Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] On worthless truisms -- example

Expand Messages
  • clarence_sonny_williams
    Anna, 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
    Message 1 of 33 , Nov 8, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Anna,

      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 evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Anna" <pantheon@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Genes are never removed, only inactivated.
      > Anna
      >
      > From: Nils K.
      > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 1:37 PM
      > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [evol-psych] On worthless truisms -- example
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Hi Sussa, hi All!
      >
      > Sussa:
      > 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.
      >
      > Nils:
      > 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.
      > Etc.
      >
      > Popper said a thing or two on circular reasoning in evolutionary
      > "theory".
      >
      > 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.
      >
      > Best,
      > NKO
      >
    • james kohl
      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
      Message 33 of 33 , Nov 12, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        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.
         
        James V. Kohl
        Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
        Independent researcher
        Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.



        From: Sussa Björkholm <sussab@...>
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sun, November 11, 2012 6:43:01 AM
        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Alleles, Genes and Mutations

         

        The thing is, how could DNA or proteins that are in the food in any way affect us as they are all digested into nucleotides and amino acids before they are absorbed into our body? 


        As nucleotides and amino acids they have lost all their previous "identities" and cannot be dangerous no matter how they were put together before.

        Sussa

        On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Leif Ekblad <leif@...> wrote:


        Yes, I think there are real risks with genetically modified crops, apart from multinational companies being able to charge people for using seeds.
         
        I still haven't been able to publish my primary paper about neurodiversity, but it is at least on peer-review again, so I hope for a positive outcome. It is a pity that it is so hard to publish controversial material like this, and even to find some journal that is interested in it. I wrote the Neanderthal theory of autism already in 2001, and started to research it a few years later. The main research with Aspie Quiz started in 2004, so what I'm trying to publish is 8 years of research, which is kind of hard to summarize in an ordinary paper, especially when the implications are so broad.
         
        Leif Ekblad
         
         
        Anna wrote:
        I know of this claim. In fact recent research suggests that a gene indeed can be transferred from one species to another although the exact mechanism is unknown. I had these two articles in my files for a while.  The one from ISIS warns about the risks of genetically modified foods for the very reason..
        I am most interested in your research. Please, elaborate.
         



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.