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

Re: [human-ethology] Functional potential of genes: Pushing the boundaries of transcription

Expand Messages
  • anonymous_9001
    I have given you links describing molecular processes involved in modifying the genome. You have given me a bunch of unrelated nonsense. The Pujadas paper does
    Message 1 of 15 , May 12 6:12 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I have given you links describing molecular processes involved in modifying the genome. You have given me a bunch of unrelated nonsense. The Pujadas paper does not address how changes to the genome are made. It describes how stochastic processes produce phenotypic variation. That is not what I'm asking about, so stop changing the subject.

      You have refused to answer the simple question: What molecular processes make changes to the genome in your model? I've read your paper. You make no mention of pathways, enzymes, or anything else of that sort that deals with the genome.


      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
      >
      > This will be my last communication on this topic with anonymous_9001 because of
      > my frustration with the scientificilliteracy I have encountered (see below). It
      > is simply not possible to explain how the epigenetic landscape becomes the
      > physical landscape of DNA to someone who will not indicate what processes they
      > think are involved, so that those processes can be compared to the ones I have
      > detailed in species from microbes to man.
      >
      >
      > It would be helpful if others also tell me how they think the epigenetic
      > landscape becomes the physical landscape of DNA before telling me that my
      > details of this are wrong. For example, see:
      >
      > Regulated Noise in the Epigenetic Landscape of Development and Disease
      >
      > "Stochastic Noise, Buffering, and Epigenetic Modulationof Phenotypic Plasticity"
      > Cell individuality was first observed in bacteria in 1976 (Spudich and Koshland,
      > 1976) and has been implicated in generating behavioral variability, as well as
      > determining cell fate, ever since (Korobkova et al., 2004; Maamar et al., 2007;
      > Rao et al., 2002). Many of these observations have also found support in
      > mammalian systems, and there are now many examples of the important role that
      > noise plays in cell fate decisions in organisms ranging from bacteria to humans
      > (Losick and Desplan, 2008)."
      >
      > Tell us how they misrepresent cause and effect, and then move forward to tell me
      > how I have misrepresented it in: Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled
      > Adaptive Evolution
      > Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation
      > Clearly, if the functional potential of genes is not nutrient-dependent and
      > pheromone-controlled, someone must propose an alternative that is not
      > automagical. If you don't like the details of my model, attempt to explain how
      > non-olfactory/pheromonal sensory input from the environment might somehow be
      > responsible for adaptive evolution. Then, when you fail to explain anything at
      > all, we can discuss what I have detailed. Until then, anonymous and others
      > should simple consider themselves to be too under-informed to enter 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. Socioaffective Neuroscience &
      > Psychology, 2: 17338.
    • Leif Ekblad
      Yes, exactly my opinion. He talks about the honeybee model that is similar to genders in mammals as if it could explain everything. But the truth of course is
      Message 2 of 15 , May 13 9:57 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, exactly my opinion. He talks about the honeybee model that is similar
        to genders in mammals as if it could explain everything. But the truth of
        course is that all the phenotypes of honeybees are coded in DNA, just like
        gender is in animals, and that these are then turned on during development.
        This has nothing to do with evolution as he cannot explain how the
        phenotypes created by epigenetics are feed back into the germ line as novel
        DNA. To use his own words, what would be the model for that? He hasn't
        explained that in any of his papers that I've read, and none of them talks
        about this because such claims would have been rejected as nonsense by
        peer-reviewers.

        Leif Ekblad


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "anonymous_9001" <anonymous_9001@...>
        To: <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 3:12 AM
        Subject: [evol-psych] Re: [human-ethology] Functional potential of genes:
        Pushing the boundaries of transcription


        >I have given you links describing molecular processes involved in modifying
        >the genome. You have given me a bunch of unrelated nonsense. The Pujadas
        >paper does not address how changes to the genome are made. It describes how
        >stochastic processes produce phenotypic variation. That is not what I'm
        >asking about, so stop changing the subject.
        >
        > You have refused to answer the simple question: What molecular processes
        > make changes to the genome in your model? I've read your paper. You make
        > no mention of pathways, enzymes, or anything else of that sort that deals
        > with the genome.
        >
        >
        > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...>
        > wrote:
        >>
        >> This will be my last communication on this topic with anonymous_9001
        >> because of
        >> my frustration with the scientificilliteracy I have encountered (see
        >> below). It
        >> is simply not possible to explain how the epigenetic landscape becomes
        >> the
        >> physical landscape of DNA to someone who will not indicate what processes
        >> they
        >> think are involved, so that those processes can be compared to the ones I
        >> have
        >> detailed in species from microbes to man.
        >>
        >>
        >> It would be helpful if others also tell me how they think the epigenetic
        >> landscape becomes the physical landscape of DNA before telling me that my
        >> details of this are wrong. For example, see:
        >>
        >> Regulated Noise in the Epigenetic Landscape of Development and Disease
        >>
        >> "Stochastic Noise, Buffering, and Epigenetic Modulationof Phenotypic
        >> Plasticity"
        >> Cell individuality was first observed in bacteria in 1976 (Spudich and
        >> Koshland,
        >> 1976) and has been implicated in generating behavioral variability, as
        >> well as
        >> determining cell fate, ever since (Korobkova et al., 2004; Maamar et al.,
        >> 2007;
        >> Rao et al., 2002). Many of these observations have also found support in
        >> mammalian systems, and there are now many examples of the important role
        >> that
        >> noise plays in cell fate decisions in organisms ranging from bacteria to
        >> humans
        >> (Losick and Desplan, 2008)."
        >>
        >> Tell us how they misrepresent cause and effect, and then move forward to
        >> tell me
        >> how I have misrepresented it in: Nutrient-dependent /
        >> Pheromone-controlled
        >> Adaptive Evolution
        >> Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and
        >> thermoregulation
        >> Clearly, if the functional potential of genes is not nutrient-dependent
        >> and
        >> pheromone-controlled, someone must propose an alternative that is not
        >> automagical. If you don't like the details of my model, attempt to
        >> explain how
        >> non-olfactory/pheromonal sensory input from the environment might somehow
        >> be
        >> responsible for adaptive evolution. Then, when you fail to explain
        >> anything at
        >> all, we can discuss what I have detailed. Until then, anonymous and
        >> others
        >> should simple consider themselves to be too under-informed to enter
        >> 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. Socioaffective Neuroscience &
        >> Psychology, 2: 17338.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • james kohl
        From: Leif Ekblad Yes, exactly my opinion. He talks about the honeybee model that is similar to genders in mammals as if it could explain
        Message 3 of 15 , May 13 10:33 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          From: Leif Ekblad
          Yes, exactly my opinion. He talks about the honeybee model that is similar

          to genders in mammals as if it could explain everything. But the truth of
          course is that all the phenotypes of honeybees are coded in DNA, just like
          gender is in animals, and that these are then turned on during development.
          This has nothing to do with evolution as he cannot explain how the
          phenotypes created by epigenetics are feed back into the germ line as novel
          DNA. To use his own words, what would be the model for that? He hasn't
          explained that in any of his papers that I've read, and none of them talks
          about this because such claims would have been rejected as nonsense by
          peer-reviewers.

          Leif,

          You know very well that I have two award-winning peer reviewed publications. One in Neuroendocrinology Letters and the other in the Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality. What kind of idiot tells others that my "...claims would have been rejected as nonsense by
          peer-reviewers" when they obviously only rejected by those like you who are horribly under informed?

          JVK


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "anonymous_9001" <anonymous_9001@...>
          To: <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 3:12 AM
          Subject: [evol-psych] Re: [human-ethology] Functional potential of genes:
          Pushing the boundaries of transcription

          >I have given you links describing molecular processes involved in modifying
          >the genome. You have given me a bunch of unrelated nonsense. The Pujadas
          >paper does not address how changes to the genome are made. It describes how
          >stochastic processes produce phenotypic variation. That is not what I'm
          >asking about, so stop changing the subject.
          >
          > You have refused to answer the simple question: What molecular processes
          > make changes to the genome in your model? I've read your paper. You make
          > no mention of pathways, enzymes, or anything else of that sort that deals
          > with the genome.
          >
          >
          > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl
          > wrote:
          >>
          >> This will be my last communication on this topic with anonymous_9001
          >> because of
          >> my frustration with the scientificilliteracy I have encountered (see
          >> below). It
          >> is simply not possible to explain how the epigenetic landscape becomes
          >> the
          >> physical landscape of DNA to someone who will not indicate what processes
          >> they
          >> think are involved, so that those processes can be compared to the ones I
          >> have
          >> detailed in species from microbes to man.
          >>
          >>
          >> It would be helpful if others also tell me how they think the epigenetic
          >> landscape becomes the physical landscape of DNA before telling me that my
          >> details of this are wrong. For example, see:
          >>
          >> Regulated Noise in the Epigenetic Landscape of Development and Disease
          >>
          >> "Stochastic Noise, Buffering, and Epigenetic Modulationof Phenotypic
          >> Plasticity"
          >> Cell individuality was first observed in bacteria in 1976 (Spudich and
          >> Koshland,
          >> 1976) and has been implicated in generating behavioral variability, as
          >> well as
          >> determining cell fate, ever since (Korobkova et al., 2004; Maamar et al.,
          >> 2007;
          >> Rao et al., 2002). Many of these observations have also found support in
          >> mammalian systems, and there are now many examples of the important role
          >> that
          >> noise plays in cell fate decisions in organisms ranging from bacteria to
          >> humans
          >> (Losick and Desplan, 2008)."
          >>
          >> Tell us how they misrepresent cause and effect, and then move forward to
          >> tell me
          >> how I have misrepresented it in: Nutrient-dependent /
          >> Pheromone-controlled
          >> Adaptive Evolution
          >> Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and
          >> thermoregulation
          >> Clearly, if the functional potential of genes is not nutrient-dependent
          >> and
          >> pheromone-controlled, someone must propose an alternative that is not
          >> automagical. If you don't like the details of my model, attempt to
          >> explain how
          >> non-olfactory/pheromonal sensory input from the environment might somehow
          >> be
          >> responsible for adaptive evolution. Then, when you fail to explain
          >> anything at
          >> all, we can discuss what I have detailed. Until then, anonymous and
          >> others
          >> should simple consider themselves to be too under-informed to enter
          >> 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. Socioaffective Neuroscience &
          >> Psychology, 2: 17338.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >

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