Among my most vocal antagonists is one who appears to think that anyone else who merely mentions mutations, natural selection, or any other pseudoscientific nonsense linked to the evolution of biodiversity supports his ridiculous opinions. Note this specific complaint: “…Kohl demonstrates a blatant disregard for established nomenclature. For example, he routinely attempts to redefine ‘natural selection’.”
It’s been more than a year since I published: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. In Genomes in turmoil: Quantification of genome dynamics in prokaryote supergenomes, Koonin’s group now demonstrates his blatant disregard for the term “evolutionary events.” See also his 2005 co-authored work: A universal trend of amino acid gain and loss in protein evolution.
All of Koonin’s current and/or former co-authors probably agree that nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions link ecology and what they heretofore referred to as “evolutionary events.” Even if they cannot fully comprehend how amino acid substitutions differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all species, they appear to know that proteins do not “evolve.” That means biodiversity does not “evolve.” Biodiversity arises via epigenetically- effected GDE (Genome Dynamics Events) that lead to controlled ecological adaptations.
I was advised to contact the authors who changed the term “evolutionary events” to Genome Dynamics Events (GDE) in the context of ecological variations that lead to ecological adaptations. None of my antagonists have ever contacted an author who is willing to tell us how sex differences in cell types “evolved.” Yet, Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) has now criticized my refutation of evolutionary theory with his opinions about what will probably no longer be called “evolutionary events” by serious scientists. See: Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model.
Meanwhile, this question remains: “…what allows epigenetic marks to be de novo targeted differently in the male and female germlines…”
I reiterate: Koonin’s group demonstrates his blatant disregard for the term “evolutionary events.” The fact that Andrew Jones continues to exemplify ignorance — in the context of what could have been intelligent discussion (e.g., about microRNAs) — attests to the ignorance of all theorists who have not yet accepted the concept, which Koonin’s group labels “Genome Dynamics Events.”
No matter what you call those events, they are manifested in cell type differentiation via amino acid substitutions. Therefore, I advise those who continue to call them “evolutionary events” to contact someone who can explain why they never learned about how biophysically-constrained nutrient-dependent ecological adaptations lead to biodiversity via amino acid substitutions, and why “evolutionary events” do not. Simply put, evolutionary theorists will be forced to tell serious scientists like Eugene Koonin, why they believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense of population geneticists, and why population geneticists do not seem to understand the reality of the differences between “Genome Dynamics Events and “evolutionary events.” That reality was addressed in this excerpt: “[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent…. The anglophone tradition was taught. I was taught, and so were my contemporaries, and so were the younger scientists. Evolution was defined as “changes in gene frequencies in natural populations.” The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another…. No, it wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.”
Now that Koonin and others are among those who appear to blatantly disregard use of the term “evolutionary events,” perhaps evolutionary theorists will stop trying to get others to believe in their ridiculous assumptions, which were based on the pseudoscientific nonsense of their definitions.