Combating evolution with facts about ecological adaptations

March 7, 2014 | James Kohl

Science 7 March 2014: Vol. 343 no. 6175 pp. 1088-1089. DOI: 10.1126/science.1247472 PERSPECTIVE: MEDICINE

Combating Evolution to Fight Disease

  1. Christine Queitsch

Excerpt: “Molecular biology and evolutionary biology have been separate disciplines and scientific cultures: The former is mechanistic and focused on molecules; the latter is theoretical and focused on populations. However, these domains are beginning to converge in laboratories addressing molecular mechanisms that explain how evolutionary processes work…”

My comment: Darwin probably anticipated the insemination of population genetics that led to the bastardization of his detailed observations in the “Modern Synthesis.” He politely insisted that ‘conditions of life’ be considered before natural selection.

Darwin could not have known that what is now known about conserved molecular mechanisms, which link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of microbes to man, would reveal the biological fact that life is nutrient-dependent. Therefore, Darwin must have based the entirety of works on at least one assumption about his ‘conditions of life.’ He correctly assumed that life is nutrient-dependent.

However, there are two ‘conditions of life.’ Not even Darwin could have anticipated that what has since become known would reveal the biological fact that the physiology of reproduction is controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones. Therefore, until publication of “Pheromones: a new term for a class of biologically active substances” in 1959, everything else added to Darwin’s astute observation-based claims was added on faith.

Evolutionary theorists convinced biologists to believe that mutation-initiated natural selection was possible, which meant that sexual selection must also somehow result from mutations. Simply put, there was no other acceptable explanation! Anyone who objected to being called a mutant was silenced.

Biologists who somehow knew, like Darwin, that mutation-driven evolution was not possible, were not accepted among members of the academic priesthood who became the gatekeepers of scientific information. It is not scientific information, until the academic priesthood tells us it is, and  they claimed that evolutionary theory was based on scientific information.

Anyone who claimed that mutation-driven evolution was a “just a theory” was considered to be just another ‘crank’ or worse — a creationist. Few people realize that Dobzhansky was a creationist who demanded that theories be tested and supported by experimental evidence.

Rosenberg and Queitsch now note the published work that contains Dobzhansky’s rarely acknowledged claim:  “I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s, method of Creation.” They also declare the need for “Deep understanding of the mechanisms that generate variation at the molecular level…” Deep understanding does not come from theory.

In 1964, Dobzhansky had something to say about that, too. “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!”

Others complain when I take that quote out of context. I do it anyway because I like to emphasize the difference between epigenetic effects and behavioral affects. Those who complain are usually atheistic theorists and/or biology teachers who have arrogantly ignored Dobzhansky’s creationist beliefs about effects on genes, which must somehow be linked to affects on behavior. Occasionally, even medical professionals claim to know things that are not biologically plausible.

Problems with the “modern synthesis” now lead us back to the facts about biologically based cause and effect that Darwin and Dobzhansky approached with humility. These are the same biological facts that evolutionists approached with ignorance about behavioral affects and the arrogance that accompanies that ignorance.  Rosenberg and Queitsch echo the sentiments of those who have been subjected to academic suppression.

Clearly, however, “nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of biology” is not an exaggeration. It is a common sense statement about the biologically plausible genesis of functional cell types. Population genetics and evolutionary theories abandoned the biophysical constraints of ecological variation, networks of  glycosylation,  and the physiology of reproduction, which enable epigenetically-effected nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled receptor-mediated ecological adaptations and species diversity via the complexities of protein folding and niche construction.

Most of us have been left to discuss aspects of evolution when we could have been discussing the molecular epigenetics of ecological adaptations, which biophysically constrain the constraint-breaking mutations that theorists claim cause species diversity and also pathology. Is there a model for that evolutionary duality?

If there is no model of evolutionary duality that is supported by experimental evidence, it’s time for biophysicists to tell theorists and pathologists how to differentiate between theories about the genesis of different cell types and the biological facts about the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations that enable the genesis of different cell types in individuals of different species. Simply put, it’s time to stop trying to explain ecological adaptations in the context of mutations and evolution.

————————————————————

I edited the above comment to Science magazine on this article, and the comment I submitted on 3/7/14 was approved and posted on 3/10/14

“Darwin probably anticipated the insemination of population genetics that led to the bastardization of his detailed observations in the “Modern Synthesis.” He politely insisted that ‘conditions of life’ be considered before natural selection.

There are two ‘conditions of life.’ It is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. Rosenberg and Queitsch now note the work with Dobzhansky’s rarely acknowledged claim: “I am a creationist and an evolutionist.” They also declare the need for “Deep understanding of the mechanisms that generate variation at the molecular level…”

Deep understanding of the ‘conditions of life’ does not come from theory.

Problems with the “modern synthesis” now lead us back to the facts about biologically-based cause and effect that Darwin and Dobzhansky approached with humility, which are the same biological facts that evolutionists approached with ignorance about behavioral affects and the arrogance that accompanies that ignorance. Rosenberg and Queitsch echo the sentiments of those who have been subjected to academic suppression.

Clearly, however, “nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of biology” is not an exaggeration. It is a common sense statement about the biologically plausible genesis of functional cell types. Population genetics and evolutionary theories abandoned the biophysical constraints of ecological variation and the physiology of reproduction, which enable epigenetically-effected nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled receptor-mediated ecological adaptations and species diversity via the complexities of protein folding and niche construction.

It’s time for biophysicists to tell theorists and pathologists how to differentiate between theories about the genesis of different cell types and the biological facts about the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations that enable the genesis of different cell types in individuals of different species. Simply put, it’s time to stop trying to explain ecological adaptations in the context of mutations and evolution. “

Comments

comments

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.