Making pseudoscientific nonsense from sense

April 19, 2014 | James Kohl

Human Remains from the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition of Southwest China Suggest a Complex Evolutionary History for East Asians

Excerpt: “…two plausible explanations for the morphology sampled at Longlin Cave and Maludong. First, it may represent a late-surviving archaic population, perhaps paralleling the situation seen in North Africa as indicated by remains from Dar-es-Soltane and Temara, and maybe also in southern China at Zhirendong. Alternatively, East Asia may have been colonised during multiple waves during the Pleistocene, with the Longlin-Maludong morphology possibly reflecting deep population substructure in Africa prior to modern humans dispersing into Eurasia.”

My comment: This shows what happens when ecological variation, methylation, and subsequent ecological adaptations are not considered in the context of biologically-based cause and effect. Simply put, neither of the explanations above for the differences in morphology make sense. Both explanations are, instead, placed into the the context of evolutionary theory, which is why the explanations don’t make sense.

Another call either to make sense of evolutionary theory or to abandon it was recently made in: Combating Evolution to Fight Disease

“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 ability to evolve.”

We have since seen evidence that others have realized the basis for the genesis of variation is not mutations, because what is understood about molecular epigenetics has repeatedly shown that methylation confers the ability to ecologically adapt. See for example: Reconstructing the DNA Methylation Maps of the Neandertal and the Denisovan.

———————————————————–

This edited post shows (below) what happens when I try to post accurate representations of biologically based cause and effect (above) to the International Society for Human Ethology yahoo group.  Jay Feierman is the moderator, and he has a habit of making pseudoscientific nonsense out of my posts by editing them. In this case, he makes it appear that I was supporting a ridiculous theory instead of refuting it with citations to experimental evidence. The elipses below, and bold typeface above show what he deleted.

My comment: This shows what happens when ecological variation . . . and subsequent ecological adaptations are . . . considered in . . . the explanations above for the differences in morphology . . . Both explanations are . . . placed into the the context of evolutionary theory, which is why the explanations . . .make sense.

Another call either to make sense of evolutionary theory . . . was recently made in: Combating Evolution to Fight Disease

“The evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously noted that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” . . .

We have since seen evidence that others have realized the basis for the genesis of variation is . . . mutations . . . what is understood about molecular epigenetics has repeatedly shown that methylation confers the ability to ecologically adapt. See for example: Reconstructing the DNA Methylation Maps of the Neandertal and the Denisovan.

———————————————————–

As I’ve mentioned several times in other blog posts, Feierman wrote: “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.”

Feierman’s ridiculous opinions have remained undefended and now Svante Paabo, with others, have defended my claim that nutrient-dependent methylation is responsible for the differences in morphology that others have consistently linked to evolutionary theory.  Clearly, no one can stop the pseudoscientific nonsense of evolutionary theory from being touted, but at least those who tout it are being exposed by people like Svanbte Paabo for touting the nonsense.

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.