Chicken study reveals evolution can happen much faster than thought

October 27, 2015
A selective mating approach within the population that started in 1957 has resulted in an over tenfold difference in the size of the chickens. Credit: Virginia Tech/ John McCormick

A new study of chickens overturns the popular assumption that evolution is only visible over long time scales. By studying individual chickens that were part of a long-term pedigree, the scientists led by Professor Greger Larson at Oxford University's Research Laboratory for Archaeology, found two mutations that had occurred in the mitochondrial genomes of the birds in only 50 years. For a long time scientists have believed that the rate of change in the mitochondrial genome was never faster than about 2% per million years. The identification of these mutations shows that the rate of evolution in this pedigree is in fact 15 times faster. In addition, by determining the genetic sequences along the pedigree, the team also discovered a single instance of mitochondrial DNA being passed down from a father. This is a surprising discovery, showing that so-called 'paternal leakage' is not as rare as previously believed.

The study is published in the online early version of the journal, Biology Letters.

Using a well-documented 50-year pedigree of a population of White Plymouth Rock chickens developed at Virginia Tech by Professor Paul Siegel, the researchers reconstructed how the mitochondrial DNA passed from mothers to daughters within the population. They did this by analysing DNA from the blood samples of 12 chickens of the same generation using the most distantly related maternal lines, knowing that the base population had started from seven partially inbred lines. A selective mating approach within the population started in 1957, resulting in what is now an over tenfold difference in the size of the chickens in the two groups when weighed at 56 days old.

Senior author Professor Larson said: "Our observations reveal that is always moving quickly but we tend not to see it because we typically measure it over longer time periods. Our study shows that evolution can move much faster in the short term than we had believed from fossil-based estimates. Previously, estimates put the rate of change in a at about 2% per million years. At this pace, we should not have been able to spot a single mutation in just 50 years, but in fact we spotted two."

The paper says there is now considerable evidence of a disparity between long-term and short-term estimates of mitochondrial changes. One theory put forward in recent studies is that mitochondrial DNA evolves 'non-neutrally", that there is a purifying selection process and negative are removed more quickly, resulting in the impression of a short-term elevation in rates. There have been few studies of short-term mitochondrial evolution, including both mutation rates and paternal leakage. There is now direct evidence that it is not always inherited from the mother.

Study lead author Dr Michelle Alexander, from the University of York, said: "The one thing everyone knew about mitochondria is that it is almost exclusively passed down the maternal line, but we identified chicks who inherited their mitochondria from their father, meaning so-called 'paternal leakage' can happen in avian populations. Both of these findings demonstrate the speed and dynamism of evolution when observed over short time periods."

Explore further: Mitochondrial DNA mutations affect male and female fertility and ageing

More information: Mitogenomic analysis of a 50-generation chicken pedigree reveals a rapid rate of mitochondrial evolution and evidence for paternal mtDNA inheritance, Biology Letters, rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/lookup/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0561

Related Stories

New advances in the study of human mitochondrial DNA

October 3, 2013

A study concerning the evolution of mitochondrial DNA, performed by researchers from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), has allowed to determine the frequency and pattern of heteroplasmy in the complete mitochondrial ...

Mothers curse linked to male infertility

May 16, 2011

(Medical Xpress) -- Researchers have discovered the first real evidence of the 'mother's curse' and its connection to male infertility due to genetic mutations in mitochondria. Led by Dr. Damian Dowling from Monash University ...

Recommended for you

Cassava is genetically decaying, putting staple crop at risk

April 28, 2017

For breeders of cassava, a staple food for hundreds of millions in the tropics, producing improved varieties has been getting harder over time. A team at Cornell used genomic analysis of cassava varieties and wild relatives ...

114 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

AKron
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2015
I can hear Georgia Purdom squeaking in delight "science proves the Earth is really 6000 years old!".
Shabs42
4.5 / 5 (15) Oct 28, 2015
Four hours and no comment from JVK yet? Someone should go check on him...
EyeNStein
2 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2015
Its likely that the kind of DNA change in this article would happen more in inbred species.
The 'hybrid vigour' which would protect DNA from random changes and damage is far less.
Its interesting that even the mitochondrial DNA (which we live in a sort of symbiotic relationship with) is still affected.

We already knew that inbred species live far shorter lives. This article has shown us one of the reasons why.
docile
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SteveS
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2015
A selective mating approach within the population that started in 1957 has resulted in an over tenfold difference in the size of the chickens
This is an adaptation, not an evolution...


How do you define the difference?
dogbert
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 28, 2015
How do you define the difference?


You started with a chicken and what you have at the end of the process is a chicken.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2015
The size difference after the chicken crossed the road, or the mutation rates in mitochondria, even the rare paternal leakage, are all examples of evolution. Don't confuse specific mechanisms with differential reproduction, change in populations over generations.

Other fast examples of evolution is changes in the adaptive immune system over days during an infection (changes in T-cell populations over their generations) and cancer cells/flu virus acquiring infectious natures respectively immunity towards combating them (again over their own generations). Those are seldom inherited into the environment, but it happens. (A few cancers and of course viruses inherit as independent lineages; https://sv.wikipe..._Disease , http://phys.org/n...ght.html )

Also, unicellular yeasts can evolve multicellularity in the lab within a few months. I know, evolution is awesome!
docile
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SoylentGrin
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 28, 2015
A selective mating approach within the population that started in 1957 has resulted in an over tenfold difference in the size of the chickens
This is an adaptation, not an evolution...

Evolution is a change in allele frequency in breeding populations over time.
If allele frequency changes, it is evolution. "Adaptation" is not the opposite of Evolution. They are not mutually exclusive. Regardless, a larger size that is passed on genetically is an allele change. Thus, evolution.
There is no one Theory of Evolution. There are many, and they aren't all exclusive. This one is driven by Selective Mating, one of many theories and mechanisms of evolution.
If the larger size causes problems or benefits with the environment, then Natural Selection may kick in. If the large size causes a chemical feedback that results in a point mutation, that could lead to a whole host of other evolutionary mechanisms. And so on, and so on, down through the millenia.
docile
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (21) Oct 28, 2015
Of course chickens can change: George Dubya Bush went from petrified pullet to screaming eagle, as long as he could cower in his Undisclosed Location and scream "Bring 'em on!".

Have the Republicans PAID for that disaster yet? We could really use that $4,000,000,000,000 right now.
antigoracle
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2015
This begs the question. How many of our domesticated animals, have we fast tracked the "evolution" of?
verkle
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2015
A selective mating approach within the population that started in 1957 has resulted in an over tenfold difference in the size of the chickens
This is an adaptation, not an evolution...


How do you define the difference?


Adaptation might be considered a re-arranging of that which already exists.

faster in the short term than we had believed from fossil-based estimates. Previously, estimates put the rate of change in a mitochondrial genome at about 2% per million years. At this pace, we should not have been able to spot a single mutation in just 50 years, but in fact we spotted two."


The "false interpretation" of statistics.

Reality =/= averages

You have a gambler's fallacy, and it does not necessarily mean anything special has happened, in the same way 2 of 100 year floods can happen back to back...doesn't mean anything special necessarily...

It's a common trap in all Science and reasoning.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 28, 2015
Take Sauropods, which existed on land for millions of years, with the same basic morphology prevailing for eons.

We have next to nothing of their DNA or epigenetics.

What drove the size differences? Better environment = bigger? Worse environment = smaller?

How much is the size driven by epigenetics and environment, and how much is driven by core genome, and how much is driven by mitochondrial differences?

Since their morphology remains the same across so much space and time, the core genome must not have changed much, but if we could examine the microbiome of the various eras, is suspect genes related to immune system and adaptation to changing environment were switched on and off, a viral infection here becomes incorporated in so-called "junk" DNA, and ends up coding for something beneficial in combination with other genes, whatever, who knows.

All of this must have happened, but at the end of the 100 million years they are still the same genus.
julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2015
Among other things, Darwin's book was "The Origin of Species". The altering of allele frequencies to adapt to a situation involves the changing proportion of individuals expressing particular genes, but does not involve new genes. Darwin can have included "adaptation" as part of completeness to express "evolution's" role as part of relationship to environment, but, Darwin said that speciation is a way for animals and their progeny to survive. But, in the end, speciation is the defining characteristic of "evolution".
Returners
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 28, 2015
Why should the core design remain the same even with massive changes related to the microbiome and epigenetics?

You atheists claim these creatures spontaneously morph into entirely new morphologies from scratch, but the fossil record says that doesn't actually happen for the most part.

What appears to happen is some stuff dies out, and creatures which already exist diversify a bit to fill new (or old) niches.

Coelecanth is another example of a creature which has existed continually on Earth for well over 65 million years, with virtually no change to morphology, and yes and open population vs an inbred population matters. The coelecanth (and sauropods) had an open population affected by both positive and negative interactions in the (open) environment.

The chickens in this experiment were artificially selected by human interference in controlled environments with little or no random beneficial or negative stimuli.

Returners
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 28, 2015
Coelecanth morphology didn't change, even though much of the entire aquatic ecosystem changed...salt water reptiles larger than sharks went extinct, whales (a strange introduction) come onto the scene, sharks go through several size diversifications and a few MINOR morphology glitches here and there (hammerhead, carpet shark), but mostly nothing of massive import from the basic design. Bull shark processing fresh and salt water seems to be the most significant functional change...

But Coelecanth remained the same, even though everything else had massive diversifications and changes.

Why?
Returners
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 28, 2015
Because the science is just and only about stuffs, which can be refused and falsified. All the rest is represented with tautologies, which aren't interesting for science.


Wrong and ridiculous.

If something is true, then it cannot be falsified, silly.

That's the point.

You can't disprove something that is true.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 28, 2015
The word translated "Whale" in the Biblical creation story is "Tanniym" which is better translated as a "Great monster" (land or sea) or as a "(sea)serpent or dragon".

Looks a lot like giant reptilians and dinosaurs to me.

Interestingly, they are mentioned at the same time as the origin of Birds, while the other animals are mentioned on a separate "day"(aeon).
docile
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 28, 2015
If something is true, then it cannot be falsified, silly
And I'm not even doubting it. I'm just saying, that the science is based on falsifications of theories, ideas and models.


The problem with working only within that "metaphysical naturalism" framework is that you can never truly believe anything.

There was an atheist arguing that everything came from nothing, and indeed we are nothing....

He was giving it his best to convince an audience that everything is nothing.

What a sad fool.

This is what "science" has devolved to?

keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee.


Look at this. It's not new.

These clowns have been trying to convince us of the "false science" of nothing for thousands of years.
docile
Oct 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 28, 2015
Creation is a process you know.

When making a large structure, humans dig foundations, add steel and wiring, pour concrete....they make scaffolds while building the walls, and bring in cranes to do some heavy lifting. the structure even has ladders and rings for safety belts and such for humans to service it. When the structure is complete, the temporary things, the scaffolding and the safety harnesses and the cranes are all removed, and you have a finished product.

Sometimes, when we want to build a better structure for the same or some other purpose, the first one must be removed to make room for the new one.

Life is sort of like that.

Without dinosaurs and eons of dead forests we wouldn't have fossil fuels, and the intellectual boom it created wouldn't happen, and space flight wouldn't happen.

What you believe is mindless randomness, I see as intelligence.

In fact, this experiment was guided by intelligence in any case.
gkam
2.7 / 5 (23) Oct 28, 2015
"Therefore they rely on the force method - endless mindless repetition of their mantras which are imbued with the spirit of wishful thinking."
-----------------------------------

That sounds like Christianity and the other superstitions to me. Are you "guided" by stories passed down from the Age of Ignorance?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (15) Oct 28, 2015
Of course chickens can change: George Dubya Bush went from petrified pullet to screaming eagle, as long as he could cower in his Undisclosed Location and scream "Bring 'em on!".

Have the Republicans PAID for that disaster yet? We could really use that $4,000,000,000,000 right now.
Lets see if I can post a comment just as ignorant.

Let me see... ah

'paternal leakage'

-Thats the part of george kamburoff that ran down his fathers leg yes?
gkam
2.8 / 5 (24) Oct 28, 2015
Really? What about the books that were not included in the Bible as we know it, because of the prejudice of the official when they decided what the Bible should have in it? It is a collection of old stories and superstitions, many conflicting, collected over two thousand years of irrationality. How many times has it been translated, so the translators could put their spin on it? Too many to be close to the truth.

I do not know why folk would choose to accept such tripe. It is obviously the product of fear and ignorance.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (21) Oct 28, 2015
If you had read the Bible you would know that the book is authentic,historically correct and all recorded prophecies it it are fulfilled without exception
-This is only true if you decide beforehand that the god who wrote it is infallible.
]the Creator sees the future like no other
But he's not too good at the past.

"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom..." -Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog
. Christianity is consistent with the scientific facts of which you are not interested
Like how rabbits have cuds?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (20) Oct 28, 2015
Therefore they rely on the force method - endless mindless repetition of their mantras which are imbued with the spirit of wishful thinking
-You mean the way the bible repeats that old joke about eternal life?
http://www.openbi...nal_life

-I count about 100.

Reminds me of the last easter sunday mass I went to. Thats all the priest could talk about. Over and over and over again. Lie without end, amen, amen
JVK
1.7 / 5 (17) Oct 28, 2015
Re: re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum in four days.

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

See also, simultaneous hen and egg emergence: 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."

Re: no evolution in 2 billion years http://phys.org/n...ars.html
JVK
1.7 / 5 (17) Oct 28, 2015
Journal article excerpt: "...there is now considerable evidence of a disparity between short- and long-term estimates of mitochondrial substitution rates [3–5].

4) is Molecular clocks: when times are a-changin. Trends Genet. 22, 79–83.

See also Holmes (2003) Molecular Clocks and the Puzzle of RNA Virus Origins http://jvi.asm.or...3.short, which was cited as support for "The most parsimonious answer is: the RNA viruses got their genes from their hosts."

See also: Chuong, E. B. et al. 2013. Endogenous retroviruses function as species-specific enhancer elements in the placenta. Nature Genetics. 45 (3): 325-329.

See also the explanation of biologically based cause and effect that links human endogenous retroviruses from changes in the placenta to an ecologically adapted new human species. http://rna-mediat...eg-bear/
JVK
1.7 / 5 (17) Oct 28, 2015
Journal article excerpt: "The non-synonymous mutation at a first codon position in ND4L has, to our knowledge, not been previously reported in chickens, but another galliform, Polyplectron germaini, possesses the same nucleotide and amino acid (electronic supplementary material, figure S1). The second mutation (a synonymous change in CYTB) has been previously identified in other vertebrates (electronic supplementary material, figure S2)."

This indicates that, like other biologically uninformed science idiots, these researchers do not know the difference between a mutation and a nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitution. The substitutions are fixed in organized genomes via the physiology of reproduction in all living genera. Substitutions are clearly responsible for what was reported as the re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum in four days.
JVK
1.7 / 5 (17) Oct 28, 2015
Journal article excerpt:

"...understanding the frequency of paternal inheritance of mtDNA is key to determining how and why different taxa maintain uniparental inheritance of mitochondria."

Paternal inheritance of mtDNA is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in all vertebrates and it links the conserved molecular mechanisms of uniparental inheritance of mitochondria via details included in the molecular epigenetics section of our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review. From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html

See also: Conserved microRNA editing in mammalian evolution, development and disease
http://genomebiol...15/6/R83 and http://www.news.c...y-people

"...pathogenic mtDNA mutations are usually present at low frequency and buffered by healthy mtDNA, preventing the action of natural selection."
JVK
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 28, 2015
Re: "...pathogenic mtDNA mutations are usually present at low frequency and buffered by healthy mtDNA, preventing the action of natural selection."

Healthy, nutrient energy-dependent mtDNA prevents the natural selection of mtDNA mutations, which typically prevents the fixation of mutations in the organized genomes of all living genera. That means the mutations cannot contribute to the evolution of anything.

That means that anyone still touting Mutation-driven evolution is a biologically uninformed science idiot. See for example: http://www.amazon...99661731

and

Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model
http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/
JVK
1.7 / 5 (17) Oct 28, 2015
See also: Estrogen Receptor Alpha as a Mediator of Life-History Trade-offs http://icb.oxford...abstract

Nutrient-dependent receptor mediated life history transitions are linked via single amino acid substitutions to differences in the morphological and behavioral phenotypes of species from honeybees to humans via the conserved molecular mechanisms I have detailed in a series of published works since 1995.

The model of top-down causation has been validated at all levels of examination from atoms to ecosystems. See: Conserved microRNA editing in mammalian evolution, development and disease http://genomebiol...15/6/R83

See also: Transgenerational epigenetic programming via sperm microRNA recapitulates effects of paternal stress http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Four hours and no comment from JVK yet?


Obviously, I'm beginning to not care about the anonymous fools here.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 28, 2015
rna-mediat.../
PSEUDOSCIENCE PHISHING PERSONAL SITE OF JVK with creationist dogma mixed in
if you can't post to a legitimate reputable peer reviewed journal then you should only post this type garbage on your personal sites, not on SCIENCE sites
reported
JVK
1.7 / 5 (17) Oct 29, 2015
Oldest DNA sequences may reveal secrets of ancient animal ancestors
http://phys.org/n...ets.html

An atoms to ecosystems model of biologically-based cause and effect reveals the secret shared by the wasps and bacteria and all other living genera.

The bacterial flagellum re-evolved over-the-weekend, which means it did not take hundreds of millions of years for different insect species to evolve.

Bulbuzor
2.2 / 5 (17) Oct 29, 2015
JVK, just curious, how old is the Earth in your opinion?
SuperThunder
2.7 / 5 (14) Oct 29, 2015
This is good news. Life may outpace human stupidity after all.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2015
JVK, just curious, how old is the Earth in your opinion?


@Bulbuzor

I've asked JVK the same question repeatedly. He refuses to answer because to do so honestly would expose him as a young earth creationist. He boasts of being a creationist but lacks the integrity to include the young earth part.
JVK
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 29, 2015
JVK, just curious, how old is the Earth in your opinion?


This question exposes biologically uninformed science idiots who don't know how cell type differentiation occurs.

They will not address the fact the the bacterial flagellum re-evolved in 4 days, because anything they could claim about how that happened would reveal to everyone that they are biologically uninformed science idiots.

He refuses to answer because to do so...


Some questions really are too stupid to answer. I know you probably heard "there is no such thing as a stupid question" but that's wrong.
how old is the Earth in your opinion?
is a stupid question and my opinion makes no difference to other serious scientists.
Bulbuzor
2.6 / 5 (18) Oct 29, 2015
FYI, saying "biologically uninformed science idiots" repeatadly is not an argument toward defending your theory and is an evident proof that you do not work anywhere near science. As far as I am concerned, I never met a researcher who goes around calling others idiots, not even creationists.

how old is the Earth in your opinion?
is a stupid question and my opinion makes no difference to other serious scientists.


Ok I'll take that as a 4,54 billion years, +1 for John V. Kennedy

Now, I've actually re-read your whole list of messages, tho it is hard following it as it has basically zero structure, what I understood is that you reject evolution being driven by mutation, but rather by a... healthy diet. I wanted to deconstruct your whole argument, but it is hard as it has no logical order and is mostly a vague assemblage of articles and blogposts.

But, - see message below-
Bulbuzor
2.6 / 5 (18) Oct 29, 2015
-continued-

You claim that "Healthy, nutrient energy-dependent mtDNA prevents the natural selection of mtDNA mutations" and it would therefore invalid the mutation driven evolution, making diet the center and holy grail of evolution with mitochondrial DNA.

What do you make of prokaryotes? The have no mtDNA. But once they acquired mtDNA, how did those bacterias evolve if their mtDNA prevents mutations?

Also, you realize not all animals in nature are "healty", many have lacks in nutrition and have therefore an "unhealthy mtDNA" I guess. If they reproduce, their unhealthy mtDNA won't prevent mutations. Therefore mutation can still drive evolution.

Your estrogen article is in no way relevant to your claims, it talks about behavior and phenotypes..........
Bulbuzor
2.6 / 5 (18) Oct 29, 2015
The bacterial flagellum re-evolved over-the-weekend, which means it did not take hundreds of millions of years for different insect species to evolve.


Woups I misinterpreted your harsh message, you do believe the Earth is a few thousands years old. -1 for John
cgsperling
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2015
@Bulbuzor - I think you are right. I think JVK is a YEC, but he hides behind a veil of pseudo-science.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2015
-1 for John
@Bulbuzor
Actually, it is jimmie v kohl... just so that you know who will be targeting you later

jimmie claims to be a microbiologist (except it also admitted to failing out of college here on PO) as well as a diagnostician ( Diagnostician here: http://phys.org/n...ily.html
or here - http://phys.org/n...nes.html )

Jimmie likes to make grandiose claims about itself: especially WRT its perceived authority on a subject
you can read more BS about it's uber-mensa abilities here:
http://phys.org/n...ols.html

Good luck bringing science or logic to it... jk cannot comprehend reality because of it's religious blinders

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

GREAT POSTS though! keep it up!
Thanks!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2015
@Bulbuzor - I think you are right. I think JVK is a YEC, but he hides behind a veil of pseudo-science.
@cgsperling

not really hides! check out some of jk's claims in these threads!
http://phys.org/n...ies.html

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

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

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

heck! jk stated
The creationists who linked viruses to all pathology cited...
in an attempt to get people to believe that they were doing science!
regardless of the Supreme Court & reality that there is NO science in creationist religion!
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

he even brags about it's physics prowess
In the past two years I've learned enough about physics to link the speed of light blah blah blah
http://phys.org/n...ion.html
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2015
JVK, just curious, how old is the Earth in your opinion?

is a stupid question and my opinion makes no difference to other serious scientists.

@JVK

Your opinion on the earths age and refusal to answer does make a difference to all scientists and interested laymen. It confirms your lack of credibility and lack of honesty.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 29, 2015
All this to avoid answering the question about the "re-evolved' bacterial flagellum over-the-weekend?

The biologically uninformed science idiots attack with all the force of PZ Myers idiot minions but, like little PZ, they are dumbfounded by experimental evidence that links the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in bacteria to the "re-evolved" flagellum and to the RNA-mediated cell type differentiation of white-throated sparrows via amino acid substitutions and chromosomal rearrangements.

No mutations, no evolution, just facts about biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent protein folding chemistry that link ecological variation to ecological adaptations in all living genera.

It's time to watch these parodies again:
https://www.youtu...youtu.be
https://www.youtu...I6rtIgn0
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2015
All this to avoid answering the question about the "re-evolved' bacterial flagellum over-the-weekend?

@JVK

Just because you fail at comprehension doesn't mean the rest of us suffer with your problem and your delusions.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 29, 2015
See also:
In gene networks, it's location, location, location http://www.santaf...ocation/

Excerpt: "...knowing gene distribution in a molecular network, rather than just the statistics of gene expression, is crucial in understanding adaptations."

My comment: This statement repeats the claims from our 1996 review and places them directly into the context of links from energy-dependent base pair changes that lead to RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation via the conserved molecular mechanisms of protein folding chemistry in all living genera.

The links from ecological variation to ecological adaptations have never included mutations and natural selection in the context of pseudoscientific nonsense touted by neo-Darwinian theorists. Mutations are not linked to adaptaitons; they are linked from virus-driven genomic entropy to pathology.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 29, 2015
See also: http://www.the-sc...ewiring/ -- with my comments about the re-evolved bacterial flagellum.

Ecological variation was linked to ecological adaptation in 4 days, and it was reported as if two mutations led to the re-evolution of what theorists claim is akin to the evolution of the eye.

Just because you fail at comprehension doesn't mean the rest of us suffer with your problem and your delusions.


No one except morons here, is there?

indio007
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2015
Does this mean there might not be any mitochondrial "Eve" due to paternal leakage?
JVK
Oct 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bulbuzor
2.4 / 5 (17) Oct 30, 2015
Thanks for asking, "indio007"

Your question is the answer to my question. Obviously, you are intelligent enough to ask an extremely pertinent question that could readily lead to answers about how nutrient-dependent sex differences in cell types arose at the advent of sexual reproduction in yeasts.


You did not answer him.

Attacks that denigrate the works of all serious scientists and limit discussion on the creation of cell type differences could be eliminated.


The only one I see attacking others here is you. For the record, you give a bad press to all the religious folks in this world. I had quite a few discussions with creationists (in real life) and those discussions always had a respectful tone unlike the fools we hear on Fox News and the people we read on the internet. I recommend to all scientifically-literate people to, when accosted by someone on the street to talk about faith and co, to actually stop and sit for a chat. -- to be continued --
Bulbuzor
2.6 / 5 (17) Oct 30, 2015
--continued--

Politely confronting his views, deconstructing his arguments (per se evolution, bringing out all of the arguments we know). Even tho you will both go home with the same convictions, it is very interesting to see him think about it and sometimes clearly realizing he didn't hold the truth. It is deeply satisfy to seed a growing doubt in a fogged mind.

Back to the point tho, for the sake of the argument and because I am not sure what your actual theory is, please, write down in a single (or two) sentence(s) your theory on how evolution occurs, on what drove the undeniable evolution FROM the single first self-duplicating organism to the world we observe and cherish today with all it's life form diversity.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2015
@Bulbuzor

Earlier today JVK wrote: "the fact that final causes, design, and purpose exist in nature in the context of creation, not neo-Darwinism."

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

JVK is one of those that think teaching evolution is the devils spawn.
Bulbuzor
2.4 / 5 (17) Oct 30, 2015

Earlier today JVK wrote: "the fact that final causes, design, and purpose exist in nature in the context of creation, not neo-Darwinism."

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

JVK is one of those that think teaching evolution is the devils spawn.


Oh so Kohl is actually a researcher, tho it seems we are not the only ones who think his ideas are wrong: http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

There is no mention at all of any biochemical pathways or enzymes that are involved in 'nutrient-dependent, pheromone-controlled' nucleotide or amino acid substitutions, so how changes in the DNA sequence are made in his model are entirely unexplained. However, Kohl heavily implies, without directly stating, that alternative splicing (the only mechanism he does specifically mention) is responsible for genetic diversity, which is false because splicing does not have the capability to make changes to the genome itself.


Awtch
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 30, 2015
@Bulbzor

No, Kohl is not a researcher. He's a retired medical lab tech that was a co-author of a couple of papers. He also sells a pseudo science based "perfume". What he really does is misread papers of real scientists and claim they support his young earth creationism.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2015
See also: Wimps or warriors? Honey bee larvae absorb the social culture of the hive, study finds http://phys.org/n...vae.html

The book and a series of review articles linked everything currently known about nutrient-dependent biophysically constrained RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry to cell type differentiation and the stability of organized genomes in species from microbes to man via the immune system, which links atoms to ecosystems via protection from virus-driven genomic entropy as exemplified in the context of supercoiled DNA.

See this pardody (you morons1): https://www.youtu...youtu.be All About that Base (Meghan Trainor Parody)

I had quite a few discussions with creationists (in real life) and those discussions always had a respectful tone unlike the fools...


I prefer Richard Dawkins approach, so that people have a way to compare it to the approach of serious scientists.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2015
I claim that the real idiots are idiots and anyone who disagrees need only offer an alternative model for comparison. That's what Dr Z.'s lab at Baylor did and so did Susan Rosenberg's lab -- also at Baylor. See, for example: Combating Evolution to Fight Disease http://www.scienc...88.short

See also: https://www.youtu...gISBuDVU

At the end of the parody from Dr. Z's lab they politely call Neil de Grasse Tyson a "big ass" based on the representations in the Meghan Trainor video.

Rosenberg may or may not be so polite with regard to Tyson. But she appears to think, like I do, that anyone who thinks Richard Dawkins is biologically informed is also likely to be a biologically uninformed science idiot.

I'm not inclined to be polite to those who have been killing our loved ones or causing their needless suffering during the past few decades in which pseudoscientific nonsense became mainstream science.

Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 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...88.short

It's been pointed out to Kohl repeatedly his lack of reading comprehension, especially his use of this link. He still doesn't get it.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2015
He's a retired medical lab tech that was a co-author of a couple of papers.


This is the kind of blatant claim that can be immediately be shoved where it belongs -- deep inside Steven Taylor (aka Vietvet)

See: https://scholar.g...as_sdtp=

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

I have published two editions of a book, two award-winning reviews (one that was concurrently published as a book chapter in the Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality) and other reviews. I have presented my works at conferences since 1992, and in 2013 presented this: Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524 before submitting this invited review of nutritional epigenetics. http://figshare.c...s/994281
JVK
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2015
It's been pointed out to Kohl repeatedly his lack of reading comprehension, especially his use of this link. He still doesn't get it.


Steven Taylor (aka Vietvet) doesn't get it.

"Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" links the Rosenberg lab's works to Dr Z's lab's works in the context of everything currently known to serious scientists about biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry and the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to humans.

If it is not painfully clear to you by now that biologically uninformed science idiots are denigrating the works of ALL serious scientists in this forum, you and your loved ones will pay for the ignorance of the biologically uninformed with your loss of health -- gradually or suddenly.

In either case, your loss of health will be caused by virus-driven genomic entropy, and biologically uninformed evolutionary theorists (the real killers).
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (19) Oct 30, 2015
If it is not painfully clear to you by now that biologically uninformed science idiots are denigrating the works of ALL serious scientists in this forum, you and your loved ones will pay for the ignorance of the biologically uninformed with your loss of health -- gradually or suddenly.


Skippy, the serious scientists do not come here much for serious stuffs. They got better places to go for that. They come here mostly to have big fun with peoples like you.

In either case, your loss of health will be caused by virus-driven genomic entropy, and biologically uninformed evolutionary theorists (the real killers).


Hooyeei, you are on the roll now Skippy. Laissez les bons temps rouler. (That is coonass for: "Podna, you Skippys with the mental conditions sure do say some really weird stuffs while you are pretending to be scientists".)

Kron
1 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2015
Still a chicken. Just bred for size. Side note, law of biogenesis states that living things come only from other living things. This is evidenced. As to this date there has never been any experimental evidence to support abiogenesis, life arising from non-living matter(other than tests later falsified).

Why is abiogenesis held to such esteem? Has it to do with a problem with infinities? Panspermia and an eternal universe seem more plausible, has it to do with the human subjective experience, such that we are born and die so we assign those same characteristics to the world at large?
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2015
Panspermia still leaves the issue of how and where and when the panspermian life developed before coming to earth.
What evidence do you have for an eternal universe? Infinities has nothing to do with it.
Kron
1 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2015
"Panspermia still leaves the issue of how and where and when the panspermian life developed before coming to earth."
Point was that life never had an origin, that it always was.
"What evidence do you have for an eternal universe?"
That the universe is here now, and that no evidence exists that at any time in the past it wasn't.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2015
If the universe has always been and has been panspermian all over why don't we see life all over the place? Where did it start its spread from?

So your evidence is that their is no evidence against it? (Which is wrong but for the sake of argument I'll go along with it.
Show me evidence its eternal and is a better fit to current observations. If you are correct it shouldn't be hard to do.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2015
Still a chicken. Just bred for size.


A local breeder markets eggs that yield 75% males (larger size). That suggests they have done something to alter the RNA-mediated differentiation of sex differences in cell types.

Does anyone know about the biological systems complexity that they must address via breeding or whatever else they did to alter the sex ratio?
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2015
If life and the planets and the universe have always been why is it more likely it came from somewhere vs it always being here?
JVK
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 31, 2015
"In either case, your loss of health will be caused by virus-driven genomic entropy, and biologically uninformed evolutionary theorists (the real killers)."

Hooyeei, you are on the roll now Skippy.


How many people will suffer and/or die during the next 5-10 years because of the irresponsible nonsense you contribute here? Will any of them be your loved ones?

You MORON.

https://youtu.be/yGYTLOGZ40U
https://www.youtu...G_9EEeeA

Keep pretending this is all fun and games for you, but remember what you've done to contribute to suffering and death when your time comes to deal with it seriously.

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2015
Attacks that denigrate the works of all serious scientists
@jk
you are the one who attacks actual science here, along with the other religious nutters verkle, returners, ren82 etc, so you better reign that argument in, because we can directly quote your posts where you denigrate Lenski, Extavour, Whittaker and about 30 other scientists
This is the kind of blatant claim that can be immediately be shoved where it belongs
not really. you have been proven to be a chronic liar here, so it is a valid assessment fo your abilities, especially considering your support of creationist dogma and your abject failure to actually prove human pheromones exist:
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

...Vietvet) doesn't get it
actually, you are the only one misinterpreting that study and making a total fool if themselves here

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2015
@jk cont'd
you and your loved ones will pay for the ignorance of the biologically uninformed with your loss of health -- gradually or suddenly
so, you can't actually make us believe in creationist literature and dogma so you will threaten us with terroristic fanaticism?

the point above re: your link to "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" at Science Mag is simple: just by Vietvet's quote alone you are demonstrated to be a lying idiot who is illiterate or doesn't actually comprehend what was being discussed in the link...

but it goes deeper: the title is NOT demonstrative of your beliefs, despite your belief that it is. and you have no empirical evidence supporting your beliefs.

so stop threatening people with your diatribes like above and this
How many people will suffer and/or die during the next 5-10 year
because the ONLY think threatening science is people like you spreading religion over logic

reported
JVK
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 31, 2015
Your ignorance is the threat.

https://www.youtu...0le52U20 Greg Bear at the Center for Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology at the University of Texas at Dallas, February 27th, 2013.

Ignorance has always been the threat!

http://thedailysh...reg-bear Jon Stewart interviews Greg Bear

Ignorance of biologically-based cause and effect will always be the threat.

reported


Why do you continue to report your ignorance? Who are you reporting it to? How can they not already know how ignorant you are?

Everyone else who is not a biologically uninformed science idiot knows.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2015
Your ignorance is the threat
@jk
so, because i prefer EVIDENCE and i follow validated studies that directly refute your claims, i am the threat?

lets talk about ignorance" and threats! you have a model that causes mutations, but when confronted with that, you say it doesn't (arbitrary redefining reality)

then you claim all mutations are deleterious or pathological, despite admitting your own model causes mutations (delusional beliefs about self and evidence)

you use libel to attack reputable and experimentally validated conclusions like Lenski because it directly refutes you (Dunning-Kruger and religious fanaticism)

then you directly support creationist dogma while it's been proven that there is NO science in it (fanatical religious proselytizing)

you have a 100% fail rate interpreting science (conspiracist ideation and religious delusion)

but we are somehow the "ignorant" and the "threat"????

how do you logically conclude this?
where is your evidence?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2015
@jk cnt'd
Everyone else ... knows
you keep making this claim, but every time we turn around, biologists are actually refuting you and demonstrating you are the only one who is ignorant or doesn't comprehend the science!
Why do you continue to report your ignorance?
what makes you think this?

is this your narcissistic delusional defense mechanism again?
fragile brittle ego? read more here: https://www.psych...ttle-ego

hyper-vigilant against attacks, challenges, feedback or questions. We get prickly and rigid, insistent that we're on top of things, precisely because we're not. To those around us it can look like the height of arrogance but it's actually vulnerability. We don't think more of ourselves, but less and are grasping for the self-certainty we've lost
is this your way of life? because it is demonstrated here daily!

thanks for validating my claims about you
JVK
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 31, 2015
biologists are actually refuting you and demonstrating you are the only one who is ignorant or doesn't comprehend the science!


See: Mechanisms of stress in the brain http://www.nature...086.html
Abstract excerpt: " ...a continually changing pattern of gene expression mediated by epigenetic mechanisms involving histone modifications and CpG methylation and hydroxymethylation as well as by the activity of retrotransposons that may alter genomic stability."

Compare it to: Somatic mutation in single human neurons tracks developmental and transcriptional history http://www.scienc...abstract

Abstract excerpt: "These forces have the potential to induce somatic mutations throughout the life of a neuron, and they may contribute to normal aging and neurodegenerative disease (3)."

Obviously, if you claim "the force" is with you, your brain is not aging normally. Wipe that drool off your chin!
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2015
Compare it to: Somatic mutation in single human neurons...
obviously you failed to read the study
Individualized neuronal mutations in the human brain
The neurons of the human brain can last for decades, carrying out computational and signaling functions. Lodato et al. analyzed the DNA of individual neurons sampled from postmortem human brains and found that individual neurons acquired somatic mutations (see the Perspective by Linnarsson). The mechanism of mutation involved gene transcription rather than DNA replication. Thus, postmitotic neurons would seem to be their own worst enemy: Genes used for neuronal function are the very genes put most at risk of somatic mutation.
from the editors summary here: http://www.scienc.../94.full

per your own demonstration: you don't comprehend the science
thanks for validating my claims about you
https://www.psych...ttle-ego
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2015
@jk cont'd
more on your above failure
Every cell of your body was generated by cell division, forming a lineage tree that goes back to the fertilized egg. Mutations are introduced by errors in DNA replication at every cell division, as well as by mutational processes that operate continuously, such as exposure to ultraviolet light. As a consequence, every cell may have its own unique genome, with potentially distinct gains and losses of function. Furthermore, these mutations create a record of the developmental ancestry of each cell, which can be used to reconstruct their lineage tree. Now, on page 94 of this issue, Lodato et al. use single-cell whole-genome sequencing to show these processes at work in the human brain (1). This is important because many unresolved questions in human biology and medicine are in fact questions about the human cell lineage tree in development and disease (2).
http://www.scienc.../6256/37

shall we continue?
BartV
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2015
I am amazed that some scientists cannot gentlemanly debate evolution-related topics without resorting to name-calling. It has truly become a hostile world!

JVK
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 01, 2015
...scientists cannot gentlemanly debate evolution-related topics without resorting to name-calling.


The problem is the lack of debate. When I cite "re-evolution" of the bacterial flagellum in 4 days, the claims that mutations and evolution are the cause are simply reasserted as if that was even a possibility that serious scientists might consider.

Stumpy-nut cuts and pastes "Every cell of your body was generated by cell division, forming a lineage tree that goes back to the fertilized egg."

I co-authored From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html

Everything that occurs "From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior" is RNA-mediated and the RNA-mediated events are nutrient-dependent and controlled by pheromones in species from microbes to humans. Chickens and Lenski's E. coli are no exceptions, and yet the bacterial flagellum re-evolved in 4 days in another species.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 01, 2015
Re: A tree of the human brain
This is important because many unresolved questions in human biology and medicine are in fact questions about the human cell lineage tree in development and disease


Clinically Actionable Genotypes Among 10,000 Patients With Preemptive Pharmacogenomic Testing http://www.medsca...24253661

My model links atoms to ecosystems in the context of nutritional epigenetics and pharmacogenomics.

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2015
My model links atoms to ecosystems
but you yourself just said that your model is absolutely fraudulent as well, here: http://phys.org/n...yme.html

you state
Mutations perturb protein biosynthesis and degradation
therefore, per your own words, your model cannot be accepted as factual
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
you can find your own words here: http://phys.org/n...lts.html

therefore, per your own words, you are perpetrating a fraud and promoting pseudoscience with religious overtones

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2015
@jk cont'd
I co-authored
and i've co-authored far more, including CFR's
so what?
Stumpy...cuts and pastes
as well as MORE from the study, which refutes your claims WRT your religion and model (and more)

also note WRT your "model" -

it is a model of adaptation, which is already included and covered in the Theory of Evolution... this means it is already known and modeled, despite jk's claims to the contrary

See also (mechanisms and outcomes): https://en.wikipe...volution

or see: https://en.wikipe...aptation

so jk's continued efforts to portray his "model" as something original (or even as a model that refutes Evolution) is farcical at best, but outright pseudoscience as well as fraud

quit posting pseudoscience
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (17) Nov 01, 2015
I am amazed that some scientists cannot gentlemanly debate evolution-related topics without resorting to name-calling. It has truly become a hostile world!



Bart-Skippy. You should read up on the history of science like I have been doing since I got interested in all this stuff by accident when I first came here. It is not nothing new the arguing and name calling. You just notice it more here because you got some really stupid pretend scientists saying extra stupid stuffs all concentrated in one spot.

Hooyeei, if you want to read some good insulting going on, you should read the biography of Thomas-Huxley-Skippy. He was the best at that when it came to dealing with idiots like never did see. They called him Darwin's Bulldog for a reason. That is the name of the book I read about him, "Darwin's Bulldog"
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (17) Nov 01, 2015
P.S. for you Bart-Skippy. If you want to read some real insulting going on, you should look for john-pringle-Skippy's postums. He thinks is a great scientifical thinker, but his real talent is calling peoples stupid names thinking that makes his science stuffs smarter.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Check out glam-Skippy's stuffs. He likes to call people names and insult too, and he calls that "debating the technical issues".
JVK
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 01, 2015
"...any given neuron in the prefrontal cortex was more closely related to a cardiomyocyte than to 75% of its neighboring neurons." http://www.scienc...37.short -- A tree of the human brain

The tree links nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions from circulating microRNAs to repair of DNA damage that would otherwise be linked to virus-driven genomic entropy in different cell types of different tissues and different organs of different organ systems that collectively integrate what is currently known about hetrochronic parabiosis and the work of Christ et al (2013) on "The Pharmacology of Regenerative Medicine" http://www.ncbi.n...3698935/

There is no need to believe in Christ et al., because all serious scientists have reported cause and effect in the same way. See Kohl (2013) From ion channel to organismic phenotype: An example of integrative translational research into cardiac electromechanics
Zzzzzzzz
3 / 5 (16) Nov 02, 2015
Sorry, Returners, JVK, and the like - you are the sad fools. The sad delusional fools. Searching desperately for and rushing excitedly toward the slightest possibility for defending your delusion. Your delusion indeed requires vigorous defense - it falls apart completely when exposed to logic or reason, and disappears like a light fog in the light of day.
Zzzzzzzz
3 / 5 (16) Nov 02, 2015
JVK - if you actually took money for writing a book about evolution, you should be prosecuted for running a con.
JVK
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2015
See Kohl (2013) From ion channel to organismic phenotype: An example of integrative translational research into cardiac electromechanics http://www.heartr...abstract

See also: Researchers reach 'paradigm shift' in understanding potassium channels http://medicalxpr...els.html

if you actually took money for writing a book about evolution


My book linked ecological variation to ecological adaptations from atoms to ecosystems via what is now known to link nutrient-dependent microRNAs to cell adhesion proteins that protect organized genomes from virus-driven genomic entropy by enabling the molecular mechanisms linked to supercoiled DNA that were revealed by the genome sequencing of the octopus.

Who's conning who is revealed in this parody:
https://www.youtu...youtu.be All About that Base (Meghan Trainor Parody)
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2015
nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions from circulating microRNAs to repair of DNA damage


What is it you think miRNAs do? They are certainly not involved in DNA repair. They silence mRNAs.
JVK
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2015
How did the bacterial flagellum re-evolve in the absence of nutrient-dependent microRNA-mediated DNA repair, YOU FOOL!

Stop telling others what you think does not occur, and explain why you think "re-evolution" of the bacterial flagellum occurs in 4 days without controlled microRNA-mediated DNA repair.

Serious scientists know why you think evolution occurs. They know you are a biologically uninformed science idiot because you were stupid enough to publish: Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/ after I wrote: "...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."
JVK
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2015
Re:
...exposure to nutrient chemicals and pheromones can now be modeled in the context of the microRNA/messenger RNA balance..."


The anonymous fool (aka Andrew Jones, who claims to be teaching biology at a community college) asks: "What is it you think miRNAs do?"

Thanks for asking.

They help to deliver the energy required to protect supercoiled DNA from virus-driven genomic entropy, you moron.

Doesn't every intelligent biologist who is still living on this planet know that?

Why didn't you include any statements about what microRNAs do not do in your criticisms of my review? Why are you now claiming "They are certainly not involved in DNA repair."

What kind of biologically uninformed scientist idiot makes that claim after the claims I made in my review have been validated by everything published by serious scientists since Jun 14, 2013?
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2015

What kind of biologically uninformed scientist idiot makes that claim after the claims I made in my review have been validated by everything published by serious scientists since Jun 14, 2013?


LMFAO!

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2015
after the claims I made in my review have been validated by everything published by serious scientists since Jun 14, 2013
ROTFLMFAO

for starters:
if your claims were "validated", then why is there no "robust bioassay-led evidence for the
widely published claims that four steroid molecules are human pheromones" as noted here: http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

for two:
if your claims are "validated" why can't you actually prove it with study and then validation thru second party experimentation?

Please note that you have never ONCE been able to actually do this WRT any single thing you have published here on PO

lastly:
if you are "validated", why is it you continue to post creationist literature, when it is KNOWN to be false? (not by conjecture, but VALIDATED - it is a fact, known by everyone but, apparently, you)

just wondering, mensa-girl
JVK
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2015
They help to deliver the energy required to protect supercoiled DNA from virus-driven genomic entropy, you moron.


The pathways that link atoms to ecosystems via base pair flipping and RNA-mediated events that protect organized genomes from virus-driven genomic entropy manifested in pathology have been well-detailed.

http://bfg.oxford...050.long

http://www.pnas.o...120.full "Our findings on the critical role of Tet3-mediated redistribution of 5-hmC in the adult brain provide the foundation for future studies on this interesting mode of epigenetic regulation and highlight the importance of examining the full repertoire of DNA base modifications across brain regions to elucidate how epigenetic states are established in response to different forms of learning."

"Learn or become extinct" predicts the future of all species and biologically uninformed science idiots refuse to learn.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2015
nutrient-dependent microRNA-mediated DNA repair


All somebody has to do is search for "miRNA function" to figure out that's nonsense. They're not involved in DNA repair unless you have some groundbreaking researching demonstrating otherwise.

Here's a comprehensive paper describing what they do:
https://www.ncbi....3425779/

More information with citations here:
https://en.wikipe...unctions

Andrew Jones, who claims to be teaching biology at a community college


Once again, you're a hypocrite putting words in my mouth. Where did I claim that?

They help to deliver the energy required to protect supercoiled DNA from virus-driven genomic entropy


They deliver energy like A/GTP or creatine? Citation needed.
AGreatWhopper
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2015
God, I hate Christians.

Any that think they're just harmless nut cases need to look at Marco Rubio. Establishment money is thinking about him as a safe place to flee from Baby Bush, so he's not a fringe element. He actually supports and has worked to implement felony murder investigations for women that have miscarriages. Just think about that. You lose a baby and the cops come knocking at your door treating you as a murder suspect. Pure Jeebus Taliban, he wants nothing less than xtian sharia. I hope he's elected. You'll have to put a cop in every church. People will finally stand up to this lot of luddites and their union of corporate/state interests fascism, underpinned by hypocrisy and bone deep anti-intellectualism.

jim_xanara
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2015
I picked my avatar especially for JVK. Rednecks should really love that. Their two favorite things: Jesus and screwing yourself.
jljenkins
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2015
never faster than about 2% per million years


You can't be serious. Shouldn't that be expressed as percent per x number of generations? Chickens get through a lot more generations than we do, per unit of time. I did my genealogy back to 16 generations, and that's about 1500. I did my cat's back 16 generations, and that's 1980. Speaking of cats, in the Mao breed you can see that the rate is faster comparing mummified Egyptian cats and contemporary Maos. They nearly became extinct in the 1950s due to lack of genetic variation until an India Mao was discovered (living under the rhinoceros cage at the Delhi zoo) that resurrected the breed. The cat (Toby/Tory of Delhi) was also one of the foundation cats of the Bengal breed. But I think that demonstrates the inadequacy of the measure as stated.
AGreatWhopper
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2015
The word translated "Whale" in the Biblical creation story is "Tanniym" which is better translated as a "Great monster" (land or sea) or as a "(sea)serpent or dragon".


Quit quoting derivative sources you don't understand about things you can't research. Go learn Hebrew. The word is הַדָּגָה, which means...drum roll..."fish". Where the hell do you get "great serpent" or great anything??? It's just fish. What's with the transliteration crap? If you can't write it, you don't understand it, stop quoting it.

Looks a lot like giant reptilians and dinosaurs to me.


And you look like a horses ass to me, but I'm not going to slap a saddle on you.

Julian Penrod klaxon! Find a Catholic church to urinate in.
JVK
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2015
Chickens get through a lot more generations than we do, per unit of time.


So do bacteria that re-evolve their flagellum over-the-weekend. Are you serious about being able to understand any aspect of ecological adaptation based on ridiculous theories invented by neo-Darwinists?

I picked my avatar especially for JVK.


Great. Obviously, it's not possible for you to learn anything about biologically based cause and effect so you might as well continue to make a fool of yourself.
JVK
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2015
God, I hate Christians.


I love people who make such claims but can't explain anything about how the bacterial flagellum re-evolved over-the-weekend. The claims of the biologically uninformed continue to be viewed in the context of Ben Carson's campaign slogan, and the science idiots here will help the citizens of the US elect a Christian president who is not afraid to declare his beliefs.
JVK
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2015
RE: MicroRNAs

The anonymous fool (aka Andrew Jones; aka anonymous_9001) claims

They're not involved in DNA repair unless you have some groundbreaking researching demonstrating otherwise.


Research that extends back 10-15 years has linked all aspects of cell type differentiation from nutrient-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance to all biomass and all biodiversity via the conserved molecular mechanisms we detailed in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review. From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html

Citation needed.


There were more than 20,000 last time I checked.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2015
Research that extends back 10-15 years has linked all aspects of cell type differentiation from nutrient-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance to all biomass and all biodiversity via the conserved molecular mechanisms we detailed in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review.


That says absolutely nothing about the alleged role of miRNAs in DNA repair. If you have something more specific and relevant, post it. miRNAs certainly do affect cell differentiation through mRNA silencing and other means of transcription alteration, as the link I posted points out, but nothing suggests it has anything to do with DNA repair.

What role does miRNA supposedly play? Is it used as a template? What enzymes manipulate it during the repair process and what do they do with it?

There were more than 20,000 last time I checked.


That's not a citation demonstrating that miRNAs are used as an energy carrier.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2015
Tell me what you know about how cell type differentiation occurs and I may be able to provide a citation. Alternatively, read my invited review of nutritional epigenetics, since there are many citations to be found there, as in my published works.

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

Abstract excerpt: "This atoms to ecosystems model of ecological adaptations links nutrient-dependent epigenetic effects on base pairs and amino acid substitutions to pheromone-controlled changes in the microRNA / messenger RNA balance and chromosomal rearrangements. The nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled changes are required for the thermodynamic regulation of intracellular signaling, which enables biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent protein folding; experience-dependent receptor-mediated behaviors..."
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2015
Re:
What role does miRNA supposedly play? Is it used as a template? What enzymes manipulate it during the repair process and what do they do with it?


What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot asks me for more details after claiming that my last published review was sloppy and that "It was a mistake to let such a sloppy review through to be published."

See also: The virome, microbiome, replisome and supercoiled DNA
http://rna-mediat...led-dna/

anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2015
Alternatively, read my invited review...


Searched for an excerpt on miRNAs being used for DNA repair and found nothing. Try again.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2015
I picked my avatar especially for JVK
@Jim_X
whereas this really is NOT appropriate for a science site... it DID make me laugh my butt off

.

I love people who make such claims but can't explain anything about how the bacterial flagellum re-evolved over-the-weekend
@jk
there is NO LINK between farcical or satirical depictions of religion and your inability to comprehend a study...
there IS, however, a direct correlation between accepting and being fanatically dedicated to a religion and the refusal to accept known scientific advancements:
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

this study i linked is directly validated every time you ignore science and try to post your religions BS... like your quote above
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2015
rna-mediat...led-dna/
PHISHING PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE
this site contains RELIGIOUS as well as other PSEUDOSCIENCE information
it is also personally owned by you and is used to collect personal information about people visiting the site
it is more of a fanatical religious BLOG trying to tie science and religion together than actually truthfully represent science

reported

for everyone else: if you want to peruse the site, i suggest using the following link
http://proxy2974....oxy.php?

you can copy his link and paste it into the address location:
BEWARE: this is NOT a guaranteed protection for your computer!!!!
it will only anonymize you and reduce the risk somewhat

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.