Academic suppression: Banned again!

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: December 15, 2013

I’ve been banned from participation on the evolutionary psychology Facebook Page, after attempting to discuss the latest empirical evidence that refutes mutations theory. Watch how the discussion degrades to its inevitable outcome. These folks really, really, really need to believe that the eyes of fish first mutated into existence and then mutated out of existence (eye regression).

If nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptation occurs via alternative splicings that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man, as experimental evidence has repeatedly shown, the theorists are wrong. That’s obvious to anyone familiar with experimental evidence of cause and effect linked to conserved molecular mechanisms that are biophysically constrained. But do not try to present facts to theorists. You, too, will find that it’s a waste of time. 

Cavefish Study Supports Controversial Evolutionary Mechanism

Excerpted from my comments:

1) “The problem with taking a quote like that out of the context of the paper or any model of adaptations is that it can then be used to theoretically support a theory. Let me help to reestablish the context. “HSP90 is a so-called molecular chaperone, which ensures proteins take on and maintain their correct shape, even if their amino acid sequence varies slightly because of mutations.” The molecular chaperones hide the changes in the amino acid substitutions, and theorists do not understand what that means. It means the amino acid sequence changed due to the ecological change associated with the dietary differences associated with living in a cave.

If you decided to go live in a cave, or in the treetops like a monkey, your diet would probably change, too. Dietary differences always result in amino acid substitutions that theorists attribute to mutations. That’s what irritates biologists! No matter what you try to tell a theorist about biological facts, they come right back at you with their pet theory.

2) “we show here that merely supplementing a mother’s nutritionally adequate diet with extra folic acid, vitamin B12, choline, and betaine can permanently affect the offspring’s DNA methylation at epigenetically susceptible loci.” I mention this article from 2003 to show that people like Anton Ramos are more than a decade beyond the available experimental support that refutes their ridiculous theory. Wait for his response, which will not include any acknowledgment of his ignorance. He will simply move on to something else that’s equally irrelevant to inject for discussion — like SD does.

James R Liddle James Kohl you are not conducting an intelligent discussion. You repeat the same few points over and over, you link to articles that do not support your views, and then you insult people. I’m removing you from the group, as I feel you’ve had more than enough opportunities to state your case. I remain unconvinced by your arguments, but they will remain up for all to see.

—————————————-and so it goes, as always, no parting comment allowed. Academic suppression is the rule, with few exceptions.

James Kohl Thanks. The outcome was predictable! Too much experimental evidence that refutes theory will never be accepted.

Unable to post comment. Try Again

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: