Re: [evol-psych] Re: A logic (or lack thereof) of genome organization
- I wrote: excerpted from belowJK: The article on microRNA in flies driving CNS development and pheromone production proves me right. No one said a word about it! Thus, it's not so much the proof as it is the ability of others to admit they've been wrong.The effect is on luteinizing hormone, which in my model is altered by the epigenetic effects of food odors and pheromones that directly effect gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH). Therefore, this is yet another example of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled microRNA / messenger RNA that links the molecular mechanisms of genome organization and adaptive evolution across species from microbes to man.James V. Kohl
Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
From: james kohl <jvkohl@...>
To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: A logic (or lack thereof) of genome organization
From: hibbsa <hibbsa@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:57 PM
Subject: [evol-psych] Re: A logic (or lack thereof) of genome organization
I don't really care that much about apparent personal hostility.JK: Thanks, hibbsa. James Gray exemplifies the antithesis of that. He perceives hostility when I am merely trying to point out the fact that he lacks the intellect to grasp my argument.
(I do sometimes react in a hostile way but Robert manages to spot such posts and delete them....with judgement I must say I always regard gratefully with hindsight)
The interest for me is kind of in line with the basic subject of this list. I think science owes its progress to individuals with personal characteristics some of which Kohl exhibits. That total disregard for consensus views...and total commitement to one's own ideas.JK: Agreed. But that disregard and commitment -- in my case -- developed into a model of systems biology that is extremely complex.
The truth is, you need something like that, if what you say totally contradicts consensus. You need it...and you need to be ready to die a laughing stock. Never to see your ideas accepted. So it's a sacrificial part to play. But unless individuals through history had been willing to push hard their ideas in the face of mockery, we wouldn't have those rare occasions when 40 or 50 years later, when the mainstream is ready, such people are proven right.JK: The article on microRNA in flies driving CNS development and pheromone production proves me right. No one said a word about it! Thus, it's not so much the proof as it is the ability of others to admit they've been wrong.
So many scientists today are more the political creatures....with one eye on staying within fold, and pandering to whoever or whatever is the dominant force - the gatekeeper force - in science. Such people clog up the arteries with a lot of talk that touches all the basepoints, but ultimately when it comes to truth seeking, their reality is an amoral one. For them, the truth is whatever progresses them.
But...Kohl perhaps turns out not to be a truth seeker himself. Just another flavour of expedience. Just in his case whatever is expedient to be right...personally right...at any cost. At some point the virtue becomes the sin.JK: It's not a sin to tell the truth. Sooner or later others recognize it as the truth, then their world changes. Too late for people like Jay Feierman and James Gray perhaps, but Max Planck told us about them in the context of "a new scientific truth.'
I don't know how many different ways I've tried to explain what Natural Selection. And believe me, I'm well aware that some of my attemdpts were probably pretty far from clear or the best way to go. But generally, I am supposing I was more or less saying it right. I just wanted to help him to see that by far and away the most likely reason he gets no success with his ideas is because, even at basic intuitive levels, people perceive confusion at the conceptial level of Natural Selection.
I suppose I have been partly motivated by interest at the psychological level. I wanted, and want, to know why he doesn't properly understand the concept. Within that there are interesting questions. Intellectually, why does he not see that in order to make use of - or refute - a concept, you must first establish not just what it is in any weak form, but in the strongest possible form. How else can you ever discover any new truth about it?JK: You seem to not have ever considered the fact that YOU don't know what Natural Selection is, or even what's selected. I cited these articles in another post: see: Darwinian alchemy: Human genes from noncoding DNA. It helps to connect nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution in flies: miR-124 controls male reproductive success in Drosophila, to Accelerated Recruitment of New Brain Development Genes into the Human Genome via a "systemic force" instead of any mutational bias. The 'systemic force' enables de novo gene creation, which is required for adaptive evolution. Mutational bias creates nothing that could be used to organize the genome of any species. For example, mutations do not accelerate recruitment of new brain development genes into the genome of any species with a brain. For contrast, nutrients are required and pheromones control the ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction that is required for adaptive evolution of the human brain.
Having gone through all these attempts with him, where I am trying one angle after another, to describe the nature of Darwin's insight, and the problem the insight solves, I suppose my impression coming out the other end has to be that he probably genuinelly doesn't see what the concept is, and one of the explanations for how an intelligent guy with a major personal commitment to a theory that directly impacts upon, and is impacted by, natural selection....can after apparently years or decades, not actually have a clear sense what natural selection actually is.JK: Please comment on the fact that Darwin placed 'conditions of life' before Natural Selection in the context of his works.You owe it to yourself and this group's participants to actually learn what must be selected before trying to tell me about Natural Selection.
The easy explanation is one with a religious component of course. Which is perhaps why I don't find it very interesting to dwell on. Particularly as he actually makes clear he is religiously motivated to some extent. An upfront admission I regard as meritable, and deserving a degree of trust by way of reciprocation, that where he says his arguments are free from religious influence, he deserves benefit of the doubt.JK: Thanks. There are now plenty of examples of people with religious motivation that keep it separate from their work. Francis Collins (NIH director) Martin Nowak (at Harvard)....
The other explanation is basically fear. I suppose which is understandable. I wouldn't want to discover an argument I had thought airtight had a large hole in the bottom involving a misconception about one of the most simple concepts in the history of human thought, let alone science.JK: I think it would be best for someone like you to address the argument I've put forth before inferring I'm afraid it's not airtight. The three linked papers above, for example, establish the fact that my argument is airtight. But, if you can't comprehend what my argument is, scientific support is meaningless.
The irony or frustration my end...is that as a result of basically thinking about the situation on a fairly regular basis, I can actually see a way for his theory to basically work and be consistent with natural selection. It requires a major constraint on how major adaptations and speciations have been triggered progressed in a stepwise - or cause and effect - sense, throughout biological history.JK: Do you mean that an organism's nutrient acquisition must somehow be contrained by its metabolism so that it doesn't out-reproduce its food supply? That's not a theory; that's a biological fact -- and its the fact detailed in my model with examples that include a human population.It's actually a constraint that I regard as plausible. Or at least...I think it is likely predictive...in a non-trivial way. With effort. I think.JK: The effort has been over the past 30 years; it resulted in a model.
I suppose I could have just suggested it to him directly, but I think from my perspective, firstly he wouldn't be able to see the distinctiveness unless he had first cleared up his understanding of natural selection.JK: You pompous ass! There is nothing wrong with my understanding of natural selection.Second, I suppose, why the f*ck should I throw pearls before swine that don't show basic appreciation for the efforts people make to show interest and be helpful. Metaphor specially selected for its Christian root (or could be Jewish, I don't know which book it comes from).JK: What you should throw out for consideration is whatever you think is selected by Natural Selection. In my model, nutrients are naturally selected for example. What I see for comparison is that people think phenotypic characteristics are naturally selected. Is there a model for that? One that makes sense in the context of adaptive evolution, for example.James V. Kohl
Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology in press for publication on or about June 14.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, James Gray <James@...> wrote:
> I do not how you are able to be so pleasant to Kohl when he is so nasty
> toward you. I sure do not see why you should waste your time since he has
> such an attitude toward you.
> James Gray
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:11 AM, hibbsa <hibbsa@...> wrote:
> > **
> > Jim - yeah I'm close to giving up on you, which may be what you want if
> > you have no intention of recognizing [the obvious] contradiction.
> > Below here, you link to the wiki on Darwinism, when we have been
> > exclusively talking about Natural Selection (an important/key part of
> > Darwinism)
> > The only way to make sense of you doint this is that you seek to muddy,
> > stall, delay, obstruct, etc.
> > Why should I waste my time for an attitude like that?
- Hi Dr Hessels
Your comment on my query about the bacteria immune system arms races and
the malleability of the mutation-selection process was most interesting.
Unfortunately I accidentally erased it. Any chance you could resend it?
I would also like to follow it up with a lit search. Any authors you might
suggest would be most welcome.
Psychology / Neurosci
University of Alberta
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of BramH
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 8:52 AM
Subject: [evol-psych] Re: A logic (or lack thereof) of genome organization
Adaptive evolution only makes sense as a two step process. First there is
mutation and then there is selection. Mutation provides the raw material
out of which selection fashions adaptation. To isolate one step (by saying
that mutation explains adaptation) is not meaningful.
The strong point of this particular model (which is standard evolutionary
theory) is that it derives its conclusion (adaptive change) from very
elementary & non-biological premises.
1 there is fortuitous random change.
2 Things exist or not. If things can exist and continue existing they will
have properties that make them good at existing. (In biology these are
(--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, james kohl <jvkohl@...>
>theory what do you end up explaining?
> Thanks for your opinion. If you explain adaptive evolution via mutations
>on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective
> James V. Kohl
> Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
> Independent researcher
> Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences
Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
> From: BramH <br.hessels@...>
> To: email@example.com
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 4:06 AM
> Subject: [evol-psych] Re: A logic (or lack thereof) of genome organization
Yahoo! Groups Links