Re: [evol-psych] On worthless truisms -- example
Based upon your previous contributions, I believe you know quite a lot
about genetics, but are you sure about this statement? I think it
should be clarified. If nucleotides are changed/substituted through
mutation, that is not inactivating a gene but rather creating a new one.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Anna" <pantheon@...>
> Genes are never removed, only inactivated.
> From: Nils K.
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 1:37 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [evol-psych] On worthless truisms -- example
> Hi Sussa, hi All!
> Natural selection (including sexual selection) only removes
> genes that are bad for an individual's reproductive success
> compared to other members of the population, nothing else.
> We all know that.
> This is a worthless and selfevident truism.
> Of course, dead individuals do not reproduce.
> And, of course, non-reproducing individuls do
> not reproduce.
> Popper said a thing or two on circular reasoning in evolutionary
> This truism alone, explains nothing.
> Evolution is not that simple.
> We cannot, for example, Sussa, explain how the astronomical (sic)
> numbers of damaged genes, or bad genes, are removed from the DNA
> molecules as new generations are coming and going. And moreover
> we have chromosome damage, and minor DNA damage, and ....
> One such damage means at least one genetic death if it is going
> to be removed. And evolutionary research shows that removal has
> happened. But the calculus is not understood. More than that:
> It's understood to be impossible. Truisms and pure rhetoric
> cannot help us here if we want to be honest and scientifical.
> I hope you see that situation, Sussa.
- The sera and tissues of various animals contains exogenous plant miRNAs that are primarily acquired through food intake. If not for the epigenetic effects of nutrient chemicals on intracellular signaling and stochastic gene expression, there would probably be no ecological niche construction from which adaptive evolution proceeds via subsequent social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction. That would make adaptive evolution depend on random mutations, but there's no model for that. That's why evolution via random mutations is a ridiculous theory! Moving forward, the ridiculous theory becomes dangerous when people who claim expertise in genetics, like Sussa, do not recognize the perils associated with GMOs. They don't even know enough to recognize the risks and compare them to the rewards.
Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.