Reading EVOLUTION into ECOLOGICAL ADAPTATIONS
January 9, 2014 | James Kohl
What fascinates me is the inability of theorists to think in terms of biologically based cause and effect — even when they read the literature. For example, you’re reading EVOLUTION into the story of the cabbage looper, when natural history-driven cause and epigenetic effects of sensory input eliminates mutations and evolution by placing cause and effect into the context of ecological adaptations based on natural selection for
1) what the larvae eat,
2) what the caterpillars eat, and
3) how the male moth finds a female mate based on what she ate during her multi-stage morphogenesis.
Her morphogenesis into an adult female results in the production of species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man.
Even if you cannot comprehend anything in the article linked above, the title alone “Natural history-driven…” tells you that this is not about mutation-driven evolution. Thus, an intelligent evolutionary theorist who was interested in learning why the article title is not “Mutation-driven, plant-mediated…” would acquire a copy of the article and then ask “Why is there no mention of MUTATION in the context of what is obviously natural history-driven?”
If the theorist had been taught by PZ Myers, they might then ask: Is PZ Myers a “crank” for continuing to teach a ridiculous theory to unsuspecting students, or is he merely so incredibly stupid that he has never learned anything about biologically-based cause and effect because he believes in a ridiculous theory?
I again thanked PZ, for facilitating this discussion on his blog. I also apologized for merely inferring that he was the “crank” that he inferred I was.
Now, let me be perfectly clear, since he may remove my post from his blog.
PZ Myers comes from a long line of “cranks” who think that people who understand the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization required to link sensory cause to ecological adaptations manifested in the human brain are “cranks.” They must attack biologists like me if only to attempt to convince others not to listen to anyone who understands the conserved molecular mechanisms of ecological adaptations that are exemplified in all species. They cannot accept what others have learned about how humans have ecologically adapted, which is why they cannot do good science and why they have never tested their hypotheses about mutation-initiated natural selection or mutation-driven evolution.
“Accepting that the brain is a highly plastic, modularly dimorphic, developmentally biased organ of learning, one which is organized and activated by both hormones and experiences across the lifespan, is essential for doing ‘‘good science’’ well. Interactionist theories of psychosexual development provide an empirically sound, strong, yet modifiable foundation for testable hypotheses exploring biologically biased sexual learning.” — James C. Woodson (2012)