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

[evol-psych] Re: News: Strongest Evidence of Animal Culture Seen in Monkeys and Whales

Expand Messages
  • Don Zimmerman
    ... DWZ: Oparin, Haldane, Harold Urey, Stanley Miller, Melvin Calvin, Sidney Fox, and many other people who have done and are now doing research in the
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 28, 2013
      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:

      > Did someone else model the
      > transition from physical and chemical events to biological events when I wasn't
      > looking, or do you just like the simplistic theories about such things more than
      > you like the biological facts?
      >
      > Would you like your descendents to be taught facts or prefer they believe in
      > ridiculous theories? How might it help them to know anything about evolutionary
      > psychology if they believed we somehow evolved from hydrocarbons? Even Darwin
      > knew there were conditions of existence, and that was long before most people
      > learned anything about genetics. I think you're suggesting that others continue
      > to live in "The Dark Ages."


      DWZ:
      Oparin, Haldane, Harold Urey, Stanley Miller, Melvin Calvin, Sidney Fox, and many other people who have done and are now doing research in the chemical origin of life would probably feel slighted and unappreciated if they read that appraisal. In fact, I just heard a very strange noise and for a moment suspected it was caused by some of those people turning over in their graves.

      Best regards,

      Donald W. Zimmerman
      Vancouver, BC, Canada
      dwzimm@...
      http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
    • james kohl
      From: Don Zimmerman ... DWZ: Oparin, Haldane, Harold Urey, Stanley Miller, Melvin Calvin, Sidney Fox, and many other people who have done
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 28, 2013
        From: Don Zimmerman
        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl wrote:


        > Did someone else model the
        > transition from physical and chemical events to biological events when I wasn't
        > looking, or do you just like the simplistic theories about such things more than
        > you like the biological facts?
        >
        > Would you like your descendents to be taught facts or prefer they believe in
        > ridiculous theories? How might it help them to know anything about evolutionary
        > psychology if they believed we somehow evolved from hydrocarbons? Even Darwin
        > knew there were conditions of existence, and that was long before most people
        > learned anything about genetics. I think you're suggesting that others continue
        > to live in "The Dark Ages."

        DWZ:
        Oparin, Haldane, Harold Urey, Stanley Miller, Melvin Calvin, Sidney Fox, and many other people who have done and are now doing research in the chemical origin of life would probably feel slighted and unappreciated if they read that appraisal. In fact, I just heard a very strange noise and for a moment suspected it was caused by some of those people turning over in their graves.

        JK: As you know, I specifically asked you about a model for the transition from physical and chemical events to biological events, not about theories of the chemical origin of life.� I'm interested in comparisons to my model, which links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA via what's currently known about the molecular mechanisms common to species from microbes to man.

        The noise you heard was probably Lynn Margulis turning over in her grave, since she was the first to advocate symbiosis as in Arthropods and inherited bacteria: from counting the symbionts to understanding how symbionts count which states "The mutational source of adaptation - a symbiont in other members of the ecological community rather than a mutation of existing genetic material - is likely to change our understanding of arthropod evolution."

        Of course, this won't change your understanding of anything until you learn the biologically based requirements for adaptive evolution. At some point you might then be able to comprehend the fact that inherited bacteria have been linked to production of human pheromones and a Noninvasive measurement of plasma triglycerides and free fatty acids from exhaled breath. For now you seem barely able to focus on my qeustion about the transition from physical and chemical events to biological events.

        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: Don Zimmerman ... DWZ: Instead of from microbes to man, a better expression might be from hydrocarbons to man. That gives a more
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 28, 2013
          From: Don Zimmerman
          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl wrote:


          >in species from microbes to man.

          DWZ:
          Instead of "from microbes to man," a better expression might be "from hydrocarbons to man." That gives a more accurate impression of the whole grand sweep of evolution and the continuous transition from physical and chemical events to biological events. The more limited expression could mislead some people to believe that microbes, already complex structures at a relatively advanced stage of evolution, were put in place in the beginning by some non-natural agency apart from natural selection and evolution.

          JK: "One important group of membrane transporters is the GLUT family, which introduces glucose and other sugars into the cell. Glucose is one of the most important energy sources for cancer cells and GLUT transporters have been shown to play a key role in tumour growth in many different types of cancer. In the current study, researchers from Karolinska Institutet have performed a detailed study of the way in which suger transport is executed by the protein XylE, from the Escherichia coli bacterium, whose function and structure is very similar to GLUT transporters in humans."

          Glucose is also important for adaptive evolution. For example, its species-specific genetically predisposed metabolism to pheromones controls reproduction in species from microbes to man. Does the mention of the bacterium whose function and structure is similar to GLUT transporters in humans indicate to anyone else here that mutations are not involved in adaptive evolution? The molecular mechanisms that are conserved across species simply do not allow randomness to result in 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.



          MARKETPLACE


          .

        • Leif Ekblad
          JK: In the context of evolutionary psychology, I think we should dispense with theoretical physics and look at what s known about adaptive evolution in species
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 29, 2013
            

            JK: In the context of evolutionary psychology, I think we should dispense with theoretical physics and look at what's known about adaptive evolution in species from microbes to man -- if only because the topic is evolution and it's biological (as in species from microbes to man). But besides that obvious fact, is the fact that the physicists have no model for your suggested "from hydrocarbons to man." Why do you think it "...gives a more accurate impression of the whole grand sweep of evolution and the continuous transition from physical and chemical events to biological events."? Did someone else model the transition from physical and chemical events to biological events when I wasn't looking, or do you just like the simplistic theories about such things more than you like the biological facts?

            Leif Ekblad: I don't understand why your model would be valid from microbes to man, but not from hydrocarbons to man. That would mean the first microbes doesn't obey your universal theory of evolution. Why then should we presume it can be extrapolated all the way from microbes to man, when it cannot be extrapolated from hydrocarbons to microbes? Maybe your theory is only valid from microbes to insects or maybe only for insects or only for honeybees? We cannot know if you cannot explain why it cannot explain the evolutionary step to microbes. Besides, what do you include in microbes? Bacteria? Viruses? I also wonder about the sensory channels of viruses and bacteria, and do viruses and bacteria really manufacture pheromones?

            Leif Ekblad

             

             

             
          • james kohl
            From: Leif Ekblad JK: In the context of evolutionary psychology, I think we should dispense with theoretical physics and look at what s known
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 29, 2013
              From: Leif Ekblad

              JK: In the context of evolutionary psychology, I think we should dispense with theoretical physics and look at what's known about adaptive evolution in species from microbes to man -- if only because the topic is evolution and it's biological (as in species from microbes to man). But besides that obvious fact, is the fact that the physicists have no model for your suggested "from hydrocarbons to man." Why do you think it "...gives a more accurate impression of the whole grand sweep of evolution and the continuous transition from physical and chemical events to biological events."? Did someone else model the transition from physical and chemical events to biological events when I wasn't looking, or do you just like the simplistic theories about such things more than you like the biological facts?

              Leif Ekblad: I don't understand why your model would be valid from microbes to man, but not�from hydrocarbons to man. That would mean the first microbes doesn't obey your universal theory of evolution. Why then should we presume it can be extrapolated all the way from microbes to man, when it cannot be extrapolated from hydrocarbons to microbes? Maybe your theory is only valid from microbes to insects or maybe only for insects or only for honeybees? We cannot know if you cannot explain why it cannot explain the evolutionary step to microbes. Besides, what do you include in microbes? Bacteria? Viruses? I also wonder about the sensory channels of viruses and bacteria, and do viruses and bacteria really manufacture pheromones?

              JK: I am fully aware that Leif understands nothing about my model.� He also doesn't seem to understand the concept of biological evolution, which does not simply follow from what is known about carbon-based life forms.

              I asked DWZ: Did someone else model the transition from physical and chemical events to biological events when I wasn't looking, or do you just like the simplistic theories about such things more than you like the 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. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.

            • Leif Ekblad
              JK: I am fully aware that Leif understands nothing about my model.� He also doesn t seem to understand the concept of biological evolution, which does not
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 29, 2013
                

                JK: I am fully aware that Leif understands nothing about my model.� He also doesn't seem to understand the concept of biological evolution, which does not simply follow from what is known about carbon-based life forms.

                Leif Ekblad: Seems more likely that JK doesn't understand biological evolution when he squeezes everything into a single, simple model. Bacteria really doesn't have any species concept, and freely can exchange DNA. In plants, vertical gene-transfer is common, and is the most often used mode of plant manipulation by humans. I would be surprised if vertical gene-transfer wasn't the primary driver of animal evolution as well. Nothing else can really explain all the convergent evolution in animals. At least to me it is obvious that virus, bacteria, plant and animals doesn't follow a simple evolutionary model.

                Leif Ekblad

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