Vitamin C halts growth of aggressive forms of colorectal cancer in preclinical study

November 6, 2015, Weill Cornell Medical College
Model of a vitamin C molecule. Black is carbon, red is oxygen, and white is hydrogen. Credit: Public Domain

High levels of vitamin C kill certain kinds of colorectal cancers in cell cultures and mice, according to a new study from Weill Cornell Medicine investigators. The findings suggest that scientists could one day harness vitamin C to develop targeted treatments.

Colorectal cancer is the third most-common cancer diagnosed in the United States, with about 93,090 new cases each year. Around half of those cases harbor mutations in the KRAS and BRAF genes; these forms of the disease are more aggressive and don't respond well to current therapies or chemotherapy.

In a study, published Nov. 5 in Science, a team of researchers from Weill Cornell Medicine, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Tufts Medical Center, Harvard Medical School and The Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center found that high doses of vitamin C—roughly equivalent to the levels found in 300 oranges—impaired the growth of KRAS mutant and BRAF mutant colorectal tumors in cultured cells and mice. The findings could lead to the development of new treatments and provide critical insights into who would most benefit from them.

"Our findings provide a mechanistic rationale for exploring the therapeutic use of vitamin C to treat that carry KRAS or BRAF mutations," said senior author Dr. Lewis Cantley, the Meyer Director of the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center and the Margaret and Herman Sokol Professor in Oncology Research at Weill Cornell Medicine.

The conventional wisdom is that vitamin C improves health in part because it can act as an antioxidant, preventing or delaying some types of cell damage. However, Dr. Cantley and his colleagues discovered that the opposite was true in regards to high-dose vitamin C's therapeutic effects for the KRAS and BRAF forms of colorectal cancer—they occur as a result of inducing oxidation in these cancer cells.

In an oxygen-rich environment such as human arteries, a fraction of vitamin C, also called ascorbic acid, becomes oxidized and is transformed into a new compound called dehydroascorbic acid (DHA). Scientists have known for some time that a specific membrane protein, known as glucose transporter GLUT1, enables both glucose and DHA to enter cells—an activity not afforded to ascorbic acid. But it was less clear what DHA does once inside the cells.

In the study, investigators show that DHA acts like a Trojan horse. Once inside, natural antioxidants inside the cancer cell attempt to convert the DHA back to ; in the process, these antioxidants are depleted and the cell dies from oxidative stress.

"While many also express GLUT1, KRAS-mutant and BRAF-mutant cancer cells typically have much higher levels since they require a high rate of glucose uptake in order to survive and grow," Dr. Cantley said. "Also, KRAS and BRAF mutant cells produce more reactive oxygen species than normal cells and therefore need more antioxidants in order to survive. This combination of characteristics makes these cancer cells far more vulnerable to DHA than normal cells or other types of cancer cells."

Although Dr. Cantley cautioned that these results need to be evaluated in the setting of a human clinical trial, the pre-clinical findings may offer a promising new treatment strategy for the KRAS or BRAF forms of the disease, perhaps as part of a combination therapy. The investigators say their study could lead to the development of new biomarkers that could help physicians determine who would most benefit from treatment. These insights may also have implications for other hard-to-treat cancers that express high levels of GLUT1 transporter, such as renal cell carcinoma, bladder cancer and pancreatic cancer.

Vitamin C has multiple effects on cellular functions in addition to its anti- or pro-oxidant functions, so it will be important to study the effects of high-dose vitamin C on normal and immune cells, said lead author Dr. Jihye Yun, a postdoctoral fellow in Dr. Cantley's lab.

"Further study is definitely needed to expand our understanding of these processes. But now that we know the mechanisms, we can utilize the knowledge wisely to get the desired effects," she said.

"This is not a therapy that you would want to wander into blindly without knowledge of what is going on in your tumor," Dr. Cantley added.

Dosing recommendations also need to be determined. Therapeutic benefit would likely require intravenous injections, as oral doses are not absorbed efficiently in the intestine to achieve the high serum concentration of vitamin C needed to cause toxicity to these . Recent phase I clinical trials conducted on humans to test toxicity have shown that intravenous infusion of vitamin C at doses that converted to similar levels of serum as the Cantley mice trials had good safety profiles.

"Our hope is that our study will inspire the scientific community to take a fresh look at this safe and inexpensive natural molecule and stimulate both basic and clinical research regarding vitamin C as a therapy," Dr. Yun said.

Explore further: Team develops classification model for cancers caused by most frequently mutated gene in cancer

More information: Vitamin C selectively kills KRAS and BRAF mutant colorectal cancer cells by targeting GAPDH, Science 6 November 2015: 619. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5004

Related Stories

Team develops classification model for cancers caused by most frequently mutated gene in cancer

October 7, 2015
UT Southwestern Medical Center researchers have developed a classification for cancers caused by KRAS, the most frequently mutated gene in cancer, that could eventually help oncologists choose more effective, customized cancer ...

New therapeutic target for a type of colorectal cancer with poor prognosis has been identified

April 22, 2015
Researchers at the Institut Hospital del Mar d'Investigacions Mèdiques (IMIM) have identified a new way of treating colorectal cancer. In the study published in the journal Science Signaling, the team led by LLuís Espinosa, ...

Study shows antioxidant use may promote spread of cancer

October 14, 2015
A team of scientists at the Children's Research Institute at UT Southwestern (CRI) has made a discovery that suggests cancer cells benefit more from antioxidants than normal cells, raising concerns about the use of dietary ...

Hope builds for a drug that might shut down a variety of cancers

November 7, 2013
The most frequently mutated gene across all types of cancers is a gene called p53. Unfortunately it has been difficult to directly target this gene with drugs. Now a multi-institutional research team, led by Dr. Lewis Cantley ...

Massive screen of drug combinations may find treatment for resistant, BRAF-mutant melanoma

October 26, 2015
A team of Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) investigators has discovered a new combination of drugs that may be effective against one of the deadliest cancers, malignant melanoma. The combination - pairing a drug targeted ...

Recommended for you

'Kiss of death' cancer: How computational geeks may have uncovered a therapy for a deadly disease

June 19, 2018
It's called the 'kiss of death'. Triple negative breast cancer has no targeted drug therapy and, as such, the only hope for these patients is chemotherapy. Triple negative breast cancer is aggressive and deadly. Patients ...

Ovarian cancer cells switched off by 'unusual' mechanism

June 19, 2018
Scientists at the Ovarian Cancer Action Research Centre at Imperial College London have discovered a mechanism that deactivates ovarian cancer cells.

Team discovers gene mutations linked to pancreatic cancer

June 19, 2018
Six genes contain mutations that may be passed down in families, substantially increasing a person's risk for pancreatic cancer. That's according to Mayo Clinic research published in the June 19 edition of the JAMA. However, ...

Breast cancer could be prevented by targeting epigenetic proteins, study suggests

June 19, 2018
Researchers at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto have discovered that epigenetic proteins promote the proliferation of mammary gland stem cells in response to the sex hormone progesterone. The study, which will ...

Targeting the engine room of the cancer cell

June 18, 2018
Researchers at Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) have developed a highly innovative computational framework that can support personalized cancer treatment by matching individual tumors with the drugs or drug ...

Study suggests well-known growth suppressor actually fuels lethal brain cancers

June 18, 2018
Scientists report finding a potentially promising treatment target for aggressive and deadly high-grade brain cancers like glioblastoma. But they also say the current lack of a drug that hits the molecular target keeps it ...

35 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JVK
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2015
Nutrient-dependent epigenetic effects on histone modifications and DNA methylation play an important role in stabilizing cell type identity and in orchestrating many developmental processes. For example, vitamin C appears to stimulate histone demethylases, which appear to alter the de novo creation of functional olfactory receptor genes (Adipietro, Mainland, & Matsunami, 2012; Blaschke et al., 2013; Jazin & Cahill, 2010; Lyons et al., 2013; Tan, Zong, & Xie, 2013).

Researchers recently rediscovered a nutrient-dependent epigenetic variant that links vitamin C to what is probably a glucose and glucose dehydrogenase-dependent base pair change. The base pair change results in addition of a methyl group to a cytosine base, which takes on a hydroxyl group to form different 5-hydroxymethylcytosines (5hmCs). Different 5hmCs are associated with differences in cell types that have the same genetic background...

See for more info: http://rna-mediated.com/
anonymous_9001
3 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2015
glucose and glucose dehydrogenase-dependent base pair change


It would make much more sense to say methyltransferase-dependent base pair change when you're talking about methylation because that's the enzyme that actually performs that function. See what I mean about being specific with talking about pathways and mechanisms?
Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2015
@jk
/rna-mediated
PSEUDOSCIENCE PHISHING SITE
this site is a jk personally owned site that contains creationism which makes it PSEUDOSCIENCE

reported

.

It would make much more sense to say...
@Anon
Yeah, but it would also make more sense not to post pseudoscience links to support a claim and refrain from fraud... but that doesn't stop our little mensa-princess.LOL

Thanks for continuing to promote actual science over jk's rants, Anon
there are those who appreciate it
JVK
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2015
See what I mean about being specific with talking about pathways and mechanisms?


This, from Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) who thought "Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model" was a sloppy review that should never have been published.

In his review of http://www.ncbi.n...24693353 he cited "Mutation-driven evolution" and blog posts from the most uninformed biology teacher who ever attacked a serious scientist.

I give you, PZ Myers and his idiot minions. http://freethough...-page-1/

Now, the anonymous fool wants me to be specific when talking about pathways and mechanisms. He has no knowledge of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation, which he links from mutations to evolution via his mutagenesis experiments, but claims I should be specific after I linked base pairs and amino acid substitutions from atoms to ecosystems.
anonymous_9001
3 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2015
Now, the anonymous fool wants me to be specific when talking about pathways and mechanisms.


Without that specificity, everything in your model "just happens" and therefore, it's vague and useless. You can say "nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions" all day long, but without telling anybody what enzymes make those substitutions, it doesn't mean anything.
JVK
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2015
By your logic, until I can tell you which specific nutrient causes the specific base pair to flip that links quantum physics from the sun's biological energy to the base pair flip and to the physical structure of the RNA via every aspect of energy dependent enzyme interactions linked from the construction of the amino acid to its substitution in the organized genome of a individual of a species, you can claim my model is a sloppy model.

As a bonus, you can claim that mutations can be linked to evolution and/or re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum in four days.

There are no words an intelligent researcher can use to describe someone like you or to address the level of ignorance you have continued to display. Anonymous fool and biologically uninformed science idiot are not sufficient. Nothing is sufficient.

There is no way to keep people like you from killing others with your ridiculous theories. The master you serve must be proud.
anonymous_9001
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2015
You have a long track record of identifying faulty cause and effect. If you tell me glucose was the proximate cause for the translocation in Lenski's cit+ E. coli, I'll rebut by reminding you that all 12 had access to that. If you tell me citrate was the proximate cause, the same thing applies. If you tell me lead and manganese caused the DNA changes seen in the peppered moths, I'll remind you that multiple experiments and statistical analysis showed that the melanism was not caused by those substances and was therefore random, aka the result of mutation.

As a bonus, you can claim that mutations can be linked to evolution and/or re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum in four days


As with Lenski's E. coli, those bacteria were observed to have different strains, 1 with a mutations in the regulatory region of NtrC and 1 with mutations in NtrC itself. They were all in the same environment, so you can't demonstrate 1:1 nutrient->DNA change causality.

anonymous_9001
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2015
lajib, hewewa, and bizovuw (who all happen to be the same person),

1. I don't care about ratings
and
2. people here already know everyone, so who are you trying to influence?

Don't waste your time. Frankly, it just goes to show how petty you are and how you have nothing better to do.
JVK
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2015
You have a long track record of identifying faulty cause and effect


Biologically-based cause and effect is nutrient-dependent and RNA-mediated events are linked to cell type differentiation in all cell types of all individuals of all living genera via the physiology of reproduction.

Specific links from Vitamin D and from Vitamin B3 to cancer prevention in humans are included in my model, which explains the links between atoms and ecosystems in the context of metabolic networks and genetic networks.

Links from viruses to mutations and all pathology also are included at my domain
http://rna-mediated.com/

2. people here already know everyone, so who are you trying to influence?


I'm trying to remind others who they can blame for the suffering and death of their loved ones, and you are the best example. Next time a stranger spits in your face, remember your behavior here, Andrew Jones.
anonymous_9001
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2015
Biologically-based cause and effect is nutrient-dependent and RNA-mediated events are linked to cell type differentiation in all cell types of all individuals of all living genera via the physiology of reproduction.


Repeating your vague catchphrase did not refute anything I said in my previous comment. If you can't demonstrate specific cause and effect in any of those examples, then your model is useless.

I'm trying to remind others...


So they're you. Color me surprised. You're pathetic. How much time do you waste logging in and out of 3 extra accounts to give me less internet points?
JVK
3 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2015
http://medicalxpr...ver.html

The metabolism of nutrients links nutrient-dependent microRNAs to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation via fixation of amino acid substitutions in the context of the physiology of reproduction that links supercoiled DNA in organized genomes to protection from virus-driven genomic entropy. The amino acid substitutions also predict the response to many different therapeutic drugs, which is why they are placed into the context of precision medicine by all serious scientists.

How much time do you waste logging in and out of 3 extra accounts to give me less internet points?


None actually, I think you may have a problem with someone whose love ones were killed by evolutionary theory. Hope you get to meet them face-to-face very soon, and that they encourage others to join them at the meeting.
RealScience
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2015
@anon - I don't think that the extra accounts downvoting you (and upvoting JVK) are JVK.

Two of those accounts have been around for a while, and they usually upvote 'docile' or 'returners' and downvote everyone else in those threads, and this is the first time I've seen them involved with JVK's comments.

I think that it is someone else who gets a lot of low marks, and tries to hide that by almost randomly upvoting people who get lots of ones and downvoting people who get lots of fives. So take downvotes from lajib and hewewa (and apparently bizovuw) as complements.
JVK
3 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2015
Does everyone agree that anyone who attempts to offer information on cancer prevention should be down-voted so the evolutionary theorists prevail on phys.org; on medicalexpress.com; and everywhere else the interests of capitalism will prevail until pseudoscientific nonsense is finally eliminated, or it kills us all?
Captain Stumpy
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2015
/rna-mediated
PHISHING PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE
this site is NOT a science reference link, this is a personally owned PHISHING and PSEUDOSCIENCE site that contains creationist religion dogma

this demonstrates your constant failure WRT comprehension, literacy and knowledge of the scientific method. this evidence is about as valid as linking meme threads from 4chan/b as evidence

reported for pseudoscience, spamming, phishing and religion

.

lajib, hewewa, and bizovuw (who all happen to be the same person)...
&
I don't think that the extra accounts downvoting you (and upvoting JVK) are JVK
@RealScience
@Anon
they are not jk.
it is Zephir, and she is pissed off because of the BanHammer
JVK
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2015
Place this into the context of your ridiculous neo-Darwinian pseudoscience about mutations and evolution.

Flagellum "resurrected" = life finds a way. https://www.youtu...fKOozG40

Then compare the nonsense to what all serious scientists know about the links from nutrient-dependent base pair changes to amino acid substitutions and RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in all living genera.

https://www.youtu...youtu.be All About that Base (Meghan Trainor Parody

Come back when you have something that serious scientists might accept.

Until then, stop the ridiculous criticisms of the only model that links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in all living genera via what is known about cell type differentiation compared to the development of mutated undifferentiated cell types in cancer.

http://www.ncbi.n...24693353 Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2015
Place this into the context... https://www.youtu
@jk
youtube is NOT a scientific reference, journal, nor is it peer reviewed

reported for spamming

Until then, stop the ridiculous criticisms of the only model that links
why? it is a false model that is undermined by reality, as noted here: http://www.socioa...ew/24367

plus, the Theory of Evolution has already included adaptation in it's theory, as noted here:
(copy and paste the below into your address bar)
https://en.wikipe...aptation

therefore, your claims that "the only model that links" anything are refuted with empirical evidence that is validated and thus proves you are making a fraudulent claim

epic failure
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2015
Come back when you have something that serious scientists might accept
@jk cont'd
ok
http://myxo.css.m...dex.html

http://www.extavo...SocB.pdf

(see also references included in link) http://talkorigin...comdesc/

if you can produce a study that refutes any of the validated studies in the links above, then by all means, link them here, jk

just remember: there is a difference between a study and a validated study, just like there is a difference in the types of evidence or claims you make vs scientific evidence
http://www.auburn...ion.html

you are looking for acolytes, not producing science
until you can validate your religions proclamations then you are promoting pseudoscience and stupidity, not science and evidence based intellectual discussion
JVK
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2015
if you can produce a study that refutes any of the validated studies in the links above, then by all means, link them here


All studies reported by serious scientists refute the pseudoscientific nonsense of the studies you claim are "validated."

This one links atoms to ecosystems in gut microbes to the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of human reproduction in the context of my model.

The Mitochondrial-Derived Peptide MOTS-c Promotes Metabolic Homeostasis and Reduces Obesity and Insulin Resistance http://dx.doi.org...5.02.009

Reported by John Hewitt as "New mitochondrially-derived peptides show what they can do"
http://phys.org/n...des.html

Note, why hasn't anyone responded to the experimental evidence of the "re-evolved" flagellum, which was reported in "Science" that Captain Stumpy thinks was only reported in the youtube video? http://www.scienc...abstract
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2015
All studies reported by serious scientists refute the pseudoscientific nonsense of the studies you claim are "validated."
@jk
really? but you specifically used THIS study ( http://www.extavo...SocB.pdf ) and made the claim
This is the kind of question not asked by idiot minions of biology teachers...
http://phys.org/n...ars.html

except, of course, you didn't know WTF you were talking about, because
our [study] does, we hope, provide an example of how nutrition/ecology could affect the evolution of potentially adaptive traits... just because we provide evidence that nutritional conditions play a role, this does not negate a role for mutations
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
toBcont'd
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2015
@jk cont'd
so you were outed as a blatant liar and religious fanatic because you ignored the ACTUAL findings for your own beliefs... but that's not all!

because you were outed as a chronic liar, you then began to malign (libel) the authors of multiple validated studies!

Why is that?
Note, why hasn't anyone responded to the experimental evidence of the "re-evolved" flagellum
1- I have, but you ignored it
2- i gave you the AUTHORS feedback, but you ignored it
3- (most importantly) you ignore actual science for your religion anyway, so why continue to repeat it?
Captain Stumpy thinks was only reported in the youtube video?
you made a claim and linked a youtube video
it is not a matter of "what i think"

i do NOT open your links without proper protection given your proclivities (already demonstrated) to lure people to your personal sites for PHISHING purposes

i was going to suggest you read the study, but considering your history to date and literacy problems
JVK
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2015
... considering your history to date and literacy problems


See also: https://www.youtu...-yXXL3Pw

The bottom line remains. Either pseudoscientists address "re-evolution" of the bacterial flagellum over a weekend, or they quit making their ridiculous claims about mutations, natural selection, and evolution.

Creation of amino acids
https://www.youtu...GUPz5TZU

They did not create chirality The structure of the DNA double helix is not stable without nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions, which are linked to the physiology of reproduction and transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of genomic stablity in species from microbes to humans.

https://www.youtu...oKio-fEU

https://www.youtu...cfw1RN0c

https://www.youtu...n_517777

Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2015
The bottom line remains
you didn't address anything, so there is no bottom line to remain other than your refusal to accept validated science, as proven above
Either pseudoscientists address "re-evolution" of the bacterial flagellum over a weekend, or
1- logical fallacy
2- the science has already been addressed, and you failed to accept it
3- (most important) just because you don't accept something that is demonstrated by evidence doesn't mean it isn't true - this is most evident WRT the above mentioned studies, be it Lenski or Extavour (or any other)

you also keep arguing the "god of the gaps" but you are basing it on your own ignorance of the subject, or, as in the case of mutations, your stupidity, as you refuse to accept validated evidence and learn about reality
http://media-cach...f521.jpg

JVK
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2015
I'm arguing that you can not prevent cancer if you believe it is due to a beneficial mutation like the two mutations that evolutionary theorists claim led to the re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum.

I'm claiming that biologically uninformed science idiots who accept the claims of evolutionary theorists will accept virtually anything they are told and incorporate it into their beliefs about biologically based cause and effect and then claim their beliefs are validated by science.

If Ben Carson was an evolutionary theorist, you would believe his claims about pyramid grain storage and refuse to believe the lies told by the media. Instead, you are not intelligent enough to know the difference between creationist claims about virus-driven genomic entropy and big bang cosmology, or neo-Darwinism, compared to facts about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in all cell types of all individuals of all living genera.
JVK
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2015
Either pseudoscientists address "re-evolution" of the bacterial flagellum over a weekend, or they quit making their ridiculous claims about mutations, natural selection, and evolution.

you didn't address anything, so there is no bottom line to remain


https://www.youtu...-yXXL3Pw
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2015
I'm arguing that you can not prevent cancer if you believe it is due to a beneficial mutation
@jk
no one believes cancer to be due to a "beneficial mutation", you moron! that is ridiculous!
are you really that illiterate?
like the two mutations that evolutionary theorists claim led to the re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum
this is outright stupidity
if you were even partially aware of biology, you would know this is a blatantly stupid claim
at least it is nice to know that your fanaticism knows no bounds WRT your chromic lies, promoting your religion and your hypocrisy
I'm claiming that
it doesn't matter what you "claim" if you can't prove it
http://www.auburn...ion.html

you should know that by now, as you have made thousands of false claims and unsubstantiated conjecture WRT science
http://media-cach...f521.jpg
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2015
Instead, you are not intelligent enough to know the difference between creationist claims about
stopped there: why?
because there is NO SCIENCE in creationism
Judge William Overton's ruling handed down on January 5, 1982, concluded that "creation-science" as defined in Arkansas Act 590 "is simply not science"
https://en.wikipe...s_ruling

also note
1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard, which dealt with a similar law passed by the State of Louisiana, ... teaching "creation science" was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court
http://www.talkre...ryID.cfm

care to look at some basic reasons why? besides
The statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces the First Amendment's prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion
The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality....

https://www.law.c...t/393/97

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2015
@jk cont'd
... "creation science" failed to meet these essential characteristics for the following reasons:
-Sudden creation "from nothing" is not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law, is not explanatory by reference to natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable

-"insufficiency of mutation and natural selection" is an incomplete negative generalization

-"changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds" fails as there is no scientific definition of "kinds", the assertion appears to be an effort to establish outer limits of changes within species but there is no scientific explanation for these limits which is guided by natural law and the limitations, whatever they are, cannot be explained by natural law

-"separate ancestry of man and apes" is a bald assertion which explains nothing and refers to no scientific fact or theory
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2015
@jk cont'd (same link)
-Catastrophism and any kind of Genesis Flood depend upon supernatural intervention, and cannot be explained by natural law

-"Relatively recent inception" has no scientific meaning, is not the product of natural law; not explainable by natural law; nor is it tentative
This next one is IMPORTANT
-No recognized scientific journal has published an article espousing the creation science theory as described in the Act, and though some witnesses suggested that the scientific community was "close-minded" and so had not accepted the arguments, no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused, and suggestions of censorship were not credible
this means, NO PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL published any science because there was no science to be published
refer also to the Scientific method & strict constraints to remove BIAS (like religion and belief over proof): https://en.wikipe...c_method

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2015
@jk cont'd
here is another killer for religion and religious claims
-A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist, and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory
this means, by definition, when something is proven false you must follow the evidence!
example:
-jk says there are no such thing as beneficial mutations
-the evidence from Lenski, or Extavour validated by many others, states there ARE such thing as beneficial mutations
CONCLUSION: jk is promoting a dogmatic religious POV whereas the evidence falsifies her claims

this is demonstrated in your model as well, jk

but lets continue with the above
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2015
@jk cont'd
still the same link... this is another killer for religion and jk!
While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation. The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in [the Act] Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it
this seals your fate WRT science and your continued stupidity promoting creationism

Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2015
@jk
given that you are not literate enough to comprehend the above (or you are drunk- or kicked in the head by a mule) i will boil it down, yet again
The legal history of creation "science", therefore, has been remarkably consistent -- the creation "scientists" have lost every single Federal court case they have ever been involved with. In every instance where creation "scientists" or intelligent design "theorists" have attempted to argue that their viewpoints are "science" and should be taught in schools, or that evolution is not science and should not be taught in schools, their claim has been rejected by the courts -- soundly, starkly, and unequivocably.
http://www.talkre...ryID.cfm

this is not a matter than you can debate because you have NO evidence that supports your claims!
none!
nada!
zilch!
Zero!
zip!
Null!

get it now?

.

.

Oh, almost forgot!

reported for religious stupidity
JVK
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2015
Two amino acid substitutions link "re-evolution" of the bacterial flagellum over the weekend to nutrient-dependent epigenetic effects on super-coiled DNA, which protect organized genomes from virus-driven genomic entropy in species from microbes to humans.

The examples of top-down causation linked to the physiology of reproduction and all biomass were provided in my 2013 review and the stoichiometry of the complex and the mechanisms underlying ion conduction have been linked from atoms to ecosystems across all genera.

One amino acid substitution links differences in our cell types to those of chimpanzees, which are differentiated from gorillas. Two RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions link differences in the cell types of the chimpanzees to all differences in all humans.

If someone has linked mutations to all cell type differences from the "re-evolved" flagellum to other primates and humans, tell us who and how and where they published their evidence.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2015
If someone has linked mutations to all cell type differences...
but jk, this is what YOU claim
so, if this is pseudoscience, per your claims
then your model is PSEUDOSCIENCE, by your same claims and admission
tell us who and how ... published their evidence
your statement makes no sense

this requires specificity, therefore, you should state, with clear concise terminology that is acceptable to all biological/medical professionals, where this linked study ( here: http://www.scienc...014.full ) is making any fallacious claims, & link empirical evidence

this should also be presented in a study format which can then be submitted to a reputable peer reviewed journal, preferably Science Magazine

thus, if your "interpretations" are correct, then you can publish the groundbreaking study that refutes the above linked

this is how the scientific method works

it is also the reason you are trolling here and not publishing against the study
JVK
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2015
but jk, this is what YOU claim


Do not tell me what I claim. You are a biologically uninformed science idiot who cannot understand anything I claim.

your statement makes no sense


Statements about "re-evolved" bacterial flagella make no sense in the context of evolution over a weekend or evolution over millions of years or hundreds of millions of years.

Only the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations of species from microbes to humans make sense, and they only make sense in the context of nutrient-dependent RNA-directed DNA methylation and the RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that stabilize organized genomes via fixation in the context of the physiology of reproduction.

you can publish the groundbreaking study that refutes the above linked


I published it on Jun 14, 2013, you fool.

http://www.ncbi.n...24693353 Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2015
Do not tell me what I claim
@jk
so, someone hacked your account when you admitted your model causes mutations, but only long enough to post your admission? those quotes aren't you?
gotcha!
...who cannot understand anything I claim
see above
Statements about "re-evolved" bacterial flagella make no sense...
so, your argument is that since you don't understand it, you will post pseudoscience and religion and claim it is equivalent to the scientific method and then say that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "biologically uninformed science idiot"
GOTCHA!
I published it on Jun 14, 2013
Your model is:
1- not a refute to the study
2- falsified (Jones, A. BA)
3- requires mutations
4- is plagiarized
5- is nothing more than overzealous attempt to publicize adaptation as an anti-evolution argument, except you didn't actually go to college long enough to understand that adaptation is already a method of evolution

epic failure yet again, princess mensa

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.