tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3939483141217464531..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: David Evans Says, "Teach What the Vast Majority of Scientists Affirm as Settled Science"Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27475328362728367312013-11-17T16:49:15.616-05:002013-11-17T16:49:15.616-05:00"... classical theory in population genetics ..."... classical theory in population genetics is confirmed, but natural selection might not be of invariable magnitude and sign."<br /><br />Well no, it certainly might not. Is anyone surprised? How Steve and the late JVK leap from a paper that says "classical pop gen is confirmed", albeit with temporal, spatial and frequency-dependent variation in s values, to the dismantling of the entirety of NS as a causal mechanism of allele frequency change, is elusive.AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9273101394769257472013-11-16T13:16:22.285-05:002013-11-16T13:16:22.285-05:00Your claims are quite interesting. I had no idea t...Your claims are quite interesting. I had no idea that maple trees and <i>E. coli</i> responded to pheromones and food odors. In fact, I didn't even know they had noses. <br /><br />James Vaughn Kohl, your posts are very much like spam because your profile links to for-profit websites where you have a vested interest and because you really don't have anything to say about the subject of this post. You don't seem to be very knowledgeable about biology and evolution.<br /><br />I've decided that you should take a little break from commenting here. <br /><br />Goodbye for now.<br />Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64791150936142327492013-11-16T11:55:22.725-05:002013-11-16T11:55:22.725-05:00(James gets that a lot, too, Piotr. Tough assignme...(James gets that a lot, too, Piotr. Tough assignment being a misunderstood genius).<br />Rkthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14537319324895152785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2462798716932240232013-11-16T09:57:54.745-05:002013-11-16T09:57:54.745-05:00Whatever you say, Mr. Perfumist. If you manage to ...Whatever you say, Mr. Perfumist. If you manage to convince some credulous suckers that your products will make their sex appeal irresistible, bully for you. But pretending it's science just won't work in front of genuine scientists, and it won't help if you insult everybody in the bargain. It's EOT, as far as I'm concerned.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8223486057216589532013-11-16T09:00:11.733-05:002013-11-16T09:00:11.733-05:00Thanks for asking, which allows me to make the fol...Thanks for asking, which allows me to make the following two points in my answer. <br /><br />1) All organism synthesize species-specific pheromones via the metabolism of the nutrients that enables nutrient-dependent species-specific adaptive evolution.<br />2) All organism respond to pheromones just as all organisms respond to food odors. See for example:<br /><br />"Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors"<br /><br />[open access] http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/17338JVKohlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452449904468736088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68218299646149049152013-11-16T08:54:16.240-05:002013-11-16T08:54:16.240-05:00I get that a lot, too. Let's compare it to sel...I get that a lot, too. Let's compare it to selling a snake-centric approach to predation-driven evolution of the human brain. <br /><br />"Isbell calls these findings “the first neuroscientific support” for her snake-centric evolutionary theory." excerpted from http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2013/10/did-snakes-help-build-primate-brain<br /><br />Q: What happens when thousands of imbecilic academics accept mutation-driven evolution, without questioning how it happens in moths via bird predation, or in any other species?<br />A: The academic imbeciles must attack anyone who offers others an explanation of cause and effect that cannot be refuted, having already been supported by experimental evidence from every species on the planet.<br /><br />Do you think by any chance that you are an academic imbecile supported by government funding for non-exemplary work with no meaningful value to scientific pursuits whatsoever? <br /><br />James V. Kohl<br />Founder: www.pheromones.comJVKohlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452449904468736088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91637812783096653602013-11-16T07:28:32.735-05:002013-11-16T07:28:32.735-05:00JVKohl, I may not be understanding you correctly b...JVKohl, I may not be understanding you correctly but in regard to this:<br /><br />"We need "more general theoretical models" because people simply will not accept "Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model" as an accurate representation of cause and effect in species from microbes to man."<br /><br />Will you please state how "pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution", whether "Nutrient-dependent" or otherwise, could occur in populations of organisms that don't exude or sense pheromones? <br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4166066546063878122013-11-16T04:50:49.361-05:002013-11-16T04:50:49.361-05:00I don't know. It may be salesmanship rather th...I don't know. It may be salesmanship rather than pure monomania. Don't you by any chance manufacture and sell perfumes containing snake oil... I mean human pheromones?<br /><br />http://scentoferos.com/Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63813710676483379672013-11-15T22:21:02.053-05:002013-11-15T22:21:02.053-05:00Thanks Steve. I'm trying to move forward after...Thanks Steve. I'm trying to move forward after passing on the nonsense of natural selection in our Hormones and Behavior review article section on molecular epigenetics in 1996. But, I'm up against a wall with the physics, which is why I've asked Larry to step in and help. <br /><br />It's hard to imagine why antagonists here seem to not have learned anything in the past two decades. But, as I indicated, I get that a lot.JVKohlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452449904468736088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12866345553015712732013-11-15T22:13:11.036-05:002013-11-15T22:13:11.036-05:00Larry,
It might benefit others and me if you woul...Larry, <br />It might benefit others and me if you would comment on the most likely role of the achiral glycine substitution in the molecule of GnRH. I have the impression that the added stability of protein folding caused it to be conserved across 400 million years of vertebrate evolution because GnRH integrates all sensory input and its pulses of GnRH distribute information to every neuron in the vertebrate brain. The link from the epigenetic landscape via olfactory/pheromonal input to the physical landscape of DNA becomes clearer in the context of thermodynamically controlled alternative splicings and protein folding. It is that link that excludes mutations theory from further consideration at a time when people here seem destined to believe in nonsense unless you step in. JVKohlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452449904468736088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2318671905623956242013-11-15T22:12:48.469-05:002013-11-15T22:12:48.469-05:00A decidely refreshing in your face approach to dis...A decidely refreshing in your face approach to dismantling the facade of natural selection as having any thing more important to do than tally the score.<br /><br />Hey Kohl, don't stop here. There's The Panda's Thumb and The Skeptical Zone to rewire out as well.<br /><br />...if you can spare a dime that is.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90692182336972774062013-11-15T21:28:18.515-05:002013-11-15T21:28:18.515-05:00An experimental test on the probability of extinct...An experimental test on the probability of extinction of new genetic variants Open access at http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130913/ncomms3417/full/ncomms3417.html <br /><br />"... classical theory in population genetics is confirmed, but natural selection might not be of invariable magnitude and sign. Our findings thus set the stage for the development of more general theoretical models explaining the fate of new alleles across long evolutionary timescales22,42–44."<br /><br />So much for "Settled Science." We need "more general theoretical models" because people simply will not accept "Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model" as an accurate representation of cause and effect in species from microbes to man. <br /><br />They were taught to believe in a ridiculous theory and must continue to believe in it, no matter what.JVKohlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452449904468736088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31833600055801439402013-11-15T21:18:32.504-05:002013-11-15T21:18:32.504-05:00I wrote: You don't know enough about either bi...I wrote: You don't know enough about either biology or physics to discuss "settled science" in the context of evolution."<br /><br />Harshman asked: What is "mutation-initiated natural selection"?<br /><br />I wrote: "...natural selection is an evolutionary process initiated by mutation."<br /><br />Harshman wrote: I don't think my time would be well invested in dealing with you further.<br />----------------------------------------<br />He's right. First you must be intelligent enough to know something about what is "Settled Science" and differentiate it from the NONSENSE you've been taught.<br />JVKohlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452449904468736088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30277754504262041192013-11-15T20:30:31.599-05:002013-11-15T20:30:31.599-05:00Not only a crank, but an insulting crank. I don...Not only a crank, but an insulting crank. I don't think my time would be well invested in dealing with you further.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72640447040646372132013-11-15T19:54:00.565-05:002013-11-15T19:54:00.565-05:00Pheromones control the physiology of reproduction ...Pheromones control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man, Piotr. Thus, their role in adaptive evolution should be somewhat clear and my perspective should probably not be dismissed as an obsession with the biological facts of reproduction simply because you can't comprehend what I'm saying. JVKohlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452449904468736088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57540415330561792732013-11-15T19:49:13.215-05:002013-11-15T19:49:13.215-05:00Thanks for asking: "What is "mutation-in...Thanks for asking: "What is "mutation-initiated natural selection"?. --after telling me I had misinterpreted everything I had quoted so far. HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THAT?<br /><br />Excerpted from "Mutation-Driven Evolution" (THE BOOK)<br />"...natural selection is an evolutionary process initiated by mutation." p 196.<br /> <br />There has never been any experimental evidence to support that concept. Thus, every biologist you know may be incapable of thinking clearly and differentiating between theory and experimentally established scientific facts. But I am not accusing them of being stupid; just gullible.<br /><br />I'm not going to spend time explaining copy number variations and how alleles arise via experience dependent epigenetic effects, because you are gullible, rude, and have ignored the information in the links I have already provided that clearly states that natural selection is being removed from the theory of mutation-driven evolution because there has never been any evidence to suggest that natural selection occurs. But if you inform yourself by reading the article excerpted below and then ask pertinent questions, I may have time to waste on you in hopes that I will benefit others.<br /><br />"Scientists are exploring how organisms can evolve elaborate structures without Darwinian selection..." Carl Zimmer "The Surprising Origins of Evolutionary Complexity" July 2013 <br />JVKohlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452449904468736088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25258185182404987182013-11-15T19:15:46.627-05:002013-11-15T19:15:46.627-05:00I'm not familiar with your publication history...I'm not familiar with your publication history. What I can sense in the postings above is some kind of obsession with pheromones, declared incoherently, with the use of a private jargon that I (and evidently others) find obscure.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36554097484939886322013-11-15T19:03:56.628-05:002013-11-15T19:03:56.628-05:00What is "mutation-initiated natural selection...What is "mutation-initiated natural selection"? Do you mean selection in which one allele arose by mutation? If so, how else do alleles arise? If not, then what do you mean?<br /><br />And who, exactly, doesn't believe in it (by which I take you to mean they think it doesn't happen in nature)? Every evolutionary biologist I know thinks that natural selection is an important mechanism of evolution.<br /><br />Accusing readers of being too stupid to understand you so as to avoid making any sort of argument is transparently dishonest.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16385727696956473132013-11-15T19:00:52.288-05:002013-11-15T19:00:52.288-05:00Thanks, Piotr. That might make sense if I were an ...Thanks, Piotr. That might make sense if I were an anonymous participant with no publication history in peer-reviewed journals. Instead, it sounds more like you are as simple-minded as my antagonists here, and that surprises me.<br />JVKohlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452449904468736088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38644748947301219402013-11-15T18:07:46.952-05:002013-11-15T18:07:46.952-05:00I wonder. It might be a Sokal-style prank, or perh...I wonder. It might be a Sokal-style prank, or perhaps somebody is testing a new random sentence generator. Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68666365522381865632013-11-15T17:10:26.262-05:002013-11-15T17:10:26.262-05:00Thanks, Quest.
This is not about proof, however.
...Thanks, Quest.<br /><br />This is not about proof, however.<br /><br />The issue is this statement: "...evolution [by natural selection] as a major unifying concept in science. It is firmly established as one of the most important and robust principles in science, and is the best and most complete scientific explanation we have for how life on Earth has changed and continues to change."<br /><br />The "most complete scientific explanation" is not supported by any experimental evidence, which is why natural selection is being removed from mutation-initiated natural selection -- as I have tried to show, with links to articles that support my claim. The fact that extraction of natural selection requires the extraction of physics from biophysics is beyond Harshman's capability to grasp, which indicates he has less than the minimum intellect required for discussion of this topic.<br /><br />No matter what I claim, people like him simply respond with "Nuh uh" and expect me to prove something to them that they are not capable of understanding -- like the fact that there is no experimental evidence for mutation-initiated natural selection. Clearly, when the director of the NSTA can't keep his biological facts straight, today's students are doomed. They will be led to believe in the nonsense that Harshman was led to believe in (to the point where he can't even comment intelligently on the fact that theoretical biologists no longer believe in it). JVKohlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452449904468736088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32140355691987078822013-11-15T16:33:08.184-05:002013-11-15T16:33:08.184-05:00Neither have you...What can you prove JOHN? Neither have you...What can you prove JOHN? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55398008559108463322013-11-15T15:57:42.150-05:002013-11-15T15:57:42.150-05:00You haven't supported any claim you've mad...You haven't supported any claim you've made so far. You've made no attempt to teach anyone anything, as the first requirement of teaching is comprehensibility. Nobody has inferred anything about Carl ZImmer, and your attempt to support that claim is to quote a statement that isn't even about his opinions. The rest of your claim is, as far as anyone can tell, incoherent. You may be right about something, but until we know what you're saying, that's impossible to tell. You certainly have misinterpreted everything you have quoted so far, which doesn't inspire confidence.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29790513528232451492013-11-15T15:05:43.687-05:002013-11-15T15:05:43.687-05:00Let's face it gentlemen. You don't know en...Let's face it gentlemen. You don't know enough about either biology or physics to discuss "settled science" in the context of evolution. Besides that, you're unwilling to learn. That's what I meant when I said " I get that a lot!" In this case, however, you infer that Carl Zimmer is a monomaniac. He wrote: "Others maintain that as random mutations arise, complexity emerges as a side effect, even without natural selection to help it along. Complexity, they say, is not purely the result of millions of years of fine-tuning through natural selection—the process that Richard Dawkins famously dubbed “the blind watchmaker.” To some extent, it just happens." That's what happens when you extract physics from the biophysics of adaptations: evolution "just happens." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-surprising-origins-of-evolutionary-complexity&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_EVO_20130722JVKohlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452449904468736088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81456353877658373282013-11-15T11:54:09.041-05:002013-11-15T11:54:09.041-05:00"I get that a lot!". Unsurprising. Pleas..."I get that a lot!". Unsurprising. Please understand that you are coming across as incoherent. I'm sure you know what you're trying to say, but your familiarity with your point is leading you to write so elliptically that only a person, like you, who already knows what you mean will understand it.<br /><br />But as nearly as I can puzzle out, you are in fact some kind of monomaniac who has a hammer and thinks that all problems are nails.<br /><br />And "Can anyone figure out what JVKohl is saying?" is indeed a question, and still unanswered.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.com