2015
Chirstian faith is not religion. This is freedom based on pure love.

Why you gave quotes out of context? Every one can read this book and understand the meaning of gods words. God always give to people the choice and time to change for the better before He destroy the sin and the sinners. Sin and falsehood are incompatible with life, and if He does not do this, those who walk in the spirit of god will become the victims of the sinners as we have many examples of human history, and this will ultimately lead to the rapid destruction of civilization. In God's kingdom there will be no sin.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) May 26, 2015
Chirstian faith is not religion. This is freedom based on pure love.

Why you gave quotes out of context? Every one can read this book and understand the meaning of gods words. God always give to people the choice and time to change for the better before He destroy the sin and the sinners. Sin and falsehood are incompatible with life, and if He does not do this, those who walk in the spirit of god will become the victims of the sinners as we have many examples of human history, and this will ultimately lead to the rapid destruction of civilization. In God's kingdom there will be no sin.


Just as I said, you are rationalizing his contentions away, which means that the Bible is open to interpretation. But once it is open to interpretation, so are passages that conflict with the reality of evolution.
Stevepidge
1.8 / 5 (5) May 26, 2015
Witch hunts was practice of the catholic church in the dark ages
nope
it was a practice of puritans too, as well as
if you want to talk biblical truth, then sell your daughter: EXO 21:7-8
kill children: EXO 21:15.17
Torture is good: PROV 20:30
Rape is the woman's fault always: DEUT 22:23-24
there is no such thing as modern medicine, because science isnt real: MAT 9:22
try using THAT one next time you have pneumonia and live!
Christianity is NOT about peace: LUK12: 51-53
ENSLAVE neighbors just because they think differently: LEV 25:44-46

if you think your religion is about peace and love, you are DELUSIONAL
it says the OPPOSITE in your own bible
even in your own new testament

EDUCATE YOUR OWN SELF


Those are grossly misrepresented. Many of them are from the old testament and the 2 from the new are just cheap shots out of context. Your luke quote.. is just.. lol
JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 26, 2015
The biologically uninformed science idiots have won again. Others can follow the extant literature on the creation of amino acids and new genes and RNA-mediated cell type differentiation at: http://rna-mediated.com/
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2015
The biologically uninformed science idiots have won again. Others can follow the extant literature on the creation of amino acids and new genes and RNA-mediated cell type differentiation at: http://rna-mediated.com/


A much better choice. https://scholar.g...mediated

You wont find Kohl there.

@JVK

Two can play your spamming game.
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2015
@viko_mix

You don't know your bible nearly as well as you think you do. I can highly recommend any of the excellent books by Bart Ehrman. I'll start with just three that are part of my library.

http://www.amazon...;sr=1-10

Read those three an you'll want to read the rest of books.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) May 26, 2015
Edit

Two of my links didn't appear in my above comment . I'll try again.

http://www.amazon...ADRN4KXF

http://www.amazon...D1FG69EV
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2015
Chirstian faith is not religion. This is freedom based on pure love.

Then it's not Christianity (as defined by your bible).
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) May 26, 2015
Those are grossly misrepresented. Many of them are from the old testament and the 2 from the new are just cheap shots out of context. Your luke quote.. is just.. lol

Is the old testament part of the bible? Context is subjective.
Frilla_Poo
4 / 5 (4) May 27, 2015
At least Mr Kohl doesn't spend all of his time arguing at phys.org

"I wore 'pheromone perfume' for a week to turn myself into a sex goddess"
http://fusion.net...ly-work/

The first comment (self-references included), and the only commenter to his own comment 10 minutes later (self-references again included).

Sometimes one must seek out their flock from those more ready and willing to accept the word.
Frilla_Poo
4 / 5 (4) May 27, 2015
At least Mr Kohl doesn't spend all of his time arguing at phys.org

"I wore 'pheromone perfume' for a week to turn myself into a sex goddess"
http://fusion.net...ly-work/

The first comment (self-references included), and the only commenter to his own comment 10 minutes later (self-references again included).

Sometimes one must seek out their flock from those more ready and willing to accept the word.
Frilla_Poo
4 / 5 (4) May 27, 2015
Unexplainable duplicate - mutation likely.

Must... be... evolving.... again...
docile
May 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) May 27, 2015
The evolution is not a "discovery" - but a theory developed with Darwin before two hundreds of years - and the theories should be never handled as a fact in science - to taught the less.

That's not correct. Evolution is way past the point where it is just a hypothetical theory, but a fully fledged scientific fact. Yes, when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, it was not at this point, but in the 156 years since its publication, it has overwhelmingly been shown to be correct. And even so, evolution WAS a discovery. Indeed, the inception of Darwin's theory began when he and other researchers discovered that the geographical distribution of similar species (finches) indicated a common origin. It didn't just emerge fully formed out of Darwin's wishful thinking. It emerged out of observation and careful reasoning as almost all good science does.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
Evolution is way past the point where it is just a hypothetical theory, but a fully fledged scientific fact.


http://www.huffin...211.html

"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... The anglophone tradition was taught. I was taught, and so were my contemporaries, and so were the younger scientists. Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... No, it wasn't dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.'
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
Thanks for those passages
@furlong
as a former catholic and once christian from a southern family with actual TRUE southern roots, i've studied it a lot, and i have much, much more
bible study was a part of my youth, and actually still is as it applies to some research that i am doing!
PS- you CALLED IT right on the money re: viko! ROTFLMFAO
Many of them are from the old testament and the 2 from the new are just cheap shots out of context.
@steveP
i suggest you re-read furlongs comments about my post
and they're not taken out of context any more than the anti-evilution rant or posts by x-tians wanting to think their holy comic is somehow divine

i've lived ALL over the world, and the fact is: there are very, VERY few differences between most religions
the arguments are all over semantics and tribal superiority

you should read more of Otto's posts & links about tribal x-tian beliefs and how the holy comic has been proven plagiarized form other religions
docile
May 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
The first comment (self-references included), and the only commenter to his own comment 10 minutes later (self-references again included).


I was interviewed for the article, but it focused on work by Cutler, who fails to tell anyone what pheromone she discovered. She began to market a product for men in 1995, which is when we published "The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality" http://www.amazon...9523383X

That's also when I discovered that Cutler had not established the domain Pheromones.com How could someone who claims to have discovered "human pheromones" let someone else discover that the domain name was available?

We used a combination of androstenol/androsterone in our studies and did not hesitate to tell our colleagues the details. We also used "copulins" in a study of men's responses with a similar design.

Human pheromone-deniers and evolutionary theorists have much in common.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
The biologically uninformed science idiots have won again. Others can follow the extant literature on the creation of amino acids and new genes and RNA-mediated cell type differentiation at: http://rna-mediated.com/

@jk
again, as you are cross posting this as well as promoting yourself AND posting a link to a KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE site that is not a science based nor legitimate scientific literature site, as well as having links and CREATIONIST diatribe which is KNOWN to be PSEUDOSCIENCE as well,

this post, and ALL others that contain links to your self-promoting rna-mediated site will be reported as TROLLING SPAM and PHISHING
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
Evolution is way past the point where it is just a hypothetical theory, but a fully fledged scientific fact
"Scientific fact" is an oxymoron. Facts are only self-evident - after then no science is needed for their acceptation. All the rest is an interpretation of these facts, which may change in time.

Um, no facts are not self-evident, and often require careful, patient study (or luck) to be discovered. You need look no further than some of the most astonishing developments of physics to know this. Nobody knew or was aware of the connection between electricity and magnetism before Oorsted noticed a compass needle deflected by electric current. Everyone thought the aether was self-evident until the Michaelson-Morley experiments showed otherwise. Nobody thought current could flow without dissipation of energy until the discovery of super-conductors. In fact, I can't really think of anything that was self evident until its discovery.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
Let me amend that. I can think of very little that was self-evident until its discovery. Obviously, the existence of humans was self-evident.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
Perhaps Glenn understands that the bible was written by man, including the sentence that says 'this is the word of god',... men who never even tried themselves to understand the things around them.


… he contradicts himself by saying that he believes in the bible whilst simultaneously saying he believes that evolution is true

I think that for things that are amendable to science, he discounts the biblical account, whilst for things that are a matter of faith, he follows the bible.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
either 1) man discovers a physical mechanism operative for evolution of life, or 2) man discovers that no such mechanism is possible to explain life.

#1 shows that god is capable of creating a universe with physical laws that could lead to life, while #2 exposes an imperfect god who was evidently not capable of creating consistent physical laws accountable for life and ended up having to "duck-tape" it with "creation".

….for you to say to say that the God of the bible created life via evolution is simply an eisegesis that does not exist in the bible. You presuppose that the billions of years are true.

But the bible itself was written by man via their own 'eisegesis' of ignorance wrt physical nature. You're the one who is presupposing that the men who wrote the bible were infallible in that regard. Evidence shows that they were.
Now, I would like you to answer my point wrt an imperfect god.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
You say there is no proof that life comes from the inanimate, yet its not impossible in principal, and the evidence is far more compelling than the notion that "life" is another "thing" independent of physical processes..


Friend, you are the one who is speaking non-science here. […]

That which dies, stays dead. Hence, it's quite clear that life cannot arise from the dead all by itself.

What is so hard to understand about that fact?


I have already addressed this…… "life" is an emergent property of "dead" matter. You are arbitrarily proposing that "life" is an existent "thing" independent of physical matter. There can not be evidence for this even in principal, so it is not a valid scientific refutation,… luckily for you because had there been evidence that "life" were not accountable given knowledge of the physical body, then it would expose an imperfect god with more duck-tape.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
He also gave man the capacity to discover facts of reality that has allowed man to do great things,.... would not man eventually discover that there is no physcal mechanism to create life, i.e. the "seam" mentioned above, and would not this "seam" be an imperfection?


Here you bring your own judgement of what is perfect or imperfect into the picture.
Firstly we don't know the history of that supposed "seam". We don't even know what it is!


You're the one proposing such a "seam", …an imperfection by definition,…. by suggesting that life is Created, rather than being emergent from physical processes.

This is the very point that should be faced when looking at something that just died - all the components are there in the right place - but there's no life!


But there is always without exception, a physical reason for the"life" to no longer emerge from that dead matter.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) May 27, 2015
The evolution is not a "discovery" - but a theory developed with Darwin before two hundreds of years - and the theories should be never handled as a fact in science - to taught the less.


That's not correct. Evolution is way past the point where it is just a hypothetical theory, but a fully fledged scientific fact.


While I agree that evolution is the best present explanation of the facts,… evolution is not a 'fact of science' per se. It is an interpretation of facts. It is a theory. Strictly speaking, 'Scientific Facts' reference repeatable observations for verification of predictive theories.

Has there ever been an experiment where one can observe evolution occurring?

Indeed, Docile is correct on this one,.... Evolution should NEVER be taught as a "scientific fact",.. because doing so is to actively misinform what Science IS. It should be taught as the best theory at present given the facts observed.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) May 27, 2015
While I agree that evolution is the best present explanation of the facts,… evolution is not a 'fact of science' per se. It is an interpretation of facts. It is a theory.

I completely disagree. I actually just had a thought. I would argue that something can comfortably be considered scientific fact if it's falsification would be far more puzzling than its verification. In the context of what we currently know, evolution's falsification would be a disaster not just for evolutionary science, but for much of biology, and even physics and earth science, in general. It's not just the stuff that depends on evolution that would be in trouble. It would be anything consistent with evolution.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
Has there ever been an experiment where one can observe evolution occurring?

Yes. See http://www.newsci...lab.html

But as I implied, evolution is a lot hardier than one experiment. In fact, we observe evolution happening all the time by studying fossils. We have quite an extensive library of transitional forms, which show, quite explicitly how species gradually gave rise to other species.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) May 27, 2015
In fact, we observe evolution happening all the time by studying fossils. We have quite an extensive library of transitional forms, which show, quite explicitly how species gradually gave rise to other species.


Not correct. What you cite is retrodiction which in principle any wrong theory could model,... but yet fail to make future predictions.

I will view you link, however it's hard to imagine that one could observe in a present sense, necessary for Prediction as opposition to Retrodiction,..... a species evoluving..... i.e. variations occur all the time while those variations may not be sustainable as required in evolution, yes?

Your term "transitional" presupposes a theory, whereas you must start with pure facts,.... several artifacts that are slightly different.

Again, for the trolls, I accept evolution as the best theory at present to account for observed artifacts.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
http://rna-mediat...lusions/

Excerpt: Nutrient-dependent microRNAs and RNA-mediated events linked to DNA repair defend the integrity of organized genomes in all genera.

The molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation can be used to defend the integrity of biologically-based explanations of cause and effect from those who tout ridiculous theories.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
Not correct. What you cite is retrodiction which in principle any wrong theory could model,... but yet fail to make future predictions.

No offense, but I think this is a naive way of looking at it, though. Retrodiction IS a form of observation given the right circumstances. I mean, yes, nothing beats "being there", but we really can't be present for most things we currently accept as fact.
Prediction as opposition to Retrodiction,

But I think this is where you are thinking too simply about things. Evolution DOES make predictions that preempted their discovery. The existence of Ring Species is one such example. Indeed, that we predict that bacteria will eventually become resistant to current antibiotics is another successful prediction of Evolution.

As I said, if evolution weren't true, we'd be forced to question not just it, but almost everything we know about modern science.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) May 27, 2015
Not correct. What you cite is retrodiction which in principle any wrong theory could model,... but yet fail to make future predictions.


Retrodiction IS a form of observation given the right circumstances. I mean, yes, nothing beats "being there", but we really can't be present for most things we currently accept as fact.


If one wants to use the term "scientific fact" wrt a theory, then that theory requires verifiability for future events. The reason is, is that in principal, there could be another scientific explanation for the existence of those "transitional forms"….. evolution is proposing a biological mechanism to account for it. The only way of knowing, as a fact, that that mechanism is operative in and gives account of those "transitional forms" is by testing that biological mechanism.
…..
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) May 27, 2015
Evolution DOES make predictions that preempted their discovery. The existence of Ring Species is one such example. Indeed, that we predict that bacteria will eventually become resistant to current antibiotics is another successful prediction of Evolution.

Adaptation by itself does not imply the speciation implied by evolution.
As I said, if evolution weren't true, we'd be forced to question not just it, but almost everything we know about modern science.

I was as careful as I could be to make it clear that I was not questioning that evolution is the best explanation for the observed facts. I was only questioning the use of the phrase "scientific fact" in regard to it. And just because it's not practical to do an 'evolution experiment' does not mean that one changes the definition of scientific fact, nor even that one is not still engaging in science.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) May 27, 2015
I would argue that something can comfortably be considered scientific fact if it's falsification would be far more puzzling than its verification.

Interesting, ….but that arbitrarily makes it contingent upon our sense of bewilderment, when in fact the history of science has shown over and over that that is precisely what occurs in science, de facto…[falsification of a theory leads to puzzlement].
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) May 27, 2015
Has there ever been an experiment where one can observe evolution occurring?

Yes. See http://www.newsci...lab.html

But as I implied, evolution is a lot hardier than one experiment.


Still, very interesting and relevant to the discussion. Thank You for that link!
JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 27, 2015
if evolution weren't true, we'd be forced to question not just it, but almost everything we know about modern science.


Serious scientists have been questioning ridiculous theories about mutation and evolution for several decades.

See http://www.geneng...;a=false

Evolution of MicroRNA Research Over the Past Decade

More than 20,000 microRNA-Focused Publications Were Assessed as a Means to Characterize the Field

The field is best characterized as a refutation of the pseudoscientific nonsense touted by evolutionary theorists who think ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations via mutations in E. coli.

The questions about ridiculous theories are being addressed by societies like this one:
http://www.rnasociety.org/ See the articles in the current issue of RNA.
http://rnajournal.../current What is known about molecular mechanisms has replaced ridiculous theories.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
Co-authored by Lenski:
Experiments on the role of deleterious mutations as stepping stones in adaptive evolution
http://www.pnas.o...abstract

A serious scientist responded: http://beacon-cen...ns-name/

Excerpt: Mutations are rare; getting two mutations is even rarer. Getting the right two mutations, close together, to not only ameliorate a deleterious mutation, but to actually open up new beneficial mutations that weren't accessible before? Pishaw! You get better odds at the blackjack table! So the literature generally holds that bad mutations stay bad, and good mutations stay good, and that's how it's been in evolutionary theory for a long time.

The re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum over the weekend eliminated the millions of years that evolutionary theorists claim can lead to one species becoming another. All morphological and behavioral phenotypes are ecological adaptations.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) May 27, 2015


"Excerpt: Mutations are rare; getting two mutations is even rarer. Getting the right two mutations, close together, to not only ameliorate a deleterious mutation, but to actually open up new beneficial mutations that weren't accessible before? Pishaw! You get better odds at the blackjack table! So the literature generally holds that bad mutations stay bad, and good mutations stay good, and that's how it's been in evolutionary theory for a long time."

@JVK

"Evolution isn't about playing one hand of blackjack though, its about playing lots and lots of hands, over a very long period of time."

Another example of you taking a quote out of context, totally skewing the the intentions of the author.

Another example that you are totally devoid of integrity.

http://beacon-cen...ns-name/

Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2015
@JVK

"The field is best characterized as a refutation of the pseudoscientific nonsense touted by evolutionary theorists who think ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations via mutations in E. coli."

A delusional statement.

To expected from JVK.

howhot2
5 / 5 (4) May 27, 2015
John Glenn, who declared as a 77-year-old in a news conference from space that "to look out at this kind of creation out here and not believe in God is to me impossible," says facts about scientific discovery should be taught in schools—and that includes evolution.
The astronaut, now 93 with fading eyesight and hearing, told The Associated Press in a recent interview that he sees no contradiction between believing in God and believing in evolution.


I have to say, in many way John Glenn reflects my feelings on the subject as well. I don't like religion, but there is a gut feeling I think we all feel from time to time that makes us admire what is around us. It's hard as a physicist to not gawk at the universe.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
"Evolution isn't about playing one hand of blackjack though, its about playing lots and lots of hands, over a very long period of time."

Another example of you taking a quote out of context, totally skewing the the intentions of the author.


I've followed her research for at least a decade and I placed Danielle's quote into this context.

"The re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum over the weekend eliminated the millions of years that evolutionary theorists claim can lead to one species becoming another. All morphological and behavioral phenotypes are ecological adaptations."

She has studied birds and primates that clearly are differentiated by chromosomal rearrangements, not via mutations and evolution.

https://scholar.g...as_sdtp=
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) May 27, 2015
"Evolution isn't about playing one hand of blackjack though, its about playing lots and lots of hands, over a very long period of time."

Another example of you taking a quote out of context, totally skewing the the intentions of the author.


I've followed her research for at least a decade and I placed Danielle's quote into this context.

"The re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum over the weekend eliminated the millions of years that evolutionary theorists claim can lead to one species becoming another. All morphological and behavioral phenotypes are ecological adaptations."

That's your quote, not hers. You really are shameless.

antigoracle
not rated yet May 28, 2015
Friend, the only god that creates via evolution is the atheistic god.

For God's sake, grow a brain.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) May 28, 2015
Random event can create only informatrional noice. Begin to rearange randomly very complicated machine like the most simple single celled organism and wait to improve it functionality. It is guaranteed that this previously unseen miracle will not happen but the machine quicly will become incapacitated and wll stop functioning. Mutation like random events can not add new information in the system. They can only destroy available information and increase disorder in the system.
JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) May 28, 2015
@ viko_mx
Since your thoughts are obviously echoed in all the extant literature on biologically-based cause and effect, I think the problem here is that theorists cannot understand the fact that proper DNA organization is required for cell's normal functioning.

See for instance: The Histone Chaperones FACT and Spt6 Restrict H2A.Z from Intragenic Locations http://www.scienc...1500221X

Indeed, that fact suggests that the brain is non-functional in theorists. See for instance: Brain signals contain the code for your next move http://medicalxpr...ode.html The fact that the epigenetic landscape is linked to the physical landscape of organized DNA in all genera via RNA-mediated events is missing from their theories.

Thus, the next move of all theorists is always the same. They insist others should believe in ridiculous theories, and that those who do not are biologically uninformed science idiots.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) May 28, 2015
If one wants to use the term "scientific fact" wrt a theory, then that theory requires verifiability for future events.

It depends on what you mean by "future event." You could have a theory that predicts that evidence of some past event will be discovered in the future. In that case, Evolution satisfies this in spades. But it also makes and made predictions for future events. Here, take a look, http://answersins...nce.html

Now, obviously, preempting a discovery is a far greater sign of efficacy of a theory than predicting an already observed effect. But I would still argue that, even if it predicts something that is already known, depending on the circumstances, it could still be counted as evidence. For example, if you attempt to make a theory to explain high temperature superconducting without gravity as an input term, and gravity is a consequence of the theory, that should be considered evidence that you're on to something.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
http://rna-mediated.com/
KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE
ALSO KNOWN PHISHING / CREATIONIST / SPAMMING site

You are linking to a KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE/PHISHING site
This entire comment is also CROSS POSTED multiple times

if you had legitimate science backing up your pheromones you would link to reputable journals, NOT self promoting self owned PHISHING sites
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

reported
AGAIN

there is no doubt that there is some science in what you say, jk
but unless you can link REPUTABLE journals that are not sites created just to glorify yourself and PHISH data track people etc, then i will report this link WHENEVER it is posted

thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) May 28, 2015
Interesting, ….but that arbitrarily makes it contingent upon our sense of bewilderment, when in fact the history of science has shown over and over that that is precisely what occurs in science, de facto…[falsification of a theory leads to puzzlement].

Well, I was originally going to disagree with you, because my impromptu definition specifically calls for the falsification to be far more puzzling than its verification. I don't think you could call any "science" dreamed up by Aristotle, which, unfortunately dominated scientific "understanding" for centuries, the state of knowledge--at least not objectively verified knowledge. I would argue that it is somewhat unfair to make your characterization, since much of science history is skewed by humans not quite understanding how science works in the first place. In this sense, I am discounting much of science history.

(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) May 28, 2015
(continued)
That being said, your point still applies to today. One thing that comes to mind is gravitational waves. GR is a very successful theory, so much so that we consider it fact. Thus, if gravitational waves waves were not detected, it would certainly be greatly puzzling. The question is, how puzzling would it be? Would it shake the foundations of science? While it would be disastrous for cosmology, I am not sure it would be THAT bad. I am not even certain it would mean we'd have to discard GR. Indeed, GR is so successful, it would probably be unwise to do so.

So, maybe my definition needs some amending. Here's version 2.0:
Something is scientific fact if its falsification would conflict with the majority of related experimental results and observations.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 28, 2015
A serious scientist responded:
@jk
i can't believe you were actually STUPID enough to post that link
because it direftly refutes you and your claims: from your own link where you are saying the "serious scientists" responded
Every once in a while, a deleterious mutation will interact with other mutations in a way that makes them more beneficial together; interactions such as these are known in the literature as "epistatic" mutations. These rare, but historic events are pathways to essential variation in evolving populations that may become evolutionarily stuck otherwise. Furthermore, it's impossible to predict *which* deleterious mutation will be the lucky one. But one thing from my work is clear: deleterious mutations do provide essential variation needed by evolving populations.
and again, because you cannot comprehend your own field (or read, apparently), you have debunked YOURSELF with your own reference link!

epic!
and really funny, too
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 28, 2015
I've followed her research for at least a decade and I placed Danielle's quote into this context
@jk
you also tried a fast one above and got caught by taking ONE quote out of context that you THOUGHT supported your claims, but when anyone reads further on, it shows that she, like actual scientists (from Lenski, Dr. Extavour and Jones) follow the evidence

like i have stated many times: there is some science in what you say
HOWEVER
your insistence that all mutations are pathological is your undoing
plus, your insistence on creationist ideals/dogma proves that you are NOT a scientists of any professional caliber
to be continued
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 28, 2015
@jk continued
She has studied birds and primates that clearly are differentiated by chromosomal rearrangements, not via mutations and evolution
from YOUR link of her work
But one thing from my work is clear: deleterious mutations do provide essential variation needed by evolving populations.
IOW - jk, you are trying to use this good work as support for your claims, but are failing miserably

if i were to contact Dr. Whittaker and ask if she believes like you that all mutations are pathological, what do you think she will state?
i can guess: she will send me the SAME link you gave above, because it specifically states that she not only disagrees with you, but it spells out that she UNDERSTANDS that mutations (and even deleterious mutations) can be beneficial

quit trying to justify your ideology and religion
there is no room for religion in science

another epic fail for jk
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 28, 2015
one last point to jk
I've followed her research for at least a decade and I placed Danielle's quote into this context.

"The re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum over the weekend eliminated the millions of years that evolutionary theorists claim can lead to one species becoming another. All morphological and behavioral phenotypes are ecological adaptations."
i will forward this to her and ask if this is a correct assumption
Hopefully we will get a reply

if this is your "interpretation" of what she states, we can already see it is wrong
1- as Vietvet points out- this is NOT one of her quotes
2- she has already stated a direct contradiction of your claim as i quoted from her above
3- trying to push your ideology onto another person and claiming it is their words is called a LIE

hopefully she will answer and give specific feedback regarding your comments

so far, you are still batting 100% FAILURE in your interpretations of other scientific works, jk
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) May 28, 2015
Interesting, ….but that arbitrarily makes it contingent upon our sense of bewilderment, when in fact the history of science has shown over and over that that is precisely what occurs in science, de facto…[falsification of a theory leads to puzzlement].


[...] I don't think you could call any "science" dreamed up by Aristotle […] I would argue that it is somewhat unfair to make your characterization, since much of science history is skewed by humans not quite understanding how science works in the first place.

I was not thinking of Aristotle, but actually the early history of quantum theory, as it was quite puzzling that classical physics failed to model black-body radiation, the photo-electric effect, the equipartition theorem,… especially given at the time it was a consensus that physics was 'complete' in terms of understanding.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) May 28, 2015
If one wants to use the term "scientific fact" wrt a theory, then that theory requires verifiability for future events.

It depends on what you mean by "future event." You could have a theory that predicts that evidence of some past event will be discovered in the future. In that case, Evolution satisfies this in spades

If evolution predicts something that has not already been used in developing that theory, then I must concede your excellent point here.

I would still argue that, even if it predicts something that is already known, depending on the circumstances, it could still be counted as evidence

Yes, valid scientific evidence. My point was that if that evidence is itself used to formulate a theory, this is a hypothesis or retrodiction, that still requires verification to become scientific fact. However, you have already rendered this point superfluous wrt evolution.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) May 28, 2015
[…] if gravitational waves waves were not detected, it would certainly be greatly puzzling. The question is, how puzzling would it be? […] While it would be disastrous for cosmology, I am not sure it would be THAT bad. I am not even certain it would mean we'd have to discard GR. Indeed...

It would still be a valid theory, experimentally verified, within its new found realm of applicability,…. Just as Newtonian gravitation was not discarded once GR was formulated,.... only it's realm of applicability was defined better.
If GW were not detected, it would be an opportunity to learn something new, or to refine understanding.
..version 2.0:
Something is scientific fact if its falsification would conflict with the majority of related experimental results and observations.

That may be a tautology. It's easier to just say that 'scientific fact' requires that the theory be subjected to verification that is independent of evidence used to formulate it.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) May 28, 2015
...... for example, once Einstein found the final form of the field equations, he was not finished,.... despite Hilbert submitting his paper Einstein continued to work, to find experimental evidence to verify GR that was independent of the facts used to establish that theory,... namely the precession of Mercury.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) May 28, 2015
I would not be surprised that in these fragments that scientists are considered as "unnecessary" or "junk" DNA because their lack of knowedge and understanding, the Creator is encoded important messages addressed to a skeptical atheistic minded scientists.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) May 28, 2015
I would not be surprised that in these fragments that scientists are considered as "unnecessary" or "junk" DNA because their lack of knowedge and understanding, the Creator is encoded important messages addressed to a skeptical atheistic minded scientists.

I understand that those are English words, but am not certain you are writing in English.
JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) May 28, 2015
viko_mx provides excellent representations of what is known despite the language barrier.

Unfortunately, most people have been taught to believe in too much pseudoscientific nonsense, so they cannot understand anything the makes sense to serious scientists. See for comparison:

Viral Genome Junk Is Bunk http://www.icr.or...cle/8661 AND

http://rna-mediat...-theory/
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
@JVK

Linking to a creationist blog and to your blog is an act of desperation. If you had any valid evidence it would come a high impact peer reviewed journal.

Another huge failure.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
1- as Vietvet points out- this is NOT one of her quotes
2- she has already stated a direct contradiction of your claim as i quoted from her above
3- trying to push your ideology onto another person and claiming it is their words is called a LIE


She has never contradicted any of my claims and is one of my strongest supporters via her published works. You and others are placing her works into the context of ridiculous theories with your "twist to fit" approach. Try doing that with this one:

Bird odour predicts reproductive success http://www.scienc...13003473

I was introduced to Danielle because Donna Maney was familiar with her links to my model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled cell type differentiation. See also, this published work from Donna's group.

Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes http://www.pnas.o...abstract
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) May 28, 2015
"Perhaps the biggest reason that so many theories within the overall theory of evolution collapse is because they contain terrible logic requiring great leaps in faith to believe. Here is one example of a "debunked" theory: "Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: 'Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative.' 'Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's closest relative.' 'Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man's closest relative.' 'On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man's closest relative'"
So monkeys is so close relative to human as every other species from the mammals and not only. The list with such examples is very long.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
Re: Bird odour predicts... http://www.scienc...13003473 and ... polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes http://www.pnas.o...abstract

My antagonists have enjoyed linking their comments on my published works to the atheist blogger PZ Myers' site: http://freethough...s-place/

If you have time to look at my last few posts, before I was banned, you may be able to determine why I was banned. Myers' claimed I was a homophobe.

Whittaker's and Maney's works link nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled feedback loops to RNA-mediated chromatin loops and the 3D chromosomal rearrangements that differentiate the cell types of white-throated sparrows with differences in behavior and morphology in the same species (and in all vertebrates).

We predicted that in our 1996 review. I extended the facts to human sexual orientation.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
Viral Genome Junk Is Bunk http://www.icr.or...cle/8661

http://rna-mediat...-theory/
And AGAIN, reported
for linking PSEUDOSCIENCE and PHISHING SITES
She has never contradicted any of my claims and is one of my strongest supporters via her published works.
i did you one better: instead of reading what you THINK supports your own BS and creationist idealism, i simply wrote to her and asked her to clarify based upon not only your specific comments above but your interpretations of her work as you noted above with your quote that is NOT found on her site or in her work

ALSO
she sent an auto reply
I am traveling through June 1, and will be checking my email less frequently than usual. I will answer your
email as soon as I can
I prefer direct confirmation
NOT your interpretations of what she said

we shall see, hopefully
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
another point
If you have time to look at my last few posts, before I was banned, you may be able to determine why I was banned. Myers' claimed I was a homophobe.
i HAVE seen your posts, and they do contribute a homophobic stupidity that can only be taken as crackpot as well as prejudiced

your comments are still available to those who actually know how to use the internet
We predicted that in our 1996 review. I extended the facts to human sexual orientation
i have never complained about your actual attempts at science
i have only complained about your intentional CREATIONIST and other NON SCIENTIFIC diatribes that you continual spill out here on PO

including the fact that you still haven't been able to convince or demonstrate human pheromones with any scientific credulity
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

so name dropping and attempts to appeal to authority (self or otherwise) are falling on deaf ears

JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
Linking to a creationist blog and to your blog is an act of desperation. If you had any valid evidence it would come a high impact peer reviewed journal.


Re: I extended the facts from our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review and another invited review in Neuroendocrionology Letters to human sexual orientation. See this award-winning review: Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology. http://www.sexarc...kohl.htm]http://www.sexarc...kohl.htm[/url]

See also my award-winning book chapter from the Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality. Author's copy here: The Mind's Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences http://www.sexarc...kohl.htm]http://www.sexarc...kohl.htm[/url]

Rarely does valid evidence that refutes neo-Darwinian dogma appear in a high impact peer reviewed journal. When it does, it invariably can be linked to my model. That's because their is no other model of biologically-based cause and effect. Biodiversity is biophysically constrained and RNA-mediated.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) May 28, 2015
Evolutionist forget the fact that human and aninal species live in the same world and shere the same physical conditions in the living environment. So their obiological organization and functionality must be close to each other. The purpose and function determine the construction and organization of bioplogical information. This reality give direct evidence for our common Creator.

The consrtuction of eye indicate that our closest relatives are octopuses. And so on....
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
...your posts... contribute a homophobic stupidity that can only be taken as crackpot as well as prejudiced


In his book "Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation" Simon Levay said this about my model.

(p. 210) 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 an arbitrary collage of male and female characteristics. If all these characteristics come to be attractive because they were experienced in association with a male- or female-specific pheromone, then they will naturally go together even in the absence of complex genetically coded instructions."

He added caveats that have since been eliminated from consideration.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) May 28, 2015
More that that... For analogous structures in humans and in animals respond different genes that have no familial relationship to each other. The mess in homology is complete and it is in state of stupor.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
Re: "...caveats that have since been eliminated from consideration."

viko_mx is trying to inform others about these. See "Role of olfaction in Octopus vulgaris reproduction" http://www.scienc...14004006

It cites my 2013 review and the article by Elekonich and Robinson that linked our 1996 review to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in insects via their nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled hormone-organized and hormone-activated behaviors.

See also: http://perfumingt...thology/

Excerpt: "The molecular mechanisms that link olfaction to the experience-dependent de novo creation of odor receptor genes in insects and all mammals are conserved. Nutrient-dependent RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions link the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding via fixation of the amino acid substitutions..."
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
The mess in homology is complete and it is in state of stupor.


The exception to this is that the need for proper DNA organization is required for cell's normal functioning was reported. See: http://www.ircm.q...FLG=1033

Mutations perturb DNA organization, which is why they cannot be linked by serious scientists to the evolution of biodiversity -- except by loss of function and/or pathology. That is not the same as claiming that "...,genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world." http://www.amazon...99661731

It is the same as claiming that ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations via the nutrient-dependent physiology of RNA-mediated metabolic and genetic networks and fixation of amino acid substitutions.
http://www.ncbi.n...3960065/
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (6) May 28, 2015
If you have time to look at my last few posts, before I was banned, you may be able to determine why I was banned.


Well alrighty Skippy I look at them. Best I am able to determine is you got banneded because your silly looking pointy cap was distracting to the smart peoples posting there. And I am sure the goofy looking pictures of you that you keep putting up probably did not help either too.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
Well alrighty Skippy I look at them.


Thanks. Obviously, I should have specifically addressed those who are not biologically uninformed science idiots. Having someone like you look at the posts of other biologically uninformed science idiots is useless.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
Simon Levay said this about my model
@jk
so what?
just because one person quotes you doesn't mean you are correct
again, i point out that you have been debunked
http://www.socioa...ew/24367

you also cannot prove to the standards required for scientific integrity that human pheromones exist:
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

that means, you are MAYBE sporting a hypothesis
but considering you've been debunked already, that means you are promoting PSEUDOSCIENCE

http://perfumingt...thology/
SELF PROMOTING SPAM
PHISHING PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE that supports CREATIONIST IDEALS

reported
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
Mutations perturb DNA organization, which is why they cannot be linked by serious scientists to the evolution of biodiversity -- except by loss of function and/or pathology
@jk
wait a minute: YOUR MODEL CAUSES MUTATIONS
therefore your model can only cause loss of function and pathology per your own comments

also, you stated that Dr. Whittaker is
A serious scientist
your words ABOVE
then you LINK one of her articles that states
one thing from my work is clear: deleterious mutations do provide essential variation needed by evolving populations.
she also supports Lenski's work and she also believes in beneficial mutations

all that per her own link that YOU GAVE

so we can conclusively show that:
1- you are either illiterate
or
2- cannot comprehend scientific papers
or
3- you don't know WHAT you are talking about

or is it simply that your religion is getting in the way?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
YOUR MODEL CAUSES MUTATIONS


How could a model cause mutations? Why do you keep repeating that claim?

Nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated gene duplications are linked via viral microRNAs to mutations and loss of function. That fact links loss of function mutations to ecological adaptations via nutrient-dependent microRNAs, not via mutations.

Nutrient-dependent microRNAs link changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance to the de novo creation of genes that link nutrient uptake to the physiology of reproduction and fixation of nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions.

All that is explained in my invited review of nutritional epigenetics:

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

Nothing about biophysically constrained cell type differentiation has been explained by evolutionary theorists.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
I recommend that anyone who is being taught or is teaching others about the pseudoscientific nonsense that links mutations to the evolution of biodiversity take a few minutes to briefly review what is known to serious scientists about biologically-based cause and effect.

What are microRNAs? http://www.exiqon...icroRNAs

Excerpt: MicroRNAs have been shown to be involved in a wide range of biological processes such as cell cycle control, apoptosis and several developmental and physiological processes including stem cell differentiation, hematopoiesis, hypoxia, cardiac and skeletal muscle development, neurogenesis, insulin secretion, cholesterol metabolism, aging, immune responses and viral replication. In addition, highly tissue-specific expression and distinct temporal expression patterns during embryogenesis suggest that microRNAs play a key role in the differentiation and maintenance of tissue identity."

I recommend that others stop commenting.
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
"MicroRNAs constitute a recently discovered class of non-coding RNAs that play key roles in the regulation of gene expression. Acting at the post-transcriptional level, these fascinating molecules may fine-tune the expression of as much as 30% of all mammalian protein-encoding genes."
http://www.exiqon...icroRNAs

And the other 70%?

Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
@JVK



I recommend that others stop commenting.


I recommend you stop taking quotes out of context and falsely claiming real scientists support your model. I recommend you stop spamming with your blogs and links to creationist sites.

Another thing, stop batting your eyelashes at jonhew, it's embarrassing
.http://medicalxpr...ode.html
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
Re:
...these fascinating molecules may fine-tune the expression of as much as 30% of all mammalian protein-encoding genes.


Vietvet asked: And the other 70%?

Thanks for asking.

The other 70% have already been fixed in the organized genomes of mammals via their nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction.

How can anyone not already know that. I've repeatedly cited Dobzhansky (1973): "... the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla" (p. 127). http://www.jstor..../4444260

It's the amino acid substitutions that are fixed that differentiate species. Those that aren't fixed in a species differentiate the cell types of individuals and populations. See for example, anything that links nutritional epigenetics to pharmacogenomics via metabolic and genetic networks.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
stop batting your eyelashes at jonhew, it's embarrassing


You are an embarrassment to humanity. John Hewitt is one of very few people who understands how quantum physics is linked from olfaction to cell type differentiation. The same morons, like you, who participate here anonymously, attacked him in discussions of facts about physics.

See also: Solving Biology's Mysteries Using Quantum Mechanics: The new field of quantum biology applies the craziness of quantum physics to biology's most fundamental processes. http://discoverma...tum-life

John Hewitt could have added substantially to the accurate representations made in that article, and also addressed any misrepresentations. But, why bother? The biologically uniformed science idiots trample all over the facts. Like you, they want everyone to remain ignorant enough to continue to believe in pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and evolution.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
I recommend you stop taking quotes out of context and falsely claiming real scientists support your model.


I provided a link to the best representation I have found of what serious scientists know about microRNAs. Everything known supports my model of how ecological variation is linked to ecological adaptation via nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and the physiology of nutrient-dependent reproduction.

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

Excerpt: "This atoms to ecosystems model of ecological adaptations links nutrient-dependent epigenetic effects on base pairs and amino acid substitutions to pheromone-controlled changes in the microRNA / messenger RNA balance and chromosomal rearrangements."
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
How could a model cause mutations? Why do you keep repeating that claim?
1- your model utilizes mutations (better?)
2- those are YOUR words of admission, and the comment i use is a shortened version of a conversation that you and i had where you self-admitted that your model utilities mutations as well as admits that without mutations, your model is worthless
3- the conversation also showed that you are not capable of admission of mutations in your model unless specifically using the definition and refraining from using the WORD mutation because your illogical faith-based fears as well as your lack of knowledge regarding the nomenclature/lexicon of the field of biology

that is why you intentionally flood the site with word-salads which confuse as well as irritate
that is also why you are so verbose instead of utilizing certain known and defined words that specifically mean certain things, like the word "mutation"
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
@jk contd
That fact links loss of function mutations to ecological adaptations via nutrient-dependent microRNAs, not via mutations.
that is where you are wrong
you said yourself it uses mutations
remember when 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 again, you fail
also, your model has been picked apart by a biologist: http://www.socioa...ew/24367
IOW- you've been debunked, and you've still not recovered from it
you can't effectively answer nor comprehend the refute so you are trying to distract away from that with flooded links and verbose word salads

by the way: you claim that biologists who "believe" in mutations are stupid/wrong or uninformed: why not tell Dr. Whittaker that?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
@jk contd
I recommend that anyone who is being taught or is teaching others about the pseudoscientific nonsense that links mutations to the evolution of biodiversity take a few minutes to briefly review what is known to serious scientists about biologically-based cause and effect.
i will forward your requests to Dr. Whittaker and tell her that you say she is wrong in her work

How is that?
i will also tell her that you said to: stop commenting

you've already been proven wrong by everyone who has given a return comment regarding your "interpretations" of their work... in fact, you have a 100% failure rate when interpreting other people work so far

and that is being nice, btw

why say that everyone else in the world is wrong BUT you?
is this a psychological problem?

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
they want everyone to remain ignorant enough to continue to believe in pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and evolution.
first of all, the only reason you are likely still posting at this site is because you are being protected (or you are providing major sources of funding to the site)
THAT was proven in another thread

secondly: your links to Dr. Whittaker specifically show that Dr. Whittaker is a mutation supporting experimental specialist as well as supporting Lenski's work with her own experiments

Why are you not denigrating her here like you did Dr. Extavour when Dr. Extavour specifically stated that you were wrong?

because, from everything that has been posted to date, especially using the links YOU gave for Dr. Whittaker, she refutes your "mutations are always pathological" belief system

i am curious to know the real reasons

it would help my psyche study of you if you were more forthcoming about your choices like that
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
the only reason you are likely still posting at this site is because you are being protected (or you are providing major sources of funding to the site)


It's interesting that you think I'm being protected at the same time I am helping to protect phys.org from the proliferation of comments by other biologically uninformed science idiots, like you. For comparison, I suspect that serious scientists know how much effort "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" takes. http://www.scienc...88.short

Serious scientists have seen people like Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) try to quietly withdraw at the same time you keep citing his ridiculous "Criticisms" of my model. Eventually, you will be the only biologically uninformed science idiot who posts your ridiculous comments here.

Phys.org may never become a venue for intelligent discussion of biological facts, but it will certainly become a venue that exposes people like you to ridicule.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
why say that everyone else in the world is wrong BUT you?


That's not what I am saying. My claims are based on factual representations of what is currently known about the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding and amino acid substitutions that stabilize the organized genomes of all genera via their physiology of reproduction, which enables fixation of the amino acid substitutions.

Not one week goes by before someone else reports that their experimental evidence attests to that fact.

Rarely does more than one day go by before you repeatedly claim that the experimental evidence does not attest to the facts that link nutritional epigenetics to pharmacogenomics via what is known about nutrient-dependent metabolic networks and genetic networks.

Tell people the real reason you don't want them to look at the information at RNA-mediated.com or to see what comes up in a search for "RNA mediated"
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
Re:
the real reason you don't want them to look at the information at RNA-mediated.com or to see what comes up in a search for "RNA mediated"


The real reason that biologically uninformed science idiots don't want you to see the information about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation that is readily available, is that the information proves they are biologically uninformed science idiots.

The information is the difference between being "right" or "wrong." Neo-Darwinian theorists have always been wrong. Darwin's 'conditions of life' are nutrient-dependent and evolution is not mutation-driven. Ecological adaptations are "driven" by the availability of food and RNA-mediated protection of organized genomes and RNA-mediated DNA repair.

http://rna-mediated.com/
http://www.rnasociety.org/
https://www.googl...mediated
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
Serious scientists have seen people like Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) try to quietly withdraw


Don't put words in my mouth. Though I know you can't help but do that, considering all the words you've put in scientists' mouths over the years, prior to me and Stumpy emailing them (Chelo, Extavour, etc.). I'm not "withdrawing".
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
Ecological adaptations are "driven" by the availability of food


Then all of Lenski's populations should have acquired the same citrate adaptation. They all had identical genetics to begin with and all had identical environments. Your claims that the environment and nutrients deterministically drives adaptation is easily refuted by examples of adaptive radiation in static conditions.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
I'm not "withdrawing".


Thanks. Why have you been so quiet? Did someone teach you that glycosylation is nutrient-dependent?

http://rna-mediat...genomes/

Excerpt: Glycosylation, the most abundant posttranslational modification, holds an unprecedented capacity for altering biological function.

Glycosylation links metabolic networks to genetic networks via the biophysically constrained chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding in all genera.

Glycosylation links the nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction to fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all genera. For examples, see: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model http://www.ncbi.n...3960065/

For an example of a biologically uniformed science idiot see the "Criticisms" of my model by anonymous_9001 http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
Your claims that the environment and nutrients deterministically drives adaptation is easily refuted by examples of adaptive radiation in static conditions.


I've mentioned this before. My claims are supported by the theory that organisms starve to death without food. I suspect that most people do not need to prove that theory, and that those, like you, who perform mutagenesis experiments, ignore it.

Speaking of glycosylation, what was it that you claimed phosphorylation doesn't do? You've made so many ridiculous claims that I can't recall.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
Did someone teach you that glycosylation is nutrient-dependent?


Cars are gas-dependent. I can make technically-true-but-meaningless statements too!

And there you go again, putting "link" between your various catchphrases and buzzwords over and over, expecting it to result in something coherent.

Edit: and there you go again with your weird insistence that neo-Darwinism somehow ignores starvation. Whatever that's supposed to mean.

YOU made the claim that phosphorylation causes amino acid substitutions. I pointed out that it's merely a method of post-translational modification:

http://phys.org/n...lls.html
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
https://www.faceb..._comment

See also the automatically linked article to this FB group post: http://phys.org/n...alt.html

Conclusion: There could be differences between signals that drive assembly after DNA damage and other stimuli like stress, nutrient starvation, or retinoic acid signaling." Nutrient stress and/or social stress are predictably linked to the failure of fixation that is required for amino acid substitutions to stabilize organized genomes.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
YOU made the claim that phosphorylation causes amino acid substitutions.


I made the claim that phosphorylation is linked to fixation of the amino acid substitutions that differentiate nutrient-dependent cell types.

You claimed
Phosphorylation as a means of protein regulation does not involve substituting amino acids and especially does not involve making genomic changes.


Now that you've learned about glycosylation, you continue to misrepresent what I have detailed. Is there a reason I should respond to your ridiculous tactical maneuvers?

Tell us how cell type differentiation occurs, not what doesn't happen.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
http://phys.org/n...l#inlRlv
"Anytime we can learn about a new way that genes are regulated, it has the potential to inform how we design therapeutics and how we can reverse disease states," she said.

"We" does not apply to those who remain biologically uninformed science idiots. Anytime they read about any new way that genes are regulated they try to put what's new into the context of their ridiculous theories. Anonymous_9001 does that by providing links to articles, without telling us how cell type differentiation occurs. The articles link cell type differentiation to mutations, not glycosylation. Watch for them.

anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
I made the claim that phosphorylation is linked to fixation of the amino acid substitutions that differentiate nutrient-dependent cell types.


Immediately after I called you out again on using "link" in place of actually using detail. Seriously?

HOW is phosphorylation linked to fixation?

What is the mechanism by which amino acid substitutions and DNA base substitutions are made in your model?

Tell us how cell type differentiation occurs, not what doesn't happen.


http://en.wikiped...ntiation

The process by which stem cells become specialized is a well detailed process. Note the "Mechanisms" section.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
The process by which stem cells become specialized is a well detailed process. Note the "Mechanisms" section.


Not only are you a biologically uninformed science idiot you are a wiki-idiot who knows nothing about how cell type differentiation occurs.

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

Learn first, then ask questions about what you do not understand, so others will see that you can't understand it or are willing to admit that now you do.

anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
Learn first, then ask questions about what you do not understand


Take your own advice. I'd start here. They contain far more detail than any number of your papers could ever hope to have:

https://books.goo...90675710
https://books.goo...21308844

Are you still under the impression that differentiation involves making changes to the genome?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
Should I bring up your correspondence with Sean Pitman again where you mistakenly thought Lenski's E. coli gained a new olfactory receptor instead of just having a change in the regulatory region?

http://www.educat...nicorns/

How many times are you going to make these basic mistakes before you self-assess and realize you are just awful at interpreting what you read?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
why say that everyone else in the world is wrong BUT you?

That's not what I am saying
@jk
really?
shall i flood the site with your actual comments?

because i have more than thirty threads where you've made blanket comments that specifically state that anyone learning biology now and learning about mutations are "biologically uninformed idiots", kinda like this comment
You would rather believe that the E. coli mutated than accept the fact that mutations perturb protein folding, which means they cannot be beneficial
now, you have made this statement while ignoring the empirical evidence as well as your own model which has mutations

therefore, it really IS what you are saying

Plus, you have stated that anyone that believes in mutations and evolution is an idiot: whereas every attempt you use to refute either contains debunked info or creationist idealism and pseudoscience
that is NOT science, that is basically a lie wrapped in religious dogma
cont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 29, 2015
@jk cont'd
now, i have feedback from Dr. Whittaker and i will post it VERBATIM (excluding the request for permission)
Dear Stumpy,

Thanks for your email. I am familiar with James V. Kohl, as my own research focuses on chemical communication and behavior in birds, and we have been at one or two of the same conferences (I believe I met him at the Association for Chemoreception Sciences conference a few years ago).

The BEACON blog post that he linked to was not written by me - I am the managing director for the center, and I run the blog (hence my name associated with each post), but each blog post is by a different researcher with our center. The top line on that particular post notes that it is cross-posted from another blog written by Art Covert, who was a postdoc in our center at the time. Thus attributing the quote to me and tying it to my research on birds and primates is bizarre, as these things are entirely unrelated.
to be cont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 29, 2015
@jk cont'd
The paragraph that he chose to quote is taken out of context ("Mutations are rare; getting two mutations is even rarer...."), as I believe you have already noticed. The very next paragraph begins "Evolution isn't about playing one hand of blackjack though, its about playing lots and lots of hands, over a very long period of time. On a long enough timescale, you will eventually see one of these rare chance events."

I don't understand what the second quote "The re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum over the weekend..." is referring to. It is also clearly out of context and unrelated to anything else being discussed in this particular thread. I just did a Google search and found several other science articles where he has commented saying something similar, ...
to be continued
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 29, 2015
@jk cont'd
I don't understand what the second quote "The re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum over the weekend..." is referring to. It is also clearly out of context and unrelated to anything else being discussed in this particular thread. I just did a Google search and found several other science articles where he has commented saying something similar, and seems to be referring to this article, in which Rich Lenksi comments on a paper in which flagellar motility returned to Pseudomonas after a gene was deleted: http://www.the-sc...ewiring/

That study is an interesting example of a beneficial mutation, as I understand it.


To be continued
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 29, 2015
@jk cont'd
I appreciate you taking the time to reach out to me. Our center, the BEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action, is dedicated to research and education about evolution. Accurate science communication is very important, and we work hard to talk about our research in accessible ways and share it with the public. It is always distressing to see quotes taken out of context to further someone's non-scientific agenda, but we do see it happen from time to time.

Sincerely,
Danielle
So again, jk, i have shown that you are not only misinterpreting other people's work, but you are taking quotes out of context and attempting to assign or infer meaning that is not there.

basically, you like to try to support your religious belief with science, and that is not only impossible, but also not scientific

to be continued
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 29, 2015
@jk cont'd - last post

and please feel free to contact Dr. Whittaker directly so that you know i am not hiding anything or misrepresenting her e-mail or correspondence, as you have intimated that you are on familiar (or friendly) ground with her.

what i have just (again) demonstrated above is that your accuracy & ability to comprehend science is limited by your religious beliefs, which interfere with your knowledge

again, your insistence that all mutations are deleterious & pathological is scientifically and experimentally proven inaccurate, just like your creationist dogma is proven as pseudoscience and lies

one last point: your FB link (again) above is being REPORTED
FB is NOT a science site, nor does it in ANY way constitute a reputable science link

I really enjoy the Beacon site and i've not been familiar with it in the past, so i do owe you a thanks for showing that page off

sincere Thanks to Dr. Whittaker for her feedback
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 29, 2015
How many times are you going to make these basic mistakes before you self-assess and realize you are just awful at interpreting what you read?
@ANON
LOL
he doesn't take his own advice
see my posts above and your e-mail (i sent you a copy)
The process by which stem cells become specialized is a well detailed process. Note the "Mechanisms" section

Not only are you a biologically uninformed science idiot you are a wiki-idiot who knows nothing about how cell type differentiation occurs

blah blah DEBUNKED publication blah

Learn first, then ask questions about what you do not understand, so others will see that you can't understand it or are willing to admit that now you do
this is great advice, kohl
i suggest you follow it yourself

it is one reason that both ANON and I have been able to debunk everything you post that is a direct misrepresentation, misquote, out of context quote or other pseudoscience

viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
If people believe in the true living God, the Creator of this universe and the order and life within it, the autorities will lose legitimacy to the people if they do not follow God's principles and laws. But if they keep this laws and principles they will not own political and financial power to feed their ego, pride and vanity. That why they are highly interested in the spread of mass delusions as all false religions and evolutionary theories. Vanity, the sweetest human sin. But meaningless. Unfree people are highly addicted to it
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
If people believe in the true living God
@viko
1- this is a SCIENCE site, not a religious forum
2- SCIENCE is not about belief, but about evidence, experimentation, replicating results and factual data
But if they keep this laws and principles they will not own political and financial power to feed their ego, pride and vanity. That why they are highly interested in the spread of mass delusions as all false religions and evolutionary theories
as we have already proven, time and again: the only "mass delusions" being spread are religious ones

a simple test:
take your faith in your deity and pray for me to die in ten minutes

SCIENCE says that, unless otherwise interacted upon by an outside force (and given the laws of physics) then i will remain alive

if you truly have faith, then i will die

i will post here in ten minutes to prove science over religion
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
If people believe in the true living God, the Creator of this universe and the order and life within it, the autorities will lose legitimacy to the people if they do not follow God's principles and laws
@viko
well?
i've just proven that you are wrong and that you are posting about your own personal delusional belief system rather than anything scientific: what do you have to say about that?

also note-
your pontification and soliloquy's would be better served by using them in a pulpit: the whole crux of the scientific method is evidence, of which religion has none, and faith is completely without as well

the whole definition of faith requires belief WITHOUT evidence

your arguments are invalid and proven false
go argue religion elsewhere

this is a science site
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
For one short post you write several posts maxim expanded visually to mute visualy other posts. Mike apply the same troll tactic. Be a little more economical. Smart people know how with few words to say a lot. Not so inteligent people with the whole encyclopedia can not say anything important.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 29, 2015
For one short post you write several posts maxim expanded visually to mute visualy other posts. Mike apply the same troll tactic. Be a little more economical. Smart people know how with few words to say a lot. Not so inteligent people with the whole encyclopedia can not say anything important.
@viko

WTF?

translation problems?
try this: https://translate.google.com/

PS- still not dead yet

JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 29, 2015
Re:
Evolution..., its about playing lots and lots of hands.... On a long enough timescale, you will eventually see one of these rare chance events."

I don't understand what the second quote "The re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum over the weekend..." is referring to. It is also clearly out of context


I placed the over-the-weekend re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum into the context of mutations that the article claimed provided infrequent benefits over millions of years.

Either two mutations were required (in four days) or RNA-mediated nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions were the cause of the cell type differentiation and ecological adaptation that occurred in the context of fixation via the physiology of reproduction.

Anyone who claims evolution requires millions of years, when others claims re-evolution takes 4 days should not simply say that the 4 days is out of context. She admitted she knew nothing about it and should have learned.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 29, 2015
https://www.faceb...;theater

The bacterial flagellum is often referred to as a single-celled organisms motor/propeller. We now have the link from nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated pheromone-controlled re-evolution of the motor to the survival of motor neurons.

http://www.cell.c...900467-2 Excerpt: "Here, we also suggest a new mode of regulation by miRNA, one that not only mediates target expression but also controls target subcellular localization. This might also provide an explanation for why miRNAs are generally clustered in the mammalian genomes, as they may orchestrate target functions by regulating gene expression and post-translational modification in a coherent manner..."

How can biologically uninformed science idiots continue to try to convince others that mutations are coherently linked to the evolution of different species?
Vietvet
4 / 5 (8) May 29, 2015


How can biologically uninformed science idiots continue to try to convince others that mutations are coherently linked to the evolution of different species?


@JVK

In other words, Dr. Whittaker joins your list of "science idiots".

Pathetic.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 29, 2015
http://rsbl.royal...054?etoc
Excerpt: Understanding how plasticity in behaviour is generated through the interaction between genetic, epigenetic and environmental factors is a major research area in behavioural ecology [1–3].

Anyone who attributes any aspect of plasticity in behavior to mutations and evolution does not understand the fact that the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated links from protein folding to metabolic networks and genetic networks do not arise in the context of perturbed protein folding.

Danielle Whittaker should have reviewed what others have learned about ecological variation and ecological adaptations before responding to questions about my works.

Ecological variation is the raw material by which natural selection can drive evolutionary divergence [1–4]. http://rspb.royal...81.short
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) May 29, 2015
@JVK

"Danielle Whittaker should have reviewed what others have learned about ecological variation and ecological adaptations before responding to questions about my works."

You can tell Dr Whittaker what she should do directly. (djwhitta@msu.edu)

I can hear her laughter already.

TehDog
5 / 5 (8) May 29, 2015
@Jimmie baby
"Anyone who attributes any aspect of plasticity in behavior to mutations and evolution does not understand the fact that the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated links from protein folding to metabolic networks and genetic networks do not arise in the context of perturbed protein folding."

I've seen bots assemble better word salad than this. Hmm, there's a thought, macro driven auto-responder, minimal human input, maximal spam potential. There, have some word salad. More meaning there than in any of your tripe (sorry, mixed metaphor there)
TehDog
4.6 / 5 (9) May 29, 2015
I should add, JVK uses a whole bunch of macros in his posts, the phrasing is identical across most of it's posts.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 29, 2015
http://www.pnas.o...abstract miRNA proxy approach reveals hidden functions of glycosylation

Excerpt:
Mutations that compromise the enzymatic activity of B3GLCT... are the underlying
cause of Peter's Plus syndrome (21), a congenital disorder characterized by malformation of the eye (Peter's anomaly), short stature, and craniofacial features commonly including cleft palate (37). TGF-β–induced EMT plays a predominant role in both the formation of the eye (38) and the closure of the palate during embryonic development (39), and recent work has implicated B3GLCT in the secretion of thrombospondin-1, a protein involved in TGF-β activation (40).

Identifying functionally relevant glycosylation enzymes opens new avenues for therapeutics for virtually any disease (1)


Glycosylation is nutrient-dependent, and nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated events are the key to longevity that is perturbed by mutations. Salads are healthy!
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) May 30, 2015
perturbed by mutations


Would you agree that UV, X-rays, and gamma radiation produce mutations?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
Anyone who claims evolution requires millions of years, when others claims re-evolution takes 4 days should not simply say that the 4 days is out of context
@jk
first off, natural evolution is not an overnight thing, but you already know this
2- the evolution viewed in the context of computer models or even Lenski is forced as it is existing outside of nature and natural forces, like predation etc
3- i'm surprised you aren't denigrating her at this point for refuting your comments like you did when Dr. Extavour refuted your diatribe about her work
lastly- i am sure Dr. Whittaker visited this thread and viewed your comments because of her comments in my reply were, at times, beyond what was shared (i did link this thread for validation and to insure context)

therefore, the refute of your post stands
proof positive that you (STILL) have a 100% failure rate when attempting to interpret other science (or your own, for that matter)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
How can biologically uninformed science idiots continue to try to convince others that mutations are coherently linked to the evolution of different species?
@jk
now that is the typical response that i was expecting the first post, jk!

as i produced above, Dr. Whittaker (as well as Lenski and Dr. Extavour) prove that mutations are linked to evolution
therefore, you are calling Dr. Whittaker a "biologically uninformed science idiot" now

perhaps you should retract your statement (or at least apologize)?
after all, that was the whole reason for the inquiry to Dr. Whittaker: to demonstrate your inability to separate your religion from science and your inability to comprehend mutations

by the way, considering your model: You ALSO support mutations in evolution-per your own words
shall i show you that again?
the argument you failed to comprehend (still fail to comprehend) regarding the definition of mutation?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
cont'd to little jimmy
you state here
Danielle Whittaker should have reviewed what others have learned about ecological variation and ecological adaptations before responding to questions about my works
yet Dr. Whittaker states, in her reply
I don't understand what the second quote "The re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum over the weekend..." is referring to. It is also clearly out of context and unrelated to anything else being discussed in this particular thread. I just did a Google search and found several other science articles where he has commented saying something similar, and seems to be referring to this article, in which Rich Lenksi comments on a paper in which flagellar motility returned to Pseudomonas after a gene was deleted: http://www.the-sc...ewiring/

That study is an interesting example of a beneficial mutation, as I understand it.
IOW- she visited THIS thread and googled YOUR work before commenting

EPIC FAIL for jk
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
@jk cont'd
let me SPECIFICALLY point you to the relevant part of the above
It is also clearly out of context and unrelated to anything else being discussed in this particular thread
but that is NOT all, also re-read the part
I just did a Google search and found several other science articles where he has commented saying something similar, and seems to be referring to this article, in which Rich Lenksi comments on a paper in which flagellar motility returned to Pseudomonas after a gene was deleted:

http://www.the-sc...ewiring/
and then concluded with
That study is an interesting example of a beneficial mutation, as I understand it
so where is the confusion, jk?
what part of that is your mensa brain having issues comprehending?

i guess now you will take to serious denigration of Dr. Whittaker like you did with Dr. Extavour...

be very, VERY careful of your pejorative replies about her, though, because she is tougher than you will ever be
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
I should add, JVK uses a whole bunch of macros in his posts, the phrasing is identical across most of it's posts.
@TehDog
not sure if jk is that computer literate, especially considering his failure to comprehend the basic syntax and wording of the above reply by Dr. Whittaker, so it is far more likely cut-and-paste...
OR
he has a secretary/assistant who is very literate and programmed an idiot box interface with another program that picks and pieces his word salads together

Of course, he will likely disagree, but i know for a fact that you can build a database of terms that you an integrate into word documents as well as e-mails (which means, with some simple copy/paste functions you can then transfer to a post elsewhere)
PLUS there is the flexibility of MSOffice and VBA integrated functions

you may be on to something with the macro's, but i just don't give jk that much credit
especially with his inability to comprehend basic english above

anyone else?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
"Evolution..., its about playing lots and lots of hands.... On a long enough timescale, you will eventually see one of these rare chance events."

When we talk about hands how much actualy is needed miracle to happen? 10 ^ 40 000 hands or more? This is only for emergence of the first simple single celled organism. But after that this organism must evolve according to their theory and we again need such miracles. When evolutionist repeat their mantras based of some very simple and vague notions about complexity of living organisms it seems that they have missed a century of progress in microbiology and other fundamental sciences.

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
When we talk about hands how much actualy is needed miracle to happen? 10 ^ 40 000 hands or more?
@viko
1- still not dead yet
2- still spouting gibberish... you should use Google translator or perhaps find someone more capable than yourself

as for your insistence that scientists have missed a century of progress, it is actually the creationists that are ignoring the century of progress and fundamental knowledge in this case

PS - your attempts to comment with statistics above are wrong and you can't even see why
maybe this will help?
http://www.talkor...ror.html
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
You are a wonderful person. Sunny and friendly. It is more important the spirit to lives on.
I tell you the truth to not lose the opportunity live eternal life in God's kingdom. Voluntary fool.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
You are a wonderful person. Sunny and friendly
@viko
i'm STILL not dead yet
and i already know how wonderful i am - there is no need to advertise that here
It is more important the spirit to lives on
this would hold more weight if you could demonstrate or prove with some scientific integrity that a spirit existed
I tell you the truth to not lose the opportunity live eternal life in God's kingdom
then you haven't read your own bible and you should
start with: JER 31:28 - 31:37
Voluntary fool.
i wouldn't call you a fool so much as ignorant of science
i can call you a TROLL though, as you have demonstrated this already in the past (and above)

just because YOU cannot/do not/refuse to understand something doesn't mean that no one but your god can understand it

the scientific method works
educate yourself and quit spreading lies
especially the one that your religion requires you to teach anyone anything about it
(see JER above)
JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
That study is an interesting example of a beneficial mutation, as I understand it.


If a beneficial mutation cannot be placed into the context of glycosylation and fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of all genera via the physiology of reproduction, assumptions about its benefits cannot be used to support explanations of biologically-based cause and effect.

First, you must understand that cell type differentiation is biophysically constrained by the nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated chemistry of protein folding that links metabolic networks to genetic networks via the physiology of reproduction. Then you must understand what mutations do. They perturb protein folding.

If you can't link perturbed protein folding to proper DNA organization, which is required for cell's normal functioning, you can't link mutations to the creation of new proteins and re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum in four days.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
Danielle Whttaker
That study is an interesting example of a beneficial mutation, as I understand it.


James Stumpy
first off, natural evolution is not an overnight thing, but you already know this


The report claimed that the bacterial flagellum re-evolved in 4 days. I do not understand how anyone placed that report into the context of natural evolution via beneficial mutations.

I think that is why no evolutionary theorist attempted to address the report on re-evolution in the context of any report about it.

See the Editor's Summary http://www.scienc...abstract
Excerpt: The mutations increased the levels of the co-opted regulator, then altered its specificity for the flagella pathway.

If they claimed two mutations linked glycosylation to the physiology of reproduction, their claim could be evaluated in the context of what is currently known about RNA-mediated metabolic networks and genetic networks.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) May 30, 2015
They repeat they lovely mutra for accumulation of benefical mutation but paradoxically no one takes risk to explain what are these benefical mutations regognized by international scientific community.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
If a beneficial mutation cannot be placed into the context of glycosylation and fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of all genera via the physiology of reproduction, assumptions about its benefits cannot be used to support explanations of biologically-based cause and effect
@jk
by all means, please elucidate
share with us all the justifications for your comments above

are you trying to say that it is ok to have beneficial mutations, but only if they meet YOUR model?
or are you just trying to backpedal and dig yourself out of a conundrum wrought by your mensa intellect?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
I do not understand how anyone placed that report into the context of natural evolution via beneficial mutations
@jk
we already know you don't understand
you also don't understand how mutations can be beneficial, nor how your model requires mutations
that is obvious
perhaps you should be seeking education on the subject rather than pontificating and sharing creationist dogma?
and i am being serious about that:
instead of trying to promote something that is blatantly false (like all mutations being pathological and that there are no beneficial mutations, and all mutations are deleterious)
why not educate yourself as to what is really going on?

after all, as i pointed out above:
every time you try to interpret someone else's science you are proven wrong

maybe, if you ask nicely, ANON, or RealScience will explain it to you?
or you can ask Antialias_physorg, who has a PhD in BIology
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
They repeat they lovely mutra for accumulation of benefical mutation but paradoxically no one takes risk to explain what are these benefical mutations regognized by international scientific community.
@viko
1- I'm still not dead yet
2- yes, they HAVE explained beneficial mutations
3- the "regognized"[sic] international scientific community does have a definition as well as examples of beneficial mutations
you can read more about them by searching the following:
Lenski
Dr. Extavour
Dr. Whittaker

or go here:
http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

http://www.extavourlab.com/

http://beacon-center.org/
(i'm really liking this site, so thanks to jvk for sharing the link above)

and again:
you need to find better translation software
JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
Did I mention how much fun I've been having with discussion of "Ardent Creationist Finds Fossilized Fish, Still Isn't Convinced Evolution Is Real"

http://www.huffin...084.html

No one there is going to address the report that claimed that the bacterial flagellum re-evolved in 4 days, either.

We may never known how anyone placed that report into the context of natural evolution via beneficial mutations.

That's what's magical about evolutionary theory. Give a theorist one free miracle -- like the light-induced de novo creation of amino acid substitutions -- and they will link mutations to cell type differentiation in all genera without thoughts about RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and the 4 days it took to ecologically adapt and create one of the most complex structures that evolutionary theory has been unable to explain.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 30, 2015
Did I mention how much fun I've been having...
@jk
nope
did i mention that i not only don't read huffington post, but that i don't care about what gives you your jollies?
No one there is going to address the report that claimed that the bacterial flagellum re-evolved in 4 days, either
well, so far all you have brought to the table is your debunked model, your kohl-slaw word salads, and unsubstantiated conjecture with no scientific evidence supporting your position...
so... technically, you are not addressing anything either
That's what's magical about evolutionary theory
and again, aint no magic involved
that is for religion and your arguments, especially your "god of the gaps" arguments and pseudoscience like above

just because YOU don't understand the study doesn't mean NO ONE does
nor does it mean your religious dogma is justified

or didn't you get that from the first thousand times i posted it?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
post script to jk
That's what's magical about evolutionary theory
for someone who claims mensa membership and says they work in a lab as a scientists, i find it rather odd that you are so unfamiliar with the scientific method that you would make this claim, or denigrate a Theory that is justified by not only science, but empirical evidence, observation, measurement and validated studies/data/experimentation

you like to say "theory" as though it was speculation
you "should" know what the word means when discussing the scientific method...oh, wait a minute: that's right! you problems with nomenclature/lexicons and refuse to accept definitions as utilised by your profession

so this is a "mutation" definition thing, right?
refusing to accept the definition because you don't understand?

or is this because you failed out of college?
i would like to know... it will be useful during my research
JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 30, 2015
,,,who claims mensa membership and says they work in a lab as a scientists


I have been a member of Mensa for more than 30 years and presented at regional and annual gatherings. I worked for 39 years as a medical laboratory scientist until I retired. I am still a member of the American Society for Clinical Pathology.

I claim that any biologically uniformed science idiot who cannot address the fact that ecological variation led to the de novo creation of the bacterial flagellum and that it did not "re-evolve" over the weekend, as was recently reported, should not be attempting to denigrate me or my published works by repeatedly insinuating that I am anything less than who I am.

I am the founder of the domains PerfumingtheMInd.com and RNA-mediated.com, which link the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent protein folding to the physiology of reproduction via amino acid substitutions in all genera.

Who is SSgt James Stumpy? Who cares?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 31, 2015
I have been blah blah blah blah blah [WTF? really?]
Who is SSgt James Stumpy? Who cares?
@jk
ROTFLMAO

i love it when you get personal and release data that you think will impress people in an appeal to self authority over logic, reason and common sense because you think that if you impress someone with your self-importance, it will somehow make the lies you are telling magically more scientific

only in your head, mensa boy!

i love it when you try to blow your own horn as if that somehow trumps empirical evidence and the scientific method

more importantly:
i love it when you think that the above will actually work or even matters!
nice commercial jk, however, you have no idea who i am...

thank you for proving that you have absolutely no scientific evidence to justify your beliefs
and that you continue to be a sociopathic narcissistic blowhard touting religion over science

your post speaks volumes about you
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 31, 2015
@jk
lets break things down and really take a look at what you are saying
ok, starting with the top
I have been a member of Mensa for more than 30 years and presented at regional and annual gatherings
you also failed out of college... something i've never done
lets compare notes: i have two baccalaureate degree's and i am working on another...

is this somehow supposed to show how super intelligent you are? (i've also been a member of Mensa for decades, BTW, so this is meaningless as far as some special accomplishment)
I worked for 39 years as a medical laboratory scientist until I retired. I am still a member of the American Society for Clinical Pathology
you've also lied repeatedly about your special qualifications, including an attempt to appeal to some special qualifications - diagnostician - which is felonious as it requires a license and usually a doctorate degree

this means that the bulk of your self-important horn blowing above is suspect ...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 31, 2015
@jk cont'd
I am still a member of...
this is simply another self important appeal to authority
if you have the scientific empirical evidence, and it is correct then you have a legit theory

it doesn't care if you have membership in anything or not
AND
just because you are a member doesn't mean you are correct in your assumptions!

it's like claiming that because you have a gym membership, you can run faster than Usain Bolt!
I am the founder of the domains PerfumingtheMInd.com and RNA-mediated.com
and again - being the founder of pseudoscience means what, exactly?

let's be clear:
just because you founded a dot-com site doesn't mean you are anything special: i've founded and generated a fe myself
it means exactly squat

you are the founder of a pseudo-scientific religious site with ties to creationist dogma
if it is science, it will be published peer-reviewed literature supporting your conclusions, not appeals to perfume and pseudoscience sites

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 31, 2015
@jk cont'd
denigrate me or my published works by repeatedly insinuating that I am anything less than who I am
let me specifically address this now:
i am NOT insinuating that you are not jk - that is rediculous

i am specifically stating that you have no scientific credibility for your claims and that you have no ability to interpret other scientific work
AND
i am stating that appeals to pseudoscience and religious dogma, and ANY faith based interpretation of science, is NOT SCIENCE

unless you can be validated through science (the scientific method) then your claims are no different than assuming aliens did it when you were abducted

your claims are directly AGAINST the bulk of the scientific evidence and community
appealing to self deeds means i would trust Antialias_physorg long before you, as he is a PhD - which also means that i will trust Dr. Whittaker, Dr. Extavour and Lenski over you any day of the week as well
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 31, 2015
lastly @jk
Who is SSgt James Stumpy? Who cares?
is this supposed to hurt my feelings and make me go away all teary eyed and commit seppuku?

like i said: you don't know me
even though all it would take is a semi-competent computer user 2 minutes to find enough data based upon the simple fact that i am NOT anonymous and i am using my professional name

i will thank you for opening up, though
it shows how you think, as well as demonstrates your priorities
it also demonstrates why you continually fail to reach your potential

perhaps you should get counseling and discuss your issues with a psychologist
JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2015
you have no scientific credibility for your claims


Here are links to power point slides from two different presentations of two different award-winning publications.

http://perfumingt...site.ppt
http://perfumingt...9036.ppt

See also: http://perfumingt...m/media/
JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2015
See also, the video about evolution over the weekend at

http://phys.org/n...tor.html
JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2015
you have no scientific credibility for your claims


all it would take is a semi-competent computer user 2 minutes to find enough data based upon the simple fact that i am NOT anonymous and i am using my professional name


Your "professional" name? https://www.patre...?u=98747
James Truck Captain Stumpy

Excerpt: "I lived with a pack of wolves for 10 years and I love to track. I love science and especially astrophysics, but my talents are elsewhere..."

How does being raised by wolves or being given a fire truck to play with during your recovery qualify you comment on any aspect of glycosylation, RNA-mediated cell type differentiation, or fixation of amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of all cells of all individuals of all genera, sometimes within four days?

I would ask the same thing of the KFC chicken "Colonel Sanders" if he was not still dead.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 31, 2015
Here are links to power point slides ...
@jk
this post is REPORTED for linking to a known PSEUDOSCIENCE site which caters to CREATIONIST ideals as well as KNOWN FALLACIES
it is also SELF PROMOTION and SPAM/PHISHING

it doesn't make a difference if there are any actual science links on your personal site if you also include PSEUDOSCIENCE and CREATIONIST DOGMA

also re
How does being raised by wolves blah blah blah
it doesn't
BUT
i've got 2 baccalaureates as well as certification as a Paramedic
both degree's and my cert's give me far more credibility than you regarding biological processes... plus, it doesn't take a MENSA mind to see that there is no science in creationist/7th day advent dogma
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas
even the COURTS can see there is NO SCIENCE in your movement

just because you got lucky and published one or two legit papers doesn't mean you are correct
NOR does it mean you can interpret other science
-PROVEN ABOVE
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (5) May 31, 2015
How does being raised by wolves or being given a fire truck to play with during your recovery qualify you comment on any aspect of whine whine cry cry blah blah blah
@jk
i have a better question:
how does lying about your credentials and posting publicly that you are committing a felony (your decades experience as a diagnostician) or being a glorified lab tech who sells stinky perfume make you any kind of authority capable of interpreting the scientific works of PhD's or experimental Biologists who've been degree'd as well as working in the field and garnered actual credibility?

consider this, too:
considering your attempt to appeal to self authority above and make it sound like you're intelligent and experienced (or knowledgeable)...
WHY IS IT that you have a 100% FAILURE rate when trying to interpret other scientific studies and experiments?

why can't you prove human pheromones exist?
or prove your model correct?
(see links above)
JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2015
WHY IS IT that you have a 100% FAILURE rate when trying to interpret other scientific studies and experiments?


I have a 100% success rate because no one will address re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum in 4 days. That means there is no other model of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation for comparison to my model.

That means I have interpreted the extant literature correctly, which is reflected across two decades of my published works.

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2015
Re: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Glycosylation is linked from RNA-directed DNA methylation and the microRNA/messenger RNA balance to cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all genera via the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically constrained protein biosynthesis and degradation.

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

Andrew Jones wrote: "It was a mistake to let such a sloppy review through to be published."

The editor of the journal responded that the submission: " ...was subjected to standard peer review and the revised version was accepted by me after it had been accepted by both reviewers."

SSgt James Stumpy repeatedly claimed that Jones debunked my model by claiming the review of what is currently known about cell type differentiation was "sloppy."
JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2015
i've got 2 baccalaureates as well as certification as a Paramedic
both degree's and my cert's give me far more credibility than you regarding biological processes...


Apparently, the wolves raised you well.

Given the degree of credibility you think you have gained, please tell us how the bacterial flagellum re-evolved in 4 days.

Others may want to examine your credibility in the context of your explanation compared to my details of the biophysically constrained chemistry of cell type differentiation that links RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to the morphological and behavioral diversity exemplified in all genera.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) May 31, 2015
I have a 100% success rate because
@jk
No, you don't
regardless of what you THINK you are saying:
BASED upon your own words, your own posts and your continued posting to the thread when i contacted Dr. Whittaker (did you completely miss that part where she stated
...It is also clearly out of context and unrelated to anything else being discussed in this particular thread. I just did a Google search and found several other science articles where he has commented saying something similar...
what part about "being discussed in this thread" or "google search... where he has commented" did you not understand?

perhaps you are simply not being clear?

are you assuming something is not known? or that it will not be/can never be known?

you can't even be clear and concise when talking about your own model (dare i remind you about your faux pas regarding mutations?)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) May 31, 2015
That means I have interpreted the extant literature correctly, which is reflected across two decades of my published works
not according to the feedback, bubba
nice to see you can still be so narcissistic and egotistical even when proven wrong and debunked, though
http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
here is a far better link - http://www.socioa...ew/24367
it debunks your "model"
i noticed that you've not been able to provide scientific evidence or feedback refuting Jones
Also, i contacted the publication and they've told me they will be issuing an inquiry as well - but you already know that as i forwarded a copy of that to you
Apparently, the wolves raised you well
they taught me far more than you have
examine your credibility in the context of your explanation
what explanation?
show me specifically what i explained and how it is wrong

please, by all means
BE SPECIFIC
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) May 31, 2015
Stumpy repeatedly claimed that Jones debunked my model by claiming the review of what is currently known about cell type differentiation was "sloppy."
@jk
Jones said far more specific criticisms about your model in the critique i linked above
i will link it again: http://www.socioa...ew/24367
The "sloppy" comment you are referring to- you should LINK it
you argued wi/Jones about RNA and you were actually making blatantly false and stupid comments on PO

another MAJOR point
Others may want to examine your credibility...
not ONCE have i tried to use my education and credibility, certifications of anything as evidence that i am correct!
NOT ONCE
the ONLY one using that argument is you!

I specifically link science, studies or quotes which refute you and are validated!

ALL comments should be based upon their scientific merit, NOT the posters cred's

that is one reason you keep failing here, by the way

JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2015
another MAJOR point


This is the only major point. No one is acknowledging the claim about over-the-weekend re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum.

How was that linked to what is known to serious scientists, which was reported as

1) "miRNA proxy approach reveals hidden functions of glycosylation" http://www.pnas.o...abstract and in

2) Detection of Cytosine Methylation in Ancient DNA from Five Native American Populations Using Bisulfite Sequencing http://dx.doi.org....0125344

Both articles link what I detailed in my model from nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to their fixation via the physiology of reproduction and cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all genera.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2015
I specifically link science, studies or quotes which refute you and are validated!


When will biologically uninformed science idiots and evolutionary biologists learn that they cannot continue to tout their pseudoscientific nonsense at the same time reports are published about "over-the-weekend" evolution?

http://www.scienc...abstract
reported as: http://www.the-sc...ewiring/

See this comment, in addition to my comments:

"Viewed from an engineering perspective, these bacteria are provided with a carefully engineered backup system...."

Viewed from any other perspective that the engineering of a finely-tuned backup system that responds to ecological variation with the ecological adaptation of the flagellum via RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in 4 days, the other perspective is not based on anything known to serious scientists.

JVK
1 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2015
See also: Study solves mystery of memory and mood http://medicalxpr...ood.html

Mutations perturb the biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation that is required to link the conserved molecular mechanisms of learning and memory in all genera.

"The act of smelling is remarkably like the act of thinking itself" (p. 732). http://www.nejm.o...73021307

"I should think we might fairly gauge the future of biological science, centuries ahead by estimating the time it will take to reach a complete comprehensive understanding of odor. It may not seem a profound enough problem to dominate all the life sciences, but it contains, piece by piece, all the mysteries" (p. 732). -- as cited on page 24 of my first published work: "The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality" http://www.amazon...9523383X (1995/2002)
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
Re: "...these bacteria are provided with a carefully engineered backup system...."

The backup system is nutrient-dependent and could not exist outside the context of the physiology of reproduction that links its transgenerational epigenetic inheritance via glycosylation and the anti-entropic epigenetic effects of nutrient-dependent microRNAs.

Can anyone explain how such a fine-tuned system and back-up system "evolved?"

See also: Scientists demonstrate first genome methylation in fruit fly http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

Missing link found between brain, immune system http://medicalxpr...une.html

Scientists reveal epigenome maps of the human body's major organs http://medicalxpr...ody.html

Who thinks that RNA-directed DNA methylation is NOT the key to understanding cell type differentiation via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
Anyone who thinks RNA-directed DNA methylation is NOT the key to understanding cell type differentiation via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions, or who still believes in neo-Darwinian nonsense about mutations and evolution may be interested in this google search.

https://www.googl...;start=0

Alternatively, see http://rna-mediat...ation%22

There is no excuse to remain biologically uninformed at a time when the past decade has produced overwhelming experimental evidence that links ecological variation to ecological adaptations via the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein biosynthesis and degradation that enables all biodiversity.

Simply put, if you ever believed in mutation-driven evolution, you no longer have any excuse to keep believing in it. Stop telling others that it's true, and stop teaching ridiculous theories in school.
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2015
This is the only major point
@jk
wrong again- you are making an ASSumption that your pseudoscience is factual and that actual experimental evidence and science are not
THAT is the major point that i am/have been/will continue to drive home
if you ever believed in mutation-driven evolution, you no longer have any excuse to keep believing in it. Stop telling others that it's true, and stop teaching ridiculous theories in school
I will say this again:
you have NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that Mutations nor evolution is not true

in fact, when you linked to Dr. Whittaker's site you demonstrated:
-the power and science behind Evolution Theory
-WHY the scientific method is so powerful
-that you cannot comprehend the science/biology behind Evolution
-that you don't understand biology despite your claims and appeal to self authority
-that you do NOT understand the scientific method

you are promoting creationist dogma regarding evolution
NOT science
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2015
cont'd
Both articles link what I detailed in my model
and like i said, besides being debunked, your model is not a replacement for Evolution Theory: it relies on Mutations as well and it also is highly flawed!
see: http://www.socioa...ew/24367

there is another poster in the climate science thread who likes to flood the site with physics data that he believes is relevant to his post

like i told him: random collections of studies that you do NOT understand are not helping your cause or promotion of your PSEUDOSCIENCE creationist/7th day advent dogma

in fact- the linked studies actually REFUTE it
just because YOU do not understand biology and evolution doesn't mean no one does

you are making a big thing out of nothing, and trying to distract away from the FACT that you are pushing creationism, NOT SCIENCE

by all means: GET THE AUTHORS to post here and you will likely get answers
you will just NOT like them
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2015
repeating
No one is acknowledging the claim
is BS
in YOUR link
These data suggest a predictable two-step evolutionary process: Step 1 increases levels of phosphorylated NtrC, via either (i) a direct regulatory route with mutations in NtrB or GlnK or (ii) a physiological route with loss-of-function mutations reducing glutamine synthetase activity and causing NtrB activation, partially or intermittently reactivating the flagellar cascade. In step 2, NtrC adapts to enhance activation of the flagellar genes and, in doing so, becomes a less potent activator of nitrogen uptake genes. This model explains the microarray data and is consistent with the predicted structural effects of the mutations
you just don't like what the EVIDENCE suggests because you are a creationist
shall i link MORE from the study?

PS
just because you can TROLL ScienceMag doesn't mean you are correct NOR does it mean that you are a scientist
quit appealing to authority you don't have
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2015
Cont'd
MOST importantly, it spells out in the final paragraph
Pathogens expressing flagella can trigger strong immune responses in the host, so rapid transitions are seen over short time scales between uniflagellate, multiflagellate, and aflagellate states (17). This volatility is reflected in the structure of regulatory networks: In close relatives of Pseudomonas, fleQ appears not to be involved in flagellar gene expression (18), and in Helicobacter pylori, a gene of unknown function can be used as a "spare part" to permit motility in flhB mutants (19). Our results illustrate that trans-acting mutations can contribute to gene network evolution (20), but that as predicted, such mutations bear severe pleiotropic costs (21, 22).
or were you ignoring this part of your link?
didn't like the implications because of your religious beliefs?

i don't CARE what your beliefs are, jk, but your POSTS are spreading PSEUDOSCIENCE
thus you are TROLLING!
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
The link from genetic variation to a complex behavioral trait involving movement is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man. That explains why it is rarely exemplified outside that context. Anyone who attributes behavior to genetic variation via mutations is ignoring what is currently known by serious scientists about the biological basis of cause and effect in all genera.

See also: http://www.scienc...abstract
"...biotic interactions, rather than competition for resources and space (62), are the primary forces driving organismal diversification..."

http://www.scienc...abstract
we ... found high taxonomic variability... accompanied by relatively stable distributions of gene abundances summarized into functional categories.... This is also congruent with previous reports for the human gut, where gene abundances of metabolic pathways were found to be evenly distributed...
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
Both articles linked above attest to the fact that all life on earth is biophysically constrained in the context of a biogeochemical membrane that links the anti-entropic effect of the sun's biological energy to the de novo creation of amino acids and to cell type differentiation in all genera via nutrient-dependent RNA-directed DNA methylation, which links photosynthesis and glycosylation to RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation in all genera via their physiology of reproduction.

It is not difficult to imagine why someone like retired Air Force SSgt James Stumpy, who claims he was raised by wolves for 10 years, would object to the presentation of these facts in Science Magazine. It is likely that all biologically uninformed science idiots object to accurate representations of biological facts, no matter who raised them or taught them to believe in pseudoscientific nonsense.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2015
It is not difficult to imagine why someone ... would object to the presentation of these facts in Science Magazine
@jk
no it isn't difficult
the SCIENTISTS in ScienceMag are actual degreed professionals doing research that is VALIDATED by experimental evidence and additional research, like Dr. Extavour, Lanski and Dr. Whittaker

it is based upon a firm set of rules called the "Scientific Method" which allows you to build upon prior knowledge and extrapolate data

That knowledge is supported by the empirical evidence from the various means of observation and measurement

it is NOT unsubstantiated religious conjecture based upon delusional beliefs or creationist/7th day advent dogma like you and your model, which has been falsified and debunked (see: http://www.socioa...ew/24367

you can't see the science because of your faith and trust in your delusional beliefs
which have NO evidence, BTW!
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2015
you can't see the science because of your faith and trust in your delusional beliefs


How can you ignore the established fact that all life on earth is biophysically constrained by what's referred to as a biogeochemical membrane? It links the sun's biological energy to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation via amino acid substitutions and the chemistry of protein folding in all genera.

What are Drs Extavour, Lenski, and Whittaker claiming for comparison to those established facts? What are you trying to tell people is wrong with my model of RNA-directed DNA methylation and nutrient-dependent microRNAs that stabilize the organized DNA of all genomes?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
Chimps, Humans, and the Hominid Struggle against Viruses http://journals.p....1002145
Excerpt: "...hominids may have been battling related lentiviruses for the best part of 10 million years.

Link opens pdf http://img.signal...nsky.pdf "Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" Excerpt: "...the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla." ( p. 127)

Is there a pseudoscientist who claims that the single amino acid substitution that differentiates the cell types of primate blood cells was the result of evolution across millions of years? Is there a pseudoscientist who claims that mutations caused the evolution?

("Social science is pseudoscience" -- Richard Feynman)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2015
How can you ignore the established fact...
@jk
1- i don't ignore ANY legitimate science
2- you are NOT a legitimate scientists and you've proven yourself to be a promoter of PSEUDOSCIENCE as well as a self-promoting narcissist so many times that you have zero credibility
3- repeating your dogma/buzz words to a scientists or someone with critical thinking skills is not going to change the perceptions of you, established by YOU yourself (i noted some of the highlights in point 2)
Those tactics are reserved for brainwashing and religions, NOT science literate critical thinking individuals
What are Drs Extavour, Lenski, and Whittaker claiming
ALL these mentioned support mutations against your wishes
it doesn't matter than you are trying to re-define "mutation", only that you have evidence, something which you are woefully deficient in

and social science does have issues, BUT, the issue here is NOT social science, but BIOLOGY, in case you forgot
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2015
http://img.signal...nsky.pdf "Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
@jk
and we've already established that this doesn't say what you THINK it says
we've also established that you have a severe problem with interpreting science and papers because you want so desperately to justify your religious beliefs (creationism/7th day advent) that you will skew everything you read for the sake of your own religious/delusional purposes

the one thing we CAN definitely take away from social science is that fundamental religious people like you will intentionally see justification for their religion in everything, even if the evidence directly refutes their views

this similarity is also in Conspiracy theorists and the mentally incapacitated who cannot differentiate between reality and their delusions

and you are actually substantiating these claims here on PO and in your blog/FB as well as your perfume site, by the way
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2015
Is there a pseudoscientist who claims that mutations caused the evolution?
@jk
you are now calling Drs Extavour, Lenski, and Whittaker pseudoscientists? because they've PROVEN that mutations play a role in evolution?
WOW

this right here is one reason you were singled out for the Psyche study, BTW...
because regardless of your delusions and beliefs, you are still willing to commit libel and jeopardize your resources

Thanks for justifying my initial review and continuing to justify my profile of you

JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
... they've PROVEN that mutations play a role in evolution?


What role?

this right here is one reason you were singled out for the Psyche study, BTW...


I hope this will be published in peer-reviewed journal. Minimally, however, you could post the example of your idiocy to figshare, or one of the other share cites. When do you expect the report to be completed? You can also post your preliminary findings and update them with more nonsense as you can think it up.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2015
... they've PROVEN that mutations play a role in evolution?


What role?


Roles of Mutation and Selection in Speciation: From Hugo de Vries to the Modern Genomic Era-

http://gbe.oxford...812.full

The Role of Advantageous Mutations in Enhancing the Evolution of a Recombination Modifier-

http://www.ncbi.n...2865915/

Role of Mutation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilm Development-

http://journals.p....0006289

Evolutionary Patterns of the Mitochondrial Genome in Metazoa: Exploring the Role of Mutation and Selection in Mitochondrial Protein–Coding Genes-

http://gbe.oxford...067.long
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
Roles of Mutation and Selection in Speciation: From Hugo de Vries to the Modern Genomic Era http://gbe.oxford...812.full

This was co-authored by Masatoshi Nei who claimed in his textbook that
"... genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world." (p. 199). http://www.amazon...99661731

How did two mutations in Pseudomonas lead to "Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system" (e.g., over-the-weekend?) http://www.scienc...abstract

Again, we see that all Andrew Jones can do is imply that mutations play a role, when the text of this article about the re-evolved flagellum states this: "Genome resequencing revealed a single-nucleotide point mutation in ntrB in strain AR2S, causing an amino acid substitution..." before the second substitution.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
http://www.scienc...abstract
Excerpt: "After 96 hours of incubation of AR2 and Pf0-2x at room temperature on SMM, two breakout mutations were visible, conferring first slow (AR2S and Pf0-2xS) and then fast (AR2F and Pf0-2xF) spreading over the agar surface (Fig. 1A). The AR2F strain produces flagella, but we could not detect flagella in electron microscopy samples for AR2S (Fig. 1B). Genome resequencing revealed a single-nucleotide point mutation in ntrB in strain AR2S, causing an amino acid substitution within the PAS domain of the histidine kinase sensor NtrB [Thr97→Pro97 (T97P)] (13). The fast-spreading strain AR2F had acquired an additional point mutation in the σ54-dependent EBP gene ntrC, which alters an amino acid (R442C) within the DNA binding domain (Table 1 and table S2)."

Anyone who still teaches that the 2 amino acid substitutions are mutations should stop teaching. Those teachers are biologically uninformed science idiots.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2015
Imply? Those papers do far more than imply. They're direct observational evidence and explanation as to the role of mutations.

the text of this article about the re-evolved flagellum states this: "Genome resequencing revealed a single-nucleotide point mutation in ntrB in strain AR2S, causing an amino acid substitution


Why did you quote this? It's precisely what I and the others have been talking about all along. Mutations are changes in DNA sequence. In that study, they identified the mutation in the gene ntrB that subsequently changed the amino acid sequence after translation.

Genome resequencing revealed a single-nucleotide point mutation


DIRECT OBSERVATION of a beneficial mutation. That's as direct as you can possibly get. They observed the mutation and observed its beneficial. You can't ask for better evidence!

You're citing a study that, in no uncertain terms, absolutely contradicts you and your interpretation of it.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2015
Mutations link perturbed protein folding to loss of function. Amino acid substitutions link the RNA-mediated stability of protein folding in the organized genomes of all genera.

Conflating the deleterious effects of mutations and the beneficial effects of the RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions is something that only a biologically uninformed idiot could do to link the entirety of his ignorance to re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum in 4 days via two mutations.

Thank you for being consistent.

Mutations are changes in DNA sequence.


What causes them? How do mutations lead to re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum in 4 days, but no evolution in ~2 billion years in bacteria living in the sediment at the bottom of the ocean?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2015
Mutations are not inherently deleterious. Their effect depends on what change, if any, they have on their resulting protein. Some mutations (synonymous) don't cause substitutions at all!

I've cited plenty of experiments demonstrating improvements in fitness or protein function following mutations. I've cited biophysical models of mutation and selection. I've cited the article where Nei discusses various models involving mutation.

What causes them?


As if you don't already know. Errors during replication (sometimes intentional like during the SOS response), radiation, mutagens, etc.

anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2015
How do mutations lead to re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum in 4 days, but no evolution in ~2 billion years in bacteria living in the sediment at the bottom of the ocean?


A few things here-

1. All they did in the 2 billion year study was compare fossil morphology. They can't say for sure they were the same genetically.

2. The null hypothesis of Darwin's theory is that organisms have no reason to change in an unchanging environment. He based his theory on the idea that organisms evolve and adapt in response to environmental change, so maintaining in an unchanging environment is not at odds with that at all.

3. The ocean bacteria clearly had no strong selective pressures against them, whereas the bacteria in the flagella experiment did.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2015
JVK:
Mutations link perturbed protein folding to loss of function.


anonymous_fool
Mutations are not inherently deleterious.


3. The ocean bacteria clearly had no strong selective pressures against them, whereas the bacteria in the flagella experiment did.


What was the difference in selective pressures that did not cause mutations or did cause them?

Most people know nothing about how nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation occurs, which is via fixation of amino acid substitutions in the context of the physiology of reproduction in all genera.

Why does anyone who doesn't know how cell type differentiation occurs think they can explain to me how beneficial mutations led to re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum in 4 days but no deleterious mutations effected another species that supposedly has existed on this planet for ~2 billion years -- with no mention of differences in nutrient stress or social stress?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2015
Re: ClinGen — The Clinical Genome Resource http://www.nejm.o...r1406261

More than 80 million genetic variants have been discovered to date, and for most of them, we have no clear understanding of their role in human health and disease," says Heidi Rehm, PhD, associate professor of Pathology at BWH and director of the Laboratory for Molecular Medicine at Partners HealthCare Personalized Medicine.

For contrast, pharmacogenomic panels now link metabolic networks to genetic networks via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that predict the response to many different medications.

The difference between what is known about amino acid substitutions and what is not known about genetic variants can be linked to the ignorance of evolutionary theorists who don't know the difference between a mutation and an amino acid substitution.

The theorists are killing people while serious scientists are Combating Evolution to Fight Disease.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2015
What was the difference in selective pressures that did not cause mutations or did cause them?


The ocean bacteria had a stable, unchanging environment. Once they got adapted initially, they had no reason to change. The flagella bacteria, on the other hand, would die if they didn't, so those mutations were beneficial because they restored motility.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2015
Compare the ignorance of your ridiculous claim to what is known about cell type differentiation by serious scientists.

See: http://rnajournal...abstract

Excerpt: "Precisely controlling the amount of protein made from each gene is a fundamental cellular process; while much of this regulation derives from transcriptional control, it is increasingly clear that regulation acting upon the mature transcript also plays a crucial role. The sequences underpinning post-transcriptional regulation are most often located within the transcripts 5′ and 3′ untranslated regions (UTRs). These cis-regulatory sequence elements within UTRs serve as binding sites for trans-factors such as RNA binding proteins (RBPs) and noncoding RNAs (for review, see Barrett et al. 2012). One relatively well-understood paradigm for post-transcriptional control is that of microRNAs (miRNAs), a class of ∼22-nt small RNAs, which act in concert..."
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2015
In my 2013 review http://www.ncbi.n...4693353, I wrote:

"Thus, the epigenetic 'tweaking' of the immense gene networks that occurs via exposure to nutrient chemicals and pheromones can now be modeled in the context of the microRNA/messenger RNA balance, receptor-mediated intracellular signaling, and the stochastic gene expression required for nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. The role of the microRNA/messenger RNA balance... in adaptive evolution will certainly be discussed in published works that will follow."

Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) wrote: http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/ "...James Kohl presents an unsupported challenge to modern evolutionary theory and misrepresentations of established scientific terms and others' research."

What was unsupported? What, if anything, remains unsupported? What other model of cell type differentiation explains biologically-based cause and effect?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2015
See: http://rnajournal...abstract


Corresponding author: agrimson@cornell.edu

Why don't you ask Dr. Grimson what his work actually means and if it lines up with your faulty interpretations?

You continue citing things that are not at all at odds with neo-Darwinism. RNAs control all sorts of things. So what? That doesn't mean mutations don't alter phenotypes, which are ultimately selected. Regulatory networks are just another means of altering phenotype.

You're still misusing "cell type differentiation". Do bacteria undergo differentiation?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2015
Do bacteria undergo differentiation?


Thanks for asking. That's the difference between having a flagellum and not having one -- until it "re-evolves" over-the-weekend.The cell type with the flagellum is different than the one without the flagellum.

Teachers: Please stop teaching students like Andrew Jones to be biologically uninformed science idiots.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2015
That's not what cellular differentiation is. It's the developmental process by which stem cells in a multicellular organism specialize.

http://www.nature...14046412
http://www.nature...tion-931
http://www.ncbi.n...15905405
http://askabiolog...ntiation
http://biology.ke..._11.html
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2015
Do not presume to tell me what cell type differentiation is by calling it cellular differentiation.

Others, see also: Reprogramming of DNA observed in human germ cells for first time
http://medicalxpr...lls.html
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2015
Do not presume to tell me what cell type differentiation is by calling it cellular differentiation.

Others, see also: Reprogramming of DNA observed in human germ cells for first time
http://medicalxpr...lls.html


Making up your own definitions again?

https://www.googl...ntiation
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2015
If state policy is to mislead young disciples who believe to everything they adults tell them, whose interests defend representatives of government? Because the theory of evolution have no explanation consistent with scientific facts how life on Earth began and evolve.



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

ScholarAbout 4,630,000 results (0.05 sec

@ren

Read it and weep.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2015
Theorists allow others to accept the consequences of their pseudoscientific nonsense. That's why serious scientists are Combating Evolution to Fight Disease http://www.scienc...88.short

Vietvet may think he is still killing people in Vietnam with bullets, instead of via definitions. He may not recognize the difference in the types of combat because he is a biologically uninformed science idiot.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2015
Do not presume to tell me what cell type differentiation is by calling it cellular differentiation.
@jk
you are playing the "education" card? appeal to self authority?
really??

just look above !
OR look at your own historical posts!

again, i reiterate:
you have a 100% FAILURE rate when it comes to interpreting other people's work and ACTUAL SCIENCE

this is not religion 101, nor is it a creationist site
claims should have a valid scientific background and be able to be validated

YOUR CLAIMS ABOVE have been shown to be false, invalid and based upon your personal religious speculations and dogma
NOT SCIENCE

and Vietvet is correct: just because you don't like a definition doesn't mean you can arbitrarily redefine it

and explain with your words how...
@ren
why?
so you can continue to IGNORE the science, links to valid scientific studies that substantiate claims for your creationist religion?

the only reason you post here is to TROLL
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2015
Healthy mutants:
http://rna-mediat...mutants/

Excerpt: See also the comments by Keith Baverstock. Serious scientists rarely comment on works that attest to how much pseudoscientific nonsense continues to be touted by evolutionary theorists. The organization of genomes does not start with genes. It starts from the ability of cell types to differentiate between self and non-self differences.
---------------------------
Note also the attempt by little PZ Myers to enter a discussion among serious scientists.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2015
Do not presume to tell me what cell type differentiation is by calling it cellular differentiation.


I have no idea what you're trying to imply here. They mean exactly the same thing.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2015
I have no idea what you're trying to imply here
@Anon
check out his comments about epistasis here:

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

his specific argument is one that he refuted himself above!
in fact, his posts and links above to Lenski et al and Dr. Whittaker specifically demonstrate why he is wrong as well as that he is misinterpreting the science due to an overzealous religious dogma barking up the wrong tree

i cannot comprehend how someone can absolutely destroy their own argument with links and evidence in one thread and then continue to post the same diatribe in another thread thinking no one will notice!

as though it isn't real, so no one will care

rotflmfao

JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2015
How do the cell types of one species become the cell types of another species in the context of cellular differentiation?

Do the cell types of one species mutate and evolve into the cell types of another species?
Vietvet
5 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2015
How do the cell types of one species become the cell types of another species in the context of cellular differentiation?

Do the cell types of one species mutate and evolve into the cell types of another species?


@JVK

You've posted some really dumb crap and I don't know how you can top your latest but I'm sure you'll find a way.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
How do the cell types of one species become the cell types of another species in the context of cellular differentiation?


As it stands, this question doesn't make any sense, because differentiation isn't what occurs between generations, it's the process of development over the course of one organism's life. A eukaryotic example being the transition from a stem cell to a mature specialized cell like a hepatocyte and sporulation or cyst formation in prokaryotes.

Do the cell types of one species mutate and evolve into the cell types of another species?


There are many processes involved in adaptation and evolution and one species becoming a new species and mutation is just one of those processes. Some others off the top of my head- sexual selection, natural selection, even natural genetic engineering as Shapiro described it through processes like the SOS response and induced mutagenesis, horizontal gene transfer, etc. All contributing factors.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
...differentiation isn't what occurs between generations, it's the process of development over the course of one organism's life.


What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot believes in that nonsense? (That was a rhetorical question.)

http://www.nature...465.html

Conclusion: "Our analysis of genic mCH across human tissues indicates a tissue-specific distribution that is distinct from those genes that were previously identified in embryonic stem cells and the brain. These genes are enriched for a variety of functions, most surprisingly those involved in development. These analyses raise the intriguing possibility that mCH is used in adult stem cells30 and could help to repress these genes as the cells transition into their differentiated role."

Cell type differentiation is nutrient-dependent and RNA-directed DNA methylation links RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to all extant biodiversity.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
Re:
natural genetic engineering


See page 21 of Shapiro's book. In yeast, at the advent of sexual reproduction, the differentiation of the cell types is nutrient-dependent and the physiology of reproduction is pheromone-controlled.

We detailed the links from yeasts to mammals in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review.
From fertilization to adult sexual behavior. http://www.hawaii...ion.html

Excerpt: "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 from different epigenetic modifications of an otherwise identical MAT locus (Runge and Zakian, 1996; Wu and Haber, 1995)."

The theorists are unable to explain sexual orientation. They would rather that others not learn about our explanation. Only serious scientists are interested in it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot believes...
@jk
any educated biologist who actually experiments with biology and has knowledge from said experience "believes" in the evidence which has been repeatedly demonstrated which Anon is still sharing with you... and you are ignoring for your faith

you are reaching and scrambling trying to link and flood with anything that might justify your religion in any way as long as it is viewed with "religious goggles" on

you are also trying to distract away from the topic of evolution and say that "because there is no proof for item x right now, it is proof that evolution can't be true"

that is called a red herring (or strawman)
as well as distraction
it is also part of your argument: god of the gaps

https://www.youtu...kg4hMRjs

if you want to argue your god of the gaps, then be aware that god will be an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance and will eventually disappear to knowledge
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
It's impossible to converse with somebody who changes what words and phrases mean on the fly and invents their own meanings. Literally impossible.

Let's talk about your motorcycle's air intake. Except by "motorcycle", I mean the vehicle you own with 4 wheels and by "air intake" I mean that thing that holds antifreeze.

You're a lost cause if you think meaningful conversation can take place in that manner.

The sky is green! See, I just disagree with how the word blue was being used and I think green is a better fit. Anyone who thinks the sky is blue is an ignorant theorist falling back on useless definitions.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2015
Ren82 has claimed
I pointed out the number 10 ^ 40 000 and you still talk to me about permutations. You really do not understand the magnitude of this problem. Number of such size as 10 ^ 40 000 have no physical meaning in our universe
How "Pointed out" Ren82, show the Provenance of claim, how this number is arrived at & the precise basis on which it is founded but, NOTHING !

Why cannot Ren82 respond intelligently, he has a habit of asking leading questions of scientists who accept evolution and its principles yet refuses to answer simple questions about the nature of the deity he claims is the 'creator' and especially so how his claimed 'creator' who he believes to be human oriented communicates with us ?

Why is Ren82 unable to answer question which challenge his emotionally led belief in a deity ?

The deity that punished all of creation due to a setup of entrapment of a young woman which clearly shows the deity he claims acts just like an evil Devil !
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2015
viko_mx claims as did his sock puppet Ren82
When we talk about hands how much actualy is needed miracle to happen? 10 ^ 40 000 hands or more?
What is the Provenance of this figure, how was it arrived at, what maths basis, what chemical/biochem foundation, what metrics over what period of time, what consideration of environment ?

viko_mx tell us how your god communicates ?

viko_mx tell us about the FACT your god acts like a very nasty Devil ?

Do you worship the being that punished ALL of creation for EVER because the god setup a young woman as part of entrapment ie The god KNEW the outcome, the god made Satan KNOWING it would lie to Eve

This strongly suggests your god viko_mx, is a VERY nasty Devil or doesnt exist !

Your god viko_mx was claimed to exist from a feeling in a dream.

Are dreams any sort of reliable source of information to drive your whole life ?

Did your god viko_mx do ANYTHING to alleviate the suffering it has caused & continues to cause ?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2015
http://phys.org/n...ven.html

Excerpt: Edit distance is the minimum number of edits—deletions, insertions, and substitutions—required to turn one string into another.

My comment: "...deletions, insertions, and substitutions..." are RNA-mediated.

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

Nei (2013) placed NUTRIENT-DEPENDENT deletions, insertions, and amino acid substitutions into this context:
Mutation is the change of genomic structure and includes nucleotide substitution, insertion/deletion, segmental gene duplication, genomic duplication, changes in gene regulatory systems, transposition of genes, horizontal gene transfer, etc. (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.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2015
My comment: "...deletions, insertions, and substitutions..." are RNA-mediated
@jk
yes, we know
you repeatedly FLOOD this site with those assertions

however, you've also been shown that not all mutations are RNA mediated

so- WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
Nei (2013) placed ...
Quote the paragraph and then link it with free access to that we can all specifically see this

then we can directly query the author and get a specific reply to insure that you are interpreting the work properly
nzod
5 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2015
JVK: "serious scientist" - bwahhahaaa.
..wait, you are serious! BWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2015
you've also been shown that not all mutations are RNA mediated


What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot makes a ridiculous statement like that?

That was a rhetorical question.

AF SSgt (ret) James Stumpy infers I have claimed that all mutations are RNA-mediated, after I have repeatedly claimed that nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions prevent the genomic entropy caused by viruses that cause the mutations.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2015
New Perspectives on microRNA in Disease and Therapy

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

The Scientist brings together a panel of experts to discuss various microRNA functions.

By The Scientist Marketing Team | June 15, 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------

Further attempts by biologically uninformed science idiots to link mutations to increasing organismal complexity via neo-Darwinian evolutionary theories will be met with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect in this free webinar.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2015
viruses that cause the mutations.


Are you saying all mutations are due to viruses?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2015
I'm saying that serious scientists know how cell type differentiation occurs, and that you are a biologically uninformed science idiot who got me banned from discussions on the human ethology yahoo group because I would not answer a "yes" or "no" question about RNA.

Like the moderator, Jay R. Feierman, you continue to contribute to suffering and death by rejecting experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect.

Stop asking questions when you cannot possibly understand the answers.

Tell me how mutations, which perturb protein folding, lead to biophysically constrained cell type differentiation in the context of the physiology of reproduction and all extant biodiversity.

The RNA-mediated events that link metabolic networks to genetic networks in all genera clearly link mutations to pathology and nutrition to healthy longevity via the balance of viral microRNAs and nutrient-dependent microRNAs.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2015
Agenda Topics
http://selectbios...EGDD2016
DNA methylation
Histone modifications
Next generation epitherapeutics
Regulation of genomic functions
Confirmed Speakers to date
Manfred Jung, Chemical Epigenetics Group Leader, University of Freiburg
Paul Bamborough, Computational Chemistry Section Head, GlaxoSmithKline
Tamara Maes, Cheif Scientific Officer, Oryzon
Ralph Mazitschek, Assistant Professor, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard
Ho Man Chan, Investigator, Novartis
Susanne Muller Knapp, Group Head, University of Oxford
Stuart Conway, Associate Professor, Chemistry, University of Oxford
Tim Humphrey, Associate Professor, University of Oxford
Jun Qi, Lead Scientist, Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Matthew Jarpe, Associate Vice President of Biology, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals
Takashi Umehara, Unit Leader, RIKEN Center for Life Science Technologies (CLST)
Marc Muskavitch, Senior Director, Biogen Idec...
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2015
Still refusing to answer simple clarifying questions when you say something unclear. Typical.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2015
If they did not know how cell type differentiation occurred, there would be no reason for this conference:
Epigenetics in Drug Discovery
http://selectbios...EGDD2016

Emerging technologies, epigenetic changes and cellular reprogramming will be discussed, with special attention paid to drug discovery and development. You will benefit from the expert knowledge of academic and industry leaders who are pushing the boundaries of epigenetics research, whilst networking with the technology providers who are enabling them to do so.

My comment: I can state with minimal reservation, that no one who attends this conference believes in neo-Darwinian theories about mutations and evolution. If anyone who attends the conference expresses any ridiculous belief in theory, they will be horribly embarrassed by the response from serious scientists.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2015
Still refusing to answer simple clarifying questions when you say something unclear. Typical.


See this moron's review of my most recently published work.
Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model.
http://www.ncbi.n...24959329

Not of his criticisms are valid.

Now, he wants me to answer his ridiculous "clarifying" questions.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2015
I can state with minimal reservation, that no one who attends this conference believes in neo-Darwinian theories about mutations and evolution.


So attend it and take a poll. I can state with no reservation that it will turn out like every correspondence Stumpy and I have had with people you thought supported you.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2015
...people you thought supported you.


You seem to think that they must risk their careers by supporting me publicly at the same time you frame your questions, and thus, their answers, in the context of a ridiculous theory.

Elaine Morgan addressed that: http://www.ted.co...tic_apes

Ask Leslie Vosshall to describe what she's detailed in the context of amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of insect species. It attests to the validity of my model, but you got her to put my model into the context of pseudoscience.

Anyone who does not know where the amino acid substitutions that differentiate species come from, is not likely to admit their lack of knowledge. Instead, like you, they will claim that I don't know how cell type differentiation occurs in all genera.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2015
Stumpy infers I have claimed that all mutations are RNA-mediated
@jk
no, you did
My comment: "...deletions, insertions, and substitutions..." are RNA-mediated
can't you read yet?
after I have repeatedly claimed
you have also repeatedly claimed to have 40 years experience in diagnostic medicine, even though that requires a license (and thus an education) but you self admitted to failing out of college... so the only thing we can conclude now is that you are a "chronic liar"
you [Anon] are a biologically uninformed science idiot who got me banned from discussions on the human ethology yahoo group
No, you got banned because you promoted pseudoscience, not science, and couldn't prove your education/experience with physical evidence

2BCont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2015
@jk Cont'd
Like the moderator, Jay R. Feierman, you continue to contribute to suffering and death by rejecting experimental evidence
Strawman based upon a proven LIE
you could not produce experimental or other evidence for your claims, thus you attempt to use fear tactics and religious methodology to promote your lie
Tell me how mutations, which perturb protein folding
if you were the "serious scientists" you claim to be, you would already know the answer per Lenski, Extavour, Whittaker, et al
The "experimental evidence" of Lenski & Extavour both are experiments you refuse to accept or acknowledge which directly refute your "mutations are pathological" claims, regardless of how many times you try to misdirect or obfuscate with lies when you argue against them

2BCont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2015
@jk cont'd
Not of his criticisms are valid
then why can't you refute the claims with valid evidence and biology?
You seem to think that they must risk their careers by supporting me publicly at the same time you frame your questions, and thus, their answers, in the context of a ridiculous theory.
no, that is YOUR transference and failure to acknowledge actual biology and science.
To date, phrased in your own words and copied VERBATIM, no (as in NONE) author has ever supported your claims that mutations are never beneficial and always pathological, and NO author has ever supported your pseudoscience claims as outed by Anon, either!

just because you don't understand Anon's questions doesn't mean that Vosshall's publications "attests to the validity of [your] model". that claim was debunked already

this is your epic Mensa failure

the only thing you've been able to prove with unerring accuracy is your chronic lying & need for attention
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2015
No, you got banned because you promoted pseudoscience, not science, and couldn't prove your education/experience with physical evidence


See: http://www.abstra...a14cd9f1

Serious scientists have known how RNA-mediated cell type differentiation occurs for more than 15 years. More that 20,000 published works attest to the facts. See: http://www.geneng...;a=false

If not for biologically uninformed science idiots, we would by now probably have effective treatments for cancer and preventative measures based on what is known about cell type differentiation, which does not occur in the context of evolution via mutations.

Instead, people like SSgt (ret) James Stumpy would rather see all your loved ones suffer and die, rather than admit that neo-Darwinian theory is a misrepresentation of facts.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2015
Long noncoding RNA-directed epigenetic regulation of gene expression is associated with anxiety-like behavior in mice http://www.biolog...abstract

Excerpt: "RNA-directed regulation of epigenetic processes has recently emerged as an important feature of mammalian differentiation and development. Perturbation of this regulatory system in the brain may contribute to the development of neuropsychiatric disorders."

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

My comment: A single nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitution is linked to the life history transitions of human, via the conserved molecular mechanisms Dobzhansky (1973) reported linked a single amino acid substitution to the cell type differences of gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2015
Re: RNA-directed regulation of epigenetic processes

See:
1) rna directed https://www.googl...directed

2) rna directed dna methylation https://www.googl...directed+dna+methylation

3) dna methylation and histone acetylation https://www.googl...tylation

4) rna mediated https://www.googl...mediated

Find out who is still touting the pseudoscientific nonsense invented by population geneticists and compare who's who among serious scientists. If you find one evolutionary theorist who knows how cell type differentiation occurs in the absence of RNA-mediated biologically-based cause and effect, please alert others to the representations made by the biologically uninformed science idiot, for comparison.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2015
Stumpy would rather see all your loved ones suffer and die
@jk
strawman & red herring distraction attempt because you lie and post pseudoscience

you have still, to date, not once been able to refute without promotion of creationist religious dogma or the denigration of all who refute you...
IOW -
the only thing you've been able to prove with unerring accuracy is your chronic lying & need for attention
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2015
See anything from a google search for RNA-mediated and place it into the context of control of body growth by nutrient-dependent microRNA(s) in insects and mammals.

See: http://www.nature...693.html

Excerpt: "miR-9a binds to sNPFR1 mRNA in insect cells and to the mammalian orthologue NPY2R in rat insulinoma cells."

Cell type differentiation is biophysically constrained by the nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction in all genera.

In species of insects and mammals the physiology of reproduction is controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones.

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

Food links ecological variation to ecological adaptations, not to evolution. The epigenetic effects of nutrient-dependent microRNAs on DNA repair prevent the genomic entropy caused by accumulated viral microRNAs.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2015
http://www.huffin...216.html

Riding the Evolution Paradigm Shift With Eugene Koonin

Excerpt: "[T]he entire ideology of personalized medicine should be taken with many grains of salt."

My comment: Personalized medicine links RNA-mediated gene duplication and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to virus-driven pathology or to nutrient-dependent health and longevity via the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding in all genera. Nutrient-dependent fixation of the RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions occurs in the context of the physiology of reproduction.

Excerpt: "The entire evolution of the microbial world and the virus world, and the interaction between microbes and viruses and other life forms have been left out of the Modern Synthesis..."

Neo-Darwinian theory is taught as if it was based on scientific facts to those who may never learn the difference.
Vietvet
not rated yet Jul 17, 2015
In a manner of minutes JVK has spammed four threads with his young earth creationist copy and paste rants.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2015
http://www.huffin...216.html

Excerpt: "The entire evolution of the microbial world and the virus world, and the interaction between microbes and viruses and other life forms have been left out of the Modern Synthesis..."

Here, for example, they start with insects.
http://phys.org/n...ful.html
Discovery of new genes suggest why insects are the most evolutionarily successful organisms

The physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. That fact has been known to serious scientists for several decades. Why are they starting with "new genes" in insects and pretending the genes can be linked to evolution?

Vietvet
1 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2015


Why are they starting with "new genes" in insects and pretending the genes can be linked to evolution?

Because they aren't young earth creationist idiots.
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2015
Some young earth creationists start with viruses that perturb perfect protein folding, which suggests that all evolutionary theorists who were taught to believe in the Modern Synthesis are biologically uninformed science idiots.

Excerpt: "The entire evolution of the microbial world and the virus world, and the interaction between microbes and viruses and other life forms have been left out of the Modern Synthesis..." -- Eugene Koonin

In a manner of minutes JVK has spammed four threads with his young earth creationist copy and paste rants.


Yet, no one has responded to Koonin's claims of ignorance that has spread to every area of investigation that should have been included before claims were made about the "Modern Synthesis."

Why would anyone start with mutations instead of from the RNA-mediated de novo creation of genes via RNA-mediated gene duplication and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions?

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

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.