Mutations: the “driving force” behind human brain complexity?

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: January 10, 2017

Evolutionary Psychology Crap in New Scientist

There is a reason why domestic violence is so widespread, says David Buss, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Texas in Austin: it carries a selective advantage, tied with reproductive success.

Larry Moran wrote:

There’s something seriously wrong with evolutionary psychology. And there’s something seriously wrong with respectable science magazines who promote this crap.

Are the science magazines that promote this crap respectable? I lost respect for anyone who still uses de Vries 1902 definition of mutation in attempts to explain how the emergence of life links natural selection from mutations to all extant biodiversity.

Evolutionary psychology Group Description

Evolutionary Psychology is an approach to psychology, in which knowledge and principles from evolutionary biology are put to use in research on the structure and function of the human mind.

Information and vision


RKS: The retina turn light into visual information which is then processed by specific brain areas dedicated to this task, known as V1 through to V9. 

This is established by neuroscience, yet another entire branch of science you dismiss in its entirety in an effort to prove your own feeble points…


This involves previous experience, current mood and emotional status, previous behaviour (what you were doing when the visual stimuli occurred) and so on.  In other words there is an entire world of cognitive processing that needs to be consulted before behaviour occurs or is modulated as a result of visual stimuli.


Information is also modified in the brain.  Visual information is filtered, in other words the visual information is processed, the colour of scenes is modified to compensate for the changing colour of light through the day (redder in the morning and night, bluer in the middle of the day)…

We were discussing information processing with regard to the handling of information gleaned by the senses.  You are discussing in the above the decision making processes which occur in response to sensory stimulation and after that stimulation has been processed.
No supporting argument?  Perhaps you should try reading what I write…
I think it is safe to say that we can group behaviour into three steps:
1) Sensory stimulation;
2) Decision making, Behavioural response;
3) behavioural output.
The information processing being discussed previously concerns the (1) and (3), what happens to sensory stimulation on its way to the decision making process and on its way from the decision making process.  We have not discussed, except for your last statement above, the decision making process per se.

Other discussion groups owned and/or moderated by Robert Karl Stonjek include: Yahoo! Groups
Climate Change Forum
Cognitive NeuroScience
Evolutionary Psychology News Only
Mind and Brain
Physical Sciences
Psychiatry Research

See for comparison: Networks of Cultured iPSC-Derived Neurons Reveal the Human Synaptic Activity-Regulated Adaptive Gene Program

Clarence A. ‘Sonny’ Williams: wrote this to the Neuroscience FB group moderated by Robert Karl Stonjek

Interesting research adding to other evidence revealing that mutations in gene regulatory regions are the “driving force” behind human brain complexity. Please note that this research does not identify uniquely human genes, but rather the comparison is between mice and humans. For all we know, the identified genes are present in all primates.

Here, the regulatory region changes found in humans but not mice are involved in activity-dependent synaptic changes (roughly, plasticity).

I responded:

No experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect links mutations to anything except pathology. Activity-regulated gene expression is nutrient energy-dependent and controlled by the physiology of reproduction in all living genera.

I added: The Odyssey of Autophagy

Excerpt: “ask a simple question about an interesting phenomenon, pick the right model organism in which that question can be approached genetically and biochemically, and let the grand unity of biology do the rest.”

The question is: Where did the quantized energy in a hydrogen atom come from and where does it go when it is stolen by viruses?

I added: Theorists sell hidden energy

Conclusion: Neo-Darwinian theorists invented ridiculous theories because they did not know where energy came from or where it goes when it no longer sustains life. They sold their theories to the biologically uninformed masses and will continue to sell theories about hidden energy until serious scientists put a stop to the nonsense touted by the evolution industry and the “big bang” cosmology industry.

See also: Structural diversity of supercoiled DNA

Clarence A. ‘Sonny’ Williams (with my emphasis)

Thanks for your contributions, Mr. Kohl, but I do not reply to creationists or anyone who does not believe that humans evolved via Darwinian natural selection. Others may want to respond to any comments you make on posts from others, even if they often do not relate to the subject at hand, but this is the last time I will respond to any posts or comments you make.

James Kohl

Thanks for your ongoing antagonism and atheistic nonsense. If not for you and others like you, serious scientists would have nothing to offer to those who want to become biologically informed. See also: Excerpt: “Studies conducted in various animal models have revealed the importance of ncRNAs during gonadal determination and differentiation process. However, the functions of these RNAs in the human sex determination are still not known.”

How much longer will anyone pretend not to know that hydrogen-atom energy in DNA base pairs in solution links nutrient energy-dependent changes in microRNA flanking sequences to all biodiversity via what is known to all serious scientists about autophagy and how the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction is linked to supercoiled DNA? When virus-driven energy theft causes malfunctions in receptors, the receptor-mediated events are linked from mutations to pathology, not to the evolution of a new species. I’ve published award-winning review of these facts and other reviews for more than 20 years. And Mr. Williams has come here to plague others with more of his pseudoscientific nonsense.

See for comparison our section on molecular epigenetics from this 1996 Hormones and Behavior review. From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior

The phylogenetic utility and functional constraint of microRNA flanking sequences

Excerpt: “…miRNAs and their flanking sequences provide phylogenetic signals suitable for the inference of phylogeny with high levels of accuracy, when sufficient numbers of this type are concatenated. As detailed here, the clear identity and easy alignment of these sequences makes them good candidates for estimating phylogeny, and they can reliably be found and identified across all members of a clade of interest. Their relatively slow evolution [3] also means that they can easily be identified in de novo assemblies of genomes.”

The de novo assembly of genomes is energy-dependent and biophysically constrained by the physiology of reproduction whether or not you believe in creation. But if you believe that humans evolved via Darwinian natural selection, you should probably learn that Darwin put his energy-dependent “conditions of life” first. He did not seem to believe that anything created itself or any species outside the context of what is now known about autophagy and supercoiled DNA.

Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems

This atoms to ecosystems model of ecological adaptations links nutrient-dependent epigenetic effects on base pairs and amino acid substitutions to pheromone-controlled changes in the microRNA / messenger RNA balance and chromosomal rearrangements. The nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled changes are required for the thermodynamic regulation of intracellular signaling, which enables biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent protein folding; experience-dependent receptor-mediated behaviors, and organism-level thermoregulation in ever-changing ecological niches and social niches. Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological, social, neurogenic and socio-cognitive niche construction are manifested in increasing organismal complexity in species from microbes to man.

I wrote: Robert Karl Stonjek  Attacks on the beliefs of others should not be tolerated, and supposedly, that is why you removed me from your Evolutionary Psychology News FB group.

Please address this attack by Clarence A. ‘Sonny’ Williams, who wrote: “I do not reply to creationists or anyone who does not believe that humans evolved via Darwinian natural selection.”

Robert Karl Stonjek Are you trying to get yourself removed from this group as well??
James Kohl  Thanks for asking. No.
I think this group is a great way to inform others who want to learn what is known to those who have linked energy-dependent changes in angstroms to ecosystems via autophagy and supercoiled DNA, as represented in this parody.
James Kohl See also:
The alternative may be to remove anyone from this group who has already linked 2016 Nobel Laureate, Ben Feringa’s works to 2016 Nobel Laureate Yoshinori Ohsumi’s works. See for example: Dynamic control of chirality and self-assembly of double-stranded helicates with light

The Intrinsically Disordered Protein Atg13 Mediates Supramolecular Assembly of Autophagy Initiation Complexes

See also the section on Regulation of autophagy by amino acids in: Autophagy in the liver: functions in health and disease

James Kohl They make it perfectly clear that autophagy is the only obvious link from the fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in the cell types of all living genera to their morphological and to their behavioral diversity. In the same article, they help to show that virus-driven energy theft is the link to all pathology. See also: (534 published works link energy-dependent changes in microRNAs to autophagy.

See also: 56723 published works link nutrient energy-dependent microRNAs to all cell type differentiation in all living genera and they also link virus-driven energy theft to all pathology.

Kalevi Kull: Censorship & Royal Society Evo Event

Excerpt: “Nobody wants to belong to the party of losers. One of the best strategies in such a case is evidently an interpretation of the change as a gradual accumulation of knowledge while their work has always been at the cutting edge.” — Kalevi Kull

Clarence A. ‘Sonny’ Williams is still touting “…evidence revealing that mutations in gene regulatory regions are the “driving force” behind human brain complexity.”

He has ignored all the experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect during the past twenty years. I don’t know what else to do besides cite Kull’s comment and point out that Clarence A. ‘Sonny’ Williams is not even trying to move forward with “cutting edge” knowledge about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation. He is stuck trying to sell hidden energy — as if he were even less informed than most theorists.

See for comparison: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA

This is a big advancement of our understanding of race and ethnicity,” Burchard said. “There’s this whole debate about whether race is fundamentally genetic or is just a social construct. To our knowledge this is the first time anyone has attempted to quantify the molecular signature of the non-genetic components of race and ethnicity. It demonstrates in a whole new way that race combines both genetics and environment.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: