Not focused and self-aggrandizing

Abstract: This atoms to ecosystems model of ecological adaptations links nutrient-dependent epigenetic effects on base pairs and amino acid substitutions to pheromone-controlled changes in the microRNA / messenger RNA balance and chromosomal rearrangements. The nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled changes are required for the thermodynamic regulation of intracellular signaling, which enables biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent protein folding; experience-dependent receptor-mediated behaviors, and organism-level thermoregulation in ever-changing ecological niches and social niches. Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological, social, neurogenic and socio-cognitive niche construction are manifested in increasing organismal complexity in species from microbes to man. Species diversity is a biologically-based nutrient-dependent morphological fact and species-specific pheromones control the physiology of reproduction. The reciprocal relationships of species-typical nutrient-dependent morphological and behavioral diversity are enabled by pheromone-controlled reproduction. Ecological variations and biophysically constrained natural selection of nutrients cause the behaviors that enable ecological adaptations. Species diversity is ecologically validated proof-of-concept. Ideas from population genetics, which exclude ecological factors, are integrated with an experimental evidence-based approach that establishes what is currently known. This is known: Olfactory/pheromonal input links food odors and social odors from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man during their development.

Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems

The only comment on this invited submission was that it was not focused and self-aggrandizing.

Excerpt (with my emphasis): In Section One, the focus is on links between atoms and ecosystems via amino acid substitutions. In Section Two, the focus is on examples of links across a continuum of nutrient-dependent, pheromone-controlled, epigenetically-effected, receptor-mediated ecological adaptations via amino acid substitutions and changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance.

My comment: I declared my focus to eliminate any confusion about what I was going to convey.  I could not avoid the claim that the review was self-aggrandizing because it clearly represented the biological laws that are obviously involved in linking ecological variation to biophysically-constrained ecological adaptations without invoking any aspects of evolutionary theory.

I wrote:  “These Laws of Biology include Kohl’s Laws of Biology, which are so-named because the surname of the first author or sole author on each of 7 peer-reviewed publications in the paragraph below is Kohl. The Kohls did not create the Laws of Biology; they merely independently incorporated what is known about them into what appears to be a cohesive series of published works.”

I think several reviewers reviewers refused to review the submission because they did not want to review anything  that detailed a role for creation and also refuted any role of mutations. That fact also explains the comment by one potential reviewer whose only remarks addressed my “self-aggrandizement, ” which reflect an unwillingness to address obvious refutations of evolutionary theory in the context of Laws of Biology.

The Laws of Biology attest to the epigenetic link from olfactory/pheromonal input to the physical landscape of DNA via the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes. Those laws have never been addressed by others who make self-aggrandizing claims to be “the first”  to reveal aspects of experimental evidence that they think are linked to evolutionary theory. Their ongoing failure to address the Laws of Biology, which must be considered in the context of evolutionary theory, may make them the last to acknowledge nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations as they continue to tout their theories about mutations and evolution. However, their failure to incorporate an atoms to ecosystems approach will continue to result only in theories piled high on top of other theories that remain unsupported by experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect.


Author: James Kohl

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.