My published 2013 review on ecological variation has been viewed more than 1000 times this month. It seems fitting that this is my 1000th blog post, since the time Dick Doty’s ridiculous assertions in “The Great Pheromone Myth” prompted me to begin adding experimental evidence to support my accurate representations of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations.
Many of those who might otherwise be considered colleagues in academia are largely responsible for reporting biological facts in terms of evolutionary theory. They use the terms, although it has since become clear that those terms simply (and simple-mindedly) reflect the invention of theories associated with a neo-Darwinian perspective. Neo-Darwinism fails to incorporate anything Darwin wrote about the need to consider ‘conditions of life’ before going off half-cocked in attempts to explain cause and effect manifested in populations of living organisms.
Clearly, those populations cannot exist in the absence of Darwin’s ‘conditions of life’ which molecular biologists and intelligent non-scientists have probably always known are nutrient-dependent. Some molecular biologists also know that ‘conditions of life’ are controlled by the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man.
That fact led me to submit an invited review on nutritional epigenetics at the request of a guest editor. The invitation was based on publication of facts in my 2013 review, and I added experimental evidence that had accumulated during another year — prior to submitting Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems in March 2014. I received notice of its rejection for publication in April 2014.
None of the reviewers who were asked to review the submission would read it, and I heard nothing about the submission from the guest editor who requested it. (We had discussed the fact that I would never submit anything for publication without a request, because of the nonsense I have been subjected to in the process of peer-review.) The ultimate nonsense of peer-review is when an invited submission is rejected without review. (Either I have no peers, or my peers want nothing to do with any new experimental evidence.)
Interdisciplinary research is the problem in that regard. It is difficult to find peers due to the scope of the review. However, it is easy to find critics who do not understand explanations of systems complexity because they have become too specialized to understand anything outside their field of expertise.
Arguably, however, I did not need to be so blatantly offensive by suggesting that evolutionary theory be replaced with Kohl’s “Laws of Biology” — so-named because the surname of the first author or sole author on each of 7 peer-reviewed publications in the paragraph that introduces the Laws is Kohl. However, I wanted to have some fun in the review. In an effort to bring home a point made clear by the experimental evidence I included, I wrote:
“The Kohls did not create the Laws of Biology; they merely independently incorporated what is known about them into what appears to be a cohesive series of published works.
Kohl’s Laws of Biology
Life is nutrient-dependent. That is a Biological Law. The ecological origin of all biological laws is apparent 1) in the context of systems biology ; 2) in the context of the metabolism of nutrients by microbes ; and 3) in the context of how the metabolism of nutrients results in species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction . Taken together, the systems biology of nutrient metabolism to species-specific pheromones, which control the physiology of reproduction, can be expressed in a summary of Kohl’s Laws of Biology: 1) Life is nutrient-dependent. See for review [2, 31]. The physiology of reproduction is pheromone-controlled. See for review . In the context of nutrient-dependent epigenetically-effected human reproduction, it is clearer that the epigenetic effects of human pheromones integrate neuroendocrinology and behavior , which includes the neuroendocrinology of mammalian behavior associated with the development of sexual preferences .
Kohl’s Laws help to explain what was missing from Darwin’s ‘conditions of life.’ Darwin knew nothing about genetics, which means he knew nothing about the epigenetic effects of food odors or pheromones. For contrast, the following representation of cause and effect acknowledges what is known today…”
In the months of March; April, and May (2014), experimental evidence that supports Kohl’s Laws of Biology in the context of Darwin’s ‘conditions of life’ overwhelmed me. It has become increasingly difficult to consider all the support from different disciplines, although I have reported most of it on the PheromonesResearch Facebook page, and some of it here.
Here are links to the recently published articles that I may have missed reporting but that also support my explanation of how ecological variation results in ecological adaptations, which refutes ideas about mutations and natural selection in the context biophysically-constrained biodiversity that most people refer to as evolution.
A symbiotic liaison between the genetic and epigenetic code Abstract excerpt: “the model is further extendable to virtually all traceable molecular traits.
The extension of Kohl’s Laws of Biology to virtually all traceable molecular traits via nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations is made possible because gene duplication is epigenetically effected by nutrient uptake and pheromones control the physiology of reproduction. However, researchers continue to approach the epigenetic regulation and dysregulation of morphological and behavioral phenotypes in species from microbes to man as if mutations and natural selection were somehow involved in perturbed protein folding that they think somehow leads to increasing organismal complexity and diseases.
For example, in Nicholas Wade’s book A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, he linked the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled advent of an ectodermal receptor to mutations and natural selection. In my model, I linked the receptor to morphololgical and behavioral phenotypes in a human population that appears to have arisen during the past 30,000 in what is now central China.
When I read the report that linked the olfactory receptor gene OR2L13, from decreased nutrient-dependent DNA methylation to sensory processing in ASD’s, I decided to update my blog posts with the experimental evidence that clearly shows how much pseudoscientific nonsense may continue to be touted as if it should make sense of what is clearly exemplified in all species.
This makes sense: Ecological variation leads to ecological adaptations unless the adaptations are prevented by mutations that perturb protein folding and cause physical and mental disorders and diseases.