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

Re: [evol-psych] Re: [human-ethology] Newman 2013 Pigeon Study Contradicts Darwinian Natural Selection

Expand Messages
  • james kohl
    From: jrfeier To: james kohl Sent: Mon, February 25, 2013 9:56:51 AM Subject: Message not approved:
    Message 1 of 45 , Feb 25, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      From: jrfeier <jay.feierman84@...>
      To: james kohl <jvkohl@...>
      Sent: Mon, February 25, 2013 9:56:51 AM
      Subject: Message not approved: [evol-psych] Re: [human-ethology] Newman 2013 Pigeon Study Contradicts Darwinian Natural Selection

      Contains several instances of flaming in what is in the entire posting.

      --------------------------------------------------
      JK: As I anticipated, Feierman blocked this post (below). I thank RKS for his unbiased moderation and ask that others who know people interested in human ethology tell them to not rely on the information posted to the ISHE group. As noted, anyone who believes that random mutations cause adaptive evolution -- despite the lack of any scientific evidence -- poses a problem to attempts by others to understand scientific truths.

      Feierman:  Random gene mutation is the variance generator upon which natural selection operates.


      As the ISHE group's moderator, Feierman is a big problem. That's not to say that he isn't better than no moderator, nonetheless. I'm not sure about that. I am sure that random gene mutation is not the variance generator on which natural selection operates.


       
      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: james kohl <jvkohl@...>
      To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: human-ethology@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Mon, February 25, 2013 6:14:00 PM
      Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: [human-ethology] Newman 2013 Pigeon Study Contradicts Darwinian Natural Selection

       

      From: Don Zimmerman <dwzimm@...>
      Subject: [evol-psych] Re: [human-ethology] Newman 2013 Pigeon Study Contradicts Darwinian Natural Selection

       

      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" wrote:

      > Jim/Don - I think in the context of Evolution the words 'mutation' and
      > 'random' increasingly have a much more generic meaning than possibly
      > they did in the past.

      JK: The problem is that the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization clearly state that you, and others who think like that, are wrong.
      >
      > A mutation = any change in DNA (human caused excepted)
      >
      > Random = with respect to the selective benefit

      1. Williams: ... random mutations CAN AND DO account for some pretty difficult-to-answer evolutionary question.

      2. James Gray: It actually seems like a good idea to support the role of random gene mutation in biological evolution from time to time on this list. 

      3. Feierman:  Random gene mutation is the variance generator upon which natural selection operates.

      4. JK: Random gene mutation is not the variance generator upon which natural selection operates.


      Which one of the four statements above (with my emphasis) represents biological facts? Which of the statements above and below represents theoretical nonsense?

      > A mutation doesn't have to be a mutation in the common understanding of
      > the word. It can occur as part of an ordered mechanism. There is no
      > rational or logical problem with this. Mutation just means, we don't
      > know what the cause is. In fact, what it really means is that, for the
      > purposes the word is being used, at the level of abstraction it is being
      > used, it doesn't *matter* what the cause is, only that it happens.

      JK: If it doesn't "matter" what causes the mutation, the cause can be random. Therefore, the unknown cause of the random mutation causes adaptive evolution. Is that what he just said? Watch how DWZ attempts to clarify it.

      DWZ: It is my understanding that mutations arise from a great variety of different causes and that a large proportion of them can reasonably be called "random." For example, consider radiation from space striking DNA. I can't think of anything more random.

      JK: I think it would be more random if you were lost in space at the time your DNA was struck by the radiation, after formation of your DNA randomly occurred via random processes that defy the second law of thermodynamics (i.e., entropy).

      DWZ: On the other hand, a human being could receive excess radiation because of too many chest X-rays or X-rays in the dentist's office. That might be considered less "random" in the sense that it is predictable and could possibly be avoided by choice. But it has a random component in the sense that various individuals may not be aware of the risks of too much radiation, that toothaches and trips to the dentist may occur randomly, and so on. It is similar for any chemically-induced mutation.

      JK: I missed the similarity between excess radiation-induced mutations and a chemically-induced "mutation." Are you saying that the similarity is because, in theory, radiation and chemically-induced mutations are caused by similar things? How similar is radiation to chemistry in the context of biologically based cause and effect? 

      DWZ: Correct me if I am wrong,....

      JK: I've been doing that for years!

      DWZ: ....but I thought everybody agreed that mutations drive evolution by natural selection and that the process is regarded as random at the level of populations of organisms.

      JK: There is no biologically based scientific evidence that natural selection for mutations occurs at the level of populations of organisms. That's what the pigeon study we're discussing clarifies.  Regarding the process as random makes anyone who agrees "that mutations drive evolution by natural selection and that the process is regarded as random" appear to be unable to think critically. Does the article on the pigeons tell us that the population level selection is for a random mutation? Correct me if I am wrong, but I think  it tells us that Darwin was just slightly confused by his observations, which led to much more confusion even after others learned about genetics, and then learned about molecular epigenetics.

      DWZ: An implication seems to be that, at any given place on the "tree of life," evolution can "go anywhere," (unpredictably from the perspective of an observer in space), within constraints imposed by the structure of organisms up to that point and the structure of the environment.

      JK: Thank you for once again exemplifying the lack of critical thinking among theorists.  Evolution cannot go anywhere if organisms are undernourished or if their social environment is not constrained by the availability of nutrients. The finches beaks adaptively evolved as part of their ecological niche construction, not because different beaks were somehow naturally selected at the population level.

      Nutrients enable the epigenetic landscape to become the physical landscape that establishes the structure of organisms via the effect of nutrients on stochastic gene expression.   The metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones controls nutrient-dependent adaptive evolution via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction. Telling others that " at any given place on the "tree of life," evolution can "go anywhere," eliminates the constraints of biological facts that ensure adaptive evolution is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled (i.e., directional from the bottom up to its top down control in my model that links gene activation to behavior and back).

      The pigeon studies and all other current studies, other than those using only statistical analyses of population genetics, clearly show that random gene mutation is not the variance generator upon which natural selection operates. If the take home message from what Jay has since added (below) indicates anything else, he is still wrong. The difference is simply being wrong with obfuscation.

      Remember: this is what he first said:  Random gene mutation is the variance generator upon which natural selection operates.

      Feierman (new): 

      Hello Jim (Gray),

      The confusion or lack of understanding has to do with the word "driven," which implies to me an important and controlling or rate limiting, cause and effect relationship on the outcome of natural selection, which is adaptive changes in gene frequencies in a population over time in a specific environment. Given that meaning of the word, "Driving natural selection" is not the role or function or effect of random genetic mutations in a population. 

      I like to argue (or teach in my earlier days) by analogy, so I'll give an analogous situation having to do with enzymes in biochemistry and the biosynthesis of the neurotransmitter serotonin from the amino acid tryptophan. To talk about "mutation driven natural selection" would be analogous to talking about "dietary tryptophan driven serotonin biosynthesis." Except in the rare cases of dietary tryptophan deficiency (like a corn based diet not supplemented by beans), the rate limiting step for serotonin biosynthesis in a human having a normal balanced diet is not the amount of tryptophan consumed in the diet. Rather, it is the amount or activity of tryptophan hydroxylase enzyme that is present in tissue at a particular time. The amount of serotonin in any particular tissue of the body, such as a part of the brain, is a function of the amount of or activity of (i.e., the "Km value of") tryptophan hydroxylase present in the tissue at a particular time, which is why tryptophan hydroxylase is called "the rate limiting enzyme" in the biosynthesis of serotonin from the dietary amino acid, tryptophan. 

      Both random genetic mutations and the amino acid tryptophan (taken in by diet) are the substrates, random mutations figuratively and tryptophan literally. Neither are rate limiting under normal or natural circumstances. One can't speed up the process of natural selection or change its direction in a population over time by just increasing the mutation rate of genes in a population from say 1 in 20,000 cell divisions to 1 in 10,00 cell divisions. The effect on adaptively changing gene frequencies in a population in a specific environment from just speeding up the mutation rate would be negligible compared to the other much more important factors in natural selection itself, such as strong directional selection. 

      I hope this helps clear up the confusion.
      ---------------------------------------------------------

      I think it simply shows that Feierman is among the most confused of those involved in discussions that incorporate the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization required to link sensory cause to behavioral affect. DWZ is a close second, but much less offensive because he is attempting to understand the biological basis of evolution. He does not appear to be deliberately using obfuscation in an attempt to convince others that he knows what he is talking about. Kudos to DWZ and to hibbsa for that.


       
      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.



    • JVKohl
      Nils, We must try to avoid accusing Williams of exhibiting child-like behavior. He s likely to throw another tantrum in front of everyone, and embarass us
      Message 45 of 45 , Mar 6, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Nils,

        We must try to avoid accusing Williams of exhibiting "child-like" behavior. He's likely to
        throw another tantrum in front of everyone, and embarass us all.

        I hate it when that happens!

        -- 
        James V. Kohl
        Medical laboratory scientist
        ASCP AMT ASCLS
        Independent researcher
        Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
        Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
        http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338
        

         

        On 3/6/2013 2:13 PM, Nils K. wrote:
         

        Dear Clarence, dear All!

        Clarence:
        ... The research is on its way, Don. If anyone else (other than Nils and Kohl; I do not correspond with them ...

        NKO:
        You are probably meaning that research RESULT(S) is on its way, Clarence. (It's difficult or impossible to tell in advance how
        research are going to tell us.)

        The word "correspond" is not synomymous with the word "discuss" or
        "debate". You are probably meaning "discuss", not "correspond".

        However, in a sense, you ARE using the right concept: You are
        pretty unable to discuss/debate our subjects (properly), you are ONLY able to "correspond".

        It's elementary psychology that beaten people back out, and avoid
        more of the same. Moreover it's a sign of child-like behavior.

        Best,
        NKO



        -- 
        James V. Kohl
        Medical laboratory scientist
        ASCP AMT ASCLS
        Independent researcher
        Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
        Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
        http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338
        
        
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.