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

Re: [evol-psych] RE: News: Researchers propose new theory to ex

Expand Messages
  • james kohl
    Temporary fixation has absolutely nothing to do with the population-wide fixation of new alleles that is enabled by nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 2, 2013
      Temporary fixation has absolutely nothing to do with the population-wide fixation of new alleles that is enabled by nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. Population wide fixation is required for anything to contribute to adaptive evolution (eye regression in blind cave fish, and fawn to peppered-color and back in the example of industrial melanism.  If you insist on taking things out of context like you just did (again), and do not explain yourself or apologize when I show you your errors (repeatedly), your presence and ignorance here serves no useful purpose. So, what was your point?

      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@..."
      To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 4:29 PM
      Subject: [evol-psych] RE: News: Researchers propose new theory to explain seeds of life in asteroids

       
      Don't know how I missed this before- In the Chelo et al. paper, take a look at Figure 4. From 150 generations on in the frequency independent selection scenario, the new allele was fixed. The graph indicates a frequency of 1.0 for that allele.


      ---In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, wrote:

      Excerpted from below: Both of the established theories – one involving the same radioactive process that heats the interior of Earth, and the otherinvolving the interaction of plasma (super-heated gases that behave somewhat like fluids) and a magnetic field – are still taught to students of astrobiology.

      JK: "Does this solve the chirality problem? No, it doesn't, because the amino acids found in meteorites are mixtures of L- and D-forms. People who support the idea that all twenty amino acids were present from the beginning would have to account for the selection of only one form from the mixture. Since this is highly unlikely, most favor a solution where some form of chemical synthesis preferentially results in a huge excess of left-handed amino acids. So far no example of such a reaction has been found."

      Excerpted from below:  Menzel said the researchers have now definitively refuted the established theory.

      JK: Chelo et al., refuted the entirety of  mutation-driven evolution (another established theory in which no example has been found). "To our knowledge, this is the first time anyone was able to directly test Haldane's theory. We have proved it correct for the initial stages, when a new allele appears in a population [i.e., mutations occur]. But our results show that further empirical work and more theoretical models are required to accurately predict the fate of that allele over long time spans [i.e., but mutations are not fixed in the genome]."  Mutations occur but they are not fixed in the genome. Get it? They cannot be involved in natural selection. Can they? 

      JK: Now we have another refuted theory with an attempt to replace it with another theoretical model that predicts how all of life arose on Earth. But what about the chirality problem? And what about the fact that achiral glycine was substituted in the GnRH molecule and conserved across 400 million years of vertebrate evolution? 

      Excerpted from below: "The mechanism requires some extreme assumptions about the young solar system," Menzel said.

      JK: Why not simply make similar extreme assumptions about a young Earth? We can assume that achiral glycine was substituted in the GnRH molecule only 10,000 years ago and that the substitution enabled the ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction that led to the accounting in Biblical Genesis of Creation sans mutations.

      The advantage for evolutionary theorists and physicists who prefer assumptions, is that no experimental evidence ever suggested that mutations are fixed in the organized genome of any species. All evidence suggests that conserved molecular mechanisms, such as those involved in the fixation of glycine in the GnRH molecule for either 10,000 or 400 million years, link nutrient uptake to pheromone-controlled reproduction via the creation of de novo olfactory receptor genes. Thus, instead of extreme astrobiological assumptions and theories about mutation-driven evolution, there's a model of adaptive evolution that includes biological facts.

      Okay, I know what you're thinking. What about the 500 species of stickleback fish that adaptively evolved during the past 15,000 years? Simple, since Earth is only 10,000 years old, the first stickleback fish must have arrived 5000 years earlier via their transport in the watery asteroid that collided with earth and created the watery oceans.  Of course, I'm joking because the astrobiologists must be joking to think evolutionary theorists are going to accept another ridiculous theory of how life began on Earth.  At least I hope they're joking. How on earth could they not be?


    • anonymous_9001
      Temporary fixation? How can you make that determination? It persisted from 150 to 300+ generations. It was fixed in their sample population. If the old allele
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 3, 2013

        Temporary fixation? How can you make that determination? It persisted from 150 to 300+ generations. It was fixed in their sample population. If the old allele had a frequency of 0 from that point on, how could it have made a return?



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

        Temporary fixation has absolutely nothing to do with the population-wide fixation of new alleles that is enabled by nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. Population wide fixation is required for anything to contribute to adaptive evolution (eye regression in blind cave fish, and fawn to peppered-color and back in the example of industrial melanism.  If you insist on taking things out of context like you just did (again), and do not explain yourself or apologize when I show you your errors (repeatedly), your presence and ignorance here serves no useful purpose. So, what was your point?

        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@..."
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 4:29 PM
        Subject: [evol-psych] RE: News: Researchers propose new theory to explain seeds of life in asteroids

         
        Don't know how I missed this before- In the Chelo et al. paper, take a look at Figure 4. From 150 generations on in the frequency independent selection scenario, the new allele was fixed. The graph indicates a frequency of 1.0 for that allele.


        ---In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, wrote:

        Excerpted from below: Both of the established theories – one involving the same radioactive process that heats the interior of Earth, and the otherinvolving the interaction of plasma (super-heated gases that behave somewhat like fluids) and a magnetic field – are still taught to students of astrobiology.

        JK: "Does this solve the chirality problem? No, it doesn't, because the amino acids found in meteorites are mixtures of L- and D-forms. People who support the idea that all twenty amino acids were present from the beginning would have to account for the selection of only one form from the mixture. Since this is highly unlikely, most favor a solution where some form of chemical synthesis preferentially results in a huge excess of left-handed amino acids. So far no example of such a reaction has been found."

        Excerpted from below:  Menzel said the researchers have now definitively refuted the established theory.

        JK: Chelo et al., refuted the entirety of  mutation-driven evolution (another established theory in which no example has been found). "To our knowledge, this is the first time anyone was able to directly test Haldane's theory. We have proved it correct for the initial stages, when a new allele appears in a population [i.e., mutations occur]. But our results show that further empirical work and more theoretical models are required to accurately predict the fate of that allele over long time spans [i.e., but mutations are not fixed in the genome]."  Mutations occur but they are not fixed in the genome. Get it? They cannot be involved in natural selection. Can they? 

        JK: Now we have another refuted theory with an attempt to replace it with another theoretical model that predicts how all of life arose on Earth. But what about the chirality problem? And what about the fact that achiral glycine was substituted in the GnRH molecule and conserved across 400 million years of vertebrate evolution? 

        Excerpted from below: "The mechanism requires some extreme assumptions about the young solar system," Menzel said.

        JK: Why not simply make similar extreme assumptions about a young Earth? We can assume that achiral glycine was substituted in the GnRH molecule only 10,000 years ago and that the substitution enabled the ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction that led to the accounting in Biblical Genesis of Creation sans mutations.

        The advantage for evolutionary theorists and physicists who prefer assumptions, is that no experimental evidence ever suggested that mutations are fixed in the organized genome of any species. All evidence suggests that conserved molecular mechanisms, such as those involved in the fixation of glycine in the GnRH molecule for either 10,000 or 400 million years, link nutrient uptake to pheromone-controlled reproduction via the creation of de novo olfactory receptor genes. Thus, instead of extreme astrobiological assumptions and theories about mutation-driven evolution, there's a model of adaptive evolution that includes biological facts.

        Okay, I know what you're thinking. What about the 500 species of stickleback fish that adaptively evolved during the past 15,000 years? Simple, since Earth is only 10,000 years old, the first stickleback fish must have arrived 5000 years earlier via their transport in the watery asteroid that collided with earth and created the watery oceans.  Of course, I'm joking because the astrobiologists must be joking to think evolutionary theorists are going to accept another ridiculous theory of how life began on Earth.  At least I hope they're joking. How on earth could they not be?


      • james kohl
        What difference does anything I write make to you? You keep coming back with more nonsense associated with your ridiculous misinterpretation of the results
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 3, 2013
          What difference does anything I write make to you? You keep coming back with more nonsense associated with your ridiculous misinterpretation of the results from the only experiment that might have otherwise proved mutation-driven evolution was possible.

          In the model organism they used, and in every model organism I used to exemplify cause and effect, there is proof of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. That's the determination I made, and it's an easy one to make because there is so much experimental evidence to back it up.

          Yet, when these authors attempt to inform anonymous fools and other evolutionary theorists via a news release that clearly states: "The result of these complex dynamics is that genetic diversity could be maintained indefinitely, without one allele or the other ever being fixed in the population. Our data suggests that the value a new allele brings to the individuals is not fixed." -- you come back and infer that is my determination. 

          If you are playing "Devil's advocate," thanks for showing everyone how much ignorance is incorporated into your position. If you are attempting to refute nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution, please focus on the biological facts. That's what scientists do, which may be why theorists don't do experiments that might otherwise prove their claims about mutation-driven evolution. 

           
          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: Thursday, October 3, 2013 10:42 AM
          Subject: [evol-psych] RE: News: Researchers propose new theory to explain seeds of life in asteroids

           
          Temporary fixation? How can you make that determination? It persisted from 150 to 300+ generations. It was fixed in their sample population. If the old allele had a frequency of 0 from that point on, how could it have made a return?


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

          Temporary fixation has absolutely nothing to do with the population-wide fixation of new alleles that is enabled by nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. Population wide fixation is required for anything to contribute to adaptive evolution (eye regression in blind cave fish, and fawn to peppered-color and back in the example of industrial melanism.  If you insist on taking things out of context like you just did (again), and do not explain yourself or apologize when I show you your errors (repeatedly), your presence and ignorance here serves no useful purpose. So, what was your point?

          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@..."
          To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 4:29 PM
          Subject: [evol-psych] RE: News: Researchers propose new theory to explain seeds of life in asteroids

           
          Don't know how I missed this before- In the Chelo et al. paper, take a look at Figure 4. From 150 generations on in the frequency independent selection scenario, the new allele was fixed. The graph indicates a frequency of 1.0 for that allele.


          ---In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, wrote:

          Excerpted from below: Both of the established theories – one involving the same radioactive process that heats the interior of Earth, and the otherinvolving the interaction of plasma (super-heated gases that behave somewhat like fluids) and a magnetic field – are still taught to students of astrobiology.

          JK: "Does this solve the chirality problem? No, it doesn't, because the amino acids found in meteorites are mixtures of L- and D-forms. People who support the idea that all twenty amino acids were present from the beginning would have to account for the selection of only one form from the mixture. Since this is highly unlikely, most favor a solution where some form of chemical synthesis preferentially results in a huge excess of left-handed amino acids. So far no example of such a reaction has been found."

          Excerpted from below:  Menzel said the researchers have now definitively refuted the established theory.

          JK: Chelo et al., refuted the entirety of  mutation-driven evolution (another established theory in which no example has been found). "To our knowledge, this is the first time anyone was able to directly test Haldane's theory. We have proved it correct for the initial stages, when a new allele appears in a population [i.e., mutations occur]. But our results show that further empirical work and more theoretical models are required to accurately predict the fate of that allele over long time spans [i.e., but mutations are not fixed in the genome]."  Mutations occur but they are not fixed in the genome. Get it? They cannot be involved in natural selection. Can they? 

          JK: Now we have another refuted theory with an attempt to replace it with another theoretical model that predicts how all of life arose on Earth. But what about the chirality problem? And what about the fact that achiral glycine was substituted in the GnRH molecule and conserved across 400 million years of vertebrate evolution? 

          Excerpted from below: "The mechanism requires some extreme assumptions about the young solar system," Menzel said.

          JK: Why not simply make similar extreme assumptions about a young Earth? We can assume that achiral glycine was substituted in the GnRH molecule only 10,000 years ago and that the substitution enabled the ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction that led to the accounting in Biblical Genesis of Creation sans mutations.

          The advantage for evolutionary theorists and physicists who prefer assumptions, is that no experimental evidence ever suggested that mutations are fixed in the organized genome of any species. All evidence suggests that conserved molecular mechanisms, such as those involved in the fixation of glycine in the GnRH molecule for either 10,000 or 400 million years, link nutrient uptake to pheromone-controlled reproduction via the creation of de novo olfactory receptor genes. Thus, instead of extreme astrobiological assumptions and theories about mutation-driven evolution, there's a model of adaptive evolution that includes biological facts.

          Okay, I know what you're thinking. What about the 500 species of stickleback fish that adaptively evolved during the past 15,000 years? Simple, since Earth is only 10,000 years old, the first stickleback fish must have arrived 5000 years earlier via their transport in the watery asteroid that collided with earth and created the watery oceans.  Of course, I'm joking because the astrobiologists must be joking to think evolutionary theorists are going to accept another ridiculous theory of how life began on Earth.  At least I hope they're joking. How on earth could they not be?




        • anonymous_9001
          JK: Yet, when these authors attempt to inform anonymous fools and other evolutionary theorists via a news release that clearly states: The result of these
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 3, 2013

            JK: Yet, when these authors attempt to inform anonymous fools and other evolutionary theorists via a news release that clearly states: "The result of these complex dynamics is that genetic diversity could be maintained indefinitely, without one allele or the other ever being fixed in the population. Our data suggests that the value a new allele brings to the individuals is not fixed." -- you come back and infer that is my determination. 


            You're ignoring a key word in that excerpt. They said the VALUE of the allele is not fixed, not that the allele itself is not fixed. An obvious misinterpretation. The data in the graph that I pointed out doesn't lie.



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

            What difference does anything I write make to you? You keep coming back with more nonsense associated with your ridiculous misinterpretation of the results from the only experiment that might have otherwise proved mutation-driven evolution was possible.

            In the model organism they used, and in every model organism I used to exemplify cause and effect, there is proof of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. That's the determination I made, and it's an easy one to make because there is so much experimental evidence to back it up.

            Yet, when these authors attempt to inform anonymous fools and other evolutionary theorists via a news release that clearly states: "The result of these complex dynamics is that genetic diversity could be maintained indefinitely, without one allele or the other ever being fixed in the population. Our data suggests that the value a new allele brings to the individuals is not fixed." -- you come back and infer that is my determination. 

            If you are playing "Devil's advocate," thanks for showing everyone how much ignorance is incorporated into your position. If you are attempting to refute nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution, please focus on the biological facts. That's what scientists do, which may be why theorists don't do experiments that might otherwise prove their claims about mutation-driven evolution. 

             
            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: Thursday, October 3, 2013 10:42 AM
            Subject: [evol-psych] RE: News: Researchers propose new theory to explain seeds of life in asteroids

             
            Temporary fixation? How can you make that determination? It persisted from 150 to 300+ generations. It was fixed in their sample population. If the old allele had a frequency of 0 from that point on, how could it have made a return?


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

            Temporary fixation has absolutely nothing to do with the population-wide fixation of new alleles that is enabled by nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. Population wide fixation is required for anything to contribute to adaptive evolution (eye regression in blind cave fish, and fawn to peppered-color and back in the example of industrial melanism.  If you insist on taking things out of context like you just did (again), and do not explain yourself or apologize when I show you your errors (repeatedly), your presence and ignorance here serves no useful purpose. So, what was your point?

            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@..."
            To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 4:29 PM
            Subject: [evol-psych] RE: News: Researchers propose new theory to explain seeds of life in asteroids

             
            Don't know how I missed this before- In the Chelo et al. paper, take a look at Figure 4. From 150 generations on in the frequency independent selection scenario, the new allele was fixed. The graph indicates a frequency of 1.0 for that allele.


            ---In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, wrote:

            Excerpted from below: Both of the established theories – one involving the same radioactive process that heats the interior of Earth, and the otherinvolving the interaction of plasma (super-heated gases that behave somewhat like fluids) and a magnetic field – are still taught to students of astrobiology.

            JK: "Does this solve the chirality problem? No, it doesn't, because the amino acids found in meteorites are mixtures of L- and D-forms. People who support the idea that all twenty amino acids were present from the beginning would have to account for the selection of only one form from the mixture. Since this is highly unlikely, most favor a solution where some form of chemical synthesis preferentially results in a huge excess of left-handed amino acids. So far no example of such a reaction has been found."

            Excerpted from below:  Menzel said the researchers have now definitively refuted the established theory.

            JK: Chelo et al., refuted the entirety of  mutation-driven evolution (another established theory in which no example has been found). "To our knowledge, this is the first time anyone was able to directly test Haldane's theory. We have proved it correct for the initial stages, when a new allele appears in a population [i.e., mutations occur]. But our results show that further empirical work and more theoretical models are required to accurately predict the fate of that allele over long time spans [i.e., but mutations are not fixed in the genome]."  Mutations occur but they are not fixed in the genome. Get it? They cannot be involved in natural selection. Can they? 

            JK: Now we have another refuted theory with an attempt to replace it with another theoretical model that predicts how all of life arose on Earth. But what about the chirality problem? And what about the fact that achiral glycine was substituted in the GnRH molecule and conserved across 400 million years of vertebrate evolution? 

            Excerpted from below: "The mechanism requires some extreme assumptions about the young solar system," Menzel said.

            JK: Why not simply make similar extreme assumptions about a young Earth? We can assume that achiral glycine was substituted in the GnRH molecule only 10,000 years ago and that the substitution enabled the ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction that led to the accounting in Biblical Genesis of Creation sans mutations.

            The advantage for evolutionary theorists and physicists who prefer assumptions, is that no experimental evidence ever suggested that mutations are fixed in the organized genome of any species. All evidence suggests that conserved molecular mechanisms, such as those involved in the fixation of glycine in the GnRH molecule for either 10,000 or 400 million years, link nutrient uptake to pheromone-controlled reproduction via the creation of de novo olfactory receptor genes. Thus, instead of extreme astrobiological assumptions and theories about mutation-driven evolution, there's a model of adaptive evolution that includes biological facts.

            Okay, I know what you're thinking. What about the 500 species of stickleback fish that adaptively evolved during the past 15,000 years? Simple, since Earth is only 10,000 years old, the first stickleback fish must have arrived 5000 years earlier via their transport in the watery asteroid that collided with earth and created the watery oceans.  Of course, I'm joking because the astrobiologists must be joking to think evolutionary theorists are going to accept another ridiculous theory of how life began on Earth.  At least I hope they're joking. How on earth could they not be?




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