Robin Ince “Am I wrong to sometimes be scared of science idiots?”
Brian Cox “…my favoured response would be: ‘you bunch of utter nob ends’.
See also: “The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!”– Brian Cox
“[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent…. The anglophone tradition was taught. I was taught, and so were my contemporaries, and so were the younger scientists. 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…. No, it wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.”
That’s nonsense! See for comparison:
1) Whole-exome sequencing identifies a de novo TUBA1A mutation in a patient with sporadic malformations of cortical development: a case report “We successfully identified a causative TUBA1A mutation in a patient with sporadic MCD associated with a simplified gyral pattern by using whole-exome sequencing. The identified novel mutation (E27Q) was located in the N-terminal region of the amino acid sequence. Rapid and comprehensive mutation analysis by using whole-exome sequencing may be useful for genetic counseling in sporadic cases of human disorders derived from multiple candidate genes.” My comment: Mutations cause diseases.
2) Exome sequencing and subsequent association studies identify five amino acid-altering variants influencing human height. Excerpt: “This study demonstrated the utility of next-generation sequencing in identifying genetic variants and loci associated with complex traits.” My comment: Increasing organismal complexity arises via amino acid substitutions that stabilize the organized genome.
3) Exome RNA sequencing reveals rare and novel alternative transcripts Excerpt: “…we propose that ExomeRNAseq may be an excellent approach for cross-species comparisons. It was recently shown that exome capture on DNA can efficiently be used to map variation across primates (24,25), and it should work equally well for RNA based capture. Since we show that we can find a large number of coding variants in the data, exome enrichment at the level of RNA can be used both for annotation of gene models and identification of variation.” My comment: ExomeRNAseq reveals the involvement of RNA-mediated events that link amino acid substitutions to increasing organismal complexity. See also: “…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.” Dobzhansky (1973)
4) Molecular indexing enables quantitative targeted RNA sequencing and reveals poor efficiencies in standard library preparations Excerpt: “RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) is a powerful method for the measurement of global gene expression (1, 2). As a discovery tool, the method has dramatically increased our knowledge of the transcriptome, providing new insights into transcript diversity, including the discovery of new structural variants such as alternative splicing, gene fusions or rearrangements, and low-expressed molecules.” My comment: “Small intranuclear proteins also participate in generating alternative splicing techniques of pre-mRNA and, by this mechanism, contribute to…” — from the ‘molecular epigenetics’ section of our 1996 review.
5) Genetic mutation Excerpt: ” …mutations provide the “raw material” upon which the mechanisms of natural selection can act.” My comment: I cannot imagine a more ridiculous statement of cause and effect. But remember: “…everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!”– Brian Cox
6) For comparison, see: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Excerpt: “This model details how chemical ecology drives adaptive evolution via: (1) ecological niche construction, (2) social niche construction, (3) neurogenic niche construction, and (4) socio-cognitive niche construction. This model exemplifies the epigenetic effects of olfactory/pheromonal conditioning, which alters genetically predisposed, nutrient-dependent, hormone-driven mammalian behavior and choices for pheromones that control reproduction via their effects on luteinizing hormone (LH) and systems biology.”
My comment: My model links what is currently known about physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms, which link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man. I include aspects of RNA-directed DNA methylation in model organisms and provide examples of RNA-mediated events that link amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals and all tissues in all organs of all organ systems in all organisms that exemplify increasing organismal complexity.
For comparison, evolutionary theorists seem to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense about mutation-driven evolution. “In other words, genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world. In this view of evolution there is no need of considering teleological elements.” (p. 199)
Teleological argument A teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as an argument from design, is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator “based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world”.
Please join me and others as we ignore and even made fun of the demonstrable nonsense touted by evolutionary theorists. It’s time for serious scientists to move forward by linking the present to the past via what is known about amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of all cells in all individuals of all species from microbes to man. Thus, the question also arises: Are human ethologists ‘nob ends’? See for example, Jay R. Feierman who is the moderator of the human ethology yahoo group. He wrote:
I wonder if Brian Cox also thinks Feierman is a ‘nob end.’ Similarly, is Robin Ince wrong to be scared of science idiots, like Feierman.
Others should begin to fear all science idiots and/or each ‘nob end’ who is currently attempting to manage an RNA-mediated crisis. For example, some researchers seem to think the Ebola viruses mutate and automagically change the biophysically-constrained properties of their chemical bonds. Supposedly, that’s how mutations in viruses enable changes in virulence, which actually arise via amino acid substitutions and changes in hydrogen bonds that link atoms to ecosystems. As people interact among the ecosystems of remote areas in West Africa, they will encounter more viruses that have adapted to their ecosystems. When people cannot adapt to the new viruses as quickly as the viruses adapt to the ecosystems of vitamin-deficient or undernourished people, the recipe for world-wide disaster has been established in the context of what viruses do best. They adapt! Viruses do not mutate and evolve. No species on this planet has ever done that. All have adapted to ecological variation or become extinct. Thus, across all creation of all species, viruses may both predict and be responsible for the fate of all cell types including our nutrient-dependent cell types that have differentiated, not evolved, via our pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction. Simply put, if our Creator does not intervene, evolutionary theory may lead to the physical death of us all, which will link the present to the past as yet another testament of who is in control of all outcomes.
“The concept that viruses might play a fundamental role in the evolution of the complexity of cellular life, as here proposed, may seem novel to many, especially to evolutionary biologists.” There’s a reason for that. If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based.