Energy-dependent polycombic ecological adaptation
(click to enlarge)Are Humans Evolving Now
Excerpt:
This post will discuss current genetic data on what current evolution seems to be taking place.
My comment: It is time for all science bloggers and journalists to stop making claims about evolution. None of their claims have ever been supported by experimental evidence of biologically-based energy-dependent top-down causation and the effects of energy on the physiology of reproduction in all living genera.
For example:
1) Virus-driven energy theft is clearly the difference between bacteria and archaea
2) The nutrient energy-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction links the differences in bacteria to differences in eukaryotes.
3) Energy-dependent differences in the cell types of eukaryotes link the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction to polycombic ecological adaptation via RNA-mediated autophagy, chromatin remodeling, and chromosomal rearrangements. The chromosomal rearrangements link supercoiled DNA and the biophysically constrained physiology of reproduction, which is the link from amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types to all biodiversity.
4) Virus-driven energy theft is the link to biodiversity manifested in the transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of Zika virus pathology (e.g, craniofacial variation and differences in brain development).
The fact that everything known about how energy-dependent cell type differentiation and everything known about virus-driven energy theft in species from archaea to humans attests to the fact that conserved molecular mechanisms link physics and chemistry to molecular epigenetics and all biodiversity via biologically-based cause and effect requires pseudoscientists to revise their ridiculous theories, and join all the serious scientists who are combating evolution to fight disease.
See: Combating Evolution to Fight Disease
The alternative is to continue contributing to the pathology by failing to recognize the difference between mutations and energy-dependent amino acid substitutions.
See also: Virus-mediated archaeal hecatomb in the deep seafloor
Excerpt:
We estimated that viral infections were responsible for the abatement of 1.0 to 2.2% day−1 (on average 1.6% day−1) of the bacterial abundance and 2.3 to 4.3% day−1 (on average 3.2% day−1) of the archaeal abundance in deep-sea sediments (Fig. 6).
My comment: Virus-driven energy theft prevents co-evolution and it is the cause of all pathology. Archaea are mutant bacteria and eukaryotes are ecologically adapted bacteria.
Something is obviously biophysically constraining virus-driven energy theft in more bacteria compared to archaea. What could that be?
See also the discussion on “The Battlefield” FB group and on Peter Berean’s FB group
James Kohl https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/…/10…/mec.13825/abstract “Our results further characterize a striking example of coevolution driving speciation within perhaps as little as 6000 years.”
Coevolution is ecological adaptation in the context of Darwin’s “conditions of life.”
Genome divergence and diversification within a geographic mosaic of coevolution…
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 3 hrs
James Kohl https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/10/e1600492.full Virus-driven energy theft prevents co-evolution and it is the cause of all pathology. Archaea are mutant bacteria and eukaryotes are ecologically adapted bacteria.
Virus-mediated archaeal hecatomb in the deep seafloor
advances.sciencemag.org
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 3 hrs
James Kohl Energy-dependent polycombic ecological adaptation exemplifies the refutation of hecatombic evolution of biodiversity. See for example our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review, especially the section on molecular epigenetics. https://www.hawaii.edu/…/1996-from-fertilization.html
Pacific Center for Sex and Society: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 3 hrs
Michael J Findley So “coevolution” is just normal adaptation made to sound like it has something to do with evolution? Adaptation example: dog from hot climate is moved to cold climate and grows more fur to stay warmer.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs
James Kohl Yes. Conserved molecular mechanisms link angstroms to ecosystems in all living genera. That fact is widely known among serious scientists who make fun of theorists in parodies like this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwy2lD1reos&feature=youtu.be In the end, they politely refer to Neil deGrasse Tyson as a big ass.
All About that Base (Meghan Trainor Parody)
Dan Delane Music inspired by James Kohl:
Like · Reply · 2 · 3 hrs
James Kohl Where are the lyrics for comparison to the accurate representations of biologically-based cause and effect in this publication and all my published works? https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9440
Structural diversity of supercoiled DNA
James Kohl See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM_I6rtIgn0
Chemists Know – (Parody of “Let It Go” from Frozen) -…
3 hrs
Dan Delane //eukaryotes are ecologically adapted bacteria//
Mushrooms, daisies, butterflies and humans are ecologically adapted bacteria?
3 hrs
James Kohl Do you think they are all examples of mutation-driven evolution? Is there a model for that? If so, let’s compare it to what chemists know and the representations from the Zechiedrich lab. Your turn. But first, others should know what you know you are up against. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24693353
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. – PubMed – NCBI
Socioaffect Neurosci Psychol. 2013 Jun 14;3:20553. doi: 10.3402/snp.v3i0.20553. eCollection 2013. Review
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov|By Kohl JV
3 hrs
Dan Delane If humans are ecologically adapted bacteria – tell me again why you deny evolution…?!?
3 hrs
James Kohl Secular humanists are among the most vocal advocates of pseudoscientific nonsense that I have ever encountered. I will not waste much more time on them, since they have no model for comparison to mine. I used the term evolution because 3 years ago no one understood the difference between polycombic ecological adaptations and the hecatombic evolution of all virus-driven pathology. Since the time of my 2013 review others have been scrambling to adjust their ridiculous theories because my review was published on the same day as the textbook misrepresentations in https://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0199661731
Mutation-Driven Evolution
The purpose of this book is to present a new mechanistic theory of mutation-driven evolution based…
3 hrs
Dan Delane Lol. Polycombic is not even a word.
2 hrs
Jake Leyhr Lol I just googled “polycombic” and literally every single result on the first page is from Kohl’s website and was posted in the last week.
2 hrs
Dan Delane First thing I did too. 🙂
2 hrs
James Kohl Thanks. The first thing that an intelligent person would do is read the molecular epigenetics section of our 1996 review: https://www.hawaii.edu/…/1996-from-fertilization.html Excerpt: “Yet another kind of epigenetic imprinting occurs in species as di…See More
Pacific Center for Sex and Society: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 hrs · Edited
Dan Delane I know about polycomb-group proteins. But “polycombic” simply is not a word.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
James Kohl Of course it is. So is hecatombic when placed into the context of ridiculous theories. That why others invent words like oncohistones and oncocerones. They know the theories are ridiculous, so they must invent and define new words to support their ridiculous claims. See for example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=oncohistone
oncohistone – PubMed – NCBI
2 hrs · Edited
James Kohl https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=oncocerone
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Jake Leyhr “They know the theories are ridiculous, so they must invent and define new words to support their ridiculous claims.”
So that’s why you invented the term “polycombic”? How about “hecatombic”?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Jake Leyhr What’s wrong with “oncohistone”? It’s no different from “oncogene”.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
James Kohl Even C. David Allis has been forced to abandon use of the term. https://www.cell.com/mol…/abstract/S1097-2765(16)30575-5…
Chromatin Kinases Act on Transcription Factors and Histone…
cell.com
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 hrs
Jake Leyhr The fact that Allis didn’t use the term “oncohistone” in that paper is supposed to demonstrate that he’s stopped using it, because it’s redundant or something? Your reasoning is atrocious. For a start, that paper isn’t about cancer, so why would he use the term?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
James Kohl You’re missing some important information on RNA-mediated biologically-based cause and effect that appears to be known to many other researchers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27593332 Some may still present this in the context of neo-Darwinian t…See More
Recurring patterns among scrambled genes in the encrypted genome of…
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov|By Burns J , et al.
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 31 mins
Jake Leyhr What does any of that have to do with “oncohistones”? Also, THM’s Nobel prize was for research in genetics, not epigenetics.
Like · Reply · 22 mins
Write a reply…
James Kohl https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=microRNA
microRNA – PubMed – NCBI
PubMed comprises more than 26 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science…
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov|By pubmeddev
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 hrs
Jake Leyhr You don’t like “microRNA” either?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
James Kohl I don’t like biologically uninformed science idiots. https://figshare.com/…/Nutrient_dependent…/994281
This atoms to ecosystems model of ecological adaptations links nutrient-dependent epigenetic effects on base pairs and amino acid substitutions t…See More
Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to…
figshare.com
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 hrs
John L Leonard And I don’t like ill-mannered idiots. Contrary to Mr. Ludlow’s incorrect opinion, the only person in this forum who can “throw somebody out” is Nancy Cogar, but she does listen to advice from her admins. Personally, my approach is simply to delete obnoxious comments. Better get used to the idea. The only reason your first provocative taunt was left in place was so that it might serve as a teachable moment for others.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited
James Kohl Thanks. I think that is why I was not allowed to join this group until Nancy Cogar approved my request. An earlier request simply disappeared. Did you really just refer to me as an ill-mannered idiot?
Like · Reply · 1 hr
James Kohl Did another admin just call me an ill-mannered idiot, Nancy Cogar?
Like · Reply · 1 hr
John L Leonard Yes, I did.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Write a reply…
James Kohl https://rna-mediated.com/did-evolution-autophosphorylate…/
Did evolution autophosphorylate your kinases? | RNA-Mediated
Building blocks of life’s building blocks come from starlight Excerpt 1) …ultraviolet light from stars plays a key role in creating these molecules, rather than …
rna-mediated.com
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 hrs
Dan Delane “Polycombic”
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
James Kohl https://rna-mediated.com/did-evolution-autophosphorylate…/
Did evolution autophosphorylate your kinases? (2) | RNA-Mediated
rna-mediated.com
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 hrs
James Kohl https://rna-mediated.com/did-evolution-autophosphorylate…/
Did evolution autophosphorylate your kinases? (3) | RNA-Mediated
rna-mediated.com
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 hrs
Jake Leyhr Slow down James, explain why you think the term “microRNA” is connected to “biologically uninformed science idiots.”
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Bill Ludlow Insults are not allowed in this group, Mr. Kohl. Peter Berean will throw you out faster than you can say “virus driven energy theft.”
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs
Peter Berean Thanks for the tag Bill. I have tagged the other admins as well — so they can decide what they will…
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Write a reply…
Peter Berean James Kohl, just a reminder that Insults (and mocking) are not permitted in this group. This goes both ways (from you to others, and from others to you).
Nancy, Larry, Loreen, John, fyi ^
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs · Edited
Loreen Bell Does he have to be insulting someone directly for it to be a rule breaker? Was it the science idiots remark?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Peter Berean Good question. I believe so (re remark)… We’ll have to see what Nancy Cogar thinks as well.
It is true that the remark was a general insult (with an implied person)… rather than a direct attack at a person who is personally named……See More
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs
Bill Ludlow If one is commenting about a group of people to a member of that group, it would still be a personal insult.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs
Loreen Bell I would let that go because it’s too vague, Peter, but something we should probably look into. There are loopholes in every rule though..lol
Like · Reply · 2 · 2 hrs
Peter Berean Loreen, good point re loopholes… I would recommend that we caution James to not use the term “idiot” for anyone…
It is true that this is a bit of a grey area.
Like · Reply · 3 · 2 hrs
Write a reply…
James Kohl Let’s not focus any attention at all on my model, and try to get me banned from participation here, which is what has happened in all FB groups run by secular humanists. Someone who does not understand how microRNAs are linked to all cell type differentiation is biologically uninformed. I don’t know what to call someone who does not want to learn about them.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Peter Berean I am not trying to get you banned James. Just applying the same rules to you as we are trying to apply to everyone here in the group — No Insults and No mocking — such a rule will protect you as well.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs
James Kohl Thanks. I’ve heard that many times before, Peter Berean.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs
Peter Berean I understand James. You will be fine in this group as long as you do not use insults or mocking.
And if you are insulted tag one of the other admins. I have tagged them in another comment on this thread so you know who they are.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Write a reply…
Jake Leyhr I didn’t say I didn’t want to learn about them, you introduced the term “microRNA” in the context of made-up words used to support ridiculous theories. I want to know what you meant by that.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
James Kohl At a 2012 SFN conference presentation I asked the speaker if he had just linked changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance to all downstream epigenetic effects on cell type differentiation. He said, yes, that’s what we have learned during the past 10 years.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Jake Leyhr Also, this group isn’t run by secular humanists – they’re all Christians to my knowledge.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Peter Berean correct. However, the group had been dominated (in its members) byvocal secular humanists .
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
James Kohl This, despite more than 54,000 publications on microRNAs. It amazes me that all the vocal secular humanists have not been banned from all FB groups except those that claim to be for discussion of secular humanism.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Jake Leyhr Again, how does the presence of 54,000 publications on microRNAs support your case? Do you think secular humanists deny they exist?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Write a reply…
James Kohl Thanks. Do you know which parts of the Holy Bible they believe in?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Peter Berean I am an OEC and an IDr.
I am an ex-atheist, a philosophical theist and a Mere-Christian 🙂
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
James Kohl I’ve asked you before: Which parts of the Holy Bible do you believe in?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Peter Berean That is not a discussion to have in front of atheists. You are welcome to discuss this with me in private.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Write a reply…
Jake Leyhr All of it. As far as I know they’re all (or certainly mostly) young-earth creationists/IDers.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Peter Berean I am an OEC and a IDr
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Write a reply…
Bill Ludlow Not all, I believe Peter is OEC.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Peter Berean correct 🙂
AND I subscribe to BUSHES of Life (heresy!) and not a Single Tree of Life 🙂
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs
Loreen Bell I’m YEC. Isn’t OEC sort of theistic evolution?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Peter Berean Loreen Bell, not a problem re YEC. 🙂
OEC is different from Theistic Evolution….See More
Like · Reply · 2 hrs · Edited
Peter Berean Loreen,
And re Evolution, I subscribe to SSE and NOT to naturalistic LSE… A Theistic Evolutionist would subscribe to Both SSE AND naturalistic LSE. …See More
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited
Write a reply…
James Kohl Does anyone here know the difference between an OEC and an IDer for comparison to a YEC? If not, do you know why https://rna-mediated.com/carl-woese-was-wrong/
Carl Woese was wrong | RNA-Mediated
Carl R. Woese Excerpt: Using ribosomal RNA sequence as an evolutionary measure, his laboratory provided a…
rna-mediated.com
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 2 hrs
Jake Leyhr I do know of the differences, but that link does nothing to explain them. It’s completely unrelated.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs
James Kohl The ribosomal RNA sequence links natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality from autophagy to all cell type differentiation via supercoiled DNA, which protects all organized genomes from virus-driven entropy. The ribosomal RNA sequence is …See More
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Jake Leyhr Lovely assertions, but I don’t really see how that’s relevant to the differences between OECs and IDers in comparison to YECs…
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr
Write a reply…
James Kohl Until everyone learns why Carl Woese was wrong, I think my participation here is useless. For example: the claim that my blog post about Woese is “completely unrelated” is completely irrelevant in the context of this attempt to discuss the OP. When people like Jake Leyhr are allowed to insult the intelligence of someone with a 20-year history of published works, the end is near. The viral apocalyse has repeatedly been predicted since the time that Bruce Willis played James Kohl in this movie.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
James Kohl When is someone going to tell us about how their model links polycombic ecological adaptation and the hecatombic evolution of all virus-driven pathology in the context of what is known about energy-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance? For example, Jake Leyhr seems to know nothing about the role of microRNAs. See: https://www.researchgate.net/…/GFP_expression_in_cell…
GFP expression in cell-free systems – Why dasherGFP can be…
researchgate.net
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 hr
Peter Berean James Kohl, this is a Caution — to NOT direct statements of ignorance at any particular person, e.g., Jake Leyhr.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
James Kohl it was not a statement of ignorance, it was a request for someone to provide an alternative model.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Peter Berean Then please phrase it in that manner — and do NOT mention the person;s name…
I am objecting to this particular phrasing of yours……See More
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Jake Leyhr “Jake Leyhr seems to know nothing about the role of microRNAs”
You don’t think that’s a statement of ignorance?
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Peter Berean Jake Leyhr, please dont escalate… thanks
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Jake Leyhr I’m not, I pointing out that he’s incorrect in saying “it was not a statement of ignorance”.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Peter Berean Notice my response to him above.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Jake Leyhr I’ve seen it, we posted them at about the same time.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Write a reply…
Jake Leyhr From what I’ve seen of James’ behaviour on other platforms, this isn’t uncommon Peter.
Like · Reply · 2 · 1 hr
Peter Berean Thanks Jake Leyhr. I seem to be seeing the same pattern you have mention.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Write a reply…
James Kohl Attacks like yours are common.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Peter Berean James Kohl, you appear to have a tendency to NOT answer people’s questions when they are SINCERELY trying to understand what you are saying.
The links you provide (and the blog entries you link to) do NOT answer the specific question that is being a…See More
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Peter Berean James Kohl, I do wish you well. You would do much better on debate boards if you were to listen to my advice above.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
James Kohl Thanks. Others would do well if they could offer a model for comparison.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr
Peter Berean I understand James. It is ok to ask for another model. However it is ALSO ok for a person to ask for your reasoning that led you to your model.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Peter Berean back to work for me… ttyl
Like · Reply · 1 hr
James Kohl I is not okay for others to ignore this and claim that I have not explained it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3960065/ “…the epigenetic ‘tweaking’ of the immense gene networks that occurs via exposure to nutrient chemicals and pheromon…See More
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a…
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 hr
Write a reply…
Jake Leyhr I’m curious James, how is the fact that I asked a question about the expression of a particular gene in a cell-free system (a year ago) an indication that I knew nothing of microRNAs. Connect those dots for me.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Jake Leyhr “When is someone going to tell us about how their model links polycombic ecological adaptation and the hecatombic evolution of all virus-driven pathology in the context of what is known about energy-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance?”
You haven’t even laid out your case coherently for this.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
James Kohl https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24693353 Conclusion: “…the model represented here is consistent with what is known about the epigenetic effects of ecologically important nutrients and pheromones on the adaptively evolved behavior of species from…See More
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. – PubMed – NCBI
Socioaffect Neurosci Psychol. 2013 Jun 14;3:20553. doi: 10.3402/snp.v3i0.20553. eCollection 2013. Review
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov|By Kohl JV
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 hr
Jake Leyhr Can you give a brief synopsis? You have to understand that it’s difficult for me to take your claims to be revolutionising evolutionary theory seriously when you’re publishing in obscure journals and getting only 2 citations, one of which is directly criticising your work.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
James Kohl Here are two other citations to my 2013 review. If you have no model for comparison, the criticisms of Andrew Jones are irrelevant, since he did not provide an alternative model. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25449183
Role of olfaction in Octopus vulgaris reproduction. – PubMed – NCBI
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov|By Polese G , et al.
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 hr
James Kohl https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep29927
Two fatty acyl reductases involved in moth pheromone biosynthesis
nature.com
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 hr
James Kohl Correct me if I am wrong but I think that Jake Leyhr claimed that Hormones and Behavior is an obscure journal. He wrote: ” it’s difficult for me to take your claims to be revolutionising evolutionary theory seriously when you’re publishing in obscure journals…” https://www.hawaii.edu/…/1996-from-fertilization.html
Pacific Center for Sex and Society: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior
This paper is dedicated to Robert (Bob) W. Goy, upon his retirement. Bob himself dedicated much of his life to understanding sexual behavior.
hawaii.edu|By Molly Mockford
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 hr
Jake Leyhr You can’t just ignore criticisms because the person making them didn’t present an alternative model, are you kidding me?
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Jake Leyhr You’re wrong, I didn’t call “Hormones and Behaviour” an obscure journal.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Write a reply…
Peter Berean enjoyed the conversation gentlemen. Back to work for me now. ttyl 🙂
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Jake Leyhr “When people like Jake Leyhr are allowed to insult the intelligence of someone with a 20-year history of published works, the end is near.”
How often do you insult the intelligence of prominent, successful scientists? You’re in no place to talk down t…See More
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Peter Berean Jake Leyhr, pls dont escalate… See my comments to James above…
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Peter Berean I agree that James should not be talking down… It is completely fine to disagree with other scientists of course…
And I do so as well re LSE vs SSE.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Jake Leyhr I’m just responding to his comments Peter.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
James Kohl Others who understand the problem have already done that, Jake Leyhr and Peter Berean. See for example: https://journal.frontiersin.org/…/fnhum.2014.00127/full
Login and see comment by George FR Ellis: This is absolutely correct and forms part of the…See More
Understanding and accounting for relational context is critical for social neuroscience
Scientists have increasingly turned to the brain and to neuroscience more generally to further an understanding of social and emotional judgments and behavior. Yet, many neuroscientists (certainly not all) do not consider the role of relational context. Moreover, most have not examined the impact of…
journal.frontiersin.org
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 hr
James Kohl When someone like George Ellis claims that I am absolutely correct in the context of what I have linked from top-down causation via physics to biology, but others do not understand the importance of doing that with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect in all living genera, we might just as well discuss the existence, or not, of space aliens.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Jake Leyhr Oh cool, you have a mathematician/physicist who agrees with you in a classic example of someone stepping out of their comfort zone.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Write a reply…
James Kohl Thanks. By now, I’m rather certain that no one is going to address the content of the OP. That’s a common tactic. People are not willing to read through any attempt to discuss something when it is not discussed in a series of seemingly endless posts.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Jake Leyhr I’m not willing to read through material that is widely regarded as incorrect when I have better things to do. I haven’t been impressed by your conduct here or on other platforms – you really don’t do yourself any favours when trying to come across as …See More
Like · Reply · 1 hr
James Kohl Nancy Cogar Re: “…widely regarded as incorrect…” https://scholar.google.com/scholar… Our 1996 review was cited 41 times and led to claims about epigenetically-effected hormone-organized and hormone-activated behavior in all vertebrates and invertebrates.
– Google Scholar
scholar.google.com
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 hr
Jake Leyhr 13 of those were self-citations. I shouldn’t have to tell you that 28 external citations in 20 years isn’t the signature of a revolutionary paper. I’m not even saying that every word of that particular article was wrong, from a quick scan it looks fine, especially compared to your later work.
Like · Reply · 49 mins
James Kohl Nancy Cogar. Please stop the insults. Excerpt: “… it looks fine, especially compared to your later work.”
Jake Leyhr Where is your alternative model? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10980296 cited our 1996 review and went on to publish “Honey bees as a model for understanding mechanisms of life history transitions” which links the conserved molecular mechanisms we detailed to “Oppositional COMT Val158Met effects on resting state functional connectivity in adolescents and adults” by one energy-dependent base pair change and one amino acid substitution.
Like · Reply · 42 mins · Edited
Jake Leyhr I don’t know how else I can get across this idea James: “this article seems fine but I think a lot of your later work is flawed”. Can you reword what I said so that it’s acceptable?
Again, how if the fact that a particular article (which went on to garner only 2 citations over 16 years) cited yours relevant?
Like · Reply · 40 mins
Jake Leyhr Especially since that article only cited yours in the following context: “Effects of hormones on brain
and behavior occur through … behaviors only activated by hormones”. In other words they basically cited your article to support the fact that homones can activate behaviours. That’s about as trivial as a citation gets.
Like · Reply · 34 mins · Edited
James Kohl Nancy Cogar Re: “That’s about as trivial as a citation gets.” — Jake Leyhr Are you using Jake Leyhr as an example of willful ignorance? Others, see for comparison: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25449183 Future work on O. vulgaris olfaction must …See More
Role of olfaction in Octopus vulgaris reproduction. – PubMed – NCBI
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov|By Polese G , et al.
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 29 mins
Jake Leyhr I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make. You seem to be spamming papers that have cited you in an effort to prove… What, exactly?
Like · Reply · 22 mins
Write a reply…
John L Leonard // The first thing that an intelligent person would do
James Kohl, you need a pretty serious attitude adjustment, in my opinion. Your condescending rhetoric has ZERO tolerance.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Hide 30 Replies
James Kohl Nancy Cogar Yoshinori Ohsumi won the 2016 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for helping to link our 1996 model to the claims of how autophagy must occurs to link energy-dependent changes from angstroms to ecosystems in all living genera.
Like · Reply · 54 mins
James Kohl Linda Buck, the co-author of this 2005 article shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16290036
Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with…
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov|By Boehm U , et al.
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 52 mins
John L Leonard Why are these posts in response to my comment directed specifically to you about your bad behavior here? I’m not getting your point, assuming you have one.
Since I’m directing comments to you, I’m also not a fan of people taking posts from my persona…See More
Like · Reply · 42 mins
Jake Leyhr “1996 model to the claims of how autophagy must occurs to link energy-dependent changes from angstroms to ecosystems in all living genera.” Which model is that? I don’t see Ohsumi citing any of your publications in any of his key papers that won him the nobel prize. Has he ever cited any of your work?
Like · Reply · 39 mins
Jake Leyhr How is Buck’s article related to you?
Like · Reply · 38 mins
Jake Leyhr I just get the impression that you’re trying desperately to make it seem as through nobel-prize winning work is directly connected to you, apparently without evidence.
Like · Reply · 35 mins
James Kohl John L Leonard Re: “…others are stupid if they happen to disagree with you.” I did not make that claim. Why did you attribute it to me?
Like · Reply · 21 mins
James Kohl Jake Leyhr “Has he ever cited any of your work?”
To my knowledge, he did not start to detail the experimental evidence that supports our claims from 1996 until 1998. See: https://www.nature.com/…/v395/n6700/full/395395a0.html
A protein conjugation system essential for autophagy : Article : Nature
Nature is the international weekly journal of science: a magazine style journal that publishes full-length research papers in all disciplines of science, as well as News and Views, reviews, news, features, commentaries, web focuses and more, covering all branches of science and how science impacts u…
nature.com
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 18 mins
Jake Leyhr Odd that he doesn’t cite you in that article, isn’t it?
Like · Reply · 13 mins
James Kohl Jake Leyhr How is Buck’s article related to you?
Thanks for asking….See More
Like · Reply · 13 mins
Jake Leyhr That doesn’t answer my question – Buck’s article has nothing to do with autophagy.
Like · Reply · 11 mins
John L Leonard // I don’t like biologically uninformed science idiots.
// People are not willing to read through any attempt to discuss something when it is not discussed in a series of seemingly endless posts.
// For example, Jake Leyhr seems to know nothing about t…See More
Like · Reply · 5 mins
John L Leonard // You seem oblivious to the fact that it takes one generation before a new scientific truth is accepted.
If you want to try reposting your link WITHOUT the personal jab at Jake, be my guest.
Like · Reply · 4 mins
Jake Leyhr I personally don’t mind John, but if you’re just trying to enforce the rules then I understand.
Like · Reply · 4 mins
John L Leonard Sending a message, Jake. Gotta be consistent. If I’m here, that sort of baited rhetoric will not be tolerated. Everyone gets a warning, then the snotty comments are just going to start disappearing, even if there might be some substance mixed in with it.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 mins
Jake Leyhr James, I’m well aware that it can take time before a new idea is established, but you can’t use that fact to lend support to an unestablished idea. Some genius ideas faced resistance, but that doesn’t mean that all ideas that face resistance are genius.
You cited a couple of Nobel-prize winning pieces of research, but have yet to demonstrate any kind of direct link to your research.
Like · Reply · 2 mins
John L Leonard Jake Leyhr ^^^ great point — the B/Z reaction is a prime example of a genius idea that got resistance.
Like · Reply · 1 min
James Kohl John L Leonard
“If you want to try reposting your link WITHOUT the personal jab at Jake, be my guest.”…See More
Like · Reply · 1 min
Jake Leyhr Which jabs of mine?
Like · Reply · Just now
John L Leonard Exactly,
Like · Reply · Just now
Nancy Cogar Why am I being tagged?
Like · Reply · Just now
John L Leonard Asking why someone’s work didn’t credit you is not a personal insult or a snotty question.
Sorry, Nancy. I think I did it by accident.
Like · Reply · Just now
Jake Leyhr I don’t claim to have been an angel to James in this thread, but I don’t recall ever outright insulting him.
Like · Reply · Just now
John L Leonard Unless you have a problem with what I’m doing here, I’ve got things under control.
Like · Reply · 1 · Just now
Nancy Cogar Not you John, James Kohll has tagged me repeatedly.
Like · Reply · 1 · Just now
Jake Leyhr I’ve said things along the lines of “your recent work is flawed”, and “your attitude doesn’t resemble that of prominent scientists”, but do those count as “insults”?
Like · Reply · 1 · Just now
John L Leonard James Kohl and I are have problems seeing eye to eye at the moment, but I think he’s starting to understand that I’m not going to put up with personal insults coming from anybody for any reason. Period.
Like · Reply · 1 · Just now
Nancy Cogar More than happy to bow out of this………….byeeee
Like · Reply · 1 · Just now
John L Leonard Jake Leyhr considering that I’m strongly suggesting that James gets a major attitude adjustment fairly soon here, I don’t think you’re in the wrong…yet.
Don’t let it go to your head. I really do mean zero tolerance.
Like · Reply · Just now
Jake Leyhr I wasn’t plan on letting it “go to my head” John.
Like · Reply · Just now
[…] See also: Energy-dependent polycombic ecological adaptation […]