Posted on June 5, 2014 by James Kohl.What makes us human?
Excerpt: “The belief that there is something inherently special about humans and the way we arose is more suited to creation mythologies and religious doctrine than to a scientific, testable view of the world.”
My comment: It is the belief in evolutionary theory that has not led to any scientific, testable view of the world. For example, Denis Noble stated that: “…gradual mutation followed by selection has not, as a matter of fact, been demonstrated to be necessarily a cause of speciation.” Challenges to the theory that mutations and natural selection lead to the evolution of biodiversity now incorporate quantum physics. My comments on the misrepresentations in the news article linked above include a succinct apology to Luca Turin.
I criticized Turin in a 2003 book review. http://human-nature.com/nibbs/03/burr.html
“Turin never attempted to work within the system. Perhaps a future proponent of molecular vibration theory will manage better than Dyson, Wright and, most recently, Turin. Truly this theory may be years ahead of its time. It also may be a theory that cannot be sufficiently supported by scientific fact.”
Luca politely told me that his attempts to work within the system had failed — especially attempts that involved the Association of Chemoreception Sciences (AChemS). Two of my attempts to present have since been rejected and successful attempts have led to presentations that have been largely ignored. Dick Doty’s book “The Great Pheromone Myth” led more people to deny established facts from across disciplines that link Luca’s works to mine. http://www.amazon.com/Great-Pheromone-Myth-Richard-Doty/dp/080189347XI now criticize AChemS. Luca and I did all that’s expected of serious scientists.”
Here’s a link to information on the abstract of the poster presentation I submitted for the 2014 annual meeting: UNACCEPTABLE Presentation on nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations.
Our inability to accept scientific facts when the facts challenge our beliefs about pseudoscientific nonsense is what makes us human. The scientific facts link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of the DNA in our organized genomes via the conserved molecular mechanisms and the biophysical constraints on mutation-initiated natural selection that are exemplified in the species-specific morphological and behavioral phenotypes of species from microbes to man.
Luca Turin tried to lead the way with information on the biophysical constraints of quantum physics. Hopefully, he will again attempt to do so, but if he does the outcome may still be the same. For example, …
read more »
Posted on June 4, 2014 by James Kohl.Models in biology: ‘accurate descriptions of our pathetic thinking’
Article excerpt: “…laying the foundations for rescuing Darwin’s theory from oblivion , a task later accomplished, in the hands of J. B. S. Haldane, R. A. Fisher and Sewall Wright, largely by mathematics.”
My comment: It is becoming clearer that: “hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent…. The anglophone tradition was taught. I was taught, and so were my contemporaries, and so were the younger scientists. Evolution was defined as “changes in gene frequencies in natural populations.” The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another…. No, it wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.”
The idea that others needed to mathematically invent neo-Darwinism to rescue Darwin’s theory was accompanied by a requirement for the rescuers to ignore Darwin’s ‘conditions of life.’ That ignorance is now being considered in the light of molecular biology. What’s known about conserved molecular mechanisms and the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes attests to this fact: No one can invent a theory that will be accepted indefinitely. Sooner or later, the theory must be supported with experimental evidence that fits a model of cause and effect. It is the lack of experimental evidence that represents the ‘pathetic thinking’ of those who should provide examples of critical thinking skills.
The tragedy of all this is exemplified in statements (below) made by Jay R. Feierman, the retired M.D. who is moderator of the ISHE’s human ethology group.
Feierman: “I am absolutely certain that if you showed this statement to any professor of biology or genetics in any accredited university anywhere in the world that 100% of them would say that “Random mutations are the substrate upon which directional natural selection acts” is a correct and true statement. ” What Feierman is saying is that many others, perhaps even 100% of biology or genetics professors, also lack critical thinking skills.
For contrast: The evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously noted that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” but perhaps, too, “nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of biology.” Although the latter might be an exaggeration, an important gap is being filled by molecular understanding of the genesis of variation that confers the …
read more »
Posted on June 3, 2014 by James Kohl.Research shows bees might create cognitive maps
Excerpt: “…scientists studying the mammalian brain should bear in mind that bees might be able to create complex mental maps despite having brains many times smaller than the hippocampus of a rat.”
My comment: The honeybee model organism already extends the concept of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations from species of microbes to man via conserved molecular mechanisms manifested in increasing organismal complexity (e.g., our socio-cognitive niche construction).
Evolutionary theorists simply refuse to discuss biological facts and want only for others to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense of population genetics. The discussion section of this latest report may be the best indicator of how difficult it is for theorists to accept and integrate anything new into their approach to the study of how they think mutations and natural selection result in evolution.
The problem for them is that they have not learned anything about molecular biology during the past 50 years. Dobzhansky (1964) said it best in Biology, molecular and organismic. “The notion has gained some currency that the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is “bird watching” or “butterfly collecting.” Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists!” Denis Noble (2011) also wrote: “If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based.”
The bird-watchers and butterfly-collectors who never learned anything about the amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of individuals in all species will continue to come up with citations to works that deny what is known about the biological basis of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations, but they will never tell you how mutations and natural selection lead to evolution and biodiversity because mutations don’t lead to biodiversity. Ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations that are manifested in biodiversity of the bees; the birds; and all other species on the planet via the conserved molecular mechanisms of ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction detailed in Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems …
read more »
Posted on May 31, 2014 by James Kohl.
Mosaic Epigenetic Dysregulation of Ectodermal Cells in Autism Spectrum Disorder clearly links the de novo creation of olfactory receptor gene OR2L13, from decreased nutrient-dependent DNA methylation to sensory processing in ASD’s.
A series of published works I posted yesterday in Ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations links failed adaptations manifested in autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) via the sensing of chemicals that are typically called “odors.” Although the complexity of nutrient-dependent signaling and de novo creation of an olfactory receptor (OR) gene via conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man that lead to my atoms to ecosystems model is overwhelming, scientific progress is not made by ignoring the complexity.
That’s why I was surprised to read this sentence from Maximum information entropy: a foundation for ecological theory (in press). “Given that there are so many mechanisms, processes, and trait-specific interactions at work in an ecosystem, they can effectively be ignored.”
Biophysical constraints on experience-dependent protein folding allow the natural genetic engineering of the cell to create the receptors that allows the nutrient(s) to enter the cell and to alter the microRNA/messenger RNA balance, which leads to the cell’s nutrient-dependent ability to create more ORs via gene duplication. However, gene duplication seems unlikely to occur in the context of entropy. I suspect that’s why a new definition of entropy is used in the context of maximum information entropy. What else can be done by theorists when what’s known about atoms and ecosystems refutes their theories with experimental evidence that appears to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which implies that order does not arise from disorder. The molecular mechanisms of gene duplication show that order does result from disordered nutrient-dependent intercellular signaling in all cells of all individuals in all species. Since gene duplication defies entropy, it must now be defined in the terms of population genetics or neo-Darwinism will be exposed to be pseudoscientific nonsense.
Creation of ORs and other proteins via seemingly futile cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation then stabilizes cell type differentiation that occurs with nutrient uptake and “pheromone”-controlled reproduction at the unicellular level (e.g., in bacteria and yeasts) and multicellular levels of organism-level sensing and signaling via the complexities of biophysically constrained thermodynamics and thermoregulation.
Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of the molecular mechanisms required for organism-level thermoregulation enable ecological variation to be manifested in ecological adaptations. These ecological adaptations are found in …
read more »
Posted on May 30, 2014 by James Kohl.
My published 2013 review on ecological variation has been viewed more than 1000 times this month. It seems fitting that this is my 1000th blog post, since the time Dick Doty’s ridiculous assertions in “The Great Pheromone Myth” prompted me to begin adding experimental evidence to support my accurate representations of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations.
Many of those who might otherwise be considered colleagues in academia are largely responsible for reporting biological facts in terms of evolutionary theory. They use the terms, although it has since become clear that those terms simply (and simple-mindedly) reflect the invention of theories associated with a neo-Darwinian perspective. Neo-Darwinism fails to incorporate anything Darwin wrote about the need to consider ‘conditions of life’ before going off half-cocked in attempts to explain cause and effect manifested in populations of living organisms.
Clearly, those populations cannot exist in the absence of Darwin’s ‘conditions of life’ which molecular biologists and intelligent non-scientists have probably always known are nutrient-dependent. Some molecular biologists also know that ‘conditions of life’ are controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man.
That fact led me to submit an invited review on nutritional epigenetics at the request of a guest editor. The invitation was based on publication of facts in my 2013 review, and I added experimental evidence that had accumulated during another year — prior to submitting Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems in March 2014. I received notice of its rejection for publication in April 2014.
None of the reviewers who were asked to review the submission would read it, and I heard nothing about the submission from the guest editor who requested it. (We had discussed the fact that I would never submit anything for publication without a request, because of the nonsense I have been subjected to in the process of peer-review.) The ultimate nonsense of peer-review is when an invited submission is rejected without review. (Either I have no peers, or my peers want nothing to do with any new experimental evidence.)
Interdisciplinary research is the problem in that regard. It is difficult to find peers due to the scope of the review. However, it is easy to find critics who do not understand explanations of systems complexity because they have become too specialized to understand anything outside their field of …
read more »
Try Our Potent Pheromones Risk Free!
Backed by Scientific Research AND
a 100% Money Back Guarantee!
With our no hassle 60 day money back guarantee you have nothing to lose.Read Our Risk Free Guarantee to you!
Order by Mail or FAX
Trademarks & Notices: LuvEssentials is not affiliated in any way with WebMD, CNN, Discovery Health. All trademarks and registered trademarks appearing on LuvEssentials are the property of their respective owners.
Orders that were shipped by free USPS Mail and are returned to us will be assessed a return processing fee of $7.00 US Dollars. Orders totaling over $190.00 US Dollars, before any discount, that are returned to us will be assessed a return processing fee of 25%.
Please note, the testimonials we display are all real; however, any photos accompanying these testimonials are stock photography, not actual customers. We do this to protect the privacy of our customers.
Also, in accordance with FTC guidelines, we want to make it explicitly clear that the testimonials we display throughout this website are based on the unique experiences that some of our customers have shared with us. We cannot promise that you will experience similar benefits from using our product. If you are not satisfied with our product for any reason, simply return the product within 60 days for a full refund excluding the costs of shipping and handling. Please contact us with any questions you may have.