Excerpt: “My general attitude about open science is that I’d much rather be relevant. In science, that’s harder than anything else,” says Titus Brown, an assistant professor at Michigan State University who runs a genomics, evolution and development lab and practices open science. “If I make my work available, I have a higher chance of being relevant.”
My comment: To me, that seems like a good attitude. But it makes me wonder why researchers involved in genomics, evolution, and development refuse to share information on transposable elements and color change. Are they simply ignoring the importance of transposable elements to color change because their involvement appears to refute mutation-driven evolution? In an attempt to open discussion on what I’ve learned about transposable elements and color change, I shared comments on Carl Zimmer’s National Geographic blog “The Loom.” Here’s a brief recap: I incorporated the titles from three citations to accurately state what is currently known about the molecular epigenetics of adaptive evolution. I ignored mutations “theory” and ignored classic ‘examples’ of mutation-initiated natural selection. I focused on the biological facts of color change that evolutionary theorists have ignored.
The immediate response to my succinct treatise on transposable elements was from “Troll Wrangler” who wrote: “Gotta love when some “alternative” internet scientist genius can refute everyones’ experiments and conclusions.” Troll Wrangler thinks it makes “zero sense” for me to say that “…color-patterning is not mutation-initiated and that color is not selected via predation. Color is selected, like all phenotypic variation in morphogenesis is selected. Color is selected via its associated with olfactory/pheromonal input and the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes, not mutations.”
Apparently, the fact that olfactory/pheromonal input is the only sensory input that directly links the epigenetic ‘landscape’ to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man deserves to be ignored by people like Dr. Paul Braterman, who inspired me to comment on this topic. Thus, all fact-based examples of nutrient-dependent morphogenesis, including color change may be ignored by others, along with the epigenetic effects on alternative splicings that make the differences in morphogenesis and color change possible in the context of adaptive evolution. I wrote: “For examples of those facts, see the section on molecular epigenetics in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review article: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior and my 2013 monograph Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.”
The anonymous “Troll Wrangler” simply ignores the facts about color change and tells me what I wrote makes zero sense. His comments attest to the fact that simple-minded theorists believe that biological facts don’t make sense. Like the majority of anonymous participants in news groups and forums, “Troll Wrangler” would rather have scientists fit biological facts into their theories instead of anonymously learning how to support their theories with examples of biological facts. But, that brings up the question: Why isn’t Dr. Braterman responding to the discussion he initiated with his comment about creationists’ deception? Instead, he simply allows “Troll Wrangler” to continue with ridiculously uninformed deception.
In the context of sharing data instead of ridiculous opinions and deception, it may be important to see how quickly the information I provided on transposable elements enters mainstream representations of scientific fact. Clearly, the existence of transposable elements refutes mutations theory, but that fact of refutation now comes from the former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in her publication in “Science Magazine.” She didn’t mention the information on moths and butterflies because the biological facts were not available at the time she wrote her article. But now others know that Transposable element evolution in Heliconius suggests genome diversity within Lepidoptera. Thus, it shouldn’t take much more time before evolutionary theorists are forced to start learning about the biological facts of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled morphogenesis and adaptive evolution that includes color changes. The conserved molecular mechanisms have become too difficult for anyone but an ignorant fool to ignore.
In B. mori, for example, differences between the behavior of males and females are pheromone-dependent. That biological fact literally helped to define the term “pheromones” in 1959. Others may now be aware of experimental evidence that shows mutations are not likely to be fixed in the DNA of the organized genome of any species. That biological fact means mutations cannot contribute anything whatsoever to mutation-initiated natural selection. Given current knowledge of biological facts that can be compared to evolutionary theories, which have never been supported by experimental evidence, the role of pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution via morphogenesis, color change, and sexual selection for pheromones may become clearer.
Most people intuitively grasp one of the basic principles of biology. It is a biological fact that nutrients are required to support life. Naturally, that biological fact means nutrients must be selected in all species. Nutrinent selection is not based on the color of the nutrient.
It is also a fact that the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones controls reproduction. Sexual selection for pheromones that indicate nutrient-dependent reproductive fitness is not based on the color of the pheromones. And it’s a fact that the levels of biological organization, which are required to link sensory cause to behavioral affect in species from microbes to man, incorporate the role of transposable elements in the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled morphogenesis, color changes, and sexual reproduction of lepidoptera.
Sexual reproduction in yeasts of similar color also is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. Given what’s known about the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization in species from microbes to man, this suggest that adaptive evolution is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled in al species, and there’s a model for that. The model incorporates what is known about transposable elements, morphogenesis, color changes et al., and it eliminates mutation-initiated natural selection from further consideration. That’s a fact that is not likely to be acknowledged by evolutionary theorists, but it is no less a fact because they chose to ignore it.
Note: My last two published works appeared in Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, a research journal published in association with Co-Action Publishing, an international open access scholarly publisher, with a growing portfolio of peer-reviewed scholarly journals spanning different scientific disciplines. Co-Action Publishing participates in The Public Knowledge Project (PKP), which is a multi-university initiative developing (free) open source software and conducting research to improve the quality and reach of scholarly publishing. The Public Knowledge Project is helping to meet demands to share data and increase the chances that works by researchers will be relevant to other researchers and to the lay audience in terms of more rapid scientific progress than might otherwise occur when data is hidden to protect academic interests that retard scientific progress. Think, for example, of how much scientific progress has been retarded by academic interests in touting mutation-initiated natural selection instead of focusing on biological facts.