"RNA editing by adenosine deamination fuels the generation of RNA and protein diversity in eukaryotes, particularly in higher organisms. This includes the recoding of translated exons, widespread editing of retrotransposon-derived repeat elements and sequence modification of microRNA (miRNA) transcripts. Such changes can bring about specific amino acid substitutions, alternative splicing and changes in gene expression levels." http://dx.doi.org...eth.3314

Amino acid substitutions link nutrient-dependent metabolic networks and genetic networks via fixation. Whether the cricket mandible and male penis are examined or the human fossil record, anyone who expected linear changes to occur was a fool.

Changes in morphology occur in the context of changes in behavior linked to the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction or animal species rapidly become extinct.
http://rspb.royal...abstract

See also RNA-mediated.com

Every comment JVK makes is based on his Creationist beliefs, not on science, even if his word salads would have you think otherwise.

Such changes can bring about specific amino acid substitutions, alternative splicing and changes in gene expression levels.

http://www.scienc...10000405

Anonymous fool: "Nothing you've talked about here explains changes in DNA."

Masatoshi Nei: "...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world." http://www.amazon...99661731

Why doesn't the anonymous fool explain HOW changes in DNA are linked to the increasing organismal complexity manifested in the biodiversity of species from microbes to man?

For example, if the number of proteins grows exponentially with the number of amino acids and the nutrient-dependent amino acids are fixed in the DNA of organized genomes in species from microbes to man via their pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction,
how is something else linked to changes in DNA?

I wrote:

amino acids are fixed in the DNA of organized genomes

The anonymous fool responds:

DNA does not contain amino acids.

-- and clips the part about organized genomes.

I asked:

... if the number of proteins grows exponentially with the number of amino acids and the nutrient-dependent amino acids are fixed in the DNA of organized genomes in species from microbes to man via their pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction,
how is something else linked to changes in DNA?

I've tried asking the anonymous fool to tell me how mutations are fixed in the DNA of organized genomes, but he doesn't seem to know. Does anyone else know how epigenesis and epistasis are linked to the DNA in organized genomes?

You understand nothing about cell type differentiation because you believe the results of your mutagenesis experiments can be meaningfully interpreted as if increasing organismal complexity could be made to fit into a ridiculous theory taught as "evolution for dummies."

If you want more information, there's plenty to be found.

I want you to tell me how mutations are fixed in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man and explain how they link epigenesis to epistasis.

You understand nothing about

@jk
except you are WRONG
you can't even comprehend the LINKS ANON left you which completely DEBUNK your model and your religious beliefs!

I can clarify that although our work does, we hope, provide an example of how nutrition/ecology could affect the evolution of potentially adaptive traits, you [CAPT] are right that we in no way claim that mutations in the heritable genome play no role in evolution. Indeed, as you [CAPT] correctly state, just because we provide evidence that nutritional conditions play a role, this does not negate a role for mutations. Indeed, in that very same paper, we provide evidence that heritable differences in the genome sequences between Drosophila species, in other words, mutations, ALSO play a role in the evolution of the trait we are studying.

So Kohl is mistaken if he is claiming that my study (or Rich Lenski's work) provide evidence AGAINST the role of mutations in evolution.

EPIC FAIL for jk

Dr. Extavour,
Ever since a biologically uniformed science idiot indicated to you I was claiming your work provided evidence AGAINST the role of mutations in evolution, he has used your response to berate me and denigrate my works. They include a detailed model of how nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions link olfaction and the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes to increasing organismal complexity via fixation of the amino acid substitutions in the context of the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction.

For example: see his comment at http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

In case you have not seen the two recent reports that support your works and mine, please also see:

http://www.pnas.o...abstract

and

http://www.pnas.o...27.short

Although nothing can be done to keep science idiots from misrepresenting our works, I also posted this to phys.org

"Major trophic shifts in insects are associated with chemoreceptor gene loss as recently evolved ecologies shape sensory repertoires." http://www.pnas.o...abstract

My comment: Ecological variation shapes the sensory repertoires of invertebrates and vertebrates via the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes. Duplications lead to the accumulated mutations in receptors that are no longer required and ultimately may lead to gene loss.

For example:

"Functional loss of yeast detectors parallels transition to herbivory" http://www.pnas.o....extract

Biologically uniformed science idiots continue to tell others who are equally uniformed about mutations and evolution at the same time serious scientists are "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" http://www.scienc...88.short

Serious scientists must realize that anything they say to a science idiot will be misinterpreted and probably contribute to disease.

They claim "...an important gap is being filled by molecular understanding of the genesis of variation that confers the ability to evolve."

The balance of viral microRNAs and nutrient-dependent microRNAs leads to the genesis of variation manifested in the increasing organismal complexity of ecologically adapted morphological and behavioral phenotypes.

If you're not going to tell us how they link evolution/mutation and selection, you should accept the fact that you can't and quit pretending that's what they are doing. They can't do it either. That's why they wrote the article. They're trying to tell biologically uninformed science idiots, like you, to quit pretending that species evolve via mutations and natural selection.

Things like splicing and silencing, which RNAs are responsible for, do not make changes to the DNA.

What makes changes to the DNA? How do the changes lead to the evolution of a new species?

If you were right, all organisms would have the same genome and only differ by which genes they express and how often. That's not the case.

Is it the case for the organisms of a species?

If you had ever been right about anything in the context of cell type differentiation in any cell of any individual of any species, you would tell me why all organisms do not have the same genome instead of implying that I have said they do.

Instead, you refuse to tell anyone how changes to DNA lead to the evolution of a new species because you know how foolish that claim is. Still, you tout ridiculous theories that link mutations to evolution because you have no idea how cell type differentiation occurs.

Although nothing can be done to keep science idiots from misrepresenting our works, I also posted this to phys.org

@jk
HOW can i possibly "misrepresent" your work when i used YOUR WORDS VERBATIM and also left links and references to support my claims?
YOU CAN'T

this is your delusion because of your religious beliefs
see THIS study which is validated EVERY TIME YOU POST
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

just because you FEAR the science, doesn't mean you are correct
just because you THINK you are right doesn't mean you are
take THIS DEBUNKING of you for example: http://www.socioa...ew/24367

you are STILL crying about that one

you claimed that mutations are never beneficial (Want me to link THAT crap again too?) and so much more because you DO NOT UNDERSTAND BIOLOGY well enough to argue your point
Better get back to basics

...serious scientists are "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" http://www.scienc...88.short

@jk
from your OWN LINK

in bacteria, responses to environmental stress can activate mutagenesis mechanisms that increase mutation rate, which can potentially increase the ability of a cell to evolve, specifically when it is poorly adapted to its environment (when stressed). Most of a 93-gene network that promotes mutagenesis in Escherichia coli is devoted to sensing stress and activating stress responses that direct the bacterium to mutate when stressed (3). Stress responses also up-regulate mutagenesis in yeast (4) and human cancer cells (5) and underlie mutations induced by antibiotics that cause resistance to those very drugs, and others (6).

not only did you NOT READ IT
but THIS is what ANON, Real and I have been telling you from DAY ONE!
but there is MORE

...serious scientists are "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" http://www.scienc...88.short

@jk
even the referenced material from your linked SciMag study says the SAME THING WE TOLD YOU
it also says the SAME THINGS THAT Dr. EXTAVOUR passed on!

http://www.ncbi.n...Abstract

http://journals.p....1003680

http://www.ncbi.n...Abstract

http://www.scienc...ipsecsha

everything you have linked TO DATE says something other than what YOU INTERPRET it to mean
AND THAT has been borne out by EVERY AUTHOR that has taken time to respond to us

THAT IS A 100% FAILURE RATE for you, kohl
NOT ME
NOT ANON
NOT REALSCIENCE

YOU

so you think you are being misrepresented even when we use your own words verbatim?
take it to court!
i would LOVE to square off with you there

My comment: Ecological variation shapes the sensory repertoires of invertebrates and vertebrates via the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes. Duplications lead to the accumulated mutations in receptors that are no longer required and ultimately may lead to gene loss (not gain of function).

http://www.ncbi.n...3696029/ orco mutant mosquitoes lose strong preference for humans and are not repelled by volatile DEET

http://www.nature...964.html Evolution of mosquito preference for humans linked to an odorant receptor

Amino Acid Residues Contributing to Function of the Heteromeric Insect Olfactory Receptor Complex http://www.ploson....0032372

High-Resolution Copy-Number Variation Map Reflects Human Olfactory Receptor Diversity and Evolution http://dx.doi.org....1000249

Everything known about cell type differentiation in all species is consistent with what we portrayed in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review article.

Our detailed model was extended to insects in 2000; to the life history transitions of honeybees in 2005; and across species from microbes to man in my 2012 and 2013 reviews.

Those who would rather not continue to display their overwhelming ignorance need simply only start to learn about what is currently known by examining the details about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation at:

http://perfumingthemind.com/

or at

http://rna-mediated.com/

If you would rather not start with my representations of biologically based cause and effect, it may take you longer to find accurate information, but you could still simply start with a Google search: https://www.googl...mediated

Simply put, it is not that difficult to become something more than a biologically uninformed science idiot.

Our detailed model

@jk
your "detailed model" CAUSES MUTATIONS
so you are an EPIC FAILURE with regard to stating that all mutations are negative and there are NO beneficial mutations (want me to re-post those comments in your own words and link THOSE threads?)

YOU even state your model causes MUTATIONS (shall i re-post THAT too?)

your claims about everything have been PUBLICLY DEBUNKED, from your "model"

http://www.socioa...ew/24367

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

to your "INTERPRETATIONS" of other scientific works
(Like Dr. Extavour, Lenski and EVERY OTHER INTERPRETATION YOU HAVE POSTED TO DATE where the authors have responded)

you should have stayed in school and stopped LYING
(remember your "decades of experience in diagnostic medicine"?)

All you do is go on blogs/forums and write the same pretentious catchphrases (lies) over and over

Simply put, it is not that difficult to become something more than a biologically uninformed science idiot.

@jk
so what is YOUR excuse?

so far, ANON, Real, Antialias, myself and many others have showed you not only that you are WRONG about your comments, but that you have NO scientific credibility with regard to your creationist beliefs and comments

in fact, your creationist beliefs aren't even creationist, they're 7th day adventist plagiarized and wiped of authorship of the original prophet's and then re-spread by YOU and your type

if you had a scientific leg to stand on, we would ALL be taught your "creationist diatribe" as valid scientific theory because it would be PROVEN

but we're NOT taught it
WHY?
because it is PSEUDOSCIENCE
not science

EVERY TIME YOU POST you validate the following study: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

and you give ME material for a related study

Those who would rather not continue to display their overwhelming ignorance need simply only start to learn about what is currently known

@jk
you should take your own advice... I cut it off there for a reason

since you are NOT basing your comments on valid scientific studies, but instead upon your narcissistic interpretations of studies with your religious glasses on, you should consider going back to the BASICS and learning why you believe in a fallacious set of comments and a proven plagiarized fallacious historical book

One thing you should also know:
considering you are a lab tech and trying to represent SOME things in science... all these comments that are anti-science only undermine ANY credibility you might have and support NOT ONLY the conclusions that you promote and delusionally believe in PSEUDOSCIENCE, but that you are incompetent in your own field

Epigenetic variation in the ​Egfr gene generates quantitative variation in a complex trait in ants
http://www.nature...513.html

This is reported as yet another refutation of the pseudoscientific nonsense touted by evolutionary theorists. See: "Honey, I shrunk the ants: How environment controls size" http://www.scienc...1258.htm

"It's a discovery that completely changes our understanding of how human variation comes to be... many human traits... exist along a continuum. If, as we believe, this epigenetic mechanism applies to a key gene in each area, the change is so enormous that it's hard to even imagine right now how it will influence research in everything from health to cognitive development to farming."

The epigenetic mechanism obviously applies to all cell type differentiation. There's a model for that: http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions link

"...the EGFR pathway and specific pathways downstream of EGFR [which] are highly conserved across animals, and DNA methylation is known to be transgenerationally inherited9,50–52. In vertebrates, quantitative differences in methylation of an inserted retroviral element in front of the Agouti gene in mouse defines differences in coat colour53, and the distribution of coat colours could be shifted by altering the methyl content in maternal diet53" http://dx.doi.org...omms7513

The link to behavior during life history transitions is also clearly manifested in the context of an amino acid substitution in humans. http://dx.doi.org...4-0895-5

RNA-mediated epigenetic effects also link metabolic networks to genetic networks in the context of everything known about nutrigenomics and pharmacogenomics. https://www.youtu...G_9EEeeA

The epigenetic mechanism obviously applies to all cell type differentiation. There's a model for that: http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

@jk
there is also a refute that completely DEBUNKS it using logic, common sense, and ACTUAL science, not your pretend made up creationist dogma

you can find that refute HERE: http://www.socioa...ew/24367

Do you even know WHY you are so afraid of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?
maybe you should learn something about yourself: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

You continue to misuse the term "cell type differentiation", too. That refers to how all the different cell types in your body come from the same stem cells.

@ANON
hey, i wonder what jimmie K thinks of this latest addition to science: http://rspb.royal...full.pdf

there goes his whole business of selling stinky pheromones to stupid teenagers and the incredibly gullible (which is weird, because that also means he is violating some MAJOR tenets of his own religion too)
ROTFLMFAO

"Pre-existing, adaptively evolved, nutrition dependent, hormone-driven, cyclic peak fertility in fourteen women was assessed by a non-invasive measure of luteinizing hormone (LH). During a double-blind social construct, the women were exposed for fifteen minutes to a man who had applied either a control mixture (n=7), or a mixture of androstenol/androsterone (n=7)."

http://f1000.com/.../1092668

See also: http://rsfs.royal...abstract
"The papers by Jaeger (microbiology) and Noble (physiology) are strong steps forward in this regard. This is perhaps the area where most needs to be done, across the board in all domains. Areas where striking progress is being made in this regard are epigenetics [22] and social neuroscience [23]."

This was published one month before my 2012 Review: Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors.

I wonder what people like Tristam Wyatt and others -- who are still making ridiculous claims about human pheromones -- think about the fact that the domain Pheromones.com has been a source of information about human pheromones since 1995.

PerfumingtheMind.com was added to separate my commercial interests from dissemination of accurate information about biologicallly-based cause and effect.
http://rna-mediated.com/

Earlier this week, I added RNA-mediated.com in an effort to focus on the incredible ignorance of those who make claims about pheromones without mention of my history of publications that detail every aspect of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in all individuals of all species. They claim that we really don't know enough about the epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors to claim that human pheromones and food odors act on the same pathways that link metabolic networks to genetic networks and behavior in all species..

think about the fact that the domain Pheromones.com has been a source of information about human pheromones since 1995

@little jimmie k
think about the fact that just becasue you have a web site that promotes information doesn't mean it is valid, true or even science... it only means you have a WEB PAGE
you might as well have said that you've been promoting stupidity since 1995
4chan has been disseminating better information longer... and this site is older than yours too: http://eo.ucar.ed...mp2.html and it is FAR more truthful
but WAIT.. there is also these: http://www.vigila...ics.com/
http://slarti.ucd.ie/election/
http://www.lysato...ll/expo/

the point being: there are PLENTY of old sites promoting something
it does NOT mean that they are accurate
only OLD

the bib;e is older
it is also proven to be almost completely FALSE, and it is plagiarized
WHY do people still believe in THAT?

epic fail