Sensory feedback shapes individuality to provide equal space for behavioral excellence

October 1, 2015, Case Western Reserve University
Chiel's lab found that while sensory feedback reduced individuality across a group of slugs, the feedback increased variability within individuals. Credit: Mike Sands

We can quickly tell from the way someone walks whether that person is young or old, male or female, healthy or sick, because patterns of movement vary from one person to the next. In fact, we can often recognize a friend from a distance, even if he's walking with his back to us, because of his characteristic strides.

Scientists have assumed that evolution would push us toward a single "best" method for walking—or for any movement. But even one person's repeated steps, watched closely, are rarely identical.

"Is this variability in walking just noise that the nervous system must overcome, or does it contribute to normal function?" asks Hillel Chiel, a biology professor at Case Western Reserve University.

Chiel worked with Case Western Reserve's Miranda J. Cullins, Jeffrey McManus, Hui Lu, and Kendrick Shaw, who are recent PhD graduates, and current PhD student Jeffrey Gill to find the answer. Their research, published today (Oct. 1) in the journal Current Biology, suggests maintaining variability is essential both for normal behavior and for longer-term evolution.

"Most people see variation as a problem to get away from, but it is the solution," Chiel said. "Our bodies change throughout life, and our nervous system handles variation to enable us to function as things change."

The findings have implications for rehabilitating those who have suffered injuries, debilitating illness or stroke; training athletes; and for building better robots.

Gait and the human nervous and muscular systems that control it are highly complicated, so, to address variability, the researchers investigated swallowing motor patterns in the marine mollusk Aplysia californica. This sea slug is known for its large, identified neurons, which have been used to understand cellular and molecular mechanisms of learning and motivation.

The team looked down to the level of motor neurons. The researchers removed sensory inputs from the slugs and looked at motor patterns in the animal's isolated brain. They found that the motor patterns varied more from one animal to the next than with sensory feedback.

When the sea slug's sensors provide feedback as it feeds, all the slugs responded similarly—that is, it became harder to tell one slug from another just by looking at their motor patterns. Their response ranges were nearly identical when the movement was essential to swallowing, such as how long the feeding grasper was closed as it pulled seaweed into the mouth.

Surprisingly, however, the researchers didn't find that feedback reduced variability within each . Just the opposite: the range of responses within each animal became broader.

But how does increasing variability within individual animals reduce variability across the group?

"One way to reduce individuality is to give all the animals access to a broader range of responses—a common solution space," Chiel said.

But having a range of options within that space is an advantage in a world that's constantly evolving, Chiel said. "Darwin's big insight was that variation is the raw material that can be used to allow animals to adapt to a changing environment, and thus enhance their fitness."

Changes include those within each individual. A person who suffers a stroke, especially with disruption to sensory feedback, would benefit more from therapy to regain access to the full range of movement possibilities rather than training him or her to step one way, the researchers said.

For training athletes, skills such as shooting free throws in basketball may improve by narrowing variability in that part of their body that must connect with the ball; but they may need to increase variability in other parts of their body at the same time to take full advantage of their body's special characteristics.

Robots that have a built-in range of responses they can use to automatically adjust to variations in tasks would be more useful than those that must be reprogrammed to handle each change, the researchers said.

Chiel's lab is now looking into whether their observation in sea slugs is relevant to vertebrates, including humans, and investigating cellular and synaptic mechanisms that allow to shape motor variability.

"We think that these results are not unique to slugs, but a general phenomenon for all animals," Chiel said. Research by others lends support and, "We believe it's why we each have a different way of walking - and why our unique individuality is so important for success in what we do."

Explore further: Dealing with the unexpected

Related Stories

Dealing with the unexpected

October 22, 2010

To regain balance from an unexpected slip on the ice can require an abundance of rapid movement, but conscious thought isn't part of the equation.

Our elegant brain: Motor learning in the fast lane

August 3, 2015

It takes a surprisingly small cluster of brain cells deep within the cerebellum to learn how to serve a tennis ball, or line up a hockey shot. Researchers at McGill University led by Kathleen Cullen from the Department of ...

Practice really does make perfect

January 8, 2015

Researchers from the University of Cambridge and the University of Plymouth have shown that follow-through - such as when swinging a golf club or tennis racket - can help us to learn two different skills at once, or to learn ...

Recommended for you

Scientists ID another possible threat to orcas: pink salmon

January 19, 2019

Over the years, scientists have identified dams, pollution and vessel noise as causes of the troubling decline of the Pacific Northwest's resident killer whales. Now, they may have found a new and more surprising culprit: ...

Researchers come face to face with huge great white shark

January 18, 2019

Two shark researchers who came face to face with what could be one of the largest great whites ever recorded are using their encounter as an opportunity to push for legislation that would protect sharks in Hawaii.

64 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JVK
1 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2015
Excerpt: This sea slug is known for its large, identified neurons, which have been used to understand cellular and molecular mechanisms of learning and motivation.

How many different ways can people be told that neo-Darwinian theory is pseudoscientific nonsense.

Feedback Loops Link Odor and Pheromone Signaling with Reproduction
http://www.cell.c...l%3Dtrue

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

"The honeybee already serves as a model organism for studying human immunity, disease resistance, allergic reaction, circadian rhythms, antibiotic resistance, the development of the brain and behavior, mental health, longevity, diseases of the X chromosome, learning and memory, as well as conditioned responses to sensory stimuli (Kohl, 2012)."
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2015
Patterns of Protein Evolution in Cytochrome c Oxidase 1 (COI) from the Class Arachnida http://journals.p....0135053

The patterns appear to link the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of nucleic acids and all cell types in all individuals of all living genera via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions.

Young earth creationists linked virus perturbed protein folding chemistry to all pathology. The question for followers of Carl Sagan or followers of his ex-wife Lynn Margulis is about the proteins.

Do they evolve or are they linked from creation to all cell type differentiation via nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and the physiology of reproduction?
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
"Few people are as adamant or ignorant. His excuse is lost faith due to war-time trauma, which also sometimes reinforces the beliefs of others in creationist science linked to God. Even when others do not understand creationist science they realize that it attests to the fact that viruses perturb protein folding and that can thus be linked to all pathology in all individuals of all living genera."
JVK on Oct. 2 2015
http://medicalxpr...ons.html

"creationist science linked to God"

That's your problem, there is NO science in creationism, just religion.

Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model
http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
Young earth creationists linked
PSEUDOSCIENCE and RELIGION
reported

there is NO SCIENCE in the creationist movement: it is a political attempt to validate their claims, not a scientific one
this is most evident i the following link: https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution
besides the FACT that your "model" is debunked in Vietvet's links above... you also have NOT proven pheromones exist with ANY credibility
http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

also: the THEORY of EVOLUTION includes your mutation model of adaptation
you can read all about that in the other threads where you got educated as to what adaptation means... you can read the argument here: http://phys.org/n...ane.html

another epic failure for religion and jk's PSEUDOSCIENCE
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2015
That's your problem, there is NO science in creationism, just religion.


I know few intelligent people that would agree with your ridiculous statement, which is one that Captain Stumpy continues to rephrase and repeat.

See for contrast: http://www.bioviv...-page-3/
Excerpt: "...one of the foremost advocates of the telomere or epigenetic theory of aging, explains that it is not the absolute length of telomeres which control this, but it is the level of erosion relative from the time the egg was fertilized."

See also, the molecular epigenetics section of our 1996 review: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior

Try to explain why only biologically uninformed science idiots are attacking my credibility and my model of top-down causation, epigenetic effects on hormones and affects on behavior.

Also see: Why Science Needs Metaphysics http://nautil.us/...aphysics
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
I know few intelligent people that would agree with your ridiculous statement
so, now anyone who is actually educated in LAW as well as BIOLOGY and MEDICINE is wrong??
only you and your religious idiot friends are right and can make sense of the world??

this is called Dunning-Kruger & is a delusional psychosis
why only biologically uninformed science idiots are attacking my credibility
YOU are the only one attacking your credibility!
you said yourself that there is NO VALIDATED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that empirically prove human pheromone impacts!
http://phys.org/n...nts.html

you said YOURSELF that you failed out of college
you REPEATEDLY prove you can't read a dictionary of professional terms in biology/medicine
you repeatedly post CREATIONIST PSEUDOSCIENCE
you repeatedly claim things that are not only violations of physics but blatant lies to boot!

YOU DESTROY YOUR OWN CREDIBILITY WHEN YOU POST PSEUDOSCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2015
@jk cont'd
are attacking my credibility and my model
your model is being attacked because:
1- it is WRONG, and the paper you wrote was debunked by people who are educated in BIOLOGY
2- it doesn't supplant the THEORY OF EVOLUTION per your claims
3- it utilises MUTATIONS but you claim all mutations are pathological
4- it is a small part of evolution already noted in the theory (see also Adaptation)
5- you continue to post it without revision or adaptation of the model, and continue to promote it as some delusional proof against mutations and evolution when it carries NO SUCH evidence or ability to replace the theory already known

this is also why you are considered a crackpot and pseudoscientists... not just because of your continued lies, but because you simply do NOT understand the studies you read, and make ASSumptions that are based upon your delusional religious belief - NOT THE SCIENCE

JVK
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2015
http://nautil.us/...aphysics

ASSumptions that are based upon your delusional religious belief - NOT THE SCIENCE


What assumptions are you claiming are based on my religious beliefs?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2015
What assumptions are you claiming are based on my religious beliefs?
its NOT ASSUMPTION, it is proven already
in this thread only? there is:
1-
I know few intelligent people that would agree with your ridiculous statement
2-
only biologically uninformed science idiots are attacking my credibility
3-
Young earth creationists linked virus perturbed protein folding chemistry to all pathology
4-
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
if you want it all, it will take up several posts, because you make claims like
Creationists are among the serious scientists
or claims like
Proteins do not evolve. Genes do not evolve. Cell types do not evolve.Species do not evolve.
or even
I've learned enough about physics to link the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of amino acids
...the LINKS ALONE would cover several 1000char posts

shall i continue, or do you get the point??
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2015
Thank you for helping me to make my point.

See: Metaphysical science vs theory http://rna-mediat...network/

Excerpt: I've wasted too much time attempting to explain biologically-based facts to the biologically uninformed discussants on Science X network. This is an attempt to salvage some of the time and to move forward.

I've cited this, several times:

[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.

jsdarkdestruction
4 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2015
Excerpt: I've wasted too much time attempting to explain biologically-based facts to the biologically uninformed discussants on Science X network.

You just realized this? Weve been saying it for years. You could of done something positive and constructive with that time youve wasted on us "biologically uninformed idiots".
This is an attempt to salvage some of the time and to move forward.

Waste of all of our times. You can repeat yourself 10000 more times and it still wont matter to us. The best recourse is for you to give up and let us wallow in our ignorance of your greatness
And intelligence.
I've cited this, several times:

As said above repeat the same things over and over and it still wont make your misunderstanding and misrepresentations of others works and them supposedly proving/supporting your views Correct.
JVK
2 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2015
How does sensory feedback shape individuality in the minds of the biologically uninformed?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2015
Metaphysical science vs theory ...rna-mediat...network/
PSEUDOSCIENCE PHISHING RELIGIOUS SITE
reported
How does sensory feedback shape individuality in the minds of the biologically uninformed?
you still haven't been able to justify any other of your comments but now you want to open the discussion into yet another direction?
this is one of your biggest problems right here: when you are cornered by FACTS and demonstrated to be false, lying or an absolute idiot who is ignoring blatant science, you run away into a diversion or simply repeat yourself and your previous lies

lets break this down first:
Thank you for helping me to make my point
exactly what point are you trying to make?
because according to your posts above, you've also made "points" that are so far off of science, they're not even contemplated by logical clear thinking people because there is absolutely NO scientific content in it, like the last post i made and your actual comments i quoted
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2015
@jk cont'd
now, you asked
What assumptions are you claiming are based on my religious beliefs?
and i demonstrated not only certain comments in this thread alone, but also proved MY POINT (that you are a religious fanatic and NOT A SCIENTIST)

so, how is it proving anything you said?
how does your inclusion of blatant stupidity which is faith based and subjective to an individual somehow supportive of any point you've made?

PRO-TIP: IT ISN'T

science is based upon repeatable experimentation and validation... what a "layman" would call facts
it is NOT about subjective opinion nor about personal interpretations, which is where metaphysical and religious beliefs come into the subject
THIS REASON ALONE is why science should never attempt metaphysical stupidity or subjective interpretations of evidence... because, by its very nature, it is SUBJECTIVE TO THE INDIVIDUAL

subjectivity is NOT SCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2015
one last point @jk
Metaphysical science vs theory ...rna-mediat...network/
it doesn't matter WHAT you endorse on your own personal site...
HOWEVER
when you attempt to call it SCIENCE, then there is a problem

this is your greatest failure in your "interpretations" as well as your claims that you are a "real scientist"...

so long as you have RELIGION, METAPHYSICAL BELIEFS or ANYTHING SUBJECTIVE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY VALIDATED PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDIES...THEN IT IS CALLED PSEUDOSCIENCE

this is why i will continue to report ALL your personal sites and links as well as all your creationist claims
this is also the reason you are not taken seriously by ANY actual scientist: because you can't tell the difference between science and subjective faith based beliefs

until you can provide objective reputable peer reviewed links, then you are pushing religion or pseudoscience, not science

THERE IS NO SCIENCE IN YOUR RELIGION
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2015
I asked
How does sensory feedback shape individuality in the minds of the biologically uninformed?


For example, see: Single neuron may carry over 1,000 mutations http://www.scienc...2698.htm

This indicates that the minds of the biologically uninformed are shaped by mutations, compared to the shaping of the minds of the biologically informed via nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions.

THERE IS NO SCIENCE IN YOUR RELIGION


There is no science in neo-Darwinian theories.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2015
I asked
so?
you still haven't answered ANY questions asked of you... lets look at this one, which is the most recent stupidity of your religious pontification and fanatical idiocy:
Stephen Hawking may exemplify someone who needed metaphysics. His virus-driven pathology has been explained by creationists, not by his "Theory of Everything." Treatment with anti-virals might have halted the progression of his neurodegenerative disease or perhaps nutritional supplements did
So, Please list the Viral agents responsible for ALS and Hawkings disease

also list your conclusive evidence that ALS is viral driven and that antibiotics/nutrition would have cured/stopped the progression

this is the same logical fallacy that you shared with Native American tribes and their deaths: argument from stupidity (it's not ignorance if you know better, and you claim knowledge in biology)

AKA-personal conjecture based upon religious fanaticism and delusion
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2015
"some patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease) showed evidence of retrovirus activity in their blood."
http://www.nbcnew...-n436911
The operative word is "some" Some ALS sufferers may benefit from anti-viral drug treatment but that "some" leaves unanswered what else is in play.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2015
http://www.scienc...abstract

Excerpt: "We also observed a signature of methylated cytosine (meC) to thymine (T) transitions (fig. S8), which can occur as a result of replication-independent deamination of meC, in single-neuron SNVs. Taken together, these data demonstrate that replication-independent mutational mechanisms generate more SNVs than does replication in human neurons, which are postmitotic and live long, transcriptionally active lives."

My comment: This is unadulterated pseudoscientific nonsense. They link RNA-directed DNA methylation from nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated gene duplication and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types in all living genera and report it in the context of mutations, which they link to the stability of organized genomes.

For comparison, see: http://figshare.c...s/994281
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2015
"These findings suggest that endogenous retroviral elements are involved in the pathophysiology of ALS, but there is no evidence that they are the primary cause of the syndrome."
http://www.ncbi.n...23707220
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2015
Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model
http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2015
Mechanisms of stress in the brain
http://www.nature...086.html

The brain is the central organ involved in perceiving and adapting to social and physical stressors via multiple interacting mediators, from the cell surface to the cytoskeleton to epigenetic regulation and nongenomic mechanisms. A key result of stress is structural remodeling of neural architecture, which may be a sign of successful adaptation, whereas persistence of these changes when stress ends indicates failed resilience. Excitatory amino acids and glucocorticoids have key roles in these processes.... The result is 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. Elucidation of the underlying mechanisms... provides a basis for understanding..." [everything I detailed].
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2015
My comment: This is unadulterated pseudoscientific nonsense
Then you should write to the authors as well as the peer review board and submit your own study which debunks this one... that is, IF YOU HAVE data that is compelling or is directly contradictory...

OTHERWISE, all you can do is COMPLAIN because you don't like the implications of the work (as you already did, without EVIDENCE, of course)

this is the problem with you fanatical religious zealots... you think because your deluded minds see something or believe in something that everyone else should also believe in it...

the scientific method removes this delusional bias by presenting a methodology that minimizes (or removes) bias and the subjective nature of things like religion, etc

this is also why you continually FAIL to present any arguable commentary on PO or other sites: NO EVIDENCE

one last point: you are LUCKY that you're protected here... a moderated site would have perma-banned you long ago
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2015
[everything I detailed].
but somehow we can only see the abstract and take your word for it?
really?
do they discuss the serious science of creationists too? [sarc/hyperbole]

lets get back to some basic science: you stated
Stephen Hawking may exemplify someone who needed metaphysics. His virus-driven pathology has been explained by creationists, not by his "Theory of Everything." Treatment with anti-virals might have halted the progression of his neurodegenerative disease or perhaps nutritional supplements did
So, Please list the Viral agents responsible for ALS and Hawkings disease

also list your conclusive evidence that ALS is viral driven and that antibiotics/nutrition would have cured/stopped the progression

why do you fear answering the question when you are so sure that you know the answer?
after all, you were willing to comment that creationists found said answer... and that they're "serious scientists"...

so where are the answers?

JVK
1 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2015
you should write to the authors as well as the peer review board and submit your own study


My previously published comment on: Substitutions Near the Receptor Binding Site Determine Major Antigenic Change During Influenza Virus Evolution http://comments.s....1244730 was replaced with their claim that:

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

If this is the question: Is mainstream science in "Science" pseudoscience?

Here is the answer: http://rna-mediat...science/

The pseudoscience in "Science" was addressed by replacement of my comment about the obvious link from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA, which is RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions. They link physics and chemistry from atoms to ecosystems via sensory feedback that links food to reproduction.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2015
If this is the question: Is mainstream science in "Science" pseudoscience?
no, that is NOT the question
you only throw that out when you have been cornered by FACTS and scientific evidence proving you're WRONG and you can't find another way of communicating your RELIGION
the scientific method (as succinctly as possible): https://en.wikipe...c_method#/media/File:The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg]https://en.wikipe...cess.svg[/url]

https://en.wikipe...c_method

before you comment, you should learn a little about the method and quit posting pseudoscience
/rna-mediat...science/
PSEUDOSCIENCE PHISHING PERSONAL SITE
reported
was replaced with
it was replaced because YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE STUDY AND YOU WERE MAKING PSEUDOSCIENCE CLAIMS ON A SCIENCE SITE

you still can't get that through your head, eh?
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2015
@jk cont'd
you are also AVOIDING answering the questions which YOU brought to the forum with your religious stupidity because you know:
1- there is NO answer
2- there is NO SCIENCE in the creationist movement
3- you are a chronic LIAR and FRAUD

you stated
Stephen Hawking may exemplify someone who needed metaphysics. His virus-driven pathology has been explained by creationists, not by his "Theory of Everything." Treatment with anti-virals might have halted the progression of his neurodegenerative disease or perhaps nutritional supplements did
So, Please list the Viral agents responsible for ALS and Hawkings disease

also list your conclusive evidence that ALS is viral driven and that antibiotics/nutrition would have cured/stopped the progression

where are your answers, if you comment this based upon SCIENCE?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2015
Captain Stumpy:
you are also AVOIDING answering the questions which YOU brought to the forum with your religious stupidity because you know...


I wrote:
The pseudoscience in "Science" was addressed by replacement of my comment about the obvious link from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA, which is RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions.


See also: http://medicalxpr...ine.html

The life and death of all parasites is RNA-mediated in the context of what is currently known to serious scientists about biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent protein folding , which is linked to the physiology of reproduction in all living genera via the response of the innate immune system to viruses. The innate response links mutations from perturbed protein folding to pathology, but links nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to healthy longevity and ecological speciation.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2015
I wrote:
@jk
yes, unlike you, i can actually read and comprehend what was written
how does your link answer the questions? be VERY specific.... and point out where it actually LINKS the virus to ALS as well as calls out the virus name/designation so that we can all be aware of what it is you've found

like i said: you claimed
Stephen Hawking may exemplify someone who needed metaphysics. His virus-driven pathology has been explained by creationists, not by his "Theory of Everything." Treatment with anti-virals might have halted the progression of his neurodegenerative disease or perhaps nutritional supplements did
but you are NOT answering the questions

1- Please list the Viral agents responsible for ALS and Hawkings disease

2- also list your conclusive evidence that ALS is viral driven and that antibiotics/nutrition would have cured/stopped the progression

your link doesn't answer the first OR last question
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2015
If Captain Stumpy is not the last biologically uninformed science idiot left to antagonize me -- even after the 2015 Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to those who used their understanding of RNA-mediated events to create medications that changed the practice of Westernized medicine -- please state your case for any added explanations needed from me of how ecological variation becomes ecological adaptation outside the context of pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and evolution.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2015
Kohl unwilling (or more likely, unable) to answer extremely simple questions once again. Page me when he gets around to providing directly relevant citations to his claims instead of the usual tenuously connected papers and the vague "links" statements he uses so often.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2015
Did I mention this? Chinese Scientists Discover Structural Basis of Pre-mRNA Splicing
http://science.sl...splicing

See also the molecular epigenetics section of our 1996 review: http://www.hawaii...ion.html "...alternative splicing techniques of pre-mRNA..."

The holy grail of biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry was once again not linked from mutations to evolution. It was linked to the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction and ecological speciation in the context of works published by serious scientists like this year's Nobel Laureates and the 2004 Nobel Laureates in Medicine who helped to detail how food odor and pheromones are linked from ecological variation to ecological adaptation and biodiversity in species from microbes to man.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2015
Page me when he gets around to providing directly relevant citations to his claims instead of the usual tenuously connected papers and the vague "links" statements he uses so often.
@Anon
his posts above are not even tenuous at best... they are completely irrelevant... like i pointed out, he claimed
Stephen Hawking may exemplify someone who needed metaphysics. His virus-driven pathology has been explained by creationists
but still can't seem to be able to even get CLOSE to comprehending the simple questions starting with:
1- Please list the Viral agents responsible for ALS and Hawkings disease

2- also list your conclusive evidence that ALS is viral driven and that antibiotics/nutrition would have cured/stopped the progression

this is not just reading comprehension failure, this is a psychotic break for survival- he is trying not to answer because he knows answering will point out his complete lack of evidence as well as his chronic lying
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2015
please state your case for any added explanations needed from me...
@jk
1- i stopped there because YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS
2- reported for pseudoscience obfuscation and chronic lying

NOW - you made a CLAIM
Stephen Hawking may exemplify someone who needed metaphysics. His virus-driven pathology has been explained by creationists...Treatment with anti-virals might have halted the progression of his neurodegenerative disease or perhaps nutritional supplements
you tried distraction above, and even redirection and obfuscation, and now you want to talk about "how ecological variation becomes ecological adaptation"... but YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OR VALIDATE YOUR CLAIM

so again:
1- Please list the Viral agents responsible for ALS and Hawkings disease

2- also list your conclusive evidence that ALS is viral driven and that antibiotics/nutrition would have cured/stopped the progression

failure to answer only proves you post pseudoscience
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2015
Did I mention this?
did i mention you still haven't answered your claims?

here it is again, edited for content
Stephen Hawking may exemplify someone who needed metaphysics. His virus-driven pathology has been explained by creationists...Treatment with anti-virals might have halted the progression of his neurodegenerative disease or perhaps nutritional supplements
you tried distraction above, and even redirection and obfuscation, and now you want to talk about "how ecological variation becomes ecological adaptation"... but YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OR VALIDATE YOUR CLAIM

so again:
1- Please list the Viral agents responsible for ALS and Hawkings disease

2- also list your conclusive evidence that ALS is viral driven and that antibiotics/nutrition would have cured/stopped the progression

IF you creationists have found that ALS is virus driven then you should be linking it here

otherwise, you are (still) a chronic liar
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Oct 05, 2015
The moderators block my posts with links to creationist literature.

Reported as: Dormant viral genes may awaken to cause ALS

http://medicalxpr...als.html
Vietvet
5 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2015
The moderators block my posts with links to creationist literature.

Reported as: Dormant viral genes may awaken to cause ALS

http://medicalxpr...als.html


Dormant viral genes don't cause ALS. A small percentage of ALS sufferers show ancient viral
genes in their spinal fluid but most do not. If you were up to date with the peer reviewed literature you would know that. Instead you rely on young earth creationists blogs that bastardize and lie about the research of real scientists.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2015
Instead you rely on young earth creationists blogs...


I responded to the question with a link to the report from http://medicalxpr...als.html

See also: Differences in HERV-K LTR insertions in orthologous loci of humans and great apes
http://www.scienc...00000627

As you know, I have followed this literature for more than 20 years. See also: http://medicalxpr...tml#nRlv "The scientists also found that the mouse brains had key hallmarks of the disorders, including toxic clusters of ribonucleic acids (RNA) and TDP-43, a protein that has long been known to go awry in the majority of ALS and FTD cases."

What led you to claim "Dormant viral genes don't cause ALS." What does cause ALS in the context of your ridiculous opinions about biologically-based cause and effect?
bluehigh
3 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2015
The moderators block my posts with links to creationist literature.

> No they don't. You're not that important.

@Cap Stumpy
Your uppercase is getting out of hand again.

@Vietvet
You are an idiot.

(Shields up - IMHO)

JVK
1 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2015
> No they don't. You're not that important.


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

Other serious scientists are now addressing the origins of "toxic clusters of ribonucleic acids (RNA)"
and linking them to all transgenerational virus-driven pathology via nutrient stress and social stress.

See:
1) "Viral Genome Junk Is Bunk"
for comparison to
2) "Four laws of evolutionary biology"

1) is considered to be pseudoscience by the moderators
2) is considered to be mainstream science

See also: FIGURE 2 | Model for RNA-directed DNA methylation.
http://www.nature..._F2.html
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2015
Here is the link to the pdf of: Establishing, maintaining and modifying DNA methylation patterns in plants and animals

https://www.mcdb....mals.pdf

Here is a link to the abstract from "Mechanisms of stress in the brain" http://www.nature...086.html

Here is the link from microbes to humans via the honeybee model organism "DNA methylation dynamics, metabolic fluxes, gene splicing, and alternative phenotypes in honey bees" http://www.pnas.o...abstract

@Vietvet
You are an idiot.


No, the correct term is either anonymous fool, or biologically uninformed science idiot. Both describe Captain Stumpy. There is no reason to single out "Vietvet." So far, you also seem to be either an anonymous fool, or a biologically uninformed science idiot.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2015
Would you consider the work here to be that of serious scientists?:

https://www.janel...direct=1
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2015
@Cap Stumpy
Your uppercase is getting out of hand again
@Blue
yeah, i thought that maybe putting things into bigger letters might help with his failing eyesight.. plus, i've found that jk reacts to it in interesting ways
Thanks for the feedback. i'll keep it in mind

|.

The moderators block my posts with links to creationist literature
@jk
that is because even children can tell that religion is NOT the same thing as science, and your sites are called PSEUDOSCIENCE

there is no science in the creationist movement
for evidence and final proof of that, see: https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

Reported as
you still haven't been specific or answered the questions.... especially no. 2!

why is that?
are your creationist religious buddies not "serious scientist" enough for you, or are you still trying to backpedal and find something that might be misinterpreted as proof?

your link doesn't answer the questions either
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2015
My model is important
@jk
no, it isn't, because:
1- it requires mutations, which are still a part of evolution
2- it doesn't supplant the Theory of Evolution because your model is too limited in its scope and only pertains to adaptation
3- your model is also already included in the Theory of Evolution under adaptations
4- http://www.socioa...ew/24367

Both describe Captain Stumpy
and yet, i am not the one proselytizing religion on a science site or being proven to be a chronic liar etc...
see above attempt as validation of this
Your link is a singular study and brings interesting possibilities, but doesn't validate your claim NOR does it prove your other claims

now answer the questions:
1- Please list the Viral agents responsible for ALS and Hawkings disease

2- also list your conclusive evidence that ALS is viral driven and that antibiotics/nutrition would have cured/stopped the progression
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2015
Constraints on the evolution of a doublesex target gene arising from doublesex's pleiotropic deployment. https://www.janel...ployment

Genes do not evolve, proteins do not evolve, species do not evolve. Serious scientists know how ecological variation is linked to ecological adaptation via the biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding during thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynethesis and degradation that lead to organism-level thermoregulation via the conserved molecular mechanisms we detailed in our 1996 review. From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior http://www.hawaii...ion.html
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2015
Genes do not evolve, proteins do not evolve, species do not evolve
PSEUDOSCIENCE religious comment not substantiated by evidence and refuted here: http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

Constraints on
so, what you are saying is that you can't answer the questions because there is NO evidence that you can provide proving your comments?

this is what i've been trying to tell you... but i am glad that you finally admitted it to everyone else here on PO

i will ask it again just in case you lost your glasses or your current demonstrations of mental deterioration in cognitive ability is random or atypical it its length

1- Please list the Viral agents responsible for ALS and Hawkings disease

2- also list your conclusive evidence that ALS is viral driven and that antibiotics/nutrition would have cured/stopped the progression

oh! sorry... almost forgot:
reported for pseudoscience
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2015
Someone else just posted this to my RNA-mediated FB group

http://sciencebet...-switch/ Optogenetic Research Shows Which Neurons Flip Fertility Master Switch

The flip that is switched links the epigenetic effects of food odors and pheromones to the physiology of nutrient-dependent reproduction in species from microbes to man. In vertebrates, GnRH links all nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled RNA-mediated events to ecological speciation via chromosomal rearrangements.

See for example: Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes http://www.pnas.o...abstract
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2015
See also: DNA Repair Pioneers Win Nobel
http://www.the-sc...st124655 with specific attention to my comment on how

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

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


Neo-Darwinian theory is thoroughly refuted, not just by me, but by everyone who is not a biologically uninformed science idiot. That leaves only the biologically uninformed who choose to be science idiots to also choose to complain about the works of creationists that link atoms to ecosystems outside the context of ridiculous theories. That's what these Nobel Laureates did.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 08, 2015
only the biologically uninformed who choose to be science idiots to also choose to complain about the works of creationists
@jk
ALL SCIENTISTS refuse to accept "the works of creationist" because there is NO SCIENCE in the creationist movement, as proven and validated here:
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

this is not a debatable subject: your creationist beliefs are called PSEUDOSCIENCE
https://en.wikipe...oscience

your continued arguments for creationist dogma while ignoring scientific evidence and crying about your pseudoscience status label by scientists is called Conspiracist Ideation and it blinds you to actual science because of your religious beliefs
http://journals.p....0075637

all this is VALIDATED and proven by your own words, posts and links to pseudoscience

reported for pseudoscience
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2015
your creationist beliefs are called PSEUDOSCIENCE


What is the anti-entropic force that prevents viruses from linking entropic elasticity to genomic entropy in whatever model of evolution you think has been validated by experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect?

If you tell me what you think it is, we can compare the creationist's claims about viruses to whatever you think is pseudoscience.

But if you won't tell anyone how mutations are controlled, you can only keep claiming the creationists have not already linked creation to control of viruses and to the origin of nutrient-dependent life and the physiology of reproduction on this planet.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2015
SSgt Stumpy-nut cited https://en.wikipe...rkansas, which links to this:

"In a 1995 review of work published by ICR researchers, Douglas J. Futuyma writes, "Neither in the creationist literature nor in the scientific literature have I found any reference to professional research by these individuals in genetics, paleontology, taxonomy, anatomy, or any of the other fields most relevant to the study of evolution."

For comparison, Eugene Koonin said this (earlier this year): "The entire evolution of the microbial world and the virus world, and the interaction between microbes and viruses and other life forms have been left out of the Modern Synthesis..." http://www.huffin...216.html

Leaving the role of virus-driven genomic entropy out of the Modern Synthesis leaves it open for attack by anyone from ICR who links the creation of anything to negative entropy.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2015
@the farcical jk
you can only keep claiming the creationists have not already linked creation to
i make NO claim, i have irrefutable evidence that there is NO SCIENCE in the creationist movement, which is a RELIGION, not a research organization, nor a valid scientific ANYTHING... this evidence is as follows:
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

it is not a matter of DEBATE... it is a proven FACT
NO SCIENCE: PERIOD
"In a 1995 review of work
your quote is NOT on the site i linked
succinctly put, Judge Overton, and upheld by the Supreme Court, ruled "Creation science ... is simply not science"
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas#McLean_v._Arkansas_ruling

read the reasons for yourself, mensa boy... or have them read to you since you can't comprehend basic english, it appears

BTW- reported for pseudoscience
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2015
your quote is NOT on the site i linked


Act 590 had been put forward by a Christian fundamentalist on the basis of a request from the Greater Little Rock Evangelical Fellowship for the introduction of legislation based on a "model act" prepared using material from the Institute for Creation Research. -- See the wiki-link to: https://en.wikipe...Research

Stumpy-nut
i have irrefutable evidence that there is NO SCIENCE in the creationist movement


You claim to have evidence that no one else has at the same time Eugene Koonin has reframed his "evidence" in the context of "A virocentric perspective on the evolution of life" http://www.scienc...13001028

The virocentric perspective links atoms to ecosystems only if it includes the de novo creation of nucleic acids and the de novo creation of genes via the anti-entropic virucidal energy from the sun.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2015
perhaps you can't read?
Act 590 had been put forward
per your own link
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is a Creationist apologetics institute in Dallas, Texas that specializes in media promotion of creation science and the Genesis creation narrative as though it were a historical event. The ICR adopts the Bible as an inerrant and literal documentary of scientific and historical fact as well as religious and moral truths, and espouses a Young Earth creationist worldview.[3] It rejects evolutionary biology, which it views as a corrupting moral and social influence and threat to religious belief
PER YOUR OWN LINK it REJECTS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for the sake of a religious argument, thus, there is IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE that your creationist movement DOES NOT ADHERE TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
[intentionally capitalized for your failing eyesight]

therefore, YOU have just added MORE evidence that your creationist movement/creationists/ etc have NO SCIENCE
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2015
@the religious zealot precher jk
You claim to have evidence that no one else has
that can't be true, you yourself just provided MORE evidence that there is NO science in the creationist movement
therefore, by your own words and links, you've proven yourself to be a chronic liar, AGAIN
The virocentric perspective links atoms to ecosystems only if it includes
obfuscation of actual science by utilising techno-jargon while not providing evidence of claims is a tactic of creationists, which is the continued tactic you have used
This tactic has been demonstrated to be false and without merit as the links and studies you've used do NOT substantiate your own claims: this is PROVEN by your historical 100% FAIL rate interpreting the studies, per the AUTHOR feedback of every claim that i've checked and they've replied to

thanks for proving my point so effectively and validating the following
http://journals.p....0075637
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Oct 13, 2015
PER YOUR OWN LINK it REJECTS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for the sake of a religious argument


Like you, they pretend to know what others believe and what others reject.

obfuscation of actual science by utilising techno-jargon while not providing evidence of claims is a tactic of creationists


That claim is typical of all claims made by biologically uninformed science idiots.

See for comparison: http://www.cell.c...901098-2
Natural Variation in plep-1 Causes Male-Male Copulatory Behavior in C. elegans

They try to link mutations and the sensory feedback that "shapes individuality to provide equal space for behavioral excellence."

That's what homophobes do. These researchers are experts on nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations in nematodes. Why are they behaving like homophobes?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2015
That claim is typical
it is not a claim if it is proven
it is called empirical evidence and it is demonstrated when you post your pseudoscience and religious dogma and refuse to accept known scientific experimentation (like Lenski or Extavour) or when you attempt to "interpret" a study only to be completely debunked by the authors or actual educated biologists and medical personnel
That's what homophobes do.
you've already demonstrated your homophobia, so take that elsewhere

reported for PSEUDOSCIENCE and homophobic hate posting

JVK
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2015
you've already demonstrated your homophobia, so take that elsewhere


Here's the link to my award-winning book chapter/journal article on the development of male sexual orientation.

The Mind's Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences http://www.sexarc...kohl.htm

Are you claiming that the Foundation for the Scientific Study of Sexuality gives awards for publications that promote homophobia?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2015
Are you claiming that the Foundation for the Scientific Study of Sexuality gives awards for publications that promote homophobia?
did i say that anywhere above? NO

for starters, you are trying to elicit hate and establish an inflammatory commentary (TROLLING) by commenting "That's what homophobes do" while also refusing to actually support comment with evidence or any psychological/scientific link

for two: we already know YOU are a homophobic idiot because your vitriol is here:
http://freethough...s-place/

it is still posted: it is why you were BANNED from commenting

take your hate and religious bs elsewhere
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2015
refusing to actually support comment with evidence or any psychological/scientific link


The award I won was for the "...best social science article, chapter, or book published in the previous year in which theoretical explanations of human sexual attitudes and behaviors are developed. In addition to careful theoretical development, stress will be placed on the use of relevant empirical evidence to examine the validity of the theoretical explanations."

In "Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation" -- LeVay claimed this:
p. 210 This model is attractive in that it solves the "binding problem" of sexual attraction. By that I mean the problem of why all the different features of men or women (visual appearance and feel of face, body, and genitals; voice quality, smell; personality and behavior, etc.) attract people as a more or less coherent package representing one sex, rather than as an arbitrary collage..." [cont]
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2015
[cont] ...of male and female characteristics. If all these characteristics come to be attractive because they were experienced in association with a male- or female-specific pheromone, then they will naturally go together even in the absence of complex genetically coded instructions." http://www.amazon...99737673

There is no other model of biologically-based cause and effect that links sex differences in cell types and sexuual orientation from yeasts to mammals.

PZ Myers banned me when I cited: Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes http://www.pnas.o...bstract.

It contains an example of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptation in the form of chromosomal rearrangements in the same species that has different morphological and behavioral phenotypes.
JVK
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2015
The different morphological and behavioral phenotypes in humans are linked via a single amino acid substitution during life history transitions. See for example: Oppositional COMT Val158Met effects on resting state functional connectivity in adolescents and adults http://link.sprin...4-0895-5

Excerpt: "DA availability in the PFC is critically dependent on its degrading enzyme catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) (Yavich et al. 2007). Its function is known to be affected by a functional single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in COMT (G-to-A base-pair substitution) leading to a methionine (Met) valine (Val) substitution at codons 108/158 (COMT Val158Met). Carriers of the Met allele have been found to display a fourfold decrease in enzymatic activity compared to Val allele carriers going along with an increase of prefrontal DA activity (Lachman et al. 1996; Lotta et al. 1995)."
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2015
PZ Myers banned me when I cited: Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes
No, he didn't
He banned you for your homophobic hate talk
that is NOT speculation, it is proven here: http://freethough...s-place/

your words are STILL up there and still available for people to read and understand your religious stupidity and hatred / homophobia
Just because you are delusional doesn't mean people cant read... most people actually CAN read and understand reality

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.