Despicable fools?

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: January 27, 2016


Light is generally accepted to travel at a constant speed, but its group velocity can be slowed by passing through refractive materials. Compared to its top speed in a vacuum, light travels slightly slower in air and slightly slower still in water. These changes in speed are fairly insignificant, however.

My comment: I doubt that any member of the RNA society thinks that the changes that link the de novo creation of nucleic acids to cell type differentiation in all living genera are insignificant changes in the speed of light.

In fact, I don’t know anyone who thinks that changes in the speed of light are insignificant. Do you? Is someone inadvertently teaching students that changes in the speed of light are insignificant? Serious scientists want to know who is teaching pseudoscientific nonsense. Please tell a serious scientist if you know any biologically uninformed science teachers who think that changes in the speed of light are insignificant.

Were you taught to believe in pseudoscientific nonsense and taught nothing about the links from atoms to ecosystems via the physiology of reproduction? If so, I could probably teach you to believe in anything, couldn’t I?

Guinea pigs beat climate change by tweaking their own DNA

Evolution by genetic mutation and natural selection can be slow. But epigenetic changes that affect how genes are expressed, such as attaching methyl molecules onto DNA, are much faster and more flexible. Experiments in a type of brine shrimp and the plant Arabidopsis thaliana have shown that such heat-induced epigenetic responses can even be inherited by the next generation.
My comment: No experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect links evolution from genetic mutation and natural selection.
See for comparison: microRNA All experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect links microRNAs to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation.

See also: Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors


The concept that is extended is the epigenetic tweaking of immense gene networks in ‘superorganisms’ (Lockett, Kucharski, & Maleszka, 2012) that ‘solve problems through the exchange and the selective cancellation and modification of signals (Bear, 2004, p. 330)’.

Michael Skinner is mentioned in the news article linked above.

“This suggests global changes in the environment like climate change will affect all species through environmental epigenetics,” says Michael Skinner at Washington State University in Pullman.

See also: Environmentally induced epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of sperm epimutations promote genetic mutations


…the transgenerational phenomenon is initially induced through epigenetic inheritance but, in later generations, the transgenerational phenotype may involve a combination of the effects of epimutations and derived genetic mutations.

My comment: Skinner et al., (2015) were still trying to claim that the nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated events linked through transgenerational epigenetic inheritance should be viewed in the context of “epimutations” and “genetic mutations.” They are the paradigm shift preventers who refuse to acknowledge my claims about how thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation are linked from atoms to ecosystems in all genera.

See: Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: (a mammalian model of thermodynamics and organism-level thermoregulation)
Published abstract:

Chemical ecology drives adaptive evolution via 1) ecological niche construction, 2) social niche construction, 3) neurogenic niche construction, and 4) socio-cognitive niche construction (Kohl, 2012). Nutrients are metabolized to pheromones that condition effects on hormones that affect behavior in the same way that food odors condition behavior associated with food preferences. For example: glucose (Roland and Moenter, 2011) and pheromones alter the secretion of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) and luteinizing hormone (LH). Across species comparisons of epigenetic effects on genetically predisposed nutrient-dependent and hormone-driven invertebrate and vertebrate social and sexual behavior indicate that human pheromones alter the development of the brain and behavior via the same molecular mechanisms (Krubitzer & Seelke, 2012), which are conserved across all species.

Cited works:
1.    Nei, M., Mutation-Driven Evolution. 2013, Oxford, UK: Oxford Univesity Press.
2.    Noble, D., Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology. Experimental Physiology, 2013: 10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134.
3.    Wilson, L., et al., Fertilization in C. elegans requires an intact C-terminal RING finger in sperm protein SPE-42. BMC Dev Biol 2011. 11(1): 10.
4.    Bumbarger, Daniel J., et al., System-wide Rewiring Underlies Behavioral Differences in Predatory and Bacterial-Feeding Nematodes. Cell, 2013. 152(1): 109-119.
5.    Kohl, J.V., Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2012. 2(17338).
6.    Meiklejohn, C.D., et al., An Incompatibility between a Mitochondrial tRNA and Its Nuclear-Encoded tRNA Synthetase Compromises Development and Fitness in Drosophila. PLoS Genet, 2013. 9(1): e1003238.
7.    Yadav, J.S., B.V. Joshi, and M.K. Gurjar, An enantiospecific synthesis of (4R,5R)-5-hydroxy-4-decanolide from d-glucose. Carbohydr Res, 1987. 165(1): 116-119.
8.    Niehuis, O., et al., Behavioural and genetic analyses of Nasonia shed light on the evolution of sex pheromones. Nature, 2013. 494: 345–348.
9.    Lassance, J.-M., et al., Functional consequences of sequence variation in the pheromone biosynthetic gene pgFAR for Ostrinia moths. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2013. in press.
10.    Stensmyr, M. and F. Maderspacher, Olfactory Evolution: Mice Rethink Stink. Curr Biol, 2013. 23(2): R59-R61.
11.    Kohl, J.V., Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation., 2013.
12.    Kondrashov, F.A., Gene duplication as a mechanism of genomic adaptation to a changing environment. Proc Biol Sci, 2012. 279 (1749): 5048-5057.
13.    Grossman, Sharon R., et al., Identifying Recent Adaptations in Large-Scale Genomic Data. Cell, 2013. 152(4): 703-713.
14.    Kamberov, Yana G., et al., Modeling Recent Human Evolution in Mice by Expression of a Selected EDAR Variant. Cell, 2013. 152(4): 691-702.
15.    Kohl, J.V., Nutrient–dependent / pheromone–controlled adaptive evolution: a model. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2013. 3(20553).

Video representation

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: