Re: "A similar pattern in honey bees has broad implications for our understanding of social behavior within the hive and in comparison with other species."

Across species examples are offered for comparison in: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Excerpt: "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)."

Across species examples are offered for comparison in: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

JVK's model destroyed:
http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

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

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

Excerpt: "It's hard to imagine what elements of the brain are influenced during the larval period that then survive the massive reorganization of the brain to bias behavior in this way," Robinson said.

In "Organizational and activational effects of hormones on insect behavior" Robinson said: "The development of species-typical and sex-specific adult behaviors in vertebrate animals is influenced by gonadal steroid hormones, non-gonadal hormones, and non-hormonal factors working on the underlying neural circuitry (reviewed in Diamond et al., 1996; Kawata, 1995; Schlinger, 1998)." http://www.ncbi.n...10980296

Diamond et al., (1996) is our review of RNA-mediated hormone-organized and hormone-activated behaviors with a section on molecular epigenetics that now links everything known about biophysically constrained protein folding from microbes to man via their nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled behaviors. http://www.ncbi.n.../9047261

Re:

JVK's model destroyed...

Only a biologically uninformed science idiot would continue to claim that another validation of the honeybee model organism link from microbes to man be considered in the context of another biologically uninformed science idiot's criticisms of my published works.

Biologically uninformed science idiots do not destroy models that link top-down causation to morphological and behavioral phenotypes in all living genera via the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically constrained RNA-mediated cell type differentiation,

The only thing a biologically uniformed science idiot can do when faced with a detailed model of cause and effect is complain that it is a refutation of neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific nonsense.

I wrote: "Members of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (SICB) recently organized and held an ecological epigenetics symposium (January, 2013)."

See also: All in the (bigger) family (2015)

Re: See also: All in the (bigger) family (2015) My comment to Science published at 2:54 pm on 1/29/15 http://comments.s...6219.220

The 2015 Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (SICB) presenters may not recognize how much progress has been made since the 2013 ecological epigenetics symposium.
....
Links across species from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in organized genomes appear to have their origins in the conserved molecular mechanisms of RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated protein folding.
....
Apparently, they've learned that the same set of microRNAs controls expression of the genes for rate-limiting enzymes that control the hormone production of different hormones in insects and crustaceans.

Why were they left with any questions about how crustaceans and insects could all be part of one big family?
...
--------
Summary: What questions are left for serious scientists?

http://dx.doi.org...rep15572

Excerpt:"Across animal species, aggression can be either positively or negatively associated with other fitness and health traits, presumably due to variation in the evolutionary drivers shaping aggression and associated phenotypes."

My comment: What "evolutionary drivers" do they presume shape aggression and associated phenotypes across animal species?

Serious scientists attributed nothing to "evolutionary drivers" and they report behavioral development in terms that link what is known about biologically-based cause and effect.

See for example: Mechanisms of stress in the brain http://www.nature...086.html

Excerpt: "The epigenetic mechanisms controlling BDNF expression are influenced by maternal separation early in life, which, in turn, leads to changes in BDNF expression and
epigenetic regulation via histone acetylation and methylation over the life course..."

Re: "...epigenetic regulation via histone acetylation and methylation over the life course..."

See also: The neurobiological basis of human aggression: A review on genetic and epigenetic mechanisms http://dx.doi.org....b.32388

Excerpt: "...from a genetic perspective, the aminergic systems are likely to regulate both reactive and proactive aggression, whereas the endocrine pathways seem to be more involved in regulation of reactive aggression through modulation of impulsivity. Epigenetic studies on aggression have associated non-genetic risk factors with modifications of the stress response and the immune system. Finally, we point to the urgent need for further genome-wide analyses and the integration of genetic and epigenetic information to understand individual differences in reactive and proactive AB [aggressive behavior].

Once again we see that aggressive behavior is not due to "evolutionary drivers" and that serious scientists do not make such claims.

Once again we see that aggressive behavior is not due to "evolutionary drivers" and that serious scientists do not make such claims

@jk
1- the link you gave was for human aggression: Humans are highly complex
we may well have certain evolutionary influences that are similar to bee's, but that is like comparing Apples to firetrucks based upon color alone

2- the linked study is paywalled and thus the conclusions are not available for reading. neither are the methods, etc.
thus your link can only be judged on the abstract alone, and that leaves out far too much information

lastly
3- considering your history of being a chronic liar combined with your absolute failure to comprehend scientific studies (100% failure to date) any claim you make re: studies must be viewed as suspect (especially when you can't link whole studies) until compared to or validated by the authors

like comparing Apples to firetrucks based upon color alone

For comparison, which do you think "evolved?"

For comparison, which do you think "evolved?"

1- this is OT and irrelevant
2- This depends upon your use of the word "evolved"

the apple has evolved into what it is today: this is scientific fact
we can see this in the Theory of Evolution: you know, that scientific Theory which is not only substantiated by empirical evidence but also validated by secondary sources (unlike your claims)

however, you can also claim that firetrucks evolved over time as well due to human technological advancement: from fire-brigade bucket lines and the horse drawn hand-pumped cart to steam engines to modern petrol based engines

Therefore, you will have to be much more specific about your question and which use of "evolved" you want to discuss, as both are relevant on a science/technology site

If you claim that apples and firetrucks evolve, it is up to you to tell us more about your use of the term "evolution" and its meaning in different contexts.

Ben Carson's campaign manager can then take your claims and compare the claims of PZ Myers and all his other idiot minions to the claims of serious scientists who understand how biologically-based nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated cell type differentiation occurs. Others can then ask biologically uninformed science idiots to explain cell type differentiation to them in terms that neo-Darwinian theorists might understand in the context of the evolution of firetrucks.

Indeed, some apples and firetrucks are red. Why do you think that you can claim that all of them evolved?

http://www.ncbi.n...26507253 This study represents the first effort to integrate DNA sequence variants, gene expression, and methylation in a social insect to advance our understanding of their relationships in the context of causality.

The ridiculous claim that this is the "first effort" can be placed into the context of any or all of my publications during the past two decades, which now link nutrient-dependent microRNAs to protection from virus-driven genomic entropy (all pathology) via amino acid substitutions that stabilize organized genomes in all living genera.

See also:
http://jeb.biolog...abstract The microRNAs identified in this study provide a starting point for functional tests of specific microRNAs and their targets as we build a more comprehensive understanding of the regulation of complex social behaviors.

With few exceptions, academics strive to be first or to provide a starting point [cont]

[cont]

Academics who place their careers first prevent scientific progress by pretending to ignore the fact that they are often at least one generation behind the data available to them in the context of the atoms to ecosystems models that have been developed at the same time pseudoscientists have continued to cling to their ridiculous theories about mutations and evolution of apples and/or Captain Stumpy's firetrucks.

Nutrient-dependent microRNAs link energy-dependent base pair changes to RNA-mediated events, which include gene duplication and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all genera. If they did not, Ben Carson would be betting his election chances on something that was not already known to all serious scientists. Instead, like some other creationists all over the world, he may be waiting to shove the facts down the throats of the most vocal atheists to silence them once and for all.

We shall see.

Just because you mentioned a broad topic years ago doesn't mean you studied the fine minutia of it.

Agreed. But that is not what I did in my book or in our 1996 review or in this invited review. All of my published and unpublished works attest to the fact that I linked atoms to ecosystems and the fact that you are a biologically uninformed science idiot who still knows nothing about RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all living genera.

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

...they actually did sequencing and experiments and studied what they wrote about.

That's great! Where did they get their ideas about what to study or how to design their experiments? From evolutionary theorists, or from my model?

NeuroTribes, Steve Silberman on a haunting history and new hope for autistic people http://blogs.plos...-people/

Excerpt: "Kanner's success in constraining the definition of autism left many autistic people without support or services for decades. And as Silberman details, Kanner might have been the first autism researcher to channel interpretation to fulfill deep ambition, but he was by no means the last. As the 20th century closed and the 21st century dawned, autism clearly became a path to public attention for academic journals, researchers, and a news media increasingly hungry for readers."

Given what is already known about the link from a single nutrient-dependent amino acid substitution to changes in the brain during life history transitions, and the attacks by atheists on Ben Carson's beliefs, he is virtually guaranteed to become our next US President.

If you claim that apples and firetrucks evolve, it is up to you to tell us more about your use of the term "evolution" and its meaning in different contexts

@jk
1- if you would have read the post, you would see that i DID exactly that WRT firetrucks and "evolve"

2- WRT "evolve" in the Theory of Evolution, since i know you don't know how to use a dictionary or other means of finding definitions except to poll fanatical religious sites: http://www.thefre...m/evolve

definition 2 of the vb. as well as 2 of v.tr.
(it even annotates the connection to biology as well as the Theory of Evolution)
Perhaps you can get someone from your mensa group who is able to read to explain that to you?

Why do you think that you can claim that all of them evolved?

ROTFLMFAO
YOU DIDN'T READ THE POST!

do you know how stupid that makes you look?
NICE... and you say you are mensa?
learn to read, princess!