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

Re: [evol-psych] Evolution, Creation and New Genes

Expand Messages
  • james kohl
    From: Maarten To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, March 9, 2013 2:05:23 AM Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Evolution,
    Message 1 of 23 , Mar 9, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      From: Maarten <m.aalberse@...>
      To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sat, March 9, 2013 2:05:23 AM
      Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Evolution, Creation and New Genes

       

      " Science demands that scientists have common sense and that they make sense."

      I don't think the first thing about common sense is true - great scientists have uncommon sense too ( that can lead to paradigm shifts)

      Making sense (to other readers), 
      1) Yes, so scientists should present their findings in ways that are comprehensible for openminded and informed readers
      2) It also depends on the reader, not just on the author. So it also requires that the reader doesn't make nonsense out of what the writer intends to transmit from another perspective than the one of the reader, and that the writing is not declared "nonsensical" because it is done from another perspective.
      And yes,such required flexibility in perspective-taking is difficult to acquire, for some.


      JK: What are you trying to say, Maarten? Is there another perspective on adaptive evolution besides the one that incorporates biological facts? Willliams wrote: Kaessemann 2010 is an excellent article on de novo genes that discusses the random nature of this newly discovered "type of mutation." Biological facts incorporate the role of the microRNA / messenger RNA balance at a time when Williams seems to think that genes simply randomly assemble themselves and then somehow mutate to create cells that evolve into humans. Is there a reason you think that I'm the only one who would declare that nonsense to be incomprehensible? Life is nutrient-dependent and so is adaptive evolution. Adaptive evolution is pheromone-controlled. What is it about random mutations theory that you think best addresses the biological facts that adaptive evolution is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled?


      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.


      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
      >
      > Willliams wrote: Kaessemann 2010 is an excellent article on de novo genes that
      > discusses the random nature of this newly discovered "type of mutation."
      >
      > Excerpt:
      > "Almost any imaginable pathway toward new gene birth seems to have been
      > documented by now, even those previously deemed highly
      > unlikely or impossible. Thus, new genes have arisen from copies of old ones,
      > protein and RNA genes were composed from scratch,
      > protein-coding genes metamorphosed into RNA genes, parasitic genome sequences
      > were domesticated, and, finally, all of the resulting
      > components also readily mixed to yield new chimeric genes with unprecedented
      > functions."
      >
      > Are others equally unaware that all the imaginable pathways are
      > nutrient-dependent? Please take the first step away from ignorance by
      > acknowledging at least one biological fact. We might then make progress by
      > acknowledging other basic principles of biology and levels of biological
      > organization that link sensory input directly to genes, to behavior, and back,
      > as is required for adaptive evolution.
      >
      >
      > Stop imagining the impossible pathways, domain-specific modules, lack of
      > transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, and unknown natural mechanisms that
      > Williams imagines. Start demanding that he make sense! Science demands that
      > scientists have common sense and that they make sense.
      >
      > 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: clarence_sonny_williams clarencew@...
      > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Fri, March 8, 2013 6:27:29 PM
      > Subject: [evol-psych] Evolution, Creation and New Genes
      >
      >
      > I believe there ares some members on this discussion group who are either
      > admittedly "creationists" or whose biological arguments about evolution appear
      > to mimic those of creationists. To these people, new discoveries such as "de
      > novo genes" offer hope that their mystical theories for the origin of new
      > species might be right after all. Alas, they are proven wrong (again) at every
      > turn.
      >
      > Good scientists everywhere need to constantly do battle with creationists,
      > since the essence of their argument is adherence to some form of religious
      > belief (overtly or implicitly). In short (and IMHO), they have nefarious
      > purposes, because anyone "hiding" a true purpose behind other arguments is a
      > liar and a crook, a "nefarious individual."
      >
      > I have tried to find free sources for those who want to understand this newest
      > type of random event, de novo genes, and believe the following are free. If
      > not, email me and I'll provide a copy:
      >
      > Jacob 1977 was an excellent little science article explaining evolution and
      > natural selection as "tinkerers," but one statement is used by creationists for
      > their nefarious purposes: "The probability that a functional protein would
      > appear do novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero" (p.
      > 1164). Alas, Jacob was wrong...but you cannot convince a creationist that
      > science works that way, by "fits and starts."
      >
      > Kaessemann 2010 is an excellent article on de novo genes that discusses the
      > random nature of this newly discovered "type of mutation."
      >
      > Enjoy and continue believing...IN SCIENCE.
      >
    • clarence_sonny_williams
      Maarten, I see that Kohl has repeated his uninformative, completely meaningless phrase, nutrient-dependent. What life is not dependent on energy
      Message 2 of 23 , Mar 9, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Maarten,

        I see that Kohl has repeated his uninformative, completely meaningless
        phrase, "nutrient-dependent." What life is not dependent on energy
        utilization?

        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Maarten"
        <m.aalberse@...> wrote:
        >
        > " Science demands that scientists have common sense and that they make
        > sense."
        > I don't think the first thing about common sense is true - great
        > scientists have uncommon sense too ( that can lead to paradigm shifts)
        > Making sense (to other readers), 1) Yes, so scientists should present
        > their findings in ways that are comprehensible for openminded and
        > informed readers2) It also depends on the reader, not just on the
        > author. So it also requires that the reader doesn't make nonsense out
        of
        > what the writer intends to transmit from another perspective than the
        > one of the reader, and that the writing is not declared "nonsensical"
        > because it is done from another perspective.And yes,such required
        > flexibility in perspective-taking is difficult to acquire, for some.
        > Maarten
        >
        <Snip>
      • james kohl
        From: clarence_sonny_williams I see that Kohl has repeated his uninformative, completely meaningless phrase, nutrient-dependent.
        Message 3 of 23 , Mar 9, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          From: clarence_sonny_williams <clarencew@...>

          I see that Kohl has repeated his uninformative, completely meaningless
          phrase, "nutrient-dependent." What life is not dependent on energy
          utilization?

          JK: In context, that question is: What nutrient-dependent life in species from microbes to man is not also dependent on pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution?  Alternatively, tell us what nutrient-dependent life is due to random mutations and how random mutations cause adaptive evolution?

          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.






          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Maarten"
          <m.aalberse@...> wrote:

          >
          > " Science demands that scientists have common sense and that they make
          > sense."
          > I don't think the first thing about common sense is true - great
          > scientists have uncommon sense too ( that can lead to paradigm shifts)
          > Making sense (to other readers), 1) Yes, so scientists should present
          > their findings in ways that are comprehensible for openminded and
          > informed readers2) It also depends on the reader, not just on the
          > author. So it also requires that the reader doesn't make nonsense out
          of
          > what the writer intends to transmit from another perspective than the
          > one of the reader, and that the writing is not declared "nonsensical"
          > because it is done from another perspective.And yes,such required
          > flexibility in perspective-taking is difficult to acquire, for some.
          > Maarten
          >
          <Snip>

        • Don Zimmerman
          ... DWZ: It occurs to me that focusing on evolution from microbes to man is sort of like looking at the History of the United States as the period from the
          Message 4 of 23 , Mar 9, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:

            > In context, that question is: What nutrient-dependent life in species from
            > microbes to man is not also dependent on pheromone-controlled adaptive
            > evolution?

            DWZ:
            It occurs to me that focusing on evolution "from microbes to man" is sort of like looking at the History of the United States as the period from the Vietnam war to the present day. Microbes are already complex structures, and there was a vast evoutionary period from hydrocarbons to microbes that is also of the greatest interest to biological science.

            Today there are probably people who believe that complex biological structures such as one-celled organsims were intelligently designed by some great spiritual entity on high. That is a cop-out and retreat from rationality if ever there was one, but I am sure nobody around here believes in that stuff.

            Best regards,

            Donald W. Zimmerman
            Vancouver, BC, Canada
            dwzimm@...
            http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
          • james kohl
            From: Don Zimmerman ... DWZ: It occurs to me that focusing on evolution from microbes to man is sort of like looking at the History of the
            Message 5 of 23 , Mar 9, 2013
            • 0 Attachment

              From: Don Zimmerman <dwzimm@...>

               

              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:

              > In context, that question is: What nutrient-dependent life in species from
              > microbes to man is not also dependent on pheromone-controlled adaptive
              > evolution?

              DWZ:
              It occurs to me that focusing on evolution "from microbes to man" is sort of like looking at the History of the United States as the period from the Vietnam war to the present day. Microbes are already complex structures, and there was a vast evoutionary period from hydrocarbons to microbes that is also of the greatest interest to biological science.

              JK: It occurred to me many years ago that a model must start somewhere and that microbes have typically been an acceptable starting point. Virtually everything known about the differences between random mutations and nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution began with what we learned from bacteria and then proceeded with what we learned from yeasts at the advent of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled sexual reproduction.

              DWZ: Today there are probably people who believe that complex biological structures such as one-celled organsims were intelligently designed by some great spiritual entity on high. That is a cop-out and retreat from rationality if ever there was one, but I am sure nobody around here believes in that stuff.

              JK: I'm equally sure that no one but me has put their beliefs about the physics of adaptive evolution into a model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation.  Thus, all we have from people, like you, who want to talk about beliefs instead of evolutionary psychology is opinions about theory. From other we have article like this: Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences, and statements like this "...we foresee a day when microbiology will be a centerpiece not only of biological research, but also of high school, undergraduate, and graduate biology education."

              I foresee a day where even evolutionary theorists will be forced to learn about biological facts. But obviously, there are some people here who are too old to learn anything new -- and they probably always have been at any age.


              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
              In my model nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution is also thermodynamically constrained, and organism-level thermoregulation is required
              Message 6 of 23 , Mar 10, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                In my model nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution is also thermodynamically constrained, and organism-level thermoregulation is required for organisms to evolve. Is there any evidence that suggests random mutations cause adaptive evolution via thermodynamic effects on thermoregulation?

                I ask this because while waiting for Williams to tell us "What nutrient-dependent life in species from microbes to man is not also dependent on pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution" I learned about an open access article that discusses the role of amino acid substitutions in viruses that may link cause and effect via amino acid substitutions to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution across all unicellular and multicellular organisms as I have done.

                "The distribution of change for each amino acid property due to a single nucleotide substitution was divided into eight magnitude categories, with category one indicative of positive-stabilizing selection (or purifying selection at the amino acid phenotypic level) and category eight indicating positive-destabilizing selection (positive Darwinian selection at the phenotypic level)."

                If this article actually does represent Darwinian selection for phenotype in viruses (e.g., statistically), random mutations might cause viruses to adaptively evolve (e.g., statistically). Thus, this article might be a good starting point for theorists who would like to  attempt to explain a role for random mutations in adaptive evolution that extends (e.g., statistically) from viruses to bacteria and to insects and to mammals without involving nutrients or pheromones.

                Alternatively, it might just tell theorists that mutations in viruses or in species from microbes to man do not cause adaptive evolution because adaptive evolution in all species is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.

                -- 
                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 3/9/2013 1:09 PM, james kohl wrote:
                 
                From: clarence_sonny_williams <clarencew@...>

                I see that Kohl has repeated his uninformative, completely meaningless
                phrase, "nutrient-dependent." What life is not dependent on energy
                utilization?

                JK: In context, that question is: What nutrient-dependent life in species from microbes to man is not also dependent on pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution?  Alternatively, tell us what nutrient-dependent life is due to random mutations and how random mutations cause adaptive evolution?

                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.






                --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Maarten"
                <m.aalberse@...> wrote:
                >
                > " Science demands that scientists have common sense and that they make
                > sense."
                > I don't think the first thing about common sense is true - great
                > scientists have uncommon sense too ( that can lead to paradigm shifts)
                > Making sense (to other readers), 1) Yes, so scientists should present
                > their findings in ways that are comprehensible for openminded and
                > informed readers2) It also depends on the reader, not just on the
                > author. So it also requires that the reader doesn't make nonsense out
                of
                > what the writer intends to transmit from another perspective than the
                > one of the reader, and that the writing is not declared "nonsensical"
                > because it is done from another perspective.And yes,such required
                > flexibility in perspective-taking is difficult to acquire, for some.
                > Maarten
                >
                <Snip>



                
                
              • Nils K.
                Dear Clarence. dear All! ... I believe there are some members on this discussion group who are either admittedly creationists or whose biological arguments
                Message 7 of 23 , Mar 11, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Clarence. dear All!

                  --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams" <clarencew@...> wrote:

                  I believe there are some members on this discussion group who are
                  either admittedly "creationists" or whose biological arguments about
                  evolution appear to mimic those of creationists.

                  NKO:
                  You are committing simplistic thinking, Clarence. You are producing
                  rhetoric only.

                  What the Hell is "creationist". It's only a random word, telling
                  nothing, as you are using it. You are using the method of magic words.

                  And what the Hell is "creation"? This concept is changing with time.
                  Bertrand Russell and other "atheists" in his time hated the word
                  "creation". They created the first deadly scandal of "atheism".
                  They were certain that the Universe was not created. Russell:
                  The world is simply there.

                  But it was not that simple. Today it's mainstream science that space,
                  time, matter, energy, natural laws, everything, were created by the
                  Big Bang. And, as a little footnote here, the holy books were right,
                  light was created before the sun (the stars).

                  We undoubtedly have a CREATION. The atheists were wrong. Moreover,
                  the Big Bang observations (BB is more than just a theory) proves that
                  EVOLUTION is a true part of the totality of creation. Dawkin's
                  equation, evolution exists equals a creator (or creation) does not
                  exist, becomes instantly dead and laughable.

                  Clarence, you certainly are protecting yourself against information
                  and observations you do not like i.e info that makes your beliefs and
                  claims dead and powerless. Therefore you avoid reading my messages
                  about cosmological physics and philosophy of the Universe.

                  Perhaps you do not know that the singularity of the BB is the most
                  complex (measured as order)"object" we can imagine. It's infinitely
                  more complex than the Universe around us and the different parts
                  (including biological evolution) of that Universe. See Roger Penrose,
                  who was Hawking's teacher (professor)and is now the undisputed
                  greatest cosmologist of the World.

                  All of evolution was directly or indirectly predermined in the very
                  mentioned singularity. Bohms deterministic interpretation (undisputed)
                  of QM placed all randomness back to the start of the Universe.

                  Do you see the "total" picture now, Clarence? I do not think you do.
                  But there are others who do. They are "probably" much greater minds
                  than you. We do here have a specific creator candidate, and so are
                  making the last remain of the "atheist" philosophy of, say, Dawkins,
                  totally illogical (dead).

                  Using actively the concepts of creation and creator are musts for
                  advanced cosmological science, and even advanced evolutionary
                  science. Read books by the leading astronomers, the leading
                  cosmologists, etc. The words of creation and creator are frequently
                  used tools of thinking and reasoning. They are unavoidable. Note that
                  this fact has nothing to do with ordinary, traditional specific
                  religious views. They do not need to read holy books. However,
                  Einstein, Bohr, and the other geniuses of their level, were extremely
                  interested in the great religions of the far East. They were
                  extremely impressed by the advanced thinking of these traditions.
                  The New Atheists are now pretty finished. They did not consult the
                  old wise thinkers of the East or West. Therefore they are now
                  starting to leave the center stage and heading for the more or less
                  forgotten prehistory. They did not add anything to any branch of philosophy.

                  Best,
                  NKO
                • james kohl
                  Excerpted from below: The New Atheists are now pretty finished.... They did not add anything to any branch of philosophy. They probably added more nonsense
                  Message 8 of 23 , Mar 11, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Excerpted from below: "The New Atheists" are now pretty finished.... They did not add anything to any branch of philosophy."

                    They probably added more nonsense to all branches of philosophy than any intelligent person can fathom. Williams alone has touted domain specific mental modules with no evidence that they exist, and he has denied evidence that transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists (as is unequivocally required to link genes to behavior and back in species from microbes to man). Even now "The New Atheists" refuse to address evidence of  Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation added to the evidence of Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled Adaptive Evolution. Simply put, they substitute nonsense for facts and never address the facts. And the only way to continue to propagate their nonsense is for them to continue to ignore the facts.

                    Evidence for an "An epigenetic continuum of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled thermoregulation" in microbes, nematodes, insects, and mammals, including humans has reached critical mass. "The New Atheists" are now the old fools who missed the paradigm shift while clinging ever-so-tightly to random mutations theory.


                    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: Nils K. <n-oeij@...>
                    To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Mon, March 11, 2013 3:11:16 PM
                    Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes

                     



                    Dear Clarence. dear All!

                    --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams" <clarencew@...> wrote:

                    I believe there are some members on this discussion group who are
                    either admittedly "creationists" or whose biological arguments about
                    evolution appear to mimic those of creationists.

                    NKO:
                    You are committing simplistic thinking, Clarence. You are producing
                    rhetoric only.

                    What the Hell is "creationist". It's only a random word, telling
                    nothing, as you are using it. You are using the method of magic words.

                    And what the Hell is "creation"? This concept is changing with time.
                    Bertrand Russell and other "atheists" in his time hated the word
                    "creation". They created the first deadly scandal of "atheism".
                    They were certain that the Universe was not created. Russell:
                    The world is simply there.

                    But it was not that simple. Today it's mainstream science that space,
                    time, matter, energy, natural laws, everything, were created by the
                    Big Bang. And, as a little footnote here, the holy books were right,
                    light was created before the sun (the stars).

                    We undoubtedly have a CREATION. The atheists were wrong. Moreover,
                    the Big Bang observations (BB is more than just a theory) proves that
                    EVOLUTION is a true part of the totality of creation. Dawkin's
                    equation, evolution exists equals a creator (or creation) does not
                    exist, becomes instantly dead and laughable.

                    Clarence, you certainly are protecting yourself against information
                    and observations you do not like i.e info that makes your beliefs and
                    claims dead and powerless. Therefore you avoid reading my messages
                    about cosmological physics and philosophy of the Universe.

                    Perhaps you do not know that the singularity of the BB is the most
                    complex (measured as order)"object" we can imagine. It's infinitely
                    more complex than the Universe around us and the different parts
                    (including biological evolution) of that Universe. See Roger Penrose,
                    who was Hawking's teacher (professor)and is now the undisputed
                    greatest cosmologist of the World.

                    All of evolution was directly or indirectly predermined in the very
                    mentioned singularity. Bohms deterministic interpretation (undisputed)
                    of QM placed all randomness back to the start of the Universe.

                    Do you see the "total" picture now, Clarence? I do not think you do.
                    But there are others who do. They are "probably" much greater minds
                    than you. We do here have a specific creator candidate, and so are
                    making the last remain of the "atheist" philosophy of, say, Dawkins,
                    totally illogical (dead).

                    Using actively the concepts of creation and creator are musts for
                    advanced cosmological science, and even advanced evolutionary
                    science. Read books by the leading astronomers, the leading
                    cosmologists, etc. The words of creation and creator are frequently
                    used tools of thinking and reasoning. They are unavoidable. Note that
                    this fact has nothing to do with ordinary, traditional specific
                    religious views. They do not need to read holy books. However,
                    Einstein, Bohr, and the other geniuses of their level, were extremely
                    interested in the great religions of the far East. They were
                    extremely impressed by the advanced thinking of these traditions.
                    The New Atheists are now pretty finished. They did not consult the
                    old wise thinkers of the East or West. Therefore they are now
                    starting to leave the center stage and heading for the more or less
                    forgotten prehistory. They did not add anything to any branch of philosophy.

                    Best,
                    NKO

                  • Maarten
                    he has denied evidence that transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists I ve read Sonny s posts on this as a warning not to get carried away by studies
                    Message 9 of 23 , Mar 11, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "he has denied evidence that transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists"

                      I've read Sonny's posts on this as a warning not to get carried away by studies that suggest that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance exists.
                      Which is rather different from what you attribute to him...
                      It is actually good common sense and, dare I say it?, a good scientifici attitude (at least to my book, which is not the Bible...).

                      "(as is unequivocally required to link genes to behavior and back in species from microbes to man)".

                      Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny so relentlessly.
                      Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision (which does not mean that it is entirely wrong!)... Or can it?
                      Such "adaptations" of a model are common in science, as you know; and maybe even the heart of science, as far as I know.

                      I think that, if you could be open that this is also a (likely?) possibility about your model, your often very interesting contributions would be received differently.
                      And we would probably send some other pheromones to you :-)
                      Problem is that then you'd be somewhat less "outstanding".

                      I don't know about you, but from what I have heard and read, being dominant isn't that wonderful (it may well be that dominant males are more stressed, as they have to remain so watchful about possible threats to their dominance. Some dominants have a genuine paranoid streak - not surprizingly so..;).

                      Maarten




                      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Excerpted from below: "The New Atheists" are now pretty finished.... They did
                      > not add anything to any branch of philosophy."
                      >
                      > They probably added more nonsense to all branches of philosophy than any
                      > intelligent person can fathom. Williams alone has touted domain specific mental
                      > modules with no evidence that they exist, and he has denied evidence that
                      > transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists (as is unequivocally required to
                      > link genes to behavior and back in species from microbes to man). Even now "The
                      > New Atheists" refuse to address evidence of Nutrient-dependent /
                      > Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation added to the evidence
                      > of Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled Adaptive Evolution. Simply put,
                      > they substitute nonsense for facts and never address the facts. And the only way
                      > to continue to propagate their nonsense is for them to continue to ignore the
                      > facts.
                      >
                      >
                      > Evidence for an "An epigenetic continuum of nutrient-dependent
                      > pheromone-controlled thermoregulation" in microbes, nematodes, insects, and
                      > mammals, including humans has reached critical mass. "The New Atheists" are now
                      > the old fools who missed the paradigm shift while clinging ever-so-tightly to
                      > random mutations theory.
                      >
                      > 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: Nils K. n-oeij@...
                      > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Mon, March 11, 2013 3:11:16 PM
                      > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Dear Clarence. dear All!
                      >
                      > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams"
                      > clarencew@ wrote:
                      >
                      > I believe there are some members on this discussion group who are
                      > either admittedly "creationists" or whose biological arguments about
                      > evolution appear to mimic those of creationists.
                      >
                      > NKO:
                      > You are committing simplistic thinking, Clarence. You are producing
                      > rhetoric only.
                      >
                      > What the Hell is "creationist". It's only a random word, telling
                      > nothing, as you are using it. You are using the method of magic words.
                      >
                      > And what the Hell is "creation"? This concept is changing with time.
                      > Bertrand Russell and other "atheists" in his time hated the word
                      > "creation". They created the first deadly scandal of "atheism".
                      > They were certain that the Universe was not created. Russell:
                      > The world is simply there.
                      >
                      > But it was not that simple. Today it's mainstream science that space,
                      > time, matter, energy, natural laws, everything, were created by the
                      > Big Bang. And, as a little footnote here, the holy books were right,
                      > light was created before the sun (the stars).
                      >
                      > We undoubtedly have a CREATION. The atheists were wrong. Moreover,
                      > the Big Bang observations (BB is more than just a theory) proves that
                      > EVOLUTION is a true part of the totality of creation. Dawkin's
                      > equation, evolution exists equals a creator (or creation) does not
                      > exist, becomes instantly dead and laughable.
                      >
                      > Clarence, you certainly are protecting yourself against information
                      > and observations you do not like i.e info that makes your beliefs and
                      > claims dead and powerless. Therefore you avoid reading my messages
                      > about cosmological physics and philosophy of the Universe.
                      >
                      > Perhaps you do not know that the singularity of the BB is the most
                      > complex (measured as order)"object" we can imagine. It's infinitely
                      > more complex than the Universe around us and the different parts
                      > (including biological evolution) of that Universe. See Roger Penrose,
                      > who was Hawking's teacher (professor)and is now the undisputed
                      > greatest cosmologist of the World.
                      >
                      > All of evolution was directly or indirectly predermined in the very
                      > mentioned singularity. Bohms deterministic interpretation (undisputed)
                      > of QM placed all randomness back to the start of the Universe.
                      >
                      > Do you see the "total" picture now, Clarence? I do not think you do.
                      > But there are others who do. They are "probably" much greater minds
                      > than you. We do here have a specific creator candidate, and so are
                      > making the last remain of the "atheist" philosophy of, say, Dawkins,
                      > totally illogical (dead).
                      >
                      > Using actively the concepts of creation and creator are musts for
                      > advanced cosmological science, and even advanced evolutionary
                      > science. Read books by the leading astronomers, the leading
                      > cosmologists, etc. The words of creation and creator are frequently
                      > used tools of thinking and reasoning. They are unavoidable. Note that
                      > this fact has nothing to do with ordinary, traditional specific
                      > religious views. They do not need to read holy books. However,
                      > Einstein, Bohr, and the other geniuses of their level, were extremely
                      > interested in the great religions of the far East. They were
                      > extremely impressed by the advanced thinking of these traditions.
                      > The New Atheists are now pretty finished. They did not consult the
                      > old wise thinkers of the East or West. Therefore they are now
                      > starting to leave the center stage and heading for the more or less
                      > forgotten prehistory. They did not add anything to any branch of philosophy.
                      >
                      > Best,
                      > NKO
                      >
                    • james kohl
                      JK: What if the link from physics to biology is the genetically predisposed ability of cells to ingest nutrients, thermodynamically adapt, and metabolize the
                      Message 10 of 23 , Mar 12, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        JK: What if the link from physics to biology is the genetically predisposed ability of cells to ingest nutrients, thermodynamically adapt, and metabolize the nutrients to signals responsible for cellular and organism-wide thermoregulation that enables adaptive evolution in species from microbes to man?

                        Maarten writes: "Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny so relentlessly. Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision (which does not mean that it is entirely wrong!)"

                        JK: My comments to Williams and about him have nothing to do with the need for revision of my model. He has never addressed the content of my model, or anything in my published works. I've since added the context of thermodynamics (physics) and thermoregulation (biology), and we now see this (below)  in the messages RKS sent to the group.

                        Open questions: Epigenetics and the role of heterochromatin in development Susan M Gasser BMC Biology 2013, 11:21 doi:10.1186/1741-7007-11-21
                        Excerpt: 

                        1) "...active genes can be tethered to the nuclear envelope and stress-induced promoters, such as the heat-shock activated promoter hsp-16.2, actually bind the nuclear pore in their active state [2]." 

                        Excerpt:
                        2) "The striking changes in nuclear organization that arise during differentiation, and which distinguish populations of differentiated cells, raise the question of whether subnuclear position plays a role in cell-type memory of gene expression patterns."

                        Excerpt:

                        3) "... nuclear organization is likely to play a role in tissue homeostasis."


                        What progress has Williams or anyone else who is still touting random mutations theory helped us make in addressing any of the issues above? I think that atheism is largely responsible for driving the ignorance of others. Of course, I can't be sure of this. Perhaps Williams is merely playing "devil's advocate" and has no intention of retarding scientific progress. Maybe he is somehow helping others to understand something significant.


                        Excerpt:

                        4) "One will only know by comparing different systems of differentiation, some normal and others aberrant, to uncover the universal rules for the interplay. Such rules may well be broken during oncogenesis. If we are able to answer these four questions, we may start to understand the true nature of epigenetic control."


                        If the true nature of epigenetic control is non-random (i.e., thermodynamically nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled via thermoregulation), we will soon learn what The New Atheists" have added to our world's knowledge-base: NOTHING BUT INCREDIBLE IGNORANCE via the propagation of their ridiculous theories! Shall we all just say to "The New Atheists": "Thanks for nothing" now, or wait for the next article on epigenetics to arrive and explain even more about the biology of cause and effect, which leads us closer to treating all disease processes, including cancer? Random mutations theory has led only to looking at physical and mental disease processes on by one.


                        If you had been diagnosed with cancer, how long would you be willing to wait for help to arrive from an atheist evolutionary theorist who is still touting a theory based only on statistical analyses?

                         
                        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: Maarten <m.aalberse@...>
                        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Tue, March 12, 2013 3:07:05 AM
                        Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes

                         

                        "he has denied evidence that transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists"

                        I've read Sonny's posts on this as a warning not to get carried away by studies that suggest that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance exists.
                        Which is rather different from what you attribute to him...
                        It is actually good common sense and, dare I say it?, a good scientifici attitude (at least to my book, which is not the Bible...).

                        "(as is unequivocally required to link genes to behavior and back in species from microbes to man)".

                        Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny so relentlessly.
                        Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision (which does not mean that it is entirely wrong!)... Or can it?
                        Such "adaptations" of a model are common in science, as you know; and maybe even the heart of science, as far as I know.

                        I think that, if you could be open that this is also a (likely?) possibility about your model, your often very interesting contributions would be received differently.
                        And we would probably send some other pheromones to you :-)
                        Problem is that then you'd be somewhat less "outstanding".

                        I don't know about you, but from what I have heard and read, being dominant isn't that wonderful (it may well be that dominant males are more stressed, as they have to remain so watchful about possible threats to their dominance. Some dominants have a genuine paranoid streak - not surprizingly so..;).

                        Maarten




                        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Excerpted from below: "The New Atheists" are now pretty finished.... They did
                        > not add anything to any branch of philosophy."
                        >
                        > They probably added more nonsense to all branches of philosophy than any
                        > intelligent person can fathom. Williams alone has touted domain specific mental
                        > modules with no evidence that they exist, and he has denied evidence that
                        > transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists (as is unequivocally required to
                        > link genes to behavior and back in species from microbes to man). Even now "The
                        > New Atheists" refuse to address evidence of Nutrient-dependent /
                        > Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation added to the evidence
                        > of Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled Adaptive Evolution. Simply put,
                        > they substitute nonsense for facts and never address the facts. And the only way
                        > to continue to propagate their nonsense is for them to continue to ignore the
                        > facts.
                        >
                        >
                        > Evidence for an "An epigenetic continuum of nutrient-dependent
                        > pheromone-controlled thermoregulation" in microbes, nematodes, insects, and
                        > mammals, including humans has reached critical mass. "The New Atheists" are now
                        > the old fools who missed the paradigm shift while clinging ever-so-tightly to
                        > random mutations theory.
                        >
                        > 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: Nils K. n-oeij@...
                        > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Mon, March 11, 2013 3:11:16 PM
                        > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Dear Clarence. dear All!
                        >
                        > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams"
                        > clarencew@ wrote:
                        >
                        > I believe there are some members on this discussion group who are
                        > either admittedly "creationists" or whose biological arguments about
                        > evolution appear to mimic those of creationists.
                        >
                        > NKO:
                        > You are committing simplistic thinking, Clarence. You are producing
                        > rhetoric only.
                        >
                        > What the Hell is "creationist". It's only a random word, telling
                        > nothing, as you are using it. You are using the method of magic words.
                        >
                        > And what the Hell is "creation"? This concept is changing with time.
                        > Bertrand Russell and other "atheists" in his time hated the word
                        > "creation". They created the first deadly scandal of "atheism".
                        > They were certain that the Universe was not created. Russell:
                        > The world is simply there.
                        >
                        > But it was not that simple. Today it's mainstream science that space,
                        > time, matter, energy, natural laws, everything, were created by the
                        > Big Bang. And, as a little footnote here, the holy books were right,
                        > light was created before the sun (the stars).
                        >
                        > We undoubtedly have a CREATION. The atheists were wrong. Moreover,
                        > the Big Bang observations (BB is more than just a theory) proves that
                        > EVOLUTION is a true part of the totality of creation. Dawkin's
                        > equation, evolution exists equals a creator (or creation) does not
                        > exist, becomes instantly dead and laughable.
                        >
                        > Clarence, you certainly are protecting yourself against information
                        > and observations you do not like i.e info that makes your beliefs and
                        > claims dead and powerless. Therefore you avoid reading my messages
                        > about cosmological physics and philosophy of the Universe.
                        >
                        > Perhaps you do not know that the singularity of the BB is the most
                        > complex (measured as order)"object" we can imagine. It's infinitely
                        > more complex than the Universe around us and the different parts
                        > (including biological evolution) of that Universe. See Roger Penrose,
                        > who was Hawking's teacher (professor)and is now the undisputed
                        > greatest cosmologist of the World.
                        >
                        > All of evolution was directly or indirectly predermined in the very
                        > mentioned singularity. Bohms deterministic interpretation (undisputed)
                        > of QM placed all randomness back to the start of the Universe.
                        >
                        > Do you see the "total" picture now, Clarence? I do not think you do.
                        > But there are others who do. They are "probably" much greater minds
                        > than you. We do here have a specific creator candidate, and so are
                        > making the last remain of the "atheist" philosophy of, say, Dawkins,
                        > totally illogical (dead).
                        >
                        > Using actively the concepts of creation and creator are musts for
                        > advanced cosmological science, and even advanced evolutionary
                        > science. Read books by the leading astronomers, the leading
                        > cosmologists, etc. The words of creation and creator are frequently
                        > used tools of thinking and reasoning. They are unavoidable. Note that
                        > this fact has nothing to do with ordinary, traditional specific
                        > religious views. They do not need to read holy books. However,
                        > Einstein, Bohr, and the other geniuses of their level, were extremely
                        > interested in the great religions of the far East. They were
                        > extremely impressed by the advanced thinking of these traditions.
                        > The New Atheists are now pretty finished. They did not consult the
                        > old wise thinkers of the East or West. Therefore they are now
                        > starting to leave the center stage and heading for the more or less
                        > forgotten prehistory. They did not add anything to any branch of philosophy.
                        >
                        > Best,
                        > NKO
                        >
                      • Maarten
                        Perhaps you should try and read Sonny s posts about transgenerational epigenetic inheritance a bit more carefully... I can always dream, can I? Maarten ...
                        Message 11 of 23 , Mar 12, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Perhaps you should try and read Sonny's posts about  transgenerational epigenetic inheritance a bit more carefully...

                          I can always dream, can I?

                          Maarten


                          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > JK: What if the link from physics to biology is the genetically predisposed
                          > ability of cells to ingest nutrients, thermodynamically adapt, and metabolize
                          > the nutrients to signals responsible for cellular and organism-wide
                          > thermoregulation that enables adaptive evolution in species from microbes to
                          > man?
                          >
                          > Maarten writes: "Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny so
                          > relentlessly. Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision
                          > (which does not mean that it is entirely wrong!)"
                          >
                          > JK: My comments to Williams and about him have nothing to do with the need for
                          > revision of my model. He has never addressed the content of my model, or
                          > anything in my published works. I've since added the context ofthermodynamics
                          > (physics) and thermoregulation (biology), and we now see this (below) in the
                          > messages RKS sent to the group.
                          >
                          > Open questions: Epigenetics and the role of heterochromatin in development
                          > Susan M GasserBMC Biology 2013, 11:21 doi:10.1186/1741-7007-11-21Excerpt:
                          >
                          > 1) "...active genes can be tethered to the nuclear envelope and stress-induced
                          > promoters, such as the heat-shock activated promoter hsp-16.2, actually bind the
                          > nuclear pore in their active state [2]."
                          >
                          > Excerpt:
                          > 2) "The striking changes in nuclear organization that arise during
                          > differentiation, and which distinguish populations of differentiated cells,
                          > raise the question of whether subnuclear position plays a role in cell-type
                          > memory of gene expression patterns."
                          > Excerpt:
                          > 3) "... nuclear organization is likely to play a role in tissue homeostasis."
                          >
                          > What progress has Williams or anyone else who is still touting random mutations
                          > theory helped us make in addressing any of the issues above? I think that
                          > atheism is largely responsible for driving the ignorance of others. Of course, I
                          > can't be sure of this. Perhaps Williams is merely playing "devil's advocate" and
                          > has no intention of retarding scientific progress. Maybe he is somehow helping
                          > others to understand something significant.
                          >
                          >
                          > Excerpt:
                          > 4) "One will only know by comparing different systems of differentiation, some
                          > normal and others aberrant, to uncover the universal rules for the interplay.
                          > Such rules may well be broken during oncogenesis. If we are able to answer these
                          > four questions, we may start to understand the true nature of epigenetic
                          > control."
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > If the true nature of epigenetic control is non-random (i.e., thermodynamically
                          > nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled via thermoregulation), we will soon
                          > learn what The New Atheists" have added to our world's knowledge-base: NOTHING
                          > BUT INCREDIBLE IGNORANCE via the propagation of their ridiculous theories! Shall
                          > we all just say to "The New Atheists": "Thanks for nothing" now, or wait for the
                          > next article on epigenetics to arrive and explain even more about the biology of
                          > cause and effect, which leads us closer to treating all disease processes,
                          > including cancer? Random mutations theory has led only to looking at physical
                          > and mental disease processes on by one.
                          >
                          > If you had been diagnosed with cancer, how long would you be willing to wait for
                          > help to arrive from an atheist evolutionary theorist who is still touting a
                          > theory based only on statistical analyses?
                          > 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: Maarten m.aalberse@...
                          >
                          > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Tue, March 12, 2013 3:07:05 AM
                          > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                          >
                          >
                          > "he has denied evidence that transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists"
                          >
                          > I've read Sonny's posts on this as a warning not to get carried away by studies
                          > that suggest that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance exists.
                          > Which is rather different from what you attribute to him...
                          > It is actually good common sense and, dare I say it?, a good scientifici
                          > attitude (at least to my book, which is not the Bible...).
                          >
                          > "(as is unequivocally required to link genes to behavior and back in species
                          > from microbes to man)".
                          >
                          > Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny so relentlessly.
                          > Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision (which does not
                          > mean that it is entirely wrong!)... Or can it?
                          > Such "adaptations" of a model are common in science, as you know; and maybe even
                          > the heart of science, as far as I know.
                          >
                          > I think that, if you could be open that this is also a (likely?) possibility
                          > about your model, your often very interesting contributions would be received
                          > differently.
                          > And we would probably send some other pheromones to you :-)
                          > Problem is that then you'd be somewhat less "outstanding".
                          >
                          > I don't know about you, but from what I have heard and read, being dominant
                          > isn't that wonderful (it may well be that dominant males are more stressed, as
                          > they have to remain so watchful about possible threats to their dominance. Some
                          > dominants have a genuine paranoid streak - not surprizingly so..;).
                          >
                          > Maarten
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl jvkohl@ wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Excerpted from below: "The New Atheists" are now pretty finished.... They did
                          > > not add anything to any branch of philosophy."
                          > >
                          > > They probably added more nonsense to all branches of philosophy than any
                          > > intelligent person can fathom. Williams alone has touted domain specific mental
                          > >
                          > > modules with no evidence that they exist, and he has denied evidence that
                          > > transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists (as is unequivocally required to
                          > >
                          > > link genes to behavior and back in species from microbes to man). Even now "The
                          > >
                          > > New Atheists" refuse to address evidence of Nutrient-dependent /
                          > > Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation added to the evidence
                          >
                          > > of Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled Adaptive Evolution. Simply put,
                          > > they substitute nonsense for facts and never address the facts. And the only
                          > >way
                          > >
                          > > to continue to propagate their nonsense is for them to continue to ignore the
                          > > facts.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Evidence for an "An epigenetic continuum of nutrient-dependent
                          > > pheromone-controlled thermoregulation" in microbes, nematodes, insects, and
                          > > mammals, including humans has reached critical mass. "The New Atheists" are now
                          > >
                          > > the old fools who missed the paradigm shift while clinging ever-so-tightly to
                          > > random mutations theory.
                          > >
                          > > 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: Nils K. n-oeij@
                          > > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                          > > Sent: Mon, March 11, 2013 3:11:16 PM
                          > > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Dear Clarence. dear All!
                          > >
                          > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams"
                          > > clarencew@ wrote:
                          > >
                          > > I believe there are some members on this discussion group who are
                          > > either admittedly "creationists" or whose biological arguments about
                          > > evolution appear to mimic those of creationists.
                          > >
                          > > NKO:
                          > > You are committing simplistic thinking, Clarence. You are producing
                          > > rhetoric only.
                          > >
                          > > What the Hell is "creationist". It's only a random word, telling
                          > > nothing, as you are using it. You are using the method of magic words.
                          > >
                          > > And what the Hell is "creation"? This concept is changing with time.
                          > > Bertrand Russell and other "atheists" in his time hated the word
                          > > "creation". They created the first deadly scandal of "atheism".
                          > > They were certain that the Universe was not created. Russell:
                          > > The world is simply there.
                          > >
                          > > But it was not that simple. Today it's mainstream science that space,
                          > > time, matter, energy, natural laws, everything, were created by the
                          > > Big Bang. And, as a little footnote here, the holy books were right,
                          > > light was created before the sun (the stars).
                          > >
                          > > We undoubtedly have a CREATION. The atheists were wrong. Moreover,
                          > > the Big Bang observations (BB is more than just a theory) proves that
                          > > EVOLUTION is a true part of the totality of creation. Dawkin's
                          > > equation, evolution exists equals a creator (or creation) does not
                          > > exist, becomes instantly dead and laughable.
                          > >
                          > > Clarence, you certainly are protecting yourself against information
                          > > and observations you do not like i.e info that makes your beliefs and
                          > > claims dead and powerless. Therefore you avoid reading my messages
                          > > about cosmological physics and philosophy of the Universe.
                          > >
                          > > Perhaps you do not know that the singularity of the BB is the most
                          > > complex (measured as order)"object" we can imagine. It's infinitely
                          > > more complex than the Universe around us and the different parts
                          > > (including biological evolution) of that Universe. See Roger Penrose,
                          > > who was Hawking's teacher (professor)and is now the undisputed
                          > > greatest cosmologist of the World.
                          > >
                          > > All of evolution was directly or indirectly predermined in the very
                          > > mentioned singularity. Bohms deterministic interpretation (undisputed)
                          > > of QM placed all randomness back to the start of the Universe.
                          > >
                          > > Do you see the "total" picture now, Clarence? I do not think you do.
                          > > But there are others who do. They are "probably" much greater minds
                          > > than you. We do here have a specific creator candidate, and so are
                          > > making the last remain of the "atheist" philosophy of, say, Dawkins,
                          > > totally illogical (dead).
                          > >
                          > > Using actively the concepts of creation and creator are musts for
                          > > advanced cosmological science, and even advanced evolutionary
                          > > science. Read books by the leading astronomers, the leading
                          > > cosmologists, etc. The words of creation and creator are frequently
                          > > used tools of thinking and reasoning. They are unavoidable. Note that
                          > > this fact has nothing to do with ordinary, traditional specific
                          > > religious views. They do not need to read holy books. However,
                          > > Einstein, Bohr, and the other geniuses of their level, were extremely
                          > > interested in the great religions of the far East. They were
                          > > extremely impressed by the advanced thinking of these traditions.
                          > > The New Atheists are now pretty finished. They did not consult the
                          > > old wise thinkers of the East or West. Therefore they are now
                          > > starting to leave the center stage and heading for the more or less
                          > > forgotten prehistory. They did not add anything to any branch of philosophy.
                          > >
                          > > Best,
                          > > NKO
                          > >
                          >
                        • james kohl
                          From: Maarten To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, March 12, 2013 9:09:42 AM Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution,
                          Message 12 of 23 , Mar 12, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            From: Maarten <m.aalberse@...>
                            To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Tue, March 12, 2013 9:09:42 AM
                            Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes

                             

                            Perhaps you should try and read Sonny's posts about  transgenerational epigenetic inheritance a bit more carefully...


                            I can always dream, can I?

                            JK: You can do more than that. If you find his posts about  transgenerational epigenetic inheritance to be meaningful, simply tell us why. The same can be said of any contributions he has made to this group. How have they helped anyone to understand evolutionary psychology? Insisting that there is "heated debate" about specific aspects, like transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, ignores the fact that it must occur in plants and in animals, or species divergence would be much less likely (e.g., if it only occurred to F3 or to F17 in flies). Did I post on the Piwi protein link between plants and animals? No matter; Williams claims he doesn't read my posts.

                            The point is that I think it's ridiculous to comment on limitations since we know that species diverge via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction -- even though the details are just now pouring in on how this occurs at the molecular level.  Perhaps you and Williams should be dreaming up ways to continue to retard scientific progress by clinging to ridiculous theories that have no explanatory power in the context of adaptively evolved behavior. I'll try not to wake you, or even to raise your level of consciousness, since I know how much some people like to remain nearly comatose rather than learn something new. You can help, if you read something from me that you don't understand, say nothing. Do not mimic Williams by saying something meaningless.

                            Thank you for your consideration in this regard,

                            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.




                            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > JK: What if the link from physics to biology is the genetically predisposed
                            > ability of cells to ingest nutrients, thermodynamically adapt, and metabolize
                            > the nutrients to signals responsible for cellular and organism-wide
                            > thermoregulation that enables adaptive evolution in species from microbes to
                            > man?
                            >
                            > Maarten writes: "Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny so
                            > relentlessly. Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision
                            > (which does not mean that it is entirely wrong!)"
                            >
                            > JK: My comments to Williams and about him have nothing to do with the need for
                            > revision of my model. He has never addressed the content of my model, or
                            > anything in my published works. I've since added the context ofthermodynamics
                            > (physics) and thermoregulation (biology), and we now see this (below) in the
                            > messages RKS sent to the group.
                            >
                            > Open questions: Epigenetics and the role of heterochromatin in development
                            > Susan M GasserBMC Biology 2013, 11:21 doi:10.1186/1741-7007-11-21Excerpt:
                            >
                            > 1) "...active genes can be tethered to the nuclear envelope and stress-induced
                            > promoters, such as the heat-shock activated promoter hsp-16.2, actually bind the
                            > nuclear pore in their active state [2]."
                            >
                            > Excerpt:
                            > 2) "The striking changes in nuclear organization that arise during
                            > differentiation, and which distinguish populations of differentiated cells,
                            > raise the question of whether subnuclear position plays a role in cell-type
                            > memory of gene expression patterns."
                            > Excerpt:
                            > 3) "... nuclear organization is likely to play a role in tissue homeostasis."
                            >
                            > What progress has Williams or anyone else who is still touting random mutations
                            > theory helped us make in addressing any of the issues above? I think that
                            > atheism is largely responsible for driving the ignorance of others. Of course, I
                            > can't be sure of this. Perhaps Williams is merely playing "devil's advocate" and
                            > has no intention of retarding scientific progress. Maybe he is somehow helping
                            > others to understand something significant.
                            >
                            >
                            > Excerpt:
                            > 4) "One will only know by comparing different systems of differentiation, some
                            > normal and others aberrant, to uncover the universal rules for the interplay.
                            > Such rules may well be broken during oncogenesis. If we are able to answer these
                            > four questions, we may start to understand the true nature of epigenetic
                            > control."
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > If the true nature of epigenetic control is non-random (i.e., thermodynamically
                            > nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled via thermoregulation), we will soon
                            > learn what The New Atheists" have added to our world's knowledge-base: NOTHING
                            > BUT INCREDIBLE IGNORANCE via the propagation of their ridiculous theories! Shall
                            > we all just say to "The New Atheists": "Thanks for nothing" now, or wait for the
                            > next article on epigenetics to arrive and explain even more about the biology of
                            > cause and effect, which leads us closer to treating all disease processes,
                            > including cancer? Random mutations theory has led only to looking at physical
                            > and mental disease processes on by one.
                            >
                            > If you had been diagnosed with cancer, how long would you be willing to wait for
                            > help to arrive from an atheist evolutionary theorist who is still touting a
                            > theory based only on statistical analyses?
                            > 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: Maarten m.aalberse@...
                            >
                            > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                            > Sent: Tue, March 12, 2013 3:07:05 AM
                            > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                            >
                            >
                            > "he has denied evidence that transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists"
                            >
                            > I've read Sonny's posts on this as a warning not to get carried away by studies
                            > that suggest that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance exists.
                            > Which is rather different from what you attribute to him...
                            > It is actually good common sense and, dare I say it?, a good scientifici
                            > attitude (at least to my book, which is not the Bible...).
                            >
                            > "(as is unequivocally required to link genes to behavior and back in species
                            > from microbes to man)".
                            >
                            > Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny so relentlessly.
                            > Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision (which does not
                            > mean that it is entirely wrong!)... Or can it?
                            > Such "adaptations" of a model are common in science, as you know; and maybe even
                            > the heart of science, as far as I know.
                            >
                            > I think that, if you could be open that this is also a (likely?) possibility
                            > about your model, your often very interesting contributions would be received
                            > differently.
                            > And we would probably send some other pheromones to you :-)
                            > Problem is that then you'd be somewhat less "outstanding".
                            >
                            > I don't know about you, but from what I have heard and read, being dominant
                            > isn't that wonderful (it may well be that dominant males are more stressed, as
                            > they have to remain so watchful about possible threats to their dominance. Some
                            > dominants have a genuine paranoid streak - not surprizingly so..;).
                            >
                            > Maarten
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl jvkohl@ wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Excerpted from below: "The New Atheists" are now pretty finished.... They did
                            > > not add anything to any branch of philosophy."
                            > >
                            > > They probably added more nonsense to all branches of philosophy than any
                            > > intelligent person can fathom. Williams alone has touted domain specific mental
                            > >
                            > > modules with no evidence that they exist, and he has denied evidence that
                            > > transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists (as is unequivocally required to
                            > >
                            > > link genes to behavior and back in species from microbes to man). Even now "The
                            > >
                            > > New Atheists" refuse to address evidence of Nutrient-dependent /
                            > > Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation added to the evidence
                            >
                            > > of Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled Adaptive Evolution. Simply put,
                            > > they substitute nonsense for facts and never address the facts. And the only
                            > >way
                            > >
                            > > to continue to propagate their nonsense is for them to continue to ignore the
                            > > facts.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Evidence for an "An epigenetic continuum of nutrient-dependent
                            > > pheromone-controlled thermoregulation" in microbes, nematodes, insects, and
                            > > mammals, including humans has reached critical mass. "The New Atheists" are now
                            > >
                            > > the old fools who missed the paradigm shift while clinging ever-so-tightly to
                            > > random mutations theory.
                            > >
                            > > 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: Nils K. n-oeij@
                            > > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                            > > Sent: Mon, March 11, 2013 3:11:16 PM
                            > > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Dear Clarence. dear All!
                            > >
                            > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams"
                            > > clarencew@ wrote:
                            > >
                            > > I believe there are some members on this discussion group who are
                            > > either admittedly "creationists" or whose biological arguments about
                            > > evolution appear to mimic those of creationists.
                            > >
                            > > NKO:
                            > > You are committing simplistic thinking, Clarence. You are producing
                            > > rhetoric only.
                            > >
                            > > What the Hell is "creationist". It's only a random word, telling
                            > > nothing, as you are using it. You are using the method of magic words.
                            > >
                            > > And what the Hell is "creation"? This concept is changing with time.
                            > > Bertrand Russell and other "atheists" in his time hated the word
                            > > "creation". They created the first deadly scandal of "atheism".
                            > > They were certain that the Universe was not created. Russell:
                            > > The world is simply there.
                            > >
                            > > But it was not that simple. Today it's mainstream science that space,
                            > > time, matter, energy, natural laws, everything, were created by the
                            > > Big Bang. And, as a little footnote here, the holy books were right,
                            > > light was created before the sun (the stars).
                            > >
                            > > We undoubtedly have a CREATION. The atheists were wrong. Moreover,
                            > > the Big Bang observations (BB is more than just a theory) proves that
                            > > EVOLUTION is a true part of the totality of creation. Dawkin's
                            > > equation, evolution exists equals a creator (or creation) does not
                            > > exist, becomes instantly dead and laughable.
                            > >
                            > > Clarence, you certainly are protecting yourself against information
                            > > and observations you do not like i.e info that makes your beliefs and
                            > > claims dead and powerless. Therefore you avoid reading my messages
                            > > about cosmological physics and philosophy of the Universe.
                            > >
                            > > Perhaps you do not know that the singularity of the BB is the most
                            > > complex (measured as order)"object" we can imagine. It's infinitely
                            > > more complex than the Universe around us and the different parts
                            > > (including biological evolution) of that Universe. See Roger Penrose,
                            > > who was Hawking's teacher (professor)and is now the undisputed
                            > > greatest cosmologist of the World.
                            > >
                            > > All of evolution was directly or indirectly predermined in the very
                            > > mentioned singularity. Bohms deterministic interpretation (undisputed)
                            > > of QM placed all randomness back to the start of the Universe.
                            > >
                            > > Do you see the "total" picture now, Clarence? I do not think you do.
                            > > But there are others who do. They are "probably" much greater minds
                            > > than you. We do here have a specific creator candidate, and so are
                            > > making the last remain of the "atheist" philosophy of, say, Dawkins,
                            > > totally illogical (dead).
                            > >
                            > > Using actively the concepts of creation and creator are musts for
                            > > advanced cosmological science, and even advanced evolutionary
                            > > science. Read books by the leading astronomers, the leading
                            > > cosmologists, etc. The words of creation and creator are frequently
                            > > used tools of thinking and reasoning. They are unavoidable. Note that
                            > > this fact has nothing to do with ordinary, traditional specific
                            > > religious views. They do not need to read holy books. However,
                            > > Einstein, Bohr, and the other geniuses of their level, were extremely
                            > > interested in the great religions of the far East. They were
                            > > extremely impressed by the advanced thinking of these traditions.
                            > > The New Atheists are now pretty finished. They did not consult the
                            > > old wise thinkers of the East or West. Therefore they are now
                            > > starting to leave the center stage and heading for the more or less
                            > > forgotten prehistory. They did not add anything to any branch of philosophy.
                            > >
                            > > Best,
                            > > NKO
                            > >
                            >
                          • clarence_sonny_williams
                            Maarten, It is not possible to argue with a creationist, and especially one like Kohl whose knowledge of biology is obviously at a rudimentary, high school
                            Message 13 of 23 , Mar 12, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Maarten,

                              It is not possible to argue with a creationist, and especially one like
                              Kohl whose knowledge of biology is obviously at a rudimentary, high
                              school level.

                              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Maarten"
                              <m.aalberse@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Perhaps you should try and read Sonny's posts about transgenerational
                              > epigenetic inheritance a bit more carefully...
                              > I can always dream, can I?
                              >
                              > Maarten
                              >
                              >
                              <snip>
                            • James Gray
                              Dream on. It is hopeless. James Gray
                              Message 14 of 23 , Mar 12, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dream on.  It is hopeless.

                                James Gray

                                On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Maarten <m.aalberse@...> wrote:
                                 

                                Perhaps you should try and read Sonny's posts about  transgenerational epigenetic inheritance a bit more carefully...


                                I can always dream, can I?

                                Maarten


                                --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > JK: What if the link from physics to biology is the genetically predisposed
                                > ability of cells to ingest nutrients, thermodynamically adapt, and metabolize
                                > the nutrients to signals responsible for cellular and organism-wide
                                > thermoregulation that enables adaptive evolution in species from microbes to
                                > man?
                                >
                                > Maarten writes: "Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny so
                                > relentlessly. Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision
                                > (which does not mean that it is entirely wrong!)"
                                >
                                > JK: My comments to Williams and about him have nothing to do with the need for
                                > revision of my model. He has never addressed the content of my model, or
                                > anything in my published works. I've since added the context ofthermodynamics
                                > (physics) and thermoregulation (biology), and we now see this (below) in the
                                > messages RKS sent to the group.
                                >
                                > Open questions: Epigenetics and the role of heterochromatin in development
                                > Susan M GasserBMC Biology 2013, 11:21 doi:10.1186/1741-7007-11-21Excerpt:
                                >
                                > 1) "...active genes can be tethered to the nuclear envelope and stress-induced
                                > promoters, such as the heat-shock activated promoter hsp-16.2, actually bind the
                                > nuclear pore in their active state [2]."
                                >
                                > Excerpt:
                                > 2) "The striking changes in nuclear organization that arise during
                                > differentiation, and which distinguish populations of differentiated cells,
                                > raise the question of whether subnuclear position plays a role in cell-type
                                > memory of gene expression patterns."
                                > Excerpt:
                                > 3) "... nuclear organization is likely to play a role in tissue homeostasis."
                                >
                                > What progress has Williams or anyone else who is still touting random mutations
                                > theory helped us make in addressing any of the issues above? I think that
                                > atheism is largely responsible for driving the ignorance of others. Of course, I
                                > can't be sure of this. Perhaps Williams is merely playing "devil's advocate" and
                                > has no intention of retarding scientific progress. Maybe he is somehow helping
                                > others to understand something significant.
                                >
                                >
                                > Excerpt:
                                > 4) "One will only know by comparing different systems of differentiation, some
                                > normal and others aberrant, to uncover the universal rules for the interplay.
                                > Such rules may well be broken during oncogenesis. If we are able to answer these
                                > four questions, we may start to understand the true nature of epigenetic
                                > control."
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > If the true nature of epigenetic control is non-random (i.e., thermodynamically
                                > nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled via thermoregulation), we will soon
                                > learn what The New Atheists" have added to our world's knowledge-base: NOTHING
                                > BUT INCREDIBLE IGNORANCE via the propagation of their ridiculous theories! Shall
                                > we all just say to "The New Atheists": "Thanks for nothing" now, or wait for the
                                > next article on epigenetics to arrive and explain even more about the biology of
                                > cause and effect, which leads us closer to treating all disease processes,
                                > including cancer? Random mutations theory has led only to looking at physical
                                > and mental disease processes on by one.
                                >
                                > If you had been diagnosed with cancer, how long would you be willing to wait for
                                > help to arrive from an atheist evolutionary theorist who is still touting a
                                > theory based only on statistical analyses?
                                > 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: Maarten m.aalberse@...
                                >
                                > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                > Sent: Tue, March 12, 2013 3:07:05 AM
                                > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                                >
                                >
                                > "he has denied evidence that transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists"
                                >
                                > I've read Sonny's posts on this as a warning not to get carried away by studies
                                > that suggest that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance exists.
                                > Which is rather different from what you attribute to him...
                                > It is actually good common sense and, dare I say it?, a good scientifici
                                > attitude (at least to my book, which is not the Bible...).
                                >
                                > "(as is unequivocally required to link genes to behavior and back in species
                                > from microbes to man)".
                                >
                                > Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny so relentlessly.
                                > Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision (which does not
                                > mean that it is entirely wrong!)... Or can it?
                                > Such "adaptations" of a model are common in science, as you know; and maybe even
                                > the heart of science, as far as I know.
                                >
                                > I think that, if you could be open that this is also a (likely?) possibility
                                > about your model, your often very interesting contributions would be received
                                > differently.
                                > And we would probably send some other pheromones to you :-)
                                > Problem is that then you'd be somewhat less "outstanding".
                                >
                                > I don't know about you, but from what I have heard and read, being dominant
                                > isn't that wonderful (it may well be that dominant males are more stressed, as
                                > they have to remain so watchful about possible threats to their dominance. Some
                                > dominants have a genuine paranoid streak - not surprizingly so..;).
                                >
                                > Maarten
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl jvkohl@ wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Excerpted from below: "The New Atheists" are now pretty finished.... They did
                                > > not add anything to any branch of philosophy."
                                > >
                                > > They probably added more nonsense to all branches of philosophy than any
                                > > intelligent person can fathom. Williams alone has touted domain specific mental
                                > >
                                > > modules with no evidence that they exist, and he has denied evidence that
                                > > transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists (as is unequivocally required to
                                > >
                                > > link genes to behavior and back in species from microbes to man). Even now "The
                                > >
                                > > New Atheists" refuse to address evidence of Nutrient-dependent /
                                > > Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation added to the evidence
                                >
                                > > of Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled Adaptive Evolution. Simply put,
                                > > they substitute nonsense for facts and never address the facts. And the only
                                > >way
                                > >
                                > > to continue to propagate their nonsense is for them to continue to ignore the
                                > > facts.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Evidence for an "An epigenetic continuum of nutrient-dependent
                                > > pheromone-controlled thermoregulation" in microbes, nematodes, insects, and
                                > > mammals, including humans has reached critical mass. "The New Atheists" are now
                                > >
                                > > the old fools who missed the paradigm shift while clinging ever-so-tightly to
                                > > random mutations theory.
                                > >
                                > > 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: Nils K. n-oeij@
                                > > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                > > Sent: Mon, March 11, 2013 3:11:16 PM
                                > > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Dear Clarence. dear All!
                                > >
                                > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams"
                                > > clarencew@ wrote:
                                > >
                                > > I believe there are some members on this discussion group who are
                                > > either admittedly "creationists" or whose biological arguments about
                                > > evolution appear to mimic those of creationists.
                                > >
                                > > NKO:
                                > > You are committing simplistic thinking, Clarence. You are producing
                                > > rhetoric only.
                                > >
                                > > What the Hell is "creationist". It's only a random word, telling
                                > > nothing, as you are using it. You are using the method of magic words.
                                > >
                                > > And what the Hell is "creation"? This concept is changing with time.
                                > > Bertrand Russell and other "atheists" in his time hated the word
                                > > "creation". They created the first deadly scandal of "atheism".
                                > > They were certain that the Universe was not created. Russell:
                                > > The world is simply there.
                                > >
                                > > But it was not that simple. Today it's mainstream science that space,
                                > > time, matter, energy, natural laws, everything, were created by the
                                > > Big Bang. And, as a little footnote here, the holy books were right,
                                > > light was created before the sun (the stars).
                                > >
                                > > We undoubtedly have a CREATION. The atheists were wrong. Moreover,
                                > > the Big Bang observations (BB is more than just a theory) proves that
                                > > EVOLUTION is a true part of the totality of creation. Dawkin's
                                > > equation, evolution exists equals a creator (or creation) does not
                                > > exist, becomes instantly dead and laughable.
                                > >
                                > > Clarence, you certainly are protecting yourself against information
                                > > and observations you do not like i.e info that makes your beliefs and
                                > > claims dead and powerless. Therefore you avoid reading my messages
                                > > about cosmological physics and philosophy of the Universe.
                                > >
                                > > Perhaps you do not know that the singularity of the BB is the most
                                > > complex (measured as order)"object" we can imagine. It's infinitely
                                > > more complex than the Universe around us and the different parts
                                > > (including biological evolution) of that Universe. See Roger Penrose,
                                > > who was Hawking's teacher (professor)and is now the undisputed
                                > > greatest cosmologist of the World.
                                > >
                                > > All of evolution was directly or indirectly predermined in the very
                                > > mentioned singularity. Bohms deterministic interpretation (undisputed)
                                > > of QM placed all randomness back to the start of the Universe.
                                > >
                                > > Do you see the "total" picture now, Clarence? I do not think you do.
                                > > But there are others who do. They are "probably" much greater minds
                                > > than you. We do here have a specific creator candidate, and so are
                                > > making the last remain of the "atheist" philosophy of, say, Dawkins,
                                > > totally illogical (dead).
                                > >
                                > > Using actively the concepts of creation and creator are musts for
                                > > advanced cosmological science, and even advanced evolutionary
                                > > science. Read books by the leading astronomers, the leading
                                > > cosmologists, etc. The words of creation and creator are frequently
                                > > used tools of thinking and reasoning. They are unavoidable. Note that
                                > > this fact has nothing to do with ordinary, traditional specific
                                > > religious views. They do not need to read holy books. However,
                                > > Einstein, Bohr, and the other geniuses of their level, were extremely
                                > > interested in the great religions of the far East. They were
                                > > extremely impressed by the advanced thinking of these traditions.
                                > > The New Atheists are now pretty finished. They did not consult the
                                > > old wise thinkers of the East or West. Therefore they are now
                                > > starting to leave the center stage and heading for the more or less
                                > > forgotten prehistory. They did not add anything to any branch of philosophy.
                                > >
                                > > Best,
                                > > NKO
                                > >
                                >


                              • Brad
                                A devastating blow for “Gender Theory”: the Nordic Council of Ministers (a regional inter-governmental co-operation consisting of Norway, Sweden, Finland,
                                Message 15 of 23 , Mar 12, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  A devastating blow for “Gender Theory”: the Nordic Council of Ministers (a regional inter-governmental co-operation consisting of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland) has decided to close down the NIKK Nordic Gender Institute. The NIKK had been the flagship of “Gender Theory”, providing the “scientific” basis for social and educational policies that, from the 1970s onward, had transformed the Nordic countries to become the most “gender sensitive” societies in the world.
                                  The decision was made after the Norwegian State Television had broadcasted a television documentary in which the hopelessly unscientific character of the NIKK and its research was exposed.


                                  AT LAST!!
                                   
                                  Brad



                                  "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."


                                  -- George Orwell

                                  From: Maarten <m.aalberse@...>
                                  To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:14 AM
                                  Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes

                                   
                                  Perhaps you should try and read Sonny's posts about  transgenerational epigenetic inheritance a bit more carefully...

                                  I can always dream, can I?

                                  Maarten


                                  --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > JK: What if the link from physics to biology is the genetically predisposed
                                  > ability of cells to ingest nutrients, thermodynamically adapt, and metabolize
                                  > the nutrients to signals responsible for cellular and organism-wide
                                  > thermoregulation that enables adaptive evolution in species from microbes to
                                  > man?
                                  >
                                  > Maarten writes: "Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny so
                                  > relentlessly. Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision
                                  > (which does not mean that it is entirely wrong!)"
                                  >
                                  > JK: My comments to Williams and about him have nothing to do with the need for
                                  > revision of my model. He has never addressed the content of my model, or
                                  > anything in my published works. I've since added the context ofthermodynamics
                                  > (physics) and thermoregulation (biology), and we now see this (below) in the
                                  > messages RKS sent to the group.
                                  >
                                  > Open questions: Epigenetics and the role of heterochromatin in development
                                  > Susan M GasserBMC Biology 2013, 11:21 doi:10.1186/1741-7007-11-21Excerpt:
                                  >
                                  > 1) "...active genes can be tethered to the nuclear envelope and stress-induced
                                  > promoters, such as the heat-shock activated promoter hsp-16.2, actually bind the
                                  > nuclear pore in their active state [2]."
                                  >
                                  > Excerpt:
                                  > 2) "The striking changes in nuclear organization that arise during
                                  > differentiation, and which distinguish populations of differentiated cells,
                                  > raise the question of whether subnuclear position plays a role in cell-type
                                  > memory of gene expression patterns."
                                  > Excerpt:
                                  > 3) "... nuclear organization is likely to play a role in tissue homeostasis."
                                  >
                                  > What progress has Williams or anyone else who is still touting random mutations
                                  > theory helped us make in addressing any of the issues above? I think that
                                  > atheism is largely responsible for driving the ignorance of others. Of course, I
                                  > can't be sure of this. Perhaps Williams is merely playing "devil's advocate" and
                                  > has no intention of retarding scientific progress. Maybe he is somehow helping
                                  > others to understand something significant.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Excerpt:
                                  > 4) "One will only know by comparing different systems of differentiation, some
                                  > normal and others aberrant, to uncover the universal rules for the interplay.
                                  > Such rules may well be broken during oncogenesis. If we are able to answer these
                                  > four questions, we may start to understand the true nature of epigenetic
                                  > control."
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > If the true nature of epigenetic control is non-random (i.e., thermodynamically
                                  > nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled via thermoregulation), we will soon
                                  > learn what The New Atheists" have added to our world's knowledge-base: NOTHING
                                  > BUT INCREDIBLE IGNORANCE via the propagation of their ridiculous theories! Shall
                                  > we all just say to "The New Atheists": "Thanks for nothing" now, or wait for the
                                  > next article on epigenetics to arrive and explain even more about the biology of
                                  > cause and effect, which leads us closer to treating all disease processes,
                                  > including cancer? Random mutations theory has led only to looking at physical
                                  > and mental disease processes on by one.
                                  >
                                  > If you had been diagnosed with cancer, how long would you be willing to wait for
                                  > help to arrive from an atheist evolutionary theorist who is still touting a
                                  > theory based only on statistical analyses?
                                  > 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: Maarten m.aalberse@...
                                  >
                                  > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Sent: Tue, March 12, 2013 3:07:05 AM
                                  > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > "he has denied evidence that transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists"
                                  >
                                  > I've read Sonny's posts on this as a warning not to get carried away by studies
                                  > that suggest that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance exists.
                                  > Which is rather different from what you attribute to him...
                                  > It is actually good common sense and, dare I say it?, a good scientifici
                                  > attitude (at least to my book, which is not the Bible...).
                                  >
                                  > "(as is unequivocally required to link genes to behavior and back in species
                                  > from microbes to man)".
                                  >
                                  > Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny so relentlessly.
                                  > Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision (which does not
                                  > mean that it is entirely wrong!)... Or can it?
                                  > Such "adaptations" of a model are common in science, as you know; and maybe even
                                  > the heart of science, as far as I know.
                                  >
                                  > I think that, if you could be open that this is also a (likely?) possibility
                                  > about your model, your often very interesting contributions would be received
                                  > differently.
                                  > And we would probably send some other pheromones to you :-)
                                  > Problem is that then you'd be somewhat less "outstanding".
                                  >
                                  > I don't know about you, but from what I have heard and read, being dominant
                                  > isn't that wonderful (it may well be that dominant males are more stressed, as
                                  > they have to remain so watchful about possible threats to their dominance. Some
                                  > dominants have a genuine paranoid streak - not surprizingly so..;).
                                  >
                                  > Maarten
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl jvkohl@ wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Excerpted from below: "The New Atheists" are now pretty finished.... They did
                                  > > not add anything to any branch of philosophy."
                                  > >
                                  > > They probably added more nonsense to all branches of philosophy than any
                                  > > intelligent person can fathom. Williams alone has touted domain specific mental
                                  > >
                                  > > modules with no evidence that they exist, and he has denied evidence that
                                  > > transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists (as is unequivocally required to
                                  > >
                                  > > link genes to behavior and back in species from microbes to man). Even now "The
                                  > >
                                  > > New Atheists" refuse to address evidence of Nutrient-dependent /
                                  > > Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation added to the evidence
                                  >
                                  > > of Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled Adaptive Evolution. Simply put,
                                  > > they substitute nonsense for facts and never address the facts. And the only
                                  > >way
                                  > >
                                  > > to continue to propagate their nonsense is for them to continue to ignore the
                                  > > facts.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Evidence for an "An epigenetic continuum of nutrient-dependent
                                  > > pheromone-controlled thermoregulation" in microbes, nematodes, insects, and
                                  > > mammals, including humans has reached critical mass. "The New Atheists" are now
                                  > >
                                  > > the old fools who missed the paradigm shift while clinging ever-so-tightly to
                                  > > random mutations theory.
                                  > >
                                  > > 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: Nils K. n-oeij@
                                  > > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > Sent: Mon, March 11, 2013 3:11:16 PM
                                  > > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Dear Clarence. dear All!
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams"
                                  > > clarencew@ wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > I believe there are some members on this discussion group who are
                                  > > either admittedly "creationists" or whose biological arguments about
                                  > > evolution appear to mimic those of creationists.
                                  > >
                                  > > NKO:
                                  > > You are committing simplistic thinking, Clarence. You are producing
                                  > > rhetoric only.
                                  > >
                                  > > What the Hell is "creationist". It's only a random word, telling
                                  > > nothing, as you are using it. You are using the method of magic words.
                                  > >
                                  > > And what the Hell is "creation"? This concept is changing with time.
                                  > > Bertrand Russell and other "atheists" in his time hated the word
                                  > > "creation". They created the first deadly scandal of "atheism".
                                  > > They were certain that the Universe was not created. Russell:
                                  > > The world is simply there.
                                  > >
                                  > > But it was not that simple. Today it's mainstream science that space,
                                  > > time, matter, energy, natural laws, everything, were created by the
                                  > > Big Bang. And, as a little footnote here, the holy books were right,
                                  > > light was created before the sun (the stars).
                                  > >
                                  > > We undoubtedly have a CREATION. The atheists were wrong. Moreover,
                                  > > the Big Bang observations (BB is more than just a theory) proves that
                                  > > EVOLUTION is a true part of the totality of creation. Dawkin's
                                  > > equation, evolution exists equals a creator (or creation) does not
                                  > > exist, becomes instantly dead and laughable.
                                  > >
                                  > > Clarence, you certainly are protecting yourself against information
                                  > > and observations you do not like i.e info that makes your beliefs and
                                  > > claims dead and powerless. Therefore you avoid reading my messages
                                  > > about cosmological physics and philosophy of the Universe.
                                  > >
                                  > > Perhaps you do not know that the singularity of the BB is the most
                                  > > complex (measured as order)"object" we can imagine. It's infinitely
                                  > > more complex than the Universe around us and the different parts
                                  > > (including biological evolution) of that Universe. See Roger Penrose,
                                  > > who was Hawking's teacher (professor)and is now the undisputed
                                  > > greatest cosmologist of the World.
                                  > >
                                  > > All of evolution was directly or indirectly predermined in the very
                                  > > mentioned singularity. Bohms deterministic interpretation (undisputed)
                                  > > of QM placed all randomness back to the start of the Universe.
                                  > >
                                  > > Do you see the "total" picture now, Clarence? I do not think you do.
                                  > > But there are others who do. They are "probably" much greater minds
                                  > > than you. We do here have a specific creator candidate, and so are
                                  > > making the last remain of the "atheist" philosophy of, say, Dawkins,
                                  > > totally illogical (dead).
                                  > >
                                  > > Using actively the concepts of creation and creator are musts for
                                  > > advanced cosmological science, and even advanced evolutionary
                                  > > science. Read books by the leading astronomers, the leading
                                  > > cosmologists, etc. The words of creation and creator are frequently
                                  > > used tools of thinking and reasoning. They are unavoidable. Note that
                                  > > this fact has nothing to do with ordinary, traditional specific
                                  > > religious views. They do not need to read holy books. However,
                                  > > Einstein, Bohr, and the other geniuses of their level, were extremely
                                  > > interested in the great religions of the far East. They were
                                  > > extremely impressed by the advanced thinking of these traditions.
                                  > > The New Atheists are now pretty finished. They did not consult the
                                  > > old wise thinkers of the East or West. Therefore they are now
                                  > > starting to leave the center stage and heading for the more or less
                                  > > forgotten prehistory. They did not add anything to any branch of philosophy.
                                  > >
                                  > > Best,
                                  > > NKO
                                  > >
                                  >


                                • james kohl
                                  From: James Gray To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, March 12, 2013 12:50:58 PM Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution,
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Mar 12, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    From: James Gray <James@...>
                                    To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Tue, March 12, 2013 12:50:58 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes

                                     

                                    Dream on.  It is hopeless.

                                    JK: What's hopeless is clinging to random mutations theory as others adaptively evolve to incorporate biological facts into their world-view.

                                     
                                    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.



                                    On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Maarten <m.aalberse@...> wrote:
                                     

                                    Perhaps you should try and read Sonny's posts about  transgenerational epigenetic inheritance a bit more carefully...


                                    I can always dream, can I?

                                    Maarten


                                    --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > JK: What if the link from physics to biology is the genetically predisposed
                                    > ability of cells to ingest nutrients, thermodynamically adapt, and metabolize
                                    > the nutrients to signals responsible for cellular and organism-wide
                                    > thermoregulation that enables adaptive evolution in species from microbes to
                                    > man?
                                    >
                                    > Maarten writes: "Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny so
                                    > relentlessly. Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision
                                    > (which does not mean that it is entirely wrong!)"
                                    >
                                    > JK: My comments to Williams and about him have nothing to do with the need for
                                    > revision of my model. He has never addressed the content of my model, or
                                    > anything in my published works. I've since added the context ofthermodynamics
                                    > (physics) and thermoregulation (biology), and we now see this (below) in the
                                    > messages RKS sent to the group.
                                    >
                                    > Open questions: Epigenetics and the role of heterochromatin in development
                                    > Susan M GasserBMC Biology 2013, 11:21 doi:10.1186/1741-7007-11-21Excerpt:
                                    >
                                    > 1) "...active genes can be tethered to the nuclear envelope and stress-induced
                                    > promoters, such as the heat-shock activated promoter hsp-16.2, actually bind the
                                    > nuclear pore in their active state [2]."
                                    >
                                    > Excerpt:
                                    > 2) "The striking changes in nuclear organization that arise during
                                    > differentiation, and which distinguish populations of differentiated cells,
                                    > raise the question of whether subnuclear position plays a role in cell-type
                                    > memory of gene expression patterns."
                                    > Excerpt:
                                    > 3) "... nuclear organization is likely to play a role in tissue homeostasis."
                                    >
                                    > What progress has Williams or anyone else who is still touting random mutations
                                    > theory helped us make in addressing any of the issues above? I think that
                                    > atheism is largely responsible for driving the ignorance of others. Of course, I
                                    > can't be sure of this. Perhaps Williams is merely playing "devil's advocate" and
                                    > has no intention of retarding scientific progress. Maybe he is somehow helping
                                    > others to understand something significant.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Excerpt:
                                    > 4) "One will only know by comparing different systems of differentiation, some
                                    > normal and others aberrant, to uncover the universal rules for the interplay.
                                    > Such rules may well be broken during oncogenesis. If we are able to answer these
                                    > four questions, we may start to understand the true nature of epigenetic
                                    > control."
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > If the true nature of epigenetic control is non-random (i.e., thermodynamically
                                    > nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled via thermoregulation), we will soon
                                    > learn what The New Atheists" have added to our world's knowledge-base: NOTHING
                                    > BUT INCREDIBLE IGNORANCE via the propagation of their ridiculous theories! Shall
                                    > we all just say to "The New Atheists": "Thanks for nothing" now, or wait for the
                                    > next article on epigenetics to arrive and explain even more about the biology of
                                    > cause and effect, which leads us closer to treating all disease processes,
                                    > including cancer? Random mutations theory has led only to looking at physical
                                    > and mental disease processes on by one.
                                    >
                                    > If you had been diagnosed with cancer, how long would you be willing to wait for
                                    > help to arrive from an atheist evolutionary theorist who is still touting a
                                    > theory based only on statistical analyses?
                                    > 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: Maarten m.aalberse@...
                                    >
                                    > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Sent: Tue, March 12, 2013 3:07:05 AM
                                    > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > "he has denied evidence that transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists"
                                    >
                                    > I've read Sonny's posts on this as a warning not to get carried away by studies
                                    > that suggest that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance exists.
                                    > Which is rather different from what you attribute to him...
                                    > It is actually good common sense and, dare I say it?, a good scientifici
                                    > attitude (at least to my book, which is not the Bible...).
                                    >
                                    > "(as is unequivocally required to link genes to behavior and back in species
                                    > from microbes to man)".
                                    >
                                    > Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny so relentlessly.
                                    > Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision (which does not
                                    > mean that it is entirely wrong!)... Or can it?
                                    > Such "adaptations" of a model are common in science, as you know; and maybe even
                                    > the heart of science, as far as I know.
                                    >
                                    > I think that, if you could be open that this is also a (likely?) possibility
                                    > about your model, your often very interesting contributions would be received
                                    > differently.
                                    > And we would probably send some other pheromones to you :-)
                                    > Problem is that then you'd be somewhat less "outstanding".
                                    >
                                    > I don't know about you, but from what I have heard and read, being dominant
                                    > isn't that wonderful (it may well be that dominant males are more stressed, as
                                    > they have to remain so watchful about possible threats to their dominance. Some
                                    > dominants have a genuine paranoid streak - not surprizingly so..;).
                                    >
                                    > Maarten
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl jvkohl@ wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Excerpted from below: "The New Atheists" are now pretty finished.... They did
                                    > > not add anything to any branch of philosophy."
                                    > >
                                    > > They probably added more nonsense to all branches of philosophy than any
                                    > > intelligent person can fathom. Williams alone has touted domain specific mental
                                    > >
                                    > > modules with no evidence that they exist, and he has denied evidence that
                                    > > transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists (as is unequivocally required to
                                    > >
                                    > > link genes to behavior and back in species from microbes to man). Even now "The
                                    > >
                                    > > New Atheists" refuse to address evidence of Nutrient-dependent /
                                    > > Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation added to the evidence
                                    >
                                    > > of Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled Adaptive Evolution. Simply put,
                                    > > they substitute nonsense for facts and never address the facts. And the only
                                    > >way
                                    > >
                                    > > to continue to propagate their nonsense is for them to continue to ignore the
                                    > > facts.
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > Evidence for an "An epigenetic continuum of nutrient-dependent
                                    > > pheromone-controlled thermoregulation" in microbes, nematodes, insects, and
                                    > > mammals, including humans has reached critical mass. "The New Atheists" are now
                                    > >
                                    > > the old fools who missed the paradigm shift while clinging ever-so-tightly to
                                    > > random mutations theory.
                                    > >
                                    > > 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: Nils K. n-oeij@
                                    > > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > Sent: Mon, March 11, 2013 3:11:16 PM
                                    > > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > Dear Clarence. dear All!
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams"
                                    > > clarencew@ wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > I believe there are some members on this discussion group who are
                                    > > either admittedly "creationists" or whose biological arguments about
                                    > > evolution appear to mimic those of creationists.
                                    > >
                                    > > NKO:
                                    > > You are committing simplistic thinking, Clarence. You are producing
                                    > > rhetoric only.
                                    > >
                                    > > What the Hell is "creationist". It's only a random word, telling
                                    > > nothing, as you are using it. You are using the method of magic words.
                                    > >
                                    > > And what the Hell is "creation"? This concept is changing with time.
                                    > > Bertrand Russell and other "atheists" in his time hated the word
                                    > > "creation". They created the first deadly scandal of "atheism".
                                    > > They were certain that the Universe was not created. Russell:
                                    > > The world is simply there.
                                    > >
                                    > > But it was not that simple. Today it's mainstream science that space,
                                    > > time, matter, energy, natural laws, everything, were created by the
                                    > > Big Bang. And, as a little footnote here, the holy books were right,
                                    > > light was created before the sun (the stars).
                                    > >
                                    > > We undoubtedly have a CREATION. The atheists were wrong. Moreover,
                                    > > the Big Bang observations (BB is more than just a theory) proves that
                                    > > EVOLUTION is a true part of the totality of creation. Dawkin's
                                    > > equation, evolution exists equals a creator (or creation) does not
                                    > > exist, becomes instantly dead and laughable.
                                    > >
                                    > > Clarence, you certainly are protecting yourself against information
                                    > > and observations you do not like i.e info that makes your beliefs and
                                    > > claims dead and powerless. Therefore you avoid reading my messages
                                    > > about cosmological physics and philosophy of the Universe.
                                    > >
                                    > > Perhaps you do not know that the singularity of the BB is the most
                                    > > complex (measured as order)"object" we can imagine. It's infinitely
                                    > > more complex than the Universe around us and the different parts
                                    > > (including biological evolution) of that Universe. See Roger Penrose,
                                    > > who was Hawking's teacher (professor)and is now the undisputed
                                    > > greatest cosmologist of the World.
                                    > >
                                    > > All of evolution was directly or indirectly predermined in the very
                                    > > mentioned singularity. Bohms deterministic interpretation (undisputed)
                                    > > of QM placed all randomness back to the start of the Universe.
                                    > >
                                    > > Do you see the "total" picture now, Clarence? I do not think you do.
                                    > > But there are others who do. They are "probably" much greater minds
                                    > > than you. We do here have a specific creator candidate, and so are
                                    > > making the last remain of the "atheist" philosophy of, say, Dawkins,
                                    > > totally illogical (dead).
                                    > >
                                    > > Using actively the concepts of creation and creator are musts for
                                    > > advanced cosmological science, and even advanced evolutionary
                                    > > science. Read books by the leading astronomers, the leading
                                    > > cosmologists, etc. The words of creation and creator are frequently
                                    > > used tools of thinking and reasoning. They are unavoidable. Note that
                                    > > this fact has nothing to do with ordinary, traditional specific
                                    > > religious views. They do not need to read holy books. However,
                                    > > Einstein, Bohr, and the other geniuses of their level, were extremely
                                    > > interested in the great religions of the far East. They were
                                    > > extremely impressed by the advanced thinking of these traditions.
                                    > > The New Atheists are now pretty finished. They did not consult the
                                    > > old wise thinkers of the East or West. Therefore they are now
                                    > > starting to leave the center stage and heading for the more or less
                                    > > forgotten prehistory. They did not add anything to any branch of philosophy.
                                    > >
                                    > > Best,
                                    > > NKO
                                    > >
                                    >


                                  • Maarten
                                    I did read some of your articles and did comment on some of those, at times in detail, and you are of bad faith if you continue to suggest that I didn t.You
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Mar 12, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I did read some of your articles and did comment on some of those, at times in detail, and you are of bad faith if you continue to suggest that I didn't.
                                      You did reply, at the time, when I commented about those posts.

                                      And soon enough you either pronounced me a nitwit (as anybody "msut be " who doesn't sit at your knees and says "yes".
                                      And then of course that I drive my clients to suicide (now that's surely a scientific observation, coming from somebody who doesn't have much of a clue of how I work nor what the fate of my clients has been...).

                                      And then you are surprized that I refuse to discuss further????

                                      there is a difference between wanna be dominants like you and genuine dominants. I don't think the latter resort to verbal abuse as systematically as you do; they have their subordinates who do that for them...

                                      As others have said and continue to say, it IS impossible to discuss with you.

                                      Which is too bad, IMO, because you have interesting contributions to make.

                                      I'll stop here with you, and will ignore you throwing  eggs.
                                      Yes, there "is a smell to those"

                                      Maarten 

                                      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > From: Maarten m.aalberse@...
                                      >
                                      > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                      > Sent: Tue, March 12, 2013 9:09:42 AM
                                      > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Perhaps you should try and read Sonny's posts about transgenerational
                                      > epigenetic inheritance a bit more carefully...
                                      >
                                      > I can always dream, can I?
                                      >
                                      > JK: You can do more than that. If you find his posts about transgenerational
                                      > epigenetic inheritance to be meaningful, simply tell us why. The same can be
                                      > said of any contributions he has made to this group. How have they helped anyone
                                      > to understand evolutionary psychology? Insisting that there is "heated debate"
                                      > about specific aspects, like transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, ignores
                                      > the fact that it must occur in plants and in animals, or species divergence
                                      > would be much less likely (e.g., if it only occurred to F3 or to F17 in flies).
                                      > Did I post on the Piwi protein link between plants and animals? No matter;
                                      > Williams claims he doesn't read my posts.
                                      >
                                      > The point is that I think it's ridiculous to comment on limitations since we
                                      > know that species diverge via ecological, social, neurogenic, and
                                      > socio-cognitive niche construction -- even though the details are just now
                                      > pouring in on how this occurs at the molecular level. Perhaps you and Williams
                                      > should be dreaming up ways to continue to retard scientific progress by clinging
                                      > to ridiculous theories that have no explanatory power in the context of
                                      > adaptively evolved behavior. I'll try not to wake you, or even to raise your
                                      > level of consciousness, since I know how much some people like to remain nearly
                                      > comatose rather than learn something new. You can help, if you read something
                                      > from me that you don't understand, say nothing. Do not mimic Williams by saying
                                      > something meaningless.
                                      >
                                      > Thank you for your consideration in this regard,
                                      >
                                      > 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.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl jvkohl@ wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > JK: What if the link from physics to biology is the genetically predisposed
                                      > > ability of cells to ingest nutrients, thermodynamically adapt, and metabolize
                                      >
                                      > > the nutrients to signals responsible for cellular and organism-wide
                                      > > thermoregulation that enables adaptive evolution in species from microbes to
                                      > > man?
                                      > >
                                      > > Maarten writes: "Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny
                                      > >so
                                      > >
                                      > > relentlessly. Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision
                                      > > (which does not mean that it is entirely wrong!)"
                                      > >
                                      > > JK: My comments to Williams and about him have nothing to do with the need for
                                      >
                                      > > revision of my model. He has never addressed the content of my model, or
                                      > > anything in my published works. I've since added the context ofthermodynamics
                                      > > (physics) and thermoregulation (biology), and we now see this (below) in the
                                      > > messages RKS sent to the group.
                                      > >
                                      > > Open questions: Epigenetics and the role of heterochromatin in development
                                      > > Susan M GasserBMC Biology 2013, 11:21 doi:10.1186/1741-7007-11-21Excerpt:
                                      > >
                                      > > 1) "...active genes can be tethered to the nuclear envelope and stress-induced
                                      > >
                                      > > promoters, such as the heat-shock activated promoter hsp-16.2, actually bind
                                      > >the
                                      > >
                                      > > nuclear pore in their active state [2]."
                                      > >
                                      > > Excerpt:
                                      > > 2) "The striking changes in nuclear organization that arise during
                                      > > differentiation, and which distinguish populations of differentiated cells,
                                      > > raise the question of whether subnuclear position plays a role in cell-type
                                      > > memory of gene expression patterns."
                                      > > Excerpt:
                                      > > 3) "... nuclear organization is likely to play a role in tissue homeostasis."
                                      > >
                                      > > What progress has Williams or anyone else who is still touting random mutations
                                      > >
                                      > > theory helped us make in addressing any of the issues above? I think that
                                      > > atheism is largely responsible for driving the ignorance of others. Of course,
                                      > >I
                                      > >
                                      > > can't be sure of this. Perhaps Williams is merely playing "devil's advocate"
                                      > >and
                                      > >
                                      > > has no intention of retarding scientific progress. Maybe he is somehow helping
                                      >
                                      > > others to understand something significant.
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > Excerpt:
                                      > > 4) "One will only know by comparing different systems of differentiation, some
                                      > >
                                      > > normal and others aberrant, to uncover the universal rules for the interplay.
                                      >
                                      > > Such rules may well be broken during oncogenesis. If we are able to answer
                                      > >these
                                      > >
                                      > > four questions, we may start to understand the true nature of epigenetic
                                      > > control."
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > If the true nature of epigenetic control is non-random (i.e., thermodynamically
                                      > >
                                      > > nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled via thermoregulation), we will soon
                                      > >
                                      > > learn what The New Atheists" have added to our world's knowledge-base: NOTHING
                                      >
                                      > > BUT INCREDIBLE IGNORANCE via the propagation of their ridiculous theories!
                                      > >Shall
                                      > >
                                      > > we all just say to "The New Atheists": "Thanks for nothing" now, or wait for
                                      > >the
                                      > >
                                      > > next article on epigenetics to arrive and explain even more about the biology
                                      > >of
                                      > >
                                      > > cause and effect, which leads us closer to treating all disease processes,
                                      > > including cancer? Random mutations theory has led only to looking at physical
                                      > > and mental disease processes on by one.
                                      > >
                                      > > If you had been diagnosed with cancer, how long would you be willing to wait
                                      > >for
                                      > >
                                      > > help to arrive from an atheist evolutionary theorist who is still touting a
                                      > > theory based only on statistical analyses?
                                      > > 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: Maarten m.aalberse@
                                      > >
                                      > > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > Sent: Tue, March 12, 2013 3:07:05 AM
                                      > > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > "he has denied evidence that transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists"
                                      > >
                                      > > I've read Sonny's posts on this as a warning not to get carried away by studies
                                      > >
                                      > > that suggest that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance exists.
                                      > > Which is rather different from what you attribute to him...
                                      > > It is actually good common sense and, dare I say it?, a good scientifici
                                      > > attitude (at least to my book, which is not the Bible...).
                                      > >
                                      > > "(as is unequivocally required to link genes to behavior and back in species
                                      > > from microbes to man)".
                                      > >
                                      > > Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny so relentlessly.
                                      > > Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision (which does not
                                      > >
                                      > > mean that it is entirely wrong!)... Or can it?
                                      > > Such "adaptations" of a model are common in science, as you know; and maybe
                                      > >even
                                      > >
                                      > > the heart of science, as far as I know.
                                      > >
                                      > > I think that, if you could be open that this is also a (likely?) possibility
                                      > > about your model, your often very interesting contributions would be received
                                      > > differently.
                                      > > And we would probably send some other pheromones to you :-)
                                      > > Problem is that then you'd be somewhat less "outstanding".
                                      > >
                                      > > I don't know about you, but from what I have heard and read, being dominant
                                      > > isn't that wonderful (it may well be that dominant males are more stressed, as
                                      >
                                      > > they have to remain so watchful about possible threats to their dominance. Some
                                      > >
                                      > > dominants have a genuine paranoid streak - not surprizingly so..;).
                                      > >
                                      > > Maarten
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl jvkohl@ wrote:
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Excerpted from below: "The New Atheists" are now pretty finished.... They did
                                      > >
                                      > > > not add anything to any branch of philosophy."
                                      > > >
                                      > > > They probably added more nonsense to all branches of philosophy than any
                                      > > > intelligent person can fathom. Williams alone has touted domain specific
                                      > >mental
                                      > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > modules with no evidence that they exist, and he has denied evidence that
                                      > > > transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists (as is unequivocally required
                                      > >to
                                      > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > link genes to behavior and back in species from microbes to man). Even now
                                      > >"The
                                      > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > New Atheists" refuse to address evidence of Nutrient-dependent /
                                      > > > Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation added to the
                                      > >evidence
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > > of Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled Adaptive Evolution. Simply put,
                                      >
                                      > > > they substitute nonsense for facts and never address the facts. And the only
                                      >
                                      > > >way
                                      > > >
                                      > > > to continue to propagate their nonsense is for them to continue to ignore the
                                      > >
                                      > > > facts.
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Evidence for an "An epigenetic continuum of nutrient-dependent
                                      > > > pheromone-controlled thermoregulation" in microbes, nematodes, insects, and
                                      > > > mammals, including humans has reached critical mass. "The New Atheists" are
                                      > >now
                                      > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > the old fools who missed the paradigm shift while clinging ever-so-tightly to
                                      > >
                                      > > > random mutations theory.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > 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: Nils K. n-oeij@
                                      > > > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > > Sent: Mon, March 11, 2013 3:11:16 PM
                                      > > > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Dear Clarence. dear All!
                                      > > >
                                      > > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams"
                                      > > > clarencew@ wrote:
                                      > > >
                                      > > > I believe there are some members on this discussion group who are
                                      > > > either admittedly "creationists" or whose biological arguments about
                                      > > > evolution appear to mimic those of creationists.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > NKO:
                                      > > > You are committing simplistic thinking, Clarence. You are producing
                                      > > > rhetoric only.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > What the Hell is "creationist". It's only a random word, telling
                                      > > > nothing, as you are using it. You are using the method of magic words.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > And what the Hell is "creation"? This concept is changing with time.
                                      > > > Bertrand Russell and other "atheists" in his time hated the word
                                      > > > "creation". They created the first deadly scandal of "atheism".
                                      > > > They were certain that the Universe was not created. Russell:
                                      > > > The world is simply there.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > But it was not that simple. Today it's mainstream science that space,
                                      > > > time, matter, energy, natural laws, everything, were created by the
                                      > > > Big Bang. And, as a little footnote here, the holy books were right,
                                      > > > light was created before the sun (the stars).
                                      > > >
                                      > > > We undoubtedly have a CREATION. The atheists were wrong. Moreover,
                                      > > > the Big Bang observations (BB is more than just a theory) proves that
                                      > > > EVOLUTION is a true part of the totality of creation. Dawkin's
                                      > > > equation, evolution exists equals a creator (or creation) does not
                                      > > > exist, becomes instantly dead and laughable.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Clarence, you certainly are protecting yourself against information
                                      > > > and observations you do not like i.e info that makes your beliefs and
                                      > > > claims dead and powerless. Therefore you avoid reading my messages
                                      > > > about cosmological physics and philosophy of the Universe.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Perhaps you do not know that the singularity of the BB is the most
                                      > > > complex (measured as order)"object" we can imagine. It's infinitely
                                      > > > more complex than the Universe around us and the different parts
                                      > > > (including biological evolution) of that Universe. See Roger Penrose,
                                      > > > who was Hawking's teacher (professor)and is now the undisputed
                                      > > > greatest cosmologist of the World.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > All of evolution was directly or indirectly predermined in the very
                                      > > > mentioned singularity. Bohms deterministic interpretation (undisputed)
                                      > > > of QM placed all randomness back to the start of the Universe.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Do you see the "total" picture now, Clarence? I do not think you do.
                                      > > > But there are others who do. They are "probably" much greater minds
                                      > > > than you. We do here have a specific creator candidate, and so are
                                      > > > making the last remain of the "atheist" philosophy of, say, Dawkins,
                                      > > > totally illogical (dead).
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Using actively the concepts of creation and creator are musts for
                                      > > > advanced cosmological science, and even advanced evolutionary
                                      > > > science. Read books by the leading astronomers, the leading
                                      > > > cosmologists, etc. The words of creation and creator are frequently
                                      > > > used tools of thinking and reasoning. They are unavoidable. Note that
                                      > > > this fact has nothing to do with ordinary, traditional specific
                                      > > > religious views. They do not need to read holy books. However,
                                      > > > Einstein, Bohr, and the other geniuses of their level, were extremely
                                      > > > interested in the great religions of the far East. They were
                                      > > > extremely impressed by the advanced thinking of these traditions.
                                      > > > The New Atheists are now pretty finished. They did not consult the
                                      > > > old wise thinkers of the East or West. Therefore they are now
                                      > > > starting to leave the center stage and heading for the more or less
                                      > > > forgotten prehistory. They did not add anything to any branch of philosophy.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Best,
                                      > > > NKO
                                      > > >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                    • james kohl
                                      JK: Note: I specifically asked: If you find his posts about transgenerational epigenetic inheritance to be meaningful, simply tell us why. I did not ask
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Mar 12, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        JK: Note:  I specifically asked: If you find his posts about transgenerational epigenetic inheritance to be meaningful, simply tell us why. I did not ask about my articles or past comments to him, and his response has nothing to do with Evolution, Creation and New Genes.
                                         


                                        I did read some of your articles and did comment on some of those, at times in detail, and you are of bad faith if you continue to suggest that I didn't.
                                        You did reply, at the time, when I commented about those posts.

                                        And soon enough you either pronounced me a nitwit (as anybody "msut be " who doesn't sit at your knees and says "yes".
                                        And then of course that I drive my clients to suicide (now that's surely a scientific observation, coming from somebody who doesn't have much of a clue of how I work nor what the fate of my clients has been...).

                                        And then you are surprized that I refuse to discuss further????

                                        there is a difference between wanna be dominants like you and genuine dominants. I don't think the latter resort to verbal abuse as systematically as you do; they have their subordinates who do that for them...

                                        As others have said and continue to say, it IS impossible to discuss with you.

                                        Which is too bad, IMO, because you have interesting contributions to make.

                                        I'll stop here with you, and will ignore you throwing  eggs.
                                        Yes, there "is a smell to those"

                                        Maarten 

                                        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > From: Maarten m.aalberse@...
                                        >
                                        > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Sent: Tue, March 12, 2013 9:09:42 AM
                                        > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Perhaps you should try and read Sonny's posts about transgenerational
                                        > epigenetic inheritance a bit more carefully...
                                        >
                                        > I can always dream, can I?
                                        >
                                        > JK: You can do more than that. If you find his posts about transgenerational
                                        > epigenetic inheritance to be meaningful, simply tell us why. The same can be
                                        > said of any contributions he has made to this group. How have they helped anyone
                                        > to understand evolutionary psychology? Insisting that there is "heated debate"
                                        > about specific aspects, like transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, ignores
                                        > the fact that it must occur in plants and in animals, or species divergence
                                        > would be much less likely (e.g., if it only occurred to F3 or to F17 in flies).
                                        > Did I post on the Piwi protein link between plants and animals? No matter;
                                        > Williams claims he doesn't read my posts.
                                        >
                                        > The point is that I think it's ridiculous to comment on limitations since we
                                        > know that species diverge via ecological, social, neurogenic, and
                                        > socio-cognitive niche construction -- even though the details are just now
                                        > pouring in on how this occurs at the molecular level. Perhaps you and Williams
                                        > should be dreaming up ways to continue to retard scientific progress by clinging
                                        > to ridiculous theories that have no explanatory power in the context of
                                        > adaptively evolved behavior. I'll try not to wake you, or even to raise your
                                        > level of consciousness, since I know how much some people like to remain nearly
                                        > comatose rather than learn something new. You can help, if you read something
                                        > from me that you don't understand, say nothing. Do not mimic Williams by saying
                                        > something meaningless.
                                        >
                                        > Thank you for your consideration in this regard,
                                        >
                                        > 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.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl jvkohl@ wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > JK: What if the link from physics to biology is the genetically predisposed
                                        > > ability of cells to ingest nutrients, thermodynamically adapt, and metabolize
                                        >
                                        > > the nutrients to signals responsible for cellular and organism-wide
                                        > > thermoregulation that enables adaptive evolution in species from microbes to
                                        > > man?
                                        > >
                                        > > Maarten writes: "Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny
                                        > >so
                                        > >
                                        > > relentlessly. Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision
                                        > > (which does not mean that it is entirely wrong!)"
                                        > >
                                        > > JK: My comments to Williams and about him have nothing to do with the need for
                                        >
                                        > > revision of my model. He has never addressed the content of my model, or
                                        > > anything in my published works. I've since added the context ofthermodynamics
                                        > > (physics) and thermoregulation (biology), and we now see this (below) in the
                                        > > messages RKS sent to the group.
                                        > >
                                        > > Open questions: Epigenetics and the role of heterochromatin in development
                                        > > Susan M GasserBMC Biology 2013, 11:21 doi:10.1186/1741-7007-11-21Excerpt:
                                        > >
                                        > > 1) "...active genes can be tethered to the nuclear envelope and stress-induced
                                        > >
                                        > > promoters, such as the heat-shock activated promoter hsp-16.2, actually bind
                                        > >the
                                        > >
                                        > > nuclear pore in their active state [2]."
                                        > >
                                        > > Excerpt:
                                        > > 2) "The striking changes in nuclear organization that arise during
                                        > > differentiation, and which distinguish populations of differentiated cells,
                                        > > raise the question of whether subnuclear position plays a role in cell-type
                                        > > memory of gene expression patterns."
                                        > > Excerpt:
                                        > > 3) "... nuclear organization is likely to play a role in tissue homeostasis."
                                        > >
                                        > > What progress has Williams or anyone else who is still touting random mutations
                                        > >
                                        > > theory helped us make in addressing any of the issues above? I think that
                                        > > atheism is largely responsible for driving the ignorance of others. Of course,
                                        > >I
                                        > >
                                        > > can't be sure of this. Perhaps Williams is merely playing "devil's advocate"
                                        > >and
                                        > >
                                        > > has no intention of retarding scientific progress. Maybe he is somehow helping
                                        >
                                        > > others to understand something significant.
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Excerpt:
                                        > > 4) "One will only know by comparing different systems of differentiation, some
                                        > >
                                        > > normal and others aberrant, to uncover the universal rules for the interplay.
                                        >
                                        > > Such rules may well be broken during oncogenesis. If we are able to answer
                                        > >these
                                        > >
                                        > > four questions, we may start to understand the true nature of epigenetic
                                        > > control."
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > If the true nature of epigenetic control is non-random (i.e., thermodynamically
                                        > >
                                        > > nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled via thermoregulation), we will soon
                                        > >
                                        > > learn what The New Atheists" have added to our world's knowledge-base: NOTHING
                                        >
                                        > > BUT INCREDIBLE IGNORANCE via the propagation of their ridiculous theories!
                                        > >Shall
                                        > >
                                        > > we all just say to "The New Atheists": "Thanks for nothing" now, or wait for
                                        > >the
                                        > >
                                        > > next article on epigenetics to arrive and explain even more about the biology
                                        > >of
                                        > >
                                        > > cause and effect, which leads us closer to treating all disease processes,
                                        > > including cancer? Random mutations theory has led only to looking at physical
                                        > > and mental disease processes on by one.
                                        > >
                                        > > If you had been diagnosed with cancer, how long would you be willing to wait
                                        > >for
                                        > >
                                        > > help to arrive from an atheist evolutionary theorist who is still touting a
                                        > > theory based only on statistical analyses?
                                        > > 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: Maarten m.aalberse@
                                        > >
                                        > > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                        > > Sent: Tue, March 12, 2013 3:07:05 AM
                                        > > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > "he has denied evidence that transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists"
                                        > >
                                        > > I've read Sonny's posts on this as a warning not to get carried away by studies
                                        > >
                                        > > that suggest that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance exists.
                                        > > Which is rather different from what you attribute to him...
                                        > > It is actually good common sense and, dare I say it?, a good scientifici
                                        > > attitude (at least to my book, which is not the Bible...).
                                        > >
                                        > > "(as is unequivocally required to link genes to behavior and back in species
                                        > > from microbes to man)".
                                        > >
                                        > > Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny so relentlessly.
                                        > > Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision (which does not
                                        > >
                                        > > mean that it is entirely wrong!)... Or can it?
                                        > > Such "adaptations" of a model are common in science, as you know; and maybe
                                        > >even
                                        > >
                                        > > the heart of science, as far as I know.
                                        > >
                                        > > I think that, if you could be open that this is also a (likely?) possibility
                                        > > about your model, your often very interesting contributions would be received
                                        > > differently.
                                        > > And we would probably send some other pheromones to you :-)
                                        > > Problem is that then you'd be somewhat less "outstanding".
                                        > >
                                        > > I don't know about you, but from what I have heard and read, being dominant
                                        > > isn't that wonderful (it may well be that dominant males are more stressed, as
                                        >
                                        > > they have to remain so watchful about possible threats to their dominance. Some
                                        > >
                                        > > dominants have a genuine paranoid streak - not surprizingly so..;).
                                        > >
                                        > > Maarten
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl jvkohl@ wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Excerpted from below: "The New Atheists" are now pretty finished.... They did
                                        > >
                                        > > > not add anything to any branch of philosophy."
                                        > > >
                                        > > > They probably added more nonsense to all branches of philosophy than any
                                        > > > intelligent person can fathom. Williams alone has touted domain specific
                                        > >mental
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > modules with no evidence that they exist, and he has denied evidence that
                                        > > > transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists (as is unequivocally required
                                        > >to
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > link genes to behavior and back in species from microbes to man). Even now
                                        > >"The
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > New Atheists" refuse to address evidence of Nutrient-dependent /
                                        > > > Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation added to the
                                        > >evidence
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > of Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled Adaptive Evolution. Simply put,
                                        >
                                        > > > they substitute nonsense for facts and never address the facts. And the only
                                        >
                                        > > >way
                                        > > >
                                        > > > to continue to propagate their nonsense is for them to continue to ignore the
                                        > >
                                        > > > facts.
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Evidence for an "An epigenetic continuum of nutrient-dependent
                                        > > > pheromone-controlled thermoregulation" in microbes, nematodes, insects, and
                                        > > > mammals, including humans has reached critical mass. "The New Atheists" are
                                        > >now
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > the old fools who missed the paradigm shift while clinging ever-so-tightly to
                                        > >
                                        > > > random mutations theory.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > 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: Nils K. n-oeij@
                                        > > > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                        > > > Sent: Mon, March 11, 2013 3:11:16 PM
                                        > > > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Dear Clarence. dear All!
                                        > > >
                                        > > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams"
                                        > > > clarencew@ wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > I believe there are some members on this discussion group who are
                                        > > > either admittedly "creationists" or whose biological arguments about
                                        > > > evolution appear to mimic those of creationists.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > NKO:
                                        > > > You are committing simplistic thinking, Clarence. You are producing
                                        > > > rhetoric only.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > What the Hell is "creationist". It's only a random word, telling
                                        > > > nothing, as you are using it. You are using the method of magic words.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > And what the Hell is "creation"? This concept is changing with time.
                                        > > > Bertrand Russell and other "atheists" in his time hated the word
                                        > > > "creation". They created the first deadly scandal of "atheism".
                                        > > > They were certain that the Universe was not created. Russell:
                                        > > > The world is simply there.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > But it was not that simple. Today it's mainstream science that space,
                                        > > > time, matter, energy, natural laws, everything, were created by the
                                        > > > Big Bang. And, as a little footnote here, the holy books were right,
                                        > > > light was created before the sun (the stars).
                                        > > >
                                        > > > We undoubtedly have a CREATION. The atheists were wrong. Moreover,
                                        > > > the Big Bang observations (BB is more than just a theory) proves that
                                        > > > EVOLUTION is a true part of the totality of creation. Dawkin's
                                        > > > equation, evolution exists equals a creator (or creation) does not
                                        > > > exist, becomes instantly dead and laughable.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Clarence, you certainly are protecting yourself against information
                                        > > > and observations you do not like i.e info that makes your beliefs and
                                        > > > claims dead and powerless. Therefore you avoid reading my messages
                                        > > > about cosmological physics and philosophy of the Universe.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Perhaps you do not know that the singularity of the BB is the most
                                        > > > complex (measured as order)"object" we can imagine. It's infinitely
                                        > > > more complex than the Universe around us and the different parts
                                        > > > (including biological evolution) of that Universe. See Roger Penrose,
                                        > > > who was Hawking's teacher (professor)and is now the undisputed
                                        > > > greatest cosmologist of the World.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > All of evolution was directly or indirectly predermined in the very
                                        > > > mentioned singularity. Bohms deterministic interpretation (undisputed)
                                        > > > of QM placed all randomness back to the start of the Universe.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Do you see the "total" picture now, Clarence? I do not think you do.
                                        > > > But there are others who do. They are "probably" much greater minds
                                        > > > than you. We do here have a specific creator candidate, and so are
                                        > > > making the last remain of the "atheist" philosophy of, say, Dawkins,
                                        > > > totally illogical (dead).
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Using actively the concepts of creation and creator are musts for
                                        > > > advanced cosmological science, and even advanced evolutionary
                                        > > > science. Read books by the leading astronomers, the leading
                                        > > > cosmologists, etc. The words of creation and creator are frequently
                                        > > > used tools of thinking and reasoning. They are unavoidable. Note that
                                        > > > this fact has nothing to do with ordinary, traditional specific
                                        > > > religious views. They do not need to read holy books. However,
                                        > > > Einstein, Bohr, and the other geniuses of their level, were extremely
                                        > > > interested in the great religions of the far East. They were
                                        > > > extremely impressed by the advanced thinking of these traditions.
                                        > > > The New Atheists are now pretty finished. They did not consult the
                                        > > > old wise thinkers of the East or West. Therefore they are now
                                        > > > starting to leave the center stage and heading for the more or less
                                        > > > forgotten prehistory. They did not add anything to any branch of philosophy.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Best,
                                        > > > NKO
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        >
                                      • Maarten
                                        Note: I specifically asked: If you find his posts about transgenerational epigenetic inheritance to be meaningful, simply tell us why. OK, so I ll rephrase
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Mar 12, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                           " Note:  I specifically asked: If you find his posts about transgenerational epigenetic inheritance to be meaningful, simply tell us why."


                                          OK, so I'll rephrase my earlier reply: Simply read his comments on epigenetic inheritance a bit more carefully and

                                          1) let go of your obsessive fault-finding in anything that Sonny writes
                                          2) let go of the notion that another perspective simply can't be true because it might challenge an aspect of your model.

                                          Of course this is too much asked...
                                          And yet, it isn't too much asked of a scientist, I'd say...

                                          Maarten


                                          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > JK: Note: I specifically asked: If you find his posts about transgenerational
                                          > epigenetic inheritance to be meaningful, simply tell us why. I did not ask about
                                          > my articles or past comments to him, and his response has nothing to do with
                                          > Evolution, Creation and New Genes.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > I did read some of your articles and did comment on some of those, at times in
                                          > detail, and you are of bad faith if you continue to suggest that I didn't.
                                          > You did reply, at the time, when I commented about those posts.
                                          >
                                          > And soon enough you either pronounced me a nitwit (as anybody "msut be " who
                                          > doesn't sit at your knees and says "yes".
                                          > And then of course that I drive my clients to suicide (now that's surely a
                                          > scientific observation, coming from somebody who doesn't have much of a clue of
                                          > how I work nor what the fate of my clients has been...).
                                          >
                                          > And then you are surprized that I refuse to discuss further????
                                          >
                                          > there is a difference between wanna be dominants like you and genuine dominants.
                                          > I don't think the latter resort to verbal abuse as systematically as you do;
                                          > they have their subordinates who do that for them...
                                          >
                                          > As others have said and continue to say, it IS impossible to discuss with you.
                                          >
                                          > Which is too bad, IMO, because you have interesting contributions to make.
                                          >
                                          > I'll stop here with you, and will ignore you throwing eggs.
                                          > Yes, there "is a smell to those"
                                          >
                                          > Maarten
                                          > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl jvkohl@ wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > From: Maarten m.aalberse@
                                          > >
                                          > > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                          > > Sent: Tue, March 12, 2013 9:09:42 AM
                                          > > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > Perhaps you should try and read Sonny's posts about transgenerational
                                          > > epigenetic inheritance a bit more carefully...
                                          > >
                                          > > I can always dream, can I?
                                          > >
                                          > > JK: You can do more than that. If you find his posts about transgenerational
                                          > > epigenetic inheritance to be meaningful, simply tell us why. The same can be
                                          > > said of any contributions he has made to this group. How have they helped
                                          > >anyone
                                          > >
                                          > > to understand evolutionary psychology? Insisting that there is "heated debate"
                                          >
                                          > > about specific aspects, like transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, ignores
                                          >
                                          > > the fact that it must occur in plants and in animals, or species divergence
                                          > > would be much less likely (e.g., if it only occurred to F3 or to F17 in flies).
                                          > >
                                          > > Did I post on the Piwi protein link between plants and animals? No matter;
                                          > > Williams claims he doesn't read my posts.
                                          > >
                                          > > The point is that I think it's ridiculous to comment on limitations since we
                                          > > know that species diverge via ecological, social, neurogenic, and
                                          > > socio-cognitive niche construction -- even though the details are just now
                                          > > pouring in on how this occurs at the molecular level. Perhaps you and Williams
                                          > >
                                          > > should be dreaming up ways to continue to retard scientific progress by
                                          > >clinging
                                          > >
                                          > > to ridiculous theories that have no explanatory power in the context of
                                          > > adaptively evolved behavior. I'll try not to wake you, or even to raise your
                                          > > level of consciousness, since I know how much some people like to remain nearly
                                          > >
                                          > > comatose rather than learn something new. You can help, if you read something
                                          > > from me that you don't understand, say nothing. Do not mimic Williams by saying
                                          > >
                                          > > something meaningless.
                                          > >
                                          > > Thank you for your consideration in this regard,
                                          > >
                                          > > 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.
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl jvkohl@ wrote:
                                          > > >
                                          > > > JK: What if the link from physics to biology is the genetically predisposed
                                          > > > ability of cells to ingest nutrients, thermodynamically adapt, and
                                          > >metabolize
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > > the nutrients to signals responsible for cellular and organism-wide
                                          > > > thermoregulation that enables adaptive evolution in species from microbes to
                                          > >
                                          > > > man?
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Maarten writes: "Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny
                                          > >
                                          > > >so
                                          > > >
                                          > > > relentlessly. Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision
                                          > >
                                          > > > (which does not mean that it is entirely wrong!)"
                                          > > >
                                          > > > JK: My comments to Williams and about him have nothing to do with the need
                                          > >for
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > > revision of my model. He has never addressed the content of my model, or
                                          > > > anything in my published works. I've since added the context ofthermodynamics
                                          > >
                                          > > > (physics) and thermoregulation (biology), and we now see this (below) in the
                                          > >
                                          > > > messages RKS sent to the group.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Open questions: Epigenetics and the role of heterochromatin in development
                                          > > > Susan M GasserBMC Biology 2013, 11:21 doi:10.1186/1741-7007-11-21Excerpt:
                                          > > >
                                          > > > 1) "...active genes can be tethered to the nuclear envelope and
                                          > >stress-induced
                                          > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > promoters, such as the heat-shock activated promoter hsp-16.2, actually bind
                                          >
                                          > > >the
                                          > > >
                                          > > > nuclear pore in their active state [2]."
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Excerpt:
                                          > > > 2) "The striking changes in nuclear organization that arise during
                                          > > > differentiation, and which distinguish populations of differentiated cells,
                                          >
                                          > > > raise the question of whether subnuclear position plays a role in cell-type
                                          >
                                          > > > memory of gene expression patterns."
                                          > > > Excerpt:
                                          > > > 3) "... nuclear organization is likely to play a role in tissue
                                          > >homeostasis."
                                          > > >
                                          > > > What progress has Williams or anyone else who is still touting random
                                          > >mutations
                                          > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > theory helped us make in addressing any of the issues above? I think that
                                          > > > atheism is largely responsible for driving the ignorance of others. Of
                                          > >course,
                                          > >
                                          > > >I
                                          > > >
                                          > > > can't be sure of this. Perhaps Williams is merely playing "devil's advocate"
                                          >
                                          > > >and
                                          > > >
                                          > > > has no intention of retarding scientific progress. Maybe he is somehow
                                          > >helping
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > > others to understand something significant.
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Excerpt:
                                          > > > 4) "One will only know by comparing different systems of differentiation,
                                          > >some
                                          > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > normal and others aberrant, to uncover the universal rules for the
                                          > >interplay.
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > > Such rules may well be broken during oncogenesis. If we are able to answer
                                          > > >these
                                          > > >
                                          > > > four questions, we may start to understand the true nature of epigenetic
                                          > > > control."
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > If the true nature of epigenetic control is non-random (i.e.,
                                          > >thermodynamically
                                          > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled via thermoregulation), we will
                                          > >soon
                                          > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > learn what The New Atheists" have added to our world's knowledge-base:
                                          > >NOTHING
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > > BUT INCREDIBLE IGNORANCE via the propagation of their ridiculous theories!
                                          > > >Shall
                                          > > >
                                          > > > we all just say to "The New Atheists": "Thanks for nothing" now, or wait for
                                          >
                                          > > >the
                                          > > >
                                          > > > next article on epigenetics to arrive and explain even more about the biology
                                          > >
                                          > > >of
                                          > > >
                                          > > > cause and effect, which leads us closer to treating all disease processes,
                                          > > > including cancer? Random mutations theory has led only to looking at physical
                                          > >
                                          > > > and mental disease processes on by one.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > If you had been diagnosed with cancer, how long would you be willing to wait
                                          >
                                          > > >for
                                          > > >
                                          > > > help to arrive from an atheist evolutionary theorist who is still touting a
                                          > > > theory based only on statistical analyses?
                                          > > > 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: Maarten m.aalberse@
                                          > > >
                                          > > > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                          > > > Sent: Tue, March 12, 2013 3:07:05 AM
                                          > > > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > "he has denied evidence that transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists"
                                          > > >
                                          > > > I've read Sonny's posts on this as a warning not to get carried away by
                                          > >studies
                                          > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > that suggest that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance exists.
                                          > > > Which is rather different from what you attribute to him...
                                          > > > It is actually good common sense and, dare I say it?, a good scientifici
                                          > > > attitude (at least to my book, which is not the Bible...).
                                          > > >
                                          > > > "(as is unequivocally required to link genes to behavior and back in species
                                          >
                                          > > > from microbes to man)".
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Now this makes it understandable why you have to flame Sonny so
                                          > relentlessly.
                                          > > > Because of course your model can't be in need for some revision (which does
                                          > >not
                                          > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > mean that it is entirely wrong!)... Or can it?
                                          > > > Such "adaptations" of a model are common in science, as you know; and maybe
                                          > > >even
                                          > > >
                                          > > > the heart of science, as far as I know.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > I think that, if you could be open that this is also a (likely?) possibility
                                          >
                                          > > > about your model, your often very interesting contributions would be received
                                          > >
                                          > > > differently.
                                          > > > And we would probably send some other pheromones to you :-)
                                          > > > Problem is that then you'd be somewhat less "outstanding".
                                          > > >
                                          > > > I don't know about you, but from what I have heard and read, being dominant
                                          > > > isn't that wonderful (it may well be that dominant males are more stressed,
                                          > >as
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > > they have to remain so watchful about possible threats to their dominance.
                                          > >Some
                                          > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > dominants have a genuine paranoid streak - not surprizingly so..;).
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Maarten
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl jvkohl@ wrote:
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Excerpted from below: "The New Atheists" are now pretty finished.... They
                                          > >did
                                          > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > > not add anything to any branch of philosophy."
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > They probably added more nonsense to all branches of philosophy than any
                                          > > > > intelligent person can fathom. Williams alone has touted domain specific
                                          > > >mental
                                          > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > modules with no evidence that they exist, and he has denied evidence that
                                          > > > > transgenerational epigentic inheritance exists (as is unequivocally
                                          > >required
                                          > >
                                          > > >to
                                          > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > link genes to behavior and back in species from microbes to man). Even now
                                          >
                                          > > >"The
                                          > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > New Atheists" refuse to address evidence of Nutrient-dependent /
                                          > > > > Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation added to the
                                          > > >evidence
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > > of Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled Adaptive Evolution. Simply
                                          > >put,
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > > > they substitute nonsense for facts and never address the facts. And the
                                          > >only
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > > >way
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > to continue to propagate their nonsense is for them to continue to ignore
                                          > >the
                                          > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > > facts.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Evidence for an "An epigenetic continuum of nutrient-dependent
                                          > > > > pheromone-controlled thermoregulation" in microbes, nematodes, insects, and
                                          > >
                                          > > > > mammals, including humans has reached critical mass. "The New Atheists" are
                                          > >
                                          > > >now
                                          > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > the old fools who missed the paradigm shift while clinging ever-so-tightly
                                          > >to
                                          > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > > random mutations theory.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > 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: Nils K. n-oeij@
                                          > > > > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                                          > > > > Sent: Mon, March 11, 2013 3:11:16 PM
                                          > > > > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Evolution, Creation and New Genes
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Dear Clarence. dear All!
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "clarence_sonny_williams"
                                          > > > > clarencew@ wrote:
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > I believe there are some members on this discussion group who are
                                          > > > > either admittedly "creationists" or whose biological arguments about
                                          > > > > evolution appear to mimic those of creationists.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > NKO:
                                          > > > > You are committing simplistic thinking, Clarence. You are producing
                                          > > > > rhetoric only.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > What the Hell is "creationist". It's only a random word, telling
                                          > > > > nothing, as you are using it. You are using the method of magic words.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > And what the Hell is "creation"? This concept is changing with time.
                                          > > > > Bertrand Russell and other "atheists" in his time hated the word
                                          > > > > "creation". They created the first deadly scandal of "atheism".
                                          > > > > They were certain that the Universe was not created. Russell:
                                          > > > > The world is simply there.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > But it was not that simple. Today it's mainstream science that space,
                                          > > > > time, matter, energy, natural laws, everything, were created by the
                                          > > > > Big Bang. And, as a little footnote here, the holy books were right,
                                          > > > > light was created before the sun (the stars).
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > We undoubtedly have a CREATION. The atheists were wrong. Moreover,
                                          > > > > the Big Bang observations (BB is more than just a theory) proves that
                                          > > > > EVOLUTION is a true part of the totality of creation. Dawkin's
                                          > > > > equation, evolution exists equals a creator (or creation) does not
                                          > > > > exist, becomes instantly dead and laughable.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Clarence, you certainly are protecting yourself against information
                                          > > > > and observations you do not like i.e info that makes your beliefs and
                                          > > > > claims dead and powerless. Therefore you avoid reading my messages
                                          > > > > about cosmological physics and philosophy of the Universe.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Perhaps you do not know that the singularity of the BB is the most
                                          > > > > complex (measured as order)"object" we can imagine. It's infinitely
                                          > > > > more complex than the Universe around us and the different parts
                                          > > > > (including biological evolution) of that Universe. See Roger Penrose,
                                          > > > > who was Hawking's teacher (professor)and is now the undisputed
                                          > > > > greatest cosmologist of the World.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > All of evolution was directly or indirectly predermined in the very
                                          > > > > mentioned singularity. Bohms deterministic interpretation (undisputed)
                                          > > > > of QM placed all randomness back to the start of the Universe.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Do you see the "total" picture now, Clarence? I do not think you do.
                                          > > > > But there are others who do. They are "probably" much greater minds
                                          > > > > than you. We do here have a specific creator candidate, and so are
                                          > > > > making the last remain of the "atheist" philosophy of, say, Dawkins,
                                          > > > > totally illogical (dead).
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Using actively the concepts of creation and creator are musts for
                                          > > > > advanced cosmological science, and even advanced evolutionary
                                          > > > > science. Read books by the leading astronomers, the leading
                                          > > > > cosmologists, etc. The words of creation and creator are frequently
                                          > > > > used tools of thinking and reasoning. They are unavoidable. Note that
                                          > > > > this fact has nothing to do with ordinary, traditional specific
                                          > > > > religious views. They do not need to read holy books. However,
                                          > > > > Einstein, Bohr, and the other geniuses of their level, were extremely
                                          > > > > interested in the great religions of the far East. They were
                                          > > > > extremely impressed by the advanced thinking of these traditions.
                                          > > > > The New Atheists are now pretty finished. They did not consult the
                                          > > > > old wise thinkers of the East or West. Therefore they are now
                                          > > > > starting to leave the center stage and heading for the more or less
                                          > > > > forgotten prehistory. They did not add anything to any branch of
                                          > >philosophy.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Best,
                                          > > > > NKO
                                          > > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.