Introduction: A Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) is a DNA sequence variation in which a single nucleotide — A, T, C or G — in the genome (or other shared sequence) differs between members of a biological species or paired chromosomes. SNPs within a coding sequence do not necessarily change the amino acid sequence of the protein that is produced.
…Val370Ala, is a SNP in the ectodysplasin A receptor EDAR gene on chromosome 2. The EDAR gene is involved in ectodermal development.
Rs3827760/Val370Ala is represented as EDARV370A in the article below.
Excerpt (with my emphasis):
An adaptive variant of the human Ectodysplasin receptor, EDARV370A, is one of the strongest candidates of recent positive selection from genome-wide scans. We have modeled EDAR370A in mice and characterized its phenotype and evolutionary origins in humans.
My comment: EDAR370A represents a change in the Rs3827760/Val370Ala SNP. The sequence of the protein coded or by the Rs3827760/Val370Ala SNP has changed. The “A “in EDAR370A represents a change in the amino acid valine to the amino acid alanine. The change in the protein is manifested in differences that link Rs3827760/Val370Ala in mice and in humans.
The nutrient-dependent biophysically constrained biochemical properties of EDAR370A suggest that the variant directly causes differences in the morphological phenotypes of mice and humans.
The differences in phenotypes include: thicker hair shafts; increased mammary gland branching; enlarged mammary glands; and hyperplastic sebaceous and Meibomian glands. The hyperplastic sebaceous and Meibomian glands secrete hydrophobic films as a barrier to water loss in the skin and eyes, respectively.
One SNP rs4713668 (P=4.62 × 10−4) identified in our study, was in LD (r2=0.65) with rs3227, which is one of the three variants recently reported with genome-wide significant evidence of association with educational attainment.46
The links from SNPs and single amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of all living genera via RNA-mediated events continue to be portrayed in the ridiculous context of evolution, despite no experimental evidence that links evolution to biologically based cause and effect. Even when RNA-mediated cell type differentiation is linked to morphological phenotypes in mice and humans, and to behavioral phenotypes in humans via the Neocortical Ribosome Signature and mRNA Translation to Specify Neocortical Cell Subtypes, there is no mention of how the nutrient-dependent microRNA/messenger RNA-balance is linked to all downsteam epigenetic effects on cell type differentiation in all genera.
For comparison, everything known to serious scientists links ecological variation from virus perturbed protein folding to nutrient-dependent ecological niche construction, social niche construction, neurogenic niche construction, and socio-congnitive niche construction. Niche construction represents a series of ecological adaptations that have obviously occurred outside the context of mutations, which perturb the biophysically constrained molecular mechanisms of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding.
If you can’t understand why researcher use different terms to describe the same thing, you are probably among many others who do not understand why evolutionary theorists continue to present pseudoscientific nonsense in different contexts.
The different contexts defy the abilities of serious scientists to challenge the links pseudoscientists use to make it appear that different species somehow evolve differences in SNPs, amino acid substitutions, and cell types that are nutrient-dependent.
My comment: Mammalian-wide interspersed repeats (MIRs) are a conserved family of transposable elements
Their reported significance: Insulators are genome sequence elements that help to organize eukaryotic genomes into coherent regulatory domains.
Proponents of Intelligent Design have linked 58 percent of the MIRs to what has been referred to as punctuation, without linking the metaphor to Life is physics and chemistry and communication or to The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.
Perhaps that means no serious scientists consider the language of God to consist of misspelled words (due to mutations) and no punctuation whatsoever. Alternatively, it might mean that no one understands how Darwin’s ‘conditions of life’ could be placed into the context of definitions and the use of multiple terms for the same thing — unless pseudoscientists had something to hide.