Evolution is unpredictable and irreversible, biologists show

Evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould is famous for describing the evolution of humans and other conscious beings as a chance accident of history. If we could go back millions of years and "run the tape of life again," he mused, evolution would follow a different path.

A study by University of Pennsylvania biologists now provides evidence Gould was correct, at the : Evolution is both unpredictable and irreversible. Using simulations of an evolving protein, they show that the that are accepted by are typically dependent on that came before, and the mutations that are accepted become increasingly difficult to reverse as time goes on.

The research team consisted of postdoctoral researchers and co-lead authors Premal Shah and David M. McCandlish and professor Joshua B. Plotkin, all from Penn's Department of Biology in the School of Arts & Sciences. They reported their findings in this week's Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study focuses exclusively on the type of evolution known as purifying selection, which favors mutations that have no or only a small effect in a fixed environment. This is in contrast to adaptation, in which mutations are selected if they increase an organism's fitness in a new environment. Purifying selection is by far the more common type of selection.

"It's the simplest, most boring type of evolution you can imagine," Plotkin said. "Purifying selection is just asking an organism to do what it's doing and keep doing it well."

As an evolutionary model, the Penn team used the bacterial protein argT, for which the three-dimensional structure is known. Its small size means that the researchers could reliably predict how a given genetic mutation would affect the protein's stability.

Using a computational model, they simulated the protein evolving during the equivalent of roughly 10 million years by randomly introducing mutations, accepting them if they did not significantly affect the protein's stability and rejecting them if they did. They then examined pairs of mutations, asking whether the later mutation would have been accepted had the earlier mutation not have been made.

"The very same mutations that were accepted by evolution when they were proposed, had they been proposed at a much earlier in time, they would have been deleterious and would have been rejected," Plotkin said.

This result—that later mutations were dependent on the earlier ones—demonstrates a feature known as contingency. In other words, mutations that are accepted by evolution are contingent upon previous mutations to ameliorate their effects.

The researchers then asked a distinct, converse question: whether it is possible to revert an earlier mutation and still maintain the protein's stability. They found that the answer was no. Mutations became "entrenched" and increasingly difficult to revert as time went on without having a destabilizing effect on the protein.

"At each point in time, if you make a substitution, you wouldn't see a large change in stabilization," Shah said. "But, after a certain number of changes to the protein, if you go back and try to revert the earlier change, the protein structure begins to collapse."

The concepts of contingency and entrenchment were well known to be present in adaptive evolution, but it came as a surprise to the researchers to find them under purifying selection.

"We thought we would just try this with purifying selection and see what happened and were surprised to see how much contingency and entrenchment occurs," Plotkin said. "What this tells us is that, in a deep sense, evolution is unpredictable and in some sense irreversible because of interactions between mutations."

Such interactions, when the effect of a mutation is dependent on another, are known as epistasis. The researchers' investigation found that, unexpectedly, purifying selection enriches for epistatic mutations as opposed to mutations that are simply additive. Plotkin explained that this is because purifying selection favors mutations that have a small effect. Either the mutation can have a small effect on its own, or it can have a small effect because another, earlier mutation ameliorated the effects of the current mutation. Thus mutations that are dependent upon earlier mutations will be favored.

"Our study shows, and this has been known for a long time, that most of the substitutions that occur are substitutions that have small effects," McCandlish said. "But what's interesting is that we find that the substitutions that have small effects change over time."

An implication of these findings is that predicting the course of evolution, as one might wish to do, say, to make an educated guess as to what flu strain might arise in a given year, is not easy.

"The way these substitutions occur, since they're highly contingent on what happened before, makes predictions of long-term evolution extremely difficult," Plotkin said.

The researchers hope to partner with other groups in the future to conduct laboratory experiments with microbes to confirm that real-world evolution supports their findings.

And while Gould's comment about replaying the tape of life was mainly a nod to the large amount of randomness inherent in evolution's path, this study suggests a more nuanced reason that the playback would appear different.

"There is intrinsically a huge amount of contingency in evolution," Plotkin said. "Whatever mutations happen to come first set the stage for what other later mutations are permissible. Indeed, history channels evolution down a certain path. Gould's famous tape of life would be very different if replayed, even more different than Gould might have imagined."


Explore further

In evolution, 'house of cards' model wins

More information: Contingency and entrenchment in protein evolution under purifying selection, PNAS, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1412933112
Citation: Evolution is unpredictable and irreversible, biologists show (2015, June 8) retrieved 22 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-06-evolution-unpredictable-irreversible-biologists.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.
1811 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 08, 2015
Because it is more accurate than religion.

Jun 08, 2015
@verkle

Once again you stamp your feet like a petulant child.

No logic, no refuting evidence. You've got nothing.

On the other hand:
https://scholar.g...as_sdtp=
ScholarAbout 4,340,000 results (0.04 sec)

Jun 09, 2015
Until the term evolution is precisely, consistently and uniformly defined and rendered valid in micro (molecular) as well macro scale there will always be problem in distinguishing evolution from any sequential change, two absolutely different things since evolution is a change resulting in some kind of advantage i.e. some processes of "unknown" goal seeking while mutation changes are random mostly result of breaking down or disturbing preceding chemistry of life by environmental (as well as cosmic rays) change or interaction with other life form.

Subject to mutations Darwin's finches could have mutated bigger wings and get a hell out of Galapagos instead of developing longer or shaped beaks to feed on elongated local cactus flowers.

However logical, theory of evolution has this human element of reason, a fallible reason infused with concept of goal-seeking causality between changing environment and evolutionary changes in organisms we are unable to shake off.

Jun 09, 2015
mutations have given organisms all of the functionality they have today, which has never been verified by any scientists
@verkleTROLL
except that it HAS been verified by: Lenski, Dr. Extavour, Dr. Whittaker and dozens of other experimental biologists that you still refuse to read

and Lenski as well as Dr. Extavour's work is NOT based upon a model or simulations at all, but real, live, living species that have MUTATED and proven to adapt and mutate specific BENEFICIAL mutations

(refuting your other stupidity- the claims about mutations being a "loss of functionality" which is based upon creationist dogma and jvk - it is also debunked completely by various validated experiments like the link below)

http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

mind you, these are not models
they're not sing;e experiments that were abnormal or unrepeatable
these are validated through secondary evaluation, other experiments and repetition


Jun 09, 2015
verkle FAILs demonstrating immense ignorance again
Mutations that can be examined by scientists today are only a loss of functionality (genes go bad)
No - you Dill !
Many mutations re protein synthesis; add extra amino acids, vary order or bind in different ways to; peptides, metals, prions within cells or inter-cellular fluids

From observed & definable maxim; "All enzymes are proteins" arises corollary "Proteins can act as enzymes" ie the Bilateral paradigm (same as engines <-> pumps)

ie. Strongly shows (& evidence supports) altered proteins can act to enzymatically accelerate/retard biochemical progress & array aspect re metalloid enzyme binding is yet another HUGE layer of permutations adding immense cumulative mutation potential of order of >2^100 or so. ie A VERY large number of opportunities for mutations to add functionality whether used or not but, available.

A mutation need not be actuated in a usage environment as soon as it arises

continued

Jun 09, 2015
Continued at the immensely ignorant verkle !
Evolution claims that mutations have given organisms all of the functionality they have today, which has never been verified by any scientists, and which is mathematically impossible
No ! You Dill !

Show mathematical (probability/stats) evidence there are NOT sufficient permutations re additive combination. Your ignorant claims verkle mean NOTHING, you are so uneducated & religious !

verkle says
This whole article is based only on imagination and a computer model based on such imagination
Further evidence you're anti-science & should NOT be here to post rubbish !

Imagination is part of speculation & execution of such is moderated by mathematics & especially so permutations assessment with the study of Probability & Statistics an absolutely essential training

verkle says
There is no inherent science in any of these postulations
Absolute Crap ! You dumb Dill !

Based Maths, central to Science !

continued

Jun 09, 2015
verkle claims
Why do serious keep coming back to this unproven model?
You got robotically driven to follow pattern of complaint & obviously meant to say "serious scientists" or "scientists" in place of "serious" you Dill !

If verkle knew microbiology/ molecular biology in CONCERT with 2nd year uni education in Probability & Statistics he wouldn't make such a BAD & stupid post.

He is on Science site verkle AND goes to the trouble to illustrate uneducated creationist oriented religious zealots have NO place here & seriously I propose he & those like him be banned.

Your stupid attempt to muddy the waters & obfuscate Science has one questioning what your attempting to achieve, ie nothing except doubt in a process that has been immensely successful in its progress reversing the immense suffering you claim was caused by your god punishing all of creation for EVER because the devil like god set up a young woman as "entrapment" !

How does your god communicate verkle ?

Jun 09, 2015
@PM:

"Until the term evolution is precisely, consistently and uniformly defined and rendered valid in micro (molecular) as well macro scale there will always be problem in distinguishing evolution from any sequential change,".

Obviously you didn't read Vietvet's comment on hwo scientists have no such problems, or any other you fantasize (without evidence, we note) about.

If you can fidn a better theory, you would of course be welcome to reproduce the 4+ million results already published. Start now, and come back and tell us when you are finished.

Jun 09, 2015
Evolution claims that mutations have given organisms all of the functionality they have today, which has never been verified by any scientists
-Creationism has never been verified by anybody.
and which is mathematically impossible
Creationism is mathematically impossible.
This whole article is based only on imagination and a computer model based on such imagination
... While the bible is based only imagination. We know this because science has proven the bible stories to be myths about people who never existed and events which never happened.
There is no inherent science in any of these postulations. Why do serious keep coming back to this unproven model?
There is no science whatsoever in creationism.

It's funny how godders will try to use scientific arguments against evolution while refraining from using them to support creationism. Except for pretenders like Ken Hamm who make the attempt and then conclude that 'it must be true because god said so.'

Jun 09, 2015
Speaking of the success of evolution, I have crowed the last year when it has finally crystallized a most likely pathway for emergence, based on standard evolutionary homologies no less. (As opposed to the many earlier known.) And how the field has turned towards testing. Already the potential primary known roadblocks for that pathway has fallen.

So it is with some satisfaction I note that this year's large US Astrobiology conference has added a session on tests, on that theory no less:

"The Emergence of Life at the Intersection of Prebiotic Chemistry and Early Earth Environments: Putting Scenarios to the Test"
[ http://www.hou.us...gram.pdf ]

Emergence of life has put down its baby shoes and stepped in the adult shoes. It is now normalized, testable science with a main theory.

Jun 09, 2015
"Creationism is mathematically impossible."

Ha, yes! What are the odds that a fantastically complex magic agent, who according to the myth knows how to make universes and all inside, would 'poof' out of, well, 'nothing' (as per the myth)!?

Compare that with the simplicity of the cold, empty inflation era of current cosmology, or the successive growth of complexity, in the end in biology forcefully driven by the mechanisms of population genetics, in the structures (galaxies) that were spawned as mere primordial fluctuations.

Fantastical complex, unlikely, magical, unverifiable 'poofs' out of 'nothings' vs simplest possible, utterly likely, physical, testable processes in the something that statistics and physics always worked in.

I know what I trust in.

JVK
Jun 09, 2015
Proteins do not evolve! Mutations perturb protein folding. The idea that mutated proteins could lead to evolution via natural selection is based on de Vries definition of "mutation" and assumptions that, in time, one species could evolve into another. See, instead.

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

Fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions regulates energy-dependent metabolic networks and genetic networks. Natural selection of nutrients links glycosylation and phosphorylation to reproduction.

JVK
Jun 09, 2015
Also from senior author: Plotkin
The evolution of complex gene regulation by low-specificity binding sites http://rspb.royal...abstract

Believers in neo-Darwinian theory must ignore two facts:
1) the chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding is biophysically constrained by the availability of nutrients;
2) the physiology of reproduction enables fixation of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in populations.

The substitutions link metabolic networks to genetic networks in all genera via the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation that are perturbed by mutations.

But, theoretically, the mutations lead to re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum "over-the-weekend." 1) By what? "Natural selection" 2) For what? Mutations

Who believes that the bacteria re-created their flagella via mutation-driven evolution in four days.

JVK
Jun 09, 2015
Excerpt: "The study focuses exclusively on the type of evolution known as purifying selection..."

Excerpt: "Using a computational model..."

Theorists are forced to think about evolution in the context of mathematical models.

Darwin's theory put his "conditions of life" first. What should that tell biologically uninformed science idiots about the pseudoscientific nonsense integrated into computational models?

[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

Plotkin and others are still trying to tell others that their assumptions about mutations make sense -- if only in the context of purifying selection.

JVK
Jun 09, 2015
...with some satisfaction I note that this year's large US Astrobiology conference has added a session on tests, on that theory no less:


With great satisfaction I note that Sutherland's group already linked the light-induced de novo creation of amino acids to the nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that stabilize the organized genomes of all genera via their nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction.

See: On the Origins of Life http://www.the-sc...of-Life/

Note also that George FR Ellis, who co-authored with Stephen Hawking in the 60's, is a vocal opponent of theorists who make claims based on untested or untestable theories. See:

http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0 A Crisis at the Edge of Physics

"Crowing" about theorists who are considering testing their theories is like "spitting into the wind."

JVK
Jun 09, 2015
www.hou.usra.edu/...7778.pdf

See: What do Prions, Viruses and Viroids reveal about the formation of life on earth ?

Excerpt: Study of bacteria in the environment is a relatively new field in comparison but has led to our understanding of the limits to life on earth in environment and time. It must also be so for the study of proto-life constructs. The environmental presence and interactions of these particles are relatively unknown but may be just as fundamental to our understanding
of how life started on earth."

For a creationist perspective: see also: Viral Genome Junk Is Bunk http://www.icr.or...cle/8661

For a historical perspective see:"The Darwin Code: Intelligent Design without God" http://rna-mediat...eg-bear/

See also: Understanding genetic diversity of bacteriophages http://phys.org/n...ges.html

JVK
Jun 09, 2015
JVK throws the author in his bucket of science idiots. Business as usual on Phys.org comment boards.


That is an excellent summary of what continues to happen each time a biologically uninformed science idiot publishes something that attests to the importance of understanding some insignificant part of a theory that has no explanatory power in the context of biologically-based cause and effect.

Again, see: Understanding genetic diversity of bacteriophages http://phys.org/n...ges.html

The phage-hunting team has climbed out of the drop of water in the bucket taken from an ocean that contains the viruses that link entropic elasticity to nutrient-dependent microRNAs and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that stabilize the organized genomes of all genera via fixation in the context of the physiology of reproduction.

JVK
Jun 09, 2015
"Research highlights the importance of a balanced diet for mental health." June 8th, 2015. http://medicalxpr...lth.html

See also my invited review of nutritional epigenetics:
Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems
http://figshare.c...s/994281

Jun 09, 2015
Proteins do not evolve! Mutations perturb protein folding. The idea that mutated proteins could lead to evolution via natural selection is based on de Vries definition of "mutation" and assumptions that, in time, one species could evolve into another. See, instead.

http://www.scienc...abstract
Excerpt: "...these bacteria consistently regained flagella within 96 hours via a two-step evolutionary pathway. ...

If you think about it, your example links are exactly what these guys determined...
Go Penn State! We Are!


Jun 09, 2015
Who is the "protein-folding" Czar here? He just got blown out of the water.

http://www.nbcnew...-n371891

JVK
Jun 09, 2015
Protein folding is RNA-mediated. What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot thinks that it occurred before the light-induced de novo creation of amino acids? (That was a rhetorical question.)

See: http://phys.org/n...hop.html

If you think about it, your example links are exactly what these guys determined...


Their mathematical model attests, in part, to the fact the the creation of the flagellum and its re-creation (in the ecologically adapted population) are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.

See also: A universal trend of amino acid gain and loss in protein evolution http://www.nature..._S1.html

Even if proteins did "evolve," their evolution has not been linked to a last universal common ancestor.

But that's the beauty of evolutionary theory. All claims are accepted by biologically uninformed theorists.

Jun 09, 2015
Anyone who follows religion has NO room to talk about others fooling themselves. Yours are the lies the scared folk tell themselves every day to get through it.

JVK
Jun 09, 2015
See also: http://www.the-sc...rly-Code

Excerpt: Which type of molecule came first has long been a matter of debate in the scientific community. Now, in two papers published this week (June 1) in PNAS, University of North Carolina scientists Richard Wolfenden, Charles Carter, and their colleagues have provided evidence to support the idea that proteins and RNA may have arisen concurrently.

http://www.the-sc...ing-Set/

Excerpt: A living system produces its own components from basic food sources in such a way that these components maintain and regulate the very chemical network that produced them. Based on this notion of life, several models of minimal living systems were developed during the 1970s. While these models captured an essential aspect of the organization of living things, however, they could not directly explain how such systems emerged...

Jun 09, 2015
All this minutiae proves nothing about the fact of how we got here. And I am not going to accept ridiculous ideas from the Age of Ignorance to explain it.

JVK
Jun 09, 2015
Anyone who follows religion has NO room to talk about others fooling themselves. Yours are the lies the scared folk tell themselves every day to get through it.


This discussion is not about religion. I follow the creationist literature and try to make sense of how the biophysically constrained chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding links metabolic networks and genetic networks to what is known about cell type differentiation in all genera.

EMERGENCE! The "buzz word" of the biologically uninformed.

SIMULTANEOUS EMERGENCE! The "buzz word" of biologically uninformed science idiots.

You claimed I got blown out of the water. After learning that I did not, you want to turn this into a discussion about religion.

What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot uses such ridiculous tactics to prevent discussion of biologically-based cause and effect? (That was a rhetorical question.)

JVK
Jun 09, 2015
I am not going to accept ridiculous ideas from the Age of Ignorance to explain it.


You're not going to accept any experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect. You're a biologically uninformed evolutionary theorist/science idiot.

Others, see: Beyond neo-Darwinism—an epigenetic approach to evolution
http://www.scienc...79901917

Jun 09, 2015
"You're a biologically uninformed evolutionary theorist/science idiot."
---------------------------------------

Your opinion has no weight.

Jun 09, 2015
@JVK
You post a wide amount without pointed rationalisation, ie huge pastes & links which are of the same pattern delving into tight technical detail only vaguely implying rather than stating & those implications are obtuse & point to an unclear creation/process paradigm ?

ie. Would be more useful in ethic of "Science Communication" re your field & I know some re food science with microbiology & casual research into molecular biology. I'd like to see a top down approach re your core science communication & respond to queries here as succinctly as possible as your position seems to be fluid/unclear in odd ways

ie Do you claim:-

1. Biochem is too complex it couldn't happen by chemical permutations & evident self assembly ?
2. Some deity has to step in & interfere subtly in each life process at all times ?
3. Evolution theory is false because it hasnt been observed to happen at complex levels ?
4. There is nil emergence properties because a deity did all of it ?

or ?

Jun 09, 2015
@JVK

You're bringing up Ellis again after he spanked you for misrepresenting him?

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

Jun 09, 2015
Oh, my, . . . where do we get these folk with the need for an Invisible Companion?

Jun 09, 2015
Mutations perturb protein folding
@jk
this has repeatedly been proven false and is pseudoscience
your own model requires mutations to work, so you are simply saying your own model is FALSE
The idea that mutated proteins could lead to evolution via natural selection is based on de Vries definition of "mutation"
no, it is NOT. and this has also been proven to you more than once
in fact, your own statement above means your own model is false (again)

here is VALIDATED experimental evidence that not only are some mutations beneficial, but that evolution is driven by mutations:

http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

as for this
http://www.scienc...abstract
it has already been explained to you here

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

and your ignorance has already been pointed out WRT the study

QUIT POSTING KNOWN FALLACIOUS PSEUDOSCIENCE

(reported)

JVK
Jun 09, 2015
I'd like to see a top down approach re your core science communication & respond to queries here as succinctly as possible as your position seems to be fluid/unclear in odd ways


Thanks. But you're asking yes / no questions that would lead to discussion about my religious beliefs.

I cited the response from George Ellis to comments about my model of top-down causation linked to the physiology of reproduction by RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions, and the model led to an invited review, requested by guest editors for a special issue of the journal "Nutrients"

The model: http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

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

Why not focus on what I've published or presented?
https://www.youtu...youtu.be

Jun 09, 2015
Theorists are forced to think about evolution in the context of mathematical models
@jk
NOPE

http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

- your comment is blatantly FALSE and proven thus repeatedly
I note that Sutherland's group already linked the light-induced de novo creation of amino acids
NO again
you said YOU linked it
In the past two years I've learned enough about physics to link the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of amino acids
VERBATIM from your own post here:

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

so why are you blatantly lying again about all your accomplishments AGAIN?

isn't it bad enough that every time you try to "interpret" science you are proven wrong and that you've already historically claimed to have "decades experience as a diagnostician" which is a felony?

(reported for pseudoscience)

JVK
Jun 09, 2015
The idea that mutated proteins could lead to evolution via natural selection is based on de Vries definition of "mutation"

no, it is NOT.


Yes, it IS!

"...about forty years ago the Dutchman de Vries discovered that in the offspring even of thoroughly pure-bred stocks, a very small number of individuals, say two or three in tens of thousands, turn up with small but 'jump-like' changes, the expression 'jump-like' not meaning that the change is so very considerable, but that there is a discontinuity inasmuch as there are no intermediate forms between the unchanged and the few changed. De Vries called that a mutation."
http://www.amazon...07604664

Masatoshi Nei (2013), eliminated "natural selection." He made "mutations" anything that happened to organized genomes including the nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated changes that link ecological variation to ecological adaptations via amino acid substitutions.

Jun 09, 2015
But you're asking ...about my religious beliefs
@jk
ALL of your posts are demonstrations of your "religious beliefs"
case in point
I've attempted to link science and religion
found here:

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

the SAME thread where you have claimed to have proven EVOLUTION true with the comment
I've learned enough about physics to link the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of amino acids
someone from the PO MODS threaten you finally?
The model: http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
YOUR MODEL DEBUNKED

http://www.socioa...ew/24367

i can refute your own posts with your own words
You're not going to accept any experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect. You're a biologically uninformed evolutionary theorist/science idiot.
PROOF that you ignore evidence

http://myxo.css.m...dex.html


Jun 09, 2015
Yes, it IS!
@jk
no, it is NOT
again, i point out the arguments re: de vries here

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

that thread proved you absolutely wrong as well as demonstrated the FACT that you are seriously incapable of interpreting definitions, data, the lexicon of biology, the nomenclature of biology field and the science of your chosen field
(including your own model, by the way, which Jones debunked - the critique of your model is the ONLY citation of your model as noted in the following link)

http://www.socioa...ew/24367

about forty years ago the Dutchman de Vries
so basically you are (again) saying no one has learned anything in the past 40 years?
your Dunning-Kruger is showing again, jk

PSEUDOSCIENCE
reported

Jun 09, 2015
I follow the creationist literature
@jk
THIS, more than anything else DEMONSTRATES that you are not scientifically literate, nor do you comprehend the scientific method

do you actually think no one notices your epic failures here on PO? do you think NO ONE sees your pseudoscience and stupidity?
perhaps you should re-read the comments again?
JVK comes in to copy paste his usual stuff and call us all science idiots. Then he quotes a paper that he thinks is in support of him but then when Captain Stumpy ask the authors and they say he's wrong, then JVK throws the author in his bucket of science idiots. Business as usual on Phys.org comment boards
@Thirteenth Doc
Thanks for the feedback and letting us know that people really are able to see when jk posts his pseudoscience!

Jun 09, 2015
blah blah believe...under duress
@renTROLL
1- religion - NOT SCIENCE
2- logical fallacy: argument from ignorance, red herring, Strawman and simply repeating dogma
He does not want to force
argument from ignorance- you don't know the mind of your sky faerie- you've already admitted as much elsewhere
he KILLS people who don't worship him
God what people to love Him blah blah blah
more argument from ignorance- see above
Creator will believe only those who have honest and good heart,blah blah blah God's character and grandeur
besides argument from ignorance: epic fail
from your comic (bible)
children born out of wedlock go to hell because of the sin is proof of love?
how about selling daughters?
killing anyone not of the same religion?
stoning anyone who doesn't think like you do?
I am talking from new testament here: shall i post those references from your own comic again?

your own comic disproves your argument

Jun 09, 2015
Ren82 claims
No one can give example for increasing of order in one physical system thank to random events
WRONG !

Take randomly mixed oxygen & hydrogen & supply a miniscule amount of activation energy & voila, they re-organize into a MORE ordered state. Its called self -assembly - all matter does it.

Because Ren82 it happens all the time & everywhere you dismiss it because you have NO education in chemistry with probability & statistics, learn activation energy, equilibria.

The SAME thing happens with DNA bases, they easily self-assemble from simple elements under common conditions and evidence they also form deep in oceans where there is no UV to disassociate them.

Ren82 why do you not see the evidence, when does self-assembly somehow stop & a deity has to step in ?

How does your god communicate Ren82, like a loving creator or a lazy devil that punishes ALL creation ?

Have asked you MANY times, why can't you answer my questions head-on ?

Jun 09, 2015
Ren82 demands
When people open this forum they can see only your wide post
Rubbish, use the mouse with the scroll wheel - can you learn to do that ?

Captain_Stumpy offers links, rationale but, you Ren82 offer nothing useful only religious opinion

Why are you here Ren82, this is a Science site, not claims of deity site ?

Ren82 requires
Be a little more modest and write more brief posts. Do not be selfish. Give a chance to the other participants.
Nothing is stopping you posting, learn some physics, chemistry, science communication and especially get a handle on permutations, you lack so much basic science understanding and can't see your god acts like a Devil, bad communicator, punisher & doesn't educate.

Your claimed deity is really a cheating Devil from the minds of men who dream, nothing else :-(

How does your god communicate Ren82 ?

When will he/she/it come back - if not why not, if so when, how do you get it to email us ?

;-)

Jun 09, 2015
JVK claims
Thanks. But you're asking yes / no questions that would lead to discussion about my religious beliefs
Not necessarily. For each question please feel free to take opportunity to concentrate a key rationale & as you are in one branch of science you would/should I hope appreciate the nature of evidence, its class or type & its repeatability etc

I'll look at links but, of those I previously looked at unfortunately they were not as pointed as I would expect of someone who had an uncluttered mind not influenced by a dogma :-(

JVK when you reply
...about my religious beliefs
This hits the nail on the head & does strongly show all your researching has immense potential to suffer confirmational bias only & fully consistent with your belief.

Can you craft experiment to test microbiological aspect of something which you believe should not happen according to your belief & how would you interpret it if observed ?

btw: How well do any gods communicate ?

Jun 09, 2015
Ren82 asks
More ordered? explain how the order increase in this situation?
The resulting molecule of H2O from oxygen & hydrogen has MORE complexity than O2 or H2 alone.

SAME happens when lightning strikes graphite in the presence of water & nitrogen etc to produce DNA bases - resulting molecules have MORE complexity than their component parts - it happens further up the complex chain too - the expense is energy & there is a LOT of it, this does not break any rules of physics & does not break rules of entropy overall either as its the system aspect re sum of energies and states in an essentially open system.

Ren82 claims
These obey physical laws but the information and the order in the system do not increase
It does increase locally because the system is NOT closed, the local smaller unit of information thus also increases - overall on a much larger scale it doesn't so overall no laws of entropy, information etc are ever broken.

My questions now please ?

Jun 09, 2015
Ren82 claims
The permutations are ordinary combinatorics and are taught in the first semester in the university. But I think that you yourself do not understand very good the permutations and do not know what you are talking about. Chance of about 1/10 ^ 40,000 for emergence only the proteins needed to process the information stored in DNA (minimal basic functionality in the most simple living cell) is there ever likely to happen?
Your maths doesn't account for foundational complexity ignoring HUGE amount of material globally for permutations !!!

You write as if only one dna base can only random react with one other at a time

Your idea is naive & wrong. Early earth there were trillions & trillions of DNA bases in deep oceans where UV is nil, heat & pressure & motion all exercise giga permutations.

When you have studied Probability/Statistics with permutations in microbiology then you can appreciate you made a mistake claiming I don't know math !

My q's pls ?

Jun 09, 2015
Ren82 claims
It is obviously that you do not understand basic mathematics
You intentionally misread my posts to arrive that that notion & thus I bet I am far more knowledgeable in maths than you, from matrices, through calculus, laplace, probability, factorials & up to relativity etc Engineering covers a good amount as its evidence based your maths I can glean is not related to physics as you need no evidence foundation.

Ren82 says
Scientists have calculated approximately that all elementary particles in the visible universe are 10 ^ 80
So what.

Ren82 says
I pointed out the number 10 ^ 40 000 and you still talk to me about permutations
Where from ? I talk permutations because you ignore this totally & thus look immensely naive & uneducated to claim I don't know math !
Look up factorials, have you EVER come across them ?

Ren82 claims
You really do not understand the magnitude of this problem
No.You misunderstand confluence of foundations

cont

Jun 09, 2015
Continued @Ren82

Your 10 ^ 40 000 has NO provenance, no environment, nothing to focus on, on what basis is it arrived at please ?
-------

Eg Only 1000 O2 & 1000 H2 in whole atmospheric space, probability all combine is VERY small zero !

Its disingenuous to contrive a low probability because environment is not conducive as its an essential factor regarding an equilibrium condition in terms of space etc ie Probability of paths crossing etc

Take many billions of O2 & H2 in 1L flask, the chance they ignite from a source of activation energy is certain, its effectively an absolute & best example is a petrol engine, you have chaotic distribution BUT, when the activation spark fires you always get ignition ie Probability=1

Its obvious I hope, your weird value of 10 ^ 40 000 NEEDS to be known from ?

Makes no sense to try to force a proof & a likely false numeric basis

Eg. H2O from O & H, DNA base from H2O, C & N etc ie Foundational; one leads to another - see ?

JVK
Jun 09, 2015
I follow the creationist literature

@jk
THIS, more than anything else DEMONSTRATES that you are not scientifically literate, nor do you comprehend the scientific method


See: http://www.icr.or...cle/8661 As molecular biologist and biochemist Peter Borger notes, "The most parsimonious answer is: the RNA viruses got their genes from their hosts."6

The alternative requires an explanation of how viruses "evolved" into living organisms with nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate their cell types.

It also requires an alternative anti-entropic force that "evolved" to prevent virus-driven entropic elasticity from becoming genomic entropy in all extant species. Currently, the only anti-entropic force appears to be the sun's biological energy. This attests, somewhat, to the representation in Biblical Genesis before and after the "fall."

But, even if it didn't the creationists have science on their side.

Jun 09, 2015
This attests, somewhat, to the representation in Biblical Genesis before and after the "fall."
@jk
no, it doesn't
you had better start reading up on your bible...
and also, you have better note that ASSumption (even about your holy comic) is simply personal conjecture... if you are going to make a comment and state it is validated without references, then you are PROVING that you don't know a thing about the scientific method
the creationists have science on their side
there is absolutely NO science in the creationist movement
and THAT has been proven

https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

one last point:
the very DEFINITION creationists use to describe their religion proves that SCIENCE is the LAST thing they are interested in

they state they are RE-INTERPRETING - trying to make the data fit the BIBLE

IOW-a historical comic/myth book which has been proven, with empirical evidence, that is factually INCORRECT as well as plagiarized etc

Jun 09, 2015
also
The alternative requires an explanation of
the alternative, AKA Evolution, has been repeatedly demonstrated to be factual as well as provides the best Theory for the evidence that has been presented, measured and observed.

the Theory of Evolution is not simply a belief in something, as you are trying to infer, but it is a scientific Theory which has repeatedly been validated by links you yourself have provided, kohl

Plus, from Lenski and Dr's Extavour and Whittaker to Ellis and the rest: you have repeatedly demonstrated that when you try to interpret their work in the light of your religious beliefs, you FAIL, epically

last thing:
continuing to state that "everyone else" is wrong because of your religion is the very definition of delusional religious fundamental behavior (also Dunning-Kruger), especially when confronted with empirical evidence and experimentation which validates the Evolution claims and refutes your dogma


Jun 09, 2015
Run it back a million years and you will probably only find a couple of times when our emergence could have easily been prevented.

Jun 09, 2015
"You're a biologically uninformed evolutionary theorist/science idiot."
---------------------------------------

Your opinion has no weight.
Neither does yours. One-sentence spit posts every 5 minutes have no value. And anyone who uprates this brainless ass has no dignity.

Jun 09, 2015
Electromagnetic waves except those in the frequency range of visible light and elementary particles are also invisible, but we know that they exist. So your logic is a little superficial
But we have evidence that they exist. EVIDENCE. We also have an overwhelming amount of evidence which tells us the god of abraham is a fairy tale.

And do not conflate your bankrupt theist deities with the deistic inventions of philos. They too are man made but philos constructed them to be unprovable.

And they did not do this for your sake. Actually, maybe they did.
Explain how work natural selection. How sifting hypothetical positive from negative mutations that occur in the same time in one organism? How do you explain blah
Even if youre right this does not prove your god exists. You do understand that dont you?

YOUR god wrote a book full of verifiable lies.

Jun 09, 2015
Hooyeei I caught the big one here everybody.

@ JVK-Skippy. How you are this afternoon Cher? I am good me. (Maybe we should ask how you are later because you will probably not be feeling to good in a few minutes.)

I got the science idiot question for you again. Non not about the hydrogens that you think can smell other hydrogens like you said they could. This one is about your job at the Georgia hospital putting tubes into the blood checking machine. How you come to lose that job Cher? Ol Ira-Skippy is thinking there is a good big fun story about that. You want I should tell him my way of telling a story? Or do you want to tell him first?

Jun 09, 2015
P.S. for you JVK-Skippy. I am with you on this one Cher. It was not your fault the silly Skippette could not see that the stinking love potions were working, eh? She should have realized that she was your girl friend.


Jun 09, 2015
Greenonion again making declarations and qualifications but does not explain how natural selection works. Probably because he did not have even the faintest idea. Evolutionist are not strong in the details. Please explain how natural selection works with your works in detail. I wait for this for a long time.

Jun 09, 2015
Greenonion again making declarations and qualifications but does not explain how natural selection works. Probably because he did not have even the faintest idea. Evolutionist are not strong in the details. Please explain how natural selection works with your works in detail. I wait for this for a long time.


You think evolutionists are not strong on details?

ScholarAbout 4,230,000 results (0.07 sec
https://scholar.g...as_sdtp=

Jun 10, 2015
Uncle Ira, pray do tell lol!

JVK
Jun 10, 2015
Epigenetic influences on the developing brain: effects of hormones and nutrition

http://www.dovepr...icle-AGG

See also my invited review of nutritional epigenetics:
Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems

http://figshare.c...s/994281

JVK
Jun 10, 2015
http://evolution....0/evo_14

Mechanisms: the processes of evolution
Evolution ...but exactly how does it work?

Fundamental to the process is genetic variation upon which selective forces can act in order for evolution to occur. This section examines the mechanisms of evolution focusing on:

Descent and the genetic differences that are heritable and passed on to the next generation;

Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection as mechanisms of change;

The importance of genetic variation;

The random nature of genetic drift and the effects of a reduction in genetic variation;

How variation, differential reproduction, and heredity result in evolution by natural selection; and

How different species can affect each other's evolution through coevolution.

Compare those ridiculous claims to what is currently known to serious scientists about molecular mechanisms.

Jun 10, 2015
Uncle Ira, pray do tell lol!
@IRA
By all means... tell it all, and send us some links too
show us the links!

but does not explain how natural selection works
@viko
hey viko...i'm still not dead yet... pray harder

but... i DID explain how natural selection works to you with a link that was not only clear, concise and written for the 9th grade reading level, but it also linked the studies as EVIDENCE proving it and substantiating the claims
Evolutionist are not strong in the details
except that i provided you with a HIGHLY detailed account and you said you wouldn't read it... you wanted me to POST it in MY writing

IOW- you wanted to argue semantics and grammar over the science

perhaps i should request they rewrite it for the 4th grade level? would that be better?


Jun 10, 2015
viko_mx says
Greenonion again making declarations and qualifications but does not explain how natural selection works
NOT up to him, go join a uni class in evolutionary biology - you Dill !

viko_mx claims
Probably because he did not have even the faintest idea
Evidence, you're wrong, he & others have tried to inform you & with links but, you ignore them - you Dill !

viko_mx claims
Evolutionist are not strong in the details
Liar, get an education in probability & statistics & try to actually read all posts that replied to you since you joined here !

viko_mx asks
Please explain how natural selection works with your works in detail
Already been explained to you & by me too; universal self assembly in conjunction with permutations in conjunction with selection criteria that which survives immense combinations succeeds & procreates - doh !

viko_mx says
I wait for this for a long time
Lazy Dill - use google !

How does your god communicate ?

Jun 10, 2015
Ren82 has claimed
I pointed out the number 10 ^ 40 000 and you still talk to me about permutations. You really do not understand the magnitude of this problem. Number of such size as 10 ^ 40 000 have no physical meaning in our universe
How "Pointed out" Ren82, show the Provenance of claim, how this number is arrived at & the precise basis on which it is founded but, NOTHING !

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

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

The deity that punished all of creation due to a setup of entrapment of a young woman which clearly shows the deity he claims acts just like an evil Devil !

JVK
Jun 10, 2015
Diet, bones and dental health: how food can change your face

http://www.brisba...vhi.html


JVK
Jun 10, 2015
http://rspb.royal...9?cpetoc

"Understanding the origins of biodiversity can be framed as a macroevolutionary question: why are some clades more successful than others? The answers will lead to rethinking of much current evolutionary research, and a re-focus of smaller-scale, phylogeographic, genomic and conservation biological approaches to comparing species-rich and species-poor subclades. There are strong opportunities to make major theoretical advances in questions of evolutionary success, hierarchy of processes and the relative significance of biotic and abiotic factors in driving evolution.'

Jun 11, 2015
Diet, bones and dental health: how food can change your face
@jk
change your face? so can a fist, radiation exposure, 12guage, chewing rocks and holding your head underwater for long periods of time...
what is your point?

exactly what are you trying to say ??

http://rspb.royal...9?cpetoc
and again
WHAT'S YOUR POINT

are you stating that these links somehow support your creationist dogma?

you really don't have a very good track record of "interpreting" studies, you know

JVK
Jun 11, 2015
This is my point:

The origins of biodiversity are nutrient-dependent and RNA-mediated via the physiology of reproduction.

See for examples: http://www.rnasociety.org/ or anything I have ever published.

JVK
Jun 11, 2015
you really don't have a very good track record of "interpreting" studies, you know


Silencing Surprise

A chromatin remodeler in embryonic stem cells clears the DNA for mRNA transcription while stifling the expression of noncoding transcripts.

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

See my comments to "The Scientist"

Please try to explain how beneficial mutations might play a role similar to the role played by a "chromatin remodeler."

Alternatively, accept the fact that you are a biologically uninformed science idiot who knows nothing about how cell type differentiation occurs in all genera because you were taught to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense of a ridiculous theory.

"The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... Assumptions... were taught as fact."

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

Jun 12, 2015
"The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... Assumptions... were taught as fact."


I unblocked your comment for once and instantly regretted it. Don't put words in Denis Noble's mouth, because he is very clear in the interview itself:

"By "replacement" I don't mean to say that the mechanism of random change followed by selection does not exist as a possible mechanism. But it becomes one mechanism amongst many others, and those mechanisms must interact"

Who's the uninformed idiot now?

Jun 12, 2015
The origins of biodiversity are nutrient-dependent and RNA-mediated
@jk
you've never proven this
See my comments to "The Scientist"
WHY do i want to watch you TROLL a science publication? i will simply report it like i do the trolling you do on ScienceMag... too bad they haven't deleted you from there yet
{lease try to explain how beneficial mutations
ok, you've been given study after study that has empirical evidence as well as demonstrates mutations/beneficial mutations and how this works... you ignored them in the past and tried to "re-interpret" some getting you a rebuke from some authors...
why ask again?
feeling like another round of failure?

historically, you have a 100% failure rate when "interpreting" science
including your own model

to be cont'd

Jun 12, 2015
@ the illiterate jk, cont'd
http://www.huffin...211.html
your quote above isn't even from Denis Noble anyway, it is a story given to the AUTHOR (Suzan Mazur) from Lynn Margulis - and Margulis is quoting something else
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...
and i will tell you YET AGAIN that single mutation speciation is STILL debated...

there is nothing in that article NOR in that quote that supports your stupidity and creationist dogma, jk

still epically failing to interpret science... and in this case, you can't even interpret and ARTICLE correctly
WOW

would you like me to contact the author and the others to clarify this for you, jk?


JVK
Jun 13, 2015
I reiterate: "A chromatin remodeler in embryonic stem cells clears the DNA for mRNA transcription while stifling the expression of noncoding transcripts."

Claims that try to link mutations to evolution can be placed into that context to show how ridiculous the claims are.

Facts: The majority of transcripts in the squid nervous system are extensively recoded by A-to-I RNA editing http://elifescien...fe.05198

Pseudoscientific nonsense: "...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

Jun 13, 2015
If it is unpredictable then it is not a theory, as to meet the definition of a theory it needs to be able to make predictions. For example, predict the traits that would be introduced to a population fo organisms trapped in a given environment over geologic time. You can't though. Lots of completely different organisms exist in the same environments, because specific traits are not actually constrained by the environment.

Some cases in the modern world are examples of how elephants and camels live in desert nations and in jungle nations, but their predecessors lived in the high arctic in temperatures 80 to 100C colder from one extreme to the other. Hammerhead sharks compared to other sharks. They have the same environment, but completely different traits. No theory can predict the existence of a hammerhead shark based on the existence of other sharks, but to be a theory the hypothesis of evolution would need to be able to predict the existence of a hammerhead.

Jun 13, 2015
The fossil record is filled with abrupt changes which more closely resemble engineering rather than gradual evolutionary processes. Organisms necks suddenly grow or shrink by tens of percent, or even several feet, etc. That's engineering. WE have trouble replicating that through literally gene splicing right now, but "somebody" was doing that all throughout the fossil record.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest a creator, a designer who modifies life in deliberate ways, abruptly. The study of fetal morphology in an effort to show relationships of organisms is non-scientific.

The structure of a sauropod's ribbed kneck vertebrae suggest to me a creator who fore-planned the existence of how those biological mechanisms worked together; the bones, the muscles which lift the neck, the nerves which control everything, and just as importantly the heart and blood vessels to carry blood all the way up to that brain and head to keep the animal alive.

Jun 13, 2015
You foolishly believe that happened by accident, and moreover foolishly believe it happened by accident several unrelated times in different parts of the animal kingdom throughout time. I see that as only being possible through design. I see no reason to accept your ignorant notion that a few happy accidents produced such a monstrously successful creature, least of all something with an immense neck and tail which need every detail to work together at the right time and hte right way. An accident? Hardly. You need genes for the bones, the muscle, the nerves the blood, the skin, all the grow and mature in unison. To claim that happens by accident is ludicrous.

JVK
Jun 13, 2015
http://rna-mediat...tations/

Excerpt: The base pair change and amino acid substitution continue to be reported in the context of ridiculous theories about mutations, natural selection, and the automagical evolution of biodiversity.

Jun 13, 2015
http://rna-mediated.com/amino-acid-substitutions-are-not-mutations/

Excerpt: The base pair change and amino acid substitution continue to be reported in the context of ridiculous theories about mutations, natural selection, and the automagical evolution of biodiversity.


JVK is spamming with his blog again.

Reported.

Jun 13, 2015
In order to be a "theory" it must be able to make predictions, and it must be repeatable and testable. Evolution cannot make predictions, and it can't be repeated or tested. Therefore evolution is not a theory. It is a conjecture.

Jun 13, 2015
Returners claimed
In order to be a "theory" it must be able to make predictions, and it must be repeatable and testable
Sure & adaptation as observed is subject to chaos i& proven, ie At the simplest level you can see Bacteria, they adapt as per theory

Outcome is subject to divergence as it is consistent with biochemistry in conjunction with chaos in conjunction with energy flows & chemical equilibria...

Returners claims
Evolution cannot make predictions, and it can't be repeated or tested
Wrong !
Adaptation is predicted & repeated given the huge permutation space & that is subject to rather precise mathematics re probability & statistics

Problem you face Returners is desire for absolute certainty, Science does NOT work that way, you have been here long enough to observe surely ?

Besides Returners you havent understood anything close to timescale re evolution is unqualified !

Returners get a grip on Evolutionary Biology AND timescale re details

Jun 13, 2015
Ren82 claims
No. Evolution is physically impossible in the known universe under current acting laws of physics
Prove it !

I've show you MANY times the universe's components SELF assembly constantly, eg water, amino acids, dna bases..

Get an education Ren82 or go away, you are not welcome here obfuscating & proselytizing !

Ren82 claims
Our empirical experience and modern scientific discoveries speak eloquently in favor of the creation by God's will and power
You clearly have NEVER been in a microbiology laboratory and observed bacteria adapt to changes according to evolutionary prenciples.

Simplest for you & returners is biochem issue at a simple level ie Survival !

Ren82 if you get an education in Probability & Statistics in conjunction with evolutionary biology then you might just appreciate any singular act of creation as claimed by a story about your god from an old book is NOT necessary for biochem !

Ren82 primitive ideas re a god are NOT Science !

Jun 14, 2015
Why do folk need to defend their pathetic need for a Cosmic Daddy, an Imaginary Being who will love them, punish them severely, and tell them they really will not die.

But of course we all do, we all return to the nothingness from which we originated.

Meanwhile, those with the need will kill you if you do not agree with them, and they will all kill each other over whose Imaginary Being is the "real" one.

Jun 14, 2015
Okay, Ren, which god did it?

Jun 14, 2015
"It is no possible RNA to be formed by itself in natural environmental conditions."
-------------------------------------

That is only conjecture, not proof.

Then, how did it happen?

Prove it.

Jun 14, 2015
Claims that try to link mutations to evolution can be placed into that context to show how ridiculous the claims are
jk
but your own model links mutations to evolution! so it is rediculous?
THANKS for confirming that
http://rna-mediat...tations/
CREATIONIST PSEUDOSCIENCE PROMOTING PERSONAL SITE
PHISHING
TROLLING
SPAM
SELF-PROMOTION
[reported]

...cannot make predictions...
@returners
WTF kind of crap is that? you said you were intelligent!
so much for THOSE claims- you just proved yourself wrong!

Lenski made predictions which have been proven to be spot on! in fact, the PREDICTION is that mutations can be beneficial and that we can mutate beneficial adaptations
- see:
http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

Lenski, Dr. Extavour, Dr. Whittaker are PROVING the predictions with their work making your comment not only blatantly false, but truly, incredibly stupid considering the attention they've received here on PO alone!


Jun 14, 2015
This God who sacrifice itself on the cross to atone the man's sins so should not perish even one person but to have eternal life.
Ren
so glad you told me in another thread you are TROLLING
so i am just going to continue to report you as a TROLL
thanks

also- your above religious idol dod NOT meet all the requirements of the bible to be the saviour, therefore it is a lie spread by committee (Canon) and false testimony

Also, your bible states you are wrong for spreading the word (second covenant description JER 31: 28- etc)

Your religion has been proven to plagiarize from Egypt and other religions, so your monotheistic triple-deity is a myth stolen

your religion is also far younger than most others

all proven by science, research, archeology and more

epic fail

[reported] (all posts)


Jun 14, 2015
Why are there no contemporary accounts of the existence of such a person? None exist until a hundred years after his alleged death. No traces in the accounts at all? Some think he was the invention of Flavius Josephus.

Since none of this can be proven, and is a hand-down from the Age of Ignorance, and since it conflicts with what we can prove, I think it is all in your head.

That is okay, but keep it out of a science site.

Jun 14, 2015
"You are not looking and not reading enough in this direction."
-------------------------------------

I outgrew all that stuff.

Start being realistic.

Jun 14, 2015
On the topic of prebiotic synthesis of RNA and ribonucleotides:

http://www.mdpi.c.../318/pdf
http://www.chtf.s...ides.pdf

Substantial progress has been made, Ren. Stop being willfully ignorant of it.


JVK
Jun 14, 2015
DNA data explosion lights up the Bronze Age
http://www.nature...-1.17723

Excerpt: "....a mutation linked to thick hair and numerous sweat glands, once thought to have emerged in East Asians, was common in Scandinavians as early as 7,700 years ago — potentially revealing a connection between these groups."

An amino acid substitution is the link from thick hair and sweat glands in mice to humans. Only biologically uninformed science idiots continue to report that mutations are linked to nutrient-dependent epigenetically-effected RNA-mediated cell type differentiation.

See: http://www.ncbi.n...24693353 Two additional recent reports link substitution of the amino acid alanine for the amino acid valine (Grossman et al., 2013) to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. The alanine substitution for valine.... The cause-and-effect relationship was established in mice....

JVK
Jun 14, 2015
On the topic of prebiotic synthesis of RNA and ribonucleotides:


Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) refuses to acknowledge that no progress has been made and no serious scientists expect any scientific progress to be made by evolutionary theorists.

circRNA Biogenesis Competes with Pre-mRNA Splicing
http://www.cell.c...l%3Dtrue

Jun 15, 2015
Ren82 asks
Do you think that if you make a cocktail of essential amino acids will get willfully proteins?
Yes, its called bonding.
Speak to an evolutionary biologist who know more than I and you should listen to as they have mountains of evidence re amino acids (which arise naturally with MORE information content than their components) and simple proteins, throw into the mix mettaloid crystalline formations & you have the basis for sequencing, the components are there, the permutations are vast ALL you need is time.

Isnt time vast, is there anything Ren82 that suggests with evidence time is short - just one piece ?

Ren82 asks
What science says about this?
Get an education, go away & read, your tangential god-centric rants are NOT Science !

Ren82 says
You know that I'm not interested of your declarations
Which confirms Ren82 will NOT read the links offered, has NIL interest in Science education and is ONLY here to proselytize at any level it can !

Jun 15, 2015
if you forget about your pride and vanity, you will see that this is a wonderful reality that gives huge opportunities for personal development.

Do you think scientists don't know that? Do you think they don't enjoy the miracoulous intricacy of reality immensely?
You actually get to find out how intimately connected everything is and not just have to make up some fairy story. As a scientist you get to see how that feeling of wonder is beased on something real.

That does not detract from this feeling in the least. If anything it deepens it. You get to see the world as other people do (wonderfully red roses, romantic sunrises, enticing smells, ...) but you *also* get to see how they all interrelate on a very fundamental level.

It makes experiencing life infinitely richer.

Where we differ is that we don't need to make up additional stories to make it more ineteresting.

To gild refined gold
to paint the lily
to perfume the violet
...is just eff-ing silly

Jun 15, 2015
No, Miky. Proteins do not emerge by itself in the external environment
Well of course they do because thats what happened. What, do you think that the god who didnt know that rabbiits dont have cuds or that there were never any 2M hebrew slaves in goshen, would be capable of such a feat?

When scientists figure out how this works in the near future you will have yet one more embarrassing leap of faith to live with.

And the internet will never let you godders forget. One more nail in your coffin.

Jun 15, 2015
Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) refuses to acknowledge that no progress has been made


Except for the fact that the research article and review I previously linked demonstrates the progress you say isn't occurring.

JVK
Jun 16, 2015
Except for the fact that...


Technique to identify system-wide post-translational modification sites
https://www.faceb.../?type=1

Is SUMOylation RNA-directed DNA methylation? If so, tell us what progress has been made that links abiogenesis and SUMOylation to cell type differentiation in all genera.

If not, tell us how the research article and review you previously linked demonstrates the progress that you claim is being made.

Claiming progress is being made when it obviously is not being made is what theorists do.

Jun 16, 2015
Claiming progress is being made when it obviously is not being made is what theorists do.
@jk
so now you are a theorist?
you are continually claiming to have made more progress than the rest of the GLOBE... lets look at that, shall we?
In the past two years I've learned enough about physics to link the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of amino acids and the de novo creation of amino acids to the amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all genera.


Read more at: http://phys.org/n...ion.html

so, not only are you a blatant liar posting something that is proven impossible, but it is also making a claim that is obviously something that is note being done or being "made" as you put it above

EPIC FAIL again

at least there is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and VALIDATED experimentation being posted by ANON

all you give is creationist PSEUDOSCIENCE and failed interpretations

Jun 16, 2015
Is SUMOylation RNA-directed DNA methylation?


Are you asking because you're unsure? No, SUMOylation is not methylation. SUMOylation doesn't involve DNA at all. It involves the SUMO protein attaching to other proteins.

https://en.wikipe..._protein

If not, tell us how the research article and review you previously linked demonstrates the progress that you claim is being made.


The first link is an experimental demonstration of RNA polymerization with montmorillonite clay as a catalyst. The second covers cumulative information about prebiotic synthesis routes of ribonucleotides.

JVK
Jun 16, 2015
SUMOylation is not methylation. SUMOylation doesn't involve DNA at all.


E2-mediated Small Ubiquitin-like Modifier (SUMO) Modification of Thymine DNA Glycosylase Is Efficient but Not Selective for the Enzyme-Product Complex* http://www.jbc.or...810.long

"Thymine DNA glycosylase (TDG) initiates the repair of G·T mismatches that arise by deamination of 5-methylcytosine (mC), and it excises 5-formylcytosine and 5-carboxylcytosine, oxidized forms of mC. TDG functions in active DNA demethylation and is essential for embryonic development. TDG forms a tight enzyme-product complex with abasic DNA, which severely impedes enzymatic turnover."

The article is open access and shows, once again, that Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) is a biologically uninformed science idiot who cannot link RNA-mediated cell type differentiation from ecological variation to ecological adaptations via nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions.

Jun 16, 2015
For emphasis:

(SUMO) Modification of Thymine DNA GLYCOSYLASE

I repeat:

GLYCOSYLASE

That is an enzyme. That paper does not describe SUMO modification of thymine or DNA. It describes SUMO modification of the glycosylase enzyme. The list of Kohl misinterpretations is already enormous and you're doing an excellent job of adding to it.


JVK
Jun 16, 2015
The anonymous fool wrote:
SUMOylation doesn't involve DNA at all.


From the excerpt I quoted: "TDG functions in active DNA demethylation and is essential for embryonic development."

RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions are essential for nutrient-dependent embryonic development and the physiology of reproduction is essential to biodiversity.

What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot continues to claim I am misrepresenting anything about cell type differentiation?


Jun 16, 2015
From the excerpt I quoted: "TDG functions in active DNA demethylation and is essential for embryonic development."


That's saying what TDG does, not what SUMOylation does. You initially asked if SUMOylation was the same as methylation. I answered your question.

JVK
Jun 16, 2015
I answered your question.


You have never answered any question with anything except more pseudoscientific nonsense. Tell others how cell type differentiation is biophysically constrained by nutrient uptake in the context of thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation. Answer their questions without integrating physics and chemistry to see how convincing your ridiculous ideas are to intelligent people.

JVK
Jun 16, 2015
Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism
http://dx.doi.org...hem.2202

The article links the de novo creation of light-induced amino acids to cell type differentiation via amino acid substitutions in the context of RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions.

Jun 17, 2015
Again:

You initially asked if SUMOylation was the same as methylation.

That's a simple yes or no question and I used the paper you posted to point out that they are not the same thing. You've turned what should have been a simple Q&A into a convoluted mess.

Jun 17, 2015
Creating convulsed messes is what JVK does best.

JVK
Jun 18, 2015
The article links the de novo creation of light-induced amino acids to cell type differentiation via amino acid substitutions in the context of RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions.

That is not a convoluted mess. It is how cell type differentiation occurs in all genera

Jun 18, 2015
The article links the de novo creation of light-induced amino acids to cell type differentiation via amino acid substitutions in the context of RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions.

That is not a convoluted mess. It is how cell type differentiation occurs in all genera
?

The article and your comment have nothing to do with each other. Did you wonder to the wrong thread? Doesn't matter, your comment is bs where ever you post it.

Jun 18, 2015
What science can be the theories of cosmic and biological evolution, when there is not even one scientific fact on which to stand? There are only guesses, assumptions, speculative assumptions based on wishfull thinking. The main driver for these theories is the desire for lawlessness. Such people usually look for teachers for their passions. The lawlessness cause only chaos and suffering.


Jun 18, 2015
viko_mx asks
What science can be the theories of cosmic and biological evolution, when there is not even one scientific fact on which to stand?
You have been told MANY times before, get an Education in Physics & Maths & especially Probability & Statistics - start with high school level then move to university level and it will become clear.

But viko_mx, pre-occupation & attachment to old middle eastern book that ONLY make claims about a god that punishes EVERYONE for all time is causing you to lose your way.

Relying on mere claim from a 2000 yr old book & neglecting Evidence hasn't helped you one bit :-(

viko_mx claims
There are only guesses, assumptions, speculative assumptions based on wishfull thinking
No. Its called mathematics & Physics based on Evidence.

viko_mx claims
The main driver for these theories is the desire for lawlessness. Such people usually look for teachers for their passions. The lawlessness cause only chaos and suffering
Prove it ?

JVK
Jun 18, 2015
Humans as an Animal Model for Systems-Level Organization of Olfaction
http://www.scienc...05008329

Humans' built-in GPS is our 3-D sense of smell
http://www.scienc...5250.htm

JVK
Jun 20, 2015
There are only guesses, assumptions, speculative assumptions based on wishfull thinking.


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

Prove it ?


It is not possible to prove how ridiculous evolutionary theory is to those who are biologically uninformed. The science idiots here are like all science idiots. Facts are dismissed and theorists claim that serious scientists must prove what is accepted.

JVK
Jun 20, 2015
http://phys.org/n...nce.html

Excerpt: "This discovery overturns a 50-year-old doctrine that assumes that the precursor undergoes a reduction reaction to form the luciferin. The second enzyme is the luciferase, which catalyzes the oxidation of the luciferin to produce the luminescence."

My comment: The overturned doctrine is one that linked mutations and natural selection to the evolution of biodiversity. The facts link metabolic networks and genetic networks via RNA-directed DNA methylation and fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all genera via the physiology of reproduction.

Jun 20, 2015
@JVK

The "over turned doctrine" has nothing to do with mutations or evolution. Talk about a science idiot. For a mensa member you are either stupid or dishonest. Meh, you're both.

Jun 21, 2015
Every permanent magnet lose it power over time as a consequence of one way entropy. So what should have been the strength of the Earth's magnetism billions of years ago? As a neutron star? The last ceture Eart magnetism lose 6 % of its strenth. Some evolutionist known very well this fact and postulate that the Earth's magnetic field changes its direction and therefore weakened his power.

JVK
Jun 22, 2015
The "over turned doctrine" has nothing to do with mutations or evolution.


No one cares what you think the overturned doctrine is.

It obviously involves the nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation that is biophysically constrained by the physiology of reproduction in all genera.

Expanding the DNA alphabet: 'Extra' DNA base found to be stable in mammals
http://www.scienc...2726.htm

Jun 22, 2015
No one cares what you think...
@jk
no one cares to read your PSEUDOSCIENCE here either... but you still post it!
remove the plank from your own eye before trying to help another with their own mote...

It obviously involves...
do we really have to get into this again?
BEFORE you start pontificating about how someone else's papers support your personal pseudoscience, perhaps you should take some courses and learn what you should have learned in college when you failed out - start here: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

problem is: YOU specifically have an epically horrible reputation for misinterpretation of science as well as inability to comprehend scientific evidence

THIS IS NOT SPECULATION, THIS IS PROVEN

here on PO, you have a 100% FAIL rate interpreting other science

go back to the link i left and start educating yourself and quit spouting off nonsense

JVK
Jun 22, 2015
Selective Chemical Labeling of Natural T Modifications in DNA
http://pubs.acs.o....5b03730

Conclusion: "He and co-workers recently reported a method to selectively enrich 5-hmU:G mispairs utilizing a chemoenzymatic glycosylation.(21) Our 5-fU tagging strategy following 5-hmU oxidation would be useful to enrich 5-hmU in both matched and mismatched contexts. In particular, this is important for the study of 5-hmU in mammalian cells, where it has been shown that all detectable steady-state 5-hmU exists in a hmU:A base-pair context.(4)

In conclusion, we demonstrate a method to selectively enrich fragments containing T modifications in DNA by exploiting the chemoselective reactivity of the aldehyde present in 5-fU. Our method will help to further elucidate any potential role, function or consequence of such modified bases in DNA."

Selective enrichment is nutrient-dependent and RNA-mediated in all cell types of all genera.

JVK
Jun 22, 2015
"chemoenzymatic glycosylation" links nutrient uptake and phosphorylation to RNA-directed DNA methylation via fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types in the context of the physiology of reproduction.

See RNA-mediated.com http://rna-mediated.com/ or the RNA Society domain http://www.rnasociety.org/

Jun 22, 2015
... is nutrient-dependent and RNA-mediated ...
@jk
throwing around buzzwords and techno-babble when you have proven to be incapable of comprehending your own field's nomenclature or lexicon doesn't mean you comprehend someone else's science

also, yoru kohl-slaw word salad for a "model" utilises mutations in order for it to work, which, by definition, puts it squarely under the heading of Evolution and it means you are supporting evolution... except that you make epic mistakes in your model which caused actual scientists to debunk it for it's mistakes!

http://www.socioa...ew/24367

a well written full debunking, which can be summed up as such
Kohl overextends his expertise ... Kohl also shows significant comprehension issues within his own paper and in external discussions of references he believes support his model.
this sums up EVERY post you've put on PO to date

100% FAIL rate interpreting other papers

Jun 22, 2015
See RNA-mediated.com http://rna-mediated.com/
@jk
you should have stuck with the other link

THIS LINK IS A KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE
also a PHISHING SITE!

SELF ADULATION AND SELF-REFERENCING your pseudoscience is NOT SCIENCE, nor does your site accept actual proven experimental science over it's creationist dogma

TROLLING
PSEUDOSCIENCE - IT IS NOT A SCIENCE SITE and REFERENCES CREATIONIST DOGMA

reported

JVK
Jun 22, 2015
"Studies show epigenetic histone modifications of chromatin structures are not sufficient to continue this differentiation, but, also, need the continued daily production of the protein TFs."

- See more at: http://jonlieffmd...VSs.dpuf

My comment: "...the continued daily production of the protein TFs..." links RNA-mediated events to cell type differentiation via the fixation of amino acid substitutions.

Jun 23, 2015
"How can an individual cell be so intelligent? How can an individual cell integrate so many different kinds of information and then act in concert with large numbers of other cells? It must maintain a daily set of specific genetic triggers for up to a hundred years?

Where does this intelligence lie? Where is the direction? Isn't it most reasonable to presume that all of these cells are tied to a source of integrated information or mind?"

http://jonlieffmd...79440661

The musings of a retired shrink without any background in evolutionary biology. His blogs make numerous references to "intelligent" and "very intelligent" cells but never provides a source for that "intelligence"-----except "mind".

It's not surprising JVK is a fan. Another blog writer pushing pseudoscience.



JVK
Jun 23, 2015
Those who criticize my posts and my model typically fail to compare their thoughts on cell type differentiation. How does it occur outside the context of the nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction?

http://rna-mediat...oneybee/

Excerpt:

Animal models are often used to model human physical and mental disorders. The honeybee already serves as a model organism for studying human immunity, disease resistance, allergic reaction, circadian rhythms, antibiotic resistance, the development of the brain and behavior, mental health, longevity, diseases of the X chromosome, learning and memory, as well as conditioned responses to sensory stimuli (Kohl, 2012). — see Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.

It is no wonder that I follow Jon Lieff's blog posts on 'Searching for the Mind.' See my blog posts at PerfumingtheMind.com http://perfumingthemind.com/

JVK
Jun 23, 2015
Relationships between diet-related changes in the gut microbiome and cognitive flexibility
http://www.scienc...15004480

"...both high-energy diets caused shifts in the composition of the microbiome.... The high-sucrose
diets also interfered with early development of a spatial bias, cognitive flexibility and working memory to a greater degree than high-fat diets. A diet-induced increase in bacteria from the order Clostridiales and a decrease in Bacteroidales were both associated with poor cognitive flexibility. These results suggest that specific bacterial orders within the microbiota may contribute to the effects of Western diets on cognitive function."

The results link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA via nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions, not by mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of increasing organismal complexity.

Jun 23, 2015
Those who criticize my posts and my model typically fail to compare their thoughts on cell type differentiation
@jk
wrong again: i criticize it and i have told you that my thoughts are to follow the evidence, such as Lenski et al, Dr Extavour et al and Dr. Whittaker et al, which is a direct refute of your claims... and worse still, Jones specifically stated his thoughts and proved your model not only incorrect, but also blatantly wrong due to your inability to comprehend biological processes
http://rna-mediat...oneybee/
http://perfumingthemind.com/
PSEUDOSCIENCE LINKS
these links promote CREATIONIST dogma and PSEUDOSCIENCE!

it is also a PHISHING/SCAM personal site, NOT a science site!
there is NO SCIENCE in creationist/7th day advent dogma!

reported

JVK
Jun 23, 2015
All experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA via nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions, not by mutations, natural selection, and the evolution of increasing organismal complexity.

Only evolutionary theorists still believe in ridiculous theories, and most will not tell you what they believe in because they know how ridiculous their beliefs about cell type differentiation have become.

JVK
Jun 23, 2015
From Here to Eternity—The Theory and Practice of a Really Long Experiment
http://dx.doi.org....1002185

The citation to "The Man Who Bottled Evolution" makes no sense now that serious scientists are "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease." http://www.scienc...88.short

All that Lenski's work has ever shown is that ecological adaptation is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man via RNA-mediated links between metabolic networks and genetic networks. The fact that he reports his findings in the context of mutations and evolution attests to his lack of credibility.

See: The Surprising Origins of Evolutionary Complexity
Excerpt: "Others maintain that as random mutations arise, complexity emerges as a side effect, even without natural selection to help it along. Complexity, they say... just happens."

JVK
Jun 23, 2015
http://phys.org/n...ion.html

Excerpt: The study, "The butterfly plant arms-race escalated by gene and genome duplications," was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Do biologically uninformed science idiots realize that genome duplications in all genera are nutrient-dependent and controlled by the RNA-mediated physiology of reproduction that links metabolic networks to genetic networks?


JVK
Jun 24, 2015
http://medicalxpr...ein.html

Why haven't evolutionary theorists learned anything about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation during the past two decades since we first published our review of RNA-mediated molecular epigenetics?

JVK
Jun 24, 2015
Excerpt:
...three subtypes of neocortical neurons have highly distinctive epigenomic landscapes. Over 200,000 regions differ in chromatin accessibility and DNA methylation signatures characteristic of gene regulatory regions. By footprinting and motif analyses, these regions are predicted to bind distinct cohorts of neuron subtype-specific transcription factors. Neuronal epigenomes reflect both past and present gene expression, with DNA hyper-methylation at developmentally critical genes appearing as a novel epigenomic signature in mature neurons. Taken together, our findings link the functional and transcriptional complexity of neurons to their underlying epigenomic diversity."

My comment: Biologically uninformed science idiots can now present their experimental evidence if any of it links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA or any aspect of epigenomic diversity.

JVK
Jun 24, 2015
http://neuroscien...cs-2158/

The Epigenetic Diversity of Neurons

Jun 25, 2015
@jk
1- your links in NO WAY refute or undermine Evolution theory
2- WRT this
The citation to "The Man Who Bottled Evolution" makes no sense now that serious scientists are "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease." http://www.scienc...88.short
your interpretations skills are failing again... the article describes something different than what you portray
Molecular biology and evolutionary biology have been separate disciplines and scientific cultures... However, these domains are beginning to converge in laboratories addressing molecular mechanisms that explain how evolutionary processes work, and bring these processes to bear on medical problems such as cancer and infectious disease. Each discipline can be viewed as a missing link in the other's description of biology, and in medicine
LEARN TO READ and quit posting PSEUDOSCIENCE

JVK
Jun 25, 2015
Three Ebola virus variants identified in Guinea http://www.pasteu...d-guinea

The variants arise in the context of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions, but the variants are referred to as mutations because the authors have been taught to believe in a ridiculous theory.

your interpretations skills are failing again... the article describes something different than what you portray


What does the article describe that is different than my portrayal?

Jun 26, 2015
What does the article describe that is different than my portrayal?
@jk
1- quoted above, mensa boy

2- your insistence that modern biologists are "combating evolution" is a direct referral to language "colour" (and you did the exact same thing in about 10 different threads already, and were shown the errors of your cherry-picked argument and culling of comments from the article and others)

it also points out that mutations occur
more frequently when cells are maladapted to their environments, together with the discoveries of mechanisms by which mutations are targeted to specific genomic structures
and
an important gap is being filled by molecular understanding of the genesis of variation that confers the ability to evolve.
directly refuting you

just because you can troll ScienceMag doesn't mean you know WTF you are posting about

to be cont'd

Jun 26, 2015
2mensa boy cont'd
the variants are referred to as mutations because the authors have been taught to believe in a ridiculous theory
no, the authors are using the language of the field (call it the lexicon or the nomenclature) which states that certain things are considered mutations per the definition of mutation (any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element)

you yourself state this is how your model works (IOW- it requires mutations to effectively describe the model) and that means, by definition, that you are incapable of comprehending the field or the terminology (likely because of your self-admitted failure out of college)

creationist dogma/belief is not science
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas


JVK
Jun 26, 2015
[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

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.
http://www.scienc...88.short

Molecular biology: A second layer of information in RNA http://dx.doi.org.../505621a
"Three studies have characterized the full complement of RNA folding in cells. They find large numbers of secondary structures in RNA, some of which may have functional consequences for the cell."

Biodiversity is RNA-mediated.

Jun 26, 2015
"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. However, these domains are beginning to converge in laboratories addressing molecular mechanisms that explain how evolutionary processes work, and bring these processes to bear on medical problems such as cancer and infectious disease. Each discipline can be viewed as a missing link in the other's description of biology, and in medicine."
http://www.scienc...8.short"

Another example of JVK's dishonesty by using a quote out of context.

JVK
Jun 26, 2015
...explain how evolutionary processes work...


See also: "Evolution" of two sexes? http://perfumingt...o-sexes/

Tell us how sex differences in cell types evolved and led to the evolution of homosexual orientation.

Jun 26, 2015
...explain how evolutionary processes work...


See also: "Evolution" of two sexes? http://perfumingt...o-sexes/

Tell us how sex differences in cell types evolved and led to the evolution of homosexual orientation.

link goes to a PSEUDOSCIENCE site which makes CREATIONIST CLAIMS

reported

also: you've not been able to demonstrate with enough empirical evidence to the scientific community that human pheromones exist

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

until you can convince biologists/etc with actual data you are simply promoting your creationist/7th day advent dogma PSEUDOSCIENCE

JVK
Jun 26, 2015
Earth's daily rotation period encoded in an atomic-level protein structure
http://www.scienc...5232.htm

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

Also see http://phys.org/n...ral.html]http://phys.org/n...ral.html[/url]
http://phys.org/n...ral.html]http://phys.org/n...ral.html[/url]

At the same time that serious scientists have been learning about atomic switches and how ecological variation links them to ecological adaptation, biologically uninformed science idiots would like others to continue thinking about mutations and evolution.

JVK
Jun 27, 2015
http://www.scienc...5232.htm

"This study provides the first atomic-level demonstration that small protein molecules can generate 24-hour rhythms by regulating molecular structure and reactivity."

Does anyone who is not a biologically uninformed science idiot still think that the entirety of what is known to serious scientists about the links from atoms to ecosystems can be placed into the context of ridiculous theories about mutations and evolution?

If so, please see what SSgt James "Captain" Stumpy claims is this link to "...a PSEUDOSCIENCE site which makes CREATIONIST CLAIMS"

http://rna-mediated.com/
"Here you will find information that links physics, chemistry, and molecular epigenetics via RNA-mediated events such as the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes in order to encourage a public discussion of a paradigm shift."

JVK
Jun 27, 2015
See also:

Shell neurons of the master circadian clock coordinate the phase of tissue clocks throughout the brain and body http://www.biomed...abstract

"...suggests that light-driven changes in the functional organization of the SCN markedly influence the strength of rhythms in downstream tissues. Conclusions Overall, our results reveal that body clocks receive time-of-day cues specifically from the SCN shell, which may be an adaptive design principle that serves to maintain system-level phase relationships in a changing environment."

Ecological variation and ecological adaptations are linked from the de novo creation of light-induced amino acids to RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all species, except for those in the brains of people like SSgt James Stumpy. His undifferentiated cells are among those that lead others to proclaim that ridiculous theories are based on facts.

Jun 27, 2015
biologically uninformed science idiots would like others to continue thinking about mutations and evolution
@jk
so now you agree that you are a "biologically uninformed science idiot"... at least now we can both agree on something! it is you who promotes mutations in your model and make sure that people follow evolution by your constant failure to provide evidence refuting it, BTW!
http://rna-mediated.com/
PERSONAL SITE SUPPORTING PSEUDOSCIENCE AND CREATIONIST DOGMA
this is NOT a science site
REPORTED

the de novo creation of light-induced amino acids
still trying to convince people you have been able to prove light creates amino acids (thru pressure? what?) ?

WHERE IS THAT STUDY?
you've not been able to produce a shred of evidence supporting that claim

you like to claim that all scientists are idiots and only you know what is going on, but i noticed you cannot provide evidence... only claims and misinterpreted links...

why is that?

JVK
Jun 27, 2015
still trying to convince people you have been able to prove light creates amino acids


I have repeatedly cited this publication:

Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism
http://dx.doi.org...hem.2202

See also the discussion at: http://news.scien...onundrum

JVK
Jun 28, 2015
The problem for evolutionary theorists is that they need to invent another theory that links RNA-mediated events to cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all genera because serious scientists have detailed the obvious links between nutrient-dependent cause and effect.

See: "This work may tell us if DNA could have evolved via a simpler route than the complex reaction performed by ribonucleotide reductases."

http://www.canter...=4047206

How much longer are pseudoscientists willing to wait to see if these researchers or others can invent another theory of evolution that can remain untested for another century?

Jun 30, 2015
I have repeatedly cited this publication:
@jk
but this publication does NOT prove your claims.. which were specifically thus
In the past two years I've learned enough about physics to link the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of amino acids ...
you can find that post by you here: http://phys.org/n...ion.html

the claim you made that i quoted above is NOT answered in that publication... in fact, there is NO publication that supports your claims above at all!
See also the discussion at: http://news.scien...onundrum
i told you before, i will tell you again: just because you can TROLL ScienceMag doesn't mean you have a legitimate argument at all... your arguments are based upon creationist/7th day advent dogma, not science
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas


JVK
Jun 30, 2015
Activating a single gene reverses colon cancer growth in mice in just 4 days
http://www.scienc...t-4-days

If "Evolution is unpredictable and irreversible, biologists show," the 4 days it took to "re-evolve" the bacterial flagellum is a coincidence.

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

It evolution / re-evolution of the flagellum and reversing the course of cancer are predictable, they involve RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of all genera via their physiology of nutrient-dependent reproduction.

Obviously, the cure and/or effective treatment of cancers awaits the end of the pseudoscientific nonsense touted by evolutionary theorists who think that mutations are beneficial.

Jun 30, 2015
the pseudoscientific nonsense touted ...mutations are beneficial.
@jk
1- YOU have made the claim that mutations are beneficial as well... you just simply used the definition of mutation rather than the word "mutation"... 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
thus you are claiming every time you link your model that mutations MUST be beneficial (at least in your model, anyway)

2- Lenski et al have PROVEN mutations are beneficial
http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

3- Dr's Extavour/Whittaker ALSO proved this with their own work

not "suggestions" or "claims" or anything being "touted"... but hard factual evidence repeated and validated

IOW- you fail again at interpretation of science

JVK
Jun 30, 2015
https://www.faceb..._comment

In the context of quantum information processing, the link from the light-induced de novo creation of amino acids to the amino acid substitutions that differentiate all the cell types of all individuals of all genera via their physiology of reproduction has been addressed by Keith Baverstock and others such as Luca Turin and Anna Di Cosmo​.

Life as physics and chemistry: A system view of biology
http://www.kbaver...ge9.html

Electron spin changes during general anesthesia in Drosophila
http://www.ncbi.n...4151765/

Dose-Dependent Effects of the Clinical Anesthetic Isoflurane on Octopus vulgaris: A Contribution to Cephalopod Welfare
http://www.tandfo...4.945047

Information processing requires the chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding, which is biophysically constrained.

JVK
Jun 30, 2015
Simply put, you can't get from quantum physics to quantum smell and quantum biology and quantum consciousness via theories that try to link mutations to evolution.

Only pseudoscientists try to do that with definitions linked to population genetics instead of facts linked to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in all genera.

Captain Stumpy wants others to believe that I included the definition of "mutation" in my accurate representation of biologically-based cause and effect. He has repeated his ignorant claims and refuses to acknowledge that I have repeatedly addressed his ignorance.

See also: http://rna-mediat...ge-rank/

Excerpt: It is disingenuous for anyone to place protein folding into the context of "music" after the excellent representations of Denis Noble did so in a series of presentations that established the changes required to link physiology to cell type differentiation.

Jul 01, 2015
https://www.faceb..._comment
PHISHING SPAMMING SITE PROMOTING PSEUDOSCIENCE
also NOT a science site
reported
the link from the light-induced de novo creation of amino acids to the amino acid substitutions that differentiate all the cell types of all individuals of all genera via their physiology of reproduction has been addressed by Keith Baverstock and others such as Luca Turin and Anna Di Cosmo​
there is still ZERO evidence proving your claim here
I've learned enough about physics to link the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of amino acids ...
if there is, why don't you link it! be the next Nobel prize winner!
the claim you made that i quoted above is NOT answered in that publication...
no sh*t, really?
yep! i already said that... you are right! it doesn't support your claim ANYWHERE

even YOU YOURSELF say that!
LOL 2Bcontinued

Jul 01, 2015
See also: http://rna-mediat...ge-rank/
@jk
REPORTED for PHISHING/SPAMMING
& PSEUDOSCIENCE
Simply put, you can't get .... via theories that try to link mutations to evolution
simply put, making a claim repeatedly doesn't make it true or more valid unless you have stupid sheep following you and you are promoting a religion - the scientific method has more evidence for mutations (and beneficial ones) than you've provided against mutations, AND... you've not been able to provide ANYTHING proving mutations are wrong or not possible (or always negative, or pathological) except as a personal opinion which is based upon religious dovtrine, something that is NOT SCIENCE
Only pseudoscientists try to do that with definitions linked to population genetics instead of facts
except that Lenski, Dr's Extavour and Whittaker proved you wrong & i proved you are illiterate and cannot comprehend basic terminology in biology/medicine

2BContinued

Jul 01, 2015
Captain Stumpy wants others to believe that I included the definition of "mutation" in my accurate representation of biologically-based cause and effect
@jk
except that i used your exact words, from your personal post, and i can link it to prove that you are a liar... i am not asking anyone believe anything... i have PROVEN that you made the statement and that you are illiterate and not capable of understanding basic biology or medicine
AGAIN!
He has repeated his ignorant claims
it is NOT a claim if i can PROVE you made the statement... it is YOU who is making a "CLAIM" which is not substantiated by facts
and refuses to acknowledge that I have repeatedly addressed his ignorance
you have only linked and shared PSEUDOSCIENCE... not science
that is not addressing my inquiries, it is promoting pseudoscience and perfume, etc

it is normally called TROLLING and PHISHING
also known as Dunning-Krueger

JVK
Jul 01, 2015
Light- and Carbon-Signaling Pathways. Modeling Circuits of Interactions
http://www.plantp...abstract

Light-Induced Opening and Closing of the Intramolecular Hydrogen Bond in Glyoxylic Acid
http://dx.doi.org...p409982f

Spectral Diversity and Regulation of Coral Fluorescence in a Mesophotic Reef Habitat in the Red Sea http://dx.doi.org....0128697
Excerpt: The colour diversity arises from variations in the chromophore-forming amino acid triplet and the interactions of the chromophore with the surrounding protein scaffold [17,18].

The Sea Slug That Eats The Sun: https://www.youtu...diXYpY30

See also "Blood Music" by Greg Bear and 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).

Jul 03, 2015
Light- and Carbon-Signaling Pathways. Modeling Circuits of Interactions
Light-Induced Opening and Closing of the Intramolecular Hydrogen Bond in Glyoxylic Acid
Spectral Diversity and Regulation of Coral Fluorescence in a Mesophotic Reef Habitat in the Red Sea
The Sea Slug That Eats The Sun
See also "Blood Music" by Greg Bear and Dobzhansky (1973)
@jk
are these the links you wish to promote as supporting evidence to your claim? which i will re-post now for you to re-read
I've learned enough about physics to link the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of amino acids ...
please be very specific and point out where these links support your claim

thanks

JVK
Jul 03, 2015
please be very specific and point out where these links support your claim


I've done that in my blog posts. There is no reason to repeat what I have already detailed for someone like you. You have never demonstrated the level of intelligence required to understand any aspect of biologically-based cause and effect.

Why would you ask me to explain anything about physics or chemistry?

However, others may be interested in "An epigenetic trap (the prequel)" http://perfumingt...prequel/ and in the sequel -- if only to see how you will react and continue to denigrate my works.

Jul 04, 2015
I've done that in my blog posts
Translation: i have opinion and can't get it published in a reputable journal with peer review, so i used a personal blog and try to give it authority by making it sound scientific
There is no reason to repeat what I have already detailed for someone like you
translation: i don't care about actual science or clear concise communication, therefore i will simply call you stupid or "biologically uninformed idiots"
You have never demonstrated the level of intelligence required to understand any aspect of biologically-based cause and effect
translation: you've proved i am a liar and repeatedly shown where i post opinion or creationist dogma instead of actual science and it hurt my feelings, so i am not gonna give you what you ask for

IOW- you have no empirical evidence that would pass peer review and get published in a reputable journal, so you will simply troll us here on PO, right?

Jul 04, 2015
http://perfumingt...prequel/ and in the sequel -- if only to see how you will react and continue to denigrate my works.
for starters:
PHISHING SITE PROMOTING PSEUDOSCIENCE
reported

secondly:
why would i go to your OPINION site which is flooded with creationist claims and NOT SCIENCE in order to see your "works"?

if you can't link to a reputable peer reviewed science journal proving the science, why would i go to your personal opinion posted on your pseudoscience site?

there is NO science in creationist dogma or claims!
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

Judge William Overton's ruling handed down on January 5, 1982, concluded that "creation-science" as defined in Arkansas Act 590 "is simply not science"
if a lawyer or judge can see the truth, surely a "serious scientist (medical laboratory scientist) with 40 years experience in diagnostic medicine" can, right?

JVK
Jul 04, 2015
if a lawyer or judge can see the truth, surely a "serious scientist (medical laboratory scientist) with 40 years experience in diagnostic medicine" can, right?


Medical laboratory scientists are not taught to believe in definitions or in theories about evolution.

Jul 04, 2015
Medical laboratory scientists are not taught to believe in definitions or in theories about evolution
@jk
IMAGINE THAT! your "interpretation" got even that wrong!

again!

a lab tech relies upon definitions, and especially upon clear, concise communication with specific instructions... be it a lab tech in a hospital or one in a forensic lab (or even one for a perfume company like yourself)

it is the dunning-kruger affected egotistical narcissists college failures claiming to be superior to everyone else because they are members of mensa who can't seem to grasp basic communications or the basic terminology of their chosen field who ignore definitions (like you)

and that is not even addressing your blinders you have on regarding science and your RELIGION, which feeds your insecurity and conspiracy ideation

see :
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF


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