How small genetic change in Yersinia pestis changed human history

June 30, 2015, Northwestern University
A scanning electron microscope micrograph depicting a mass of Yersinia pestis bacteria in the foregut of an infected flea. Credit: Wikipedia

While studying Yersinia pestis, the bacteria responsible for epidemics of plague such as the Black Death, Wyndham Lathem, Ph.D., assistant professor in microbiology-immunology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, found a single small genetic change that fundamentally influenced the evolution of the deadly pathogen, and thus the course of human history.

In a paper published in Nature Communications, Lathem and first author Daniel Zimbler, Ph.D., a Feinberg post-doctoral fellow, demonstrated how the acquisition of a single gene caused the shift of Y. pestis from causing a primarily gastrointestinal infection to a more serious and often fatal respiratory disease. They further showed how later modifications of this gene enhanced infections associated with the .

"Our findings demonstrate how Y. pestis had the ability to cause a severe respiratory disease very early in its evolution. This research helps us better understand how bacteria can adapt to new host environments to cause disease by acquiring small bits of DNA," Lathem said.

The team examined ancestral strains of the bacteria in mouse models to learn when Y. pestis gained the ability to infect the lungs and cause the severe form of the disease known as .

In the most ancestral of all currently existing Y. pestis strains, they showed how the bacteria could successfully colonize the lungs but could not cause the severe disease associated with pneumonic plague. The biggest difference they found between this strain and closely related strains that could cause pneumonic plague was a gene for the surface protein Pla.

Lathem proposed that the bacteria's acquisition of the gene Pla enhanced its ability to cause infection in the lungs and was all that this ancestral strain of Y. pestis needed to produce a fatal lung infection.

So Lathem and his team inserted the Pla gene into this strain to observe changes in the health of the lungs. They found the newly mutated strain had gained the ability to cause respiratory infection identically to modern strains of Y. pestis that cause disease today, demonstrating that the Pla gene was necessary for Y. pestis to infect the lungs. In addition, they found that no other changes to Y. pestis were required, even though the bacteria has continued to gain and lose over the last several thousand years.

The lab also looked at variations of the gene Pla and discovered that a single modification only found in modern strains of Y. pestis was a critical adaptation for the bacteria to spread in the body and infect the lymph nodes, a form of the infection that causes bubonic plague. According to Lathem, the surprising conclusion from this aspect of the study is that, contrary to current thinking in the field, Y. pestis may have first evolved as a respiratory pathogen before it could cause the more common form of disease, bubonic plague.

Lathem said the new research may explain how Y. pestis transitioned from causing only localized outbreaks of plague to the pandemic spread of Y. pestis such as the sixth century's Justinian Plague and the fourteenth century's Black Death.

"Our data suggests that the insertion and then subsequent mutation of Pla allowed for new, rapidly evolving strains of ," Lathem said. "This information can show how new respiratory pathogens could emerge with only small genetic changes."

Explore further: Plague alters cell death to kill host

More information: Nature Communications, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms8487

Related Stories

Plague alters cell death to kill host

April 14, 2014

Northwestern Medicine scientists are continuing to unravel the molecular changes that underlie one of the world's deadliest and most infamous respiratory infections.

Scientists overturn dogma on the bubonic plague

February 12, 2015

For decades, scientists have thought the bacteria that cause the bubonic plague hijack host cells at the site of a fleabite and are then taken to the lymph nodes, where the bacteria multiply and trigger severe disease. But ...

US approves new treatment for ancient plague

April 27, 2012

Hardly anyone succumbs to the bubonic plague these days, but US health authorities on Friday approved a new treatment for it and other forms of the potentially deadly bacterial infection.

Recommended for you

Team uncovers the underlying mechanisms of 3-D tissue formation

November 21, 2018

If you want to build an organ for transplant, you need to think in 3-D. Using stem cells, scientists are now able to grow parts of organs in the lab, but that is a far cry from constructing a fully-formed, functioning, three-dimensional ...

What makes vertebrates special? We can learn from lancelets

November 21, 2018

Scientists once thought that humans must have 2 million genes to account for all our complexity. But since sequencing the human genome, researchers have learned that humans only have about 19,000 to 25,000 genes—not many ...

Scientists help identify key hantavirus receptor

November 21, 2018

A global team of investigators has identified a key protein involved in Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome (HPS), a serious and sometimes fatal respiratory disease, according to research published today in the journal Nature.

51 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2015
http://www.nature...487.html

Journal article excerpt:

"As Y. pestis further evolved, modern strains acquired a single amino-acid modification within Pla that optimizes protease activity."

This places claims about the evolution of the organism into the context of virus-induced entropic elasticity and the anti-entropic epigenetic effects of nutrient-dependent microRNAs on cell type differentiation via amino acid substitutions. The substitutions differentiate the cell types of all individuals of all genera via their physiology of reproduction.

The misrepresentation of everything known about the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding may be extremely annoying to serious scientists who were not taught to believe in ridiculous theories. However, it is worth noting that this type of misrepresentation is common among evolutionary theorists.
Vietvet
4 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2015
@Jvk

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150630/ncomms8487/full/ncomms8487.

This places claims about the evolution of the organism into the context of virus-induced entropic elasticity and the anti-entropic blah blah---

The Nature paper does no such thing.
From the abstract we find "evolved" twice along with "evolution", "further evolved" and "acquisition of a single gene". Nothing there that supports your model.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2015
They seem as unfamiliar as you are with the concepts of ecological variation and ecological adaptations that link nutrient-dependent microRNAs to RNA-mediated DNA repair and to biodiversity via amino acid substitutions and the physiology of reproduction in all genera.

Like you, they can't seem to grasp the difference between a mutation and an amino acid substitution. This shows the power of ridiculous theories. When frequently repeated, the theories take on a life of their own -- despite the inability of theorists to link them to the biodiversity of life on this planet.

Here, they have placed the optimization of protease activity into the context of mutations that perturb protein folding.

Thank you for supporting their pseudoscientific nonsense. It shows the power of the evolution industry to influence the thoughts of biologically uninformed science idiots.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2015
See also: Two Mutations Caused Black Death http://crev.info/...k-death/

Note the ridiculous comment by Steven Taylor (aka Vietvet) that indicates genes are somehow acquired, which automagically links their acquisition to evolution.

He exemplifies what any other biologically uninformed science idiot will do in an attempt to challenge my accurate representations of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation. They evoke the "magic" of evolution and gene acquisition despite clear links from physics to the nutrient-dependent chemistry of biophysically constrained RNA-mediated protein folding in all genera.
TehDog
5 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2015
Oh dear $deity, here we go again...
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
My model has been supported by all the experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that has been published by serious scientists during the past two decades.

See: http://rna-mediat...earning/

Biologically uninformed science idiots are among those who refuse to accept the entirety of evidence that does not support the ridiculous claims of theorists.

Natural selection was removed from consideration by the author of "Mutation-Driven Evolution." See also: http://www.scient...plexity/

"Others maintain that as random mutations arise, complexity emerges as a side effect, even without natural selection to help it along. Complexity, they say, is not purely the result of millions of years of fine-tuning..."
TehDog
5 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2015
"Natural selection was removed from consideration by the author of "Mutation-Driven Evolution." See also: http://www.scient...plexity/ "

From the final para of that article;

"Gray, McShea and Brandon acknowledge the important role of natural selection in the rise of the complexity that surrounds us, from the biochemistry that builds a feather to the photosynthetic factories inside the leaves of trees."
Did you not read that far?
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2015
My model has been supported by all the experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that has been published by serious scientists during the past two decades.

A clear statement of JVK's delusional thinking.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2015
Biologically uninformed science idiots are among those who refuse to accept the entirety of evidence that does not support the ridiculous claims of theorists.
@jk
is that why you missed this gem (provided by TeHDog above)
"Gray, McShea and Brandon acknowledge the important role of natural selection in the rise of the complexity that surrounds us, from the biochemistry that builds a feather to the photosynthetic factories inside the leaves of trees."
and as Dog states...
Did you not read that far?
basically, you linked something you THOUGHT supported you, but it turns out that it directly refutes you (again)
WOW
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
After natural selection was eliminated from consideration by Masatoshi Nei, which serious scientist re-introduced that pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and evolution?

Photosynthesis links the de novo creation of light-induced amino acids to the RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of all genera.

For comparison to published works by serious scientists, see:

http://dx.doi.org...5.06.014
Excerpt: "...our discovery of a dominant role for life-long histone turn-over establishes a novel paradigm by which the contribution of highly dynamic nucleosomal turnover to neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric phenomena can now be studied in diverse animal models.

See also: Every amino acid matters: essential contributions of histone variants to mammalian development and disease http://dx.doi.org.../nrg3673
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2015
After natural selection was eliminated from consideration by Masatoshi Nei
@jk
actually, from what i've read, Nei's biggest argument was not about mutations but about Single mutation speciation... and this has also been pointed out to you in the past as well... therefore your argument is invalid as well as based upon your personal creationist delusional interpretations of the comments
Photosynthesis links the de novo creation of light-induced amino acids to the RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of all genera
when are you going to post evidence supporting your claims of
I've learned enough about physics to link the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of amino acids ...
or are you hiding it in one of the above links?

be clear, please
TehDog
5 / 5 (8) Jul 02, 2015
Your 2 links;

http://dx.doi.org...5.06.014
http://dx.doi.org.../nrg3673

Are both behind paywalls. Is this a deliberate attempt to restrict discussion? Or do you imagine that we are willing to pay to check your claim that these papers support your model?
Given I (and others) have already demonstrated your willingness to selectively quote, I'm going with the former.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
I don't care whether you are able to access the publications I cite. The support is indicated in the abstracts and you can request reprints if you think they are claiming something that does not support my accurate representations of biologically-based cell type differentiation.

You are an anonymous fool, like those who claim my history of award-winning published works is pseudoscience. Besides, there are too many other articles that link RNA-mediated cell type differentiation to behavior via histone acetylation. All of them can't be behind paywalls.

What have you claimed that would motivate me to do anything besides cite more evidence, whether or not it is available to biologically uninformed science idiots?

Social defeat induces changes in histone acetylation and expression of histone modifying enzymes in the ventral hippocampus, prefrontal cortex, and dorsal raphe nucleus
http://www.scienc...13000614
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
See also: https://www.labro...uld-jul2

It's free! It will, however, not appeal to biologically uninformed science idiots who know nothing about the role of viruses or nutrients in cell type differentiation.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
Note: Rarely do I hear a presenter like this claim that they have "...been blessed by..." the powers of evolution to explain biologically-based cause and effect.

Where do you think the blessing came from?

See also: RNA-Mediated Regulation in Pathogenic Bacteria http://perspectiv...abstract

Tell others what you think about the links to a free presentation and a free article.
TehDog
5 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2015
"I don't care whether you are able to access the publications I cite."
Well, in that case, any discussion on the facts is pointless.
(TBH, facts are things you appear to have difficulty accepting)
"You are an anonymous fool,"
Anonymous, yes. A fool? Not by a long shot.
"What have you claimed that would motivate me to do anything besides cite more evidence,"
I claimed nothing, merely pointed out that you selectively quoted from 1 article, and linked 2 that are behind paywalls.
http://www.scienc...13000614
Oh look, another one.
"All of them can't be behind paywalls."
So, provide some links that aren't, you're the so-called expert, should be easy.

JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2015
RNA-Mediated Regulation in Pathogenic Bacteria is not behind a paywall.
http://perspectiv...abstract

Why don't we discuss nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in the context of pheromone-controlled cell type differentiation in species from microbes, like Yersinia pestis, to humans?

But first, tell us how you think cell type differentiation occurs. Even an anonymous fool could do that -- especially if he was different than other fools.
TehDog
5 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2015
"RNA-Mediated Regulation in Pathogenic Bacteria is not behind a paywall.
http://perspectiv...abstract "
I go to that link, and see an abstract, with no obvious link to the full article. Really, you should be able to do better.
"Why don't we discuss..."
No, that is of little interest to me.
"But first, tell us how you think cell type differentiation occurs."
No, that is not my field of expertise.
I'd rather discuss your creationist beliefs, and how you reconcile them with the physical universe.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2015
"Clearly we are only beginning to fully understand the roles of sRNAs in bacterial pathogenesis and persistence. Continued characterization of the functions, structures, and mechanism of action of individual sRNAs and their machineries will help us to fully understand the regulatory circuits that enable the bacteria to survive within the host and to cause disease."
http://perspectiv...298.full

Nothing there that supports JVK's model.
TehDog
5 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2015
Thanks Vv.
http://perspectiv...298.full
See James? That's how you do it.

"Nothing there that supports JVK's model."
Heh, as expected then :)
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2015
That was two years ago and everything that was understood supported my model of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation.

This is from yesterday, with links to several different open access journal articles and a webinar that have been placed into the context of RNA-mediated learning and memory.

http://rna-mediat...visited/
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2015
I go to that link, and see an abstract, with no obvious link to the full article.


How could the link "Full Text Free" be any more obvious? Even Vietvet appears to have found it.

I'd rather discuss your creationist beliefs, and how you reconcile them with the physical universe.


How have you reconciled your ridiculous beliefs with what is currently known to serious scientists about physics, chemistry, and the conserved molecular epigenetics of biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent protein folding?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2015
See also: http://phys.org/n...men.html which reports on http://chemse.oxf...abstract
Excerpt: Our results suggest non-neutral evolution for an olfactory receptor gene.

Non-neutral "evolution" is nutrient-dependent and RNA-directed via DNA methylation and the RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that stabilize the organized genomes of species from microbes to man via the physiology of their pheromone-controlled reproduction, which enables fixation of the amino acid substitutions.

Religious beliefs in "evolution" seem to prevent theorists from being able to recognize how ecological variation is linked to ecological adaptations in all genera. The ridiculous beliefs of theorists seem to include an unsupported belief that mutations, which perturb protein folding, also lead to increasing organismal complexity.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2015
I don't care whether you are able to access the publications I cite
@jk
you also don't care about accuracy or valid science
The support is indicated in the abstracts and you can request reprints if you think they are claiming something that does not support my accurate representations of biologically-based cell type differentiation
considering your historical epic failure to comprehend what you read (or is it that you read with your creationist goggles on and can't comprehend?) then making the claim that something supports your claims is no better than a blatant outright lie, as you've historically been proven false every time a researcher answers our request about your claims!
You are an anonymous fool, like those who claim my history of award-winning published works is pseudoscience
no one here has ever said that your legitimate papers are pseudoscience... only that your PSEUDOSCIENCE claims are!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2015
Note: Rarely do I hear a presenter like this claim that they have "...been blessed by..." the powers of evolution to explain biologically-based cause and effect.

Where do you think the blessing came from?
@jk
WTF??!! LOL
are you really saying that adding colour to a speech to make it interesting or to convey happiness is proof of some deity? so if a person adds a joke to a speech (or a pun) then is that proof that the speaker is Jack Benny or George Carlin?
Why don't we discuss nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in the context of pheromone-controlled cell type differentiation in species from microbes, like Yersinia pestis, to humans?
BETTER YET - lets talk about Lenski's ongoing experiment here: http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

please specifically state, with clarity and all information required, WHY the beneficial mutations in his experiment are NOT beneficial mutations
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
That was two years ago and everything that was understood supported my model of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation.

This is from yesterday, with links to several different open access journal articles and a webinar that have been placed into the context of RNA-mediated learning and memory.

http://rna-mediat...visited/
if you can't link to a LEGITIMATE science site, then you have NO LEGITIMATE SCIENCE and are posting PSEUDOSCIENCE

this is your personally owned site and it contains CREATIONIST PSEUDOSCIENCE
it is also for PHISHING and SPAMMING

reported
The ridiculous beliefs of theorists seem to include an unsupported belief that mutations, which perturb protein folding, also lead to increasing organismal complexity.
like i said above:
http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

please specifically state WHY the beneficial mutations in his experiment are NOT beneficial mutations
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2015
" they can't seem to grasp the difference between a mutation and an amino acid substitution."
-----------------------------------------

Yeah, and once they do, they will realize all of this does not need a god. It is a self-organizing system, part of the Universe.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2015
A self-organizing system cannot automagically start itself via the light-induced de novo creation of amino acids. For example, Matti Pitakanen tried to explain the simultaneous emergence of hens and eggs after pirating everything I had published or presented on RNA-mediated cell type differentiation.

See: Was ribosome the first self-replicator? http://matpitka.b...tor.html

Pitkanen is one of the biologically uninformed science idiots who is being indirectly attacked by serious scientists, like George FR Ellis and by Simon Conway-Morris. See: Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics http://www.nature...-1.16535 Excerpt: "The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable. Only then can we defend science from attack."

Theorists have failed to defend themselves, as always. Instead, they keep attacking!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2015
Matti Pitakanen tried to explain the simultaneous emergence of hens and eggs after pirating everything I had published or presented... Pitkanen is one of the biologically uninformed science idiots
@jk
so... wait a minute... HUGE logical fallacy here!

he tries to replicate your experiments and claims ... and he fails, but that is proof that you are correct?
WTF?
gkam
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2015
"A self-organizing system cannot automagically start itself via the light-induced de novo creation of amino acids."
-------------------------------------------

Oh, my gosh, . . he's absolutely right. It proves we require an anthropogenic god who will love us, punish us severely, and promise us that we won't die if we have certain thoughts!!

It is undeniable, and I thank you superstitious folk for opening my eyes.

TehDog
5 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2015
"How could the link "Full Text Free" be any more obvious? Even Vietvet appears to have found it."
So why didn't you provide it yourself?
"How have you reconciled your ridiculous beliefs with what is currently known to serious scientists about physics, chemistry, and the conserved molecular epigenetics of biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent protein folding?"
You know nothing of my beliefs, or knowledge. Your attempts to deflect and miss-direct are obvious. Your unwillingness to address my query re your creationist beliefs is understandable.
Your inability to respond civilly to those who point out your many errors is regrettable.
You use this site to promote your web-site(s), and nothing else. You bring nothing of value to these forums.
Bongstar420
not rated yet Jul 04, 2015
Monsanto's "GMO"

Be afraid
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2015
he tries to replicate your experiments and claims ... and he fails, but that is proof that you are correct?


He placed my details into the context of simultaneous hen and egg emergence, you moron.

he's absolutely right. It proves we require an anthropogenic god


Two epigenetic traps are required for organization of genomes. The first links the speed of light to the de novo creation of amino acids. The second links amino acid substitutions to the de novo creation of receptors that differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all genera via their biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding.

Only biologically uninformed science idiots try to turn this in to a debate about creation vs evolution. That's probably the reason you see so few comments from serious scientists. They are not likely to waste any time here, or anywhere else that encourages the participation of the biologically uninformed.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2015
He placed my details into the context of simultaneous hen and egg emergence, you moron
@jk
why so butt-hurt, mensa boy? oh wait! i see what it is...
The first links the speed of light to the de novo creation of amino acids
and of course you can provide the empirical evidence for this?
after all, this is NOBEL material here... the linking of the speed of light to de novo creation of amino acids is something that has never been done and is likely to completely alter the face of evolution theory... especially in that it provides a mechanism for the creation of amino acids on early earth for the development fo complex organisms! you'll actually be famous for "proving evolution" kohlslaw! isn't that great?
Only biologically uninformed science idiots try to turn this in to a debate about creation vs evolution
Hey, ive been trying to tell you to leave your religion out of it... but you just won't let it go!

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2015
That's probably the reason you see so few comments from serious scientists. They are not likely to waste any time here, or anywhere else that encourages the participation of the biologically uninformed
@jk
there is actually some truth to this... The reason i usually get replies from biologists and "serious scientists" is because i demonstrate the capability to comprehend and the willingness to learn and follow the evidence... but a great majority (i have to word this in this manner so as to not implicate certain folk who i greatly respect) - the great majority do NOT discuss this topic with YOU (specifically, JVK and the idiot religious folk like ren, verkle, etc) because you REFUSE to accept science, empirical evidence or facts in the face of your religion
Personally I try to stay out of these kinds of comment threads
this is typical of actual scientists because of pseudoscience idiots like kohl... & this quote was from a ScienceMag inquiry about kohl!
I Have Questions
5 / 5 (4) Jul 04, 2015
I think the most compelling argument against JVK in general would be that if it were he who set the standards for science we would all be dead.

How is the pig pheromones for desperate men business going JVK?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2015
linking of the speed of light to de novo creation of amino acids is something that has never been done and is likely to completely alter the face of evolution theory


The speed of light is linked from the de novo creation of amino acids to amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all genera via spectral energy and its measurement in the cells and tissues of all genera. An example of cause and effect for the biologically uninformed is called a rainbow. If you haven't seen one, find a prism and a sun-beam. Ask someone how to use the prism in the light.

Warning: The fact that you cannot see UV light, does not mean it doesn't exist or that random events led to the de novo creation of amino acids. See, for comparison to that kind of pseudoscientific nonsense

Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism
http://www.nature...202.html
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2015
How is the pig pheromones for desperate men business going JVK?


It went well for those who touted the likelihood that pig pheromones were the same as human pheromones. My business went better before use of androstenol and androsterone got confused with the claims made by foolish marketers.

See for example: http://www.theatl.../277283/

Kohl's products, which he likens to food spices ("They give you an extra kick!"), make some researchers roll their eyes. Dr. Jim Pfaus, professor of psychology at Concordia University in Montreal, is one of them.

"Products containing 'pheromones' are meant to drive women crazy, and they might just work -- on female pigs," he says, referring to the steroid androstenone.
-------------------
Pfaus never bothered to read about the research we presented at AChemS and SFN and SfSN.
http://f1000.com/.../1092668
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2015
Pheromones and the luteinizing hormone for inducing proliferation of neural stem cells and neurogenesis http://www.freshp...8009.php

The nonsense by Pfaus may have led the serious scientists to abandon their patent rather than continue research that links human pheromones to a non-invasive treatment for neurodegenerative diseases via what has been detailed about the luteinizing hormone response since my first presentation to a scientific forum in 1992.

Fortunately for those who can afford it, the more invasive neural stem cell implants (via a needle into the brain) are still available.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2015
The speed of light is linked from the de novo creation of amino acids to amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all genera via spectral energy and its measurement in the cells and tissues of all genera
@jk
nice story... but for starters, you've provided NO evidence
also note that you didn't answer the question- you claimed
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
thus there should be a study or experiment that you could show where this speed of light impacted water and thus "de novo" creation of amino acids... you know, like J,Blank or some proof like these links
http://www.space....ite.html

http://www.dailyg...ure.html

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2015
@jk cont'd
An example of cause and effect for the biologically uninformed is called a rainbow
ok, now HOW is a rainbow a demonstration of cause and effect of "The speed of light is linked from the de novo creation of amino acids to amino acid substitutions" let alone your claims that you "learned enough about physics to link the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of amino acids"????
the prism demonstrates that white light is actually made up of different wavelengths of light (including some which aren't visible but still measurable)
HOW does that link the speed of light with de novo creation of amino acids?

you are waffling and your not able to answer the question! perhaps this is because you are lying again?

2Bcontinued
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2015
2jk cont'd
If you haven't seen one, find a prism and a sun-beam. Ask someone how to use the prism in the light
So you are saying that if i take this prism and a vile of sterile water which is known to NOT have anything in it other than H2O... and i focus the prism on the water, it will automatically create amino acids?
i've tested this in my house and had a lab run the H2O for amino acids: they found none... perhaps you should post your protocols so we can all follow them explicitly? (or are you taking a page from Alchie? simply make the claim and say it must be true and argue from your perceived authority? )
Warning: The fact that you cannot see UV light, does not mean it doesn't exist or that random events led to the de novo creation of amino acids. See, for comparison to that kind of pseudoscientific nonsense
we found the UV light, but there was NO de novo creation of amino acids!
why is that? how long does this take?

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2015
Pfaus never bothered to read about the research we presented
maybe one reason was because it was fixed?
it isn't a double blind experiment so all you did was prove people are susceptible to suggestion and stink...

Fortunately for those who can afford it, the more invasive neural stem cell implants (via a needle into the brain) are still available.
well, you better hurry, mensa boy!
maybe then you can actually come to grips that you are NOT a serious scientists and that your promotion of pseudoscience is undermining any previous legit science you might have done... i know it sure has affected your brain and will not allow you to see actual evidence presented to you, like above: why are you ignoring the evidence of Lenski's first hundred thousand generations which mutated despite being in the same medium/conditions?
if it was nutrient dependent, why didnt ALL generations mutate?
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2015
JVK Claims
The misrepresentation of everything known about the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding may be extremely annoying to serious scientists who were not taught to believe in ridiculous theories
Its well known bacteria can & do exchange DNA with other bacteria in variety conditions, it should be known that no bacteria inhabits an environment free of all others

So JVK, please articulate concisely how/why bacteria acquire capacities to increase infection/harm over time - consistent with its survival mode, spreading other than via evolutionary means ?

OR JVK, do you claim this is work of a deity somehow continuing a pattern of punishing innocents & acting exactly like a cheating devil ?

Whilst at it, offer a renationalisation as to just why biochem environments rich in metallic crystalline units (eg deep oceans) should NOT combine metal patterning of arrays of those minerals to form computing structures ?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2015
... please articulate concisely how/why bacteria acquire capacities to increase infection/harm over time - consistent with its survival mode, spreading other than via evolutionary means ?


Again? Why don't you simply read the first two accurate representation of how ecological variation is epigenetically linked to ecological adaptations?

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

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

See also: Team first to model atomic structures of three bacterial nanomachines
http://phys.org/n...nes.html

It is well know[n] also [to serious scientists] than only small part of bacterial DNA can be exchange[d] between different bacterias...
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2015
http://www.ncbi.n...3960071/

Excerpt: "Among different bacterial species existing in similar environments, DNA uptake (Palchevskiy & Finkel, 2009) appears to have epigenetically 'fed' interspecies methylation and speciation via conjugation (Fall et al., 2007; Finkel & Kolter, 2001; Friso & Choi, 2002). This indicates that reproduction began with an active nutrient uptake mechanism in heterospecifics and that the mechanism evolved to become symbiogenesis in the conspecifics of asexual organisms (Margulis, 1998)."
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2015
Whilst at it, offer a renationalisation as to just why biochem environments rich in metallic crystalline units (eg deep oceans) should NOT combine metal patterning of arrays of those minerals to form computing structures ?


If you think you can link all that to the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding, please do whatever you think might be necessary to present your pseudoscientific nonsense in terms that could be understood by someone who is biologically informed. For example, see:

Smell genes - Cori Bargmann (Rockefeller) https://youtu.be/YT9A9LUcyhE
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2015
JVK stated
Again? Why don't you simply read the first two accurate representation of how ecological variation is epigenetically linked to ecological adaptations?
No. You miss the point

IF not evolutionary than what is the mechanism, do you now claim its only epigenetic & that carries ALL information completely reliably without ANY intervention from ANY god like absolute deity ?

JVK, you have unfortunate (bad) habit of jumping to extraneous detail which only serves to obfuscate your position - it sullies Science communication !

Can't you see classic 'top down approach' is best & clearest means to clarify your position ?

So if not evolutionary, do you claim epigenetic as NOT subject to ANY evolutionary process & therefore its the key claim of creationists it MUST have come from some deity ?

Does this mean you give NO allowance for ANY sort of evolutionary process within epigenetics ?

Please clarify this in the best top down approach of science communication ?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2015
Can't you see classic 'top down approach' is best & clearest means to clarify your position ?


Thanks for asking. Of course I can. That's why George Ellis wrote:
"This is absolutely correct and forms part of the larger concept that top-down causation is a key factor not just in the way the brain works but in broader contexts in biology and even physics. This is explored here: http://rsfs.royal...2/1.toc"

Login and see his comments on: Understanding and accounting for relational context is critical for social neuroscience http://journal.fr...127/full

Then come back to tell all the biologically uninformed science idiots about your approach to detailing biologically-based cause and effect, and who your supporters are.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2015
My February 2015 comment

"Timothy W. Bredy's group has done it again. See: Long noncoding RNA-directed epigenetic regulation of gene expression is associated with anxiety-like behavior in mice. http://www.biolog...fulltext

Conclusion: Experience-dependent expression of lncRNAs plays an important role in the epigenetic regulation of adaptive behavior, and the perturbation of Gomafu may be related to anxiety and the development of neuropsychiatric disorders.

The most obvious correlation with what is now being discussed in the context of top-down causation and 4-D genome make-up that changes during life history transistions is: Oppositional COMT Val158Met effects on resting state functional connectivity in adolescents and adults. http://dx.doi.org...4-0895-5

It shows the difference that a single amino acid substitution can make during experience-dependent RNA-mediated life history transitions..."
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2015
@JVK
Instead of attempt at an unclear reason for distraction, can you answer my questions please:-

1.IF not evolutionary than what is the mechanism, do you now claim its only epigenetic & that carries ALL information completely reliably without ANY intervention from ANY god like absolute deity ?

2.So if not evolutionary, do you claim epigenetic is NOT subject to ANY evolutionary process & therefore its the key claim of creationists it MUST have come from some deity ?

3.Does this mean you give NO allowance for ANY sort of evolutionary process within epigenetics ?

JVK, focus please on the essentials, it will go directly to clarifying your position...

Or if the above 3 questions are too wide/difficult then just answer this straightforward one please:-

Do you claim there are NO evolutionary mechanisms whatsoever in ALL of epigenetics ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.