“Reliance on social groups for answers pre-empts motivation for independent analytical thinking.“
February 19th, 2014.
Excerpt: “The social information is useful-it helped participants get to the answer-but it didn’t help them understand the thinking process underlying that answer,” Shariff said. “So when confronted with another similar question, it’s as if they had learned nothing about how to solve it.”
My comment: What’s reported in this article is exemplified among participants in the ISHE’s yahoo group and in many other forums for discussion. For example, it seems likely that Feierman edits my posts to ensure that the social structure of the group does not vary from how it has historically been maintained.
The problem in most discussions is that participants collectively attack anyone with ideas based on independent thinking, so that they can potentially oust an outsider who might otherwise force them to begin thinking analytically. By editing my responses to their attacks, and blocking some — but not all other — contributions, Feierman prevents participants from seeing how new data from experiments collectively supports ecological adaptation and refutes untested ideas about how natural selection might occur — if it occurred for anything other than food, as is required to meet one of Darwin’s ‘conditions of life’. For example, natural selection cannot possibly select for Pedophilia in any context, including what is represented in Feierman’s (2011) book.
As some participants now know, however, preventing others from participating in discussions of how scientific progress is made via experimental evidence, ultimately fails. Other social groups learn about what is currently known from sources that do not limit dissemination and discussion of accurate information.
For example, if Feierman were not editing and blocking some of my posts, others would already be discussing recent results that establish the fact that 1) The life cycle of Drosophila orphan genes and 2) Looking for the bird Kiss: evolutionary scenario in sauropsids and 3) Embryonic Cerebrospinal Fluid Nanovesicles Carry Evolutionarily Conserved Molecules and Promote Neural Stem Cell Amplification fully support a model of ecological adaptations that refutes the theory of mutation-driven evolution.
Summaries:
1) provides a missing link that helps others to understand orphan gene dynamics in the context of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations.
2) links nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations from dinosaurs to birds via the conserved molecular mechanisms of alternative splicings and chromosomal rearrangements.
3) links nutrient uptake to the microRNA/messenger RNA balance and to differences in the embryonic development of rat and human brains.
The media reports on these articles do not facilitate the full understanding of what they show when considered in the context of what was or will be reported within in few days.
1) Newly created genes frequently lost, driving evolution: Mystery solved by recent research
2) My synopsis of what will be reported: Conserved molecular mechanisms link nutrient-dependent hormone-organized and hormone-activated behavior to ecological adaptations via gonadotropin releasing hormone.
3) Tiny ‘garbage collectors’ help control brain development (see also: New mechanism that permits selective capture of microRNAs in nanovesicles that shuttle between cells) report on how microRNAs, which are small RNA molecules, regulate the expression of specific genes.
The specific genes include the evolutionarily conserved FOXP2 gene, which appears to be conserved in the context of two microRNAs that link social singing in songbirds to human language development.
Participants who rely on social groups for answers to questions about biologically-based cause and effect will almost undoubtedly continue their discussions of theory and avoid discussion of biological facts in the context of Nei’s recent works, which ignore ecological factors and tout “constraint-breaking mutation” as the means by which mutation-driven evolution occurs.
Evolutionarily conserved molecules involved in the evolutionary scenario in sauropsids and in the life cycle of Drosophila orphan genes will probably be dismissed along with the biophysical constraints on ecological adaptations that are exemplified by the evolutionarily conserved molecules that promote differences in rat and human brain development. Nei, and others whose works are discussed, simply first ignore the biophysical constraints of ecological adaptations and then claim that “constraint-breaking mutation” is responsible for species diversity. The fact that no experimental evidence supports that claim will be of little concern to anyone whose social group pre-empts motivation for independent analytical thinking. “Ignorance is bliss” among social groups, isn’t it?
See, for example: Is America Evolving on Evolution? Feb 11, 2014 |By Sean B. Carroll
Sean B. Carroll, who thinks many people are not well-informed about evolution, subsequently co-authored an article in Science that refutes mutation-driven evolution by placing it into the context of ecological adaptations. My comment to the Science site on his latest publication may help others to realize how quickly researchers must change their reporting of cause and effect. They are forced to make it consistent with what is currently known about the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations, which are clearly responsible for species diversity.
I hope others will someday join me in condemning Feierman’s despicable behaviors
This is the post Feierman edited for the human ethology group to prevent participants from becoming aware of what is known about the biology of behavior in species from microbes to man:
2/20/14
Feierman appears to be editing my posts . . . . . . editing my responses . . . and blocking some . . . . . . Other groups learn about what is currently known from sources that do not limit dissemination and discussion of accurate information . . . . . . that refutes the theory of mutation-driven evolution . . . . . . Nei’s recent works that ignore ecological factors and tout[s] “constraint-breaking mutation” as the means by which mutation-driven evolution occurs . . . Nei, and others, simply first ignore the biophysical constraints of ecological adaptations and then claim that “constraint-breaking mutation” is what is responsible for species diversity. The fact that there is no experimental evidence to support that claim will be of little concern to anyone . . .
What’s reported in this article seems to be exemplified among participants in the ISHE’s yahoo group. For example, Feierman appears to be editing my posts to ensure that the social structure of the group does not vary from how it has historically been maintained.
Participants collectively attack anyone with ideas based on independent analytical thinking, so that they can potentially oust an outsider who might otherwise force them to begin thinking analytically. Editing my responses to their attacks, and blocking some — but not all other — contributions, prevents participants from seeing how new data from experiments collectively supports ecological adaptation and refutes untested ideas about how natural selection might occur — if it occurred for anything other than food, as is required to meet one of Darwin’s ‘conditions of life’.
As some participants now know, however, preventing others from participating in discussions of how scientific progress is made via experimental evidence, ultimately fails. Other groups learn about what is currently known from sources that do not limit dissemination and discussion of accurate information.
For example, if Feierman were not editing and blocking some of my posts, we could now begin to discuss the fact that The life cycle of Drosophila orphan genes and Looking for the bird Kiss: evolutionary scenario in sauropsids and Embryonic Cerebrospinal Fluid Nanovesicles Carry Evolutionarily Conserved Molecules and Promote Neural Stem Cell Amplification fully support a model of ecological adaptations that refutes the theory of mutation-driven evolution.
Instead, participants will almost undoubtedly continue their discussions of theory and avoid discussion of biological facts in the context of Nei’s recent works that ignore ecological factors and tout “constraint-breaking mutation” as the means by which mutation-driven evolution occurs.
Evolutionarily conserved molecules involved in the evolutionary scenario in sauropsids and in the life cycle of Drosophila orphan genes can be dismissed along with the biophysical constraints on ecological adaptations that are exemplified by the evolutionarily conserved molecules that promote differences in rat and human brain development. Nei, and others, simply first ignore the biophysical constraints of ecological adaptations and then claim that “constraint-breaking mutation” is what is responsible for species diversity. The fact that there is no experimental evidence to support that claim will be of little concern to anyone whose social group pre-empts motivation for independent analytical thinking. “Ignorance is bliss” among social groups, isn’t it?
