Ancestral background can be determined by fingerprints

September 28, 2015 by Matt Shipman, North Carolina State University
Ancestral background can be determined by fingerprints

A proof-of-concept study finds that it is possible to identify an individual's ancestral background based on his or her fingerprint characteristics – a discovery with significant applications for law enforcement and anthropological research.

"This is the first study to look at this issue at this level of detail, and the findings are extremely promising," says Ann Ross, a professor of anthropology at North Carolina State University and senior author of a paper describing the work. "But more work needs to be done. We need to look at a much larger sample size and evaluate individuals from more diverse ancestral backgrounds."

Anthropologists have looked at fingerprints for years, because they are interested in human variation. But this research has looked at Level 1 details, such as pattern types and ridge counts. Forensic fingerprint analysis, which is used in criminal justice contexts, looks at Level 2 details – the more specific variations, such as bifurcations, where a fingerprint ridge splits.

For this study, researchers looked at Level 1 and Level 2 details of right index-finger fingerprints for 243 individuals: 61 African American women; 61 African American men; 61 European American women; and 60 European American men. The fingerprints were analyzed to determine whether there were patterns that were specific to either sex or ancestral background.

The researchers found no significant differences between men and women, but did find significant differences in the Level 2 details of fingerprints between people of European American and African American ancestry.

"A lot of additional work needs to be done, but this holds promise for helping ," Ross says. "And it's particularly important given that, in 2009, the National Academy of Sciences called for more scientific rigor in forensic science – singling out fingerprints in particular as an area that merited additional study.

"This finding also tells us that there's a level of variation in that is of interest to anthropologists, particularly in the area of global population structures – we just need to start looking at the Level 2 fingerprint details," Ross says.

The paper, "Sex, Ancestral, and Pattern Type Variation of Fingerprint Minutiae: A Forensic Perspective on Anthropological Dermatoglyphics," is published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.

Explore further: Stuck on you: Research shows fingerprint accuracy stays the same over time

More information: "Sex, Ancestral, and pattern type variation of fingerprint minutiae: A forensic perspective on anthropological dermatoglyphics.". Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.22869

Related Stories

Fingerprint design issues on Android devices in spotlight

August 6, 2015

Password leaked? Not the end of the world. Among the external patches and fixes, you can just change it. Fingerprints leaked? Not so good. These stay as your life's records. Small wonder that among presentations at the 2015 ...

Dutch scientists crack fingerprint dating riddle

June 4, 2014

Criminals' days may be numbered after Dutch forensic experts discovered how to accurately date fingerprints, a breakthrough that could one day let police date crime scene prints from years ago.

Anti-counterfeit polymers work like fingerprints

February 16, 2015

(Phys.org)—When it comes to tagging items to prove their authenticity, the goal is to stay ahead of counterfeit technology. The best tags are unique, complex, easy to read, and difficult to reproduce. One naturally-occurring ...

Recommended for you

42 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

indio007
1 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2015
Lol may they should try to prove fingerprint uniqueness first?
verkle
Sep 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JVK
1 / 5 (12) Sep 28, 2015
Excerpt: The researchers found no significant differences between men and women, but did find significant differences in the Level 2 details of fingerprints between people of European American and African American ancestry.

Does this suggest the differences attributed to ancestry can be linked via nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that link sex differences in yeasts from chromosomal rearrangements to all cell type differences in modern human populations without the pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations, natural selection and evolution via the physiology of reproduction?
Digdeep
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2015
Excerpt: The researchers found no significant differences between men and women, but did find significant differences in the Level 2 details of fingerprints between people of European American and African American ancestry.

Does this suggest the differences attributed to ancestry can be linked via nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that link sex differences in yeasts from chromosomal rearrangements to all cell type differences in modern human populations without the pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations, natural selection and evolution via the physiology of reproduction?


mind... blown....
you sir, are a genious
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2015
Thanks. But wait.

First we must compare the fingerprints of chimpanzees and modern humans to gorillas. Someone could probably determine whether only a single amino acid substitution can differentiate all cell types in all individuals of these three primate species.

If so, the pattern of RNA-mediated events that links all nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled vertebrate morphology and behavior to all invertebrates could be be viewed in the context of what is expected from what is known about the already established context of hormone-organized and hormone-activated behaviors in white-throated sparrows.

See: Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypeshttp://www.pnas.o...abstract
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2015
lab techs can tell things like what color the persons hair/eyes/etc are


It's probably more important for others to know whether or not the "lab techs" understand what is known by medical laboratory scientists about thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation. What is known must be linked by RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to the stability of organized genomes in species from microbes to man via the physiology of reproduction and organism-level thermoregulation.

See also: https://biomolbio...g-sites/ Some researchers put the thermodynamic cycles into the context of protein coevolution with no attempt to explain how the stability of coevolved proteins could be linked from epigenesis to epistasis.
animah
5 / 5 (11) Sep 28, 2015
you sir, are a genious

No, actually the post you quote makes no sense. If evolution does not occur and the characteristics of ethnicity are down to nutrient-driven adaptation, how the hell do you explain that asian families living in the US and marrying solely along ethnic lines for generations don't "adapt" morphologically to whatever the US nutrient environment is supposed to be? What about native Indians who should be "nutrient-aligned" given their thousands of years of history on the land? You didn't see white American settlers turning Apache did you?

Over longer timescales, wouldn't people in Botanical Gardens like the Orto botanico di Padova which has been in operation since 1545 have noticed their asian orchid collections undergoing nutrient adaptation over the centuries?

Bottom line: JVK's half-baked speculations are utterly bogus.
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2015
Like most people, animah is confused by facts that link ecological variation to ecological adaptations in all living genera via the physiology of their nutrient-dependent reproduction. Anyone who still thinks in terms of evolution at a time when serious scientists have detailed the atoms to ecosystems links from top-down causation to biophysically constrained RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry is too far behind the data to recognize why I refer to them as biologically uninformed science idiots. They simply refuse to learn anything, but claim that I am wrong about what I have learned -- despite my history of publications.

Last month, researchers funded by China's NSF reported findings that link the "holy grail" of RNA-mediated protein folding biochemistry and amino acid substitutions that stabilize organized genomes via the physiology of reproduction in all living genera. Questions about orchids and Apaches are not relevant to discussion of ecological speciation.
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2015
Tracking niche variation over millennial timescales in sympatric killer whale lineages http://rspb.royal...81.short

Excerpt: "Ecological variation is the raw material by which natural selection can drive evolutionary divergence [1–4]."

Ecological adaptation is manifested in divergence, but not via evolution.

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

The model of adaptation links RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions from ecological variation to the differentiation of all cell types in all individuals of all living genera. It is an atoms to ecosystems model that I titled as if it were a model of evolution because reviewers must think I am supporting their ideas, not challenging them to provide experimental support for their theories.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2015


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

Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model
http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/
BONK__RS
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2015
As a Brit this is so funny, you guys having a "scientific" argument about alternatives to evolution, based on diet!! And all this to hang onto the idea that God dropped the earth on us, fully formed and static - no, hang on, not static, but certainly not with evolution!! God forbid!.
You're like Norks discussing freedom, your heart's not really in it, even if you appreciate that it is a thing that needs answering.

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2015
@Digdeeps: Don't encourage trolls, now see what you did, creationism cranks everywhere. I wondered why the thread was so long. The particular troll you mentioned is a very silly individual who isn't renowned for his intelligence but for his meaningless "scientese" and deemed to be the current worst crank in the world. [ http://freethough...s-place/ ]

The creationist that gets the science backwards, evolution is the best verified fact we have observed - everyone knows that [ https://en.wikipe...volution ] - and the fingerprint use follows from that, are best ignored too. let them growl over that science has showed their kind of magic to be nonexistent like all overs. (Even if the unwarranted "religiese" is as stupid as the pheromone scientese.)
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2015
...evolution is the best verified fact we have observed - everyone knows that...


Thanks. For comparison to what all serious scientists know, see also: Mechanisms of stress in the brain http://www.nature...086.html

Wait until other intelligent serious scientists links nutrient stress and/or social stress to differences in fingerprints via what is known about RNA-mediated events that link thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation to cell type differentiation in all living genera via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions, DNA repair, and chromosomal rearrangements.

Watch as ignorant theorists continue to try to claim that
...evolution is the best verified fact we have observed - everyone knows that...
because theorists are not biologically informed.

They are biologically uninformed science idiots. Everyone who is not one, knows that. And anonymous fools here are helping others to learn.
JVK
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2015
Vietvet (aka Steven Taylor) likes to link to "Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model" without mention of this "Editor's note"

"The 2013 review article by James Vaughn Kohl published in Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology and criticized in the above Letter to the Editor was subjected to standard peer review and the revised version was accepted by me after it had been accepted by both reviewers."

This differentiates the criticisms of Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) from accurate representations of biologically-based cause and effect that Jones claims present "...an unsupported challenge to modern evolutionary theory and misrepresentations of established scientific terms and others' research."

Obviously, if my challenge was unsupported or included misrepresentations of any aspect of biologically-based cause and effect, the reviewers and/or editor would have asked for an explanation or citations to details. [cont.]
JVK
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2015
[cont]

For example, see my 2012 publication: Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. http://www.ncbi.n...24693349

Footnote 2' Effect(s)' and 'affect(s)'. In context, sensory input effects hormones that affect behavior. An effect of sensory input on hormones can result in behavioral affects/affects on behavior.

A reviewer had claimed I used these words interchangeably, which required me to add the footnote to explain that I was using the terms properly in an accurate representation of what is required to link effects on hormones to affects on behavior.

Theorists try to do that with claims that mutations are linked via natural selection to evolution, which is why they don't address the evolution of sex differences in behavior, or any other aspect of "evolved" biologically-based behavior. They look at morphological traits like fingerprints, and claim the traits "evolved." [cont]
JVK
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2015
[cont]

Re:
They look at morphological traits like fingerprints, and claim the traits "evolved."


That's why I claim that anonymous_9001 (aka Andrew Jones) - and others like him - are anonymous fools and/or biologically uninformed science idiots.

Dobzhansky made a similar claim in: "Biology, molecular and organismic" (1964)

"...a special force or energy, which he called by the Aristotelian name "entelechy," was active in living bodies."

See also: "Perfuming the Mind: The Biological Logic of Physical Attraction" published in "Entelechy"
http://www.entele...ohl.html

My published works have focused on the anti-entropic force of nutrient-dependent energy and its epigenetic effects on hormones that affect behavior. Evolutionary theorists and most theoretical physicists have fallen more than 40 years behind what was known to Dobzhansky in 1964 and what was reported by him in 1973. [cont]
JVK
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2015
[cont]

"...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

Biologically uninformed theorists may continue to try and put that fact and the facts about fingerprinting into the context of their ridiculous theories, but the end result will be the same.

Serious scientists will continue to expose the ignorance of theorists, which is what serious scientists have always done.

If phys.org did not remove all posts that moderators decide are "pseudoscience" because the links are to works by creationists, others would already have learned the difference between the non-mainstream claims of creationists and the pseudoscience of the mainstream claims by evolutionary theorists.

Instead, I may be banned from commenting here. Let's wait and see how long that takes, shall we?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2015
If phys.org did not remove all posts that moderators decide are "pseudoscience" because the links are to works by creationists, others would already have learned the difference
you can't learn about science by participating in a religion any more than you can learn about physics by talking to a clam
there is NO science in the creationist movement: this is not speculation, it is FACT
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

I may be banned from commenting here
one can only hope that you will be banned for your promotion of PSEUDOSCIENCE and religion on a science site
Let's wait and see how long that takes, shall we?
gonna be hard when you're protected by the site mods... but i am trying to argue the point with them anyway

reported for pseudoscience
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2015
http://phys.org/n...ogy.html

The code
is counterintuitive to natural selection.


Accurate representations of biologically-based cause and effect also eliminate mutations and evolution. In less than a month, all neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific nonsense has been eliminated from consideration by serious scientists.

See: Mechanisms of stress in the brain http://dx.doi.org.../nn.4086

See also: Molecular insights into transgenerational non-genetic inheritance of acquired behaviours
http://www.nature...eReviews

Excerpt: Possible mechanisms... during development and adulthood are considered along with...the involvement of epigenetic modifications and non-coding RNAs in male germ cells.

The detailed molecular mechanisms of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in McEwen et al., can be compared to the possible mechanisms in Bohacek & Mansuy.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2015
@JVK

You've posted the same crap on six threads. Reported and admin contacted.
Guy_Underbridge
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2015
@JVK
You've posted the same crap on six threads. Reported and admin contacted.

Are we even sure Jimmy von K is a real person, or just a word-salad macro (with a limited vocabulary) stuck in a loop?
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2015
You've posted the same crap on six threads. Reported and admin contacted.


Captain Stumpy and many other anonymous fools continue to post the same crap on every thread. Not one of you biologically uninformed science idiots is capable of discussing anything known to serious scientists about cell type differentiation. Keep reporting me; get me banned; and learn nothing. That's what the biologically uninformed always have done, which is why most of them are science idiots.

Bohacek & Mansuy attempt to integrate non-genetic germline inheritance and molecular aspects of genetic inheritance. They offer "...a unified theory of evolution that reconciles the contribution of environmental and genetic factors in a dual neo-Lamarckian and neo-Darwinian view92."

McEwen et al (2015) eliminate the neo-Darwinian view via use of the scientific method and experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect.

See also: http://www.ncbi.n.../7209509

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2015
Are we even sure Jimmy von K is a real person, or just a word-salad macro (with a limited vocabulary) stuck in a loop
@Guy
unfortunately, he is real... but his dementia as well as delusions of grandeur, Dunning-Kruger, sociopathic issues and fanatical belief in religion insure that he will continue to loop the same demented garbage as though it was actually an argument rather than delusional rhetoric or the broken psychosis of a schizophrenic off their meds

.

Not one of you biologically uninformed science idiots is capable of discussing anything known to serious scientists
by all means, then it should be easy for you to simply refute any comment that i've made regarding biology, science or even WRT your own posts, right?

while you are at it, feel free to address the known fallacies that you've ignored for the past years you've been posting... not only WRT Jones et al, but also WRT your claims here
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2015
Research connects specific variations in RNA splicing with breast cancer causation
http://medicalxpr...tml#nRlv

Dysregulation of microRNAs in Breast Cancer and Their Potential Role as Prognostic and Predictive Biomarkers in Patient Management
http://www.medsca...842208_3

...a special force or energy, which he called by the Aristotelian name "entelechy," was active in living bodies. Dobzhansky (1964)

See also: "Perfuming the Mind: The Biological Logic of Physical Attraction" published in "Entelechy"
http://www.entele...ohl.html

The energy force of entelechy is nutrient-dependent, and viruses steal the energy required for cell type differentiation. Differences in the physiology of reproduction link nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated events to healthy longevity or virus-perturbed pathology via a fine-tuned balance of energy. Viral microRNAs perturb the balance.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
See also: "Perfuming the Mind
PSEUDOSCIENCE
http://mindhacks....hinking/

http://www.slate....man.html

those articles are further validation of the study linked here: http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

the important bits
However, there is no robust bioassay-led evidence for the widely published claims that four steroid molecules are human pheromones: androstenone, androstenol, androstadienone and estratetraenol. In the absence of sound reasonsto test the molecules, positive results in studies need to be treated with scepticism as these are highly likely to be false positives.
promoting pheromones etc when you can't even provide validated evidence of your claims only promotes PSEUDOSCIENCE
until you can provide validated studies that empirically prove human pheromone impacts, you are posting BS religion, not science
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
until you can provide validated studies that empirically prove human pheromone impacts


I've mentioned to you several times that this cannot be done in human studies of either food odors or pheromones.

See instead: Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction. http://www.ncbi.n...16290036

Simply put, human pheromone-deniers are biologically uninformed science idiots.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2015
I've mentioned to you several times that this cannot be done in human studies of either food odors or pheromones
1- so, you are basically saying your own work is all CRAP then!
thanks for admitting that!
2- this issue is discussed here: http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

3- this still means that, BY DEFINITION, you are promoting your own BELIEFS, which is still PSEUDOSCIENCE, not science
See ...
no. perhaps you should FIRST read the study i linked?

in it's entirety...

and get someone to explain it to you in small words so you can understand it
human pheromone-deniers are biologically uninformed science idiots
how can we be IDIOTS when YOU CAN'T PROVE THEY EXIST????

YOU EVEN ADMITTED THIS ABOVE!!!!

this is your biggest problem... you call US idiots because we want validated evidence, but then you can't provide it, so you call us idiots for pointing out that YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE

WTF??
bloody troll
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
@jkthe bloody troll cont'd

this is the saddest part of your denial/religion right here... and one of the biggest markers of your fanatical religious belief and how it doesn't allow you to see logic or science over your delusion!
you said
I've mentioned to you several times that this cannot be done in human studies of either food odors or pheromones
this means, BY DEFINITION, that you can't produce evidence to support your claims... nor can you actually produce validated studies that empirically prove human pheromone impacts (which is almost comical considering that is how you make your living... selling pheromone perfume!LOL)
then you also claim
human pheromone-deniers are biologically uninformed science idiots
who is logically the bigger idiot?
the person who refuses to "believe" without evidence?
or the person who pushes a belief that has NO empirical evidence to support it?

this is, BY DEFINITION, a FAITH (belief without evidence)
IT ISN'T SCIENCE!!
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
who is logically the bigger idiot?
the person who refuses to "believe" without evidence?
or the person who pushes a belief that has NO empirical evidence to support it?


Thanks for asking. But, of course, you have repeatedly answered your questions in your comments here. There is no bigger idiot than the one -- among other biologically uniformed science idiots -- who does not consider metaphysical explanations that link physics and chemistry via the conserved molecular biology that links atoms to ecosystems, and instead touts pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and evolution.

See: Why Science Needs Metaphysics: Science can't tell us whether science explains everything.
http://nautil.us/...aphysics

Excerpt: "Theories are more underdetermined by empirical results than ever, but scientists are reluctant to admit that the arguments they put forward are philosophical and metaphysical."
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
There is no bigger idiot than the one
this doesn't answer the question i asked... i was very specific and you even quoted it... so i shall RE-QUOTE IT
who is logically the bigger idiot?
the person who refuses to "believe" without evidence?
or the person who pushes a belief that has NO empirical evidence to support it?
in your argument, you are saying it is OK to promote a belief that has NO EVIDENCE
you continually state or promote your RELIGION over the empirical evidence of science, even stating that ALS and Hawking have a
virus-driven pathology has been explained by creationists
but you can't provide ANY EVIDENCE for this claim... only your "belief" that it is true
https://en.wikipe...emiology

therefore, BY DEFINITION, you promote RELIGION AND PSEUDOSCIENCE

this is NOT the scientific method, nor does it promote empirical evidence over faith or belief
this is the reason you have ZERO credibility
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2015
Oh yeah... almost forgot @jk
and instead touts pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and evolution.
but... YOU TOUT MUTATIONS and promote them in your own model, therefore, you are calling yourself a PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC NONSENSICAL IDIOT

also note: your posts are still pseudoscience and claim that belief without evidence is equal to scientific validated empirical evidence, especially with your claims above

reported

PLUS, you still haven't answered this:
who is logically the bigger idiot?
the person who refuses to "believe" without evidence?
or the person who pushes a belief that has NO empirical evidence to support it?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
PLUS, you still haven't answered this:


Of course I have:

you have repeatedly answered your questions in your comments here. There is no bigger idiot than the one -- among other biologically uniformed science idiots -- who does not consider metaphysical explanations that link physics and chemistry via the conserved molecular biology that links atoms to ecosystems, and instead touts pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and evolution.

See: Why Science Needs Metaphysics: Science can't tell us whether science explains everything.
http://nautil.us/...aphysics

Excerpt: "Theories are more underdetermined by empirical results than ever, but scientists are reluctant to admit that the arguments they put forward are philosophical and metaphysical."


Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2015
Of course I have:
ok, so where in that post is the answer to the questions?

what is actually written by you is simply circular red herring and distraction from reality. you make ASSumptions that are not substantiated by scientific evidence (like: "Why Science Needs Metaphysics") because you don't understand how or what the Scientific method actually is

your "answer" is simply to obfuscate the issue with denigration and personal conjecture without evidence. you claim
There is no bigger idiot than the one -- among other biologically uniformed science idiots -- who does not consider metaphysical explanations...
but this is simply capitulation to my argument and stating something like this:
you feel that ANY PERSON who has a faith based argument is equivalent to the empirical evidence and experimentation of the Scientific Method
AKA -
the person who pushes a belief that has NO empirical evidence to support it
thus YOU are the bigger idiot BY YOUR OWN REPLY
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
you make ASSumptions that are not substantiated by scientific evidence


I've cited this, several times: http://www.huffin...211.html

[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.

Those assumptions have never been substantiated by scientific evidence of biologically-based cause and effect, and no one is even trying to substantiate them. All theorists are scrambling to change their ridiculous theories into something that can still be taught to biologically uninformed science idiots who, like my antagonists here, will accept them without question.

See for example, http://rspb.royal...20151019
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2015
I've cited this, several times: http://www.huffin...211.html
Right, because everyone knows huffington post is a reputable peer reviewed journal... [sarcasm/hyperbole]
i will say it again: your "cite" is a PERSONAL CONJECTURE, and it involves the PERSONAL OPINION of an individual
the biggest argument you MIGHT have is single mutation speciation, which is something that is already hotly debated in the biological/medical field
IOW- just because you can link the opinion of ONE person that seems to be similar to your own doesn't mean you are CORRECT... and also note, even Noble is aware of mutations and what the term means, so your point about mutations is still proven false

one last point: we've already discussed your absolute FAILURE to comprehend terminology, and neo-darwinism as well
there is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY called "The Theory of Evolution" (see definition of theory in science) that is supported robustly by evidence. this is NOT something you've replaced
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2015
the biggest argument you MIGHT have is single mutation speciation


I have modeled the role that single amino acid substitutions play in ecological adaptation and provided examples. Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

There is no debate about the links from single amino acid substitutions in viruses to perturbed protein folding and all pathology in all living genera.

Substitutions Near the Receptor Binding Site Determine Major Antigenic Change During Influenza Virus Evolution http://comments.s....1244730

Excerpt: The major antigenic changes of the influenza virus are primarily caused by a single amino acid near the receptor binding site.

That fact replaces all the pseudoscientific nonsense of neo-Darwinian theory, which was a ridiculous misrepresentation of how conditions of life must be linked to ecological speciation.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2015
I have modeled the role that single amino acid substitutions...
you mean: you modeled MUTATIONS in ecological adaptation?
shall i remind you of the terminology that you refuse to accept from biology? you would know these terms had you not failed out of college, you know
ALSO NOTE: the ONLY cite of your work is this one: http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

it uses actual BIOLOGY and science to refute your stupidity, btw
http://comments.sciencemag.org/content/10.1126/science.1244730
just because you can TROLL science mag doesn't mean your comments are either VALID nor substantiated
Excerpt
better excerpt here:
influenza viruses can escape from antibody-mediated neutralization by accumulating mutations in HA in a process called antigenic drift
REFUTES YOUR CLAIMS WITH YOUR OWN LINK
2bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2015
here is MORE from that study you linked above
these fndings do not imply that substitutions away from the RBS are phenotypically neutral. Some may be neutral hitchhikers carried along by chance, but others may collectively add to the decreased recognition by antibodies raised to a strain in an earlier cluster (Fig. 3 and figs. S7 and S8), or they may be compensatory mutations necessary to retain function.
WHOOPS... perhaps you should have actually READ it?
Given the high mutation rate of influenza virus and the observation that single amino acid substitutions are sufficient to cause antigenic cluster transitions, it is surprising that new antigenic clusters appear as slowly as they do—on average every 3.3 years. One hypothesis is that antigenic change has an intrinsic fitness cost that slows down the antigenic evolution of the virus. We found that several mutant viruses with substitutions near the RBS could not be rescued...
2bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2015
@jk cont'd
more from your link
These results suggest that introduction of mutations on the periphery of the RBS can affect HA function and that co-mutations may be crucial to retain viral fitness. The requirement for co-mutations that offset the fitness cost of antigenic evolution could provide an explanation for the paradox of high mutation rate and slow antigenic evolution.
REAL SCIENCE TRUMPS RELIGION AGAIN

just because YOU don't understand what is going on doesn't mean NO ONE understands

this is the logical fallacy of your religious delusion and dunning-kruger: you assume that because you are in mensa, you understand things better than anyone else
HOWEVER
as demonstrated time and again, your comprehension abilities are not up to par, likely because you are not educated in the field nor are you capable of seeing past your religion and conspiractist ideation
http://journals.p....0075637

hb_
not rated yet Oct 05, 2015
Interesting study; I can actually see at least one practical application. When a fingerprint is found at a crime scene, it could be useful to know if the person they are looking for is a caucasian, african american or other. Of course, finding a match to a database is better, but I assume that some criminals may not have been registered by the laws previously.

In history, you could perhaps look at fingerprints (in the cases where there are such) to determine if, say, a certain child of a royal was a indeed the son/daughter of this royal.

There is also one surprising and interesting lesson from the study. Although fingerprints are "randomized" through something other than genes (identical twins do not have identical fingerprints!), this randomization is not heritable. Otherwise, it would not be possible to trace ancestry through fingerprints (any systematic difference would be "washed" away in a few generations).

hb_
not rated yet Oct 05, 2015
Here is a bit of speculation. What if you could link fingerprints to other interesting biological facts? It is not as far fetched as you may think.. It is believed that the genes that code for the immune system and intelligence are (somewhat) shared. That is, you could in theory glean some information about a persons intelligence by sampling his immune system.

Now what if a persons metabolism were related to the fingerprint? Say, high metabolism lots of bifurcations, or perhaps the opposite? Will the pattern of the fingerprint be affected by some "general" genes, or only by some very specific genes that code for skin?
JVK
1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2015
"The major antigenic changes of the influenza virus are primarily caused by a single amino acid near the receptor binding site." http://comments.s....1244730

If the antigenic changes could be attributed to a "mutation" the pseudoscientific nonsense touted by evolutionary theorists might begin to make sense. Unfortunately, theories based on assumptions about definitions always turn out to be useless to serious scientists.

JVK
I have modeled the role that single amino acid substitutions...


Captain Stumpy
you mean: you modeled MUTATIONS in ecological adaptation?


Virus-perturbed protein folding links mutations to pathology. Mutations are not linked to ecological adaptation via pathology, or it would not be called pathology.

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.