Attempts to move forward with the discussion of thermodynamics and thermoregulation led to this exchange between Feierman and me on the ISHE group that Feierman moderates.
James V. Kohl: Microbial pleiotropy and epistasis link the thermodynamics of intracellular and intermolecular mechanisms of protein biosynthesis to nutrient-dependent ligand-receptor binding across species. For example, species incompatibilities in nematodes are associated with cysteine-to-alanine substitutions, and differences in the behavior of nematodes are determined by nutrient-dependent rewiring of their primitive nervous system.
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]: System nervous primitive their of rewiring dependent-nutrient determined are nematodes of behavior the in differences and, substitutions alanine-to-cysteine with associated are nematodes in incomnpatibilities species, example for. Species across binding receptor-ligand dependent-nutrient to biosynthesis protein of mechanisms intermolecular and intracellular of thermodynamics the link epistasis and pleiotropy microbial.
——————I’ve had enough of Feierman’s nonsense (exemplified above)———————–
Why does the ISHE allow Feierman to reflect poorly on the entirety of their efforts to contribute to the understanding of human behavior? It is clear that Feierman is going to continue to ridicule the facts I have stated because he cannot understand the concept of the epigenetic “tweaking” of immense gene networks, which dismisses random mutations theory from further consideration. But only by replacing ridiculous theories with facts can scientific progress be made.
We now know, for example, that ecological diversification and beak morphology in finches is also due to positive natural selection for nutrient-dependent amino acid changes. The changes incorporate the molecular mechanisms of AT→GC-biased gene conversion and expression of the insulin-like growth factor 2 receptor. Simply put, nutrients bias gene conversions that enable amino acid changes, which result in receptor-mediated changes in behavior.
This shows that beak morphology is not due to mutations. Beak morphology is an adaptation to the nutritional value associated with behaviors that enable the acquisition of different seeds in different ecological niches. The genetically predisposed construction of ecological niches in plants and the availability of their seeds determines the ecological niche construction of finches and their beak morphology. This is part of the continuum of adaptive evolution via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction, which I have modeled.
Meanwhile, Feierman has already attested to the fact that assumptions have been made with no evidence that natural selection can select for a mutation, yet at least 75 years have passed with only a few people questioning a crucial aspect of evolutionary theory. Clearly, Darwinian theory will continue to suffer from a lack of scientific substantiation, as others, like Feierman, continue to spout nonsense when faced with scientific facts. If you are interested in other examples of how ignorance of the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization contribute to the lack of scientific progress, drop in on the folks participating in the ISHE group.