Life on Earth likely started 4.1 billion years ago—much earlier than scientists thought

October 19, 2015
Mark Harrison at UCLA. Credit: Reed Hutchinson/UCLA

UCLA geochemists have found evidence that life likely existed on Earth at least 4.1 billion years ago—300 million years earlier than previous research suggested. The discovery indicates that life may have begun shortly after the planet formed 4.54 billion years ago.

The research is published today in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Twenty years ago, this would have been heretical; finding evidence of 3.8 billion years ago was shocking," said Mark Harrison, co-author of the research and a professor of geochemistry at UCLA.

"Life on Earth may have started almost instantaneously," added Harrison, a member of the National Academy of Sciences. "With the right ingredients, life seems to form very quickly."

The new research suggests that life existed prior to the massive bombardment of the inner solar system that formed the moon's large craters 3.9 billion years ago.

"If all life on Earth died during this bombardment, which some scientists have argued, then life must have restarted quickly," said Patrick Boehnke, a co-author of the research and a graduate student in Harrison's laboratory.

Scientists had long believed the Earth was dry and desolate during that time period. Harrison's research—including a 2008 study in Nature he co-authored with Craig Manning, a professor of geology and geochemistry at UCLA, and former UCLA graduate student Michelle Hopkins—is proving otherwise.

"The early Earth certainly wasn't a hellish, dry, boiling planet; we see absolutely no evidence for that," Harrison said. "The planet was probably much more like it is today than previously thought."

The researchers, led by Elizabeth Bell—a postdoctoral scholar in Harrison's laboratory—studied more than 10,000 zircons originally formed from molten rocks, or magmas, from Western Australia. Zircons are heavy, durable minerals related to the synthetic cubic zirconium used for imitation diamonds. They capture and preserve their immediate environment, meaning they can serve as time capsules.

The scientists identified 656 zircons containing dark specks that could be revealing and closely analyzed 79 of them with Raman spectroscopy, a technique that shows the molecular and chemical structure of ancient microorganisms in three dimensions.

Bell and Boehnke, who have pioneered chemical and mineralogical tests to determine the condition of ancient zircons, were searching for carbon, the key component for life.

One of the 79 zircons contained graphite—pure carbon—in two locations.

"The first time that the graphite ever got exposed in the last 4.1 billion years is when Beth Ann and Patrick made the measurements this year," Harrison said.

How confident are they that their zircon represents 4.1 billion-year-old graphite?

"Very confident," Harrison said. "There is no better case of a primary inclusion in a mineral ever documented, and nobody has offered a plausible alternative explanation for graphite of non-biological origin into a zircon."

The graphite is older than the zircon containing it, the researchers said. They know the zircon is 4.1 billion years old, based on its ratio of uranium to lead; they don't know how much older the graphite is.

The research suggests life in the universe could be abundant, Harrison said. On Earth, simple life appears to have formed quickly, but it likely took many millions of years for very simple life to evolve the ability to photosynthesize.

The carbon contained in the zircon has a characteristic signature—a specific ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13—that indicates the presence of photosynthetic life.

"We need to think differently about the early Earth," Bell said.

Explore further: Study questions dates for cataclysms on early moon, Earth

More information: Potentially biogenic carbon preserved in a 4.1 billion-year-old zircon, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1517557112

Related Stories

Study questions dates for cataclysms on early moon, Earth

October 16, 2015

Phenomenally durable crystals called zircons are used to date some of the earliest and most dramatic cataclysms of the solar system. One is the super-duty collision that ejected material from Earth to form the moon roughly ...

Oldest bit of crust firms up idea of a cool early Earth

February 23, 2014

With the help of a tiny fragment of zircon extracted from a remote rock outcrop in Australia, the picture of how our planet became habitable to life about 4.4 billion years ago is coming into sharper focus.

Early Earth less hellish than previously thought

September 15, 2014

Conditions on Earth for the first 500 million years after it formed may have been surprisingly similar to the present day, complete with oceans, continents and active crustal plates.

Recommended for you

Sunlight stimulates microbial respiration of organic carbon

October 17, 2017

Sunlight and microbes interact to degrade dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in surface waters, but scientists cannot currently predict the rate and extent of this degradation in either dark or light conditions. A recent study ...

New study finds nature is vital to beating climate change

October 16, 2017

Better stewardship of the land could have a bigger role in fighting climate change than previously thought, according to the most comprehensive assessment to date of how greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced and stored ...

Waves in lakes make waves in the Earth

October 16, 2017

Beneath the peaceful rolling waves of a lake is a rumble, imperceptible to all but seismometers, that ripples into the earth like the waves ripple along the shore.

91 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Returners
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 19, 2015
"The early Earth certainly wasn't a hellish, dry, boiling planet; we see absolutely no evidence for that," Harrison said. "The planet was probably much more like it is today than previously thought."


The early Earth was a Water World, like pretty much every other object in the solar system. The dry land appeared later.

The "hot, dry magma ball from accretion" theory obviously never held water; pun intended.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (16) Oct 19, 2015
This is the paleontological "WOW" signal! The size of the inclusions matches sediment captured prokaryotes, even though the paper doesn't go into it. [ http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf ]

That paper is also characteristically low spoken, several inclusions in one crystal do not a robust record make. But of course it is rather extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim, since they can exclude all other potential candidates. "Abiotic processes that could produce light δ13C during the Hadean include Fischer–Tropsch mechanisms (25) and carbon isotopic fractionation by diffusion (26), incorporation of meteoritic (ranging from +68‰ to −60‰ δ13C) materials, mid-ocean ridge basalt degassing (27), and high-temperature disproportionation of siderite (28)."

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (15) Oct 19, 2015
[ctd]

So, numbers. < 5 % of Jack Hill zircons is from the old subducted crust of interest, and of 10000 such zircons there was 1 carbon-bearing without fractures. (That is far lower than the 4 % diamond inclusion false positives seen earlier.) "... establishing a Hadean carbon cycle and its possible bearing on the origin of life will require enormous and sustained efforts."
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (13) Oct 19, 2015
It is brilliant, hair-raising work. You must wonder if the 'Late Heavy Bombardment' was sufficiently drawn out to permit sufficient global healing between strikes. Or, like the multi-coloured 'scum' in the Yellowstone and other hot springs, 'life found a way'...

That factor of the Drake Equation is up in the air again.
verkle
Oct 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JVK
Oct 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
onetwobulb
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 19, 2015
Fascinating.

However, this would not have been seen as 'heretical' 20 years ago, nor 40 years ago when I started in paleontology.

We just didn't have evidence but were not close minded to evidence being produced.
Jayman
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2015
I get the feeling that we are still way off the mark on how long we think life has been around for. If you consider evolution and the complexities it had to overcome, 4 billion years seems too short a time. I would have presumed that evolving an eye for example would have taken many billions of years given its complexity. It might be tempting to attribute it to "intelligent design" but that is even more ludicrous.
Returners
Oct 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
matt_s
4.2 / 5 (20) Oct 19, 2015
Returners with another completely junk response, per usual. Do you actually think you're contributing or actually have any kind of insight? Literally some of the dumbest stuff I've ever read.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 19, 2015
Returners with another completely junk response, per usual. Do you actually think you're contributing or actually have any kind of insight? Literally some of the dumbest stuff I've ever read.

He must be drinking something other than Crown Royal...
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (17) Oct 20, 2015
I knew this article would rise the ire of the young earth creationists. JVK, Returners, and verkle got their panties in a bunch.
verkle
Oct 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
verkle
Oct 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
yep
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 20, 2015
Only via the sensationalism of pseudoscientists doee "Potentially biogenic carbon preserved in a 4.1 billion-year-old zircon" become "Life on Earth likely started 4.1 billion years ago—much earlier than scientists thought"

Theoretical physicists don't mention "re-evolution" of the bacterial flagellum over the weekend or no change during ~2 billion years in bacteria living in ocean sediments. Evolutionary theorists don't link theoretical physics to chemistry or to biologically-based differences in cell types. But, in the world of pseudoscientific nonsense anything goes, and is reported in terms of emergence and mutation-driven evolution outside the context of everything required to link atoms to ecosystems.

Sometimes I'm not sure what your trying to say. These findings posted in January seem to say a lot of change is and has occurred with bacteria in ocean sediments.
https://www.newsc...enes-on/
Osiris1
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2015
Think life got here soon as the planet cooled so some bare solid crust below 200 deg F existed, and stayed even after that planetary collision...some of it at least. Good luck finding remnants of that original crust unless some is on the moon somewhere.. ON Earth likely subducted long long ago. We have found that water litters the universe. WE will find, maybe to some regret if we get sick with it, that life litters the universe as well. Think our Neshamas....souls.... came here courtesy of visitors on a mission to spread the faith in our God, and gave us the capacity to hold cells of God....our souls. That we also got functional bodies to carry out technical tasks helped as well. Duplicating the voice gene, shared with chimps, four times gave us ability to talk to each other. We will find that this humanoid form also will be found many places. Some of the other possessors of this morphology have already been here. Some work for us in Nevada. Maybe some even draw pensions.
my2cts
3.9 / 5 (14) Oct 20, 2015
This article doesn't raise my ire one bit. In only confirms what I have believed. It makes a lot of sense to me. Maybe not to you?

Now I am starting to mistrust the results.
my2cts
4 / 5 (16) Oct 20, 2015
"Life" could have existed billions and trillions of years ago. I believe it has.
"Human Life" has had a beginning, and this article is more related to that part of life.


Ach so. You have your own definition of life. There are two kinds of life.
Life and verkle life. Now I have a question.
Could second type of life have to do with your delusion instead of the content of the article?
I thought so.
Please make this clear next time at the beginning of your post.
my2cts
3.9 / 5 (18) Oct 20, 2015
Returners you did not have to stress that you are a potentially dangerous nut.
But thanks anyway.
jljenkins
3.4 / 5 (17) Oct 20, 2015
These comments pretty much prove that those that claim that the site is paid to never delete conservative trolling are accurate. I can think of not one science site on the planet that allows the same exact cut and paste spam from young earthers on ever story that involves carbon dating. Could you imagine a reputable astronomy site allowing a "we never landed on the moon" Georgia red neck post the same spammy crap every time they mention the moon? It just doesn't happen. JVK can only be understood in terms of no moderation- which we know is not the case- or that conservative dissent is paid for by conservative interests, most notably energy interests.

JVK's bio and details have been published in the comments here before. He's a convicted paedophile, ferchrisake. I'm moving on to someplace less pimped out. I'm sick and tired of Adblade scammers and saturation trolling on what's supposed to be a serious science site.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 20, 2015
These findings posted in January seem to say a lot of change is and has occurred with bacteria in ocean sediments.


Except when they didn't. http://www.ucmp.b...ofr.html Morphologies in the group have remained much the same for billions of years

JVK's bio and details have been published in the comments here before. He's a convicted paedophile


Your vitriolic nonsense and libelous claims reveal more about you than you seem to know. My bio and details are all over the net, and the first place you will find information about me is via a google search for "RNA mediated"

Here let me help: https://www.googl...mediated

See: http://rna-mediated.com/ "Here you will find information that links physics, chemistry, and molecular epigenetics via RNA-mediated events such as the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes in order to encourage a public discussion of a paradigm shift."

AGreatWhopper
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 20, 2015
Ya think, jlj? Look, here. http://www.thegua...61753296 Hundreds of comments and not one troll left up. lol And have you noticed how the trolls here foam at the mouth if you mention the publication at the link? That's the sad bit. It REALLY pains those sadistic little shits to be ignored. They love your reaction. It's pitiful that those that detest them on here don't have the frustration tolerance and impulse control to ignore them.

At the end of the day I have to think that there are smart trolls and stupid trolls on here. It's pretty much all trolls. Maybe 5% are bona fide discussion comments. We should all that the Koch Foundation for the fact that we have a forum for slinging shit at one another. Adblade fits this site perfectly; don't know what the argument is there.
SuperThunder
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 20, 2015
Did life REALLY start before the invention of disco?

I kid, this is amazing. I hope one day this study includes the universe as a whole, as we find life everywhere.

@jljenkins A lot of sites have shut down their comments sections and I imagine it wont be long before this site does too. There have been some studies showing that having comments on science sites for politically rabid social darwinists to try and destroy the world through actually harms the site's credibility as it becomes basically associated with insanity. It's only a matter of time.
docile
Oct 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2015
Did life REALLY start before the invention of disco?

No. Disco is older than 4.1 bn years.

Or, like the multi-coloured 'scum' in the Yellowstone and other hot springs, 'life found a way'...

I'm wondering: the bombardment only had surface effects. We know that bacteria can survive kilometers deep down. No form of bombardment would eradicate all of those unless it turned the entire crust into slag (and maybe not even then if you think about high altitude atmospheric bacteria which wouldn't care one bit about impacts.)

I can think of not one science site on the planet that allows the same exact cut and paste spam from young earthers on ever story that involves carbon dating.

If you look at the manpower physorg has it's sort of understandable that they don't moderate. (Though I remember that some years ago they did heavily moderate to the point of sending notices for three-word posts, off-topic posts or even using a swear word)
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 20, 2015
You have to laugh at the cranks that show up on a science site and then show how little they care about it by claiming - over and over again - that evolution is "random". [ https://en.wikipe...volution ]

The new find fits phylogenetic dating perfectly, since the first known splits show up before 4,2 billion years ago. [ http://www.timetr.../2/2157? ]

@Nik: "You must wonder if the 'Late Heavy Bombardment' was sufficiently drawn out to permit sufficient global healing between strikes."

Abramov et al makes a good case for that any impactor flow couldn't sterilize globally, since prokaryotes proliferate faster than the local sterilization. [ http://isotope.co...ture.pdf ]

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2015
[ctd]

And that - on the impactor flow - is another thing that the Hadean zircons can teach us.

Cavosie and others do not see the typical impact shock fractures that modern impacts give. The impact flow may have been much less than earlier assumed. "Detrital shocked zircons (Fig. 1) offer enormous potential for determining the timing of early impacts, as shock microstructures are resistant to annealing, and Hadean detrital zircons with ages up to 4.4 Ga are known (Valley et al., 2014). Such zircons would presumably have been shocked if the Late Heavy Bombardment was global; the erosional records of Vredefort and Sudbury show that such grains could reside in younger sedimentary rocks." [ http://geology.gs...463.full ; http://news.wisc.edu/24103 ]
bluehigh
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2015
Though I remember that some years ago they did heavily moderate to the point of sending notices for three-word posts, off-topic posts or even using a swear word.
Anti-Thinking

So Anti-Thinking has been warned. Easy to fix dumbo dribbler. Write more words, stay on topic and don't use profanity. With a bit of effort maybe you can reach through your senility. Then again probably not. Wipe your chin.

JVK
2 / 5 (8) Oct 20, 2015
He's a convicted paedophile...


The moderators are risking a great deal by allowing this comment to remain after I reported it. I'll report it again, to make my case.

The nonsense about the "Late Heavy Bombardment was global; the erosional records of Vredefort and Sudbury..." is relatively harmless, and rather amusing.

2015 Nobel Laureate Arthur McDonald runs the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in Ontario, Canada. I'm no physicist but I think he helped link the sun's biological energy to all the earth's biomass via the link from neutrinos to all the mass in the universe.
JVK
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 20, 2015
Re:
He tried to prove this theory with coincidence of influenza waves and solar cycles


Seasonal variation in the influenza virus is attributed to a single amino acid substitution that requires the theft of energy by viruses. That energy is required for cell type differentiation. The fact that all pathology has been linked to virus-perturbed protein folding and the fact taht healthy longevity has been attributed to nutrient-dependent thermodynamic cycles of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation support the representation of biologically based cause and effect in this musical parody.

https://www.youtu...youtu.be All About that Base (Meghan Trainor Parody) 10 Dec 2014
JVK
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 20, 2015
Substitutions Near the Receptor Binding Site Determine Major Antigenic Change During Influenza Virus Evolution

My comment to the Science site: http://comments.s....1244730 The idea of biophysical constraints seems antithetical to the idea of nature somehow selecting mutations that cause amino acid substitutions. However, I am not a biophysicist or evolutionary theorist.

The problem may be my focus on nutrient-dependent receptor-mediated amino acid substitutions in species from bacteria to humans (non-viral organisms). Since I am not a virologist or physicist, I'm not sure that the laws of physics apply to viruses and their replication.

If they do, natural selection for random mutations is not likely to result in amino acid substitutions because the thermodynamics of changes in organism-level thermoregulation preclude such randomness. [cont]
Terratian
1.2 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2015
Quote: "Life on Earth may have started almost instantaneously"

The time window for life to form from abiotic genesis is getting smaller and smaller.

It's becoming more obvious that Earth may have been seeded by already existing bacteria in meteorites, asteroids and comets.

This will require a paradigm shift, kind of like when Copernicus said the Earth revolved around the sun.
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Oct 20, 2015
[cont]
Stability of protein biosynthesis and degradation that probably depends on protein folding must somehow be controlled. Besides, I don't know how random mutations in viruses could be naturally selected for inclusion in the human virome (or in the virome of any organism capable of thermoregulating its thermodynamic intercellular signaling).

If the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to viruses, which means the chemical bonds that enable the amino acid substitutions can form at random and somehow be naturally selected, the details of biophysical constraints in this article seems out of place, since I do not think in terms of constrained random mutations and natural selection in mutation-driven evolution.

Hopefully, someone with a background in biophysics will address my confusion in case others are confused. [cont]
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Oct 20, 2015
[cont]

In addition, I wonder if the consequences of understanding the evolutionary mechanisms that govern viruses extend to consequences important to understanding the evolution of species from bacteria to humans via constrained random mutations and natural selection?
---------------------------------------

My comment was removed and this appears: "The major antigenic changes of the influenza virus are primarily caused by a single amino acid near the receptor binding site."

Re:
It's becoming more obvious that Earth may have been seeded by already existing bacteria in meteorites, asteroids and comets.


It has become perfectly clear that theoretical physicists and evolutionary theorists are biologically uninformed science idiots. Serious scientist politely accuse Neil deGrasse Tyson of being a big ass in the context of this parody. https://www.youtu...youtu.be All About that Base (Meghan Trainor Parody)
SuperThunder
3 / 5 (8) Oct 20, 2015
biologically uninformed science idiots


The Kettle Cluster is signalling via subspace to the Pot System, but there's no response. I suspect Romulan interference.

Can't we just call these guys "official cautionary mascots" of phys.org and move on? You know, like how Crest (or Colgate, whatever) had the Cavity Creeps, and how Dora the Explorer has to chant at that weasel to keep from losing her backpack? Maybe if we had a little rhyme...

Induction, deduction, observation, prediction!
Induction, deduction, observation, prediction!
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Oct 20, 2015
What did you think about the parody? https://www.youtu...youtu.be

Induction, deduction, observation, prediction!

Like others, they followed a pathway that led to their experimental evidence which supports the supercoiled DNA protection from virus-driven pathology.

Induction, deduction, observation, prediction!


Did you not like the implied prediction that more works by pseudoscientists will not be funded?
docile
Oct 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Oct 20, 2015
"The Darwin Code: Intelligent Design without God" http://rna-mediat...eg-bear/

See also: 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.

Do you really want to keep implying that people like Greg Bear are not intelligent? It makes you look like the anonymous fool you are.
JVK
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2015
JVK can only be understood in terms of no moderation- which we know is not the case- or that conservative dissent is paid for by conservative interests, most notably energy interests.

JVK's bio and details have been published in the comments here before. He's a convicted paedophile, ferchrisake.
-- jljenkins

The fact that this vitriolic comment got 8 5-star ratings characterizes phys.org as a place for biologically uninformed science idiots to meet and attack the credibility of serious scientists with no limit placed on personal attacks.

The lies about me would be the last straw if they were not typical of the tactics used by neo-Darwinists who are terrified of being exposed as the simple minded creatures they have always been.

Next someone will link my works to Hitler's anti-semitism. It's what idiots do when they cannot respond intelligently to the accumulation of eperimental evidence that shows they are idiots.

mreda14
not rated yet Oct 20, 2015
The authors claim that life started earlier that it was documented in biology and geology books. The question is what is the definition of life. I would say that earth was like Titan but warmer . A huge asteroid containing methane and sulfate eating bacteria impacted the earth. Who knows. Go buy the US lottery ticket and hope you win 500 millions green $.
anonymous_9001
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 20, 2015
Next someone will link my works to Hitler's anti-semitism.


Says he who has called those that support evolution terrorists and murderers. Do you know what "hypocrisy" means?
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Oct 20, 2015
Thanks for asking. I know what the term virus-driven genomic entropy means, and Greg Bear knows that dual use genome editing technology is likely to lead to the worst act of terrorism biologically uninformed science idiots could imagine.

http://thedailysh...reg-bear

barakn
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 20, 2015
JVK's bio and details have been published in the comments here before. He's a convicted paedophile, ferchrisake. -jljenkins
That's a heavy accusation. I made good and sure my sources were accurate before I outed Oliver Manuel (a.k.a. omatumr) as a pedo. Can you present your evidence or have you just opened yourself to a potential libel lawsuit?
JVK
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2015
He has opened up himself and phys.org for litigation because the moderators refused to withdraw the post with his accusation.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2015
He has opened up himself and phys.org for litigation because the moderators refused to withdraw the post with his accusation
@jk
if you attempt to litigate, you will also have to answer for your own personal libelous attacks on reputable scientists, from Myers, Jones and Lenski to Dr.'s Extavour et al

And if you DO attempt litigation, i will supply funding for PO to counter sue for your own libel and attacks... like all your anti-anonymous_9001 and hypocrisy towards people who support evolution, as noted in ANON's post above

considering your wording, it makes it a specific hate crime and given your predilection towards religious pontification and linking anti-science, pseudoscience and creationist literature despite the evidence pointing to it not having science, it is especially heinous in it's attack, as you attempted to feign representation of the US gov't in your terrorist libel attacks.

I kept screencaps of ALL your libel just for that court day
THANKS
bluehigh
4 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2015
Captain, perhaps better just to laugh at his self importance. One would think that he would have considered 'let he without sin cast the first stone'. If we are lucky maybe WG will offer us some of his Crown Royal to ease the frustration ... also hope you have seen my comment about the NASA, in reply to yours. Also, great work on uppercase restraint. Your posts are much more enjoyable now. Cheers.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2015
Captain, perhaps better just to laugh at his self importance
@Blue
he actually believes in some of this stuff... figured i better actually warn him. he is not mentally stable
check this out: http://www.dpa.st...h17.html

If we are lucky maybe WG will offer us some of his Crown Royal to ease the frustration
NO DOUBT, but i am more of a Chivas man... i don't like crown. too sweet. i like my burn harsh!
Also, great work on uppercase restraint. Your posts are much more enjoyable now. Cheers.
you do know that i do that intentionally, especially to certain people, right? lol
although, i do admit i get carried away at times, more often than not it is entirely intentional.

you should see some of the self aggrandizement he posts about himself, like on LinkedIn, his sites, etc... some of it is actually considered a felony (like his claims of being a diagnostician)

JVK
2 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2015
One would think that when serious scientists politely call Neil deGrasse Tyson a "big ass" in this parody, that other biologically uninformed science idiots would see that they are also being attacked.

https://www.youtu...youtu.be All About that Base (Meghan Trainor Parody) 10 Dec 2014

"bringing Franklin back" is the insult to all Nobel Laureates who have not included what was known to her about viruses at the time that Watson and Crick led others to reach a ridiculous consensus based on the static structure of the double helix.

The problem is that the other "big asses" are too ignorant to realize how many times they were insulted in a 3.5 minute-long parody.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2015
in this parody
@jk
do you even know what the word parody means?
also- youtube is not a primary source and as evidence, it is equivalent to opinion or conjecture, which is irrelevant to actual science
evidence is where actual science gets it's power, and it is why you have NO credibility. you can't even demonstrate human pheromones with any "obust bioassay-led evidence"
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

as noted: just because you make a claim doesn't mean it is true, so repeating it only makes you look like the "big ass"

where is your validation?
none
where is your refute of Evolution Theory?
none

so long as you post your phishing pseudoscience sites and creationist dogma, you will never be a "serious scientist"

Oh- almost forgot: from above
//rna-mediated.
PSEUDOSCIENCE PHISHING RELIGIOUS SITE
reported
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2015
where is your validation?
none
where is your refute of Evolution Theory?
none


How many more do you want. Here's the latest.

Surprising source for ancient life biomarker found
http://phys.org/n...ker.html

More than 1000 members are laughing at biologically uninformed science idiots on a daily basis.

All of the people laughing know how to use a search engine to find information via a search for "RNA mediated" or "viral microRNA" or "biologically uninformed" which are terms that expose the science idiots who will always be found here, since their comments are eliminated on nearly all other discussion sites.
gkam
2 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2015
Well, okay, . . . life may have started over four billion years ago.

But He did it in only a few days, . . right?
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2015
article: http://www.the-sc...ewiring/ with my comments to The Scientist on Lenski

See my comments. Attempt to explain the "re-evolution" or stop making the inference that anyone who doesn't believe in billions of years of mutation-driven evolution is a biologically uninformed science idiot.

What we see here is that the biologically uninformed science idiots who can't explain re-evolution in 4 days, attack creationists who are not ignorant enough to believe in the magic of evolution -- after a "scientific consensus" was reached and the magicians began teaching their pseudoscientific nonsense to unsuspecting fools.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2015
with my comments to The Scientist on Lenski
@jk
being able to troll or produce religious arguments in open comments on a science site doesn't mean you have proof of being correct any more than urinating on a fan makes you a rain-maker. it only means you have no scruples, morals and are fanatically spreading your pseudoscience
How many more do you want. Here's the latest
by all means, please:
demonstrate and show how your ARTICLE link ( http://phys.org/n...ker.html ) is evidence and refutation of the Theory of Evolution

this is called personal conjecture based upon your interpretation of evidence
and to date, your interpretation of science and evidence has been 100% wrong, and proven as such

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 22, 2015
@jljenkins A lot of sites have shut down their comments sections and I imagine it wont be long before this site does too
THIS is why physorg maintains its comments section...

"In 2015, Quantcast listed it as a top 851 site with 2,6M U.S. people visiting per month and this being 62% of all visitors. Phys.org's global audience is 4.3M per month. It said the site is popular among a more educated, older, male audience. Trends Updates named Phys.org amongst the Top 25 Technology Blogs for 2008."

-Traffic.
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2015
Primate-Specific ORF0 Contributes to Retrotransposon-Mediated Diversity
http://www.cell.c...901187-3

Quantcast has "deep pockets." Let's see how this finding (above) is reported for comparison to Dobzhansky's creationist's claims from 1973.

"... the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla" (p. 127).
http://img.signal...nsky.pdf

this is called personal conjecture based upon your interpretation of evidence


It's called "not being a biologically uninformed science idiot."

See also: http://www.pnas.o...abstract
and http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Cell type differentiation is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled via a single amino acid substitution in insects and primates.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2015
Cell type differentiation is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled via a single amino acid substitution in insects and primates.
1- https://en.wikipe...Mutation

2- you still haven't been able to produce "robust bioassay-led evidence" for pheromones
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

3- continually repeating a lie doesn't make it more true, it makes you look crazy- we know this because you routinely demonstrate signs of mental illness
http://www.dpa.st...h17.html

4- there is no science in your creationist religion
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2015
"Teilhard was a creationists,
but one who understood that the Creation is
realized in this world by means of evolution. "
http://img.signal...nsky.pdf

Another reading comprehension fail by JVK.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2015
Another reading comprehension fail by JVK
ROTFLMFAO
imagine that! he is illiterate!

.

It's called "not being a biologically uninformed science idiot."
@jk
making a claim that is unsubstantiated or that cannot be validated by the evidence you provide means, very specifically, that you are making a claim that is without evidence
this is another way of saying it is personal conjecture based upon your interpretation of evidence and not validated, thus it is not real

this means you can't substantiate your claims because your interpretations are false or based upon delusional belief, not fact

thus, by demonstration and your failure to provide factual evidence, it is pseudoscience

it's not rocket surgery, it's logic
you would think a jeenyus like you, being mensa, a race-car driver, diagnostician, scientist and microbiologist, would know that

unless, of course, you are a chronic liar
(don't you have to have a degree to be a microbiologist?)
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2015
"Cell type differentiation is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled via a single amino acid substitution in insects and primates."
-------------------------

Others seem to disagree. What are the implications? Otherwise, . . so what?

Is that supposed to prove anything else?
JVK
2 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2015
Q: Who seems to disagree?
A: "Others"

Q: Who are the "Others?"
A: Those who disagree

Q: What are the implications?
A: The "others" are biologically uninformed science idiots.

Q: Is that supposed to prove anything else?
A: I have nothing to prove. I have a detailed model of biologically-based cause and effect. Others have ridiculous theories.

Today's demonstrations of my model.

http://phys.org/n...ies.html
http://phys.org/n...man.html

(don't you have to have a degree to be a microbiologist?)


I didn't want to waste the time or money to get a degree. Most people need to get one, and they need to get a degree to be a hematologist, chemist, immunohematologist et al.
JVK
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 22, 2015
Re:
... Creation is realized in this world by means of evolution.


Is there anyone who is not still dead who believes that? Who do you think taught them to believe in pseudoscientific nonsense?

De novo creation of new genes is nutrient-dependent and controlled by the physiology of reproduction via as little as one RNA-mediated amino acid substitution, but it took two to re-evolve the bacterial flagellum in 4 days.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2015
Today's demonstrations of my model
@jk
actually, that demonstrates the Theory of Evolution, not your model

per your own words, your model requires mutations, but your own words also state all mutations are pathological, thus your model is pathological
I didn't want to waste the time or money to get a degree
so, you admit it is FRAUD
thanks!
Most people need to get one, and they need to get a degree to be a hematologist, chemist, immunohematologist et al
Actually, its not about "need", it is a requirement (and heavily regulated). it is not "most people" - to work in the field and be considered thus titled, it means you MUST have a degree

your credibility is thus negligible based upon your deception and FRAUD
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2015
@jk cont'd
this is also something that is considered a felony. not only is it false representation for self promotion as well as financial gain (which is where the fraud comes in) but as the law requires certain medical professionals to carry educational requirements to be titled as such (like diagnosticians and microbiologists) and licensed, this means that you are committing a felony

you are listing your professional credentials as Microbiologist, and you've publicly acknowledged to this being fraudulent. this is the same as your claims of being a diagnostician previously, without degree or license.

this is illegal in the US (even in GA)

when you go so far down the rabbit hole that you start believing your own delusions, this is called mental illness
i recently got a great link for that- you should read it. it is relevant (criminal mental impairment)
http://www.dpa.st...h17.html
JVK
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 23, 2015
I've told Captain Stumpy several times about my ASCP credentials and work history. The above claims by him have been repeatedly made. He is a biologically uniformed science idiot and a MORON!

So is anyone else who thinks this nonsense is going to be allowed to continue.

Genetics probe identifies new Galapagos tortoise species http://www.nature...-1.18611

What makes anyone think they can claim that mitochondrial mutations are indicators of species biodiversity? It's as if they still think they can substitute de Vries definition of "mutation" for Schrodinger's claims that links the anti-entopic energy of the sun to biophysically constrained cell type differentiation in all cell types of all individuals of all species -- despite more than 100 years of scientific progress in physics, chemistry, and biology that links atoms to ecosystems.
JVK
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2015
See also: In unexpected discovery, comet contains alcohol, sugar
http://phys.org/n...gar.html

At the advent of sexual reproduction in yeast, their nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction is linked across all other species via the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically constrained RNA-mediated cell type differentiation to human sexual orientation.

See the molecular epigenetics section of our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review. From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html

Excerpt: "Parenthetically it is interesting to note even the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has a gene-based equivalent of sexual orientation (i.e., a-factor and alpha-factor physiologies). These differences arise from different epigenetic modifications of an otherwise identical MAT locus (Runge and Zakian, 1996; Wu and Haber, 1995)."
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2015
I've told Captain Stumpy several times about my ASCP credentials and work history
There is a very big difference between proving something and making a claim: you've made a CLAIM. you've never once provided proof of anything, especially your credentials
Now, considering it requires a license to be a diagnostician, etc... and there are regulatory agencies for people who fraudulently claim things like being, a pathologist, diagnostician and microbiologist... i would think the reason you DON'T provide any certification or license information is because it will out you as said FRAUD as well as get you reported to regulatory agencies

this is easily verified even for your home state, therefore, if you wish, feel free to link to Photo-bucket or similar photo site (NOT your personal phishing site) and show everyone your degree and license to practice medicine, per your claims

a narcissist like you shouldn't have a problem with that, eh?
unless it isn't true...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2015
@jk cont'd
The above claims by him have been repeatedly made
Ahem... no. i have made NO claims about your work or history. i HAVE, however, requested you prove your history since you wish to use it as argument from self-perceived authority (even though you've not been able to provide actual empirical evidence to support your claims without resorting to creationist or personal phishing web-sites)

thus, it is NOT a claim by me, since i am using your own words as well as quoting them, & the threads... shall i continue to demonstrate where you lie about medical license and practice (diagnostician)?
So is anyone else who thinks this nonsense is going to be allowed to continue
as long as you continue to make it part of the argument, i will continue to make it a point to demonstrate you are a liar

as long as you continue to vilify actual educated scientists, then i will make you eat your own words

JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2015
Quantum Entanglement Holds DNA Together, Say Physicists http://www.techno...sicists/

Excerpt: When the nucleotides bond to form a base, these clouds must oscillate in opposite directions to ensure the stability of the structure.

My comment: The most likely link from the sensory environment to cell type differentiation via quantum unentanglement is the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes.

De novo gene creation is RNA-mediated and has been referred to as the "holy grail" of biology because it links physics and chemistry to the conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation in all living genera via their physiology of reproduction.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2015
""Viruses are linked to all pathology" and "Control of pathology is nutrient-dependent" are the proven claim of creationists."
http://medicalxpr...ain.html

And JVK thinks his claims are credible.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2015
Quantum Entanglement Holds DNA Together, Say Physicists
wait wait wait wait wait... i thought you said all theorists are "biologically uninformed science idiots"?

ok, lets do some science here
from YOUR LINK
A new theoretical model suggests
we're talking about a theoretical model, not a validated anything

also note, in the article you linked
Speculative but potentially explosive work
so my question is: if you make the claim that this is legitimate and true, where is the VALIDATION and secondary studies repeating the experiments or supporting the evidence through means not tied to the first parties?

it even SAYS it is speculative!

validation is the key, mensa boy.

is it interesting?
yes.

however, it is also singular: there is no validating study[-ies]

a biologist or serious scientist would know this, and especially a pathologist, diagnostician or microbiologist!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2015
@jk cont'd
also note, you only link data from your ARTICLE: that isn't science, that is reporting, and often even here it can be misleading or wrong
so lets link the actual study, for starters: http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf

In this paper we modelled the electron clouds of nucleic acids in a single strand of DNA as a chain of coupled quantum harmonic oscillators with dipole-dipole interaction between nearest neighbours. Our main result is that the entanglement contained in the chain coincides with the binding energy of the molecule...
Additionally, we investigated the entanglement properties of aperiodic potentials. For randomly chosen
sequences of A,C,G, or T we calculated the average von Neumann entropy. There exists no direct correlation between the classical information of the sequence and its average quantum information.he average amount of von Neumann entropy varies strongly, even among sequences having the same Shannon entropy
conclusions,
pg 6
JVK
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2015
Unconstrained cranial evolution in Neandertals and modern humans compared to common chimpanzees http://rspb.royal...519?etoc

Excerpt: "...cranial differentiation in common chimpanzees has been restricted by stabilizing natural selection."

See for comparison: Mutation-Driven Evolution http://www.amazon...99661731
Excerpt: "...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world."

See also for comparison: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Excerpt: An environmental drive evolved from that of nutrient ingestion in unicellular organisms to that of pheromone-controlled socialization in insects. In mammals, food odors and pheromones cause changes in hormones ..."

Epigenetically-effected hormones affect biophysically constrained behavior that links atoms to ecosystems.
JVK
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2015
Re: Epigenetically-effected hormones affect biophysically constrained behavior that links atoms to ecosystems.

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

My atoms to ecosystems model was presented here: Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524

My model is also well represented in this musical parody: https://www.youtu...youtu.be All About that Base

Until others try to link nutrient-dependent base pair changes and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to evolution via mutations, they will be led by biologically uninformed science idiots to believe in pseudoscientific nonsense and ridiculous theories.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2015
i thought you said all theorists are "biologically uninformed science idiots"?


Your thoughts about anything I have ever said are the product of a confused mind. Quit taking my claims out of their context. Evolutionary theorists and theoretical physicists who cannot support their claims with experimental evidence of biologically based cause and effect that links atoms to ecosystems are "biologically uninformed science idiots."

That fact has been known for more that 40 years. See: http://www.jstor..../4444260 "For example, the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla" (p. 127)."

The nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions link atoms to ecosystems via what is known to serious scientists about "supercoiled" DNA. See: Structural diversity of supercoiled DNA http://dx.doi.org...omms9440
JVK
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2015
See also: RNA-mediated gene activation.http://www.ncbi.n...24185374

See also: RNA-mediated gene silencing http://dx.doi.org...omms9440

See also: RNA-mediated epigenetic regulation of gene expression http://www.nature...863.html

See also: RNA-mediated Physics, Chemistry, Biology & Molecular Epigenetics. [url]http://rna-mediated.com/[/url]

See how long it takes Captain Stumpy to tell you that [url]http://rna-mediated.com/[/url] is a PHISHING site, or that it contains only creationist pseudoscience.

Then compare the information at all four links for its consistency and ability to refute the pseudoscientific nonsense of neo-Darwinian evolution or theoretical physics.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2015
rna-mediated.
PSEUDOSCIENCE PHISHING SITE
creationist dogma and stupidity mixed in
reported
or that it contains only creationist pseudoscience
never said it only contained creationist pseudoscience, idiot... i said that if you mix science with creationist dogma, it makes the entire site PSEUDOSCIENCE, because you assume equivalence, when there is NO SCIENCE in creationist dogma
your absolute lack of reading and comprehension is showing, little mensa-princess
Then compare the information at all four links
and again.. it doesn't matter if you actually post science to your personal site: IT IS STILL PSEUDOSCIENCE IF YOU MIX RELIGION WITH IT
also, as it is personal and spamming, it also allows you to PHISH for personal info

reported
Your thoughts about anything I have ever said are the product of a confused mind
how can that be when i quote you directly?
LMFAO
it's not out of context or confused when it is YOUR WORDS
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2015
Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations
@jk
ecological adaptations are already covered in the Theory of Evolution, and your model is falsified here: http://www.socioa...ew/24367


My blah blah model ...youtu.be
youtube is NOT a scientific journal, nor is it a reputable peer reviewed journal
epic fail
My model is also well represented in this musical parody
your model can only be represented as a parody or a religious doctrine
Until others try to link nutrient-dependent base pair changes and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to evolution via mutations
well, little girl, i hate to tell you this but: as your model actually uses MUTATIONS, then you are saying either:
-your model links with mutations just like Evolution Theory
OR
- as your model uses mutations, and you claim all mutations are pathological, then by definition you are saying your own model is false

spic failure
JVK
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2015
...ecological adaptations are already covered in the Theory of Evolution


How do mutations lead to ecological adaptations?

Serious scientists have linked mutations to pathology and nutrient-dependent base pair changes to healthy longevity.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2015
your model can only be represented as a parody or a religious doctrine


My model has been represented both ways.

See: http://phys.org/n...ith.html

On average, people in the Philippines were the most religious, while people in the Czech Republic were the least religious.


If the least religious people in the Czech Republic told the most religious people in the Philippines that the link between atoms and ecosystems in species from microbes to humans is the epigenetic effects of food odors and pheromones, which group of people would be most likely to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense touted by neo-Darwinian theorists.

I ask because I received a diploma and medal from Charles University in Prague for publication of this review: Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology (2001) http://www.nel.ed...view.htm
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2015
"Viruses are linked to all pathology" and "Control of pathology is nutrient-dependent" are the proven claim of creationists." http://medicalxpr...ain.html

And JVK thinks his claims are credible.
-- Vietvet (aka Steven Taylor)

I have established the credibility of my claims in a series of published works since book publication in 1995.In 2005, Nobel Laureate, Linda Buck helped to establish my credibility via her co-authorship of Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction http://www.ncbi.n...16290036

Those feedback loops link atoms to ecosystems via nutrient-dependent chromatin loops, and RNA-mediated events, which are linked to cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all living genera via their physiology of reproduction. For example, the bacterial flagellum "re-evolved" in 4 days.

What credibility have you established for comparison?
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2015
Re: What credibility have you established for comparison?

Obviously, my antagonists have not established any credibility. They think that theoretical physicists and neo-Darwinian theorists are credible sources of information despite experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that links atoms to ecosystems in all living genera via what is known to serious scientists about physics, chemistry, biology, and molecular epigenetics.

See for example, our section on molecular epigenetics in this 1996 Hormones and Behavior review:
http://www.hawaii...ion.html Even before the example of the "re-evolved" bacterial flagellum, no one ever challenged our model with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that was not directly linked via RNA-mediated events to cell type differentiation.

Yet, here I am on Phys.org discussing claims that life evolved across billions of years.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2015
I ask because I received a diploma and medal from Charles University in Prague for publication of this review
@jk
i know this is hard for you to believe, but... an honorary degree is NOT the same thing as a real degree! you can't get a position as a medical Dr. with an honorary degree: try it, i dare you
I have established the credibility of my claims
actually, no: you have not. the only "credibility" you MAY have is with creationists. and we all know there is no science in creationist religion
What credibility have you established for comparison?
well, we've not been proven to be chronic liars here on PO, so we are at least credible and honest
AND
my own links are ACTUAL scientific studies and validated (like Lenski, et al)

repeating the phrase "Viruses are linked to all pathology" only demonstrates you are a chronic liar
adding in the whole Prague diploma? = delusional
http://www.dpa.st...h17.html
Guy_Underbridge
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2015
My model is also well represented in this musical parody... All About that Base


Sorry Cappy, He's got a musical parody on youtube... How can you deny that as creds?
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2015
It is not my musical parody.

The musical parody is based on the experimental evidence presented in the group's published works.
See for example: Structural diversity of supercoiled DNA
http://dx.doi.org...omms9440

See also: "Chemists know" (Parody of "Let It Go" from Frozen) - University of California Irvine
https://www.youtu...I6rtIgn0

It seems that the only people who know nothing about the biophysically constrained chemistry of DNA repair are theorists. I'm happy I'm not one of those biologically uninformed science idiots.

All serious scientists are attacking the theorists in parodies, but the theorists are not intelligent enough to recognize how many insults are delivered in the few minutes of these musical renditions.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2015
All serious scientists are attacking the theorists in parodies
and yet you, yourself, have been promoting theorists while at the same time arguing they are "biologically uninformed science idiots"???

this is like your arguments regarding mutations:
you say all mutations are deleterious or "pathological", and yet you use mutations in your own model.... and refuse to accept that there is such a thing as beneficial mutations, even when they have been validated experimentally in multiple different studies and experiments...

hypocritical and delusional much?

.

Sorry Cappy, He's got a musical parody on youtube... How can you deny that as creds?
@Guy
ROTFLMFAO
wish i could 10 star that one!
Multivac jr_
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2015
This thread is a marvel to behold.

Glad I wasn't drinking anything as I read it! There were more than a few lines that would've caused me to make a mess all over my keyboard if I had been...

[In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a "supernaturally reformed superstition genius."©™

And no, I don't know what that means, either. But it *seems* like it makes sense, at least at first-read, and apparently that's good enough... Just like how atoms are connected with ecosystems (who knew?!?) or whatever.]
JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2015
you say all mutations are deleterious or "pathological"


I say no beneficial mutations have ever been linked to the evolution of a new species.

Just like how atoms are connected with ecosystems (who knew?!?)


All serious scientists know that. It's how serious scientists recognize each other. None claim that mutations link natural selection to the evolution of a new species because there is no experimental evidence to support that kind of pseudoscientific nonsense.

Serious scientists link physics and chemistry to biology via the conserved molecular mechanisms of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in all genera. They win Nobel Prizes for doing that.

For example, Linda Buck shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physiology and/or Medicine for works published a decade earlier. In 2005 she coauthored "Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction" http://www.ncbi.n...16290036

Try linking mutations to reproduction.
JVK
Oct 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2015
@jk
cross-posting and spamming with the exact same comment also found here

http://phys.org/n...ize.html
JVK
2 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2015
See also the continuation of pseudoscientific nonsense here that links the claims in Nick Lane's latest book to the pseudoscientific nonsense touted by all other neo-Darwinists since the time they invented the "Modern Synthesis" based on de Vries definition of "mutation" and eliminated the need for the link from nutrient energy-dependent cell type differentiation, which links atoms to ecosystems in all living genera.

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

"The influence of mitochondria on nearly every imaginable function, and dysfunction, of the cell now permeates new research. The primary determinants in many metabolic diseases, cancers, aging, and death are increasingly described in terms of specific energetic and respiratory behaviors of the cell. Nick leaves us with a simpler answer to the riddle of life, a quote from biophysicist Albert Szent-Györgyi "Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest."
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2015
touted by all other neo-Darwinists since the time they invented the "Modern Synthesis" based on de Vries definition of "mutation"
@jk
once again, you demonstrate your scientific illiteracy as well as failure to actually read the subject matter at hand
Hugo de Vries (1848—1935) believed that mutation caused species formation and hence known as saltation (single step large mutation)
http://www.yourar...s/12255/

if you would then read the definition of mutation and compare it with the ancient Hugo's beliefs, you would see there is a very large difference
https://en.wikipe...Mutation

now read up on the Theory of Evolution
https://en.wikipe...volution

Evolution Theory already includes adaptation, so your model is actually plagiarized

http://media-cach...f521.jpg

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.