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

Re: Thermodynamics and thermoregulation contradict Darwinian Natural Selection [Was Pigeon Study Contradicts Darwinian Natural Selection]

Expand Messages
  • hibbsa
    Jim - I didn t say an ything that you have ever actually said. What you do....largely...is repeat the same sentences again and again. About those sentences it
    Message 1 of 45 , Mar 6, 2013
      Jim - I didn't say an ything that you have ever actually said. What you
      do....largely...is repeat the same sentences again and again. About
      those sentences it is possible to say "it means this" and "it clearly
      states that, if indirectly" and "this is strongly suggested in my..."
      and so on.

      Like I said before it would be better if you looked for other,
      alternative, ways to express your idea. Make longer, shorter,
      tangential, metaphorical, analgous, descriptions of those same stock
      phrases that you use. Use different posts about different subjects (that
      you intend to bridge back to those stock statements) as opportunties to
      do this. Then keep on differentiating as you go, for example in
      different posts select different sub-sections of the biological
      processes and ideas that you have, to expand on in much greater
      detail...using words and phrases that no one has seen you use before.

      This is how people come to understand an idea. The way you currently do
      it does have some benefits but it also has serious downsides. Cronic
      repetition is something that people tend to associate with lack of
      depth. People don't like reading the same things again and again. People
      start to skim posts that look the same. Then they start to jump whole
      paragraphs that look the same. Then whole posts. It isn't conducive to
      learning....the mind tends to switch off...the paragraph becomes a
      course jungle of foreign text.

      Do it, it'll seriously help you get understood. Or it'll help people
      decide if your ideas are shallow. You say"we're not making progress, are
      we"? But the issue Jim is whether YOU are making progress.

      p.s. I was responding about Newman. So do you now agree that genes of
      'genes of large effect' are not currently useful concepts for
      contradicting Darwinism?




      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > hibbsa (excerpted from below) "...finally...as you know adaptation has
      more than
      > one 'dimension' of advance"
      >
      >
      > You have gone from asking me about what I know to telling others what
      I know as
      > if you were an authority on the biological basis of nutrient-dependent
      > pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution.
      >
      > I have gone from addressing the basic principles of biology and levels
      of
      > biological organization to a link from the thermodynamics of de novo
      protein
      > biosynthesis to the thermoregulation of adaptive evolution in species
      from
      > microbes to man. We're not making progress here. Are we? That's the
      problem with
      > statistics! In the context of the "epigenetic tweaking of immense gene
      networks"
      > or "genes of large effect" statistical analyses are like lies, or
      worse: damned
      > lies, or worse: statistics are like statistics that are meaningless in
      attempts
      > to detail cause and effect in the context of adaptive evolution. They
      enable
      > nice stories to be told, however.
      >
      >
      > 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: hibbsa hibbsa@...
      > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tue, March 5, 2013 11:57:10 AM
      > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: [human-ethology] Newman 2013 Pigeon Study
      Contradicts
      > Darwinian Natural Selection
      >
      >
      >
      > Jim - Newman was no doubt sincere in the point he was making, but the
      > idea that genes of large effect contradict Darwin is carrying several
      > misconceptions on more than one level.
      >
      > 1. We don't yet have a way to know what size effect individual genes
      > have. We are are able to identify the size of the *influence* of a
      gene,
      > but as direct mathematical consequence of the properties of 'networks'
      > that the concept of the 'effect'of individual objects becomes
      > distributed between whatever it individually does, and it's position
      in
      > the network itself. Not wanting to teach scientists to suck eggs, but
      > FWIW the relative weighting of what the gene actually does, and what
      > influence the gene has as a logical node in a network of relations, is
      > proportionate the size and complexity of the network.
      >
      > So what is the implication of this? What it means is that to the
      extent
      > genes are networked in complex ways, genes of small effect at the
      > individual level, can be hugely influential depending on their placing
      > in the network. Down the line this will inevitably lead to a
      > reformulation of the relevant sections of the "background' conceptual
      > framework..that supports us in thinking coherently about biology. But
      > for now, what it means is, when we measure large effects in a gene, we
      > have no way of knowing what extent we're seeing an artifact of the way
      > we are taking the measurement - and that's the way it's going to be
      > until better understandings of those networks emerge.
      >
      > (for a practical example. Let's say we discover that when a gene
      > activites the legs grow to the right length, but when we knock the
      gene
      > out the legs don't grow at all, or stick out of the ears or something.
      > That's a big effect. But for all we know, the actual causality is that
      > the activation of the gene sends a signal to various connected nodes
      in
      > the network, each of which manage different aspects of the business of
      > gowing the leg, in turn signalling other nodes and branching out. The
      > gene we measured might be a bit player in the true mechanical business
      > of making things happen right. It might be the janitor...a flag man
      for
      > the true genius gene three or thirty nodes away.
      >
      > So that's point number one.
      >
      > 2. The very idea that Darwin was anywhere near the ballpark of
      > predicting the size of individual gene effects is just daft. Firstly
      > his insights were profound for the time but very vague compared to
      > subsequent develop0ments (this doesn't detract from his contribution).
      > Even if he had said something about gene effects,. it would be have
      been
      > a total reach.....the correctness or not of which as it turned out,
      > would be neither here nor there for the theory he seeded.
      >
      > 3. But anyway Jim, he was talking about the sizes of the mutations not
      > the genes. And anyway, it is a total consequence of evolutionary
      > concepts that any such prediction would be *statistical* in nature,
      > because after all there's nothing physical to stop a mutation being of
      a
      > very large size, and nothing to say a large effect can't coincide with
      > some recent big change in the niche, and win the lottery against the
      > odds and nail the new challenge. It's just about odds, boiler plate
      > reasoning.
      >
      > 4. And if that wasn't enough, finally...as you know adaptation has
      more
      > than one 'dimension' of advance......with obvious premiums on
      > efficiency, structural integrity, and so on and so on. The
      anticipation
      > would be that, in the course of time, less robust processes with too
      > many dependencies, or using too much energhy, get replaced with better
      > configurations. In light of this, is there is any particular reason
      why
      > you or Newman think a gene cannot become more influential as a result
      of
      > ordinary evolution? And that being the case, there doesn't seem to be
      > much mileage for overtjurning Darwinism using genes of large effect
      >
      > FWIW, I think it's pretty intuitive to expoect that it is the case
      that
      > the replacement of archaim chemical pathways with complex proteins
      (i.e.
      > genes) is an important historical example of the 'replacement' theme.
      > This is because the 'retropective' character of 'replacement'
      evolution
      > naturally embodies a lot more theoretical possibilities for explaining
      > how biology + evolution pulls off de-novo genes.
      >
      > As a final aside, as I've mentioned to you before, I actually agree
      that
      > random mutations of the 'outer space radion' and parochial environmet
      > caused copy-error types, are not the movers and shakers of
      evolutionary
      > history. What surely are, are the original mutations of the very first
      > protolife. They are the originals. What they are also, are the
      mutations
      > of final recourse. If nothing else is going on, the originals can be
      > trusted to keep on keeping on.
      >
      > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl
      > wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > ________________________________
      > > From: hibbsa hibbsa@
      > > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Sat, March 2, 2013 10:33:20 AM
      > > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: [human-ethology] Newman 2013 Pigeon Study
      > Contradicts
      > > Darwinian Natural Selection
      > >
      > > Â
      > > Newman was talking crappola, which presumably he realized, which
      > presumably is
      > > why he sought Huffington Post and not a journal.
      > >
      > > JK: He was addressing the findings of the article published in
      > Science. In that
      > > context, I hope you can supply information that supports runaway
      > selection
      > > theory and contrast it with nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled
      > adaptive
      > > evolution via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive
      > niche
      > > construction.
      > >
      > > For example, I have published the details of my model in a
      > peer-reviewed
      > > journal. See for example: Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and
      food
      > odors:
      > > epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved
      > behaviors.
      > > Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
      > >
      > > James V. Kohl
      > > Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
      > > Independent researcher
      > >
      > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > From: Don Zimmerman
      > > > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Sent: Fri, March 1, 2013 10:28:12 PM
      > > > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: [human-ethology] Newman 2013 Pigeon
      Study
      > > Contradicts
      > > > Darwinian Natural Selection
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > Excerpted from below: "No matter what the source of mutations
      may
      > be,
      > > >selection
      > > > >
      > > > > operates on the resulting phenotype."
      > > > >
      > > > > That is precisely the opposite of what the Pigeon Study has
      > detailed and
      > > >stated
      > > > >
      > > > > in no uncertain terms. Please provide an example of how
      mutations
      > are
      > > >selected
      > > >
      > > > > in the context of what you continue to think is selection for
      the
      > resulting
      > > > > phenotype.
      > > > >
      > > > > It's been known for decades that selection must occur at the
      > molecular
      > > level,
      > > > >as
      > > > >
      > > > > it does for nutrients in species from microbes to man with
      > reproduction
      > > > > controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to species specific
      > pheromones.
      > > >
      > > > DWZ:
      > > > I am not familiar with the pigeon study and cannot comment on its
      > > implications.
      > > > And I still cannot make sense out of the phrase "selection for
      > mutations."
      > > > Unless I am missing something, the selective process operates on
      the
      > variation
      > > > that exists in populations of organisms, not mutations. Donald
      > Campbell
      > > > expressed it nicely with the phrase "blind variation and selective
      > retention."
      > > > (As far as I know, Campbell used the word "blind" in this
      > evolutionary context
      > > > even before Dawkins referred to the "blind watchmaker."
      > > > JK: Here, again, is a link to the pigeon study and a link that
      > details it
      > > > implications.
      > > >
      > > > Genomic Diversity and Evolution of the Head Crest in the Rock
      Pigeon
      > > >
      > > > Pigeon Study Contradicts Darwinian Natural Selection
      > > >
      > > > Selection operates for the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled
      > > >thermodynamic
      > > > regulation of cellular-level protein biosythesis that extends the
      > concept of
      > > > "epigenetic tweaking of immense gene networks" from microbes to
      > selection for
      > > > organism-level physical traits associated with thermoregulation in
      a
      > human
      > > > population. No one can make sense of the phrase "selection for
      > mutations"
      > > > because it's a nonsensical approach to biologically-based cause
      and
      > effect,
      > > > which is required for adaptive evolution via ecological, social,
      > neurogenic,
      > > >and
      > > > socio-cognitive niche construction. Attempts to understand
      anything
      > at all
      > > > about evolution in the context of "blind variation and selective
      > retention"
      > > are
      > > > futile. That's what the pigeon study shows, which is why the
      article
      > about it
      > > > has the title: Pigeon Study Contradicts Darwinian Natural
      Selection.
      > > > 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.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest •
      Unsubscribe
      > • Terms of Use • Send
      > > us
      > > > Feedback
      > > >
      > > > .
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • 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
        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.