Jay R. Feierman, M.D., who moderates the ISHE’s human ethology yahoo group has again decided to publicly defame me.
“I agree with you that there is a concern over the material that James Kohl wants to publish to this group. Much of it makes little or no sense. And, most people on the group who could constructively give him feedback have given up trying to dialog with him because of his pernicious combination of ignorance and arrogance. He never admits that he is ever wrong even when people who know much more than he does about specific topics tell him what he is saying is incorrect or makes no sense. I too am concerned that people who just read the group and don’t comment, and there are hundreds of them, will believe that what he is saying that is going unchallenged is correct. I’ve blocked 75% of what he has submitted to the group in the past few days because of my concerns. As a result, I’m only going to publish his submissions to the group if they make sense to me. As a point of interest he’s been removed from being able to post to the Yahoo evolutionary-psychology group for many months. I’m sorry to have to do this but I don’t think we can allow this group to be an open ended, non-peer reviewed vehicle for his voluminous postings.
I’m going to cc this to Wulf Schiefenhovel, ISHE’s President, so he knows what is occurring.”
My comment: After editing many of my posts during the past few days, Feierman now also admits to blocking 75% of what I have submitted — because it makes little or no sense to him. Evidently, that fact makes me ignorant and arrogant, and WRONG . Feierman doesn’t understand enough about my posts to tell others what I’m wrong about, but makes claims about me based on what he thinks others know:
“…people who know much more than he does about specific topics tell him what he is saying is incorrect or makes no sense.”
The group is left with the clearest statement Feierman’s intention that he has ever made: “I’m only going to publish his submissions to the group if they make sense to me.”
In his own words, here is what makes sense to Feierman:
2) What Feierman understands is this:
See: The Changing Face of Evolutionary Thinking, which is a review by Gunter P. Wagner of Masatoshi Nei’s book: “Mutation-driven evolution.” Wagner addresses the problem with Nei’s approach to organismal complexity via “constraint-breaking” mutations (with my emphasis, below).
Excerpt: “To clarify his position, Nei redefines evolution as changes (increases and decreases) in organismal complexity (Nei 2013, p. 10).”
Excerpt 2: “…it is important to understand the mechanisms that lead to complex organisms. The latter we know very little about, even though it is one of the most striking outcomes of evolution and touches on the question of human nature in a most profound way.”
My comment: People like Feierman, who can only think in terms of mutations and theory, will never understand how the conserved molecular mechanisms, which I have detailed, lead to complex organisms via nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations. It is unfortunate that there are so many people, like Feierman, who may also never understand the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization that link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man.
What’s worst is when people like Feierman limit dissemination of accurate information, defame people like me, and continue touting their nonsensical theories and all the other nonsense that goes with them — about pedophilia, religion, abortion, racial differences, natural selection et al. The limitations of Feierman’s knowledge ensures that he will limit the understanding others might otherwise achieve.
I published Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model on June 14, 2013. Masatoshi Nei published Mutation-Driven Evolution on the same day. Feierman and others have had many months to do what I suggested. “Minimally, this model can be compared to any other factual representations of epigenesis and epistasis for determination of the best scientific ‘fit’.”
Gunter P. Wagner knows it is important to understand how the conserved molecular mechanisms of species from microbes to man can be included in explanations how organismal complexity arises. That may be why he reviewed Nei’s book. Simply put, it is as inappropriate for Nei to redefine evolution and attribute organismal complexity to “constraint-breaking” mutations as it is for Feierman to edit or block my posts and tell others I am wrong because he can’t understand what I have detailed. I have detailed how ecological variation leads to biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations in species from microbes to man.
Summary: If you want the ignorance and arrogance of Feierman’s opinions on pedophilia, religion, and abortion et al., join the ISHE’s human ethology yahoo group. If you want to learn about the biology of behavior, read my published works and compare them to what Nei tells us about the role of “constraint-breaking” mutations in mutation-driven evolution:
“In other words, genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world. In this view of evolution there is no need of considering teleological elements (p. 196).”
How do constraint-breaking mutations enable the “…enormous amount of biodiversity in this world.”
I agree with Nei and with Feierman about one thing: If you believe that evolution is mutation-driven, there is no need to consider the fact that ecological adaptations are obviously nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in every species on this planet, and that ecological variation has always been the cause of the enormous amount of biophysically-constrained biodiversity in this world that occurs via the de novo Creation of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled olfactory receptor genes.
I also agree with Lewis Thomas who wrote:
“I should think we might fairly gauge the future of biological science, centuries ahead by estimating the time it will take to reach a complete comprehensive understanding of odor. It may not seem a profound enough problem to dominate all the life sciences, but it contains, piece by piece, all the mysteries (p. 732).” — as cited in The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality on page 24.
See also: The 2011 Genetics Society of America Medal: John Carlson. Although it is unfortunate that even Anholt and Carlson still may think in terms of mutations and evolution, at least they are not preventing others from learning about nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations in species from microbes to man. Please note: Both John Carlson and Gunter P. Wagner are professors at Yale University, and Gunter’s talk “Metaphors and Facts about Organismal Uniqueness in Evolutionary System-Biology” which is about Science, Religion, and INTELLECTUAL HONESTY!
For more about INTELLECTUAL HONESTY see also:
See also: If the Evolution of Intelligence is Inevitable, What are the Metaphysical Consequences? –Simon Conway Morris
