No biological plausibility; No ecological validity

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: January 19, 2014

Most of my attempts have failed to result in discussion of the fact that mutation-driven evolution has no biological plausibility or ecological validity because the availability of nutrients enables ecological adaptations. Also the theory of mutation-driven evolution is not compatible with what is currently known about the physiology of reproduction. Thus, “If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based.
Responses like these are typical:
1) I will not discuss or debate these issues with you.
2) Kohl is not likely to disprove the well-accepted ideas of Fisher, Wright, and Haldane. Because those ideas are right.
My comment: There is no reason to debate biological facts or to disprove well-accepted ideas or theories. For contrast, discussion of biological facts facilitates scientific progress, which is made in accord with experimental evidence of how ecological variation leads to adaptations and organismal complexity. That’s why I continue to try to introduce biological facts for discussion. Examples follow.
Maleszka’s group: DNA methylation dynamics, metabolic fluxes, gene splicing, and alternative phenotypes in honey bees and Epigenomics and the concept of degeneracy in biological systems linked the epigenetic effects of nutrients to the pheromone-controlled physiology of invertebrate reproduction via what is currently known about DNA methylation in organisms with different levels of morphological and behavioral complexity. Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes and other works from Donna Maney’s group, have linked what is currently known about invertebrates to vertebrates via conserved molecular mechanisms that link the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in all species from microbes to man.
That is what we detailed in 1996 in the context of our review article, which started with a requirement to explain how alternative splicings of pre-mRNA lead to chromosomal rearrangements in sex chromosomes. “Small intranuclear proteins also participate in generating alternative splicing techniques of pre-mRNA and, by this mechanism, contribute to sexual differentiation in at least two species, Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans (Adler and Hajduk, 1994; de Bono, Zarkower, and Hodgkin, 1995; Ge, Zuo, and Manley, 1991; Green, 1991; Parkhurst and Meneely, 1994; Wilkins, 1995; Wolfner, 1988). That similar proteins perform functions in humans suggests the possibility that some human sex differences may arise from alternative splicings of otherwise identical genes.”
The unwillingness to discuss the biological facts of how ecological variation leads to morphological and behavioral differences in the birds and the bees via the conserved molecular mechanisms of alternative splicings of otherwise identical genes and chromosomal rearrangements, which do not involve any aspect of mutation-driven evolution whatsoever, is akin to the textbook example of the nature/nurture debate.
Milton Diamond exposed the extent of the misinformation that had been accepted by theorists and some sexologists. The accepted “textbook example” was shown to be wrong. In 1996, Milton Diamond co-authored our review, which showed why evolutionary theorists and some sexologists did not recognize what was wrong with the misrepresentations of the John/Joan case of medical arrogance. Simply put, until evolutionary theorists and all sexologists learn about the conserved molecular mechanisms that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man, we will continue to have more “textbook examples” of accepted theories that are not supported by experimental evidence.
See, for example, what the author of the textbook: Mutation-Driven Evolution, wrote in 2011, as the co-author of: Roles of Mutation and Selection in Speciation: From Hugo de Vries to the Modern Genomic Era. “…we will not consider geographical and ecological factors because of space limitation. Our primary purpose is to clarify the roles of mutation and selection in the evolution of reproductive isolation….”
The failure to consider ecological factors led to the errant 2013 book-length reassertion that “…natural selection is an evolutionary process initiated by mutation.”  This brings us back to the John/Joan case. In the light of what is currently known about nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled chromosomal rearrangements that link the epigenetic landscape to morphological and behavioral phenotypes of vertebrates and invertebrates, was John the mutant or was Joan?
If you think that asking such a question is a nonsensical approach to explanations of cause and effect, which resulted in at least two tragedies, you might want to consider discussing what’s currently known, which is that Fisher, Wright, Haldane and others like Nei, have been wrong. Thus, as I already wrote: “If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based.
Predictably, the Kohlian model will soon be accepted as the basis for a new scientific truth and perhaps even a biological law by more than those who have simply stayed current with the extant literature. At some point, what is currently known will achieve the “critical mass” that prompts a long-overdue paradigm shift for those who missed it in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review article: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior
1) Kohl, Peter et. al. (2010) Systems Biology: An Approach
2) Kohl, Kevin D (2012) Diversity and function of the avian gut microbiota 
3) Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors.
4) Kohl, Johannes et. al. (2013) A Bidirectional Circuit Switch Reroutes Pheromone Signals in Male and Female Brains
5) Kohl, J.V. (2013) Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.
6) Kohl, Peter  (2013) From ion channel to organismic phenotype: An example of integrative translational research into cardiac electromechanics

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: