Study reveals human body has gone through four stages of evolution

Study reveals human body has gone through four stages of evolution
SH-selected postcranial traits. Credit: PNAS, doi/10.1073/pnas.1514828112

Research into 430,000-year-old fossils collected in northern Spain found that the evolution of the human body's size and shape has gone through four main stages, according to a paper published this week.

A large international research team including Binghamton University anthropologist Rolf Quam studied the body size and shape in the human fossil collection from the site of the Sima de los Huesos in the Sierra de Atapuerca in northern Spain. Dated to around 430,000 years ago, this site preserves the largest collection of found to date anywhere in the world. The researchers found that the Atapuerca individuals were relatively tall, with wide, muscular bodies and less brain mass relative to body mass compared to Neanderthals. The Atapuerca humans shared many anatomical features with the later Neanderthals not present in modern humans, and analysis of their postcranial skeletons (the bones of the body other than the skull) indicated that they are closely related evolutionarily to Neanderthals.

"This is really interesting since it suggests that the evolutionary process in our genus is largely characterized by stasis (i.e. little to no evolutionary change) in body form for most of our evolutionary history," wrote Quam.

Comparison of the Atapuerca fossils with the rest of the human fossil record suggests that the evolution of the has gone through four main stages, depending on the degree of arboreality (living in the trees) and bipedalism (walking on two legs). The Atapuerca fossils represent the third stage, with tall, wide and robust bodies and an exclusively terrestrial bipedalism, with no evidence of arboreal behaviors. This same body form was likely shared with earlier members of our genus, such as Homo erectus, as well as some later members, including the Neanderthals. Thus, this body form seems to have been present in the genus Homo for over a million years.

It was not until the appearance of our own species, Homo sapiens, when a new taller, lighter and narrower emerged. Thus, the authors suggest that the Atapuerca humans offer the best look at the general body shape and size during the last million years before the advent of .

The study, titled "Postcranial morphology of the middle Pleistocene humans from Sima de los Huesos, Spain," was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


Explore further

Largest group of fossil humans are Neanderthals after all

More information: Postcranial morphology of the middle Pleistocene humans from Sima de los Huesos, Spain, PNAS, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1514828112
Citation: Study reveals human body has gone through four stages of evolution (2015, August 31) retrieved 19 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-08-reveals-human-body-stages-evolution.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.
3716 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 31, 2015
Just because you're too stupid not to understand the overwhelming evidence for evolution doesn't make it not true.

Aug 31, 2015
Is my assertion correct that the brain to body weight ratio is a justification for claiming that we are God's gift to creation?
It seems to me that brains have only one function. They are not there to cool the blood. I was under the impression that we had consensus on that.
I have been on a very strict diet and have lost a lot of weight therefore I am now much more intelligent because my Brain to Body weight ratio is much improved.
Yes. I am mocking.

JVK
Aug 31, 2015
http://www.scienc...abstract

Excerpt: "As already noted by Darwin, recognizing species diversity comes "at the expense of admitting much variation" within species [(33), p. 51]. Together with data from Au. afarensis paleodemes such as A.L. 333 (34–36), Dmanisi adds to the growing evidence that intrademic and intraspecific variation in Plio-Pleistocene fossil hominids tends to be misinterpreted as species diversity, especially when single fossil specimens from different localities are compared with each other (37)."

Intrademic and intraspecific variation are nutrient-dependent and controlled by the physiology of reproduction, which Svante Paabo and others linked to the honeybee model of cell type differentiation and ecological adaptation in Natural Selection on the Olfactory Receptor Gene Family in Humans and Chimpanzees http://linkinghub...07620138

Aug 31, 2015
So we didn't evolve after all. Given the lack of intermediate fossils of humans or any other life form in the supposed billions of years of history in the fossil record, the theory of evolution just doesn't make sense. It is time for serious scientists to toss it out the window.


I think there's a misconception of LUCA being these single-celled orgasms. Why? Why would it be that? "As above; so below."

What makes more sense is LUCA was some super organism (like a biological quantum computer [checkout 'Panspermia']), and we've only devolved ever since.

I listened to an NPR piece the other day saying that this bacteria that was recognized as to having multiple pieces of virus RNA in it had confused scientists. Until one omniscient lad said, "Oh, well, obvi this bitch (bacterial cell) ate them virions in an attempt to create a primitive immune system."

Why?? Why would you think that? How about this bacterial cell broke up and viruses were created?

JVK
Aug 31, 2015
"...overwhelming evidence for evolution doesn't make it not true."

What overwhelming evidence makes it true?

[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

The entire evolution of the microbial world and the virus world, and the interaction between microbes and viruses and other life forms have been left out of the Modern Synthesis... http://www.huffin...216.html

JVK
Sep 01, 2015
How about this bacterial cell broke up and viruses were created?


That is a creationist perspective. http://www.icr.or...cle/8661

It links the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of nucleic acids and nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated gene duplication and cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all genera via the physiology of reproduction, which enables fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in organized genomes.

The creationist perspective links everything currently known about biophysically constrained protein folding chemistry via RNA-mediated events that link the anti-entropic energy of the sun to protection from viruses, which are the source of all pathology.

Some evolutionary theorists think that natural selection is the anti-entropic source of biodiversity.
See: http://www.ncbi.n...14599284 link opens pdf http://www.cep.uc...iter.pdf

JVK
Sep 01, 2015
I think there's a misconception of LUCA being these single-celled orgasms.


What LUCA? None is known to exist.

http://www.nature...306.html
"We cannot conceive of a global external factor that could cause, during this time, parallel evolution of amino acid compositions of proteins in 15 diverse taxa that represent all three domains of life and span a wide range of lifestyles and environments. Thus, currently, the most plausible hypothesis is that we are observing a universal, intrinsic trend that emerged before the last universal common ancestor of all extant organisms."

http://www.biomed...07/10/54 "Together with the unexpected discoveries of the first putative archaeal RNA virus and a RNA-DNA virus hybrid, this work shows that RNA viral genomics has major surprises to deliver."


Sep 01, 2015
Only a creationist can take a sentence and then lie about it: "the evolutionary process in our genus" becomes 'no evolutionary process in our genus'. How is that supposed to show that religion is the moral and good choice?

@Moltvic: Ah, I now see in this thread that you are a creationist too. So, 1) stick to human evolution = the article, and 2) show evidence for your claims.

[Everything you write about other evolution is confused (especially since you confuse the later LUCA with emergence of life), but I assume you aren't really interested in answers anyway. :-/ ]

JVK
Sep 01, 2015
The entire evolution of the microbial world and the virus world, and the interaction between microbes and viruses and other life forms have been left out of the Modern Synthesis... http://www.huffin...216.html

Anyone who is not intelligent enough to be a creationist should attempt to explain why neo-Darwinists have inserted themselves into the history of biologically uninformed science idiots who have prevented scientific progress by consistently accusing creationists of being underinformed or misinformed.

Only an evolutionary theorist would be surprised by the link from viruses to all pathology or surprised to learn about the anti-entropic epigenetic effects of the sun's biological energy on nutrient-dependent cell type differentiation.

Evolutionists: still living where the sun doesn't shine, with their heads up their behinds.

Sep 01, 2015
The existence of the LUCA is the best supported fact in all of science, with 10^2000 likelihood against multiple CAs, due to the combinatorial nature of phylogenetic tree topology: http://www.nature...014.html .

Since it is the deepest tree (unless we find deeper lineages splitting off) we will likely never know anything at more overwhelmingly certainty than that we evolved from a (rather simple) LUCA.

JVK
Sep 01, 2015
2012
...RNA viral genomics has major surprises to deliver.


See for comparison: "The Darwin Code: Intelligent Design without God" http://rna-mediat...eg-bear/

Even this science fiction author predicted what would be learned about RNA viral genomics based on what was known about RNA-mediated gene duplication more than 30 years ago.

RNA-mediated gene duplication: the rat preproinsulin I gene is a functional retroposon http://mcb.asm.or...abstract]http://mcb.asm.or...abstract[/url]

See also: http://mcb.asm.or...abstract]http://mcb.asm.or...abstract[/url] "...comparison with other replication systems will certainly be productive at the end, if done with an evolutionary oriented mind.

Nothing that has ever been done by anyone with an evolutionary oriented mind has led to any explanation of biologically-based cause and effect that can be supported by experimental evidence from physics and chemistry and molecular epigenetics.

JVK
Sep 01, 2015
we will likely never know anything at more overwhelmingly certainty than that we evolved from a (rather simple) LUCA.


The sequencing of the octopus genome offers a clear refutation of this repeated nonsensical assertion. http://dx.doi.org...ure14668 Does any intelligent person think that microRNAs and adhesion proteins "evolved" from a LUCA?

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM has never, to my knowledge, offered any experimental evidence to support the ridiculous claims made here. Like other trolls who think they need only revisit the claims of the biologically uninformed, we continue to see the same nonsense touted that only biologically uninformed science idiots have accepted as facts.

For comparison, Dobzhansky (1973) wrote: "...the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla. ( p. 127)" http://www.jstor..../4444260

Sep 01, 2015
JVK - another psychotic desperate to defend his fragile delusional dream world. No knowledge of or interest in things scientific, its all a pretense that is imagined to cloud the sight of desperation.

JVK
Sep 01, 2015
Stability analysis of a model gene network links aging, stress resistance, and negligible senescence
http://dx.doi.org...rep13589

The desperation of evolutionary theorists is manifested in claims about the emergence of multicellular life. Emergence can be compared to biologically based cause and effect, which must link RNA-mediated DNA repair to healthy longevity via metabolic networks and genetic networks that do not disintegrate due to gene expression errors.

The metabolic networks and genetic networks link the conserved molecular mechanisms of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation to the nutrient-dependent origin of life in all living genera.

See From fertilization to RNA-mediated events and back http://rna-mediat...nd-back/

JVK
Sep 01, 2015
And now, the theorists have this to contend with.

http://medicalxpr...ode.html

http://www.nature...100.html
"We found that odorants induced a fast and reversible concentration-dependent decrease in the transcription of genes corresponding to activated receptors in intact mice."

The odor-induced de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes is central to my model of how the epigenetic landscape is linked to the physical landscape of DNA in all living genera.

Thank God, if you were not foolish enough to let yourself be taught to believe in the pseudosceintific nonsense touted by theorists.

Sep 01, 2015
What overwhelming evidence makes it [evolution] true?
@jk
really?
this comment, more than any other, proves that you refuse to accept empirical data over religious dogma
it also shows that you refuse to read the scientific literature that directly refutes your claims... so why do you read Lenski & Extavour, or the rest?

start with the evidence mentioned here: http://talkorigin...comdesc/

READ ALL THE LINKS INCLUDED

if you refute ANY studies linked as references, include the studies as well as the data & links that falsifies said study in equivalent form (ie. a STUDY - not just "because you said so" BS like you usually do)

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

Also note: Huffington post is NOT A REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL WITH PEER REVIEW

Sep 01, 2015
It links the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of
@jk
1- no, it doesn't

2- the site states
Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God
therefore, given what we know: https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

we can state with authority that the site (creationist) doesn't perform science, especially as it has a DOGMA that it must adhere to

this means it doesn't do SCIENCE... it does PSEUDOSCIENCE and is not based upon the scientific method

3- the creationist perspective is PSEUDOSCIENCE, thus cannot be used as relevant reference to a science article

reported
http://rna-mediat...eg-bear/
PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE
reported


Sep 01, 2015
And now, the theorists have this to contend with.

http://medicalxpr...ode.html

http://www.nature...100.html
"We found that odorants induced a fast and reversible concentration-dependent decrease in the transcription of genes corresponding to activated receptors in intact mice."


Receptor activation can regulate gene expression. That doesn't contradict any aspect of evolution.

The odor-induced de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes is central to my model of how the epigenetic landscape is linked to the physical landscape of DNA in all living genera.


Here's where you mess up. That article does not describe new receptor genes being created. It describes the regulation of existing genes. The quote YOU provided describes precisely what happened.

JVK
Sep 01, 2015
... does not describe new receptor genes being created. It describes the regulation of existing genes.


Where did the existing genes come from?

The de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes is experience-dependent, which links food odors to metabolic networks and genetic networks. RNA-mediated gene duplication and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that are fixed in organized genomes via the physiology of reproduction link everything that is known to serious scientists about nutritional epigenetics and pharmacogenomics.

See also: "Ancient hybridization key to domestic dog's origin, wolf conservation efforts" September 1, 2015 http://phys.org/n...dog.html

Ecological variation leads to hybridization in the context of RNA-mediated events that are linked to ecological speciation via chromosomal rearrangements. Dogs are a great example of how much diversity can arise due to the chromosomal rearrangements.

Sep 01, 2015
Let's clear up one thing before you change topics like you usually do. The paper you linked has nothing to do with creating new genes.

From the abstract:
we developed a large-scale transcriptomic approach to uncover receptor-ligand pairs in vivo


This is what the paper was about. A new approach to pairing ligands and OR genes. It doesn't concern the origin of those genes, so your "odor-induced de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes" claim is not supported.

If you have a more relevant citation to the claim that odorants induce DNA changes leading to receptors specific to those odorants, present it.

As for what leads to new OR genes- duplications and rearrangements

https://www.googl...oe=utf-8

These processes are not induced by the presence of a new odorant. There's not a mechanism for that.

JVK
Sep 02, 2015
Where did the existing genes come from?

Sep 02, 2015
As for what leads to new OR genes- duplications and rearrangements

https://www.googl...oe=utf-8


Learn to read.

JVK
Sep 02, 2015
All duplications are nutrient-dependent and RNA-mediated.

Just tell me where the existing genes came from if not from experience-dependent de novo creation in the context of RNA-mediated gene duplication and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all genera via the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein biosynthesis and degradation.

JVK
Sep 02, 2015
Different evolutionary processes shaped the mouse and human olfactory receptor gene families
http://hmg.oxford...535.full

What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot links to an article that claims evolutionary processes are different in mice and humans?


Sep 02, 2015
Different evolutionary processes shaped the mouse and human olfactory receptor gene families
http://hmg.oxford...535.full

What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot links to an article that claims evolutionary processes are different in mice and humans?


Let's see, a group of scientists with years of rigorous education produce a peer reviewed paper that has been cited at least 57 times versus a retired lab tech with reading comprehension problems and a devotion to creationism. Tough decision--NOT.

Sep 02, 2015
All duplications are nutrient-dependent


That still doesn't mean anything and still doesn't contradict Modern Synth.

and RNA-mediated


https://en.wikipe...lication

1. Unequal crossing over. This mechanism does not involve RNA. It occurs during meiosis when chromosomes line up next to each other and is a source of mutations.

2. Replication Slippage. This occurs when a polymerase detaches from DNA during replication and reattaches, replicating the same sequence twice. Again, this does not involve RNA.

3. Retrotransposition. This uses RNA as an intermediate via reverse transcription. In what way does this nullify Modern Synth.?

4. Aneuploidy. Usually occurs due to mistakes during mitotic checkpoints. Not involving RNA.

5. Whole Genome Duplication. Chromosome separation failure during meiosis. Not involving RNA.

Just tell me where the existing genes came from


This is the third time I've told you.


Sep 02, 2015
@verkle

Like JVK you've demonstrated reading comprehension fails but try reading the following link and then explain where there is a lack of scientific evidence.

This ought to good.

http://talkorigin...al_unity


Sep 03, 2015
29 hunches. But no scientific evidence
@verkle
so, you didn't read any of the referenced studies on that link? or are you saying that those VALIDATED STUDIES can be easily refuted?
if they can be so easily refuted, by all means, where are the linked studies as refute?
No, there is no overwhelming evidence for evolution
so, this demonstrated that you did NOT read the link at all
or is it just that you are having literacy problems? can't read?
you made the claim it isn't supported... now PROVE IT

because i've given you a link loaded with references (validated) and you are simply making a claim (personal conjecture) - AKA-OPINION- without evidence

the difference? i got proof
you got WIND

Sep 03, 2015
Such blatant hand-waving about millions of people you hate is completely uncalled for in a scientific website
@verkleTROLL
you mean like when you made a comment like "there is no overwhelming evidence for evolution" while ignoring the 65 links, 14 studies, and 23 references that i provided [in that single link] proving Evolution to you? WOW, hypocrisy much?
Your reputation...
OMG, REALLY?
i didn't actually finish because i was laughing so hard!

you want to talk about reputations?
you have YET to be able to provide a single piece of reputable evidence supporting your claims... you prefer widbag-101 solutions and blatant lies from your "holy comic", but you think your reputation is credible?

REALLY??!!

ROTFLMFAO

JVK
Sep 03, 2015
http://medicalxpr...ryo.html

See also: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html

See also: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.
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).

Sep 04, 2015
See also: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.
Why would anyone want to read a creationist perspective that requires MUTATIONS and ignores empirical evidence, especially when you consider it is a debunked model torn apart by a highly educated biologist who has more knowledge than the lab-tech flunkie who wrote the model and failed to account for simple things like: definitions and actual experimental evidence that refutes it?

PROOF it is debunked:
http://www.socioa...ew/24367

JVK
Sep 05, 2015
See also: http://phys.org/n...ion.html

Anyone who ignores Darwin's claim that "conditions of life" must come before natural selection and then proceeds to make mutations the cause of evolution is touting pseudoscientific nonsense. Dobzhansky's creationist perspective put nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated gene duplication and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions first in 1973.

See also (1974): Amino Acid Difference Formula to Help Explain Protein Evolution http://www.scienc...abstract

...the lab-tech flunkie who wrote the model and failed to account for simple things like: definitions and actual experimental evidence that refutes it?


There is no need for definitions in a model that accurately represents what is known to serious scientists about biologically-based cause and effect. Examples were included. No experimental evidence of cause and effect supports neo-Darwinian theory.

Sep 05, 2015
a model that accurately represents what is known
it doesn't
this is evident in the critique, found here: http://www.socioa...ew/24367

There is no need for definitions
you made this claim before
problem is: definitions are used by professionals for clear concise communication (something your kohl-slaw word salads do NOT do)
neo-Darwinian theory
as noted, the argument for Evolution is not the same thing as new-darwinian theory, and i've given links proving that point
so why is it that you are specifically locked onto the definition of neo-darwinism when you don't actually accept definitions?
you even refuse to accept definitions in your professional lexicon, which are required for scientific discourse, so why the selective semantic arguments, mensa boy?
trying to impress someone?

there is NO science in the creationist movement
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

Sep 05, 2015
You're smart and insightful person. You have a high rating and the consensus is on your side. With so much evidence for evolution at your disposal I do not think that it's hard for you to explain
-But so easy for you yes? In the absence of ALL the answers just open your book and turn to the correct translation, and interpret it however you like and voila! You find that god did it.

God says the absence of all answers means that he is the only answer. It's not science but you dont really care because it makes you feel so wonderful, yes?

Sep 05, 2015
So we didn't evolve after all. Given the lack of intermediate fossils of humans
-Perhaps god was prototyping yes? MkIV.

And he still doesn't have it right.

No wait - our inherent decrepitude was eve's fault... If that bitch hadnt taken the apple (pomegranate) we'd all be immortal.

Right? It's in your book.

Human birthing is such a pain. Serves her right.

Sep 05, 2015
"disinformation from the humanistic media"
-----------------------------------

Rather than Absolute Truth from the Age of Ignorance?

Yes, thanks.

Sep 06, 2015
We will have to outgrow this pathetic need for a Santa for grownups. Are we so WEAK we need to invent imaginary beings in which to "believe", because we cannot believe in ourselves?

We seem to divide into groups, invent Imaginary Beings, concoct all kinds of legends around our Imaginary Beings, then go kill each other over whose Imaginary Being is the "real" one.

We evolved, we were not "made" in one day.

Ridiculous!

JVK
Sep 06, 2015
http://medicalxpr...une.html

Excerpt: '...immune system continually adapts to its encounters with hostile pathogens, friendly gut microbes, nutritional components and more..."

That fact can be placed into the context of nutrient-dependent RNA-directed DNA methylation, which links RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all species.

What is currently known about the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in species from microbes to man via conserved molecular mechanisms.

Nutrients metabolize to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction, which is how fixation of the amino acid substitutions occurs.

JVK
Sep 06, 2015
See also: http://phys.org/n...est.html

We evolved, we were not "made" in one day.


Thanks for again showing us how biologically uninformed science idiots have responded to experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that links physics to chemistry via conserved molecular mechanisms of RNA-mediated protein folding in all cell types of all individuals of all living genera.

JVK
Sep 06, 2015
See also: Viral proteins may regulate human embryonic development http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

and "The Darwin Code: Intelligent Design without God" http://rna-mediat...eg-bear/

What do theorists do when they cannot attack creationists and must attack "Intelligent Design?"

Sep 06, 2015
The phrase "RNA-mediated protein folding" has gone from trite to offensive.

That little part of the Universe proves nothing! It certainly does not prove the physical existence of Imaginary Beings.

Sep 06, 2015
So as captan Stumpy you basically rely someone else to prepare your material
@renTROLL
hate to tell you this, but i get most of my material that directly refutes you from YOUR OWN BIBLE!
also note: there is a reason the scientific method is so successful. it is called repeat-ability and validation. this is also the reason the biblical holy comic you refer to has failed, epic-ly, time and again, to produce ANY factual information except, perhaps (maybe) who begat whom
From history we know that minority always has been informed and was the winner of the truth. While the majority wallow in delusions
uhhm...well... hate to tell you this, but, religious folk are the MAJORITY nowadays, and scientists (especially atheist) are a minority... that should speak VOLUMES according to your perspective...

Sep 06, 2015
From history we know that minority always has been informed and was the winner of the truth. While the majority wallow in delusions and believed in myths and legends... However, the Bible is the most popular book in the world and is survived very rough time. Its influence is increasing
@ren
do you not even read what you type? are you under psychiatric care? or are you truly so stupid that you would make a generalised comment like that not realising the implications of your own post????
and "The Darwin Code: Intelligent Design without God" http://rna-mediat...eg-bear/

What do theorists do when they cannot attack creationists and must attack "Intelligent Design?"
@jk
PSEUDOSCIENCE PHISHING SITE
reported

there is no science in the creationist movement, therefore there is no need to attack creationists as they do NOT produce science
intelligent design is creationist dogma, NOT SCIENCE
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

JVK
Sep 06, 2015
The phrase "RNA-mediated protein folding" has gone from trite to offensive.


Who is offended by the truth about cell type differentiation, which is obviously RNA-mediated and biophysically constrained in the context of the physiology of reproduction in all living genera?

Computational analysis of amino acids and their sidechain analogs in crowded solutions of RNA nucleobases with implications for the mRNA–protein complementarity hypothesis http://nar.oxford...abstract

reported as http://phys.org/n...fe.html: Excerpt: It would be very interesting if the echoes of primordial events still resonated within the fabric of the biology of today", concludes Žagrović.

See also: Proteome-wide analysis reveals clues of complementary interactions between mRNAs and their cognate proteins as the physicochemical foundation of the genetic code http://dx.doi.org...na.25977

JVK
Sep 06, 2015
That little part of the Universe proves nothing! It certainly does not prove the physical existence of Imaginary Beings.


Why would anyone need to prove the physical existence of anything in the context of an atoms to ecosystems model of cell type differentiation and/or the physiology of nutrient-dependent reproduction?

Serious scientists examine facts about nutrient-dependent thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation that are obviously RNA-mediated. See for example: Uridylation by TUT4 and TUT7 Marks mRNA for Degradation http://www.scienc...14014275

JVK
Sep 06, 2015
intelligent design is creationist dogma, NOT SCIENCE


How would a biologically uninformed science idiot like Captain Stumpy know the difference between intelligent design and creationist science?

Living with the Neanderthals http://www.nature...26a.html
Excerpt: "He advances a world view in which we are all part of the vast neural network of life, cutting across ethnic borders, species divides and the chasms between taxonomic kingdoms, in balance, and in two-way communication, with the ecosystem. Bear might be off the mark, or he might just be anticipating the next giant leap in our understanding of evolution and ourselves."

See also: Evolution rising from the grave http://dx.doi.org...35003625 Excerpt: "The pioneering thinkers of yesterday are the devoted traditionalists of today. New ideas enter science grudgingly. New paradigms are resisted with a vengeance."

Sep 06, 2015
Wow, . . this guy is a One-note Willie. I have no idea how his nutrient-whatever drivel proves the physical existence of his Imaginary Being.

The phrase is insufficient proof.

Sep 06, 2015
JVK paints himself into another corner.

"Viruses are linked to all pathology"

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

Sep 06, 2015
Who is offended by the truth
@jk
you seem to be: especially when it is repeatedly demonstrated that your model is DEBUNKED (by Jones), your model uses MUTATIONS (your own words), although you claim an anti-mutation stance and all mutations are pathological (which, technically, also debunks your own model using your own words/ideas), and that beneficial mutations are experimentally verified (Lenski, Extavour)
plus, you really get hostile when it is proven you are a pathological liar (especially when i link that proof)
How would Stumpy know the difference between intelligent design and creationist science?
1- there are resources that explain both
2- BOTH are of the basic premise that there must exist a "god" which created the universe
3- BOTH are religious in nature, and refuse to accept validated science (like radiation half-life, thermodynamics, evolution, geology)
4- lastly: because i've studied them for years
& I don't accept BELIEF over validated evidence

Sep 06, 2015

What do theorists do when they cannot attack creationists and must attack "Intelligent Design?"

"The theories espoused by creationists were at first substantially Christian. A later trend was to remove references to the Bible and to any particular god. Rather than aiming to supplant evolutionary theory, creationists sought to have their theory taught alongside Darwin's theory in public schools."

"Intelligent design has some roots in these movements but many of its proponents have to disassociated themselves from them. The movement has its origins in a 1987 setback, when a Supreme Court decision, Edwards v. Aguillard, banned the teaching of creationism in public schools because it was religious in nature and thus violated the separation of church and state. Intelligent design was a new strategy that accentuated the scientific principles upon which it was based in order to promote the idea of a supreme consciousness behind the creation of life and the universe."

tbc

Sep 06, 2015
Cont.

History of the Intelligent Design Theory
http://connection...n-theory

The ID movement begins[edit]
"1984 book The Mystery of Life's Origin by Charles Thaxton and others, foreword by Kenyon, argues for 'a profoundly informative intervention' by an intelligent cause, "the authors conclude that while design can be detected in biology, science cannot determine from this evidence whether the design was from a creator outside the cosmos."[6] Barbara Forrest describes this as the beginning of the ID movement."
https://en.wikipe...t_design

JVK
Sep 06, 2015
The phrase "RNA-mediated protein folding" has gone from trite to offensive.


Wow, . . this guy is a One-note Willie.


http://rna-mediated.com/

http://www.rnasociety.org/

https://www.googl...mediated

JVK
Sep 06, 2015
http://medicalxpr...une.html

"...scientists found that in three-quarters of the measurements, nonheritable influences—such as previous microbial or toxic exposures, vaccinations, diet and dental hygiene—trumped heritable ones when it came to accounting for differences within a pair of twins."

Non-heritable influences link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA via RNA-mediated events. RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions link metabolic networks to genetic networks in all living genera via their physiology of reproduction.

Sep 06, 2015
"RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions link metabolic networks to genetic networks in all living genera via their physiology of reproduction."
-----------------------------------

Yes, but does that prove anything?

Anything?

JVK
Sep 06, 2015
Yes, but does that prove anything?


Yes, thanks for asking. It proves that evolutionary theorists are biologically uninformed science idiots.

"Viruses are linked to all pathology"


Only evolutionary theorists are not aware of that fact.

See: Viral and Cellular Genomes Activate Distinct DNA Damage Responses
http://dx.doi.org...5.07.058
Excerpt: "...γH2AX foci discriminate "self" and "non-self" genomes and determine whether a localized anti-viral or global ATM response is appropriate. This provides an elegant mechanism to neutralize viral genomes without jeopardizing cellular viability."

Reported as: http://phys.org/n...nts.html

See also: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html "...three additional topics shall be considered...: genomic sexual dimorphisms, neurosteroids, and immunological factors."

Sep 06, 2015


"Viruses are linked to all pathology"


Only evolutionary theorists are not aware of that fact.

@JVK

You daily make idiotic claims that aren't supported with peer reviewed evidence but your "viruses are linked to ALL patholgy" ranks among your worst.

Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever) is caused by a fungal spore and is not contagious.

"Lead poisoning occurs when lead builds up in the body, often over a period of months or years. Even small amounts of lead can cause serious health problems."
http://www.mayocl...20035487

"Cumulative sun exposure causes mainly basal cell and squamous cell skin cancer"
http://www.medici...ey=43077

Three very different pathologys and not a viruses among them.


JVK
Sep 06, 2015
I just quoted: Excerpt: "...γH2AX foci discriminate "self" and "non-self" genomes and determine whether a localized anti-viral or global ATM response is appropriate. This provides an elegant mechanism to neutralize viral genomes without jeopardizing cellular viability."

Fungal spores, lead poisoning, and cumulative sun exposure contribute to stress-related virus-perturbed protein folding during thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation in humans.

Viruses that are not neutralized are linked to all pathology.

Sep 07, 2015
virus-perturbed protein folding

Scholar9 results

https://scholar.g...Ch0mBgm0

Interesting search results. None of the nine papers address protein folding and they definitely don't cite "viruses are linked to ALL pathology".

@JVK

You can't provide any peer reviewed evidence for your claim " viruses are linked to ALL pathology"


Sep 07, 2015

Viruses that are not neutralized are linked to all pathology.


Said without any supporting peer reviewed evidence.

Sep 07, 2015
It proves that evolutionary theorists are biologically uninformed science idiots
No, it doesn't
it DOES prove that you are incapable of interpreting actual scientific studies as well as communicating ACTUAL science, though
take your comments
Only evolutionary theorists are not aware of that fact
really?
did you poll them?
where is THAT study published?

better yet... where is the validation that all mutations are pathological?
and why did you ignore Lenski & Extavour when it proved you wrong about beneficial mutations?

while you are at it... why do you continually state mutations are pathological but then call upon MUTATIONS in your model to make it work?

and where is your validation of your claim
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
that is a SURE NOBEL there!
it would redefine physics, biology and medicine for sure!

JVK
Sep 07, 2015
it would redefine physics, biology and medicine for sure!


It already has placed physic, chemistry, and molecular biology into the context of fixed RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions.

See also: Thermodynamics and signatures of criticality in a network of neurons
http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Excerpt: "Related signatures of criticality have been detected in ensembles of amino acid sequences for protein families (29)..."

Sep 07, 2015
It already has placed
i would call this PERSONAL CONJECTURE based upon delusional Dunning-Kruger, but in all actuality, you do NOT comprehend the implications of your statement, so it must be classified as a delusion
even though you've been taught otherwise

you see:
IF you would have been able to "link" it,as you state, then there would be proof of abiogenesis
and had you actually demonstrated or experimentally supported this "claim" you would have absolutely refuted all creationist claims as well as destroyed your religion!

better yet, you would have specifically reinforced the Theory of Evolution as well as been a household name

considering you are still a backwater hack low level lab tech selling a pseudoscience based perfume with little credibility lying about being a diagnostician (felony) and who's social highlight is posting to an open un-moderated Pop-sci forum, then we can be assured you are LYING

moderated sites delete you for TROLLING/PSEUDOSCIENCE

Sep 07, 2015
Hey, . . . lots'a money made with pseudoscience and religion. Consult your local astrologer, broker, or televangelist.

JVK
Sep 07, 2015
...there would be proof of abiogenesis


There is proof that the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes links receptor-mediated nutrient uptake to thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation via biophysically constrained molecular mechanisms, which enable fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in the cell types of all cells in all individuals of all living genera. That proof can be compared to ridiculous theories about abiogenesis. What are you offering for comparison to my model, which links atoms to ecosystems?


Sep 07, 2015
So what?

Why don't you take your fixation to sites which actually debate this extremely-narrow issue? Propose it to others, and see what their reactions are. You may be right, for all I know, but you are never going to prove anything here.

Sep 07, 2015
There is proof that the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes links
@jk
but that wasn't your claim, now was it?
NO
your claim, and i will repeat 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...
there is no need to add the rest, because...PER YOUR CLAIM - THIS particular claim!!... you have been able to link light contacting water to abiogenesis!

but now you want to back out and make another claim instead? red herring distraction from your faux pas?
or is it backpedaling because you know you blatantly lied, just like you lied about your diagnostic medicine claims?

this is why you have no credibility here - it is also why you get deleted from MODERATED sites
you make grandiose claims not proven by evidence & continue your religious proselytizing- and you blatantly misrepresent actual science in the light of your religion

THAT IS CALLED PSEUDOSCIENCE

Sep 07, 2015
What are you offering for comparison to my model, which links atoms to ecosystems?
@jk
this one is EASY
using the scientific method and building upon decades of validated research, scientists have devised a THEORY (not a guess, but a SCIENTIFIC THEORY that is based upon evidence)... it is called: the Theory of Evolution

if you don't know what a scientific theory is, read here
https://en.wikipe...c_theory

since i KNOW you don't know the scientific method, read here
https://en.wikipe...c_method

based upon those two simple links, we can now state, with authority, that your "posts" are pseudoscience, especially as you consider all mutations pathological, despite validated evidence to the contrary


Sep 07, 2015
@jk
also note: the above scientific theory takes the laws of physics into consideration, and is being adjusted with new evidence as required. you will see how that is done in the link describing the scientific method, but here is a simple explanation in a pic

https://upload.wi...cess.svg

That proof can be compared to ridiculous theories about abiogenesis
except that YOU are the one saying he proved abiogenesis true... that makes YOU the ridiculous one here!
WHOOPS!

most importantly: until you can correct this
http://mindhacks....hinking/

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

then you are just another creationist pseudoscience crackpot trolling for attention because you are socially inept and cant prove your claims


Sep 07, 2015
"In other words, mammalian viruses may not have existed at all before the Curse, but after mankind's sin may have been allowed to develop from DNA sequence already present in the now-fallen people and animals of the earth. Again, cutting-edge genome research confirms the Genesis account of origins."
http://www.icr.or...cle/8661

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

That quote is from a source JVK linked in his never ending quest to justify his pseudoscience.

Sep 07, 2015
@jk
mammalian viruses may not have existed at all before the Curse
ROTFLMFAO
what curse, exactly, mensa boy?
better yet: that site is a creationist site, you know, which has all the same scientific validity as Reddit or 4chan!
WTF?
that site has a link "evidence for creation"... problem is: there is NO SCIENCE in the creationist movement (and that is proven fact! see: https://en.wikipe...Arkansas )

but lets just stick to pheromones for a moment: that is jk's profession (other than perfumes, web sites, phishing and pseudoscience)
where is the scientific validation that refutes this paper:
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

please note that a single source is not sufficient to claim validation, jk
there must be multiple sources with irrefutable evidence...

considering the point of my link above is that there IS NO IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE then....
(NO PSEUDOSCIENCE LINKS)

JVK
Sep 07, 2015
Why don't you take your fixation to sites which actually debate this extremely-narrow issue?


Evolutionary theorists cannot debate the facts that are known to serious scientists. They want to debate creationist claims, not experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that links atoms to ecosystems via the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry and the physiology of reproduction in all living genera.

there must be multiple sources with irrefutable evidence...


What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot makes such ridiculous claims after Koonin claimed

"The entire evolution of the microbial world and the virus world, and the interaction between microbes and viruses and other life forms have been left out of the Modern Synthesis..."
http://www.huffin...216.html

Sep 07, 2015

5 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2015
Statement directly from Eugene Koonin to me:

"I certainly have never even thought about "rejecting" neo-Darwinism. All I said, in this interview and many previous publications, is that neo-Darwinsim Is a rather narrowly constrained theoretical framework that, for various reasons, leaves out many key evolutionary processes. One of the primary reasons for that is simply that at the time neo-Darwinism took its shape (1950s), the salient theory and especially observations were unavailable."

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

A reply to anonymous9001 when he queried Koonin about statements made by JVK.

JVK
Sep 07, 2015
See also, this broad-based response to biologically uninformed science idiots:

"...evolutionary science has now "moved on to such an extent" that she and Peter Saunders don't really care anymore about "trying to convince the neo-Darwinists."

http://www.huffin...450.html

Koonin should join the serious scientists who have continued to refute neo-Darwinism since the time it was invented by population geneticists based on de Vries definition of "mutation." Alternatively, he should tell us how mutations, which perturb protein folding, can be linked to evolution outside the context of RNA-mediated DNA repair.

JVK
Sep 07, 2015
František Baluška: Evolutionary Science 'Stuck' on Wrong Track, Situation 'Out of Control'
http://www.huffin...592.html

Excerpt: In our conversation that follows, Baluška touches on the role of viruses in plant evolution and in evolution in general. Baluška says "[s]ynapses in very early evolution may have been induced by repetitive viral infections" because viruses can manipulate cells to form cell-cell adhesions.

The manipulation occurs in the context of viral microRNAs that proliferate when the accumulation of viruses is not prevented by nutrient-dependent microRNAs, which link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in species from microbes to humans via the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically constrained protein folding chemistry and the physiology of nutrient-dependent reproduction.

JVK
Sep 07, 2015
See also: Combating Evolution to Fight Disease and my comments at:

http://comments.s....1247472

JVK
Sep 07, 2015
http://dx.doi.org...ure14877 Journal article excerpt: "We found significant enrichment for interactions among pairs of human proteins acting sequentially in annotated pathways37 (Fig. 5e), especially G-protein and MAP-kinase cascades (Supplementary Table 8). Enzymes acting consecutively in core metabolic reactions (Fig. 5f) also showed a higher tendency to interact (Supplementary Table 8), the significance of which decayed with more intervening steps (Fig. 5e). For example, strong consecutive interactions were apparent within the widely conserved purine biosynthetic pathway, with enzymes (for example, PAICS, GART) eluting in two peaks (Fig. 5g), one coincident with the prior enzyme and the second with the downstream enzyme, suggestive of substrate channelling38."

My comment: It is the de novo creation of G protein-coupled receptors that links Darwin's "conditions of life" to the nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction in all living genera.

Sep 08, 2015
Evolutionary theorists cannot debate the facts that are known to serious scientists. They want to debate creationist claims
where do you get this idea from? your creationist sites?
makes such ridiculous claims after Koonin claimed
1- this demonstrates you have NO idea how the scientific method works
2- a single "anything" is not a validated fact or proven theory, it is an interesting note: it is not until validation occurs through secondary sources that things can be accepted in science
This explains a LOT about your delusional claims, mensa boy
3- huffington post is NOT a reputable science journal with peer review
See also...and my comments at: [SCIMAG]
just because you post pseudoscience on a reputable journal site doesn't mean your comments are validated any more than posting to Wiki makes you an authority on Faeries

perhaps you should also note the SciMag posting disclaimers?


Sep 08, 2015
See also...my comments at:

sciencemag.

the most important part of that post is here
These postings do not necessarily represent the views/opinions of Science.
a special note about this: your posts have been reported as pseudoscience on Science Magazine as well... for those not able to see: jk has made 4 of the 5 posts under the article. spreading his pseudoscience

the authors are ignoring jk's posts because anyone with a basic biology course will see that he is spreading creationist dogma mixed with his diatribes

"why would an author fill his days arguing with [an idiot] when there is research to be done and the science speaks for itself to those who take the time to understand it?"

that is the answer i keep getting when i ask authors why they don't refute jk on SciMag articles when he posts

SciMag/AAAS stated the members are "usually" adept and knowledgeable so a refute is pointless as it is obvious jk is not accurate in his assertions

JVK
Sep 08, 2015
It is the de novo creation of G protein-coupled receptors that links Darwin's "conditions of life" to the nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction in all living genera.


No amount of pseudoscientific nonsense will change that fact.Evolutionary theorists are biologically uninformed science idiots, as are all theoretical physicists. If they were not biologically uninformed, they would have linked the sun's biological energy to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in all cell types of all genera soon after Schrodinger suggested that the link from top-down causation was required (1943).

Instead, they ignored Dobzhansky (1973) and
"Amino Acid Difference Formula to Help Explain Protein Evolution" (1974)
http://www.scienc...abstract

See also: http://phys.org/n...eal.html
Scientists create world's largest protein map to reveal which proteins work together in a cell

Sep 08, 2015
...science idiots, as are all theoretical physicists...they would have linked the sun's biological energy
So, per your words above, Einstein, Feynman, etc were "science Idiots"???
really?
lets examine your claims: you claim they are "science idiots", making your claim all encompassing of anyone who does theoretical physics, just because they don't study biology?

but what about you, jk? 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...
but provide NO empirical evidence, nor can you even substantiate this with a single study!
this is far beyond "personal conjecture" and is classified as blatant stupidity

claiming to be superior to everyone because you're a lab tech is Dunning-Kruger
in science, you must have EVIDENCE

being able to post to e science site doesn't make your claims more legitimate if there is no evidence

worse still if evidence refutes you

JVK
Sep 08, 2015
JVK
....biologically uninformed science idiots...


Captain Stumpy
So, per your words above, Einstein, Feynman, etc were "science Idiots"???


You changed the context of my words above. I will change them back.

See: http://www.nature...-1.16535

Excerpt: "In our view, the issue boils down to clarifying one question: what potential observational or experimental evidence is there that would persuade you that the theory is wrong and lead you to abandoning it? If there is none, it is not a scientific theory."

See also: http://www.the-sc...ewiring/

If you do not believe experimental evidence that the bacterial flagellum "re-evolved" in 4 days, you probably believe whatever you have been taught to believe in by biologically uninformed science idiots who understand nothing about ecological variation and ecological adaptation.

JVK
Sep 08, 2015
being able to post to e science site doesn't make your claims more legitimate if there is no evidence


I've published a series of reviews since book publication in 1995, and included the experimental evidence that links RNA-mediated events from ecological variation to ecological adaptation in everything I have published or that currently remains unpublished.

See 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.

Sep 08, 2015
Apparently, not all of us have evolved.

Sep 08, 2015
You changed the context of my words above
@jk
No, i pointed out the inconsistency of your argument
using logic:
theoretical physicists (TP's for short) are typically not taught biology in any depth because it is not relevant to theoretical physics UNLESS they specifically are discussing theoretical physics of a cell, biological process or trying to link biology and QM, etc... this means, BY DEFINITION (those things you refuse to accept) that you claimed all TP's are biologically uninformed (proven false because you don't know all TP's, nor do you accept definitions or training of educated TP's) and because you didn't specify ONLY TP's who are biologically trained researchers thus consider all TP's science idiots by extrapolation of the definition & YOUR OWN WORDS!

that is per your post, not some context change! and it is explained accurately above to anyone who has a logical methodical mind and has ANY experience or scientific background

Sep 08, 2015
See rna-mediated Here you will find information
@jk
let me finish that properly: ...ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

1- owning a web site and publishing to it doesn't make it a scientific journal or valid science any more than praying to an invisible deity makes you the pope

2- PHISHING PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE - reported

3- when you include creationist dogma and claim it is relevant to science on a site, it makes the site PSEUDOSCIENCE, not scientific, thus cannot be linked as valid support of arguments unless you want to talk about religion

4- considering the "evidence" you are claiming belongs to a personally own religious site promoting PSEUDOSCIENCE, it can be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant because you cannot provide links to reputable peer reviewed journals (actual scientific credibility requires this, BTW)

5- talking religion on a science site is STUPID
why do you keep posting it and spamming with it?

Sep 08, 2015
last point:
in order to encourage a public discussion of a paradigm shift.
this is what AAAS was created for, but i also see places like Beacon sharing daring studies .... except they're supported by EVIDENCE, not religion

i find it absolutely hilarious that you can't get your PSEUDOSCIENCE published to AAAS/Science Mag except in the open comments section that authors ignore (especially when pseudoscience is posted there because everyone KNOWS it is CRAP)

there is a serious point there, and a LESSON to be learned ... it should also speak volumes about the credibility you have as well as the type of evidence you provide.

if you can't get support from AAAS/Science Mag to "shift the paradigm" towards your pseudoscience, then you should seriously reconsider the data therein

JVK
Sep 08, 2015
If you are not a biologically uninformed science idiot see:

https://www.googl...mediated

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