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

Re: [evol-psych] Re: ignoring Darwin's 'conditions of life' [Was News: New book rewrites how evolution was discovered]

Expand Messages
  • james kohl
    From: anonymous_9001 To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com ... offspring similarly characterised. This principle of
    Message 1 of 20 , Jun 29, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      From: anonymous_9001 <anonymous_9001@...>
      To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 2:45 PM
      Subject: [evol-psych] Re: ignoring Darwin's 'conditions of life' [Was News: New book rewrites how evolution was discovered]

       
      Sure about that?
      YES! I've published two papers that detail the refutation.
      Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3: 20553.
      Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.

      What are you trying to tell us via your cut and past below?

      James V. Kohl
      Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
      Independent researcher
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------


      http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/the-conditions-for-existence

      "conditions of life, the external circumstances to which an organism must be adapted if it is to survive"

      http://www.bartleby.com/11/4011.html

      "IF under changing conditions of life organic beings present individual differences in almost every part of their structure, and this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to their geometrical rate of increase, a severe struggle for life at some age, season, or year, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of life, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variations had ever occurred useful to each being's own welfare, in the same manner as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being ever do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance, these will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, or the survival of the fittest, I have called Natural Selection. It leads to the improvement of each creature in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life, and consequently, in most cases, to what must be regarded as an advance in organisation. Nevertheless, low and simple forms will long endure if well fitted for their simple conditions of life."

      Conditions of life are clearly environmental conditions.

      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
      >
      > Since the 'conditions of life' are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, my model refutes mutations theory via examples of the common molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to man.
      >
      > Doesn't it?
      >
      >
      >  
      > James V. Kohl
      > Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
      > Independent researcher
      > Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology 2013, 3: 20553.
      > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.



    • anonymous_9001
      You re simply wrong when you say conditions of life are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled . Conditions of life are the environmental conditions that
      Message 2 of 20 , Jun 29, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        You're simply wrong when you say "conditions of life are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled".

        Conditions of life are the environmental conditions that organisms live in. How, exactly, are environmental conditions nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled? That's completely nonsensical.

        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:


        > >What are you trying to tell us via your cut and past below?
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >James V. Kohl
        > >Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
        > >Independent researcher
      • anonymous_9001
        I wouldn t even go as far as to call it an interpretation. It s clear as day.
        Message 3 of 20 , Jun 29, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          I wouldn't even go as far as to call it an interpretation. It's clear as day.

          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
          >
          > Anon,
          >
          > Of course you have the right interpretation and Kohl is wrong. It's another in a long long lines of fraudulent citations by Kohl in a vain attempt to give his "model" credibility...
          >
          > Unfortunately his citations never actually support his "model" as you've pointed out once again...
          >
          > Edgar
        • james kohl
          From: anonymous_9001 To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com ... From: anonymous_9001 To:
          Message 4 of 20 , Jun 30, 2013
          • 0 Attachment

            From: anonymous_9001 <anonymous_9001@...>
            To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 10:49 PM
            Subject: [evol-psych] Re: ignoring Darwin's 'conditions of life' [Was News: New book rewrites how evolution was discovered]

             
            You're simply wrong when you say "conditions of life are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled".
            JK: I'm not simply saying this, which means I cannot be simply wrong. See for example: Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3: 20553.

            Conditions of life are the environmental conditions that organisms live in. How, exactly, are environmental conditions nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled? That's completely nonsensical. 
            JK: What's nonsensical? I provide details. You, the simple-minded anonymous fool, simply say Nuh-uh.
            James V. Kohl
            Medical laboratory scientist

            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:


            > >What are you trying to tell us via your cut and past below?
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >James V. Kohl
            > >Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
            > >Independent researcher


          • james kohl
            In Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3: 20553, I ve included
            Message 5 of 20 , Jun 30, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              In Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3: 20553,
              I've included citations to works with details from nematodes, insects, other mammals, and humans. Which are the citations that do not support my model?
              I think what's as clear as day here is that an anonymous fool and an antique dealer are commenting on what they cannot possibly comprehend.
               
              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: anonymous_9001 <anonymous_9001@...>
              To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:58 AM
              Subject: [evol-psych] Re: ignoring Darwin's 'conditions of life' [Was News: New book rewrites how evolution was discovered]

               
              I wouldn't even go as far as to call it an interpretation. It's clear as day.

              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
              >
              > Anon,
              >
              > Of course you have the right interpretation and Kohl is wrong. It's another in a long long lines of fraudulent citations by Kohl in a vain attempt to give his "model" credibility...
              >
              > Unfortunately his citations never actually support his "model" as you've pointed out once again...
              >
              > Edgar



            • anonymous_9001
              Nothing you can say changes what Darwin originally wrote. You re trying to change a term that somebody else coined and defined. Darwin: Conditions of life are
              Message 6 of 20 , Jun 30, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Nothing you can say changes what Darwin originally wrote. You're trying to change a term that somebody else coined and defined.

                Darwin: "Conditions of life are the environmental conditions that an organism lives in."

                JK: "Nope. I'm now changing the definition to epigenetic factors controlled by yada yada yada."

                --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                >
                > From: anonymous_9001 <anonymous_9001@...>
                >
                <Snip>
              • james kohl
                Darwin did not know what the conditions of life were that enabled Natural Selection. Most people (anonymous fools excepted) have by now realized that his
                Message 7 of 20 , Jun 30, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Darwin did not know what the 'conditions of life' were that enabled Natural Selection. Most people (anonymous fools excepted) have by now realized that his 'conditions of life' are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. This does not change what Darwin wrote; it explains the involvement of conserved molecular mechanisms that were unknown to him.

                  Your attempt to attribute to me a change in some 'definition' simply shows your lack of intelligence, yet again. 'Environmental conditions' do not automagically enable life. However, nutrients are always required and so is their metabolism to pheromones that control reproduction.
                   
                  James V. Kohl
                  Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                  Independent researcher
                  Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3: 20553.
                  Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.


                  From: anonymous_9001 <anonymous_9001@...>
                  To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 12:23 PM
                  Subject: [evol-psych] Re: ignoring Darwin's 'conditions of life' [Was News: New book rewrites how evolution was discovered]

                   
                  Nothing you can say changes what Darwin originally wrote. You're trying to change a term that somebody else coined and defined.

                  Darwin: "Conditions of life are the environmental conditions that an organism lives in."

                  JK: "Nope. I'm now changing the definition to epigenetic factors controlled by yada yada yada."

                  --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > From: anonymous_9001 <anonymous_9001@...>
                  >
                  <Snip>


                • anonymous_9001
                  Darwin did not know what the conditions of life were HE DEFINED THEM, YOU IDIOT. ...
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jun 30, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "Darwin did not know what the 'conditions of life' were"

                    HE DEFINED THEM, YOU IDIOT.

                    --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Darwin did not know what the 'conditions of life' were that enabled Natural Selection. Most people (anonymous fools excepted) have by now realized that his 'conditions of life' are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. This does not change what Darwin wrote; it explains the involvement of conserved molecular mechanisms that were unknown to him.
                    >
                    >
                    > Your attempt to attribute to me a change in some 'definition' simply shows your lack of intelligence, yet again. 'Environmental conditions' do not automagically enable life. However, nutrients are always required and so is their metabolism to pheromones that control reproduction.
                    >
                    >  
                    > James V. Kohl
                    > Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                    > Independent researcher
                    > Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3: 20553.
                    > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    <Snip>
                  • anonymous_9001
                    Another example- Dawkins coined the term meme in his book The Selfish Gene. You wouldn t look at his definition and say oh no, Dawkins was wrong, it s blah
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jun 30, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Another example- Dawkins coined the term "meme" in his book The Selfish Gene. You wouldn't look at his definition and say "oh no, Dawkins was wrong, it's blah blah blah" when he coined the original phrase, would you?
                    • james kohl
                      From the perspective of science, I wouldn t challenge anything Dawkins has indicated, or anything you believe about what he has indicated. It is a waste of
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jul 1, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        From the perspective of science, I wouldn't challenge anything Dawkins has indicated, or anything you believe about what he has indicated. It is a waste of time for any scientist to challenge ridiculous theories that do not incorporate any biological facts. Challenges to theory are best left to theorists as has been done for centuries during which ridiculous theories have been 'bandied about.' Eventually the biological facts are accepted and the ridiculous theories are abandoned by all but the most foolish (and typically anonymous) individuals who encourage debate about definitions and other nonsense. Thank you for exemplifying  the most foolish (and typically anonymous) individuals. You're doing a great job of that!

                         
                        James V. Kohl
                        Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                        Independent researcher
                        Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3: 20553.
                        Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.


                        From: anonymous_9001 <anonymous_9001@...>
                        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 11:40 PM
                        Subject: [evol-psych] Re: ignoring Darwin's 'conditions of life' [Was News: New book rewrites how evolution was discovered]

                         
                        Another example- Dawkins coined the term "meme" in his book The Selfish Gene. You wouldn't look at his definition and say "oh no, Dawkins was wrong, it's blah blah blah" when he coined the original phrase, would you?



                      • BramH
                        Nobody denies that pheromones and nutrients play a vital role in the lives and evolution of organisms but they are just one component of metabolism. The
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jul 1, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Nobody denies that pheromones and nutrients play a vital role in the lives and evolution of organisms but they are just one component of metabolism.

                          The question is why isolate these two components?

                          Organisms are complex, integrated, functional wholes, consisting of many functional parts, all of which are of critical importance for the functioning of the whole. A swallow needs its left wing and its right wing, nutrients, pheromones (and the rest too). Nutrients are critical, so is the rest.


                          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Darwin did not know what the 'conditions of life' were that enabled Natural Selection. Most people (anonymous fools excepted) have by now realized that his 'conditions of life' are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. This does not change what Darwin wrote; it explains the involvement of conserved molecular mechanisms that were unknown to him.
                          >
                          >
                          > Your attempt to attribute to me a change in some 'definition' simply shows your lack of intelligence, yet again. 'Environmental conditions' do not automagically enable life. However, nutrients are always required and so is their metabolism to pheromones that control reproduction.
                          >
                          >  
                          > James V. Kohl
                          > Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                          > Independent researcher
                          > Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3: 20553.
                          > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > >________________________________
                          > > From: anonymous_9001 <anonymous_9001@...>
                          > >To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                          > >Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 12:23 PM
                          > >Subject: [evol-psych] Re: ignoring Darwin's 'conditions of life' [Was News: New book rewrites how evolution was discovered]
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > 
                          > >Nothing you can say changes what Darwin originally wrote. You're trying to change a term that somebody else coined and defined.
                          > >
                          > >Darwin: "Conditions of life are the environmental conditions that an organism lives in."
                          > >
                          > >JK: "Nope. I'm now changing the definition to epigenetic factors controlled by yada yada yada."
                          > >
                          > >--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@> wrote:
                          > >>
                          > >> From: anonymous_9001 <anonymous_9001@>
                          > >>
                          > ><Snip>
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • james kohl
                          From: BramH Nutrients are critical, so is the rest. JK: Why don t you simply read my latest published work and tell me what s missing?
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jul 1, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            From: BramH <br.hessels@...> Nutrients are critical, so is the rest.

                            JK: Why don't you simply read my latest published work and tell me what's missing? Morphogenesis is clearly nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in all species, and the nutrients metabolize to the pheromones. What is "the rest" that you think is critical? Is it something that you choose to make up, like Stan?

                             
                            James V. Kohl
                            Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                            Independent researcher
                            Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3: 20553.
                            Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.


                            From: BramH <br.hessels@...>
                            To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 6:41 AM
                            Subject: [evol-psych] Re: ignoring Darwin's 'conditions of life' [Was News: New book rewrites how evolution was discovered]

                             
                            Nobody denies that pheromones and nutrients play a vital role in the lives and evolution of organisms but they are just one component of metabolism.

                            The question is why isolate these two components?

                            Organisms are complex, integrated, functional wholes, consisting of many functional parts, all of which are of critical importance for the functioning of the whole. A swallow needs its left wing and its right wing, nutrients, pheromones (and the rest too). Nutrients are critical, so is the rest.

                            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Darwin did not know what the 'conditions of life' were that enabled Natural Selection. Most people (anonymous fools excepted) have by now realized that his 'conditions of life' are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. This does not change what Darwin wrote; it explains the involvement of conserved molecular mechanisms that were unknown to him.
                            >
                            >
                            > Your attempt to attribute to me a change in some 'definition' simply shows your lack of intelligence, yet again. 'Environmental conditions' do not automagically enable life. However, nutrients are always required and so is their metabolism to pheromones that control reproduction.
                            >
                            >  
                            > James V. Kohl
                            > Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                            > Independent researcher
                            > Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3: 20553.
                            > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > >________________________________
                            > > From: anonymous_9001 <anonymous_9001@...>
                            > >To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                            > >Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 12:23 PM
                            > >Subject: [evol-psych] Re: ignoring Darwin's 'conditions of life' [Was News: New book rewrites how evolution was discovered]
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > 
                            > >Nothing you can say changes what Darwin originally wrote. You're trying to change a term that somebody else coined and defined.
                            > >
                            > >Darwin: "Conditions of life are the environmental conditions that an organism lives in."
                            > >
                            > >JK: "Nope. I'm now changing the definition to epigenetic factors controlled by yada yada yada."
                            > >
                            > >--- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@> wrote:
                            > >>
                            > >> From: anonymous_9001 <anonymous_9001@>
                            > >>
                            > ><Snip>
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            >



                          • BramH
                            You can t derive function (adaptation) from biochemistry. For that you need natural selection. ...
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jul 1, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              You can't derive function (adaptation) from biochemistry. For that you need natural selection.

                              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > From: BramH <br.hessels@...> Nutrients are critical, so is the rest.
                              >
                              > JK: Why don't you simply read my latest published work and tell me what's missing? Morphogenesis is clearly nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in all species, and the nutrients metabolize to the pheromones. What is "the rest" that you think is critical? Is it something that you choose to make up, like Stan?
                              >
                              >
                              >  
                              > James V. Kohl
                              > Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                              > Independent researcher
                              > Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3: 20553.
                              > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                              >
                              >
                              <Snip>
                            • anonymous_9001
                              You re doing a great job of entirely missing the point. You can t redefine a term that somebody else invented. It doesn t even make any sense in the first
                              Message 14 of 20 , Jul 1, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                You're doing a great job of entirely missing the point. You can't redefine a term that somebody else invented.

                                It doesn't even make any sense in the first place to say that the environment is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. It's like saying a terrarium or a birdcage is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.

                                --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > From the perspective of science, I wouldn't challenge anything Dawkins has indicated, or anything you believe about what he has indicated. It is a waste of time for any scientist to challenge ridiculous theories that do not incorporate any biological facts. Challenges to theory are best left to theorists as has been done for centuries during which ridiculous theories have been 'bandied about.' Eventually the biological facts are accepted and the ridiculous theories are abandoned by all but the most foolish (and typically anonymous) individuals who encourage debate about definitions and other nonsense. Thank you for exemplifying  the most foolish (and typically anonymous) individuals. You're doing a great job of that!
                                >
                                >  
                                > James V. Kohl
                                > Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                                > Independent researcher
                                > Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 3: 20553.
                                > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.