Expose the cranks. Don’t be one!

January 12, 2014 | James Kohl

Post #500 

@493: PZ Meyers who repeatedly assured others that I am a just another “crank” wrote:

I am convinced that you cannot explain the difference.

@495 ChasCPeterson wrote:

Damn. If there’s a flaw in that logic, I can’t find it.

My comment:

Biology is logical. Models — like my model — take advantage of that logic. Theories take advantage of ignorance. The difference between PZ Myers and ChasCPeterson is that most ignorant evolutionary theorists cannot be convinced that their theories are ridiculously illogical nonsense.

But, as we can deduce from the comments of ChasCPeterson, he probably will not starve to death any turtles to help prove that nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations are responsible for species diversity in species from microbes to man. And, as we can deduce from the comments of PZ Myers, he will not perform any experiments and not accept any experimental evidence from others, or accept models or explanations of cause and effect from others.

He has now inferred, as most of you have, that my co-authors, like Milton Diamond and Karl Grammer, are also “cranks” for helping me to detail my model in published reviews. PZ Myers also infers that Ryszard Maleszka and his co-authors (for example Gene E. Robinson in DNA methylation dynamics, metabolic fluxes, gene splicing, and alternative phenotypes in honey bees  and in Organizational and activational effects of hormones on insect behavior, which extended our mammalian model to insects) are “cranks.”

After 500 posts here, we can now see that people like PZ Myers are those most likely to be so ignorant as to assume that anyone who does not agree with them is a “crank.” They will then continue to assert that anyone who does not agree with them is a crank, and hope that others will join in and attest to the same things for the same reasons.

But the only reason that others will join in is that they are as ignorant as PZ Myers is. They are the “cranks” who like to associate with “cranks” who think everyone who doesn’t agree with them is a “crank.”

@496 we see an example of a crank: “Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls” who may be out there starving organisms to death in an attempt to prove that mutation-driven evolution is possible and compare it to my model of ecological variations and nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptations. How many more organisms must die before the ridiculous theory dies and is not simply resurrected in some other nonsensical form of experimentally unsupported nonsense?

Each of you can make a difference in the needless deaths of other organisms and your loved ones. Start by telling others who the “cranks” are, and why they are “cranks” (i.e., because no experimental evidence supports their ridiculous theories). Not only will you help the next generations survive, you might help this one survive until nearly everyone knows what a ridiculous idea mutation-initiated natural selection has always been.




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.