'Tree of life' for 2.3 million species released

September 19, 2015, Duke University
This circular family tree of Earth's lifeforms is considered a first draft of the 3.5-billion-year history of how life evolved and diverged. Credit: opentreeoflife.org

A first draft of the "tree of life" for the roughly 2.3 million named species of animals, plants, fungi and microbes—from platypuses to puffballs—has been released.

A collaborative effort among eleven institutions, the tree depicts the relationships among living things as they diverged from one another over time, tracing back to the beginning of life on Earth more than 3.5 billion years ago.

Tens of thousands of smaller have been published over the years for select branches of the tree of life—some containing upwards of 100,000 species—but this is the first time those results have been combined into a single tree that encompasses all of life. The end result is a digital resource that available free online for anyone to use or edit, much like a "Wikipedia" for evolutionary trees.

"This is the first real attempt to connect the dots and put it all together," said principal investigator Karen Cranston of Duke University. "Think of it as Version 1.0."

The current version of the tree—along with the underlying data and source code—is available to browse and download at https://tree.opentreeoflife.org.

It is also described in an article appearing Sept. 18 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Evolutionary trees, branching diagrams that often look like a cross between a candelabra and a subway map, aren't just for figuring out whether aardvarks are more closely related to moles or manatees, or pinpointing a slime mold's closest cousins. Understanding how the millions of species on Earth are related to one another helps scientists discover new drugs, increase crop and livestock yields, and trace the origins and spread of infectious diseases such as HIV, Ebola and influenza.

Rather than build the tree of life from scratch, the researchers pieced it together by compiling thousands of smaller chunks that had already been published online and merging them together into a gigantic "supertree" that encompasses all named species.

The initial draft is based on nearly 500 smaller trees from previously published studies.

To map trees from different sources to the branches and twigs of a single supertree, one of the biggest challenges was simply accounting for the name changes, alternate names, common misspellings and abbreviations for each species. The eastern red bat, for example, is often listed under two scientific names, Lasiurus borealis and Nycteris borealis. Spiny anteaters once shared their scientific name with a group of moray eels.

"Although a massive undertaking in its own right, this draft tree of life represents only a first step," the researchers wrote.

For one, only a tiny fraction of published trees are digitally available.

A survey of more than 7,500 phylogenetic studies published between 2000 and 2012 in more than 100 journals found that only one out of six studies had deposited their data in a digital, downloadable format that the researchers could use.

The vast majority of evolutionary trees are published as PDFs and other image files that are impossible to enter into a database or merge with other trees.

"There's a pretty big gap between the sum of what scientists know about how living things are related, and what's actually available digitally," Cranston said.

As a result, the relationships depicted in some parts of the tree, such as the branches representing the pea and sunflower families, don't always agree with expert opinion.

Other parts of the tree, particularly insects and microbes, remain elusive.

That's because even the most popular online archive of raw genetic sequences—from which many evolutionary trees are built—contains DNA data for less than five percent of the tens of millions species estimated to exist on Earth.

"As important as showing what we do know about relationships, this first tree of life is also important in revealing what we don't know," said co-author Douglas Soltis of the University of Florida.

To help fill in the gaps, the team is also developing software that will enable researchers to log on and update and revise the tree as new data come in for the millions of species still being named or discovered.

"It's by no means finished," Cranston said. "It's critically important to share data for already-published and newly-published work if we want to improve the tree."

"Twenty five years ago people said this goal of huge trees was impossible," Soltis said. "The Open Tree of Life is an important starting point that other investigators can now refine and improve for decades to come."

Explore further: Researchers aim to assemble the tree of life for all 2 million named species

More information: "Synthesis of Phylogeny and Taxonomy Into a Comprehensive Tree of Life," C. Hinchliff et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Sept. 18, 2015. DOI: 10. 1073/pnas.1423041112.

Related Stories

How the chameleon climbed to the top of the tree

September 17, 2015

The chameleon's exceptional tree-climbing ability is dependent on vital ball-and-socket joints in its wrists and ankles, according to research published in the open access journal BMC Evolutionary Biology. The study also ...

Fungi—key to tree survival in warming forest

July 20, 2015

Much like healthy bacteria in one's gut supports health of the human body, fungus in soil can be integral to survival of trees. NAU researcher Catherine Gehring reached this conclusion while studying pinyon-juniper woodlands ...

Recommended for you

Packing a genome, step-by-step

January 18, 2018

Genome folding now has a playbook. A new step-by-step account spells out in minute-time resolution how cells rapidly pack long tangles of chromosomes into the tiny, tightly wound bundles needed for cell division. Cells reel ...

First look at pupil size in sleeping mice yields surprises

January 18, 2018

When people are awake, their pupils regularly change in size. Those changes are meaningful, reflecting shifting attention or vigilance, for example. Now, researchers reporting in Current Biology on January 18 have found in ...

Hunter-gatherers have a special way with smells

January 18, 2018

When it comes to naming colors, most people do so with ease. But, for odors, it's much harder to find the words. One notable exception to this rule is found among the Jahai people, a group of hunter-gatherers living in the ...

130 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

BenB766
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 19, 2015
Simply amazing!
verkle
Sep 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
verkle
Sep 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
victoryengineer
4.6 / 5 (19) Sep 19, 2015
Great project that can only further our understanding of the evolutionary process.
victoryengineer
4.7 / 5 (23) Sep 19, 2015
And to think that the authors of this website have the audacity to name it after the most famous tree in the Bible....


Why would anybody be surprised by that? There are countless examples of stars, planetary features and technologies named after mythical objects or people.

The only thing audacious here is your own far from reality posts.
JVK
Sep 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JVK
1 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2015
Re: "Other parts of the tree, particularly insects and microbes, remain elusive."

The sequencing of the octopus genome linked microbes to marine invertebrates and all insects via their nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction.

I reported the RNA-mediated links before the octopus genome sequencing was reported.

"Role of olfaction in Octopus vulgaris reproduction" http://www.scienc...14004006 cites Kohl (2013) and Elekonich and Robinson (2000), which extended our model of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation from its first representation in our 1996 review: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html

Kohl (2013) is also available for free at: http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
JVK
1 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2015
See also: http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0

Excerpt 1) "Food is a powerful force in evolution."

Excerpt 2) "Natural selection is the only known way this gene variant could have become so common in the Inuit."

My comment: Carl Zimmer has done it again. In an amazing show of his ignorance, he linked food to natural selection and evolution with no consideration for nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated gene duplication and fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions via the physiology of reproduction, which determines the cell types of all individuals of all living genera.

The only thing missing is a theoretical link from mutations to natural selection and evolution.

No. I'm just kidding about the missing link.

Excerpt 3) "...natural selection may well favor those of us with genetic mutations that help us thrive on it."

That's the magic of pseudoscience, anything may be favored.
victoryengineer
4.8 / 5 (20) Sep 19, 2015
@JVKTroll

The only pseudoscience here is the garbage you continually spew out on this site. Your delusions are not wanted here. Your delusions are not rooted in reality. You are amazingly dense to continue your onslaught of idiocy at a site that caters to rational thinking scientifically oriented people who know better. You are an annoying distraction at best.

Please take your pseudoscience rhetoric and go elsewhere!
JVK
1 / 5 (15) Sep 19, 2015
How single cells work together http://www.scienc...63.short

Excerpt: "Many similar symbioses probably exist in the environment, but are difficult to detect or study because they are small, not easily visualized or characterized, and difficult to manipulate experimentally."

The "Tree of LIfe" nonsense ignores these symbioses because they are difficult to manipulate experimentally. That fact is linked to claims about mutations, natural selection, and evolution. No biologically-based facts support those claims.

"[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
JVK
1 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2015
Your delusions are not rooted in reality.


In reality, I may be the only scientist who comments here. I am a medical laboratory scientist certified by the American Society for Clinical Pathology and have 40 years experience in diagnostic testing. That fact suggests only my antagonists are delusional.

However,even an award-winning science journalist has deluded himself into thinking he can continue to tout pseudoscientific nonsense about natural selection and evolution, when he previously made this claim:

"Others maintain that as random mutations arise, complexity emerges as a side effect, even without natural selection to help it along. Complexity, they say, is not purely the result of millions of years of fine-tuning through natural selection—the process that Richard Dawkins famously dubbed "the blind watchmaker." To some extent, it just happens." http://www.scient...plexity/
JVK
1 / 5 (13) Sep 19, 2015
See also: WEBINAR: Linking Viral Discovery with Causality http://labroots.c...r/id/136

Excerpt: "The majority of emerging diseases are infections with viruses that jump species barriers from wildlife or domestic animals to humans. The advent of molecular methods like high-throughput sequencing dramatically scaled viral discovery in humans and animals. Efficient and (nearly) unbiased discovery has expanded our understanding of the complexity of viral families, can inform individualized medicine, can quickly identify emerging disease, and even potentially can anticipate emergence. Many of these novel viruses are innocuous, so along with powerful discovery tools comes a responsibility in the medical research community to uncover viral pathogenesis and to clearly define associations, if present, with disease."

This will help others link the "Tree of Life" nonsense to death and disease. If you are not yet brain dead, watch the webinar and/or tell others about it.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (15) Sep 19, 2015
@JVK

Greenlandic Inuit show genetic signatures of diet and climate adaptation
http://www.scienc...343.full

You can pretend beneficial mutations don't exist but they do.
cgsperling
5 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2015
@ JVK "...medical laboratory scientist certified by the American Society for Clinical Pathology and have 40 years experience in diagnostic testing."

So you load pipettes and wash beakers. Brilliant. And proud of doing that for 40 years, too. That explains your incoherent posts, and your obvious envy of real science.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2015
@JVK

You left out the part about being a young earth creationist idiot.
Irukanji
1.8 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2015
Asians are typically small because they eat rice, whereas Europeans are larger because they eat wheat. It isn't hard to imagine diet is a forcing method for evolution. Not to mention skeletal changes aren't that common, and show very little change over a large period of time. The important bits of evolution, however, change more frequently by necessity. Larger/smaller ears, better eyes, coats, etc. Minor changes which will never show up in the fossil record. Not to mention the "adaptation" to eat introduced species to give them an edge over other members of their own species in an area which may lead to their genes being passed down along with their novel mutations, ultimately resulting in a subspecies being produced.

As for pokemon style evolution, it doesn't happen. My guess is the world had reached a relative balance before humans and further evolution would only be to fine tune the balance as opposed to making new creatures
JVK
1 / 5 (13) Sep 20, 2015
You left out the part about being a young earth creationist idiot.


Do you want to compare your religious beliefs to mine? Tell me what you believe in, don't try to tell others what I believe.

So you load pipettes and wash beakers. Brilliant.


When was the last time you looked at a job description for a medical laboratory scientist?

https://en.wikipe...cientist
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2015
All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false. All things that now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation."
http://www.icr.org/tenets

@JVK

That's from the web site you endorsed so it is safe to assume you endorse the above quote.
richard_stafursky
not rated yet Sep 20, 2015
It is the Species' Planet. I say this from the deep woods of an actual species' forest. This forest is named the Species' Forest, Conway, Massachusetts (US). This New England mountain forest on the Deerfield River is the first species' forest to be dedicated for all the species under the Rights of Nature. I'll give a godless buffalo nickel to anyone who can locate another species' forest which was (1) donated by a living person to a non-profit for that purpose, (2) returned to the natural landscape complete and (3) in perpetuity. The Rights of Mother Earth is basically the same as the Rights of Nature except that the latter does not recognize that people trump nature or are necessarily good for nature. I attempted a world species list in the 1970s, but failed. I am very happy that you guys succeeded for the right reasons. Good job!
JVK
1 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2015
That's from the web site you endorsed so it is safe to assume you endorse the above quote.


That's the problem with biologically uninformed science idiots. They make too many assumptions.

"[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

Noumenon
5 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2015
All animals have their heart on the left side. This is proof of creation because evidently God was only using one hand during creation,... which also implies he was probable masterbaiting with the other hand. I'm I doing science now?

viko_mx
1.6 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2015
All living cells have a cell membrane. More complex eukaryotic cells, which are the building blocks of multicellular organisms have a core which contains their DNA which contains more mo complex organized information. This requires it to be securely stored and processed by the molecular mechanisms of the cell. Cell membrane, which is a key factor to maintain a constant internal environment of the cell have suspended permeability inward and outward. When the integrity of this membrane is compromised, the electrolyte balance of the cell ис disturbed, it loses stasis and died. This is the mechanism of action of some groups of antibiotics. This essential requirement explains the complex structure and organization of the cell membrane.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (13) Sep 20, 2015
Jvk,
No, we just don't pick and choose what we want to believe in.
We have no choice but to believe in evolution, it's what happened as there has never been any evidence to the contrary.

Your ideas on pheromones are retarded
viko_mx
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2015
To emerge a living organism from non living matter, all the necessary genetic information and its sophisticated carrier, complex molecular mechanisms and structures for its processing, and all vital organelles needed for its basic functions, must suddenly emerge inside the cell membrane in order to be able to start by breath of life its metabolism and then immediately this membrane must be closed to isolate the internal environment of the cell from external environmental conditions. Multistage processes do not work because the cell must have complex structure and functionality from the beginning to be able to perform basic functions which are intrinsic to living organisms. In fact there is no simple organisms in nature. For example only the carbohydrate in the cell cycle requires the 6 genes.
viko_mx
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2015
When the cell is closed there should be no arbitrary chemicals and ions inside the cell that would complicate or make impossible its functioning. If there were not such a requirement, there would be no need for cell membrane at all and hypothetical primordial soup according to evolutionists visionaries would become a living organism.But this is not the case.

If the probability random changes to damage the existing functionality of the cell is much greater than in the probability to emerge new functionality compatible with the existing functionality, can we expect billions of years of evolution? I do not think so.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2015
That something is so complex, only serves to demonstrate that it's existence is even more contingent upon physical processes than upon a sky-fairy.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2015
.... since the (masterbaiting) sky fairy could have just used magic instead. I mean why bother to go through all the trouble of making something so remarkably physically intricate, to then turn around and arrange so that it is impossible to come into existence through natural means?

Wouldn't this create a "seam" between discoverable physical processes, and magical works of god?

JVK
1 / 5 (11) Sep 20, 2015
Physical processes: "...precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids can all be derived by the reductive homologation of hydrogen cyanide and some of its derivatives, and thus that all the cellular subsystems could have arisen simultaneously through common chemistry. The key reaction steps are driven by ultraviolet light, use hydrogen sulfide as the reductant and can be accelerated by Cu(I)–Cu(II) photoredox cycling." http://dx.doi.org...hem.2202

We have no choice but to believe in evolution, it's what happened as there has never been any evidence to the contrary.


The light-induced de novo creation of nucleic acids has been linked to RNA-mediated ecological speciation via what is currently known to serious scientists about the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent protein folding, which is perturbed by viruses linked to all pathology.

Pattern recognition separates creationists from theorists.
JVK
1 / 5 (11) Sep 20, 2015
Re: Pattern recognition separates creationists from theorists.

A single nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitution separates the cell types of one species from all the cell types of all individuals of other species via the physiology of reproduction.

In species from microbes to man, the physiology of reproduction is controlled by pheromones.

Your ideas on pheromones are retarded


It is difficult for me to imagine how anyone could be biologically uninformed enough to make such an ignorant statement. Thanks to "Steve 200mph Cruiz" for setting an example for all to see.

"If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based" (p 1014). http://jp.physoc....007.full

The "tree of life" nonsense ignores the works of others who have moved on.
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2015
See also: http://qz.com/506...hanging/

The belief in an ever-changing self reflects the intuitive common sense approach to ecologically adapted biodiversity. It requires proper function of the innate immune system, which links the ability to recognize self / non-self differences to nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation, which is controlled by the physiology of reproduction.

Therefore, the "tree of life" must exemplify facts about cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man.

Other parts of the tree, particularly insects and microbes, remain elusive.


Starting with what can be observed in non-microbial species and inventing a "tree of life" representation exemplifies more beliefs in pseudoscientific nonsense than did inventing neo-Darwinian theory.

If you think your "self" is not ever-changing, try not eating or drinking for a few days-weeks.
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2015
I'm not a theologian, but suspect that nearly all evolutionists are too biologically uninformed to make claims about what others believe.

For example: Neuroscience backs up the Buddhist belief that "the self" isn't constant, but ever-changing, and serious scientists (i.e., biophysicists) showed that the thirst mechanism is an important regulator of neuroscientifically established cause and effect that links atoms to ecosystems via hormone-organized and hormone-activated behaviors. See for example: http://www.cell.c...900958-4

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

The hormone-organized and hormone-activated behaviors of all vertebrates are linked via RNA-mediated events and chromosomal rearrangements in birds.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2015
Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model

http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2015
I'm not a theologian
you're not a scientist either, just like you aren't a diagnostician like you claimed here: http://phys.org/n...nes.html

you looked at a job description
1- that requires a min bach degree, you admitted to failing out of college - is this ANOTHER FELONY like your claims above?

2- per your own logic, then... just because the word is IN the job description, my garbage waste collection service workers are all ENGINEER'S then, right?
https://en.wikipe...ollector

I may be the only scientist who comments here
Anonymous9001 is a scientist (Bach in Biology), as well as Antialias_physorg and a few others, like Thermo, Q-Star and runrig
they're actual scientists who's degree's/research i can CONFIRM... still haven't found confirmation of your claims

one last point: there is NO SCIENCE in creationist religion - this is proven
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

Vietvet
5 / 5 (15) Sep 20, 2015
"The biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and Fall of man, the Curse on the Creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human government), and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel."
http://www.icr.org/tenets

@JVK

I spent some time at your favorite site, Institute for Creation Research. I don't no whether to laugh or cry. What they consider "science" is worse than a joke. Claiming there is evidence of a world wide flood a few thousands years ago is absolutely delusional.

The only reason for you to share their link is that you share their unscientific beliefs.

YOU ARE A YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2015
Pattern recognition separates creationists from theorists
this is true: creationists create a pattern from a delusional belief and adhere to the dogma of a book written by sheep-herders who performed sacrifices to a (masturbating) sky faerie (good one Nou!) that was stolen and adapted by influences from multiple other religions and cultures around them which is not supported by actual facts...
(scientific) theorists are constrained by the scientific method and utilise a process that is repeated simply here: https://en.wikipe...cess.svg

Your ideas on pheromones are retarded
It is difficult for me to imagine how anyone could ...make such an ignorant statement.
uhmm... maybe because SCIENCE and EVIDENCE says this:
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

there is no robust bioassay-led evidence for the widely published claims...
read on!
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2015
See: http://science.sl...splicing

The Chinese NSF funded this work.

The US NSF, for comparison, funded the "Tree of Life" nonsense.

The difference between funding for science and funding for pseudoscience can be considered while watching this video. http://thedailysh...reg-bear

See also: http://www.rice.e...ry2.html

"In the last months of 1996, according to James Kohl (Bruce Willis), a lethal virus will wipe out 5 billion people."

Will evolutionary theorists with their "Tree of Life" save US populations from the 2-decades old threat that is almost assuredly being examined by serious scientists in the context of the Chinese researcher's findings on nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled RNA-mediated cell type differentiation via amino acid substitutions in species from microbes to man?
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2015
Re: "...a book written by sheep-herders..."

How could anything known in that time lead to this representation of the amino acids, which link the biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent chemistry of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in all living genera via the physiology of reproduction?

https://siglacom0...cids.jpg
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2015
https://siglacom0...cids.jpg
and what exactly do you think that jpg is supposed to prove?

by all means, spell it out man!

How could anything known in that time lead to this representation of the amino acids
there is absolutely NO evidence you can provide that shows correlation between the knowledge of that age and knowledge of amino acids or any of your techno-babble kohl-slaw word salad of a regurgitation of terminology

specifically: your graphic does NOT prove anything except
1- you are linking to religious sites to argue a point
AND
2- you know how to link graphics in the comments

and i say again: there is NO science in your christian creationist movement
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

you still can't refute THIS study
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2015
1- you are linking to religious sites to argue a point


Of course I am. I'm concerned about terrorist threats that include viruses used to damage the DNA of specific human populations. Why aren't you linking to anything that could possibly explain why biologically uninformed science idiots believe in neo-Darwinism, which was invented based on de Vries 1904 definition of "mutation?"

Is there anything known to serious scientists about biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent protein folding chemistry that pseudoscientists included in their ridiculous theories?
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2015
you still can't refute THIS study http://rspb.royal...full.pdf


I do not need to refute anything. He's making claims akin to stating there is no such thing as food odors in humans because not everyone responds with stereotypical behavior to the same odor or combinations. Like other human pheromone-deniers, Wyatt is a biologically uninformed science idiot.

NO science in your christian creationist movement


Suddenly, you're signaling out Christians. Is there a reason for that? Could the reason be your consistent attacks on all creationists?

Now that you know there are many other creationists with different beliefs, all of which are scientifically supported, what else are you going to change?

Seriously, do you think you can continue attack Chinese researchers, Islamic creationists, speakers of Aramaic, Jews and everyone else who does not believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense of evolution.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2015
Jvk
How does cloning work?
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2015
HELLO? I know you've returned to the crime scene.
I want step by step instructions, please tell me how how to create another JVK from your crap
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2015


Now that you know there are many other creationists with different beliefs, all of which are scientifically supported--"

There are thousands of creation myths, the Abrahamic creation myths are no more scientific than the others. There is ZERO scientific support for any creation beliefs.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2015
I want step by step instructions...


Do you read and understand Aramaic?

https://siglacom0...cids.jpg
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2015
There is ZERO scientific support for any creation beliefs.


What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot makes such a ridiculous claim?

Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants http://dx.doi.org...ure11690

Reported here: http://www.nature...-1.11912 "The findings confirm their earlier work suggesting that the majority of variants, including potentially harmful ones, were picked up during the past 5,000–10,000 years."

Chinese researchers just showed how the RNA-mediated biodiversity associated with the variants, including potentially harmful ones, is linked via the conserved molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent protein folding to the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man. The microbes include the species that re-evolved its flagellum in 4 days and the species that hasn't changed in ~2 billion years.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2015
Re: The microbes include the species that re-evolved its flagellum in 4 days and the species that hasn't changed in ~2 billion years.

Unfortunately, the 5.6 million dollar "Tree of Life" nonsense did not include experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that fit into the time-frame of ridiculous theories, and the "Tree of Life" claims clearly stated: "Other parts of the tree, particularly insects and microbes, remain elusive."

The 5.6 million dollar "Tree of Life" nonsense appears to be missing ~2 billion years of what theorists claim is evolution, and theorists claim

There is ZERO scientific support for any creation beliefs.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2015
HAHAHA are you kidding me?
Give me a real answer.
People clone things all the time, I know it's not a bunch of Jewish wizards around a couldron
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2015
People clone things all the time, I know it's not a bunch of Jewish wizards around a couldron


If you don't understand what is known to serious scientists about amino acid substitutions, you will not understand cloning or anything else about cell type differentiation.

You will think in terms of mutations, natural selection and evolution, instead. That's what all biologically uninformed science idiots do.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2015
And no, I do not know Aramaic, I'm not even circumcised
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2015
"The researchers found that the European Americans had a larger proportion of potentially harmful variants — probably an artefact of their original migration out of Africa. The first small group of humans that left Africa for Europe experienced a sudden drop in genetic diversity — a 'bottleneck' — owing to the smaller pool of possible mating partners. In the rapid expansion in population size that followed, selection was slow to catch up to and weed out potentially harmful mutations."
http://www.nature...-1.11912

"According to the genetic and paleontological record, we only started to leave Africa between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago."
https://genograph...journey/

Like I said, young earth creationists have ZERO scientific evidence.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2015
"Amino acid substitutions"
What does that even mean to you?
To me that means substituting one amino acid for another, which is the definition of a genetic mutation.

So please explain to me what an amino substitution is, and what relevance it even has when you are trying to create an identical copy, like a clone, which is what I'm talking about.
Just answer me and I'll leave you.alone
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2015
To me that means substituting one amino acid for another, which is the definition of a genetic mutation.


Amino acid substitutions are nutrient-dependent and RNA-mediated. They link atoms to ecosystems via the conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all living genera via the physiology of reproduction.

Viruses cause the perturbed protein folding that links accumulated mutations to all pathology. The relevance of amino acid substitutions was placed into the context of ecological variation and ecological adaptations in my 2013 review:

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

See also: "RNA mediated" https://www.googl...mediated

Note: It is very difficult to explain to biologically uninformed science idiots the entirety of what is known to serious scientists about RNA-mediated events.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2015
Amino acid substitutions are nutrient-dependent and RNA-mediated.

How so, what is chemistry is going on to mediate this? What is your definition of a nutrient? You can't be talking about iron and calcium, chemistry won't allow it. Various proteins? Plants don't build themselves out of protein.
I still don't know where your getting the phrase "amino acid substitution", what is even being substituted?

They link atoms to ecosystems via the conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all living genera via the physiology of reproduction.

There are almost no naked atoms besides nobel gases on the earths surface. All molecules change when they interact chemically with the environment, by definition of a molecule

Note: You still haven't explained to me how clones are made

Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2015

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

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled blah blah blah

Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model
http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2015
"young earth creationists have ZERO scientific evidence."

True dat. The fact of the universal trees existence - which we can see creationists doesn't understand as they try to pawn it away as 'nonsense' - is itself the best observation we can make. This tree is an astounding observation! A quick check with TalkOrigins phylogenetic calculator tells me that it - even with remaining unresolved nodes - has a likelihood of ~ 10^10^7 [!] (1 followed by 10 million 0s, or a printout 25 cm thick) against multiple roots. That trumps Theobald 2010 observation in Nature of the LUCA from genetic machinery evidence of 'a mere' 10^2000 against multiple roots.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2015
[ctd]

I have seen an estimate of ~ 20 billion species since Earth emerged. Granted most are prokaryote species and we observe only a selection of them with today's methods. But theoretically that would mean a likelihood of ~ 10^10^11 = 10^100 000 000 000 for evolution and one universal ancestor against - say - creationist nonsense.

And 0.000 000 000 01 ~ 0, indeed! That is the depth of the credibility hole that creationists have dug and then poured their dung into. It is quite joyful to see them squirm down there in the face of overwhelming evidence published _each and every day_ while all they do is troll, troll, troll.

The fact of evolution remains the best observed fact in all of science, now at an astounding _many millions of order of magnitude_!
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2015
This tree is an astounding observation!


Are you a bird watcher or a butterfly collector?

"The notion has gained some currency that the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is "bird watching" or "butterfly collecting." Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists!" p. 443 -- Dobzhansky 1964 http://icb.oxford...citation
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2015
You recently posted the full context of that quote and now you're back to lopping off the end that reverses the intent of that excerpt. That's dishonesty plain and simple.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2015
The fact of evolution remains the best observed fact in all of science, now at an astounding _many millions of order of magnitude_!


Exception: None of what has been touted in the context of neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific nonsense makes sense in the context of the "re-evolved" bacterial flagellum.

This tree is an astounding observation!


The observed fact that it took 4 days to "re-evolve" the bacterial flagellum is astounding -- as is the ignorance of theorists who think they can refuse to discuss it and still claim that
This tree is an astounding observation!


The claim that...

This tree is an astounding observation!


....can only be made by biologically uninformed science idiots who do not recognize the importance of the "re-evolved" flagellum as a theory killer.

See for example: http://www.the-sc...ewiring/
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2015
...you're back to lopping off the end that reverses the intent of that excerpt.


The rest of the quote: "I have heard a man whose official title happens to be Professor of Zoology declare to an assembly of his colleagues that "a good man cannot teach zoology. A good man can teach, of course, only molecular biology.

Such pronunciamentos can be dismissed as merely ridiculous. They are, however, caricatures of opinions entertained by some intelligent and reasonable people, whose views deserve an honest and careful consideration and analysis. Science must cope with new problems that arise and devise new approaches to old problems. Some lines of research become less profitable and less exciting and others more so."

How does "...caricatures of opinions entertained by some intelligent and reasonable people, whose views deserve an honest and careful consideration and analysis." reverse the intent of the first excerpt? He tactfully reinforced his claim.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2015
Re: He tactfully reinforced his claim.

anonymous_9001 and other biologically uninformed science idiots reinforce the need to for Dobzhansky to make his 1964 claim. Biologically uninformed science idiots ignored the observations linked to the "re-evolution" of the bacterial flagellum as if "evolution" could only be observed macroscopically. A bird's eye view ignores the role of olfaction in reproduction, which links the conserved molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry to the physiology of reproduction in butterflies and bacteria.

Thus, the most tactful statement of fact ever made in the context of telling theorists they are biologically uninformed science idiots reveals the extent of their ignorance each time anonymous_9001 mentions I am only providing part of the quote. See also his comments on my 2013 review of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation: http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2015
Of course I am
@jk
proof positive that you are NOT a serious scientist
...about terrorist threats
but you are a terrorist, due to your actions (like threats, libel etc) and your promotion of an ideology without regard for evidence...
considering your prior service (you CLAIM to be a veteran) and ideology of extremist religion (creationist) & use of alternative media to spread your ideology, DHS states ""Groups or individuals who focus on a single issue or cause" are terrorists per the "Rightwing Extremism" Report (March 09), with supplementary "Domestic Extremism" Lexicon (April 09)

-Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion...
https://www.fbi.g...finition

so the only "terrorist" threat here is YOU, jk
especially as you are a direct threat to safety, science and health with your creationist religious ideology
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2015
I do not need to refute
@jk
this is where you are VERY WRONG: the scientific method rides on experimentation and validation. per your claims, you consider your work valid, however, as noted in the study i linked
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
therefore, your promotion of pheromones are ideology and not SOUND SCIENCE
the study indicated your problems proving pheromones as well, which you repeatedly demonstrate

basically, the study refutes your pheromone claims with EVIDENCE & you cannot provide validation of your own work refuting this, therefore you DO need to refute it with validated evidence

IOW- you promote a BELIEF, not science
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2015
Suddenly, you're signaling out Christians
@jk
suddenly? ROTFLMFAO
WTF? this proves you have a serious reading comprehension problem... i've singled out xtians AND ALL OTHER RELIGIONS since i've been posting here, mensa boy-jenyus!
Is there a reason for that?
there is NO SCIENCE in a religious movement, PERIOD
creationists with different beliefs, all of which are scientifically supported
if you are creationist, you are NOT A SCIENTISTS, nor is your work SCIENCE
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

Seriously, do you think you can continue attack
i will gladly refute ANY RELIGION WHO POSTS HERE because IT IS NOT SCIENCE

i don't care what you believe in, but when you promote it as valid or scientific, it is delusional ideology and conspiracist ideation (See linked study above - plosone)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2015
Amino acid substitutions are
@Steve 200mph Cruiz
please note that jk is a whole lot confused... my conversation with went:
remember when I asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
but it got worse for ol jk the mensa jeenyus diagnostician Porsche racer... he specifically says he doesn't believe in definitions and can't even get the basics correct, calling the modern definition the same as "de Vries 1904 definition"... apparently he can't comprehend that science can advance and modify a definition
ROTFLMFAO

same tactic as cd and all the other PSEUDOSCIENCE posters!
pick a lie and repeat it till someone believes is (even if it is only the poster who repeats it)

ask jk about his decades experience as a diagnostician!

JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2015
if you are creationist, you are NOT A SCIENTIST


See for comparison: https://www.googl...mediated

Serious scientists just linked the "holy grail" of biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry to the physiology of reproduction in all living genera via amino acid substitutions that stabilize organized genomes.

i will gladly refute ANY RELIGION WHO POSTS HERE because IT IS NOT SCIENCE


You seem to be horribly confused as always. Do you know the difference between theosophy and theology? What are you claiming that you can refute?

What anti-entropic force prevents entropic elasticity from becoming genomic entropy?

your promotion of pheromones are ideology and not SOUND SCIENCE


Pheromones control the RNA-mediated physiology of nutrient-dependent reproduction in species from microbes to man. See: Feedback Loops Link Odor and Pheromone Signaling with Reproduction
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2015
Learn to read, Kohl. The part you're looking for is:

"Such pronunciamentos can be dismissed as merely ridiculous."
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2015
The part you're looking for is:


No. That's the part that most biologically uninformed science idiots would choose to take out of its context.

That context is: Serious scientists just linked the "holy grail" of biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry to the physiology of reproduction in all living genera via amino acid substitutions that stabilize organized genomes.

That's what Dobzhansky (1973) did, which extends the context across 9 more years of findings from serious scientists that were extended to all cell type differentiation in all individuals of all species by the Chinese researcher's companion papers, which were published last month in Science Magazine..
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2015
No. That's the part that most biologically uninformed science idiots would choose to take out of its context.


One of the stupidest things you've ever said. That's the part that GIVES full context. He's saying dismissing everything but molecular biology is ridiculous.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2015
God was only using one hand during creation,... which also implies he was probable masterbaiting with the other hand. I'm I doing science now?
Apparently you are familiar with this or perhaps intuited it or did I miss something?

"In the Heliopolitan creation myth, Atum was considered to be the first god, having created himself, sitting on a mound (benben) (or identified with the mound itself), from the primordial waters (Nu).[3] Early myths state that Atum created the god Shu and goddess Tefnut by spitting them out of his mouth.[4] To explain how Atum did this, the myth uses the metaphor of masturbation, with the hand he used in this act representing the female principle inherent within him.[5] Other interpretations state that he has made union with his shadow."
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2015
See: http://science.sl...splicing

"In the last months of 1996, according to James Kohl (Bruce Willis), a lethal virus will wipe out 5 billion people."

Will evolutionary theorists with their "Tree of Life" save US populations from the 2-decades old threat that is almost assuredly being examined by serious scientists in the context of the Chinese researcher's findings on nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled RNA-mediated cell type differentiation via amino acid substitutions in species from microbes to man?

So, now your a time travelling movie star sent back to warn us of (or even stop) a looming biological threat???
James, James, James...
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2015
He's saying dismissing everything but molecular biology is ridiculous.


He claims the pronouncements are "...caricatures of opinions entertained by some intelligent and reasonable people, whose views deserve an honest and careful consideration and analysis."

He adds that "Science must cope with new problems that arise and devise new approaches to old problems."

The re-evolved flagellum is a huge new problem.

He adds: "Some lines of research become less profitable and less exciting and others more so."

JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2015
The "tree of life" nonsense is not profitable for anyone not funded by the US NSF. The Chinese NSF has made that perfectly clear. They funded the companion papers published in Science Magazine last month. Having found the "holy grail" of biophysically constrained protein folding chemistry, which is exemplified in the context of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions, US-based researchers will forever remain behind.

The difference between theory and biologically-based fact must now be included in grant submissions. What Thomas Insel did before leaving NIMH extends across the NIH. He forced researchers to put their claims about potential use into the context of the gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system pathway that serious scientists have been detailing for decades.

That pathway is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to humans. See: http://www.ncbi.n...24693353 for examples of amino acid substitutions.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2015


That pathway is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to humans. See: http://www.ncbi.n...24693353 for examples of amino acid substitutions.


Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model
http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

The "J" in JVK stands for joke, jerk, jackass. The "V" stands for vile. The "K" stands for krud, the stuff of his comments.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2015
"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."

The difference between science and pseudoscientific nonsense is the explanatory power in the context of peer-review. Examples of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions, which differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all species, were used to support the explanatory power of my model.

See also: http://science.sl...splicing

The molecular mechanisms of pre-messenger RNA (pre-mRNA) splicing that they detailed were included in our 1996 review of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation. http://www.hawaii...ion.html
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2015
He claims the pronouncements are "...caricatures of opinions entertained by some intelligent and reasonable people, whose views deserve an honest and careful consideration and analysis."


The key word there being "caricatures". Reading comprehension...

Continue reading in that publication by Dobzhansky and you'll get the full meaning. Organismal biology is getting to the point where we know what there is to know. By "profitable", he means there's not much left to discover there, whereas molecular is the cutting edge. That's not saying organismal is obsolete or wrong, just that it's already established and known.

He also said:

The progress of biology would not be furthered by frenetic efforts to reduct organismic biology to chemistry or physics

anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2015
Also:

To make the situation ironic, some of the same people who would declare a moratorium on organismic biology until such time when it can be reduced to molecular terms also argue that organismic biology is largely a finished business, worthy neither of much attention nor support. Now, it is true that a method of investigation or a line of research may be productive at one time, and become like a squeezed-out lemon afterwards. However, he is a reckless, rather than a courageous man, who wraps himself in a prophets's mantle.


Consider the discipline of human anatomy. It should have been dead four centuries ago; after Vesalius not many new organs can be found in the human body. Yet we find anatomy prospering and forward-looking.


To treat molecular biology instead as a bludgeon with which to destroy, or to reduce to insignificance, the organismic biology is to basically misunderstand the nature of life and the requirement for its study.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2015
How is anything claimed by anonymous_9001 related to the topic here?

The "tree of life" nonsense does nothing to link what is currently known to serious scientists about biologically-based cause and effect, which is nutrient-dependent and controlled by the physiology of reproduction in all living genera.

Spending 5.6 million dollars on a tree that tells us nothing useful is a waste of resources. The waste can be compared in the context of the research published by serious scientists from China, who detailed how RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions are linked to the de novo creation of genes and all biodiversity on this planet.

The discovered and detailed the "Holy Grail" of protein folding, and theorists collectively put everything known to serious scientists into the picture of a tree.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2015
http://medicalxpr...ors.html

Excerpt: "Scientists have been pursuing this "holy grail" of the sense of smell since Richard Axel and Linda Buck discovered these odorant receptors and their role in the organization of the olfactory system, winning them the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2004."
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2015
Ha! Another astounding observation is that trolls can't read. (But the lying comes natural.) (O.o)

Thanks all for the hilarious thread!

*******

Re the accepted use of phylogenetics - which famously already Darwin understood - and their whyfor:

"A thorough grasp of phylogenetics is necessary for understanding macroevolutionary deductions. The consensus model which evolutionary biologists use to represent the well-supported branches of the universal tree of life I will refer to as the "standard phylogenetic tree"."

[ Goes on to demonstrate how they test that evolution is a fact; hey, it's Theobald himself! =D http://www.talkor...ylo.html ]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2015
... and of course the _whole_ point of the science described in the article is that trees are useful. (But you need to know how to read to understand that.)

"QED."
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2015
Now I don't mean to troll the troll, but already the next article I intended to read (in cosmology) had comments from the same discredited troll. :-/

A quick check gave me this amusing description:

"The regulars here may recall John A. Davison, who died in 2012. He was notoriously persistent and repetitive, and rather clueless: he was the guy who started a blog with one article, never wrote another one, and just made new comments. He later announced that it was full, and so…he started a brand new blog, one article, and posted more comments to himself on it. It was rather sad.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2015
Less well known is that he was actually a biologist, had a Ph.D. in zoology, and taught at the University of Vermont. He had a "scientific" theory, which was his, which he thought explained all that evolutionary change while refuting those silly scientists who believed that mutations occurred. No! Evolution was all due to chromosome rearrangements, which somehow are not mutations, and he also somehow ignored the existence of allelic differences between species: ..."

"Yet when you read what he had to say about it, what was striking was the complete failure to read and understand the scientific literature — he had come up with his scientific theory, by God, and he didn't have to address it critically, ever. All he had to do was go on blogs and internet forums and write the same pretentious catchphrases over and over again. And that was the saddest thing of all, that a mind could become so calcified and bitter and obsessed.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2015
So he died, but you knew another had to emerge, and he has come. I was asked to look at a string of comments left on a science article by a fellow going by the pseudonym JVK, and all the Davison traits were there. Pretentious phrasing. Repetition: if the audience didn't get it the first time, just say the same thing again, twice. A kind of sneering anger that people don't understand how smart he is. An obsession with one narrow idea, which is his, which explains all of evolution and proves that everyone else is wrong.

Behold James Vaughn Kohl. ..."

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2015
"... partly true ... other things that are just too narrow ... bits that are just plain weird ... Further, what he writes is a particularly pretentious, obfuscatory way of saying what he means — he's trying to obscure rather than explain. ...

But then, that's what he does. He crashes into a thread full of lay people and then lords it over them with his abuse of jargon. And he does it over and over again, ... He's babbling in scientese.

And he just keeps hammering away with his pseudo-scientific pronouncements. ...
Maybe he thinks belligerent pomposity is the way to attract the attention of investors ..."

[ http://freethough...s-place/ ]

That was from PZ Myers, a real biolog.

Heureka! Kohl is the new Davison.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2015
See: http://www.nature...733.html
"Activation of G-protein-coupled receptors correlates with the formation of a continuous internal water pathway"

~400 of our G-protein-coupled receptors are olfactory receptors that link the de novo creation of nucleic acids to the RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry that Chinese researchers just placed into the context of biophysically constrained molecular mechanisms that link amino acid substitutions to the differentiation of all cell types in all individuals of all living genera via their physiology of reproduction.

Obviously, I am not the new Davison. I may be Nagel's Darwin.

For comparison, PZ Myers is a biologically uninformed science idiot who doesn't know who's who in any scientific discipline. He banned me after claiming that I was a homophobe. My award-winning 2007 book chapter explained non-heterosexual attraction via the same model of heterosexual male attraction.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2015
See also: We have demonstrated that the HC model best describes the patterns of genome-wide gene expression evolution observed across the model species S. cerevisiae
D. melanogaster and C.elegans.

https://www.acade...election

Their conclusion: "...comparisons to other modes of evolution including frequency-dependent selection or heterosis (Bulmer 1989) should be performed. Ideally, future studies should also map out the validity of the HC model across environments, identify how variation in ecological context influences the strength of selection on genome-wide gene expression, and fully characterize the strength of selection on expression across genes.

We characterized the strength of RNA-mediated gene expression in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review using the same three model species. http://www.hawaii...ion.html
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2015
So, now your a time travelling movie star sent back to warn us of (or even stop) a looming biological threat???
@Whyde
now you know why i shortened his moniker to jk!

.

How is anything claimed by anonymous_9001 related to the topic here?
@jk
1- not CLAIMED... he is PROVING HIS POINT
2- he is also demonstrating your cherry-picking fanaticism and reading/comprehension failure
3- he has proven that you are selectively taking quotes out of context to try and substantiate your fanatical religious belief

I think he did a great job of proving it, too, as Torbjorn pointed out

the only person confused in this thread is jk-the-jeenyus-mensa-boy
JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2015
See also: http://www.huffin...914.html

Excerpt: "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity." -Albert Einstein

Einstein set an important precedent for other intelligent people. Captain Stumpy continues to lower the standards to a level of ignorance that can easily be explained by a "tree of life" diagram.

Strategy: See the difference; report it; include it in a diagram; and teach people to believe in your theory. If anyone appears to be unteachable, denigrate their works and continue to tout pseudoscientific nonsense.

The strategy has worked since 1944 when Schrodinger linked the speed of light to de Vries definition of "mutation" and to healthy longevity instead of pathology.
JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2015
For comparison, see: https://www.faceb.../?type=1

The sequencing of the octopus genome linked microRNAs and adhesion proteins to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation across species from marine invertebrates to humans via the biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent protein folding chemistry common to all living genera.

Focus on proteins links claims about protein evolution to theories about mutations and natural selection that somehow link the evolution of proteins to the evolution of biodiversity in the context of the tree of life.

This reporting of a "new protein" dumbs down the concept of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated DNA repair so that it can be ignored instead of placed into the context of ecological variation and ecological adaptations during thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation that lead to pathology or healthy longevity.
JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2015
See also: http://www.nature...192.html

Excerpt: "The flow of genetic information from DNA to protein requires polymerase-II-transcribed RNA characterized by the presence of a 5′-cap."

The RNA-mediated information flow is nutrient-dependent and linked to the physiology of reproduction by biophysically constrained protein folding chemistry. Thus, every serious scientist since Schrodinger has designed experiments that support accurate representations of the fact that "Life is physics and chemistry and communication." http://dx.doi.org...as.12570

See also: "Viruses are essential agents within the roots and stem of the tree of life" http://www.ncbi.n...19833132

Excerpt: "If the tree of life metaphor is to be useful in future, we have to remember that viruses have been and still are essential agents within the roots and stem of the tree of life."

Viruses are not mentioned in the tree of life article.
JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2015
Similarly if the "holy grail" metaphor is to be useful in the future, the research on RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and protein folding that was published in Science Magazine last month, must be integrated into "tree of life" representations.

Integration is no longer optional. "...the new understanding of evolution needs to integrate what we now know about viruses and virus-host interactions which, from my own perspective, has been absolutely one of the key factors of all evolution since the emergence of cells -- well, actually even before the emergence of cells." -- Eugene Koonin
http://www.huffin...216.html

If the best that my antagonists can do here is to denigrate my works, they will simply continue to attest to their simple-minded ignorance. All serious scientists thank them for that! It is the only way they can continue Combating Evolution to Fight Disease.
JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2015
Re: Combating Evolution to Fight Disease.
See my comments at: http://comments.s....1247472

Seriously, did someone mention the biologically uninformed science idiot, PZ Myers, for comparison?

See also: I repeat: Octopuses are NOT aliens http://scienceblo...-aliens/

"New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon."

I keep checking back, but comments are still closed several weeks later. Why?

See: Mayo Clinic Researchers Find New Code That Makes Reprogramming of Cancer Cells Possible https://www.youtu...TLOGZ40U

These researchers linked microRNAs and adhesion molecules from RNA-mediated differences in protein structure and function that are perturbed by viruses in species from octopuses to humans. Deregulation of microRNAs is linked to cancer, not from beneficial mutations to the tree of life.
JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2015
See also: https://www.youtu...YAoiCSsI

If serious scientists had not already linked viruses to perturbed protein folding and all pathology via the model of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation we published in 1996, I would not be here trying to call attention to the pseudoscientific nonsense about the "tree of life."

It's not a tree of life if the role of viruses is not considered. It is a representation of how ignorance of biologically-based cause and effect has led to the suffering and death of millions and how ignorance will continue to do so.

the only person confused in this thread is jk-the-jeenyus-mensa-boy


See also: http://icb.oxford...abstract
Excerpt: "...this species will prove to be an important model for understanding not only how chromosomal rearrangements affect the genes they capture, but also how and why they may confer selective advantages and persist in populations (Dobzhansky 1970)."
JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2015
See also: The Mind's Eyes Human Pheromones, Neuroscience, and Male Sexual Preferences
http://www.tandfo...TY5eYlp8

If pheromones do not control the physiology of human reproduction, nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation cannot linked to genetically predisposed behaviors via the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically constrained protein folding chemistry I have detailed in a series of publications since 1995, which include the award-winning publication linked above.

The links to behavior could be attributed to mutations, although no one I know has been foolish enough to try doing that. If you know someone who has linked biologically-based top-down causation in a model that links atoms to ecosystems, please tell me about their works so they can be compared to mine.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2015
@Captain Stump

Mucho sorry for the "1". Only 3 hours of sleep and waiting for the coffee to brew lead to that screw up.
JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2015
After you get some sleep, please address Greg Bear's response to your question. Others see:

http://www.gregbe...2015.htm
From: Steven Taylor (aka Vietvet)
Location: United States
Date: 01/28/2015

James V. Kohl claims you incorporated his model of nutrient dependent, pheromone ecological adaptation in your Darwin novels. Any truth to that?
Re: James V. Kohl

From: Greg Bear
Date: 01/29/2015

There's more than a hint of pheromone-HERV and cortico-steroid interaction in DARWIN'S RADIO. And James is certainly a pioneer in the pheromone world! We've corresponded for years on these subjects. I'm not sure about the nutrient angle, however. Interesting to follow that track as well!'

My comment: The nutrient angle, as all serious scientists now know, is what protects organized genomes from DNA damage due to viruses. Protection is nutrient-dependent and RNA-mediated via gene duplication and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions.
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2015
@JVK

On 22 Sept. 2015 you wrote: "Creationists are among the serious scientists". Who are the other 2 or 3?

http://medicalxpr...ing.html
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2015
Thanks for asking.

See also: "Going forward, we can combine techniques like this with portable sequencing and have a diagnostic device which provides incredibly rich data for clinicians and epidemiologists. Ultimately what we would like is an entirely unbiased method that captured all pathogens—known and unknown—with exquisite sensitivity."
http://www.theatl...s_thread

This helps everyone who is not biologically uninformed to recognize those who are. Biologically informed serious scientists continue to follow Greg Bear's lead, and the lead of everyone else who is not a biologically uninformed theorist.

Who are the other 2 or 3?


I've repeatedly clarified the fact that everyone who is not a biologically uninformed theorist is "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" See my comments at: http://comments.s....1247472
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2015
I've repeatedly clarified the fact
Actually, you have only obfuscated everything... as for
"Combating Evolution to Fight Disease"
we've already established in several threads that you do NOT understand what the article is about let alone what it means
If the best that my antagonists can do here is to denigrate my works, they will simply continue to attest to their simple-minded ignorance
there is no need to denigrate your works when you do it yourself with your own ignorance and narcissistic Dunning-Kruger... from your inability to comprehend the basics like: mutation
to your direct undermining of your own model by claims like "mutations are pathological" while promoting mutations in your model...
or by your claims like
Creationists are among the serious scientists
http://medicalxpr...ing.html

these things directly refute you , prove you are not a scientist, and undermine your credibility
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2015
"Combating Evolution to Fight Disease"
Molecular biology and evolutionary biology have been separate disciplines and scientific cultures: The former is mechanistic and focused on molecules; the latter is theoretical and focused on populations. However, these domains are beginning to converge in laboratories addressing molecular mechanisms that explain how evolutionary processes work, and bring these processes to bear on medical problems such as cancer and infectious disease. Each discipline can be viewed as a missing link in the other's description of biology, and in medicine.
http://www.scienc...175/1088

the ABSTRACT ALONE proves you are either illiterate or stupid...
the full article shows you are incapable of reading, comprehension

you promote PSEUDOSCIENCE and religion
another epic fail for jk
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2015
" the biologically uninformed science idiot, PZ Myers".

The new king of cranks shows his reading incomprehension, Myers is a _real biologist: and has published as such.

he also shows his crankhood by continuing his barrage of - well, biologically uninformed as he doesn't grok evolution (or pheromones) - "scientese".
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2015
you do NOT understand what the article is about let alone what it means


What does it mean? Six months later, this was published in the same journal. "RNA and dynamic nuclear organization" http://www.scienc...40.short

It linked the nuclear compartmentalization of odorant receptor genes from their nutrient-dependent de novo creation to the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man via what we detailed in our 1996 review. http://www.hawaii...ion.html

See: Nuclear compartmentalization of odorant receptor genes http://www.pnas.o...782.full Note: this article was edited by Linda Buck who co-authored Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction (2005) http://www.ncbi.n...16290036
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2015
Myers is a _real biologist: and has published as such.


Myers is the best example of a biologically uninformed science idiot I could ever hope to find. First, he attacked me and others for their accurate representations of the links from nutrient-dependent chromosomal rearrangements to biodiversity and when examples accumulated so that everyone else knew the chromosomal rearrangements were pheromone-controlled in species from yeast to humans, he refused to comment and then ended the option of others to comment:

See: http://scienceblo...-aliens/
See also: http://scienceblo...t-844799

The only thing left for serious scientists to differentiate in the context of PZ's writings and attacks is whether he is more like an ostrich or a clown.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Sep 23, 2015
"The problem for atheists becomes bigger almost every day."

@JVK

That's the heading to one of your comments, appropriate maybe coming from the likes of Ken Hamm or Mike Hucklbee but not from so called scientists.

I grew up religious but became an atheist like many people do, Charles Darwin being an example.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2015
Darwin put "conditions of life" first. What led you believe that natural selection of anything except food led to ecological speciation? Should Darwin have written: "All organisms must eat to survive and to reproduce?

See: See also: Physiologists uncover a new code at the heart of biology
http://phys.org/n...ogy.html

This code is probably not new to creationists, since it links the de novo creation of genes to all biomass on this planet via the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding and cell type differentiation in all living genera via their physiology of reproduction -- except when protein folding is perturbed by viruses, which are linked to all pathology.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2015
I grew up religious but became an atheist like many people do, Charles Darwin being an example.


Dobzhansky is the counter example that you seem to have ignored, and he had much more information than Darwin about how cell type differentiation occurs. Basically, I think you are claiming that you were taught to believe in pseudoscientific nonsense touted by population geneticists.

Were I you, I would probably be just as embarrassed about changing my beliefs to those of biologically uninformed science idiots without first examining the experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect as if you hoped to become a serious scientist.

Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2015
@JVK

As a freshman biology major I also preached the Sunday evening sermon every other week. I, like Dobzhansky, was a devout Christian that followed the evidence for evolution, realizing Genesis was allegorical.

When I arrived in Vietnam in Oct. '66 I was a Christian, before the end of May'67 I was an atheist. I've had a good life, living in reality is far superior to delusion.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2015
Post traumatic stress can be treated. Your delusional thoughts may require a different approach.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2015
It was when I realized the impossibility of a "just and loving" God.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2015
Obviously, you are still not going to consider the role of viruses that perturb protein folding and the fact that they will probably continue to destroy all creation, just as they always have done in the context of our free will.

Who do you think has seen more suffering and death given my career as a medical laboratory scientist who was actively involved in every aspect of medical practice at one point or another -- from infants to senile adults. Only during the last few years of my career did I spend the majority of my time in the lab.

The current director of the NIH became an evangelical lutheran and wrote "The Language of God" based on his experiences with dying patients. That was before the discovery of the importance of RNA-mediated events that clearly show how to prevent most pathologies.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2015
"In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins wrote that scientific discoveries were an "opportunity to worship" and that he rejected both Young Earth creationism and intelligent design."

https://en.wikipe..._Collins
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2015
Thanks for confirming what has changed during the past decade. He has since accepted the fact that everything known about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation was not represented in his gene-centric view.

What experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect do you accept in the context of its explanatory power and/or a refutaion of creationist arguments or arguments for Intelligent Design?

Or, is it enough for you to claim you believe in nothing and not examine why others believe in creation?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2015
What does it mean?
@jk
Obviously you couldn't read or comprehend the actual QUOTES that i left from the article in the next posts... which proves and supports assertions that you are either: a religious fanatic who can comprehend basic english, demented, delusional, mentally deficient, traumatized (is it by physical repeated blows to the head from racing your porsche into walls?), or illiterate... take your pick
Six months later... published
ok, so... you couldn't understand the basic wording of the FIRST article which stated
Molecular biology and evolutionary biology have been separate disciplines and scientific cultures...However, these domains are beginning to converge in laboratories addressing molecular mechanisms that explain how evolutionary processes work
but now you want to talk specifics about RNA and your interpretation of the science?
really?

but you've already PROVEN you don't understand the SIMPLE articles!!!!
Noumenon
5 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2015
Creationism was never 'discovered' as an independent and disinterested pursuit of knowledge. Instead Creationism was always an a-priori element of (religious) faith in search of physical apologetics. This is the antithesis of science, ... and is exposed when the apologists stop learning further.

It is not possible to have been a non-believer and then 'discover' creationism to become a believer.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2015
Re:
...faith in search of physical apologetics.


Everything currently known about the nutrient-dependent biophysically constrained chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding and the physiology of reproduction links Schrodinger's claim about the anti-entropic energy of the sun to ecological adaptations exemplified in the context of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions.

Thus, neo-Darwinism has been revealed to be the antithesis of science by serious scientists who continue to link top-down causation from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of all living genera.

Top-down causation: an integrating theme within and across the sciences? http://rsfs.royal...abstract

Earlier today, one of the co-authors from 2012 posted a link to this: Physiologists uncover a new code at the heart of biology http://phys.org/n...ogy.html
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2015
In the context of "Physiologists uncover a new code at the heart of biology" this claim is made:

"Genes can adapt to different environmental changes by choosing the most optimal codon, which is counterintuitive to natural selection."

Any mention of natural selection in the context of the "tree of life" pseudoscientific nonsense must now be removed by theorists.

Also, attempts to make it appear that genes can choose whether or not to adapt to different environmental changes can be placed into the context of how ecological variation leads to ecological adaptation when adaptations are not perturbed by the viruses that contribute to all pathology, which was formerly attributed to mutations.

If I were a neo-Darwinian theorist or any other biologically uninformed science idiot, I would not make any further claims given the fact that all past claims have been placed into the context of pseudoscientific nonsense by serious scientists.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2015
Just admit that no amount of evidence will deflect you from your religious inspired narrative of creationism. Now an honest question,.... if Creationism were so,... would there not then be implied an incompatibility between the, in principal, discoverable physical processes and 'Hand of God'? It seems to me this would be a strange thing for an omniscient god to end up with, that physical objects have no physical explanations or cause for their existing. If you could reply with using a word-blender, it may be constructive.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2015
... that is, without the word-blender.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2015
I mentioned that earlier today, one of the co-authors of ttp://rsfs.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/2/1/1.abstract from 2012 posted a link to this: Physiologists uncover a new code at the heart of biology

If you want to discuss what is known to serious scientists, articles about top-down causation will be helpful.

If you want to discuss the ridiculous opinions of pseudoscientists who know nothing about cell type differentiation or biologically-based cause and effect, you have plenty of options on phys.org

The "tree of life" nonsense is the best example I have seen in several months. Do you wonder why no other serious scientists, who are required to link top-down causation to biologically-based cause and effect, are commenting?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2015
See also: http://www.macroe...nts.html Excerpt: "In his book, In the Light of Evolution (2008), renowned evolutionary biologist John Avise says that if the views presented on this website are correct, our ideas of biology and the evolutionary process will have to be revised at a fundamental level. There, he states that:"First, phylogeneticists would have to admit that their dream of reconstructing a branched tree of life had been merely a pipedream, and they would have to accept the new and probably far more difficult challenge of working out the precise history of reticulation events for each organismal group and how such reticulate genealogical histories have idiosyncratically distributed particular bits and pieces of DNA from disparate sources to extant taxa. Traditional concepts of species, phylogeny, ancestry, and classification, as well as the significance of reproductive isolation, would all have to be reevaluated." [cont]
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2015
[cont] "Biologists would have to embrace the notion that biological processes falling somewhat outside the standard neo-Darwinian paradigm for speciation (such as interspecific hybridization and the reproductive stabilization of genetic-recombinant derivatives) could play major and previously underappreciated roles in evolution. They would have to reevaluate the origins of genetic variation on which natural selection acts and how novel phenotypic adaptations and different forms of life mechanistically come into being. In short, major shifts in evolutionary thought would be required, and this would open wonderful opportunities for the eventual emergence of a grandly updated evolutionary synthesis, 21st-century style." — From In the Light of Evolution, Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction, 2008, pp. 288–289. "

See also: http://phys.org/n...tes.html "The hidden evolutionary relationship between pigs..." [and us].
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2015
http://news.scien...ily-tree "DNA from Neandertal relative may shake up human family tree"

Excerpt: "...it pushes back the origin of H. sapiens from the Neandertals and Denisovans." The possibility that humans were a distinct group so early shakes up the human family tree, promising to lead to new debate about when and where the branches belong."

The most fascinating thing about this report from Science Magazine is that the results were from a conference and the findings have not been published. If results like these were reported anywhere else, they would immediately be recognized for the amount of pseudoscientific nonsense this group has integrated into their unpublished findings.

See for comparison to work by the same senior scientist see: Natural Selection on the Olfactory Receptor Gene Family in Humans and Chimpanzees http://linkinghub...07620138
JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2015
As you know: Theorists now claim that viruses should be included in the "tree of life."
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

There are too many viruses to not include in something and no reason for theorists not to include them in their "trees" and theories about snake-centric evolution.

"Isbell calls these findings "the first neuroscientific support" for her snake-centric evolutionary theory." see: http://news.scien...te-brain

Having lost all credibility due to reports like that, neo-Darwinian theorists have nothing to lose by adding more pseudoscientific nonsense about viruses. They must do something with them.

Koonin recently claimed "...the new understanding of evolution needs to integrate what we now know about viruses and virus-host interactions which, from my own perspective, has been absolutely one of the key factors of all evolution since... before the emergence of cells."
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2015
It's past time to dismiss the pseudoscientific "tree of life" nonsense. Others are rapidly moving forward. See: WEBINAR: The Hidden Effects of Epigenetic Discoveries https://www.labro...nd-oct28

Abstract

DATE: October 28th, 2015
TIME: 11am Pacific time, 2pm Eastern time

Excerpt: "... the development and health of an individual is influenced by past experiences of that individual's parents.

Research shows, that enriching environments offer opportunities for improved sensory, motor, cognitive, and social stimulation. This improved stimulation has a multitude of positive effects, from increasing learning and memory, to reducing the possibility of acquiring depression or many brain disorders including Huntington's diseases, Alzheimer's and stroke. In this webinar we will talk about how current investigation in Epigenetics can affect patient treatment and impacts research in general."
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2015
See also: LEAKED: real uncut NASA footage by Curiosity rover displaying life form on mars (clear evidence) https://www.youtu...youtu.be

I still have a few questions about simultaneous hen and egg emergence detailed by Matti Pikanen in the context of RNA-mediated events. See: http://matpitka.b...tor.html

Excerpt: "Can one tell whether it was pro-cell or bio-molecules that emerged first? It seems that all these structures could have emerged simultaneously. What emerged was dark matter and its emergence involved the emergence of all the others. Hens and eggs emerged simultaneously."

My most pertinent question is: Can this film footage of life on Mars be linked to the simultaneous emergence of nutrient-dependent life controlled by the physiology of reproduction on any other planets via the same theoretical nonsense?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Oct 07, 2015
See also: DNA Repair Pioneers Win Nobel
http://www.the-sc...st124655 with specific attention to my comment on how

the winning research was more biology than chemistry: "The making and breaking of these bonds is chemistry - in a biological context.

My comment: But also in the context of physics and Schrodinger's comments on de Vries definition of "mutation" in the context of the "... power supply of 'negative entropy' the sunlight)" -- in "What is Life?"


Neo-Darwinian theory is thoroughly refuted, not just by me, but by everyone who is not a biologically uninformed science idiot. That leaves only the biologically uninformed who choose to be science idiots to also choose to complain about the works of creationists that link atoms to ecosystems outside the context of ridiculous theories and "tree of life" pseudoscience.

That's what these Nobel Laureates did.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2015
See also: LEAKED:
@the idiot trolling jk
youtube is NOT empirical evidence... you can also find video's of men beating up bears for fish there, which are obviously fabricated
https://www.youtu...BzAxLXFY

My most pertinent question is:
strawman & red herring
That leaves only the biologically uninformed who choose to be science idiots to also choose to complain about the works of creationists
see answer to your cross-posted argument and fallacious creationist claims here:

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

reported for pseudoscience
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2015
Report this: "Regulation of microRNA biogenesis and turnover by animals and their viruses" (2013) Cell Mol Life Sci, DOI 10.1007/s00018-012-1257-1.

Excerpt: "Studies of viral systems have revealed diversity in the origin
of miRNAs, the factors required for their synthesis, and the
factors that can control their turnover. In some cases, viruses
influence global expression levels of miRNAs, in line with
their mode of action in targeting RNAi pathways in plants
and insects."

See also: http://www.ncbi.n...3960065/ "...the epigenetic 'tweaking' of the immense gene networks that occurs via exposure to nutrient chemicals and pheromones can now be modeled in the context of the microRNA/messenger RNA balance, receptor-mediated intracellular signaling, and the stochastic gene expression required for nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. The role of the microRNA/messenger RNA balance ...
Vietvet
5 / 5 (1) Oct 08, 2015
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
James Vaughn Kohl*

Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model
http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

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.