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

Re: [evol-psych] Adaptive evolution: Mutations don't win out

Expand Messages
  • hibbsa
    James - I do see the important parts of what you mean, but I think it s important to step back and try to understand the rounded situation. About Jim, I would
    Message 1 of 97 , Mar 27, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      James - I do see the important parts of what you mean, but I think it's important to step back and try to understand the rounded situation.

      About Jim, I would agree with you that he takes umbrage on a weak version of 'random mutation' and that this does tend to leave him arguing against a straw man. I don't think its deliberate though, and that's an important point.

      That, and I suppose aspects of the claim to Olfactory Primacy as it were, and also a couple of other communication shortcomings, can make debating with him a little frustrating.

      But coming from his side, it's easy to see his frustration and bitterness towards his most vocal critics. They too, to a man pretty much possibly with the exception of yourself, do nothing but argue straw men beside other fallacious devices as well.

      For example, the random mutations stance is as I say the obviously weak part of his argument. So you'd think people would simply correct it for him in their own minds and then ask "what, if anything, is his simple proposition in its strongest form, correcting for his mistaken stances and any other eccentricities or beliefs with unfortunate effects in this instance"

      This has to be done in science, because otherwise we are at risk of arguing straw men, abusing people for their personal non-scientific beliefs, baiting people for their eccentricities and oddities. It's important to recognize that genuine truth seekers and pioneers can often be a little eccentric. Can often be a little tunnel vision. Can often see their idea bigger than it really is. Can often have off putting behaviours.

      Pretty much that's the substance the majority of his critics have brought little to the table and have attacked the weakest parts of his stance and never bothered to summarize into a strong form what his key propositions actually are. It isn't clear that they have understood actually. They might have, but how does one know?

      Personally, I think they do it partly out of a misguided notion that because they can bank on pretty much everyone agreeing with their basic criticism, that they'll improve their personal standing and credibility by using Jim to demonstrate just how rigourous and mainstream they are. So rational, so well-read, so critical...yet so open minded. It's a bit of a show for some people. A chance to demonstrate their credentials about something.

      Well, I think they'll be disappointed down the line because what people think when they have had time to reflect, is different to what they might think in the heat of the moment. No one likes a bully, no one likes personal attacks, no one appreciates failure to grasp the simple argument and take things from there.

      But you're looking for the simple propositions in their strongest form, which I think is appreciable. I can certainly offer what I think it. I don't think it's necessary to understand his model, because the simple proposition is not usually wrapped up in the complexity. I think the strongest form for me is:

      1. Nutrients are a reasonable proxy for the changing challenge of the environment at the intracellular level. In other words  if you asked a cell what he thought the 'environment' was he could well say "you mean the nutrients coming in from outside?" Of course there are other signals, but it is a reasonable proxy.

      2. Olfaction also brings chemicals into the cell and minimally speakming there are known connections between smell and sexual attraction.

      3. There are other influences and other senses of course. But a significant observation would be that unlike the vast majority of the others, these two signals have always been necessary and present pretty much since first life on earth in the case of nutrients, and sexual dimorphism for the other.

      4. So taking an evolutionary perspective, now using the concept of random mutations, it is a reasonable observation that random mutations that in some way led to some use being made of the chemistry or changing gradients of nutrients within the cell, have had the longest most stable and consistent period of time to happen than any other trait.

      5. It's also the case that when we speak of random mutations we mean those that end up in reproductive cells. What jim does is construct a model that theorizes the logic of how the incoming nutrients and pheromones at the intracellular level might be in a feedback loop connected to the sexual areas that manage those all important reproductive cells.

      6. About the Ofactory Primacy. The most reasonable form of that would be the Popperian stance, of asking whether in light of what random mutations are supposed to mean, which does not rule out mechanisms supported adaptation, it is reasonable to consider a feedback loop like his model as a candidate source of some adaptation in evolutionary history.

      Of course he's hopeful it'll be bigger, why should he be? But the important issue is whether the MINIMAL proposition is reasonable. I think it is.

      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, James Gray <James@...> wrote:
      >
      > hibbsa,
      > See what I mean. I will add something because something he says below was
      > written on a different list. Kohl obviously does not understand my writing
      > either. I have never read one post by any body on this list or on the
      > human ethology list who argues in favor of mutation Driven natural
      > selection. Kohl has repeatedly presented it as a straw man argument that
      > he ridicules as wrong. As I see it, Kohl came up with the idea so that he
      > could declare it wrong. As you can see he is just plain nasty toward me.
      > I wish he would ignore me.
      >
      > James Gray
      >
      > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:33 PM, james kohl jvkohl@... wrote:
      >
      > > **
      > >
      > >
      > > *From:* James Gray James@...
      > > hibbsa,
      > > Are you able to answer questions about this sort of stuff? I made an
      > > attempt to read one of Kohl's papers and could not understand it. It
      > > rapidly became apparent that he will not or can not answer questions about
      > > his model in a way that I can understand. I would be happy to "leave him
      > > alone" if he did not repeatedly reply to my messages that were not directed
      > > at him.
      > >
      > > *JK:* Here's what I'm up against. The conclusion of my most recently
      > > published work is: "Olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear
      > > evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to
      > > insects to humans. <http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338>" James Gray
      > > wrote: So I would say it was Kohl himself who came up with the idea of
      > > mutation-driven natural and sexual selection. The models I know about do
      > > not say that mutation drives anything.
      > >
      > > I would be happy to learn if anyone can accurately answer any question
      > > James Gray poses with an answer that he can understand. Arguably, he may
      > > be the most scientifically illiterate person I have ever encountered in the
      > > newsgroups.
      > >
      > > Is anyone else here not familiar with The peppered moth and industrial
      > > melanism: evolution of a natural selection case study<http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2012.92>.
      > > Abstract excerpt: "From the 1950s, as a result of experimental evidence,
      > > selective predation became the favoured explanation and is undoubtedly the
      > > major factor driving the frequency change." The idea that the color
      > > adaptively evolved due to predation in an moth species exemplifies the
      > > random mutations theory nonsense that many evolutionary theorists have
      > > accepted. What's worst is that the theorists attribute migration patterns
      > > to predation when males are known to move approximately 2 km each evening,
      > > which is equal to the detection range the males have for female pheromones.
      > >
      > > What kind of idiot attributes the movement to random mutations, moth
      > > color, and predation when pheromones control nutrient-dependent adaptive
      > > evolution in species from microbes to man?
      > >
      > > 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.<http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338>Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 5:33 AM, hibbsa hibbsa@... wrote:
      > >
      > >> **
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> I think the only reasonable way for everyone to proceed, is either read
      > >> his papers and study his model and *then* ask questions. Or, come to the
      > >> conclusion that with what you do understand of his ideas, they are not
      > >> in your view promising enough for you to make that commitment, and leave
      > >> him alone wrt his theory. Talk to him about other matters of mutual
      > >> interest where there is some basic mutual respect.
      > >>
      > >> --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, James Gray James@
      > >> wrote:
      > >> >
      > >> > I am not going to let this pass. Kohl is lying when he says I have
      > >> asked
      > >> > him no questions. He even thanked me for asking something on Human
      > >> > Ethology recently. Of course he did not answer the question. The only
      > >> > thing he seems able to write clearly to me is insults.
      > >> >
      > >> > James Gray
      > >> >
      > >> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:19 AM, james kohl jvkohl@ wrote:
      > >> >
      > >> > > **
      > >> > >
      > >> > >
      > >> > > As he has consistently done on the human ethology list, James Gray
      > >> comes
      > >> > > to us with comments on my model, but no questions. For comparison,
      > >> hibbsa
      > >> > > has asked many pertinent questions that I think I have answered.
      > >> > >
      > >> > > The problem for me is that James Gray is not sufficiently informed
      > >> about
      > >> > > basic biology so he cannot ask questions, and cannot understand
      > >> anything I
      > >> > > write.
      > >> > >
      > >> > > hibbsa wrote "... Kohl's theory could be correct except his
      > >> > > misunderstanding about the word "mutation". Is that correct?"
      > >> > >
      > >> > > James Gray responds "I would not say that is correct."
      > >> > >
      > >> > > This is after James Gray told us "Kohl... says nutrients and
      > >> pheromones
      > >> > > cause the changes that in any body else's words would be mutations."
      > >> > >
      > >> > > What I think is correct is that there are people so ignorant and
      > >> confused
      > >> > > that they attribute their confusion to experts so they can continue
      > >> to
      > >> > > grasp their tightly held ridiculous opinions about biologically
      > >> based cause
      > >> > > and effect.
      > >> > >
      > >> > > 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.<http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338>Socioaffective
      > >> Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
      > >> > >
      > >> > >
      > >> > > ------------------------------
      > >> > > *From:* James Gray James@
      > >> > > *To:* evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      > >> > > *Sent:* Fri, March 22, 2013 10:04:44 PM
      > >> > > *Subject:* Re: [evol-psych] Adaptive evolution: Mutations don't win
      > >> out
      > >> > >
      > >> > >
      > >> > >
      > >> > > I would not say that is correct. At this time I have no idea what
      > >> parts
      > >> > > of Kohl's model (that he says is not a theory) is correct. He will
      > >> not
      > >> > > give direct answers to direct questions on the human ethology list
      > >> so it is
      > >> > > impossible to assess his model. As far as I can tell he is about
      > >> equally
      > >> > > evasive on this list. I have found it is a mistake to try to answer
      > >> his
      > >> > > posts.
      > >> > >
      > >> > > James Gray
      > >> > >
      > >> > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:38 AM, hibbsa hibbsa@ wrote:
      > >> > >
      > >> > >> **
      > >> > >>
      > >> > >>
      > >> > >>
      > >> > >> According to what you are saying Kohl's theory could be correct
      > >> except
      > >> > >> his misunderstanding about the word "mutation". Is that correct?
      > >> > >>
      > >> > >> In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, James Gray James@
      > >> > >> wrote:
      > >> > >> >
      > >> > >> > Edgar,
      > >> > >> > Iing almost never post on this list. I want to complement you for
      > >> > >> taking the
      > >> > >> > time to examine and critique the claims of Kohl. I think that his
      > >> > >> model is
      > >> > >> > so vague and inadequately explained that it does not deserve the
      > >> label
      > >> > >> > "theory". It appears that he is unwilling to say what he means.
      > >> The
      > >> > >> > puzzling thing is that his claim that what an organism eats and
      > >> smells
      > >> > >> > changes the genome rather than mutations changing the genome does
      > >> not
      > >> > >> make
      > >> > >> > logical sense. "Random" mutation is not an assertion about what
      > >> > >> changes
      > >> > >> > the genome. It is just that it changes. If what the organism eats
      > >> and
      > >> > >> > smells is the cause of changes in the genome, then his theory
      > >> seems to
      > >> > >> be
      > >> > >> > that chemicals in food and smells causes mutations. Yet, Kohl
      > >> seems to
      > >> > >> > reject any mutation at the same time that he says nutrients and
      > >> > >> pheromones
      > >> > >> > cause the changes that in any body else's words would be
      > >> mutations.
      > >> > >> Where
      > >> > >> > is the logic in this? Go figure!
      > >> > >> >
      > >> > >> > James Gray
      > >> > >> >
      > >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote:
      > >> > >> >
      > >> > >> > > **
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > Once again the article Kohl cites in support of his wacko
      > >> theory
      > >> > >> that what
      > >> > >> > > organisms eat or smell is what changes their genome (rather
      > >> than
      > >> > >> mutations
      > >> > >> > > doing it) simply DOES NOT support it...
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > It's a FALSE citation which I'm sure the authors of the article
      > >> > >> would
      > >> > >> > > reject....
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > Edgar
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > On Mar 21, 2013, at 8:39 PM, james kohl wrote:
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > As I noted, the chemical senses: tasting and smelling, generate
      > >> new
      > >> > >> DNA
      > >> > >> > > sequences in organism from microbes to man. The crux of my
      > >> model is
      > >> > >> > > addressed here Interchromosomal Interactions and Olfactory
      > >> Receptor
      > >> > >> > > Choice
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >>
      > >> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867406008555>in a
      > >> > >> > > paper with senior author and 2004 Nobel Laureate, Richard Axel.
      > >> The
      > >> > >> crux of
      > >> > >> > > my model is also addressed here How keeping active pays off in
      > >> the
      > >> > >> > > olfactory system
      > >> <http://elife.elifesciences.org/content/1/e00326>
      > >> > >> in the
      > >> > >> > > context of the recently identified protein that orchestrates
      > >> the
      > >> > >> > > frequencies at which different olfactory receptors are
      > >> expressed,
      > >> > >> which is
      > >> > >> > > how it facilitates pleiotropic plasticity and adaptively
      > >> evolved
      > >> > >> epistasis
      > >> > >> > > via the direct link from the odor environment to the olfactory
      > >> > >> system.
      > >> > >> > > Thus, the epigenetic environment becomes the physical
      > >> environment of
      > >> > >> DNA
      > >> > >> > > via nutrient-dependent chromatin remodeling and
      > >> pheromone-controlled
      > >> > >> de
      > >> > >> > > novo gene creation.
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > What Edgar now infers is that the movers and shakers of
      > >> molecular
      > >> > >> biology
      > >> > >> > > are WHACKOs, and that a Nobel Laureate is one of the WHACKOs.
      > >> Note,
      > >> > >> > > however, that Edgar has never addressed any aspect of the
      > >> biological
      > >> > >> facts
      > >> > >> > > I have offered with cited published works (above and below) as
      > >> > >> support,
      > >> > >> > > including my own published works. If there be WHACKOs here, we
      > >> all
      > >> > >> know who
      > >> > >> > > they are, since Williams has also already added more of his
      > >> nonsense
      > >> > >> to
      > >> > >> > > this topic thread.
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > If there are WHACKOs among the world's top molecular
      > >> biologists, it
      > >> > >> would
      > >> > >> > > not be Edgar or Sonny telling us who they are.
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > 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.<http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338>Socioaffective
      > >> > >> Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > ------------------------------
      > >> > >> > > *From:* Edgar Owen edgarowen@
      > >> > >> > > *To:* evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      > >> > >> > > *Sent:* Thu, March 21, 2013 6:22:28 PM
      > >> > >> > > *Subject:* Re: [evol-psych] Adaptive evolution: Mutations don't
      > >> win
      > >> > >> out
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > Jim,
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > This is so WHAKO it's ludicrous. Kohl actually believes that
      > >> all the
      > >> > >> new
      > >> > >> > > DNA sequences in all the diverse organisms on earth arose from
      > >> > >> epigenetic
      > >> > >> > > changes caused by what those organisms tasted or smelled!
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > He finally actually says so below in plain English for a change
      > >> and
      > >> > >> I
      > >> > >> > > quote...
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > *From:* Edgar Owen edgarowen@ Tasting and smelling simply DO
      > >> NOT
      > >> > >> > > generate new DNA sequences in an organism....
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > *JK:* Of course they do, Edgar. That's what I've detailed. See
      > >> also
      > >> > >> Born
      > >> > >> > > (2013) <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23283334> for the
      > >> role of
      > >> > >> > > taste receptors, and Clowney
      > >> > >>
      > >> (2012)<http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S009286741201286X>
      > >> > >> for
      > >> > >> > > the role of olfactory receptors.
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > Everyone on the group should take note and remember this is the
      > >> crux
      > >> > >> of
      > >> > >> > > Kohl's childish model. We know he never attended college but he
      > >> > >> should have
      > >> > >> > > at least learned better in high school...
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > Edgar
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > On Mar 21, 2013, at 10:09 AM, james kohl wrote:
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > *From:* Edgar Owen edgarowen@
      > >> > >> > > Give me one actual study that provides any evidence at all of
      > >> any of
      > >> > >> the
      > >> > >> > > nonsensical mechanism you posit generating any new DNA
      > >> sequences in
      > >> > >> the
      > >> > >> > > genome...
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > *JK*: The individual studies included in my model provide
      > >> evidence
      > >> > >> for
      > >> > >> > > the conserved molecular mechanisms I have detailed, Edgar. The
      > >> most
      > >> > >> > > recently developed theories also do this. For example, see: A
      > >> > >> quantum
      > >> > >> > > theory for the irreplaceable role of docosahexaenoic acid in
      > >> neural
      > >> > >> cell
      > >> > >> > > signalling throughout
      > >> > >>
      > >> evolution<http://www.plefa.com/article/S0952-3278%2812%2900147-0/fulltex\
      > >> \
      > >> <http://www.plefa.com/article/S0952-3278%2812%2900147-0/fulltex>> >> t
      > >> <http://www.plefa.com/article/S0952-3278%2812%2900147-0/fulltext>>.
      > >> > >> > > Compare the role of DHA uptake
      > >> > >>
      > >> here<http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33047/title/P\
      > >> \
      > >> <http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33047/title/P>>
      > >> >>
      > >> UFAs-At-Work/<http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/3304\
      > >> 7/title/PUFAs-At-Work/<http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33047/title/PUFAs-At-Work/>
      > >> >>to
      > >> > >> the evolution
      > >> > >> > > of citrate use <http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11514> in an
      > >> > >> experimental
      > >> > >> > > E. coli population. You can then see how the multi-step origin
      > >> of a
      > >> > >> key
      > >> > >> > > innovation was conserved across species from microbes to man
      > >> (via
      > >> > >> > > receptor-mediated cause and effect).
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > *From:* Edgar Owen edgarowen@ Tasting and smelling simply DO
      > >> NOT
      > >> > >> > > generate new DNA sequences in an organism....
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > *JK:* Of course they do, Edgar. That's what I've detailed. See
      > >> also
      > >> > >> Born
      > >> > >> > > (2013) <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23283334> for the
      > >> role of
      > >> > >> > > taste receptors, and Clowney
      > >> > >>
      > >> (2012)<http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S009286741201286X>for
      > >> > >> the role of olfactory receptors.
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > *From:* Edgar Owen edgarowen@ .... and even if they did they
      > >> > >> > > would not be passed on to the next generation.
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > *JK: *What kind of idiot claims that transgenerational
      > >> epigenetic
      > >> > >> > > inheritance (e.g., for the receptor-mediated events I have
      > >> detailed)
      > >> > >> does
      > >> > >> > > not occur? That was a rhetorical question. Have you been
      > >> discussing
      > >> > >> this
      > >> > >> > > with Clarence 'Sonny' Williams?
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > *From:* Edgar Owen edgarowen@ You simply don't seem to
      > >> > >> > > understand basic biology. New DNA sequences MUST be produced
      > >> for
      > >> > >> evolution
      > >> > >> > > to proceed by selecting among them. There is NO mechanism in
      > >> your
      > >> > >> 'model'
      > >> > >> > > for the generation of new DNA sequences that can be passed
      > >> on....
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > *JK: *In my model, the mechanism is clear. How is the
      > >> generation of
      > >> > >> new
      > >> > >> > > DNA sequences that can be passed on accomplished via random
      > >> > >> mutations? That
      > >> > >> > > question addresses the understanding of the basic principles of
      > >> > >> biology and
      > >> > >> > > levels of biological organization I detailed in my model, and
      > >> it is
      > >> > >> > > discussed in the paper that is the topic of this
      > >> > >>
      > >> thread<http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-beneficial-mutations-specif\
      > >> \
      > >> <http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-beneficial-mutations-specif>> >>
      > >> ic-circumstances.html<http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-beneficial-m\
      > >> utations-specific-circumstances.html<http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-beneficial-mutations-specific-circumstances.html>
      > >> >
      > >> > >> >.
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > The answer to that question is: Mutations don't "win out."
      > >> Adaptive
      > >> > >> > > evolution is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. It
      > >> occurs
      > >> > >> via
      > >> > >> > > ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche
      > >> > >> construction.
      > >> > >> > > "Olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear evolutionary
      > >> trail
      > >> > >> that can
      > >> > >> > > be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans."
      > >> --
      > >> > >> Kohl (2012)
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > You should probably quit trying to tell people there is no
      > >> means of
      > >> > >> > > producing new DNA sequences in my model, since it details how
      > >> the
      > >> > >> new DNA
      > >> > >> > > sequences are produced via epigenetic effects on intracellular
      > >> > >> signaling
      > >> > >> > > that result in organism-level thermoregulation in species from
      > >> > >> microbes to
      > >> > >> > > man. In reality, however, you should probably also quit trying
      > >> to
      > >> > >> tell
      > >> > >> > > people anything. Nothing you can say is likely to change their
      > >> > >> opinion
      > >> > >> > > about your ability to participate in intelligent discussion of
      > >> > >> biological
      > >> > >> > > facts.
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > 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.<http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338>Socioaffective
      > >> > >> Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > On Mar 20, 2013, at 8:30 PM, james kohl wrote:
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > *From:* Edgar Owen edgarowen@
      > >> > >> > > *To:* evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      > >> > >> > > *Sent:* Wed, March 20, 2013 7:24:28 PM
      > >> > >> > > *Subject:* Re: [evol-psych] Adaptive evolution: Mutations don't
      > >> win
      > >> > >> out
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > Jim,
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > Evolution requires new genetics, new DNA sequences, to be
      > >> generated
      > >> > >> so
      > >> > >> > > that evolution may select between them.
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > In your theory there is NO MEANS of producing new DNA
      > >> sequences. You
      > >> > >> claim
      > >> > >> > > "Adaptive evolution is nutrient-dependent and
      > >> pheromone-controlled".
      > >> > >> > > Certainly neither nutrients nor pheromones (what an organism
      > >> eats or
      > >> > >> > > smells) actually produce new DNA sequences. That's totally
      > >> > >> laughable!
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > Thus your theory is totally ridiculous and totally
      > >> unscientific. I'm
      > >> > >> > > amazed that it's not just laughed off the group. It would be if
      > >> this
      > >> > >> group
      > >> > >> > > had the smarts it's supposed to have or any self respect or
      > >> > >> scientific
      > >> > >> > > credibility.....
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > Jim, where do the new DNA sequences that evolution chooses
      > >> among
      > >> > >> come from
      > >> > >> > > in your theory? You claim not from mutations. Then WHERE?
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > *JK: *Please pay attention, Edgar, and stop playing the fool. I
      > >> have
      > >> > >> a
      > >> > >> > > model, not a theory. Nutrient-dependent intermolecular changes
      > >> > >> enable de
      > >> > >> > > novo gene expression (new DNA sequences) via amino acid
      > >> > >> substitutions in
      > >> > >> > > species from microbes to
      > >> > >> man<http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.643393>.
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > This model of systems
      > >> > >> biology<http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.155672>represents the
      > >> > >> conservation of bottom-up organization and top-down
      > >> > >> > > activation via:
      > >> > >> > > Nutrient stress-induced and social stress-induced intracellular
      > >> > >> changes in
      > >> > >> > > the microRNA (miRNA) / messenger RNA (mRNA) balance;
      > >> > >> > > Intermolecular changes in DNA (genes) and alternative splicing;
      > >> > >> > > Non-random *experience-dependent stochastic variations in de
      > >> novo
      > >> > >> gene
      > >> > >> > > expression* and biosynthesis of odor receptors;
      > >> > >> > > The required gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system pathway that
      > >> links
      > >> > >> > > sensory input directly to gene activation in neurosecretory
      > >> cells
      > >> > >> and to
      > >> > >> > > miRNA-facilitated learning and memory in the amygdala of the
      > >> > >> adaptively
      > >> > >> > > evolved mammalian brain;
      > >> > >> > > The required reciprocity that links gene expression to behavior
      > >> that
      > >> > >> > > alters gene expression (i.e., reciprocity from genes to
      > >> behavior and
      > >> > >> back)
      > >> > >> > > in model organisms like the honeybee.
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > 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.<http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338>Socioaffective
      > >> > >> Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > On Mar 20, 2013, at 12:22 PM, james kohl wrote:
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > When timing is everything: Research says beneficial mutations
      > >> need
      > >> > >> > > specific circumstances to win out
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >>
      > >> http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-beneficial-mutations-specific-circ\
      > >> \
      > >> <http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-beneficial-mutations-specific-circ>>
      > >> >>
      > >> umstances.html<http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-beneficial-mutation\
      > >> s-specific-circumstances.html<http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-beneficial-mutations-specific-circumstances.html>
      > >> >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > Mutations don't "win out." Adaptive evolution is
      > >> nutrient-dependent
      > >> > >> and
      > >> > >> > > pheromone-controlled. It occurs via ecological, social,
      > >> neurogenic,
      > >> > >> and
      > >> > >> > > socio-cognitive niche construction. "Olfaction and odor
      > >> receptors
      > >> > >> provide a
      > >> > >> > > clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular
      > >> > >> organisms to
      > >> > >> > > insects to humans." -- Kohl (2012)
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > > 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.<http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338>Socioaffective
      > >> > >> Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> > >
      > >> > >> >
      > >> > >>
      > >> > >>
      > >> > >
      > >> > >
      > >> >
      > >>
      > >>
      > >
      > >
      >

    • charles beck
      Hello James and Leif Re ASD and pheromones I believe there is good evidence that the increase in ASD and other neonatal neural deficits is in part due to
      Message 97 of 97 , Apr 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

        Hello James and Leif

        Re ASD and pheromones

        I believe there is good evidence that the increase in ASD and other neonatal neural deficits is in part due to delayed child birth (ageing uterus, eggs and sperm- see recent post fr RKS). Have there have been changes in breeding pop pheromones that made/make couples delay having children? These pheromone changes were likely to have been due to dietary changes, e.g. GM foods. For example the author of the book Wheatbelly gives examples of the many untoward effects of GM wheat altered to yield high levels of gluten.

        Best regards

        Charles

         

         

        From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Leif Ekblad
        Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 4:28 AM
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Adaptive evolution: Mutations don't win out

         

        




        James,

         

        In my paper that is in peer-review, I prove that there is no increase in neurodiversity since the 1800s with multiple methods. It even seems like there is a decrease starting around 1980 because of extensive discrimination.

         

        In addition to that, there is absolutely no proof that forgetting scent is correlated to ASDs. To the contrary, most senses are more accute in ASD, except for pain.

         

        There are some evidence that heavy metals are accumulated in the brains/bodies of autistics, but that seems to be some missing mechanism for getting rid of heavy metals, and is not related to olfaction or pheromones. It could partly be because of dental fillings and grinding teeth, which is more common in ASD.

         

        You also have not yet outlined which part of ASD your model fits with, and how. I'm still waiting for an answer on that one.

         

        Leif Ekblad

         

         

        ----- Original Message -----

        From: james kohl

        Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 11:49 PM

        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Adaptive evolution: Mutations don't win out

         

        Re: Pesticide makes bees forget the scent for food, new study finds : neonicotinoids

        Pesticide makes bees forget the scent for food, new study finds.
        Widely-used pesticides have been found in new research to block a part of the brain that bees use for learning, rendering some of them unable to perform the essential task of associating scents with food.


        From a correspondent:

        - very relevant to the increase in autism rates and to why so many establishmentarians trumpet the industry-protecting notion merely better diagnosis. 

        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: Leif Ekblad <leif@...>


        JK: I've detailed the evidence for the validity of the extrapolation in species from microbes to man and how it involves the molecular mechanisms common to all species, Leif. Is there a species you can think of with molecular mechanisms of protein biosynthesis that are not thermodynamically regulated, which results in organism-level thermoregulation?

        Leif Ekblad: I fail to see what thermoregulation has to do with this. We have honeybees that have some distinct, highly conserved, phenotypes that are only present in honeybees, and you think this can be extrapolated to every species typical difference. The facts are that no mammal have more than two phenotypes (male and female), and that being male and female does not correlate to which species a specimen is part of, and nor is species-typical differences in mating behavior in any way related to pheromones or olfactory. At the very least, there exists no published research that can detail how exactly the species differences in mating behavior are coded by pheromones or nutrition, but you are welcome to publish this and outline the exact mode this operates in. You certainly have no managed to describe how this works here.

         

        In addition to that, I described to you how the ASD spectrum worked, and indicated a genetic spectrum of traits from a common phenotype that in no way resembles the honeybee phenotypes that are highly consistent and conserved, and you didn't bother to describe how this fit into your model, but just claimed that it did fit in. I also described the environmental component of ASD, which might be related to epigenetics and vulnerabilities, and which you and Nils often use as evidence for your "models". However, you couldn't even detail if you meant your model described the genetic spectrum of traits (neurodiversity) or environmental components of ASD, but instead appear to claim you can explain both with your model. Too me, this indicates that you either cannot explain any of them, that you don't understand ASD, or that you are trying to sell a model like any other product, regardless if it fits or not. 

         

        Leif Ekblad

         




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