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

Re: [evol-psych] The truth about RANDOM MUTATIONS.

Expand Messages
  • Edgar Owen
    Leif, Kohl continually cites published works as support for his model when they actually do nothing of the sort. This is one of the several ways he s
    Message 1 of 21 , Apr 1, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Leif,

      Kohl continually 'cites' published works as support for his 'model' when they actually do nothing of the sort. 

      This is one of the several ways he's fraudulently bootstrapped his reputation out of nothing....

      Edgar



      On Apr 1, 2013, at 6:35 AM, Leif Ekblad wrote:

       

      

      JK: According to the latest research The peppered moth and industrial melanism: evolution of a natural selection case study, your reliance on wikipedia makes no sense.
       
      Leif Ekblad: The abstract doesn't mention your model or a link to nutrition / pheromones. The abstract mentions melanic gene frequencies, which I'd guess would be the genes / mutations mentioned on wikipedia. Therefore, at least the abstract agrees with the usual notion that it is a mutation that is causing the color change, and not nutrition / pheromones.
       
      JK: Feeding the moth larvae a diet of leaves containing increased amount of lead and manganese caused the nutrient-dependent color change. Epistasis was achieved via the nutrient-dependent pheromone production of the female moth, which causes the observed patterns of migration (2km per night). The male moths selected for pheromones that signal nutrient-dependent reproductive fitness.  I've already mentioned this, and you continue to ignore biological facts. You want predators (birds eating the moths) to cause what is statistically represented as natural selection.
      Leif Ekblad:  It is possible that the color chage is related to a toxic diet rather than predation, but then I never claimed anything about what drove natural selection, only how the color is coded (through a DNA mutation, not epigenetics, nutrition or pheromones).
       
       
       


    • james kohl
      From: Leif Ekblad JK: According to the latest research The peppered moth and industrial melanism: evolution of a natural selection case study,
      Message 2 of 21 , Apr 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        From: Leif Ekblad <leif@...>
        JK: According to the latest research The peppered moth and industrial melanism: evolution of a natural selection case study, your reliance on wikipedia makes no sense.
         
        Leif Ekblad: The abstract doesn't mention your model or a link to nutrition / pheromones. The abstract mentions melanic gene frequencies, which I'd guess would be the genes / mutations mentioned on wikipedia. Therefore, at least the abstract agrees with the usual notion that it is a mutation that is causing the color change, and not nutrition / pheromones.
         
        JK: Feeding the moth larvae a diet of leaves containing increased amount of lead and manganese caused the nutrient-dependent color change. Epistasis was achieved via the nutrient-dependent pheromone production of the female moth, which causes the observed patterns of migration (2km per night). The male moths selected for pheromones that signal nutrient-dependent reproductive fitness.  I've already mentioned this, and you continue to ignore biological facts. You want predators (birds eating the moths) to cause what is statistically represented as natural selection.

        Leif Ekblad: 
         It is possible that the color chage is related to a toxic diet rather than predation, but then I never claimed anything about what drove natural selection, only how the color is coded (through a DNA mutation, not epigenetics, nutrition or pheromones).

        JK: You cannot seem to grasp the obvious fact that gene frequencies are epigenetically effected (e.g., they are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled), which is what I have detailed.

        You wrote: Forth, there is no need for a back-mutation as all that needs to happen is new selection on the light phenotype which will increase its frequency.

        In your world of forward and reversemoth color change, is new selection automagical? Or is "a miracle" all that needs to happen for new selection to occur?  Automagical or miraculous selection equates well with the random mutations explanation, where a mutation occurs that causes the color change, but "...there is no need for a back-mutation as all that needs to happen is new selection on the light phenotype..."

        Do you realize how ridiculous that makes you seem to be? It's as if you would rather draw from a ridiculous theory and explain color regression via statements that are even more ridiculous. Simply put, it's as if you were Edgar Owen or Clarence 'Sonny' Williams. Perhaps they can help you form a research team to also explain eye regression in blind "cave" fish, using the same ridiculous theory as the one where you claim there is no need for "back-mutation."
         
        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.

         
         
         
         
      • james kohl
        From: Edgar Owen Kohl continually cites published works as support for his model when they actually do nothing of the sort. This is one
        Message 3 of 21 , Apr 1, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...>
          Kohl continually 'cites' published works as support for his 'model' when they actually do nothing of the sort. 

          This is one of the several ways he's fraudulently bootstrapped his reputation out of nothing....

          JK: My reputation includes a publication history with awards for publishing in neuroscience and social science, as well as what may be the first published work to mention molecular epigenetics in the context of behavioral development: From fertilization to adult sexual behavior. Obviously, the recently published paper on the moths has not been available for me to cite, but it is equally obvious that I will cite it in my next published work.

          Edgar's claim: "...he's fraudulently bootstrapped his reputation out of nothing...." is simply another libelous claim from someone who has established his ignorance of 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. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.



          On Apr 1, 2013, at 6:35 AM, Leif Ekblad wrote:

           

          

          JK: According to the latest research The peppered moth and industrial melanism: evolution of a natural selection case study, your reliance on wikipedia makes no sense.
           
          Leif Ekblad: The abstract doesn't mention your model or a link to nutrition / pheromones. The abstract mentions melanic gene frequencies, which I'd guess would be the genes / mutations mentioned on wikipedia. Therefore, at least the abstract agrees with the usual notion that it is a mutation that is causing the color change, and not nutrition / pheromones.
           
          JK: Feeding the moth larvae a diet of leaves containing increased amount of lead and manganese caused the nutrient-dependent color change. Epistasis was achieved via the nutrient-dependent pheromone production of the female moth, which causes the observed patterns of migration (2km per night). The male moths selected for pheromones that signal nutrient-dependent reproductive fitness.  I've already mentioned this, and you continue to ignore biological facts. You want predators (birds eating the moths) to cause what is statistically represented as natural selection.
          Leif Ekblad:  It is possible that the color chage is related to a toxic diet rather than predation, but then I never claimed anything about what drove natural selection, only how the color is coded (through a DNA mutation, not epigenetics, nutrition or pheromones).
           
           
           


        • Leif Ekblad
          Leif Ekblad: It is possible that the color chage is related to a toxic diet rather than predation, but then I never claimed anything about what drove natural
          Message 4 of 21 , Apr 1, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            
            Leif Ekblad:  It is possible that the color chage is related to a toxic diet rather than predation, but then I never claimed anything about what drove natural selection, only how the color is coded (through a DNA mutation, not epigenetics, nutrition or pheromones).

            JK: You cannot seem to grasp the obvious fact that gene frequencies are epigenetically effected (e.g., they are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled), which is what I have detailed.
            Leif Ekblad:  I know of no model that could explain that gene frequencies are related to epigenetics. The conventional knowledge of epigenetics is that it can affect gene expression, but there is no evidence that it directly can affect gene frequencies itself. If you know of any such published research, please cite it. And we have already concluded, based on both wikipedia and the Nature article, that coloration is genetic (DNA mutation), and not epigenetic. If you have issues with that, cite relevant, published, research that says otherwise.
             
            JK: In your world of forward and reversemoth color change, is new selection automagical?
             
            Leif Ekblad:  Are you telling me that you don't know about natural selection? That's what the wikipedia article is all about, and what the Nature article you cited is about as well. It's about a case of natural selection, not nutrition or pheromones like you want us to believe. When the darker phenotype becomes advantageous due to pollution, it gets an selective advantage and increases in frequency. When things go back to normal, the lighter phenotype once more becomes advantageous and increases in frequency. The actual cause for the selective advantage (predation, toxicity or something else) doesn't matter in the context of natural selection. If you don't understand basic natural selection you really shouldn't publish anything on that topic!
             
          • james kohl
            Leif Ekblad wrote: When the darker phenotype becomes advantageous due to pollution, it gets an selective advantage and increases in frequency. When things go
            Message 5 of 21 , Apr 1, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Leif Ekblad wrote: When the darker phenotype becomes advantageous due to pollution, it gets an selective advantage and increases in frequency. When things go back to normal, the lighter phenotype once more becomes advantageous and increases in frequency. The actual cause for the selective advantage (predation, toxicity or something else) doesn't matter in the context of natural selection.

              JK: Leif just described what's called the heterozygote advantage, which is a statistical representation. It is not based on any biological facts, and it has nothing to do with Darwinian natural selection for beak morphology in finches; the head crest in pigeons or any other visually perceived phenotypic variation because Darwin clearly stated that "conditions of existence" must precede Natural Selection both in importance and when attempting to determine cause and effect.

              "Conditions of existence" are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.  What kind of idiot tells the group that the actual cause for the selective advantage does not matter in the context of natural selection? That was a rhetorical question. Nutrient uptake provides the advantage which is controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control reproduction and signal reproductive fitness in species that sexually reproduce.
               
              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@...>
              To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Mon, April 1, 2013 4:17:45 PM
              Subject: Re: [evol-psych] The truth about RANDOM MUTATIONS.

               

              

              Leif Ekblad:  It is possible that the color chage is related to a toxic diet rather than predation, but then I never claimed anything about what drove natural selection, only how the color is coded (through a DNA mutation, not epigenetics, nutrition or pheromones).

              JK: You cannot seem to grasp the obvious fact that gene frequencies are epigenetically effected (e.g., they are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled), which is what I have detailed.
              Leif Ekblad:  I know of no model that could explain that gene frequencies are related to epigenetics. The conventional knowledge of epigenetics is that it can affect gene expression, but there is no evidence that it directly can affect gene frequencies itself. If you know of any such published research, please cite it. And we have already concluded, based on both wikipedia and the Nature article, that coloration is genetic (DNA mutation), and not epigenetic. If you have issues with that, cite relevant, published, research that says otherwise.
               
              JK: In your world of forward and reversemoth color change, is new selection automagical?
               
              Leif Ekblad:  Are you telling me that you don't know about natural selection? That's what the wikipedia article is all about, and what the Nature article you cited is about as well. It's about a case of natural selection, not nutrition or pheromones like you want us to believe. When the darker phenotype becomes advantageous due to pollution, it gets an selective advantage and increases in frequency. When things go back to normal, the lighter phenotype once more becomes advantageous and increases in frequency. The actual cause for the selective advantage (predation, toxicity or something else) doesn't matter in the context of natural selection. If you don't understand basic natural selection you really shouldn't publish anything on that topic!
               
            • James Gray
              Leif, I do hope you keep up the challenge to Kohl and that you are not intimidated by his nasty words. By now it is fairly apparent that Kohl is not a very
              Message 6 of 21 , Apr 1, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Leif,  I do hope you keep up the challenge to Kohl and that you are not intimidated by his nasty words.  By now it is fairly apparent that Kohl is not a very nice person.  He seems able to write very clearly when he is insulting people.  His other writing is typically very unclear.  I am sure that he will hurl insults at me because of this reply.  However, he insults me even if I do not reply to him.  Any educated person will know that you were not writing about the heterozygote advantage.

                James Gray


                On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 4:47 PM, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                 

                Leif Ekblad wrote: When the darker phenotype becomes advantageous due to pollution, it gets an selective advantage and increases in frequency. When things go back to normal, the lighter phenotype once more becomes advantageous and increases in frequency. The actual cause for the selective advantage (predation, toxicity or something else) doesn't matter in the context of natural selection.

                JK: Leif just described what's called the heterozygote advantage, which is a statistical representation. It is not based on any biological facts, and it has nothing to do with Darwinian natural selection for beak morphology in finches; the head crest in pigeons or any other visually perceived phenotypic variation because Darwin clearly stated that "conditions of existence" must precede Natural Selection both in importance and when attempting to determine cause and effect.

                "Conditions of existence" are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.  What kind of idiot tells the group that the actual cause for the selective advantage does not matter in the context of natural selection? That was a rhetorical question. Nutrient uptake provides the advantage which is controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control reproduction and signal reproductive fitness in species that sexually reproduce.
                 
                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@...>
                To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Mon, April 1, 2013 4:17:45 PM
                Subject: Re: [evol-psych] The truth about RANDOM MUTATIONS.

                 

                Leif Ekblad:  It is possible that the color chage is related to a toxic diet rather than predation, but then I never claimed anything about what drove natural selection, only how the color is coded (through a DNA mutation, not epigenetics, nutrition or pheromones).

                JK: You cannot seem to grasp the obvious fact that gene frequencies are epigenetically effected (e.g., they are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled), which is what I have detailed.
                Leif Ekblad:  I know of no model that could explain that gene frequencies are related to epigenetics. The conventional knowledge of epigenetics is that it can affect gene expression, but there is no evidence that it directly can affect gene frequencies itself. If you know of any such published research, please cite it. And we have already concluded, based on both wikipedia and the Nature article, that coloration is genetic (DNA mutation), and not epigenetic. If you have issues with that, cite relevant, published, research that says otherwise.
                 
                JK: In your world of forward and reversemoth color change, is new selection automagical?
                 
                Leif Ekblad:  Are you telling me that you don't know about natural selection? That's what the wikipedia article is all about, and what the Nature article you cited is about as well. It's about a case of natural selection, not nutrition or pheromones like you want us to believe. When the darker phenotype becomes advantageous due to pollution, it gets an selective advantage and increases in frequency. When things go back to normal, the lighter phenotype once more becomes advantageous and increases in frequency. The actual cause for the selective advantage (predation, toxicity or something else) doesn't matter in the context of natural selection. If you don't understand basic natural selection you really shouldn't publish anything on that topic!
                 


              • james kohl
                From: James Gray Leif, I do hope you keep up the challenge to Kohl and that you are not intimidated by his nasty words. By now it is fairly
                Message 7 of 21 , Apr 2, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  From: James Gray <James@...>
                  Leif,  I do hope you keep up the challenge to Kohl and that you are not intimidated by his nasty words.  By now it is fairly apparent that Kohl is not a very nice person.  He seems able to write very clearly when he is insulting people.  His other writing is typically very unclear.  I am sure that he will hurl insults at me because of this reply.  However, he insults me even if I do not reply to him.  Any educated person will know that you were not writing about the heterozygote advantage.

                  JK: Leif Ekblad wrote: "When the darker phenotype becomes advantageous..." See, for example:

                  The peppered moth and industrial melanism: evolution of a natural ...

                  by LM Cook - 2012 - Related articles
                  Dec 5, 2012 – The peppered moth and industrial melanism: evolution of a natural ... The possible existence and origin of heterozygote advantage has been ...

                  If Leif was not writing about the heterozygote advantage in moths, what was he writing about?

                  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 Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 4:47 PM, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                   

                  Leif Ekblad wrote: When the darker phenotype becomes advantageous due to pollution, it gets an selective advantage and increases in frequency. When things go back to normal, the lighter phenotype once more becomes advantageous and increases in frequency. The actual cause for the selective advantage (predation, toxicity or something else) doesn't matter in the context of natural selection.

                  JK: Leif just described what's called the heterozygote advantage, which is a statistical representation. It is not based on any biological facts, and it has nothing to do with Darwinian natural selection for beak morphology in finches; the head crest in pigeons or any other visually perceived phenotypic variation because Darwin clearly stated that "conditions of existence" must precede Natural Selection both in importance and when attempting to determine cause and effect.

                  "Conditions of existence" are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.  What kind of idiot tells the group that the actual cause for the selective advantage does not matter in the context of natural selection? That was a rhetorical question. Nutrient uptake provides the advantage which is controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control reproduction and signal reproductive fitness in species that sexually reproduce.
                   
                  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@...>
                  To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Mon, April 1, 2013 4:17:45 PM
                  Subject: Re: [evol-psych] The truth about RANDOM MUTATIONS.

                   

                  Leif Ekblad:  It is possible that the color chage is related to a toxic diet rather than predation, but then I never claimed anything about what drove natural selection, only how the color is coded (through a DNA mutation, not epigenetics, nutrition or pheromones).

                  JK: You cannot seem to grasp the obvious fact that gene frequencies are epigenetically effected (e.g., they are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled), which is what I have detailed.
                  Leif Ekblad:  I know of no model that could explain that gene frequencies are related to epigenetics. The conventional knowledge of epigenetics is that it can affect gene expression, but there is no evidence that it directly can affect gene frequencies itself. If you know of any such published research, please cite it. And we have already concluded, based on both wikipedia and the Nature article, that coloration is genetic (DNA mutation), and not epigenetic. If you have issues with that, cite relevant, published, research that says otherwise.
                   
                  JK: In your world of forward and reversemoth color change, is new selection automagical?
                   
                  Leif Ekblad:  Are you telling me that you don't know about natural selection? That's what the wikipedia article is all about, and what the Nature article you cited is about as well. It's about a case of natural selection, not nutrition or pheromones like you want us to believe. When the darker phenotype becomes advantageous due to pollution, it gets an selective advantage and increases in frequency. When things go back to normal, the lighter phenotype once more becomes advantageous and increases in frequency. The actual cause for the selective advantage (predation, toxicity or something else) doesn't matter in the context of natural selection. If you don't understand basic natural selection you really shouldn't publish anything on that topic!
                   


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