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

Re: [evol-psych] Re: Organization, activation, pheromones, hormones, and behavior

Expand Messages
  • james kohl
    From: James Gray   ... context of telling others that they have repeatedly misrepresented what he wrote. We now have Darwin s words attesting
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 29, 2013
      From: James Gray

      Kohl's reply boggles the mind. �The following is from a message that Kohl posted on the Human Ethology group on July 24. �First he quoted Jay Feierman:

      "If you have�variation, differential�reproduction, and heredity, you will have�evolutionby natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that."

      Then Kohl wrote:

      "Thevariationisnutrientavailability andnutrientsmetabolize to species-specific�pheromonesthat controlreproductionand heredity. Evolution by natural selection cannot be the outcome if something is not first selected. Selection is always fornutrients. It is as simple as that.

      If it is not that simple, someone needs to explain why they believe in a theory of mutation-driven evolution and detail how mutation-driven evolution occurs."

      JG: �Yes it is simple that Kohl wrote that himself.

      Why Kohl has to go on such a tirade is beyond my understanding.

      James Gray

      JK: Are there others here, like James Gray (with his boggled mind), who cannot understand the fact that: "Evolution by natural selection cannot be the outcome if something is not first selected. Selection is always fornutrients. It is as simple as that." What that means isRandom mutations are [NOT] the substrates upon which directional natural selection acts. The context of the discussion is missing (above); it was Feierman's regurgitation of Random mutations are the substrates upon which directional natural selection acts.
      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.





      On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 6:28 PM, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
      Here we have James Gray, who is arguably the least informed person I have ever encountered who holds a doctoral degree (in what?), telling Nancy who thinks food choice makes no difference in the context of evolutionary outcomes, what I have made clear. This is, however, after James Gray has repeatedly told others that I do not make myself clear (e.g., to him). I do not think I can clarify anything to those whose assumptions enable chaotic nonsense to prevail in their attempts to explain biologically based cause and effect, as if it were due to random mutations or personal preferences that automagically develop for Nancy's food choice.

      In addition, the terminology I use is consistent with passages I have taken the time to cite and quote for people like James Gray, who ignore those passages even after I cite Darwin himself in the context of telling others that they have repeatedly misrepresented what he wrote. We now have Darwin's words attesting to the misrepresentations of Natural Selection, and James Gray's misrepresentations of Darwin's words and of mine. Clearly, even citing/quoting does no good.

      However, James Gray will not find and cite quotes from me that do anything but fit into a model of cause and effect that Darwin first proposed must involve 'conditions of life' before natural selection can occur. Thus, I welcome his offer to find them for Nancy. But perhaps I can save him some trouble.

      Darwin's 'conditions of life' are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. That means natural selection in all living organisms must be for nutrients (i.e., for food). Nutrients metabolize to pheromones, which control reproduction in species from microbes to man. That's how nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution occurs.� The fact that James Gray cannot understand what I have made repeatedly clear -- as I just did -- should reflect on him, not me. What should reflect on me are the words from Denis Noble's presidential address that clearly infer random mutations theory is ridiculous, and has been for several decades.

      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: James Gray <James@...>
      To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 7:32 PM
      Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Organization, activation, pheromones, hormones, and behavior

      Nancy,
      Kohl has finally make it clear on another list he post on that he defines much of the terminology used in the standard model of evolution (the new synthesis) with different meanings that those used by most of us. �In his view "variation" is for nutrients. �It is not phenotypes of organisms. �Natural selection as you suggest below is selecting of nutrients by organisms. �In his view it is not related to the concept "survival of the fittest" and is not related to the concept "fitness". �In addition he takes the phrase "differential reproduction" and says that is due to pheromones. �It is not about which animals survive to reproduce or which animals find mates.

      If Kohl denies the above I will find the exact quotes from Kohl and post them on this list.

      James Gray �

      On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Nancy Bovee <Empress9@...> wrote:
      JK:
      "It is clear that natural selection is for nutrients in insects and that the nutrients metabolize to pheromones that control their behavior."

      NB: �Please clear up your language/references. �I think you are talking about "behavioral selection", not "natural selection" in its ordinary meaning among those discussing evolution. �

      i.e. I "naturally" select the ripe peach and not the green one, but that has nothing directly to do with evolution. It's just preference and behavior at that point. (granted it could have survival ramifications as in that shiny red apple the witch keeps offering me…)

      Nancy Bovee






    • James Gray
      Kohl, Thank you for writing a clear confirmation of what I said about your usage of terminology. James Gray ... Kohl, Thank you for writing a clear
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 29, 2013
        Kohl,
        Thank you for writing a clear confirmation of what I said about your usage of terminology.

        James Gray

        On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:52 AM, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
         

        From: James Gray
         
         
        Kohl's reply boggles the mind.  The following is from a message that Kohl posted on the Human Ethology group on July 24.  First he quoted Jay Feierman:

        "If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolutionby natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that."

        Then Kohl wrote:

        "The variation is nutrient availability and nutrients metabolize to species-specific pheromones that control reproduction and heredity. Evolution by natural selection cannot be the outcome if something is not first selected. Selection is always for nutrients. It is as simple as that. 

        If it is not that simple, someone needs to explain why they believe in a theory of mutation-driven evolution and detail how mutation-driven evolution occurs."

        JG:  Yes it is simple that Kohl wrote that himself.

        Why Kohl has to go on such a tirade is beyond my understanding.

        James Gray

        JK: Are there others here, like James Gray (with his boggled mind), who cannot understand the fact that: "Evolution by natural selection cannot be the outcome if something is not first selected. Selection is always for nutrients. It is as simple as that." What that means is  Random mutations are [NOT] the substrates upon which directional natural selection acts. The context of the discussion is missing (above); it was Feierman's regurgitation of Random mutations are the substrates upon which directional natural selection acts.
         
        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.





        On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 6:28 PM, james kohl jvkohl@...> wrote:
         
        Here we have James Gray, who is arguably the least informed person I have ever encountered who holds a doctoral degree (in what?), telling Nancy who thinks food choice makes no difference in the context of evolutionary outcomes, what I have made clear. This is, however, after James Gray has repeatedly told others that I do not make myself clear (e.g., to him). I do not think I can clarify anything to those whose assumptions enable chaotic nonsense to prevail in their attempts to explain biologically based cause and effect, as if it were due to random mutations or personal preferences that automagically develop for Nancy's food choice.

        In addition, the terminology I use is consistent with passages I have taken the time to cite and quote for people like James Gray, who ignore those passages even after I cite Darwin himself in the context of telling others that they have repeatedly misrepresented what he wrote. We now have Darwin's words attesting to the misrepresentations of Natural Selection, and James Gray's misrepresentations of Darwin's words and of mine. Clearly, even citing/quoting does no good.

        However, James Gray will not find and cite quotes from me that do anything but fit into a model of cause and effect that Darwin first proposed must involve 'conditions of life' before natural selection can occur. Thus, I welcome his offer to find them for Nancy. But perhaps I can save him some trouble.

        Darwin's 'conditions of life' are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. That means natural selection in all living organisms must be for nutrients (i.e., for food). Nutrients metabolize to pheromones, which control reproduction in species from microbes to man. That's how nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution occurs.  The fact that James Gray cannot understand what I have made repeatedly clear -- as I just did -- should reflect on him, not me. What should reflect on me are the words from Denis Noble's presidential address that clearly infer random mutations theory is ridiculous, and has been for several decades.

         
        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.


        From: James Gray James@...>
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 7:32 PM
        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Organization, activation, pheromones, hormones, and behavior

         
        Nancy,
        Kohl has finally make it clear on another list he post on that he defines much of the terminology used in the standard model of evolution (the new synthesis) with different meanings that those used by most of us.  In his view "variation" is for nutrients.  It is not phenotypes of organisms.  Natural selection as you suggest below is selecting of nutrients by organisms.  In his view it is not related to the concept "survival of the fittest" and is not related to the concept "fitness".  In addition he takes the phrase "differential reproduction" and says that is due to pheromones.  It is not about which animals survive to reproduce or which animals find mates.

        If Kohl denies the above I will find the exact quotes from Kohl and post them on this list.

        James Gray  

        On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Nancy Bovee Empress9@...> wrote:
         
        JK:
        "It is clear that natural selection is for nutrients in insects and that the nutrients metabolize to pheromones that control their behavior."

        NB:  Please clear up your language/references.  I think you are talking about "behavioral selection", not "natural selection" in its ordinary meaning among those discussing evolution.  

        i.e. I "naturally" select the ripe peach and not the green one, but that has nothing directly to do with evolution. It's just preference and behavior at that point. (granted it could have survival ramifications as in that shiny red apple the witch keeps offering me…)

        Nancy Bovee







      • JVKohl
        ... You re welcome. Please tell the group what you don t understand about the fact that Evolution by natural selection cannot be the outcome if something is
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 29, 2013
          On 7/29/2013 12:44 PM, James Gray wrote:
           

          Kohl,

          Thank you for writing a clear confirmation of what I said about your usage of terminology.
          You're welcome. Please tell the group what you don't understand about the fact that  "Evolution by natural selection cannot be the outcome if something is not first selected. Selection is always for nutrients. It is as simple as that." What that means is  Random mutations are [NOT] the substrates upon which directional natural selection acts. For a ridiculous misrepresentation of cause and effect see: Random mutations are the substrates upon which directional natural selection acts.


          --
          James V. Kohl
          Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
          Independent researcher
          Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlledadaptive 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.
          These two published works are based on accurate representations of the conserved molecular mechanisms first detailed in the context of molecular epigenetics in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review article:FromFertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior
          See also: 2001 Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology
                         2006/7 The Mind's Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences


          On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:52 AM, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
           
          From: James Gray
           
           
          Kohl's reply boggles the mind.  The following is from a message that Kohl posted on the Human Ethology group on July 24.  First he quoted Jay Feierman:

          "If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolutionby natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that."

          Then Kohl wrote:

          "The variation is nutrient availability and nutrients metabolize to species-specific pheromones that control reproduction and heredity. Evolution by natural selection cannot be the outcome if something is not first selected. Selection is always for nutrients. It is as simple as that. 

          If it is not that simple, someone needs to explain why they believe in a theory of mutation-driven evolution and detail how mutation-driven evolution occurs."

          JG:  Yes it is simple that Kohl wrote that himself.

          Why Kohl has to go on such a tirade is beyond my understanding.

          James Gray

          JK: Are there others here, like James Gray (with his boggled mind), who cannot understand the fact that: "Evolution by natural selection cannot be the outcome if something is not first selected. Selection is always for nutrients. It is as simple as that." What that means is  Random mutations are [NOT] the substrates upon which directional natural selection acts. The context of the discussion is missing (above); it was Feierman's regurgitation of Random mutations are the substrates upon which directional natural selection acts.
           
          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.





          On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 6:28 PM, james kohl jvkohl@...> wrote:
           
          Here we have James Gray, who is arguably the least informed person I have ever encountered who holds a doctoral degree (in what?), telling Nancy who thinks food choice makes no difference in the context of evolutionary outcomes, what I have made clear. This is, however, after James Gray has repeatedly told others that I do not make myself clear (e.g., to him). I do not think I can clarify anything to those whose assumptions enable chaotic nonsense to prevail in their attempts to explain biologically based cause and effect, as if it were due to random mutations or personal preferences that automagically develop for Nancy's food choice.

          In addition, the terminology I use is consistent with passages I have taken the time to cite and quote for people like James Gray, who ignore those passages even after I cite Darwin himself in the context of telling others that they have repeatedly misrepresented what he wrote. We now have Darwin's words attesting to the misrepresentations of Natural Selection, and James Gray's misrepresentations of Darwin's words and of mine. Clearly, even citing/quoting does no good.

          However, James Gray will not find and cite quotes from me that do anything but fit into a model of cause and effect that Darwin first proposed must involve 'conditions of life' before natural selection can occur. Thus, I welcome his offer to find them for Nancy. But perhaps I can save him some trouble.

          Darwin's 'conditions of life' are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. That means natural selection in all living organisms must be for nutrients (i.e., for food). Nutrients metabolize to pheromones, which control reproduction in species from microbes to man. That's how nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution occurs.  The fact that James Gray cannot understand what I have made repeatedly clear -- as I just did -- should reflect on him, not me. What should reflect on me are the words from Denis Noble's presidential address that clearly infer random mutations theory is ridiculous, and has been for several decades.

           
          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.


          From: James Gray James@...>
          To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 7:32 PM
          Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Organization, activation, pheromones, hormones, and behavior

           
          Nancy,
          Kohl has finally make it clear on another list he post on that he defines much of the terminology used in the standard model of evolution (the new synthesis) with different meanings that those used by most of us.  In his view "variation" is for nutrients.  It is not phenotypes of organisms.  Natural selection as you suggest below is selecting of nutrients by organisms.  In his view it is not related to the concept "survival of the fittest" and is not related to the concept "fitness".  In addition he takes the phrase "differential reproduction" and says that is due to pheromones.  It is not about which animals survive to reproduce or which animals find mates.

          If Kohl denies the above I will find the exact quotes from Kohl and post them on this list.

          James Gray  

          On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Nancy Bovee Empress9@...> wrote:
           
          JK:
          "It is clear that natural selection is for nutrients in insects and that the nutrients metabolize to pheromones that control their behavior."

          NB:  Please clear up your language/references.  I think you are talking about "behavioral selection", not "natural selection" in its ordinary meaning among those discussing evolution.  

          i.e. I "naturally" select the ripe peach and not the green one, but that has nothing directly to do with evolution. It's just preference and behavior at that point. (granted it could have survival ramifications as in that shiny red apple the witch keeps offering me…)

          Nancy Bovee









          --
          signature file

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