Mutations theory is RUBBISH!
February 25, 2013 | James Kohl
Excerpt: “Out of the fifteen reasons Eugene Garfield, founder of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) named as reference motivators, only three are negative:
- Criticizing previous work
- Disclaiming work or ideas of others (negative claims)
- Disputing priority claims of others (negative homage)
My comment: Eugene Garfield funded a conference that Jay Feierman and I attended in 1995. After explaining in detail to Feierman the mammalian model I was presenting, Jay asked “What about birds?” As moderator of the ISHE’s human ethology group, he has since disputed my “priority claim” with posts that indicate auditory and visual input is more important to the development of human behavior than olfactory/pheromonal input.
Feierman uses the tactic mentioned above: “Disputing priority claims of others (negative homage)” while ignoring the series of my published works that support my claims, and other works that have clearly established the relative salience of different types of sensory input in the context of the development of behavior and in the context of adaptive evolution in species from microbes to man.
Feierman has never mentioned or responded directly to the mention of my published, cited works: like Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology cited 59 times, or From fertilization to adult sexual behavior cited 29 times, one of which is Organizational and activational effects of hormones on insect behavior, which extended the vertebrate / mammalian model to invertebrates.
In the context of Feierman’s question: What about birds? The evidence that pigeons are not selecting for the visual appeal of mutations may be the clearest of all that birds do not somehow defy the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization that dictate this fact: Selection occurs for phenotypic traits that arise in the context of epigenetic effects of nutrients and pheromones on adaptive evolution in species from microbes to man. The idea that selection in any species is for mutations, or due to visual input alone, or due to auditory input alone, or due to any sensory input not first associated with the epigenetic effects of olfactory/pheromonal input has never been scientifically supported. That’s why the idea has remained part of a theory.
I can now state even more clearly that random mutations theory is RUBBISH, and hope that others understand my use of upper case letters in the word RUBBISH means I am shouting to Feierman, and to others who have offered me only their negative homage during the past 16 years. During a time of exponential increasing in the understanding of biologically based cause and effect, we still have many people who are living in the past after genes of large effect were written out of the big picture of cause and effect.
“Despite the unknowns in the identity and action of the cr-associated gene in generating the crest, one thing is certain about it: it is a “gene of large effect.” Such genes were written out of the mid-20th-century Darwinian synthesis based on statistical arguments of R.A. Fisher,4 which were contrived to make natural selection compatible with a gradualist version of Mendel’s genetics. Alternative theories that invoked such “macromutations” and associated phenotypic jumps or “saltations”5 suffered ridicule and neglect.”
My model of Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled Adaptive Evolution has been neglected by people like Feierman because of a theory about birds!