Forum discussions: the most complained about member (866 words)

November 15, 2012 | James Kohl

On November 21, 2012 Robert Karl Stonjek said this about my participation in his forums: Cognitive NeuroSciencePsychiatry Research; and Evolutionary Psychology.

“Most of the members on this and my other forums can just about quote your position verbatim by now and do not need to hear it endlessly repeated.

You’ve managed to earn yourself the position of most complained about member and people ask me to remove you or your posts repeatedly.  But there is nothing inappropriate about your posts, at least not the ones I approve.  But this endless evangelising is tedious and unnecessary.  As you say, you have made the next step.  You are no longer developing your ideas and your ideas are not up for discussion.  If you haven’t done so already it is time to outline your entire theses in book form.  Clearly you are ready to compile your model into a single volume that can be used for education and reference.  In my opinion that is a much better next step than continuously badgering my members with your model.

My comment: Here’s how I became the most complained about member in these groups.

The model was first presented in 1992, then published in book form in 1995 with an updated paperback version in 2002. In 1996, I co-authored From fertilization to adult sexual behavior, which led the way for others to develop explanations for the organization and activation of insect behavior. In 2001, I co-authored an award-winning article linking neuroendocrinology and ethology. That led to a 2006 article, which was concurrently published as an award-winning 2007 book chapter that explained the development of male homosexual and heterosexual preferences  using the same model.

It is that model of genetically predisposed, epigenetically-effected, adaptively evolved behavior that I detailed in Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors (2012) and presented as an updated graphic representation.

Here is a description from the graphic representation:

This model of systems biology represents the conservation of bottom-up organization and top-down activation via:
1.Nutrient-dependent stress-induced and social stress-induced intracellular changes in the homeostatic balance of microRNA(miRNA) and messenger RNA (mRNA);
2.Intermolecular changes in DNA (genes);
3.Non-random experience-dependent stochastic variations in de novo gene expression for odor receptors;
4.The required gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system pathway that links sensory input directly to gene activation in neurosecretory cells of the brain;
5.The required reciprocity that links gene expression to behavior that alters gene expression (i.e., from genes to behavior and back).

Here is a 2 minute long video representation that helps to explain the significance of my model for the homeostatic balance of miRNA and mRNA. Here is a more technical version of that video representation.

Others now have a somewhat complete overview of what it takes to become the most complained about member in the discussion  groups listed above. All that is required is to tell the truth about how the human brain and our behavior adaptively evolved via the epigenetic effects of nutrition (e.g, food odors) and socialization (e.g, pheromones).

There are few participants who understand molecular biology in any of these groups. Stating the truth will be perceived to be evangelizing in any group with members who predominantly think they already know what the truth is about adaptive evolution. Most seem to think that random mutations caused adaptive evolution from one species to another in a non-linear progression.

The non-linear approach links our responses to auditory and visual stimuli to birds;  our brain development to primates; and our behavior to rodent models. It does not link our behavior to insect species with behavior that is clearly determined by the epigenetic effects of nutrient chemicals and pheromones on hormones. Stonjek, for example, states that “insects and most invertebrates branched off and are not in our evolutionary past” and cites Wikipedia as his information source, despite new data that tells us Complex brains evolved much earlier than previously thought.

Thinking is, however, not required, and random mutations theory is not so confusing. It’s easy to believe in, and it is also what many people have been taught to believe.  Those who believe in such a slip-shod theory of adaptive evolution of our brain and behavior are the people who complain about me, and — all the while, according to the groups’ moderator:  they “…can just about quote your position verbatim by now and do not need to hear it endlessly repeated.”

I can also quote their position on adaptive evolution. “It’s somehow caused by random mutations” or something else unrelated to the biological fact that adaptive evolution is nutrient chemical-dependent and pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man and that “Olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans.” Nutrient chemical control from the bottom up, and concurrent control by pheromones from the top down represent non-random epigenetic effects on genetically predisposed adaptive evolution, which evolutionary theorists typically think represents Creation. So, of course, I am considered a Creationist, not a serious scientist who has modeled adaptive evolution of our brain and behavior via the common molecular mechanisms of species from microbes to man.

On November 26, 2012 Robert Karl Stonjek announced to the members of the psychiatry research group:  Dear Members, there will be no more discussion of JVKs ‘model’.



James Vaughn Kohl

James Vaughn Kohl

James Vaughn Kohl was the first to accurately conceptualize human pheromones, and began presenting his findings to the scientific community in 1992. He continues to present to, and publish for, diverse scientific and lay audiences, while constantly monitoring the scientific presses for new information that is relevant to the development of his initial and ongoing conceptualization of human pheromones.