John Glenn: Evolution should be taught in schools

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

© 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Citation: John Glenn: Evolution should be taught in schools (2015, May 20) retrieved 23 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-05-john-glenn-evolution-taught-schools.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
28 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

JVK
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
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

May 21, 2015
*farts*

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.

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....


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?????!!!!

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?

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".

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.

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".

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
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

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.

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.

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!!!!

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.

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.

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
May 22, 2015
See also:

I forgot. How do mutations cause evolution?

http://rna-mediat...olution/

JVK
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

May 24, 2015
You mean there are schools that DON'T teach evolution? Wierd...

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

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

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


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

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

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
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/

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
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).


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!

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.

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.


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

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

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?

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.

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.

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
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.

May 25, 2015
Thanks to it all processes in the cell are highly synchronized and optimized.

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
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

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.

May 25, 2015
What kind of insecurity drives people to invent imaginary beings?

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.

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?

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
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.

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
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?

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
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.

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?

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.


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?

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.

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...


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
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
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
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?

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?

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.

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?

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
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
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.

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.

May 25, 2015
Wow, JVK, . . thanks!

JVK
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
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
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

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.

May 26, 2015
From the article; what a beautiful cool guy John Glenn is;

JVK
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.

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...

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.

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
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

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
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
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



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.

May 26, 2015
JVK, thanks for sharing your work. But what does it prove?

JVK
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
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.

May 26, 2015
@JVK

The only thing you've proved is they you are delusional.

JVK
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.

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

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

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

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.

May 26, 2015
"You can not controle easily people with christian spirit and moral standard."
------------------------------------

I think you Christian folk burned them alive,. . . slowly.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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
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/

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

May 27, 2015
Unexplainable duplicate - mutation likely.

Must... be... evolving.... again...

May 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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
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.'

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

May 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

JVK
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.


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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
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.

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.

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.
…..

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.

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].

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
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
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.

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/


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.


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
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=

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.


May 28, 2015
Friend, the only god that creates via evolution is the atheistic god.

For God's sake, grow a brain.

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
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.

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.

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


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)

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
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/

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
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

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
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.

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

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
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.

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
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.

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
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
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/

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
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.

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

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
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
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.

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%?


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
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
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
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."

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"

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?

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?


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
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
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
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

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".

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
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
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.

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
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
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.